4.7 Article

Systematic global assessment of reef fish communities by the Reef Life Survey program

Journal

SCIENTIFIC DATA
Volume 1, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sdata.2014.7

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council
  2. Fulbright Visiting Scholarship
  3. Winston Churchill Memorial Trust Fellowship
  4. Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies
  5. Marine Biodiversity Hub
  6. Australian Government's National Environmental Research Program
  7. National Geographic Society
  8. Conservation International
  9. Wildlife Conservation Society
  10. Winifred Violet Scott Trust
  11. Ian Potter Foundation
  12. Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service
  13. University of Tasmania
  14. ASSEMBLE Marine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The assessment of patterns in macroecology, including those most relevant to global biodiversity conservation, has been hampered by a lack of quantitative data collected in a consistent manner over the global scale. Global analyses of species' abundance data typically rely on records aggregated from multiple studies where different sampling methods and varying levels of taxonomic and spatial resolution have been applied. Here we describe the Reef Life Survey (RLS) reef fish dataset, which contains 134,759 abundance records, of 2,367 fish taxa, from 1,879 sites in coral and rocky reefs distributed worldwide. Data were systematically collected using standardized methods, offering new opportunities to assess broad-scale spatial patterns in community structure. The development of such a large dataset was made possible through contributions of investigators associated with science and conservation agencies worldwide, and the assistance of a team of over 100 recreational SCUBA divers, who undertook training in scientific techniques for underwater surveys and voluntarily contributed skills, expertise and their time to data collection.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available