@article{fdi:010082125,
  title = {{W}hich method for which purpose ? {A} comparison of line intercept transect and underwater photogrammetry methods for coral reef surveys},
  author = {{U}rbina-{B}arreto, {I}. and {G}arnier, {R}. and {E}lise, {S}. and {P}inel, {R}. and {D}umas, {P}ascal and {M}ahamadaly, {V}. and {F}acon, {M}. and {B}ureau, {S}. and {P}eignon, {C}hristophe and {Q}uod, {J}. {P}. and {D}utrieux, {E}. and {P}enin, {L}. and {A}djeroud, {M}ehdi},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{T}he choice of ecological monitoring methods and descriptors determines the effectiveness of a program designed to assess the state of coral reef ecosystems. {H}ere, we comparer the relative performance of the traditional {L}ine {I}ntercept {T}ransect ({LIT}) method with three methods derived from underwater photogrammetry: {LIT} on orthomosaics, photoquadrats from orthomosaics, and surface analyses on orthomosaics. {T}he data were acquired at {R}eunion {I}sland on five outer reef slopes and two coral communities on underwater lava-flows. {C}oral cover was estimated in situ using the {LIT} method and with {LIT}s and photoquadrats digitized on orthomosaic. {S}urface analyses were done on the same orthomosaics. {S}tructural complexity of the surveyed sites was calculated from digital elevation models using three physical descriptors (fractal dimension, slope, surface complexity), and used to explore their possible influence in coral cover estimates. {W}e also compared the methods in terms of scientific outputs, the human expertise and time required. {C}oral cover estimates obtained with in situ {LIT}s were higher than those obtained with digitized {LIT}s and photoquadrats. {S}urfaces analyses on orthomosaics yielded the lowest but most the precise cover estimates (i.e., lowest sample dispersion). {S}ites with the highest coral cover also had the highest structural complexity. {F}inally, when we added scientific outputs, and requirements for human expertise and time to our comparisons between methods, we found that surface analysis on the orthomosaics was the most efficient method. {P}hotoquadrats were more time-consuming than both in situ and digitized {LIT}s, even though they provided coral cover estimates similar to those of digitized {LIT}s and yielded more than one descriptor. {T}he {LIT} in situ method remains the least time-consuming and most effective for species-level taxonomic identifications but is the most limited method in terms of data outputs and representativeness of the ecosystem.},
  keywords = {coral cover ; {LIT} ; orthomosaic ; reef survey methods ; structural complexity ; underwater photogrammetry ; {REUNION}},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{F}rontiers in {M}arine {S}cience},
  volume = {8},
  numero = {},
  pages = {636902 [15 ]},
  year = {2021},
  DOI = {10.3389/fmars.2021.636902},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010082125},
}