Search

New high-resolution image data obtained from the Hebrides Terrace Seamount and analysed by ourselves and Henry and Roberts (Henry, L-A., and Roberts, J. M. Recommendations for best practice in deep-sea habitat classification: Bullimore et al. as a case study. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 71: 895–898.), suggested that we may have misidentified Solenosmilia variabilis as either Lophelia pertusa or Madrepora oculata in a previously analysed dataset from the Anton Dohrn Seamount (published in Bullimore et al., 2013). Therefore, we undertook a reanalysis of our entire image data holdings from multiple sample sites and identified possible records of S. variabilis from four sites previously sampled: Anton Dohrn Seamount, Rockall Bank, George Bligh Bank and the Hatton-Rockall Basin. The reanalysis of our image data holdings together with historic data from the wider literature suggests that, in the Northeast Atlantic region, S. variabilis is distributed from 888–2803 m (mean ∼1500 m) with reef habitat present only on Anton Dohrn Seamount. In this paper we discuss the use of video and imagery as a survey and monitoring too and make recommendations of best practice in data acquisition and analysis. We highlight the need for the development of training materials for deep-sea field identification in order to achieve reliable, replicable and comparable datasets among observers, and suggest possible quality assurance procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

We assert that the reef framework-forming coral, Solenosmilia variabilis Duncan, 1873, is sometimes incorrectly recorded as another coral, Lophelia pertusa (Linnaeus, 1758) in surveys of deep-sea habitat (e.g. Bullimore, R., Foster, N., and Howell, K. 2013. Coral-characterized benthic assemblages of the deep Northeast Atlantic: defining “Coral Gardens” to support future habitat mapping efforts. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 70: 511–522). Accurate species lists are critical for developing robust deep-sea habitat classification schemes that allow us to map the distribution of different vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) and predict their occurrences under future climate change scenarios, both of which help prioritize areas for marine protected areas. We recommend that the survey reported by Bullimore et al. (2013), as well as analogous surveys, consider the likelihood of Solenosmilia having been misidentified, and revise their data if necessary. We also make two further recommendations for best practice in deep-sea habitat classification using Bullimore et al. (2013) as a case study. Preferably, physical specimens should be obtained during deep-sea surveys. However, in the absence of identifications confirmed with specimens, image-based analyses of deep-sea communities can be achieved with high confidence when (i) independent validation is provided by senior taxonomic specialists in taxa that are indicators of VMEs, such as cold-water coral reefs, coral gardens, sponge grounds, cold seeps and xenophyophore fields; and (ii) stronger consideration is given to methods in classical taxonomy, the chemical oceanographic setting and community ecology. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]