红海更新世珊瑚礁的三种常见采样技术:比较。

Geological Society special publication Pub Date : 2023-07-03 Epub Date: 2023-04-04 DOI:10.1144/SP529-2022-227
Angelina Ivkić, Felix Puff, Andreas Kroh, Abbas Mansour, Mohamed Osman, Mohamed Hassan, Abo El Hagag Ahmed, Martin Zuschin
{"title":"红海更新世珊瑚礁的三种常见采样技术:比较。","authors":"Angelina Ivkić, Felix Puff, Andreas Kroh, Abbas Mansour, Mohamed Osman, Mohamed Hassan, Abo El Hagag Ahmed, Martin Zuschin","doi":"10.1144/SP529-2022-227","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Line Intercept Transects (LIT), Point Intercept Transects (PIT), and Photoquadrats (PQ) are the most common quantitative sampling techniques in modern and fossil coral reefs. Data from coral reefs obtained by the different methods are generally compared between various reef ages and localities. Quaternary reefs from warmer interglacial periods, which represent climate scenarios projected for the future, are particularly interesting for comparisons with modern reefs. Importantly, fossil reefs differ from modern reefs because they are diagenetically altered and time averaged. While several studies have compared different quantitative methods in modern reefs, very few have dealt with the comparability among fossil and between fossil and modern reefs. Here, we compare LIT, PIT at 10, 20 and 50 cm intervals, and PQ in two Pleistocene reef localities in Egypt. We find that alpha diversity, reef cover and community composition are dependent on the method. Results gained with plotless methods (LIT, PIT) differ strongly from results gained with plot methods (PQ). However, coral cover results are similar between LIT and PIT, and community composition is indistinguishable between the two, but alpha diversity depends on the interval used for PIT. We discuss the implications of our findings for comparing coral reefs of various ages and localities. We recommend surveying Pleistocene reefs with PIT at 20 cm intervals. This is because A) alpha diversity is well captured, B) the amount of time averaging recorded by PIT is reduced compared to PQ, C) the PIT results can be directly compared to reefs analyzed by LIT, and D) the method is less time consuming than LIT and PQ.</p>","PeriodicalId":90505,"journal":{"name":"Geological Society special publication","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7615226/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Three common sampling techniques in Pleistocene coral reefs of the Red Sea: a comparison.\",\"authors\":\"Angelina Ivkić, Felix Puff, Andreas Kroh, Abbas Mansour, Mohamed Osman, Mohamed Hassan, Abo El Hagag Ahmed, Martin Zuschin\",\"doi\":\"10.1144/SP529-2022-227\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Line Intercept Transects (LIT), Point Intercept Transects (PIT), and Photoquadrats (PQ) are the most common quantitative sampling techniques in modern and fossil coral reefs. Data from coral reefs obtained by the different methods are generally compared between various reef ages and localities. Quaternary reefs from warmer interglacial periods, which represent climate scenarios projected for the future, are particularly interesting for comparisons with modern reefs. Importantly, fossil reefs differ from modern reefs because they are diagenetically altered and time averaged. While several studies have compared different quantitative methods in modern reefs, very few have dealt with the comparability among fossil and between fossil and modern reefs. Here, we compare LIT, PIT at 10, 20 and 50 cm intervals, and PQ in two Pleistocene reef localities in Egypt. We find that alpha diversity, reef cover and community composition are dependent on the method. Results gained with plotless methods (LIT, PIT) differ strongly from results gained with plot methods (PQ). However, coral cover results are similar between LIT and PIT, and community composition is indistinguishable between the two, but alpha diversity depends on the interval used for PIT. We discuss the implications of our findings for comparing coral reefs of various ages and localities. We recommend surveying Pleistocene reefs with PIT at 20 cm intervals. This is because A) alpha diversity is well captured, B) the amount of time averaging recorded by PIT is reduced compared to PQ, C) the PIT results can be directly compared to reefs analyzed by LIT, and D) the method is less time consuming than LIT and PQ.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":90505,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Geological Society special publication\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7615226/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Geological Society special publication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1144/SP529-2022-227\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/4/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geological Society special publication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1144/SP529-2022-227","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/4/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

线截取剖面(LIT)、点截取剖面(PIT)和光象限(PQ)是现代珊瑚礁和化石珊瑚礁中最常见的定量采样技术。通过不同方法获得的珊瑚礁数据通常在不同的珊瑚礁年龄和地点之间进行比较。温暖间冰期的第四纪珊瑚礁代表了未来的气候情景,与现代珊瑚礁相比尤其有趣。重要的是,化石珊瑚礁与现代珊瑚礁不同,因为它们在成岩作用上发生了改变,并且是时间平均的。虽然有几项研究比较了现代珊瑚礁中不同的定量方法,但很少有研究涉及化石之间以及化石与现代珊瑚礁之间的可比性。在这里,我们比较了10、20和50厘米间隔的LIT、PIT,以及埃及两个更新世珊瑚礁地区的PQ。我们发现阿尔法多样性、珊瑚礁覆盖和群落组成取决于该方法。用无标绘图法(LIT、PIT)获得的结果与用标绘图法获得的结果有很大差异。然而,LIT和PIT之间的珊瑚覆盖结果相似,两者之间的群落组成无法区分,但α多样性取决于PIT使用的间隔。我们讨论了我们的发现对比较不同年龄和地点的珊瑚礁的影响。我们建议使用PIT每隔20厘米测量更新世珊瑚礁。这是因为A)阿尔法多样性被很好地捕捉到,B)PIT记录的时间平均量与PQ相比减少了,C)PIT结果可以直接与LIT分析的珊瑚礁进行比较,以及D)该方法比LIT和PQ耗时更少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Three common sampling techniques in Pleistocene coral reefs of the Red Sea: a comparison.

Line Intercept Transects (LIT), Point Intercept Transects (PIT), and Photoquadrats (PQ) are the most common quantitative sampling techniques in modern and fossil coral reefs. Data from coral reefs obtained by the different methods are generally compared between various reef ages and localities. Quaternary reefs from warmer interglacial periods, which represent climate scenarios projected for the future, are particularly interesting for comparisons with modern reefs. Importantly, fossil reefs differ from modern reefs because they are diagenetically altered and time averaged. While several studies have compared different quantitative methods in modern reefs, very few have dealt with the comparability among fossil and between fossil and modern reefs. Here, we compare LIT, PIT at 10, 20 and 50 cm intervals, and PQ in two Pleistocene reef localities in Egypt. We find that alpha diversity, reef cover and community composition are dependent on the method. Results gained with plotless methods (LIT, PIT) differ strongly from results gained with plot methods (PQ). However, coral cover results are similar between LIT and PIT, and community composition is indistinguishable between the two, but alpha diversity depends on the interval used for PIT. We discuss the implications of our findings for comparing coral reefs of various ages and localities. We recommend surveying Pleistocene reefs with PIT at 20 cm intervals. This is because A) alpha diversity is well captured, B) the amount of time averaging recorded by PIT is reduced compared to PQ, C) the PIT results can be directly compared to reefs analyzed by LIT, and D) the method is less time consuming than LIT and PQ.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信