Next Article in Journal
Animal Behaviour Packs a Punch: From Parasitism to Production, Pollution and Prevention in Grazing Livestock
Previous Article in Journal
Detection of Enterocytozoon bieneusi in Non-Human Primates in Portuguese Zoos
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 14
Issue 13
10.3390/ani14131875
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Studying Chondrichthyans Using Baited Remote Underwater Video Systems: A Review

by
Francesco Luigi Leonetti
1,*,
Massimiliano Bottaro
2,
Gianni Giglio
1 and
Emilio Sperone
1,*
1
Department of Biology, Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Calabria, 87036 Rende, Italy
2
Genoa Marine Centre, Department of Integrative Marine Ecology (EMI), Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn, Italian National Institute for Marine Biology, Ecology and Biotechnology, Villa del Principe, Piazza del Principe 4, 16126 Genoa, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2024, 14(13), 1875; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14131875
Submission received: 29 March 2024 / Revised: 20 June 2024 / Accepted: 21 June 2024 / Published: 25 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Aquatic Animals)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The study explores the use of Baited Remote Underwater Video Systems (BRUVS) as a non-invasive alternative to traditional capture-based surveys for studying cartilaginous fish populations. Over the past three decades, BRUVS have gained significant popularity, particularly in regions like Australia, South Africa, and Central America. By analyzing 81 peer-reviewed papers from 1990 to 2023, it was found that BRUVS have been crucial in studying 195 species of sharks, rays, and chimeras. These systems allow for standardized surveys across various habitats, minimizing disturbance to marine life. Common BRUVS setups include benthic configurations and mono-camera systems, often using bait from specific fish families. BRUVS offer versatility, allowing for tailored setups to meet different research objectives, such as accurate size estimation and individual identification. Importantly, BRUVS facilitate the monitoring of endangered and data-deficient species, contributing essential data for conservation efforts. Overall, the study highlights BRUVS as a valuable tool for studying and conserving cartilaginous fish populations globally.

Abstract

Cartilaginous fish face significant threats due to overfishing and slow reproductive rates, leading to rapid declines in their populations globally. Traditional capture-based surveys, while valuable for gathering ecological information, pose risks to the health and survival of these species. Baited Remote Underwater Video Systems (BRUVS) offer a non-invasive alternative, allowing for standardized surveys across various habitats with minimal disturbance to marine life. This study presents a comprehensive review of BRUVS applications in studying cartilaginous fish, examining 81 peer-reviewed papers spanning from 1990 to 2023. The analysis reveals a significant increase in BRUVS usage over the past three decades, particularly in Australia, South Africa, and Central America. The most common BRUVS configurations include benthic setups, mono-camera systems, and the use of fish from the Clupeidae and Scombridae families as bait. BRUVS have been instrumental in studying 195 chondrichthyan species, providing insights into up to thirteen different aspects of the life histories. Moreover, BRUVS facilitate the monitoring of endangered and data-deficient species, contributing crucial data for conservation efforts. Overall, this study underscores the value of BRUVS as a powerful tool for studying and conserving cartilaginous fish populations worldwide.

1. Introduction

Cartilaginous fish worldwide are in rapid decline due to chronic overfishing and their slow reproductive life-history characteristics [1,2,3,4]. For example, at least 53% of the sharks, rays, and chimeras native to the Mediterranean Sea are at risk of extinction and require urgent action to conserve their populations [5,6]. In this scenario, ecological information such as diversity, distribution, and abundance of Chondrichthyans is crucial for the development of effective management and conservation initiatives [7,8]. However, for most cartilaginous fish, even the most basic ecological information is lacking, which has led to 16% of 1240 species assessed being listed as ‘Data Deficient’ on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species [9].
The most common method to collect basic ecological information on sharks, rays, and chimeras is through scientific trawl and longline surveys [10]. These surveys generate relative abundance estimates, providing comparative data on abundance through space and time on both inter- and intra-species levels [11]. Despite their utility and widespread application, these surveys have significant drawbacks: they require the capture, retrieval, and restraint of the animals, causing various degrees of physical trauma and physiological stress. These homeostatic disruptions can potentially impact growth, feeding, and the immune system, increasing the chance of mortality [12]. Considering the rapid declines in many Chondrichthyan populations, the consequences of this type of surveys are in contrast with the objectives of many conservation programs.
Baited Remote Underwater Video Systems (BRUVS) are an effective tool for collecting data on Chondrichthyans regarding their occurrence, distribution, abundance, behavior, and other key aspects in outlining their life histories [13]. Data collection involves using high-definition underwater cameras mounted on a frame, with bait, typically commonly fished marine species (fish parts, entrails), and/or other attractants placed in a bait canister to lure Chondrichthyans into the camera’s field of view [11]. BRUVS are deployed at various locations and depths to cover different habitats and environmental conditions. Multiple deployments are conducted at each site to increase data reliability. The cameras record video footage of the Chondrichthyans attracted to the bait, and additional sensors may record environmental parameters such as water temperature, depth, and visibility. The footage is reviewed to identify species based on visual characteristics and to count the maximum number of individuals of each species visible in a single frame (MaxN) to avoid recounting the same individual [14], with behaviors such as feeding, aggression, or mating displayed. Presence/absence data for each species observed is recorded, and locations where each species was observed are mapped to understand spatial distribution patterns. MaxN data is analyzed to estimate relative abundance, and statistical models can extrapolate population estimates [14]. Different behaviors observed during the recordings are categorized and quantified [15]. Species data is related to environmental variables such as habitat type, depth, and temperature to identify preferences and habitat usage, and data is compared across different times (day/night, seasons) to understand temporal patterns in occurrence and behavior [16]. BRUVS are non-invasive, allowing for ethical data collection without harming the animals or their habitat, providing several major benefits over traditional capture-based survey methods [11]: they are not size-selective (not using hooks or meshes), allow for standardized surveys (replicas can be carried out at any depth, in a variety of habitats, and by operators who do not require high levels of training) [17], and make it possible to detect even large, mobile fishes, such as many sharks and rays, that usually avoid active fishing surveys [17,18]. The use of standardized protocols for deployment and analysis enhances comparability across studies and regions, though potential biases include bait attractiveness differing by species, varying visibility conditions, and camera positioning affecting detection probabilities. BRUVS data informs species conservation status, aids in designing marine protected areas, and monitors the effectiveness of conservation measures [19]. It also helps in understanding species interactions, habitat preferences, and responses to environmental changes and in assessing the impact of fishing activities on sustainable management practices. By deploying BRUVS systematically across different regions and habitats, comprehensive data on Chondrichthyan species can be gathered, leading to a better understanding of their ecology and informing effective conservation and management strategies [20].
The use of BRUVS to study cartilaginous fish has increased significantly over the last thirty years for many of the reasons described above. Initially developed to survey marine species in hard-to-reach or sensitive environments, BRUVS offered a non-invasive alternative to traditional methods like scuba surveys and trawling. Early studies, particularly in Australia and the Pacific Islands, demonstrated BRUVS’ effectiveness in attracting and documenting a diverse array of Chondrichthyans, thereby gaining acceptance within the scientific community [18]. By the mid-2000s, BRUVS had been refined with improved camera technology and standardized protocols, facilitating broader adoption and enabling consistent, long-term data collection on Chondrichthyan populations globally [21]. The method’s versatility has proven crucial for conservation efforts, providing essential insights into species diversity, distribution, and the impacts of marine protected areas, ultimately aiding in the development of informed management strategies [20]. To date, BRUVS have been successfully used to monitor sharks, rays, and chimeras worldwide [14,20,22,23]. However, despite the increasing prevalence of this technique in the literature, a comprehensive review of the potential of BRUVS in the study of cartilaginous fish is still lacking. Given this, the aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive overview of how Chondrichthyans are studied through the BRUVS, the configurations used to target different taxa and the research objectives that can be pursued using this method. In this way, a useful tool will be made available to the scientific community, both to better understand the potential of BRUVS in the study of Chondrichthyans and to provide a quick, comprehensive guide on the different methodologies used to collect data according to the aims of the studies.

2. Materials and Methods

Literature Survey and Data Selection

Searches in Google Scholar, Scopus, and ResearchGate were conducted for all articles published up to 27 October 2023, dating back to 1990. We used the keywords “baited underwater video”, “baited remote underwater video”, “baited remote underwater video system”, “baited remote underwater video station”, “BRUVS”, “BUV”, “BRUV” combined in pairs with “elasmobranchs”, “Chondrichthyans”, “sharks”, “rays”, “chimeras”. The search has returned a total of 873 findings. Only publications in peer-reviewed journals in English were selected; materials in the grey literature (i.e., technical reports, theses, etc.) were excluded from the analysis. Additionally, the references of any peer-reviewed papers considered eligible were checked in order to find further useful papers. The included studies were strictly limited to marine waters and focused on Chondrichthyans, either as the main research subjects or as incidental occurrences in other research frameworks. The reviewed studies were carried out exclusively by scientists and were field-based. Based on these selection criteria, 81 publications were gathered (Table 1).
Uniform data was recorded for every study, including year of publication, study site, type of BRUVS, additional tools, type of bait, target species/genus/family, type of information gained (qualitative, quantitative), and investigation objectives. The latter were summarized into thirteen main topics: (1) occurrence, (2) distribution, (3) abundance, (4) biomass, (5) growth, (6) size, (7) diversity, (8) density, (9) habitat suitability, (10) habitat use, (11) habitat type, (12) movements, and (13) behavior. A single study could fall into several categories of investigation. Publications lacking information on the type of BRUVS and/or three or more of the investigated parameters were excluded, as were those that used unbaited systems. This selection process may have introduced some bias into the results; however, since it led to the exclusion of fewer than 8 publications (10% of the total considered), any loss of information is deemed to be within acceptable limits. Furthermore, additional limitations may arise from the inability to capture certain publications through the search engines utilized, particularly during the first decade under investigation or earlier, as some publications may remain uncatalogued within these databases. The year 1990 was chosen as an arbitrary limit since no relevant research was produced before then. Finally, since the species Carcharhinus limbatus and Carcharhinus tilstoni were treated as a single complex (C. limbatus/tilstoni) by several authors [24,25,26,27], they have also been treated in the same way in the following results.
Table 1. List of peer-reviewed papers used for the present review. Legend of topics: P presence, A abundance, B biomass, DN distribution, HU habitat uses, S size, HS habitat suitability, DY diversity, DE density, TH type of habitat, M movements, G growth, BR behavior.
Table 1. List of peer-reviewed papers used for the present review. Legend of topics: P presence, A abundance, B biomass, DN distribution, HU habitat uses, S size, HS habitat suitability, DY diversity, DE density, TH type of habitat, M movements, G growth, BR behavior.
SourceSurvey LocationType of BRUVSCamera
Configurations		Bait TypesTopics
[28]South AfricabenthicStereo, monoSardinops sargaxP, A
[29]CaribbeanbenthicStereoTunaP, A, B
[30]Colombian Pacificmid-waterMonoTunaP, A
[31]North Western AustraliabenthicStereo-P, DN, A
[27]Australia benthicStereoPilchardsP, A, HU
[32]South AfricabenthicMonoSardinops sargaxP, A
[19]North Western AustraliabenthicStereo-P, DN, A, S, HS
[33]The north coast of BrittanybenthicStereoScomber scombrusP, A, DY
[34]BelizebenthicMonoCrushed baitfishP, DN, A
[35]Western Australia drifting deep-waterStereoSardinops sagaxP, HS
[36]South-western Pacific benthicStereoSardinops sagaxP, DN, DY
[37]Central PacificbenthicStereoMackerelP, DN, A
[11]BahamasbenthicMonoBonito tunaP, DN, A, DY, S
[38]Turks and Caicos Islands benthicMonoBarracuda sphyraenaP, DN, A, DY
[39]Caribbean coast of Colombia benthicMonoOpisthonema oglinumP, A
[40]Eastern Tropical Pacific, Costa Rica, Galapagos Islandsdrifting-pelagicMonoThunnus albacaresP, DN, A
[18]North-east AustraliabenthicMonoSardinops neopilchardusP, DN, A, DY
[41]Central Mediterranean Seamid-waterMonoSardinella auritaP, S
[42]PanamabenthicStereoEuthynnus alletteratusP, A, DY
[43]Eastern Tropical Pacific benthicStereoMugil cephalus, Katsuwonus pelamisP
[44]Western Indian Ocean benthicMonoMackerel P, DN, A
[45]Southeast Australia benthicMono-P, A, DE
[26]Pacific OceanbenthicMonoClupeidae, ScombridaeP, D
[46]South AfricabenthicMonoSardinops sagaxP, DN, A, DY
[47]South AfricabenthicStereoSardinops sagaxP, DN, A, DY
[24]North-east AustraliabenthicMonoSardinops, Sardinella spp.P, DN, A, TH
[48]Eastern Tropical Pacific benthic & mid-waterMonoScomber japonicusP, DN, A
[49]BelizebenthicMonoSardinesP, A
[50]Western Atlantic benthicMonoSardinesP
[51]Fiji benthicStereoSardinops sp.P, A, B
[52]Southern California benthicMonoLoligo sp.P, A
[53]SeychellesbenthicMonoScomber scombrus, Euthynnus affinisP, DN, A, M
[54]New South Wales, Australia benthicStereoSardinops neopilchardusP, S
[55]New South Wales, AustraliabenthicStereoSardinops neopilchardusP, A, G, S
[56]Western Australian
benthicStereoSardinops sagaxP, A, S
[57]Western Australia benthicStereoSardinops sagaxP, A
[58]Eastern Australiamid-waterMonoMinced pilchards, bread, tuna oilP, DN, A, TH
[59]Southern New Zealand downward-facing benthicMonoThyrsites atun, Sardinella sirmP, A
[60]Antillesdrumline cameraMonoSphyraena barracudaP, BR
[61]Southeast Australia benthicStereoPilchardsP, DN, DY, TH
[62]Arabian Gulf benthicMonoSardinella longicepsP, DN, A, TH
[63]South-Western Pacific benthicStereoSardinops sagaxP, DN, A, DY
[64]New South Wales, AustraliabenthicMonoSardinops sagaxP, A
[65]French Polynesia benthicMonoSardinesP, A
[66]New South Wales, AustraliabenthicStereo, MonoSardinops sagaxP
[67]Western Atlantic benthicMonoScomber scombrusP, A
[13]North-west AustraliabenthicStereoSardinops spp.P, A, BR
[68]Western Australia mid-waterStereoSardinops sagax, squidP, DN, DY, S
[69]New Zealand downward-facing benthicStereo-P, S
[20]WorldwidebenthicMonoClupeidae, ScombridaeP, DN, A
[70]Western Australia mid-waterStereoTuna, Sardinops sp.P, A, BR
[71]Philippines benthicMonoSphyraena barracuda, Caranx ignobilis, Serranidae spp., Acanthocybium solandri, Katsuwonus pelamis, Sardinus spp.P, A, DY
[23]Worldwidemid-waterStereoSardinops sagaxP, DN, A, S
[72]South-West Australia benthicMonoSepioteuthis australis, Seriola lalandi, Sardinops sagaxP, DN
[73]Northeastern Brazil benthicMonoSardinella brasiliensis, Sphyraena barracudaP
[74]South AfricabenthicMonoSardinops sagaxP, A, DY
[75]Sweden benthicStereoSardinesP, A, S
[76]Central Indian Ocean drifting-pelagicMono-P
[77]AntillesbenthicMonoSarda spp.P, BR
[78]Western Mediterraneandrifting-pelagicMonoTunaP
[79]North-east AtlanticbenthicMonoScomber scombrusP
[80]BrazilbenthicStereoSardinella brasiliensis, Harengula sp.P, A, S
[81]North-west Australia benthicMonoSardinops sagaxP, A, BR
[16]Central Pacific Ocean benthicMono-P, A, BR
[82]Western Australiamid-waterStereoMugil cephalusP, A, DY, S
[25]Mid-west coast of Western Australiamid-waterStereoSardinops sagaxP, A
[83]Western Australiamid-waterStereoSardinops sagaxP
[15]MassachusettsbenthicMonoMackerelP, BR
[84]Malaysian BorneobenthicMonoSardinella spp, Scomber australiasicusP, A
[85]IndonesiabenthicMonoClupeidae, ScombridaeP, A
[14]WorldwidebenthicMono-P, DN, A, DY
[86]Red Sea, SudanbenthicMonoSarda orientalis, Caranx spp., Lutjanus spp.P, DN, A
[87]Spain, FrancebenthicMonoFlour, dried chopped fish, sardine oil, sunflower oil, sodium bicarbonate, citric acidP, A
[88]Sydney metropolitan areabenthicMonoPilchards, falafel, tuna oilP, A
[22]Worldwidemid-waterStereo-P, A, DY, S, B
[89]Western Mediterranean Seamid-waterMonoFish scraps, cephalopods, cetacean flesh and oil P
[90]WalesbenthicStereoMeal and fish oilsP, A
[21]South-western Australia benthicStereoSardinops sagaxP, A, DE
[91]North-east AustraliabenthicMonoSardinops spp., Sardinella spp.P, DN
[92]New South Wales, AustraliabenthicMonoPilchard, abalone, urchinP, A
[93]North-eastern New ZealandbenthicStereoSardinops sagaxP, DN, A, DE

3. Results

3.1. Temporal and Spatial Trends in the Use of BRUVS for Studying Cartilaginous Fish

During the last 30 years, the number of papers using BRUVS to study Chondrichthyans worldwide has grown significantly, from a single paper in the five-year period 1994–1998 to 41 papers in the period 2019–2023 (Figure 1). The origin of BRUVS for studying cartilaginous fish is Australia, where all records in the first decade of the survey came from this area, except for one record from the Northeast Atlantic [79]. However, even today, Australia remains the area where this tool has been most extensively used, followed by Central America and South Africa, with moderate use in other parts of the world (Figure 2).
Regarding the type of BRUVS, for the first two decades of the survey (up to 2014), only two configurations were used: benthic (92% of records) and mid-water (8% of records). Since 2015, new configurations have been developed to collect data on Chondrichthyans, including drifting deep-water, drifting-pelagic, and downward-facing benthic setups.
Generally, the most commonly used type of BRUVS is benthic (lying on the seabed) with 79.5% of the findings (Figure 3a), followed by mid-water or pelagic (15.7%) (Figure 3c), pelagic drifting (3.6%) and deep-water drifting (1.2%) (Figure 3b). Additionally, 1.2% of the findings involve special set-ups to meet specific study needs (e.g., drumline camera in [60]). In benthic and mid-water, BRUVS were used simultaneously to carry out field surveys [48].
The recording video configuration can be mono (one camera) (Figure 3a) or stereo (two cameras pointing at the bait bag) (Figure 3c): mono-BRUVS were used in 60.2% of the findings, only in [28,66] both configurations were used in the same field activities. Furthermore, BRUVS were used as the only survey tool in 60.1% of the reviewed papers, and in 83.1% of them, quantitative data were obtained.

3.2. Chondrichthyans Studied through BRUVS

The literature review revealed a census of 43 families of cartilaginous fish. The family with the highest number of records (238) is Carcharhinidae, followed by Dasyatidae (83 records) (Table 2).
A total of 195 chondrichthyan species were covered in the reviewed papers, including 99 sharks, 93 rays, and 3 chimeras. The most commonly studied species worldwide using BRUVS (with an incidence rate of more than 20%) include Galeocerdo cuvier, Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos, Carcharhinus limbatus/tilstoni, Carcharhinus melanopterus, Sphyrna lewini, Triaenodon obesus (Table S1). BRUVS allow to collect data both on species listed Endangered (EN) and Critically Endangered (CR) (Acroteriobatus leucospilus, Aetobatus narinari, Aetomylaeus vespertilio, Alopias pelagicus, Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos, C. acronotus, C. dussumieri, C. longimanus, C. obscurus, C. perezi, C. plumbeus, C. taurus, Centrophorus squamosus, Glaucostegus halavi, G. typus, Haploblepharus edwardsii, Himantura uarnak, Hypanus marianae, Isurus oxyrinchus, Leucoraja ocellata, Mobula birostris, M. kuhlii, M. tarapacana, Mustelus mustelus, Myliobatis aquila, Negaprion acutidens, Pristis zijsron, Pteromylaeus bovinus, Raja undulata, Rhina ancylostoma, Rhincodon typus, Rhinobatos hynnicephalus, Rhinoptera javanica, Rhynchobatus australiae, R. laevis, Rostroraja alba, Sphyrna lewini, S. mokarran, S. tiburo, Stegostoma tigrinum, Styracura schmardae) and species considered “Data Deficient” (DD) (Bathyraja shuntovi, Cirrhigaleus australis, Etmopterus molleri, Ginglymostoma unami, Hemitriakis abdita, Megatrygon microps, Neotrygon kuhlii, Taeniura lessoni) [9].

3.3. Baits Used to Attract Chondrichthyans

Regarding the types of bait used to arm BRUVS to attract chondrichthyans, the most common, with 58% of records, are fish from the Clupeidae family (Sardinops spp., Sardinella spp., Clupea spp., Harengula spp.) followed by fish from the Scombridae family at 15% (Scomber spp., Euthynnus spp., Thunnus spp., Katsuwonus pelamis, Sarda spp., Acanthocybium solandri), cephalopods sensu lato 5% (e.g., Loligo spp., Sepioteuthis australis), Sphyraena spp. 5% (in particular S. barracuda), Caranx spp. 2% (e.g., C. ignobilis); the remaining 15% includes different animals such as Opisthonema oglinum, Mugil cephalus, Thyrsites atun, Seriola lalandi, Serranidae spp., abalone, urchin (Figure 4). Baits and/or their parts (viscera, oil) can be combined in different ways.
Species from the Clupeidae family have remained, over time, the preferred bait for attracting cartilaginous fish into the range of BRUVS, followed by species of the family Scombridae, which have increased their use significantly over the past decade to match the clupeids in recent years. Recently, there has also been an increase in the use of both cephalopods and species of the genus Sphyraena spp. Of note is the constant presence of various attractant materials, here called “other”, often associated with the above categories. The use of Caranx spp., detected as of 2016, remained limited (Figure 5).

3.4. Topics of Investigation

Using BRUVS, the three most commonly studied topics regarding Chondrichthyans are the occurrence of the species (83 papers), their abundance (61 papers) and their distribution (29 papers). Furthermore, found in more than 9 papers are diversity, size and behaviour. Marginal topics with less than 5 papers include habitat type, density, habitat suitability, biomass, movements, habitat use and growth (Figure 6).
Occurrence and abundance have been the primary topics investigated using the BRUVS, and together with distribution, they have remained the most investigated topics over time. The improvement in technology in the 21st century has allowed for a wide range of investigation topics. In recent years, this has allowed, for example, the evaluation of the size of Chondrichthyans through the use of sophisticated software, the study of their behaviors, and even the investigation of the type of habitat, its suitability, and how the species utilizes it (Figure 7).

4. Discussion

Baited Remote Underwater Video Systems (BRUVS) have emerged as a significant tool in marine biology for studying cartilaginous fish populations. These systems offer numerous advantages that have important implications for both scientific understanding and conservation efforts. One of their primary benefits is non-invasive monitoring, which allows for the observation of these fish in their natural environments without the stress and harm associated with traditional capture methods. This results in more accurate data collection regarding species' presence and abundance [18].

4.1. Implementing BRUVS

The increase in the use of BRUVS for studying marine fauna is attributed to technological advancements that have enabled the use of high-performance video recording systems with functions that go beyond simple photography or video recording: in fact, in the specific case of Chondrichthyans, it has gone from a system of a camera loaded with 800 frames of 35 mm Kodak Ektachrome color film and a reference scale in the view of the camera [79] to High-definitions stereo camera configurations, which makes it possible to obtain accurate and precise measurements of recorded specimens through specific video processing programs [13]. The significant adoption of BRUVS for studying sharks and related species has primarily occurred in Australia, South Africa, and Central America. This is certainly due to the large availability of these animals in the waters of these countries, but in the case of Australia, it is also due to the fact that it has demonstrated the potential of this tool in its waters for a long time [18,57]. In other parts of the world, such as the Mediterranean Region, where few studies have employed the use of BRUVS to study Chondrichthyans, it has only recently begun [41,78,89], the potential of this tool has yet to be recognized. BRUVS reduce labor costs and safety risks associated with deploying divers, and they provide extensive, high-resolution footage without physically disturbing marine habitats. BRUVS contributes to more comprehensive ecological assessments at a fraction of the cost and effort required by more invasive techniques [18,94].
Not all BRUVS are the same; the main differences are found in the set-up, which, in fact, depends on the objective of the research. The major differences are related to the orientation of the camera, the video recording configurations, and the position of the BRUVS in the water column. The most common camera setup is horizontal (horizontal-facing), although they may be oriented towards the seabed (downward-facing). The latter configuration can, for example, be used to allow for the photo identification of seven-gill sharks, as individuals have unique dorsal spot patterns [59]. Pioneering studies using this methodology have enabled the identification of individual white sharks and the tracking of their movements along the California coast [95], as well as the study of population dynamics and behavior of tiger sharks in Shark Bay [96]. Photo-identification is a crucial technique that enables precise calculation of population numbers and provides insights into the behavior of individual sharks and their communities.
Regarding video recording configuration, it can be mono (a single camera) or stereo (two cameras pointing at the bait bag and recording with overlapping field of view). The main difference is that stereo-BRUVS, using dual images, allow us to accurately estimate the length of fish. These lengths can be converted into biomass estimates using standardized length-weight relationships [29,51]. The most common set-up is the benthic BRUVS, lying on the bottom. This type of BRUVS allows us to record a wide range of sharks, rays [14,24,26,48], and chimeras [47,74,79,93]. Mid-water and pelagic drifting BRUVS, although less used and with fewer records of Chondrichthyans, are useful to monitor pelagic species such as Sphyrna spp., Carcharhinus spp., Alopias pelagicus, Prionace glauca, Isurus oxyrinchus, Mobula birostris, Galeocerdo cuvier [22,25,30,40,58,68,70,71,83]. From the standard set-ups, there are some exceptions, such as drifting deep-water BRUVS used for the construction of species distribution models [35] and baited drumline cameras used to meet special study goals, such as asses the fishing efficacy of baited hooks [60].
The type of bait used to arm BRUVS depends on the availability of what local fishermen catch; therefore, it is generally composed of Indigenous species. Regarding the family Clupeidae, the most common species used is Sardinops sagax [21,23,25,28,32,35,36,46,47,56,63,64,66,68,72,74,81,83,93] for the Scombridae family is Scomber scombrus [33,53,67,79] followed by “tunas” Euthynnus affinis [53], Katsuwonus pelamis [43,71], Thunnus albacares [40], Euthynnus alletteratus [42]. Bait can be composed either of a single species or of mixtures of species and/or their parts: in [88] the bait housing contained a 100 g mixture of minced pilchards (80 g), falafel (10 g) and tuna oil; in [89] baits used to attract sharks included fish scraps, cephalopods, and/or cetacean flesh and oil; in [73] the bait was composed of 500 g of Sardinella brasiliensis and barracuda viscera, Sphyraena barracuda.

4.2. Informing Conservation Initiatives

BRUVS play a crucial role in gathering essential data on species critical to conservation efforts, including those classified as Critically Endangered, Endangered, and Data Deficient. By providing a non-invasive method to observe these species in their natural environments, BRUVS allow for the detection and monitoring of populations that are otherwise difficult to study due to their rarity or elusive behavior. This technology facilitates the gathering of essential information on species distribution, abundance, and ecological interactions, which is vital for assessing conservation status and implementing protective measures. For instance, studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of BRUVS in documenting the presence of rare and threatened species, thereby filling significant knowledge gaps and aiding in the development of targeted conservation strategies [18,97].
BRUVS are instrumental in documenting species diversity and distribution across various habitats and depths, which is essential for mapping the geographical range of species and understanding their ecological niches. This information can inform habitat protection strategies [94]. From the video recordings made with BRUVS, the most commonly extrapolated data is the species’ relative abundance. To calculate this, it is commonly used MaxN, considered the maximum number of each species observed in a single frame of each 60-min deployment, then averaged across all deployments on one site [14]. The distribution of a species can be assessed by carrying out several BRUVS sessions at different sites within a given area [20]. The study of the diversity of chondrichthyans is closely related to estimates of their occurrence, although the association of BRUVS with other monitoring techniques has shown more accurate estimates for this parameter [36]. More accurate size estimation is related to the use of stereo-BRUVS; in fact, by processing videos from two different points of view through dedicated software (i.e., SeaGIS EventMeasure software http://www.seagis.com.au), it is possible to estimate different morphometric parameters such as snout-to-first dorsal fin length, dorsal fin-to- precaudal length, fork length (FL), precaudal length (PCL) and total length (TL) [54]. Furthermore, BRUVS provide detailed insights into fish behavior, including inter and intraspecific interactions [16], behavioral change [70], foraging behaviors [77].
The study of habitat preferences is another area where BRUVS excel, revealing the importance of different environmental features for various species. This knowledge is crucial for understanding habitat use and the ecological requirements of cartilaginous fish [58]. In terms of conservation, data from BRUVS can inform the design and management of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) by identifying critical habitats and biodiversity hotspots, thereby enabling more effective targeted conservation efforts [98]. Additionally, BRUVS enable long-term monitoring programs, essential for tracking the effectiveness of conservation measures over time. Consistent data collection allows for the assessment of trends and the adaptation of strategies to ensure the ongoing protection of cartilaginous fish populations [99].

4.3. Challenges and Considerations

BRUVS can be used as a sole survey tool, as they offer a non-invasive alternative to other survey instruments to monitor trends in the relative abundance of Chondrichthyans [11], or associated with other traditional tools (longline, beach seine, visual census, interviews, audible-stationary-count, Environmental DNA) to provide a more comprehensive and exhaustive assessment of life traits aspects in different marine conditions [18,39,44,45,52,81,86]. Innovative methods such as autonomous marine vehicles (i.e., biomimetic robotics [100]), used for approaching and investigating fish in natural and aquafarming environments, could be paired with BRUVS, as they are becoming essential tools in aquatic environmental monitoring systems [101].
Despite their benefits, the implementation of BRUVS presents challenges. The initial equipment cost and the need for technical expertise can be barriers for some research programs. Moreover, interpreting video data can be time-consuming and requires careful analysis to ensure accuracy. One major advantage of using bait in BRUVS is the increased likelihood of attracting a diverse array of species, including elusive or nocturnal ones, thereby enhancing the representativeness of collected data. However, the type and quantity of bait used can be contentious. Overuse or inappropriate selection of baits can result in biased results, attracting some species disproportionately while others remain under-represented [102]. Environmental factors such as current and topography also play a critical role in bait effectiveness. Strong currents can disperse bait scent too quickly, reducing its attractant potential, while complex topography might create bait traps, where the bait scent is confined to a specific area, influencing fish behavior and the likelihood of detection [58]. These factors must be carefully managed to ensure the reliability and accuracy of data obtained through BRUVS.

5. Conclusions

The utilization of baited remote underwater video systems (BRUVS) represents a valuable and increasingly popular method for studying Chondrichthyans in their natural environments. Representing a non-invasive sampling method, BRUVS offer a unique opportunity to investigate up to thirteen different aspects of the life histories of these elusive marine species, providing insights that are difficult to obtain through traditional, often invasive, sampling methods. Furthermore, BRUVS allow to collect data over large spatial and temporal scales, facilitating comprehensive assessments of sharks, rays and chimeras populations and their ecological roles. This review highlights significant trends and developments over the past 30 years. Initially, BRUV studies were rare, with only one paper between 1994–1998, but their use has grown exponentially, reaching 41 papers from 2019–2023. Australia was the pioneer in using BRUVS, and it remains the most active region, followed by Central America and South Africa, with moderate use in other regions. Since 2015, BRUVS configurations have evolved from primarily benthic and mid-water setups to include drifting deep-water, drifting-pelagic, and downward-facing benthic configurations. Benthic BRUVS remain the most commonly used, followed by mid-water, pelagic drifting, and deep-water drifting. Video recording setups are mainly mono, with stereo configurations used in a minority of cases. The primary research topics investigated using BRUVS are the occurrence, abundance, and distribution of Chondrichthyans. Technological advancements have expanded the scope of research, allowing for detailed studies on size, behavior, habitat type, and habitat suitability. BRUVS have been used to study 43 families and 195 species of cartilaginous fish. The most frequently studied families are Carcharhinidae and Dasyatidae. BRUVS play a crucial role in collecting data on endangered and critically endangered species, and those considered data deficient. In terms of bait, Clupeidae species are the most common, followed by Scombridae, cephalopods, Sphyraena spp., and Caranx spp. The use of clupeids has remained consistent, with a notable increase in scombrids in recent years.
The significance of this study lies in highlighting the growing and evolving use of BRUVS as a non-invasive tool for Chondrichthyan research. This method provides critical data for conservation efforts, helping to monitor species occurrence, abundance, and distribution and contributing to the understanding of habitat use and suitability. The advancements in BRUVS technology and methodology enhance the ability to study and protect these vital marine species. Future research and methodological improvements to study Chondrichthyans could focus on several key areas. First, optimizing bait type and quantity is crucial, but exploring alternative baits that may attract different species or age classes of cartilaginous fish could provide more comprehensive data [103]. Second, enhancing camera technology and deployment strategies can improve data quality. Incorporating higher-resolution cameras and more robust, 360-degree recording capabilities could better capture rapid or elusive movements typical of these species [91]. Third, conducting studies across various habitats and depths can address knowledge gaps about cartilaginous fish distribution and behavior in less-explored regions [104]. Finally, standardizing methodologies across studies would facilitate better comparisons and meta-analyses, leading to a broader understanding of cartilaginous fish ecology and conservation needs [99]. Despite some limitations, such as potential biases in bait attraction, the utility of BRUVS in this field of research cannot be overstated. As technology and methodologies continue to improve, BRUVS are expected to play an increasingly prominent role in furthering our understanding of Chondrichthyes and sustaining conservation actions aimed at protecting these crucial components of marine ecosystems.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ani14131875/s1, Table S1: Species surveyed with BRUVs. Family, number of papers in which the species was studied and the incidence rate are given.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: E.S., G.G. and F.L.L.; methodology: E.S. and M.B.; formal analysis: G.G. and F.L.L.; investigation: F.L.L., G.G. and M.B.; resources: E.S.; data curation: G.G. and F.L.L.; writing—original draft preparation, F.L.L.; writing—review and editing: F.L.L., G.G., M.B. and E.S.; supervision: E.S.; project administration: E.S.; funding acquisition: E.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

PO FEAMP CALABRIA–MISURA 1.40 “Centro studi della pesca sostenibile del monitoraggio e conservazione della biodiversità marina (CESPES-BIO)”, identificativo 16/RBC/20. PO FEAMP 2014/2020, MISURA 2.51 “Aumento del potenziale dei siti di acquacoltura”, identificativo 02/ASA/22, “Piano Regionale Per le Zone Allocate Per L’Acquacoltura A Mare—AZA”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Martina Arpaia (the University of Calabria and Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn) and Ilaria Di Lauro (Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn) for their ready help.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Baum, J.K.; Myers, R.A. Shifting Baselines and the Decline of Pelagic Sharks in the Gulf of Mexico. Ecol. Lett. 2004, 7, 135–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Myers, R.; Baum, J.; Shepherd, T.; Powers, S.; Peterson, C. Cascading Effects of the Loss of Apex Predatory Sharks from a Coastal Ocean. Science 2007, 315, 1846–1850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Field, I.C.; Meekan, M.G.; Buckworth, R.C.; Bradshaw, C.J.A. Chapter 4 Susceptibility of Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras to Global Extinction. In Advances in Marine Biology; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2009; Volume 56, pp. 275–363. [Google Scholar]
  4. Pacoureau, N.; Rigby, C.L.; Kyne, P.M.; Sherley, R.B.; Winker, H.; Carlson, J.K.; Fordham, S.V.; Barreto, R.; Fernando, D.; Francis, M.P.; et al. Half a Century of Global Decline in Oceanic Sharks and Rays. Nature 2021, 589, 567–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Dulvy, N.; Allen, D.; Ralph, G.; Walls, R. The Conservation Status of Sharks, Rays, and Chimaeras in the Mediterranean Sea [Brochure]; IUCN: Malaga, Spain, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  6. Leonetti, F.L.; Giglio, G.; Leone, A.; Coppola, F.; Romano, C.; Bottaro, M.; Reinero, F.R.; Milazzo, C.; Micarelli, P.; Tripepi, S.; et al. An Updated Checklist of Chondrichthyans of Calabria. Mediterr. Mar. Sci. 2020, 21, 794–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cavanagh, R.; Gibson, C. Overview of the Conservation Status of Cartilaginous Fishes (Chondrichthyans) in the Mediterranean Sea; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ebert, D.A.; Dando, M.; Fowler, S. Sharks of the World: A Complete Guide; Illustrated edizione; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2021; ISBN 978-0-691-20599-1. [Google Scholar]
  9. IUCN The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Available online: https://www.iucnredlist.org (accessed on 22 December 2023).
  10. Gallo, S.; Nania, G.; Caruso, V.; Zicarelli, G.; Leonetti, F.L.; Giglio, G.; Fedele, G.; Romano, C.; Bottaro, M.; Mangoni, O.; et al. Bioaccumulation of Trace Elements in the Muscle of the Blackmouth Catshark Galeus Melastomus from Mediterranean Waters. Biology 2023, 12, 951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Brooks, E.; Sloman, K.; Sims, D.; Danylchuk, A. Validating the Use of Baited Remote Underwater Video Surveys for Assessing the Diversity, Distribution and Abundance of Sharks in the Bahamas. Endanger. Species Res. 2011, 13, 231–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Skomal, G. Evaluating the Physiological and Physical Consequences of Capture on Post-release Survivorship in Large Pelagic Fishes. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 2007, 14, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lester, E.; Langlois, T.; Lindgren, I.; Birt, M.; Bond, T.; McLean, D.; Vaughan, B.; Holmes, T.H.; Meekan, M. Drivers of Variation in Occurrence, Abundance, and Behaviour of Sharks on Coral Reefs. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Simpfendorfer, C.A.; Heithaus, M.R.; Heupel, M.R.; Macneil, M.A.; Meekan, M.; Harvey, E.; Sherman, C.S.; Currey-Randall, L.M.; Goetze, J.S.; Kiszka, J.J.; et al. Widespread Diversity Deficits of Coral Reef Sharks and Rays. Science 2023, 380, 1155–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Shea, B.D.; Benson, C.W.; De Silva, C.; Donovan, D.; Romeiro, J.; Bond, M.E.; Creel, S.; Gallagher, A.J. Effects of Exposure to Large Sharks on the Abundance and Behavior of Mobile Prey Fishes along a Temperate Coastal Gradient. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0230308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sabando, M.A.; Rieucau, G.; Bradley, D.; Caselle, J.E.; Papastamatiou, Y.P. Habitat-Specific Inter and Intraspecific Behavioral Interactions among Reef Sharks. Oecologia 2020, 193, 371–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Cappo, M.; Harvey, E.; Shortis, M. Counting and Measuring Fish with Baited Video Techniques—An Overview. Aust. Soc. Fish Biol. 2007, 1, 101–114. [Google Scholar]
  18. Cappo, M.; Speare, P.; De’ath, G. Comparison of Baited Remote Underwater Video Stations (BRUVS) and Prawn (Shrimp) Trawls for Assessments of Fish Biodiversity in Inter-Reefal Areas of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2004, 302, 123–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Oh, B.Z.L.; Sequeira, A.M.M.; Meekan, M.G.; Ruppert, J.L.W.; Meeuwig, J.J. Predicting Occurrence of Juvenile Shark Habitat to Improve Conservation Planning. Conserv. Biol. 2017, 31, 635–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. MacNeil, M.A.; Chapman, D.D.; Heupel, M.; Simpfendorfer, C.A.; Heithaus, M.; Meekan, M.; Harvey, E.; Goetze, J.; Kiszka, J.; Bond, M.E.; et al. Global Status and Conservation Potential of Reef Sharks. Nature 2020, 583, 801–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Watson, D.L.; Harvey, E.S.; Anderson, M.J.; Kendrick, G.A. A Comparison of Temperate Reef Fish Assemblages Recorded by Three Underwater Stereo-Video Techniques. Mar. Biol. 2005, 148, 415–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Thompson, C.D.H.; Meeuwig, J.J. Sharks Are the Preferred Scraping Surface for Large Pelagic Fishes: Possible Implications for Parasite Removal and Fitness in a Changing Ocean. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0275458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Murray, S.; Meeuwig, J.J.; Thompson, C.D.H.; Mouillot, D. Identifying the Drivers of Silky Shark Distribution and an Evaluation of Protection Measures. Environ. Biol. Fishes 2023, 106, 1693–1713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Espinoza, M.; Cappo, M.; Heupel, M.R.; Tobin, A.J.; Simpfendorfer, C.A. Quantifying Shark Distribution Patterns and Species-Habitat Associations: Implications of Marine Park Zoning. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e106885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Santana-Garcon, J.; Newman, S.J.; Langlois, T.J.; Harvey, E.S. Effects of a Spatial Closure on Highly Mobile Fish Species: An Assessment Using Pelagic Stereo-BRUVs. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2014, 460, 153–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Currey-Randall, L.M.; Cappo, M.; Simpfendorfer, C.A.; Farabaugh, N.F.; Heupel, M.R. Optimal Soak Times for Baited Remote Underwater Video Station Surveys of Reef-Associated Elasmobranchs. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0231688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Barnett, A.; Fitzpatrick, R.; Bradley, M.; Miller, I.; Sheaves, M.; Chin, A.; Smith, B.; Diedrich, A.; Yick, J.L.; Lubitz, N.; et al. Scientific Response to a Cluster of Shark Bites. People Nat. 2022, 4, 963–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Albano, P.S.; Fallows, C.; Fallows, M.; Schuitema, O.; Bernard, A.T.F.; Sedgwick, O.; Hammerschlag, N. Successful Parks for Sharks: No-Take Marine Reserve Provides Conservation Benefits to Endemic and Threatened Sharks off South Africa. Biol. Conserv. 2021, 261, 109302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Andradi-Brown, D.A.; Macaya-Solis, C.; Exton, D.A.; Gress, E.; Wright, G.; Rogers, A.D. Assessing Caribbean Shallow and Mesophotic Reef Fish Communities Using Baited-Remote Underwater Video (BRUV) and Diver-Operated Video (DOV) Survey Techniques. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0168235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Archila, F.; Cardeñosa, D.; Bessudo, S.; Cuellar, A.; Muriel, F.; Carvajal, J.; Amariles, D.; Duarte, A. Monitoreo de Fauna Pelágica de Los Montes Submarinos Del Pacífico Colombiano Usando BRUVS. Biota Colomb. 2022, 24, e1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Barley, S.; Meekan, M.; Meeuwig, J. Species Diversity, Abundance, Biomass, Size and Trophic Structure of Fish on Coral Reefs in Relation to Shark Abundance. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2017, 565, 163–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bernard, A.; Götz, A. Bait Increases the Precision in Count Data from Remote Underwater Video for Most Subtidal Reef Fish in the Warm-Temperate Agulhas Bioregion. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2012, 471, 235–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Blampied, S.R.; Rees, S.E.; Attrill, M.J.; Binney, F.C.T.; Sheehan, E.V. Removal of Bottom-Towed Fishing from Whole-Site Marine Protected Areas Promotes Mobile Species Biodiversity. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2022, 276, 108033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bond, M.E.; Babcock, E.A.; Pikitch, E.K.; Abercrombie, D.L.; Lamb, N.F.; Chapman, D.D. Reef Sharks Exhibit Site-Fidelity and Higher Relative Abundance in Marine Reserves on the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e32983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bouchet, P.J.; Meeuwig, J.J. Drifting Baited Stereo-videography: A Novel Sampling Tool for Surveying Pelagic Wildlife in Offshore Marine Reserves. Ecosphere 2015, 6, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Boussarie, G.; Bakker, J.; Wangensteen, O.S.; Mariani, S.; Bonnin, L.; Juhel, J.-B.; Kiszka, J.J.; Kulbicki, M.; Manel, S.; Robbins, W.D.; et al. Environmental DNA Illuminates the Dark Diversity of Sharks. Sci. Adv. 2018, 4, eaap9661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bradley, D.; Papastamatiou, Y.; Caselle, J. No Persistent Behavioural Effects of SCUBA Diving on Reef Sharks. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2017, 567, 173–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bruns, S.; Henderson, A.C. A Baited Remote Underwater Video System (BRUVS) Assessment of Elasmobranch Diversity and Abundance on the Eastern Caicos Bank (Turks and Caicos Islands); an Environment in Transition. Environ. Biol. Fishes 2020, 103, 1001–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cáceres, C.; Kiszka, J.J.; Luna-Acosta, A.; Herrera, H.; Zarza, E.; Heithaus, M.R. Predatory Fish Exploitation and Relative Abundance in a Data-poor Region from the Caribbean Coast of Colombia, Inferred from Artisanal Fishery Interview Surveys and Baited Remote Underwater Video Systems. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2022, 32, 1401–1415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cambra, M.; Lara-Lizardi, F.; Peñaherrera-Palma, C.; Hearn, A.; Ketchum, J.T.; Zarate, P.; Chacón, C.; Suárez-Moncada, J.; Herrera, E.; Espinoza, M. A First Assessment of the Distribution and Abundance of Large Pelagic Species at Cocos Ridge Seamounts (Eastern Tropical Pacific) Using Drifting Pelagic Baited Remote Cameras. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0244343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Cattano, C.; Gambardella, C.; Grancagnolo, D.; Principato, E.; Aglieri, G.; Turco, G.; Quattrocchi, F.; Milazzo, M. Multiple Interannual Records of Young-of-the-Year Identify an Important Area for the Protection of the Shortfin Mako, Isurus Oxyrinchus. Mar. Environ. Res. 2023, 192, 106217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Chevis, M.G.; Graham, R.T. Insights into Elasmobranch Composition, Abundance, and Distribution in the Bocas Del Toro Archipelago, Panama Using Fisheries-Independent Monitoring. Lat. Am. J. Aquat. Res. 2022, 50, 492–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Chiriboga-Paredes, Y.; Palomino, Á.; Goodman, L.; Córdova, F.; Páez, V.; Yépez, M.; Jorgensen, S.; Armijos, D.; Pazmiño, D.; Hearn, A. Discovery of a Putative Scalloped Hammerhead Shark Sphyrna Lewini (Carcharhiniformes: Sphyrnidae) Nursery Site at the Galapagos Islands, Eastern Tropical Pacific. Environ. Biol. Fishes 2022, 105, 181–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Clarke, C.; Lea, J.; Ormond, R. Comparative Abundance of Reef Sharks in the Western Indian Ocean. In Proceedings of the 12th International Coral Reef Symposium, Cairns, QLD, Australia, 9–13 July 2012; pp. 9–13. [Google Scholar]
  45. Colton, M.; Swearer, S. A Comparison of Two Survey Methods: Differences between Underwater Visual Census and Baited Remote Underwater Video. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2010, 400, 19–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. De Vos, L.; Götz, A.; Winker, H.; Attwood, C. Optimal BRUVs (Baited Remote Underwater Video System) Survey Design for Reef Fish Monitoring in the Stilbaai Marine Protected Area. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 2014, 36, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. De Vos, L.; Watson, R.; Götz, A.; Attwood, C. Baited Remote Underwater Video System (BRUVs) Survey of Chondrichthyan Diversity in False Bay, South Africa. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 2015, 37, 209–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Espinoza, M.; Araya-Arce, T.; Chaves-Zamora, I.; Chinchilla, I.; Cambra, M. Monitoring Elasmobranch Assemblages in a Data-Poor Country from the Eastern Tropical Pacific Using Baited Remote Underwater Video Stations. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 17175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Flowers, K.; Babcock, E.; Papastamatiou, Y.; Bond, M.; Lamb, N.; Miranda, A.; Nuñez, R.; Valentin-Albanese, J.; Clementi, G.; Kelley, M.; et al. Varying Reef Shark Abundance Trends inside a Marine Reserve: Evidence of a Caribbean Reef Shark Decline. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2022, 683, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gallagher, A.J.; Shipley, O.N.; De Silva, C.; Kohler, J.K.; Fernandes, T.F.; Austin, T.; Ormond, R.F.; Gore, M.A. First Records of the Blurred Lantern Shark Etmopterus Bigelowi from the Cayman Islands, Western Atlantic. Front. Mar. Sci. 2023, 10, 1165207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Goetze, J.S.; Fullwood, L.A.F. Fiji’s Largest Marine Reserve Benefits Reef Sharks. Coral Reefs 2013, 32, 121–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gold, Z.; Koch, M.Q.; Schooler, N.K.; Emery, K.A.; Dugan, J.E.; Miller, R.J.; Page, H.M.; Schroeder, D.M.; Hubbard, D.M.; Madden, J.R.; et al. A Comparison of Biomonitoring Methodologies for Surf Zone Fish Communities. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0260903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Gore, M.; Ormond, R.; Clarke, C.; Kohler, J.; Millar, C.; Brooks, E. Application of Photo-Identification and Lengthened Deployment Periods to Baited Remote Underwater Video Stations (BRUVS) Abundance Estimates of Coral Reef Sharks. Oceans 2020, 1, 274–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Harasti, D.; Lee, K.A.; Laird, R.; Bradford, R.; Bruce, B. Use of Stereo Baited Remote Underwater Video Systems to Estimate the Presence and Size of White Sharks (Carcharodon Carcharias). Mar. Freshw. Res. 2017, 68, 1391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Harasti, D.; Davis, T.; Williams, J.; Bradford, R. Estimating Growth in Juvenile White Sharks Using Stereo Baited Remote Underwater Video Systems (Stereo-BRUVs). Rep. Natl. Environ. Sci. Program Mar. Biodivers. Hub 2019, 1–23. [Google Scholar]
  56. Hardinge, J.; Harvey, E.S.; Saunders, B.J.; Newman, S.J. A Little Bait Goes a Long Way: The Influence of Bait Quantity on a Temperate Fish Assemblage Sampled Using Stereo-BRUVs. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2013, 449, 250–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Harvey, E.S.; Newman, S.J.; McLean, D.L.; Cappo, M.; Meeuwig, J.J.; Skepper, C.L. Comparison of the Relative Efficiencies of Stereo-BRUVs and Traps for Sampling Tropical Continental Shelf Demersal Fishes. Fish. Res. 2012, 125–126, 108–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Heagney, E.; Lynch, T.; Babcock, R.; Suthers, I. Pelagic Fish Assemblages Assessed Using Mid-Water Baited Video: Standardising Fish Counts Using Bait Plume Size. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2007, 350, 255–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Heldsinger, M.; Hepburn, C.; Jowett, T.; Rayment, W. Small Marine Reserves Provide Conservation Benefits for Coastal Sharks in Southern New Zealand. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2023, 33, 144–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Henderson, A.C.; Smith, C.; Bruns, S. Fussy Eaters, Bait Loss and Escapees: How Reliable Are Baited-Hook Assessments of Shark Abundance in Shallow, Coastal Waters? J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2022, 556, 151794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hill, N.A.; Barrett, N.; Lawrence, E.; Hulls, J.; Dambacher, J.M.; Nichol, S.; Williams, A.; Hayes, K.R. Quantifying Fish Assemblages in Large, Offshore Marine Protected Areas: An Australian Case Study. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e110831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Jabado, R.W.; Al Hameli, S.M.; Grandcourt, E.M.; Al Dhaheri, S.S. Low Abundance of Sharks and Rays in Baited Remote Underwater Video Surveys in the Arabian Gulf. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 15597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Juhel, J.; Vigliola, L.; Mouillot, D.; Kulbicki, M.; Letessier, T.B.; Meeuwig, J.J.; Wantiez, L. Reef Accessibility Impairs the Protection of Sharks. J. Appl. Ecol. 2018, 55, 673–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Kiggins, R.S.; Knott, N.A.; Davis, A.R. Miniature Baited Remote Underwater Video (Mini-BRUV) Reveals the Response of Cryptic Fishes to Seagrass Cover. Environ. Biol. Fishes 2018, 101, 1717–1722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kilfoil, J.; Wirsing, A.; Campbell, M.; Kiszka, J.; Gastrich, K.; Heithaus, M.; Zhang, Y.; Bond, M. Baited Remote Underwater Video Surveys Undercount Sharks at High Densities: Insights from Full-Spherical Camera Technologies. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2017, 585, 113–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Klages, J.; Broad, A.; Kelaher, B.P.; Davis, A.R. The Influence of Gummy Sharks, Mustelus Antarcticus, on Observed Fish Assemblage Structure. Environ. Biol. Fishes 2014, 97, 215–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kohler, J.; Gore, M.; Ormond, R.; Austin, T. First Estimates of Population Size and Home Range of Caribbean Reef and Nurse Sharks Using Photo-Identification and BRUVS. Front. Mar. Sci. 2023, 10, 1230896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Letessier, T.B.; Meeuwig, J.J.; Gollock, M.; Groves, L.; Bouchet, P.J.; Chapuis, L.; Vianna, G.M.S.; Kemp, K.; Koldewey, H.J. Assessing Pelagic Fish Populations: The Application of Demersal Video Techniques to the Mid-Water Environment. Methods Oceanogr. 2013, 8, 41–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Lewis, R.; Dawson, S.; Rayment, W. Size Structure of Broadnose Sevengill Sharks (Notorynchus cepedianus) in Sawdust Bay, Rakiura/Stewart Island, Estimated Using Underwater Stereo-Photogrammetry. N. Z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2023, 57, 104–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Mitchell, J.D.; Schifiliti, M.; Birt, M.J.; Bond, T.; McLean, D.L.; Barnes, P.B.; Langlois, T.J. A Novel Experimental Approach to Investigate the Potential for Behavioural Change in Sharks in the Context of Depredation. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2020, 530–531, 151440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Murray, R.; Conales, S.; Araujo, G.; Labaja, J.; Snow, S.J.; Pierce, S.J.; Songco, A.; Ponzo, A. Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park: The First Comprehensive Elasmobranch Assessment Reveals Global Hotspot for Reef Sharks. J. Asia-Pac. Biodivers. 2019, 12, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. O’Connell, C.P.; Payne, M.; Payne, S.; Eller, L.J.; Shaw, J.; McGregor, A.; Rerekura, A.; Stewart, M.; Fox, A. Observations of Multiple Young-of-the-Year to Juvenile White Sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) within South-West Australian Waters and Its Implications for a Potential Nursery Area(s). J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. de Oliveira-Junior, W.M.; Spaet, J.L.Y.; de, S. Rosa, R.; Santos, A. First Record of the Critically Endangered Great Hammerhead Shark (Sphyrna mokarran) in Its Natural Habitat in the Coast of Paraíba, Northeastern Brazil. Gaia Sci. 2022, 16, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  74. Osgood, G.J.; McCord, M.E.; Baum, J.K. Using Baited Remote Underwater Videos (BRUVs) to Characterize Chondrichthyan Communities in a Global Biodiversity Hotspot. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0225859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Ovegård, M.; Högvall, J.; Ovegård, M.; Wikström, A.; Wennhage, H. Previously Undocumented Relationship between Spiny Dogfish Squalus Acanthias and Juvenile Atlantic Horse Mackerel Trachurus Trachurus Revealed by Stereo-BRUV. Environ. Biol. Fishes 2022, 105, 453–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Parmegiani, A.; Gobbato, J.; Seveso, D.; Galli, P.; Montano, S. First Record of the Bull Shark Carcharhinus leucas (Valenciennes, 1839) from the Maldivian Archipelago, Central Indian Ocean. J. Fish Biol. 2023, 103, 1242–1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Parton, K.J.; Doherty, P.D.; Parrish, M.; Shearer, P.; Myrick, K.; Shipley, O.N.; Gallagher, A.J. Opportunistic Camera Surveys Provide Insight into Discrete Foraging Behaviours in Nurse Sharks (Ginglymostoma cirratum). Environ. Biol. Fishes 2023, 106, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Prat-Varela, A.; Torres, A.; Cervantes, D.; Aquino-Baleytó, M.; Abril, A.-M.; Clua, E.E.G. Improved Baited Remote Underwater Video (BRUV) for 24 h Real-Time Monitoring of Pelagic and Demersal Marine Species from the Epipelagic Zone. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Priede, I.G.; Bagley, P.M.; Smith, A.; Creasey, S.; Merrett, N.R. Scavenging Deep Demersal Fishes of the Porcupine Seabight, North-East Atlantic: Observations by Baited Camera, Trap and Trawl. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 1994, 74, 481–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Pimentel, C.R.; Andrades, R.; Ferreira, C.E.L.; Gadig, O.B.F.; Harvey, E.S.; Joyeux, J.; Giarrizzo, T. BRUVS Reveal Locally Extinct Shark and the Way for Shark Monitoring in Brazilian Oceanic Islands. J. Fish Biol. 2020, 96, 539–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Rizzari, J.R.; Frisch, A.J.; Connolly, S.R. How Robust Are Estimates of Coral Reef Shark Depletion? Biol. Conserv. 2014, 176, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Santana-Garcon, J.; Braccini, M.; Langlois, T.J.; Newman, S.J.; McAuley, R.B.; Harvey, E.S. Calibration of Pelagic Stereo- BRUV s and Scientific Longline Surveys for Sampling Sharks. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2014, 5, 824–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Santana-Garcon, J.; Newman, S.J.; Harvey, E.S. Development and Validation of a Mid-Water Baited Stereo-Video Technique for Investigating Pelagic Fish Assemblages. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2014, 452, 82–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Sherman, C.S.; Chin, A.; Heupel, M.R.; Simpfendorfer, C.A. Are We Underestimating Elasmobranch Abundances on Baited Remote Underwater Video Systems (BRUVS) Using Traditional Metrics? J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2018, 503, 80–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Sherman, C.S.; Heupel, M.R.; Johnson, M.; Kaimuddin, M.; Qamar, L.M.S.; Chin, A.; Simpfendorfer, C.A. Repeatability of Baited Remote Underwater Video Station (BRUVS) Results within and between Seasons. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0244154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Spaet, J.L.Y.; Nanninga, G.B.; Berumen, M.L. Ongoing Decline of Shark Populations in the Eastern Red Sea. Biol. Conserv. 2016, 201, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Stobart, B.; García-Charton, J.A.; Espejo, C.; Rochel, E.; Goñi, R.; Reñones, O.; Herrero, A.; Crec’hriou, R.; Polti, S.; Marcos, C.; et al. A Baited Underwater Video Technique to Assess Shallow-Water Mediterranean Fish Assemblages: Methodological Evaluation. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2007, 345, 158–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Taylor, M.D.; Baker, J.; Suthers, I.M. Tidal Currents, Sampling Effort and Baited Remote Underwater Video (BRUV) Surveys: Are We Drawing the Right Conclusions? Fish. Res. 2013, 140, 96–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Torres, A.; Abril, A.-M.; Clua, E.E.G. A Time-Extended (24 h) Baited Remote Underwater Video (BRUV) for Monitoring Pelagic and Nocturnal Marine Species. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Unsworth, R.K.F.; Peters, J.R.; McCloskey, R.M.; Hinder, S.L. Optimising Stereo Baited Underwater Video for Sampling Fish and Invertebrates in Temperate Coastal Habitats. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2014, 150, 281–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. White, J.; Simpfendorfer, C.A.; Tobin, A.J.; Heupel, M.R. Application of Baited Remote Underwater Video Surveys to Quantify Spatial Distribution of Elasmobranchs at an Ecosystem Scale. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2013, 448, 281–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Wraith, J.; Lynch, T.; Minchinton, T.; Broad, A.; Davis, A. Bait Type Affects Fish Assemblages and Feeding Guilds Observed at Baited Remote Underwater Video Stations. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2013, 477, 189–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Zintzen, V.; Anderson, M.J.; Roberts, C.D.; Harvey, E.S.; Stewart, A.L.; Struthers, C.D. Diversity and Composition of Demersal Fishes along a Depth Gradient Assessed by Baited Remote Underwater Stereo-Video. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e48522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Malcolm, H.; Gladstone, W.; Lindfield, S.; Wraith, J.; Lynch, T. Spatial and Temporal Variation in Reef Fish Assemblages of Marine Parks in New South Wales, Australia—Baited Video Observations. Mar. Ecol.-Prog. Ser. Mar. Ecol-Progr. Ser. 2007, 350, 277–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Anderson, S.D.; Goldman, K. Photographic Evidence of White Shark Movements in California Waters. Calif. Fish Game 1996, 82, 182–186. [Google Scholar]
  96. Heithaus, M. The Biology of Tiger Sharks, Galeocerdo Cuvier, in Shark Bay, Western Australia: Sex Ratio, Size Distribution, Diet, and Seasonal Changes in Catch Rates. Environ. Biol. Fishes 2001, 61, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Dulvy, N.K.; Fowler, S.L.; Musick, J.A.; Cavanagh, R.D.; Kyne, P.M.; Harrison, L.R.; Carlson, J.K.; Davidson, L.N.; Fordham, S.V.; Francis, M.P.; et al. Extinction Risk and Conservation of the World’s Sharks and Rays. eLife 2014, 3, e00590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Goetze, J.; Langlois, T.; Egli, D.; Harvey, E. Evidence of Artisanal Fishing Impacts and Depth Refuge in Assemblages of Fijian Reef Fish. Coral Reefs 2011, 30, 507–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Langlois, T.; Goetze, J.; Bond, T.; Monk, J.; Abesamis, R.; Asher, J.; Barrett, N.; Bernard, A.; Bouchet, P.; Birt, M.; et al. A Field and Video-annotation Guide for Baited Remote Underwater Stereo-video Surveys of Demersal Fish Assemblages. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2020, 11, 1401–1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Manduca, G.; Padovani, L.; Carosio, E.; Graziani, G.; Stefanini, C.; Romano, D. Development of an Autonomous Fish-Inspired Robotic Platform for Aquaculture Inspection and Management. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE International Workshop on Metrology for Agriculture and Forestry (MetroAgriFor), Pisa, Italy, 6–8 November 2023; pp. 188–193. [Google Scholar]
  101. Bayat, B.; Crespi, A.; Ijspeert, A. Envirobot: A Bio-Inspired Environmental Monitoring Platform. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE/OES Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUV), Tokyo, Japan, 6–9 November 2016; pp. 381–386. [Google Scholar]
  102. Harvey, E.S.; Cappo, M.; Butler, J.J.; Hall, N.; Kendrick, G.A. Bait Attraction Affects the Performance of Remote Underwater Video Stations in Assessment of Demersal Fish Community Structure. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2007, 350, 245–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Parker, D.; DeMartini, E. Evaluation of a Video Camera Technique for Indexing Abundances of Juvenile Pink Snapper, Pristipomoides Filamentosus, and Other Hawaiian Insular Shelf Fishes. Fish. Bull. 1995, 93, 67–77. [Google Scholar]
  104. Simpfendorfer, C.; Heupel, M.; White, W.; Dulvy, N. The Importance of Research and Public Opinion to Conservation Management of Sharks and Rays: A Synthesis. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2011, 62, 518–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Animals 14 01875 g001
Figure 1. Temporal distribution of the last 30 years of papers that used BRUVS to study Chondrichthyans worldwide.
Figure 1. Temporal distribution of the last 30 years of papers that used BRUVS to study Chondrichthyans worldwide.
Animals 14 01875 g001
Animals 14 01875 g002
Figure 2. Geographical distribution of the last 30 years of papers that used BRUVS to study Chondrichthyans worldwide.
Figure 2. Geographical distribution of the last 30 years of papers that used BRUVS to study Chondrichthyans worldwide.
Animals 14 01875 g002
Animals 14 01875 g003
Figure 3. Type of BRUVS: (a) benthic [11]; (b) deep-water drifting [35]; (c) mid-water or pelagic [83].
Figure 3. Type of BRUVS: (a) benthic [11]; (b) deep-water drifting [35]; (c) mid-water or pelagic [83].
Animals 14 01875 g003
Animals 14 01875 g004
Figure 4. Type of bait used for arming BRUVS.
Figure 4. Type of bait used for arming BRUVS.
Animals 14 01875 g004
Animals 14 01875 g005
Figure 5. Temporal trend of the type of bait used for arming BRUVS. Bait categories are shown with different colors.
Figure 5. Temporal trend of the type of bait used for arming BRUVS. Bait categories are shown with different colors.
Animals 14 01875 g005
Animals 14 01875 g006
Figure 6. Topics studied in Chondrichthyans using BRUVS.
Figure 6. Topics studied in Chondrichthyans using BRUVS.
Animals 14 01875 g006
Animals 14 01875 g007
Figure 7. The temporal trend of the topics investigated using BRUVS (Movements (2020), Habitat use (2022) and Growth (2019) were not included in the graph since they had only 1 record).
Figure 7. The temporal trend of the topics investigated using BRUVS (Movements (2020), Habitat use (2022) and Growth (2019) were not included in the graph since they had only 1 record).
Animals 14 01875 g007
Table 2. Families surveyed with BRUVS: the numbers of records recorded in the literature reviewed are given.
Table 2. Families surveyed with BRUVS: the numbers of records recorded in the literature reviewed are given.
Familyn° Records
Carcharhinidae238
Dasyatidae83
Sphyrnidae37
Scyliorhinidae32
Triakidae32
Myliobatidae28
Ginglymostomatidae23
Rhinobatidae19
Rajidae13
Lamnidae12
Rhinidae11
Squalidae11
Hemigaleidae8
Hexanchidae8
Stegostomatidae8
Hemiscylliidae7
Mobulidae6
Urotrygonidae6
Alopiidae5
Etmopteridae5
Heterodontidae5
Orectolobidae5
Rhincodontidae5
Aetobatidae4
Glaucostegidae4
Urolophidae4
Chimaeridae3
Gymnuridae3
Narcinidae3
Odontaspididae3
Potamotrygonidae3
Somniosidae3
Callorhinchidae2
Arhynchobatidae1
Centrophoridae1
Dalatiidae1
Platyrhinidae1
Pristidae1
Pristiophoridae1
Pseudotriakidae1
Rhinochimaeridae1
Squatinidae1
Trygonorrhinidae1
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Leonetti, F.L.; Bottaro, M.; Giglio, G.; Sperone, E. Studying Chondrichthyans Using Baited Remote Underwater Video Systems: A Review. Animals 2024, 14, 1875. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14131875

AMA Style

Leonetti FL, Bottaro M, Giglio G, Sperone E. Studying Chondrichthyans Using Baited Remote Underwater Video Systems: A Review. Animals. 2024; 14(13):1875. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14131875

Chicago/Turabian Style

Leonetti, Francesco Luigi, Massimiliano Bottaro, Gianni Giglio, and Emilio Sperone. 2024. "Studying Chondrichthyans Using Baited Remote Underwater Video Systems: A Review" Animals 14, no. 13: 1875. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14131875

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop