4.4 Article

Strategies, methods, and technologies adopted on the R.V. G.O. Sars MAR-ECO expedition to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge in 2004

Journal

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2007.09.017

Keywords

mid-ocean ridge; station data; sampling gear; instruments; hydrography; biological data and collections

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The MAR-ECO project aimed to gather information on mid-ocean ridge macro- and megafaunal assemblages and their distribution patterns in relation to the abiotic environment, and the target area extended from Iceland to the Azores, comprising waters associated with the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Strategies and methods adopted on the 200.4 international expedition on the RN. G.O. Sars and M.S. Loran were selected in order to maximise data and sample collection in all pelagic and benthic habitats to a maximum depth of 3500 m, spanning the organism size range from mm to metres. The approach selected was to combine (1) Continuous sampling along the ship's track, (2) Point observations using a pre-defined set of samplers at pre-determined sites; and (3) Opportunistic sampling to study particular phenomena or carry out exceptional tasks. A wide range of nets and mid-water and bottom trawls were mobilised in order to collect biological samples. Hull-mounted, lowered and towed optical and acoustical instruments collected data and images. Two remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) were used for pelagic and demersal studies, and moored echosounders and cameras on benthic landers collected vessel-independent information. Observation of whales and seabirds were made from a custom-built observation area on top of the wheelhouse. Using a range of technologies from the same platform efficiently provided comprehensive results and enhanced the potential for new discoveries at the organism, community, and ecosystem levels. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available