The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Detection of spatial variability in relative density of fishes:comparison of visual census, angling, and baited underwater video
Open accessAbstract
The abiiity to make accurate estimates of fish relative abundance is the basis of both ecological and environrnental effects studies, and flawed sampiing methods may give misleadmg results even in otherwise weil-designed surveys.This paper compares surveys of snapper Pagrus auratus (Sparidae) and blue cod Parapercis colias (Pinguipedidae) conducted using 3 methods (underwater visual census, experimental angiing, and baited underwater video) inside and outside the Cape Rodney-Okakari Point marine reserve in northeastern New Zealand.A n g h g and baited video consistently detected adult P. auratus at protected and fished sites, providing estimates of 36.7 and 39.2 times greater density of fishable P. auratus within the reserve, respectively.Visual surveys provided the least reliable measure of density of P. auratus, with adults only detected at the reserve centre where fish have been habituated to divers by hand-feeding.Measures of the size structure of P. auratus were consistent between angling and video, but mean size was sigruiicantly smailer using visual census methods.Relative density of P. colias was similar for ali 3 methods, but a n g h g estimated larger mean size, probably due to hook selectivity against smalier fish.The study indicates that methodological standardisation across ali species is not always appropriate for environrnental effects studies, and that different survey methods should be considered according to the biology and behaviour of the species of interest.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Pseudoreplication and the Design of Ecological Field Experiments
Hurlbert, S. H. (1984) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.2307/1942661 · Cited by 8,377
Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R., & Torres, F. (1998) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.279.5352.860 · Cited by 4,743
Cited by
Cappo, M., Speare, P., & De'ath, G. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology · doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2003.10.006 · Cited by 455
A comparison of temperate reef fish assemblages recorded by three underwater stereo-video techniques
Watson, D. L., Harvey, E. S., Anderson, M. J., & Kendrick, G. A. (2005) · Marine Biology · doi:10.1007/s00227-005-0090-6 · Cited by 366
(2003) · UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) · Cited by 187
Colton, M., & Swearer, S. (2010) · Marine Ecology Progress Series · doi:10.3354/meps08377 · Cited by 171
Brooks, E., Sloman, K., Sims, D., & Danylchuk, A. (2011) · Endangered Species Research · doi:10.3354/esr00331 · Cited by 156
Metadata
- Authors
- Willis, T., Millar, R., & Babcock, R.
- Venue
- Marine Ecology Progress Series
- Publisher
- Inter-Research Science Center
- Published
- 2000
- Volume
- 198
- Pages
- 249-260
- ISSN
- 0171-8630 (ISSN-L)
- 1616-1599
- OpenAlex
- W2027733964
- Cited by
- 378
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 11.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Detection of spatial variability in relative density of fishes:comparison of visual census, angling, and baited underwater video. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3354/meps198249
- The paper
- Willis, T., Millar, R., & Babcock, R. (2000). Detection of spatial variability in relative density of fishes:comparison of visual census, angling, and baited underwater video. Marine Ecology Progress Series. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps198249
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.