60 
Fishery Bulletin 1090) 
Table 1 
Number of baited stereo-video camera (BotCam) deployments that fell within the 100-m to 300-m depth contours and recorded 
video at Penguin Banks, Hawai i, between June 2006 and February 2007. Deployments are separated by habitat classification 
(substratum and slope), depth by 50-m bin, and time period, and the average maximum number (AveMaxNo) and standard error 
(SE) of counts of Etelis coruscans and Pristipomoides filamentosus by habitat type and depth. na=not available. 
Multibeam habitat 
classification 
Depth (m) 
Sample 
size 
Etelis coruscans 
Pristipomoides 
filamentosus 
Total 
Jun 6 
Jul 6 
Aug 6 
Dec 6 
Feb 7 
AveMaxNo SE 
AveMaxNo 
SE 
Hard bottom-high slope 
100-150 
3 
0 
0 
3 
0 
0 
0.0 
na 
1.3 
1.3 
150-200 
9 
1 
6 
2 
0 
0 
0.0 
na 
3.0 
1.5 
200-250 
16 
1 
10 
5 
0 
0 
1.9 
1.0 
1.5 
0.6 
250-300 
10 
1 
4 
5 
0 
0 
6.1 
3.0 
0.0 
na 
Soft bottom— high slope 
100-150 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0.0 
na 
1.0 
na 
150-200 
2 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
1.0 
1.0 
4.5 
0.5 
200-250 
5 
0 
1 
0 
2 
2 
0.0 
na 
1.8 
1.2 
250-300 
6 
1 
1 
1 
1 
2 
0.2 
0.2 
0.0 
na 
Hard bottom-low slope 
100-150 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0.0 
na 
4.0 
na 
150-200 
6 
0 
4 
1 
0 
1 
0.3 
0.2 
5.5 
4.3 
200-250 
6 
0 
2 
1 
1 
2 
1.7 
1.6 
1.4 
0.5 
250-300 
4 
2 
1 
1 
0 
0 
4.3 
4.3 
0.0 
na 
Soft bottom-low slope 
100-150 
2 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0.0 
na 
0.0 
na 
150-200 
1 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0.0 
na 
5.0 
na 
200-250 
6 
0 
0 
0 
6 
0 
0.7 
0.7 
1.0 
0.8 
250-300 
4 
0 
2 
0 
1 
1 
0.8 
0.8 
0.0 
na 
Hawaiian bottomfish essential fish habitat; nine did not 
record because of technical failures; and three failed as 
a result of human errors. No equipment was lost during 
the study. 
All of Hawaii’s “deep 7” bottomfish species were re- 
corded on videotape (Fig. 2). Other species of note ob- 
served included goldflag snapper (Pristipomoid.es auri- 
cilla), greater amberjack ( Seriola dumerili ), large-head 
scorpionfish ( Pontinus macrocephalus), dawn boarfish 
(Antigonia eos) (Randall, 2007), shortspine spurdog 
( Squalus mitsukurii), and numerous carcharhinid 
sharks. The appearances of each species under ambient 
light conditions were noted, and a photo library of Bot- 
Cam videotapes was developed for species identification. 
MaxNo values for E. coruscans and P. filamentosus re- 
corded by BotCam varied between 0 and 29. MaxNo dis- 
tributions for the two species across the study area are 
shown in Figure 3, A and B, respectively. Etelis corus- 
cans was recorded at 21 locations and P. filamentosus at 
30 locations and both species were present throughout 
the study area. No linear relationship between MaxNo 
and TFA was detected, although the apparent pattern 
for both species was similar (Fig. 4). For both species, 
most TFAs were less than 200 seconds (3.3 minutes) 
and all MaxNos higher than five were reached within 
the first 200 seconds. 
Depth and the interaction of depth and habitat sig- 
nificantly affected E. coruscans MaxNo (P<0.05). The 
greatest MaxNo of E. coruscans was reached at depths 
between 250 and 300 m (P<0.01, Fig. 5A). Within this 
depth category, greater mean MaxNo for E. coruscans 
were found in habitats with a slope greater than 20 
degrees with either hard or soft bottom substratums 
(P<0.05, Fig. 5A). Pristipomoides filamentosus was more 
widely distributed than E. coruscans across the sampled 
depth range and substratum types. Habitat, depth, 
and their interaction significantly affected the MaxNo 
for P. filamentosus (P<0.05). The interaction of depth 
and slope significantly affected the MaxNo for P. fila- 
mentosus with the highest MaxNo observed between 
150 and 200 m regardless of habitat type (P<0.01, Fig. 
5B). No significant relationships were found between 
temperature and the MaxNo for either species (r 2 <0.10, 
P >0.05). 
In the experiment where model fish were measured, 
the average residual measurement error (the difference 
between the actual measurement and the measurement 
estimated from the photos) of the stereo-photogrammet- 
ric analysis was -3.1 mm (percent error of 0.5%) when 
the models were a distance of 3 m from the camera, and 
-8.8 mm (percent error of -1.3%) when models were 6 
m from the camera. However, the percent error does not 
appear to be a function of fish size within the range of 
models measured; therefore, the residual error appears 
to be a more relevant statistic to use when assessing 
variance (Table 2). 
In the video analysis from the actual survey, it was 
possible to measure 56 individual E. coruscans out of 
