CRAMP experimental design allows detection of changes that can be attributed to various factors such as:
overuse (over-fishing, anchor damage, aquarium trade collection, etc.), sedimentation, nutrient loading, catastrophic natural events (storm wave impact, lava flows), coastal construction, urbanization, global warming (bleaching), introduced species, algal invasions, and fish and invertebrate diseases.
The emphasis of the program is on the major problems facing Hawaiian coral reefs as listed by managers and reef scientists during workshops and meetings held in Hawaii (1997-1998). These are:
over-fishing, sedimentation, eutrophication, and algal outbreaks.
CRAMP experimental design gives priority to areas where baseline data relevant to these issues were previously collected. Transect dimensions, number of replicates, and methods of evaluation have been selected to detect changes with statistical confidence. Standard techniques include the establishment of permanent transects to quantify fish, coral, algae, and invertebrates at study sites.
CRAMP researchers are quantifying changes that have occurred on coral reefs subjected to varying degrees of fishing pressure, sedimentation, eutrophication, and algal growth and are conducting experimental work in order to test hypotheses concerning the role of these environmental factors in the ecology of coral reefs. We are also in the process of resurveying, updating and integrating existing ecological information on an array of coral reefs that have been designated as areas of concern or, "hot spots," by managers and scientists.
SITE LAT LONG ISLAND SITE YEARS CODE NAME KaHan03m 22 12.656 159 30.727 Kauai Hanalei 2008,2009 KaHan08m 22 12.703 159 30.721 Kauai Hanalei 2008,2009
KaLim10m 22 13.544 159 34.755 Kauai Limahuli 2008,2009
OaAla03m 21.16.868 157.50.775 Oahu Ala Wai 2010
OaHan03m 21 16.113 157 41.700 Oahu Hanauma Bay 2009 OaHan08m 21 16.055 157 41.643 Oahu Hanauma Bay 2009
OaMok02m 21 26.209 157 47.223 Oahu Moku o Loe 2008 OaMok08m 21 26.221 157 47.221 Oahu Moku o Loe 2008
OaKpi03m 21 22.391 158 08.553 Oahu Kahe (Pili O Kahi) 2010 OaKpo03m 21 21.396 158 07.974 Oahu Kahe Point 2010
MoKma03m 21 04.179 157 00.014 Molokai Kamilioloa 2010 MoKma10m 21 04.090 157 00.055 Molokai Kamilioloa 2010
MoKmo03m 21 02.496 156 53.837 Molokai Kamalo 2010 MoKmo10m 21 02.248 156 53.854 Molokai Kamalo 2010
MoPal03m 21 05.352 157 06.460 Molokai Palaau 2010 MoPal10m 21 05.223 157 06.510 Molokai Palaau 2010
MaHoN03m 21 00.923 156 38.343 Maui Honolua 2008,2009 North
MaHoS03m 21 00.831 156 38.380 Maui Honolua 2008,2009 South
MaKah03m 20 56.257 156 41.595 Maui Kahekili 2008,2009 MaKah07m 20 56.274 156 41.623 Maui Kahekili 2009
MaKaP03m 20 36.089 156 26.214 Maui Kanehena Pt. 2008,2009 MaKaP10m 20 36.070 156 26.280 Maui Kanehena Pt. 2008,2009
MaKaB02m 20 37.049 156 26.241 Maui Kanehena Bay 2008 MaKaB04m 20 37.015 156 26.301 Maui Kanehena Bay 2008 MaKaB03m 20 37.015 156 26.301 Maui Kanehena Bay 2009
MaMaa03m 20 47.378 156 30.607 Maui Maalaea 2008,2009 MaMaa06m 20 47.332 156 30.596 Maui Maalaea 2008,2009
MaMol08m 20 37.889 156 29.795 Maui Molokini 2008,2009 MaMol13m 20 37.940 156 29.783 Maui Molokini 2008,2009
MaOlo03m 20 48.505 156 36.693 Maui Olowalu 2008,2009 MaOlo07m 20 48.363 156 36.733 Maui Olowalu 2008,2009
MaPua03m 20 51.369 156 40.033 Maui Puamana 2008,2009 MaPua13m 20 51.322 156 40.111 Maui Puamana 2008,2009
MaMah03m 20 57.436 156 41.252 Maui Mahinahina 2008,2009 MaMah10m 20 57.461 156 41.336 Maui Mahinahina 2008,2009
MaPap04m 20 55.307 156 25.572 Maui Papaula 2008,2009 MaPap10m 20 55.462 156 25.571 Maui Papaula 2008,2009
HaLaa03m 19 35.330 155 58.330 Hawaii Laaloa 2010 HaLaa10m 19 35.348 155 58.377 Hawaii Laaloa 2010
HaNen05m 19 30.733 155 57.473 Hawaii Nenue Pt. 2010 HaNen10m 19 30.708 155 57.504 Hawaii Nenue Pt. 2010
HaPel02m 20 01.500 155 49.500 Hawaii Pelekane 2010
METHODOLOGY Since the initial methods comparison in 1998, CRAMP has improved its methodology to keep up with advances in technology, replacing video with digital stills. Unlike prior digital cameras, recent cameras have resolution superior to video and the card media can store close to 1,000 high quality images. The initial costs of the equipment are lower and the images can be archived. The valuable in situ time is shorter as well as the time spent processing the images. Frame-grabbing is completely eliminated. The video camera cannot keep an exact distance from the bottom while the still camera mounted on a simple monopod assures a constant distance. With a still camera, there are no oblique angles that can affect results since the camera is held completely vertical by the monopod. It is however important to use consistent methodology when comparing sites spatially and/or temporally. Yet as newer and better technology is introduced it is important to update and upgrade methods. CRAMP began by using video techniques and replaced this with digital stills in 2003.
Prior to the switch, the compatibility of the methods was assessed through intercalibration, using both methods (video and digital still images) at a large number of sites (30) that encompassed a wide range of coral cover. Once the methods proved compatible, all subsequent surveys were conducted with digital cameras. Non-overlapping digital stills are taken to assess the characteristics of benthic populations. High resolution digital images are taken along a 10 m transect using an Olympus 5050 zoom digital camera with an Olympus PT050 underwater housing. The camera is mounted to an aluminum monopod frame, 1.7 m from the substrate to provide a 50x69 cm image. A 6 cm bar provides a measurement scale. The software program PhotoGrid (Bird 2001) is used to quantify percent cover, richness and diversity of corals, algal functional groups and substrate cover. Images are downloaded and the 20 non-overlapping images from each 10 m transect are imported into PhotoGrid where 50 randomly selected points are projected onto each image for a total of 1,000 points per transect.
INSTRUMENT TYPES: digital camera: Olympus 5050 zoom digital camera
Directory tree and files are as follows: data/ 0-data/ this denotes original files/directories as received by NODC
The original data were provided on 8 CDs. A directory was made for each CD, cd01/, cd02/,....cd08/. Within each directory, organization varies. Some do not have any subdirectories, only CSV files. Some have additional subdirectories to sort by islands and sites. A summary of directories and filenames is given in file ../data/0-data/NODC archive list.csv.
FILE: NODC archive list.csv TYPE: ASCII text comma-separated version CONTENT: column 1: CD on which data are found column 2: year of survey column 3: Island column 4: Site column 5: Date of survey column 6: filename for output of PhotoGrid in CSV format column 7: depth (m) column 8: notes
FILENAME for output of PhotoGrid in CSV format: Convention is yyIISSSDDm.csv yy : last two digits of year II : island (first two letters of island name) SSS : site (see STATIONS above) DDm : depth in meters (optional) TT : transect number note: sometimes TT is left off if only one transect some files are suffixed by c_
FILE FORMAT Fields in these files: Site Name - usually NA (not available) Station - usually NA Frame No - usually NA Image Date - usually NA, get survey (image) date from filename ID Name - equivalent to TaxonName in PointCount99, this is the species recorded but for some organisms if not identifiable to the species or even genus level then just to taxanomic level ID Code - usually NA
The following are PhotoGrid parameters equivalent to PointCount parameters of the same name. Point - Point number on the frame X - X coordinate on the image for each point Y - Y coordinate on the image for each point Intensity - value for the point Red - RGB value on the image Green - RGB value on the image Blue - RGB value on the image
Note, in some files, field=Species is equivalent to ID Name above.
Notes from Kuulei Rodgers concerning these paramters: "Point X and Y are the coodinates for each of the 50 points that are generated on an image. This way if you want to go back and check if it is correct or what someone called some organism it will regenerate the frame with the random points that were originally used. If for example you see Pavona maldivensis and want to see if that is correct because you don't think it is at that site and may have been interpreted, you can go back and look at point number 7 to see what is under it. The program will use the coordinates to reconstruct the original random points on that frame. Red, Green and Blue are just the exact colors as the person who first did the analysis saw it. Since you can adjust the color balance and the contrast, the program saves the adjustments so it can be revisited if need be later."
The remaining parameters can be ignored and are usally NA: Total Points,ID Date,Site ID,Site Code,Time Code,Institution,User Name,Habitat,WQS,Length,Depth
Potential frequently asked question: -The CRAMP website lists available benthic data parameters: coral and substrate cover. Can these be derived from the PhotoGrid data given? How?
Reply from Ku'ulei Rodgers: We use ACCESS, a relational database that calculates these for us but it can be done in EXCEL as well by sorting alphabetically and deriving a percent of the total for each substrate type. For example if you have 10 points that are Porites compressa and there are 20 frames with 50 points on each, this would be 10 out of 1000 points for the whole transect so 1% cover. This is then done for each substrate type. Then all the coral species percentages are added together for a total coral cover number.
-This format is slightly different from the PhotoGrid output of previous years. Any significance?
Reply from Ku'ulei Rodgers: No significance. The Maui guys have added some algal species and other substrate types because they want to know if there is any correlation with increased algae and nutrient discharge.
Note, in some files, field=Species is equivalent to ID Name above.