New publication: Flash photography impacts on fish – To flash or not to flash?

The final paper of my PhD thesis has just been published online in the journal Scientific Reports. The paper, titled “Behavioural and pathomorphological impacts of flash photography on benthic fishes” explains the effects of typical diver behaviour while photographing small critters such as seahorses or frogfishes.

The paper itself can be a tad technical, so with the help of two co-authors (Dr. Ben Saunders and Tanika Shalders), I wrote this summary of the research, which was published first at The Conversation (original article here).


We all enjoy watching animals, whether they’re our own pets, birds in the garden, or elephants on a safari during our holidays. People take pictures during many of these wildlife encounters, but not all of these photographic episodes are harmless.

There is no shortage of stories where the quest for the perfect animal picture results in wildlife harassment. Just taking photos is believed to cause harm in some cases – flash photography is banned in many aquariums as a result.

But it’s not always clear how bright camera flashes affect eyes that are so different from our own. Our latest research, published in Nature Scientific Reports, shows that flash photography does not damage the eyes of seahorses, but touching seahorses and other fish can alter their behaviour.

Look but don’t touch

In the ocean it is often easier to get close to your subject than on land. Slow-moving species such as seahorses rely on camouflage rather than flight responses. This makes it very easy for divers to approach within touching distance of the animals.

Previous research has shown that many divers cannot resist touching animals to encourage them to move so as to get a better shot. Additionally, the high-powered strobes used by keen underwater photographers frequently raise questions about the welfare of the animal being photographed. Do they cause eye damage or even blindness?

_MG_6706

Does flash harm fishes? Photo: Luke Gordon

Aquariums all around the world have taken well-meaning precautionary action. Most of us will have seen the signs that prohibit the use of flash photography.

Similarly, a variety of guidelines and laws exist in the scuba-diving community. In the United Kingdom, flash photography is prohibited around seahorses. Dive centres around the world have guidelines that include prohibiting flash or limiting the number of flashes per fish.

While all these guidelines are well-intended, none are based on scientific research. Proof of any damage is lacking. Our research investigated the effects of flash photography on slow-moving fish using three different experiments.

What our research found

During the first experiment we tested how different fish react to the typical behaviour of scuba-diving photographers. The results showed very clearly that touching has a very strong effect on seahorses, frogfishes and ghost pipefishes. The fish moved much more, either by turning away from the diver, or by swimming away to escape the poorly behaving divers. Flash photography, on the other hand, had no more effect than the presence of a diver simply watching the fishes.

For slow-moving fishes, every extra movement they make means a huge expense of energy. In the wild, seahorses need to hunt almost non-stop due to their primitive digestive system, so frequent interruptions by divers could lead to chronic stress or malnutrition.

The goal of the second experiment was to test how seahorses react to flash without humans present. To do this we kept 36 West Australian seahorses (Hippocampus subelongatus) in the aquarium facility at Curtin University. During the experiment we fed the seahorses with artemia (“sea monkeys”) and tested for changes in their behaviour, including how successful seahorses were at catching their prey while being flashed with underwater camera strobes.

img_8812

The aquaria were the seahorses were housed during the experiment

An important caveat to this experiment: the underwater strobes we used were much stronger than the flashes of normal cameras or phones. The strobes were used at maximum strength, which is not usually done while photographing small animals at close range. So our results represent a worst-case scenario that is unlikely to happen in the real world.

14808071_10154728145537608_910910029_o

West Australian seahorses (Hippocampus subelongatus) in their aquarium at Curtin University

The conclusive, yet somewhat surprising, result of this experiment was that even the highest flash treatment did not affect the feeding success of the seahorses. “Unflashed” seahorses spent just as much time hunting and catching prey as the flashed seahorses. These results are important, as they show that flashing a seahorse is not likely to change the short-term hunting success (or food intake) of seahorses.

We only observed a difference in the highest flash treatment (four flashes per minute, for ten minutes). Seahorses in this group spent less time resting and sometimes showed “startled” reactions. These reactions looked like the start of an escape reaction, but since the seahorses were in an aquarium, escape was impossible. In the ocean or a large aquarium seahorses would simply move away, which would end the disturbance.

Our last experiment tested if seahorses indeed “go blind” by being exposed to strong flashes. In scientific lingo: we tested if flash photography caused any “pathomorphological” impacts. To do this we euthanised (following strict ethical protocols) some of the unflashed and highly flashed seahorses from the previous experiments. The eyes of the seahorses were then investigated to look for any potential damage.

The results? We found no effects in any of the variables we tested. After more than 4,600 flashes, we can confidently say that the seahorses in our experiments suffered no negative consequences to their visual system.

What this means for scuba divers

A potential explanation as to why flash has no negative impact is the ripple effect caused by sunlight focusing through waves or wavelets on a sunny day. These bands of light are of a very short duration, but very high intensity (up to 100 times stronger than without the ripple effect). Fish living in such conditions would have evolved to deal with such rapidly changing light conditions.

This of course raises the question: would our results be the same for deep-water species? That’s a question for another study, perhaps.

So what does this mean for aquariums and scuba diving? We really should focus on not touching animals, rather than worrying about the flash.

Flash photography does not make seahorses blind or stop them from catching their prey. The strobes we used had a higher intensity than those usually used by aquarium visitors or divers, so it is highly unlikely that normal flashes will cause any damage. Touching, on the other hand, has a big effect on the well-being of marine life, so scuba divers should always keep their hands to themselves.

Luke_Snoot_Black Hairy

Look, take pictures, but don’t touch!


NOTE: I realise that this is a controversial topic in underwater photography. If you have relevant questions, comments, or thoughts you want to share, feel free to add them in the comment section below. If you are interested, I would highly advise you to read the original research paper via this link. The paper is open access, so anyone can read and download it. If you have specific questions about the paper, you can always contact me via email here.

Advertisements

Finding the Knysna Seahorse: Mini-blog 3

IMG_1714

Kleine Monde

Today was busy, so not enough time to properly write. Instead, to give you an idea of what I do all day,  here is the schedule of today’s fieldwork.

  • 6:00 – Wake up
  • 6:30 – Drive to first site (Kleine Monde)
  • 7:50 – Collect samples (Kleine Monde West, 2 locations)
  • 8:10 – Collect samples (Kleine Monde East, 2 locations)
  • 10:00 – Back at room, start filtering samples
  • 12:30 – Drive to site (Bushmans estuary)
  • 13:15 – Collect samples (Bushmans, 2 locations)
  • 14:50 – Back at room, start filtering samples
  • 19:30 – Realise samples contained more sediment than expected and that filtering will take twice as long as planned, eat food, drink some wine
  • 21:40 – Still filtering, drink tea, lots of tea
  • 23:25 – Finished filtering samples, time to clean up
  • 23:50 – Off to bed!
38704899_290774851475043_3374615427203203072_n

Louw on her way to sample Bushmans estuary

 

Finding the Knysna Seahorse: Mini-blog 1

Yesterday I wrote about the exciting projects that are coming up, one of which looks at the Knysna Seahorse (Hippocampus capensis). The next two weeks I will be in the south of South Africa, where my friend Louw and I will to try to learn more about this endangered species. I promised I would try to give you frequent updates about what is going on, so here is the first of this fieldwork-mini-blog series.

I am extremely lucky that I get to travel to amazing places for my work, but sometimes the traveling alone is almost as much adventure as the actual work. Last night’s flight was late (not too much, just over an hour), but it meant that I’d struggle to make my connecting flight. It turned out there was no need to worry, since the domestic flight I was supposed to take had been cancelled altogether! Luckily I got a place on a different flight a few hours later (with “Mango Air”) which brought me to my final destination, George. In George I got picked up by Louw, and after a minor struggle to get all our equipment in the car, we drove off to the first fieldwork location, another 5 hour drive from the airport.

20180806_135439

Arrival in George, with the very orange plane of Mango Air

Which brings us to the reason why we are doing this project, the Knysna seahorse. This species is quite special, but not necessarily for the right reasons. It only occurs in a few estuaries in the very southern tip of South Africa, in the Knysna region. Since it is so isolated, and only occurs in so few places, any environmental impacts can have a big effect on the species. Because of this unique situation, the species is listed as “Endangered” in the IUCN Red List.

You might be wondering “That’s all fine, but what are you two going to do about it?”. The main goal of this project is to figure out exactly WHERE the seahorses live, and if there are places where they are present that might have been overlooked in the past. Finding (or just as important, NOT finding) these new places are important for managing this species. We will do this not by diving and looking for them, but by using a shiny new method called “Environmental DNA” (or “eDNA” for short).

20180806_173815

The eDNA mobile

I will explain what exactly eDNA is in a future blog, but we will basically be scooping up water and then filtering that water to find traces of seahorse DNA. These traces will tell us whether or not seahorses are present in the estuary we just visited. The benefit of this method is that there is no need to go in the water, where it is easy to miss camouflaged species like seahorses. It also avoids using other, more destructive methods, like using fish poison to find out what is around you.