Cargando…

A comparison of two remotely operated vehicle (ROV) survey methods used to estimate fish assemblages and densities around a California oil platform

Offshore oil and gas platforms have a finite life of production operations. Once production ceases, decommissioning options for the platform are assessed. The role that a platform’s jacket plays as fish habitat can inform the decommissioning decision. In this study, conducted along the crossbeams of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Love, Milton S., Nishimoto, Mary M., Clark, Scott, Kui, Li, Aziz, Azivy, Palandro, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7654814/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33170883
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242017
_version_ 1783608123990212608
author Love, Milton S.
Nishimoto, Mary M.
Clark, Scott
Kui, Li
Aziz, Azivy
Palandro, David
author_facet Love, Milton S.
Nishimoto, Mary M.
Clark, Scott
Kui, Li
Aziz, Azivy
Palandro, David
author_sort Love, Milton S.
collection PubMed
description Offshore oil and gas platforms have a finite life of production operations. Once production ceases, decommissioning options for the platform are assessed. The role that a platform’s jacket plays as fish habitat can inform the decommissioning decision. In this study, conducted along the crossbeams of a California platform jacket and using an ROV, we compared estimates of fish diversity and densities determined from a targeted “biological” survey with those from a replicated “structural” survey. We found that the water column fish species assemblages characterized by the two methods were similar. By contrast, the two survey methods yielded different species assemblages inhabiting the crossbeam at the platform jacket base. This difference occurred because, at least off California, the platform jacket base species diversity tends to be highest where the bottom crossbeam is undercut, creating sheltering sites for many species. Because the structural method inadequately imaged the seafloor-crossbeam interface, particularly where a gap occurred between crossbeam and seafloor, substantial numbers of fishes were not visible. While we cannot extrapolate from this study to all platforms’ worldwide, it is clear that routine platform structural integrity surveys may be a valuable source for opportunistic marine community surveys. Intentional planning of the structural survey to incorporate relatively minor variations (e.g., maintaining fixed ROV distance from the infrastructure and consistent 90° camera angle) coupled with a deliberate consideration of the platform ecology (e.g., positioning the ROV to capture the seafloor-crossbeam interface) can substantially improve the effects on fish assemblage assessments from routine structural surveys without compromising the integrity assessment. We suggest that these biases should be both acknowledged and, understood when using routine structural surveys to inform platform ecology assessment. Additional consideration may be given to structural surveys that incorporate incremental adjustments to provide better data applicability to biological assessments.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7654814
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76548142020-11-18 A comparison of two remotely operated vehicle (ROV) survey methods used to estimate fish assemblages and densities around a California oil platform Love, Milton S. Nishimoto, Mary M. Clark, Scott Kui, Li Aziz, Azivy Palandro, David PLoS One Research Article Offshore oil and gas platforms have a finite life of production operations. Once production ceases, decommissioning options for the platform are assessed. The role that a platform’s jacket plays as fish habitat can inform the decommissioning decision. In this study, conducted along the crossbeams of a California platform jacket and using an ROV, we compared estimates of fish diversity and densities determined from a targeted “biological” survey with those from a replicated “structural” survey. We found that the water column fish species assemblages characterized by the two methods were similar. By contrast, the two survey methods yielded different species assemblages inhabiting the crossbeam at the platform jacket base. This difference occurred because, at least off California, the platform jacket base species diversity tends to be highest where the bottom crossbeam is undercut, creating sheltering sites for many species. Because the structural method inadequately imaged the seafloor-crossbeam interface, particularly where a gap occurred between crossbeam and seafloor, substantial numbers of fishes were not visible. While we cannot extrapolate from this study to all platforms’ worldwide, it is clear that routine platform structural integrity surveys may be a valuable source for opportunistic marine community surveys. Intentional planning of the structural survey to incorporate relatively minor variations (e.g., maintaining fixed ROV distance from the infrastructure and consistent 90° camera angle) coupled with a deliberate consideration of the platform ecology (e.g., positioning the ROV to capture the seafloor-crossbeam interface) can substantially improve the effects on fish assemblage assessments from routine structural surveys without compromising the integrity assessment. We suggest that these biases should be both acknowledged and, understood when using routine structural surveys to inform platform ecology assessment. Additional consideration may be given to structural surveys that incorporate incremental adjustments to provide better data applicability to biological assessments. Public Library of Science 2020-11-10 /pmc/articles/PMC7654814/ /pubmed/33170883 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242017 Text en © 2020 Love et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Love, Milton S.
Nishimoto, Mary M.
Clark, Scott
Kui, Li
Aziz, Azivy
Palandro, David
A comparison of two remotely operated vehicle (ROV) survey methods used to estimate fish assemblages and densities around a California oil platform
title A comparison of two remotely operated vehicle (ROV) survey methods used to estimate fish assemblages and densities around a California oil platform
title_full A comparison of two remotely operated vehicle (ROV) survey methods used to estimate fish assemblages and densities around a California oil platform
title_fullStr A comparison of two remotely operated vehicle (ROV) survey methods used to estimate fish assemblages and densities around a California oil platform
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of two remotely operated vehicle (ROV) survey methods used to estimate fish assemblages and densities around a California oil platform
title_short A comparison of two remotely operated vehicle (ROV) survey methods used to estimate fish assemblages and densities around a California oil platform
title_sort comparison of two remotely operated vehicle (rov) survey methods used to estimate fish assemblages and densities around a california oil platform
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7654814/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33170883
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242017
work_keys_str_mv AT lovemiltons acomparisonoftworemotelyoperatedvehiclerovsurveymethodsusedtoestimatefishassemblagesanddensitiesaroundacaliforniaoilplatform
AT nishimotomarym acomparisonoftworemotelyoperatedvehiclerovsurveymethodsusedtoestimatefishassemblagesanddensitiesaroundacaliforniaoilplatform
AT clarkscott acomparisonoftworemotelyoperatedvehiclerovsurveymethodsusedtoestimatefishassemblagesanddensitiesaroundacaliforniaoilplatform
AT kuili acomparisonoftworemotelyoperatedvehiclerovsurveymethodsusedtoestimatefishassemblagesanddensitiesaroundacaliforniaoilplatform
AT azizazivy acomparisonoftworemotelyoperatedvehiclerovsurveymethodsusedtoestimatefishassemblagesanddensitiesaroundacaliforniaoilplatform
AT palandrodavid acomparisonoftworemotelyoperatedvehiclerovsurveymethodsusedtoestimatefishassemblagesanddensitiesaroundacaliforniaoilplatform
AT lovemiltons comparisonoftworemotelyoperatedvehiclerovsurveymethodsusedtoestimatefishassemblagesanddensitiesaroundacaliforniaoilplatform
AT nishimotomarym comparisonoftworemotelyoperatedvehiclerovsurveymethodsusedtoestimatefishassemblagesanddensitiesaroundacaliforniaoilplatform
AT clarkscott comparisonoftworemotelyoperatedvehiclerovsurveymethodsusedtoestimatefishassemblagesanddensitiesaroundacaliforniaoilplatform
AT kuili comparisonoftworemotelyoperatedvehiclerovsurveymethodsusedtoestimatefishassemblagesanddensitiesaroundacaliforniaoilplatform
AT azizazivy comparisonoftworemotelyoperatedvehiclerovsurveymethodsusedtoestimatefishassemblagesanddensitiesaroundacaliforniaoilplatform
AT palandrodavid comparisonoftworemotelyoperatedvehiclerovsurveymethodsusedtoestimatefishassemblagesanddensitiesaroundacaliforniaoilplatform