EFFECTS OF LISTENING EXPERIENCE ON DECODING SPEECH IN HKLIOX ENVIRONMENTS

Harry Hollien, Ph.D. Carl L Thompson,Ph. D. IPCP andLinguistics Universityof Florida Gainesville,FLORIDA 32611 U. S A. Veteran'sAdministration Medical Center, NewOrleans, LOUISIANA 70146U.SA.

Thepurposeofthis experiment wasto assess 1!the ability of auditors todecode speechproduced inthe He02 envimnment and2! the effects oflistening experience uponthis skill/ability. Three pai red groups ofauditors listened toequated speech tasksand were tested on their ability to decode the heard utterances. The samples wereproduced bydivers situated inan underwater habitat atdepths upto 1000fsw Ofeach pair, one listener group was subjected todaily exposure ofHe02 speech samples no feedback! for twoweeks; the second group received no exposure. Findingsdemonstrated thatnormally hearing adults can decode about 25% of He02speech asheard and that some iru&iduals are much more adept at the task thanare others. Second, it was found that a simpleexposure to He02 speech resultedin a neardoubling of decoding ability and familiarity with the talkers furtherenhanced this capability.

INTRODUCTION Asmay be seen in Figure 1,it isnow well established thatthe combined effects ofthe 1!high ambient pressures, 2!helium/oxygen breathing gasmixtures and possibly! 3!high pressurenervous snyndrome, associated withsaturation diving, lead to severely distorted speech Bennett, 1967; Brauer, 1982; Brauer, etal, 1966; Fant and Sonnesson, 1964;Fant and Lindquist,1968; Fant, et al, 1971; Flower, 1969; Gelfand, etal, 1978; Hollien and Hicks, 1981; Hollienand Rothman, 1976; Hollien and Thompson, 1968; Hollien, et al,1973; Hollien and Hollien,1972; Holywell and Harvey, 1964; MacLean, 1966; Rothman, et al, 1980; Sergeant, 1963;Sergeant, 1968; White, 1955!. Indeed, even some ofthe specific speech distortions that haveresulted in theobserved communicative degradation have been identified Beil, 1962; Brubakerand Wurst, 1968; Hollien and Hicks, 1982; Hollien, et al, 1984; Hollien and Rothrnan, 1976;Hollien, et al, 1977;Rothman and Hollien, 1972; Sergeant, 1967!. Nese distorting effectsare further complicated by1! restricted system frequency response and 2! thehigh ambientnoise levels commonly found in habitats,chambers and the sea Brown, et al, 1977; Hollienand Rothman, 'l976!. In short,there appears to be aninverse relationship between

179 fearQ~nc&..1990 th 1 1of speech intelligiMity andhyperbaric dePth s e FIgure2!.This situation leapt, substanti'al communIca unicativedifficulties among aquanauts an4 with sup~~ surface.

aPPoach p~y emPloyedto compensate for this debilitating involvedthe development and use of rnachine/computerspeech resto Wonymous,1988; Belcher, 1980; Belcher, 1982; Copel, 1966 G;11 1972. G 1973;Golden, 1966; Holhen and Rothman, 1972 Quick, 197O. R;ch~

Aninformal but rather widespread observation that can be made is thatsome &en andtopside personnel demonstrate what appear to be remarkabledecoding abilities 1+ speechdistorted byheliox gas mixtures andhigh ambient pressures. They are able todo % e"enin th«ace of1! noise Brown, etal, 1977!, 2!poor transmitting conditions iftolwi 4 3!th e fectsofthe sea ifsubmerged! andthe effects ofhearing loss ifpressurized Edrnn< Ho%enand Feinstein, 1976; Molvaer and Lehmann 1985!. Are these skills ~~ve~~ y madvertenttraining to our knowledge, noformal training pron of thLsNpe existed "-Arne'li ''~ty ' ' wtthtalker idiosyncrasies ~ ~ or some combination of thesefa ~,' Obvlousl «>nonis needed in order to determinewhich of theseelean< 5 controlling.As a matter fact't isessential todemonstrate thatthis phenomeno~ ex5"~ the Grstplace. Hollieii &.Thompson: Decoding Speech in HeliosEnv~nr

PURPOSE

The primary goal of this project was to discoverif simple exposureto distorted speech--specificallyutterances produced in the He02/Penvironment would enhancean auditor'sability to decodeit. Subjectiveobservation would suggestthat, while a predictionof this type is possible,there presentlyare no publisheddata on the issue.Secondary goals were to discoverif: 1! someauditors could be expectedto showgreater native ability re: the task than others,2! the greatestincreases in skill werethey to occur!would be demonstratedby thoseindividuals exhibiting the highestnative ability and 3! familiar voiceswould lead to an upgradeof decodingability. Of course,it wouldbe expected that some listeners would show superiortalent for thistask. However, it is notat all clearas to whetheror not theyalso would demonstratethe mostpositive response to "training".Nor wasit at all clear if individualswho wereexposed to particulartalkers and, hence, becaine familiar with them,also would show the greatestamount of improvement.

METHOD

Threeexperiments were carried out. Thefirst one was conducted in orderto testthe hypothesisthat exposureto He02/Pdistorted speech would result in improveddecoding accuracy.The second experiinent was a siinplereplication of thefirst and the third focused primarilyon thepostulate that auditors fainiliar with a talkerwould demonstrate enhanced ability to correctlyunderstand the speechuttered.

Severaltypes of speechmaterials were utilized in theseexperiments. They included: 1!phonemically balanced lists seeCampbell, 1965! of 25words each, 2! theRainbow passage prose;99 words! and 3! exteinporaneousspeech. The word lists were used as stimuli when theexperimental or "training"!groups were exposed to theheliox speech at highpressures ie., He02/P!.

Thetalkers utilized in aHthree experiinents were eight aquanauts who had participated in theU.S. Navy's "Sealab" program. They were selected from over 25 individuals who had beenemployed assubjects in a largenumber ofcominunication experiments carried out by theinvestigators. Tobe included inthese experimeiits, it wasjudged that 1! each talker should exhibitabout average speech intelligibility, 2!all talkers within a groupoffour exhibit similar scoresand 3! the two sets of talkers exhibit incan iiitelligibility levels that were approximately equal.Additional selection criteria specified that each talker be assigned toread only a single Campbelllist and that the mean score when doing so should reflect about a 257ocorrect intelligibilitylevel seeTable 1!. Mostwords were drawn f rom readings ina hyperbaric

181 Divingfor Science...1990

chamber!at a simulateddepth of 450fsw; however, in order to makeup equatedtests, some wordswere obtained from listsread at otherdepths, The other speechmaterials were drawn from diversspeaking at all depths.As maybe seenfrom Table 1, diverscores ranged from 24.4% to 30.7%with the meansfor eachgroup slightly abovethe desired25% and ap- proximatelyequal. These data were obtained by repeatedlyplaying the tapes to groupsof 10-15listeners who had normalhearing and someexperience with heliox speech.The final 100words produced by thefour aquanautscomprising Group A wereemployed to construct Test I and the 100words uttered by Group B constitutedTest II.

The auditorsutilized in thisresearch were 64 young, healthy university students of both sexes.To be utilized asa subject,a volunteerhad to passa speechdiscrimination hearing test with a scoreof 92%correct or better. Twentyindividuals were randomly assigned to Experi- ment-1;20 to Experiment-2and the remaining24 to the third experiment.

Thesame procedure was utilized for all threeexperiments. First, the subjects assigned to eachexperiment were randomly! divided into two equal groups;thus, there were two groupsof 10subjects each in Experiments-1and 2 andtwo groups of 12listeners in Experi- ment-3.While the groups were not controlled for sex,each consisted of roughlyhalf men and halfwomen. The equipment utilized to recordthe speech samples varied; it wasdictated by thatavailable for usein the particularexperiment from which that test materialwas drawn. However,it was pretty much state-of-the-science for the time-frame during which the experi- ment was conducted. The apparatusused in the listener procedureswas high quality laboratoryequipment. It consistedof a Ampex251 reel-to-reel tape recorder operated at 7.5ips,Marantz power amplifiers and two AR-1 speaker systems. All listeningsessions were conductedin a largesound treated room which had been specifically constructed for aural- perceptual experiments. Thesame procedures were utilized for all threeexperiments; Test I wasadministered to onegroup of the pair andTest II to the other. After the two-weekperiod had elapsed, subjectsin GroupA whopreviously had been administered Test I! respondedto TestII and thosein Group B whohad heardTest II! were administeredTest I. During the interim two weekperiod, Group A received"training" and Group B didnot. Thatis, all membersof the first of the two groups only! cameto the laboratoryand listenedto taperecordings of diver/talkersproducing speech under a varietyof He02/Pconditions; they did sofor two hours eachweekday for the entireperiod total "exposure"time equaled20 hours!. No othertraining or anyfeedback was provided. As stated,the "non-training"group simply was administered TestII andthen TestI two weekslater. Experiments1 and2 wereidentical except different listenergroups were employed.On the other hand,not only were slightlylarger groupsof auditors employedin Experiment-3,but there also was a slight changein the "training" procedure. Specifically,the subjectsin the "training"group associatedwith Experiinent-3

182 Hollien & Thompson:Decoding Speech in HeliaxEnvirons continuallyheard speech samples produced by the four diver-talkers who then provided the utterancesfor their secondtest -- whereasthe "training"groups on the first two experiments firstheard the voices of thesetalkers when they were administered the final test.It wasby this procedurewetested the hypothesis thatthe speech offamiliar voices would be easier to decode than that of unfamiliar voices.

RESULTS

The resultsof thesethree studies inay be found summarized in Table2. As hasbeen stated,the first twoexperiments were carried out primarilyto discoverif siinpleexposure to He02/Pdistorted speech would iinprove a listenersdecoding capabilities with Experiment-2 a simplereplication validation! ofthe first. Experiment-3 wascompleted ata latertime. It alsowas carried out in order to assessreliability andvalidity, of the statedpostulates; however, a secondarypurpose here was to discoverif the familiarity which would develop from hearing a particularspeaker's voice over time would lead to improved decoding. Ascan be seen by consideration of Table 2, auditors who responded totape recorded testsof He02/Pspeech were able to understandabout a quarterof thematerials presented them.It alsomay be observed that effects of the so called "training" was to shift this capability inan upward direction. Indeed, the subjects from Experiments 1 and 2,who heard the 20 hours of He02/Pspeech, just about doubled their decoding accuracy and this shift was statistically significant Chi Square test!. The cited trend is evenmore apparent when the data from Experiment-3areconsidered. In this case, the experimental group was tested by evaulation of theirresponses to the voices of speakerswith whom they had becoine familiar. In anyevent, the data for thefirst two studies were combined and will befound in the third set of rowsin Table2. As canbe noted,the untreatedgroups do not changefroin intelligibilitytest to intelligibilitytest 6.0-25.8%! whereas the decodingscores for the "training"group essentially double 2.2-45.6%!. Not shown are the individual scores which variedfrom 9=39% for all subjectson the pretest and a roughlysimilar dispersion on the post-testfor the untrained subjects. For those that received "training", the distributions onthe secondtest ranged from 23% to 68%.A correlationof r = + .79.was obtained from the "training"group on the pre-and post-tests; the correlation for theuntrained group was only r = .11.The patterns were approximately the same for Experiment-3 with the pretest disbur- sionsfor both groups, and the post-test range for the "non-training" group, all varying between about10% and about 40%. The post test for theExperiment-3 "training" group ranged from 31%to 69% Again,a highcorrelation was found for thepre-and post-test rankings of the "training"group and a verylow one for those subjects who had not been exposed to He02/P speechin the interim. Finally,there appeared tobe a markedtrend for individuals who were tested on familiar voicesto exhibithigher correct intelligibility scores 8.7%! thandid those that were "trained" onvoices which were different from those who provided the testutterances 5.6% correct!.

183 Divingfor Science...1990

Nevertheless,whenthis apparent difference inimproved decoding capability wastested, it failedto reach statistical significance.

DISCUSSION Ashas been stated, thetrends among the data obtained from these investigations supportthethree stated postulates andtwo of the three achieved statisticai significance. That is,l! simpleexposure todistorted speech ofthe type studied resulted inimprovement in decodingcapability,2!somepeople arebetter atthe decoding taskthan are others--with those whoexhibited thegreatest initialtalent tending toexhibit greater improvement and3! it appearseasier todecode utterances produced byfamiliar speakers. 'niefirst of the three relationships, perhaps,is the most important. Thatis, auditors whowere expceed toonly20 hoursof He Q/Pdistorted speechgreatly improved intheir ability tounderstand whatwas being said. They did so even though 1!no feedback ie,formal training!wasprovided,2! severaldifferent talkersprovided thetest materials,3! varioustypes ofspeech testwords, a read passage, extemporaneous speech!wereheard, and4! the utteranceswereproduced atdifferetit depths ie.,at various pressures andhelium gasmix- tures!.These findings serve toexplain, toa greatmeasure anyway, thecommon observation thatsome individuals arebetter able tounderstand He02/Pdistorted speech thanare others. Simplyput,they probably havelearned todecode itbecause theyhave been exposed toit. Indeed,thefact that some ofthe communication personnelobserved inthe field have had substantialexperience withthis task probably explains theircompetency. Theserelationships takeon even greater import when individual differences aretaken intoaccount. Aswill be remembered, itwas found that some individuals exhibiteda greater nativeoompetency atthis task than didothers. Further, theseauditors tended toshowgreater improvementindecoding skills than didtheir less gifted counterparts. Itmay bepossible that thisrelationship aidsinexplaining whysome individuals exhibitskillfulness inthe Geld situation.Finally, thealmost predictable observation thatit is easier tolearn todecode the utterancesofa fatniliar talkeralso is considered important. Sincehigh quality communication antongfriends andco-workers oftenhasbeen observed, enhanced experience withdeep4iving personnelshouldyield upgraded speechunderstanding. Theresults of this research appear to supportthat postulate. Itis the Grst and third factors thatare the most important forimproved communication withdivers speaking inthe mixed gasenvironment. Thatis, once the decoders involved are trainedtotask and become familiarwith the speecb/voice ofthe divers involved, theyshouM beable tomake optimum useofthe communication linksavailable. Thatthey may have a specifictalent foractivity afthis type and learn thetask fairly easily! constitutes a bonusSo too,would any attempts made toformally train these decoders. Hollienk Thompson:Decoding Speech in He5axEnvirons

Onthe other hand, it is unfortunate butit hasbeen shown that the problem ofdecoding He02/Pspeech carmot be solved even by the presence ofhigh quahty decoders. That is, even communicationspersonnel who: 1! show talent for this activity, 2! havebeen formally trained totask there should be schools ofthis type!, 3! are experienced and4! are quite familiar with thespeech of thedivers, will notbe able to decodeenough of theirutterances to beeffective-at least,when the ambient pressure and helium content ofthe gas mix are great. Moreover, these decodersprobably will show the greatest deficits when emergencies occur and the divers are talkingunder stressfulconditions. Accordingly,a more complex strategy issuggested; onethat can be seen portrayed by themodel in Figure3. Pleasenote that what appears necessary forgood deep-diving corn- municationsisa combination ofprocedures. First, modified speech bythe diver and a special lexicondesigned forthis type of interaction arerequired. What is meant by modified speech isthat the diver/talker adapt his speech tothe environment sothat higher intelhgibility levels canbe achieved. The process ismuch the same as an aircraft pilot modifying anutterance so asto produce the word "niner" rather than "nine". Enough information Beil, 1962, Brubaker andWurst, 1968; Hollien and Hicks, 1982; Hoihen and Rothrnan, 1976; Hollien, et al, 1977, RothrnanandHollien, 1972; Sergeant, 1967! isnow available tomake this suggestion a reality. Second,the use of special divers languages and set, prelearned, phrases would serve to enharrce theinput intelligibility even more. Third, the use of State-of-the-Science speechprocessors orHe02 "unscramblers"! alsoshould upgrade the end product utterance. Finally, it is at this pointthat the insertion of trained,experienced decoders would reduce the problem to rnanagableproportions. Inshort, it appearsthat voice communications willnot be improved in saturationdiving until a three-wayinterface program is instituted. The structure involved willrequire the use of specialize4rnodifredinpututterances, upgraded electronic speech processorsand highly trainedHe02 speechdecoders.

ACKNOWLKDGEMENTS

This researchwas supported by grants from the Officeof NavalResearch. We also wish tothank Dr. Patricia Hollien and Mrs. Joan Muny for their assistance with the project.

REFERENCES

Anonymous.1988. TheStocktmnics System, Stockholm, 1-51. Beil,R. C. 1962.Frequency Analysis ofVowels Produced in a Helium-RichAtmosphere, L Acousr.Soc. Amer., 34: 347-349. Belcher,E.O. 1980.Deep Ex-80: Diver Communication Preliminary Report, NUI Report No.39-80, Norwegian Underwater Institute, Bergen, Norway, 1-15.

185 Belcher,E.O. 1982.Analysis of IsolatedVowels in HeliumSpeech, Report 26.82 Norwegian UnderwaterTechnology Center, Bergen, Norway, 1-95. Bennett,P.B. 1967. Performance Impairment in DeepDiving Due to NitrogenHelium, Neon andOxygen, Proceed., Third Syrnp. Underwater PhysioL, C3. Larnbertsen, Ed.!, 327- 340. Brauer,R. W, 1982. Diving and Undersea Technology in the USSR: Part I, Pressure,11: 13-14. Brauer,R. W.,D.O. Johnson,R. L Ressotti, andR. Redding.1966. Effectsof Hydrogen andHelium at Pressures to 67Atmospheres, Fedn. Proceed. Amer. Soc. Exp. BioL, 25: 22. Brown,D. D.,T. Giordano,and H. Hollien.1977. NoiseLevels in a HyperbaricChamber, Sound and Vibrat., 11:28-31. Brubaker,R. S.and J. W.Wurst. 1968. SpectrographicAnalysis of Diver'sSpeech Duriag Decompression,J Acoust.Soc. Amer., 43: 798-802. Campbell,R. A. 1965.Discrimination Test of WordDifficulty, J SpeechHear. Res., 8: 13-22. Copel,M. 1966. HeliumVoice Unscrambling, IEEE Trans,Audio. Electro. Acoust., AU-14: 122-126. Edmonds,C. 1985.Hearing Loss With Frequent Diving, Undersea Biomed, Res., 12: 315-319. Fant,G. andB. Sonesson.1964. Speechat HighAmbient Pressure, Quarterly Rag. ~ SpeechTrans. Lab., Stockholm, PIE-QPSR, 1: 9-21..

Fant,G. andJ. Lindquist. 1968. Pressureand Mixture Effectson Diver's Speech,0tutrtenty Prog.Rept., Speech Trans. Lab., Stockholm,STL-QPSR, 7-17.

Fant,G., J. Lindquist,B. Sonesson,and H. Hollien. 1971. SpeechDistortion at High Pressure, UnderwaterPhysiology: Proceed, Fourth Intern. Cong. Diver Physio., Academic PressInc., New York, 293-299.

Flower, R. A. 1969. Helium SpeechInvestigations, Clearinghouse for Fed. Scient.,Tech. Inform. Rept.,PAD-702119.

Gelfand, R., H. B. Rothman, H. Hollien, and C. J. Lambertsen. 1978. Chapter E-9 in PredictiveStudies IV: 8'ork Capabilityand PhysiologicalEffects in He02F~ursions to Pressuresof 400-800-1200-1600FSW. C. J. Lambertsen,R. Gelfand and J. M. Gare, Eds.!, Philadelphia,IEM Univ. Pennsylvania,E9: 1-15.

Gill, J. S. 1972. The Admiralty ResearchLaboratory Processorfor Helium Speech,in Proceed.,Helium SpeechConf.; Report 708 R. L Sergeantand T. Murry, Eds.!, USN Sub. Med. Ctr., Groton, CI; 34-38.

186 Hollien 4. Thompson:Decoding Speech in HelioxEnvirons

Giordano,T., H. B. Rothman, and H. Hollien. 1973. Helium SpeechUnscramblers A Critical Review of the State of the Art, IEEE Transactionson Audio and EIectroacous- tics, AU-21: 436-444.

Golden, R. M. 1966. Improving Naturalnessand Intelligibility of Helium-OxygenSpeech Using VocoderTechniques, J Acoust. Soc.Amer. 40: 621-624.

Hollien, H. andS. H. Feinstein. 1976. Hearingin Divers,in UnderwaterResearch E. Drew, J. Lythgoeand J. Woods,Eds.! London,Academic Press, 81-138.

Hollien, H. andJ. W.Hicks, Jr. 1981. Researchon Hyperbaric Communication: A Progress Report, IASCP/NUTEC-%681,1-26 AppendixA-C!.

Hollien, H. and J. W. Hicks, Jr, 1982. Helium/Pressure Effects on Speech: Updated Initiatives for Research, Proceed.,IEEEAcoust. Cornrn Workshop,Washington, D.C., D4: 1-26.

Hollien, H., J. W. Hicks, Jr. and P. A. Hollien. 1984. Motor Speech Characteristics in Diving,Proceed. IOIntemat. Cong. Phonetic Sciences, M. Broecheand A. Cohen,Eds.! Dordrecht, Holland, Foris Pub., 423-428,

Hollien, H. andH. B. Rothman.. 1972. Evaluationof He02Unscramblers Under Controlled Conditions, CSL/ONR Tech.Rept. 46. 1-17.

Hollien H. and H. B. Rothman. 1976. Diver Communication, Underwater Research, E. A. Drew,J. N. Lythgoeand J. D. Woods,Eds.!, Academic Press Inc., London, 1-80.

Hollien,H.,W.Shearer, andJ.W.Hicks, Jr. 1977. VoiceFundamentalFrequencyLevels of Divers in Helium-OxygenSpeaking Environments, UnderSea Biorned. Res., 4: 199- 207.

Hollien, H. and C. L. Thompson. 1968. SpeechIntelligibility in High Ambient Pressures, CSL/ONRResearch Rept. No. 20,5-6. Hollien,H., C.L Thompson,and B. Cannon.1973. SpeechIntelligibility as a Functionof Ambient Pressureand He02 Atmosphere,Aerospace Med. 44: 249-253.

Hollien, P.A. and H. Hollien. 1972. SpeechDisorders Created by Helium/OxygenBreath- ing Mixturesin DeepDiving, Proceed., XV Cong.Phoniatrics Logopedics, Casa Ares, Buenos Aires, 739-745. Holywell,K. andG. Harvey.1964. HeliumSpeech, J.Acoust. Soc. Amer., 36: 210-211. MacLean,D. J. 1966. Analysisof Speechin a Helium-OxygenMixture Under Pressure, J. Acoust. Soc.Amer., 40; 625-627. Molvaer,O. I. andE. H. Lehrnann.1985. Hearing Acuity in ProfessionalDivers, Undersea Biorned. Res., 12: 333-349.

187 DivingforScience...1990

Quick,R.F. 1970.Helium Speech Translation Using Hornorophic Deconvolution, J Acotar- Soc.Amer., 48: 130 A!. Richards,M. A. 1982. HeliumSpeech Enhartcemeut Using the Short-Time Fourier'Bmt3a- form,IEGER Trans. Acoust. Speech Sig. Proc., ASSP: 83-87. Rothrnan,H. B.,R. Gelfand, H. Hollien,and C. J. Lambertson. 1980. Speech IntelliglbiH+ atHigh Helium-Oxygen Pressure, Undersea Biomed. Res., 7: 265-275. Rothman,H. B. andH. Hollien. 1972.Phonetic Distortion in the He02Environment, Proceed.,Seventh Inter. Cong. Phonetic Sciences, A. Rigaultand R. CharbonneasI, Eds.!, Mouton,The Hague, 589-598. Sergeant,R.L 1963. SpeechDuring Respiration of a Mixtureof Helium and Oxygea, AerospacehfaL, 34: 826-829. Sergeant,R,L 1967. PhonemicAnalysis ofConsonants in Helium Speech, J Acoust. Soc. Amer. 41: ~9. Sergeant,R.L 1968. Limitationsin Voice Communications During Deep Submergeace HeliumDives, National ISA Marine Sciences Instrument Symp., Cocoa Beach, FL White,C.E. 1955. EGect ofIttcreased Atmospheric Pressures Upon InteHigibility ofSpoken Words,Memorandum Report No. 55-8, Medical Research Laboratory, U.S. Submarine Base,New London, CI: Wible,J.B. 1968.The Development ofa Digital Helium Speech Processor, HRB Singer Inc.,Feral Report 4007-F-2, Science Park, State College, FA, 1-59. Hollien Ec.Thompson: Decoding Speech in Herf'oJfEnvirons

'Ihblc 1. Intelligibility scores of eight diver-talkers. %bespeech materials were drawn from the Campbell 0! s pcechintelligibility lists with a differentlist assignedto each tallter. Words weredrawn from severalexperiments nad live depths. Dstcncrs werc experienced; nt leastl{l were included ln each group.

Diver / talker Liat Depths Mean Pcrceot fav! Cor rect

Group A

A-M-I 200-4'70 2$.0 A-M-2 4$O 30.4 A-M-3 4'70- I000 26.6 A M-4 4$0-600 Mean 26.0

0-M- I 4$0-600 30.7 5-M-2 2$0-1000 20.7 0-M- 3 200-4$0 27.6 0-M-4 4$0-600 Mean 27. 4

'Ihble 2. Summary table of the three main experimenls,Usteuers werc 10-12 naive students with normtdbearing talkers were eight experienced divers each reading their uwaCampbell split4lst. Experiment 2 wasa replicatina of Experiment1; Rtycriment 3 induded kaowa talkers in the training. All valuesare tnesa percentor percentdiifenace.

Condition Pre-teat Peat-teat Mfercnce

Training 27.9 43.4 6g No Training 32.3 2'$. I -29

Training I 0.6 47.5 I$7 No Tratning I 9.7 26.$ 34

Training 22.2 47.6 No Training 26.0 2$.0

Trainiog 22.6 $0.7 No Training 243 26. I

189 leavingfor Science...1990

Figurei. Modelof tbeparameters that effect speech and the interactionsamong them - 4 !be deepdivtng situation.

100

t +I

80 %0 1So10Depth200SO its 2$0MeteraItO Seawater3$0000 s$0MO $$0 Figure2. SpeechiateHigibility as a functionof increasesin mnbleatpressure and helium breathing gas. Hollien k Thofnpson:Decoding Speech in HeliaxEnvirons

Figure3. Aa integratedapproach for Improved cotamuakatton in the deep diving environment.

191 MATERIALS AND METHODS TO ESTABLISH MULTIPURPOSE, SUSTAINED, ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH STATIONS ON CORAL REEI S AT DRY TORTUGAS

Walter C. Jalap JenniferL 8%eaton Kelly Boomer Donnelly Florida Marine Research Institute 100 8th Avenue Southeast St. Petersburg,FLORIDA 33701-5095USA

Sustainedresearch requires precise, repetitive data acquisitionto accurately evaluatepatterns of changein speciesabundance and communitystructure. Per- mcrnentreference markers are essentialto resamplestations over time. The methodsdescribed here use solid markers from whichseveral sampling devices can be deployed.2 hydraulicdrN is usedto core18-in deep holes into rock. A square stainlesssteel stake is inset, aligned,and cementedinto eachhole. Qcaufrats, photogrammetricand videoapparatus, and recruitmentarrays are deployed on or in referenceto thestakes, Pansectsare extended between stakes. The method is suitablefor coral reefand otherhard-bottom investigations.

INTRODUCTiON

Gislen 930! used photographyto surveybiotopes. Adaptation of his technique provides a tool for efficient underwaterdata collection that coral reef ecologistsuse to investigatecoral reef dynamics Connell, 1973;Laxton and Stablum, 1974; Done, 1981;Jaap, 1984;Hughes and Jackson,1985; Hughesand Connell,1987; Hanisak et al., 1989!.

The principal nondestructivesampling techniques that ecologistsuse to samplehard- bottorncommunities include quadrats Manton, 1935;Goldberg, 1973!,transects Libya, 1972; Porter,1972; Dustan and Halas, 1987; Ohlhorst et al., 1988!,photography Lundalv, 1971;Ott, 1975;Done, 1981;Hughes and Jackson,1985; Littler and Httler, 1985!,and combinationsof thosemethods Dana, 1976;Wheaton and Jaap, 1988;Gittings et al.,1988!. The common elementin most of thesestudies is a referencemarking system to relocatesites.

When photography is used as a sampling technique, a mounting apparatusfor photographicand video systemsis requiredto insurethat the camerais a consistentdistance abovethe seafloor. Examplesof suchapparatus include monopods, tripods, quadrapods,and minirail systems.Ideally, the apparatusis attachedto a referencemarker or movedbetween

193 Divingfor Science...1990 tworeference markers toinsure that photographic coverage isprecisely thesame during eac9s successivesampling. A scale, compass, timepiece, andidentifying reference canbe incl~ in thephoto or video image. Sustainedecological research monitoring! requires that data acquisition be repeatable.Photographic, video,and other sampling techniques onlyprovide this if the sices canbe precisely resampled. Inan underwater investigation, relocation ofsampling sitesis difficultif reference markers areinconspicuous, damaged, ordestroyed. Although triangula- tion,loran, and acoustic pingers and releases canbe used for precise site relocation, placement of robustreference markers in thesea floor can greatly expedite the process. Installationofsolid, secure reference markers in hard-bottomhabitat is diKcasIt. Drivingnails, spikes, rods, orpipes into the substrate witha hammerisimpractical or,in soane situations,virtually impossible. Also, reliance upon hammer-driven markers can bias i' samplingstrategy bylimiting stations toareas where there are crevices orholes inthe rock surface. Installingmarkers inhard substrate canbe accomplished withuse of a drillwith a carbidebitpowered byair from a scubacylinder ora surface-deployedcompressor. However, drillingwith compressed airbecomes lessefficient with increasing depth because ofeffects describedbyBoyle's gaslaw. Hydraulic systems provide anefficient, but relatively expensive, alternativetoother installation methods. Because hydraulic fluid is virtually incompressible, hydraulicsareunaffected bypressure-volume dynamics Boyle's gaslaw! in depths where most divingscientists conduct studies <30 m!. Additionally, underwater hydraulic systems domat producetheloud exhaust noise characteristic ofunderwater airtools. Thispaper provides information onequipment, materials, and methods used to iastall referencestakes and to samplecoral reefs at FortJefferson National Monument, Dry Tortugas,Florida The short-term goalof this project isto develop precise methods tomonitor coralreef benthic communities. 'Ihe long-term objectives are to determinethe status of reef biologicalresources, document community dynaruics, anddelineate possible cause-and-effect relationships.

I. HydraulicSystem Ahydraulic drilling system was installed on a 34-ft0.4-m! diesel-powered twin GM 8.2liter turbo-charged! vessel. The power source for the system is a belt-drivenclutch paamp Gresentnodel CPl6-85A-26S!. Associated components include a hydraulicreservoir with 25 gallon 94.6 liter! capacity, fllter, mounting brackets, hoses, and selector, pressure relief, tsrtd volume control valves. A control stationwith a clutch switch, volume control valve, agan stainlesssteel quick-disconnect fittings complete the vessel installation. Underwater hydraulic Jaapet aL.Research Stations on CoralReefs at Dry Tortugas equipmentincludes the following: a 9-lb.1-kg! drill motor FairmontHydraulics model HU6976A!that operates at 1000to 2000psi 0.3 to 140.6kg/cm ! at 8 to 10gpm 0.3 to 34.1 liter/min drill rpm is 850 at 9 gprn [34.1 liter/ruin]!; a 36-in 91.4-cm!long, 2.5-in .4-cm! diameterdiamond core barrel HoffmanDiamond Products, surface set bit design!; and 100ft 0.5 m! of polyesterhose Aeroquip Hytrel FC373-08!that links the drill to the control stationconnectors Aeroquip modelFD45-1001!. The supplyhose .50 in [1.3cm] id! andthe returnhose .75 in [1.9cm] id! arelashed together with nylonties and float on the surface,making deployment and recoveryeasier and reducing habitat damageduring drilling. Our total cost of the hydraulicsystem drill niotor, bit, hosesand connectors!was $5,155.00.Portable systems can be leasedfor $300to $400per week.

IL Reference Stakes

Square,1-in .5-cm! stainlesssteel tubing .125-in [3.2-mm]wall thickness! is cutto 2-ft 1-cm! lengthswith a carbide-abrasiveblade to makereference stakes. Burs are removed with a grinder.The tubing is sold in 20-ft .1-m! lengths $70.00per length!.

III. Quadrat Frame

Aluminum squarestock .50 in [1.3cm]! is cut to form a quadratframe .6 rn by 1.6 m! for deployinentover the referencestakes to censusbenthic components. A 1-in.5-crn! squaresleeve, machined to fit snuglyover the stakes, is centered in thequadrat and welded to the frame perimeterwith aluminumrods {Figure 1!.

IV. PhotographicApparatus

Thephotographic apparatus Figure 2! is constructedfrom tube,angle, and channel aluminumA verticalsquare tube is welded to a horizontalchannel, and three pieces of angle arewelded perpendicularly across the channel.The vertical sleeve fits overthe stakeand is securedwith a stainlesssteel jam bolt. A male dovetailfitting is bolted to the tripod thread fixture of a Nikonoscamera which fits into oneof sixfemale dovetail camera positions on the apparatus.Other cameras or videoequipment can be attached to theapparatus e.g., a 35-rnm singlelens reflex camera with a wide-anglelens in a housingwith a domeport!. In ourprogram, the camerais positioned46 in 17 cm! abovethe reef surface.Total areal coverage is approximately27.5 ft 2 2.56 rn ! witha 28-mrnNikonos lens. Coverage varies depending on surfacerelief. A strobe50-watt output!is attached on the apparatus using a dovetailfitting suchthat the illumination originates above and to the left of thecamera. Color print film, ISO 100or 125,is usedfor photography. Our total cost of materialsand labor excludingthe camera,strobe, and wiring! wasapproximately $260.00.

V. Video %ansectApparatus

Theprincipal coinponent of thevideo sampling device is a Sony8-mm video camera CCD-M8U!in a Sonyunderwater housing MPK-M8! mounted on analuminum carriage Figure3!. Thecarriage for the cameraand housing has four grooved,nylon wheels that roll

195 Divingfor Science...1990 ontwo cables deployed between two T-shaped aluminum poles installed on thereference markers{Figure 4!. Eachpole is 52 in 32,1crn! high. Eyebolts are mounted 15 in 8.1 cm! aparton the cross bar to position the cables. A O.l-in.5-mm! diameter stainless stee1 cable is deployedfrom a "down-rigger"fishing winch mounted vertically on onepole. Supplies, equipment,and fabrication costs for thepoles, winch, and carriage were approximately $300.00.Video camera, housing, light, case,and batteriescost $2007.00.

VL RecruitmeiitSaiapling Apparatus Settlingarrays are constructed from PVC pipe, flat stock, and ceramic tiles in theform of a verticaltree with four horizontalbranches. Pipe arrays Schedule40, 1.25-in[3.2-cm] diameter!are designed to fit overthe stainless steel stakes Figure 5!. Two7-in 7.8-cm! piecesof pipeare glued with PVC cement into opposite ends of a crossfitting; a teefitting is insertedinto the top piece. A 33-in 8.9-crn!piece of pipewith a 4.25x 1.5x 0.25-in0.8 x 3.8x 0.64-cm! length of PVC flat stock is glued into the open ends of thetee and cross fittings. Eachrecruitinent array consists of four coupletsof ceramictiles {4.25x 4.25in, 10.8x 10.8- ctn!bolted to the flat stock piece with 0.25-in stainless steel hardware so that unglazed surfaces areexposed. Two couplets each are arranged horizontally and vertically on anarray in an attemptto determinewhether organisms prefer particular orientations for settlement.Me arrayis secured to thestainless steel stake by two 0.25-in set screws. Materials for each unit cost about $5.00.

METHODS

Samplingstations are located using previously selected random numbers plotted along a fiberglass tape measure on a compassbearing froin an initial point.Two stationsare arbitrarilypositioned 20to 25tu apartfor chaintransect and video sampling. Flagging tape is usedto indicatewhere the holeis to be drilled. Mapsare drawn using measured distance and coinpassbearings between stations and include conspicuous submarine landmarks to assistin relocatingstations. Vessel loran coordinates latitude, longitude, and time differencedata! andtriangulation bearings on fixed surface landmarks lighthouses, etc.! are used to assistin relocatingsites.

Reference Stake Installation

The drill is deployedoverboard and the pumpclutch is engaged,providing powerto the drill motor.Two divers position the drill verticallyover the indicatedsite. After the driH penetratesabout 2 in .1 crn!,a 15-lb.8-kg! leadweight is fixed on the drill to enhance performance.A bull's-eye bubble level is attachedto the top of the drill motor with velcro to verticallyalign and drill an 18-in5.7-cm! hole into the seafloor. The drill motor is placed in reverse rotation to clear the hole and break loose the core. Core remnants that remain ia the hole are removedwith a hammerand chisel. Ten to twenty ininutes are requiredta coinpletethe drilling.

196 Jaapet al: ResearchStations on CoralReefs at Dry Tortugas

Hydraulicceinent four partsof Typell Portlandcement to onepart moldingplaster! is used to secure the reference stake in the hole. Ceinent and seawater are mixed aboard the boatand placed in plasticbags. Immediately, divers transport the seini-solidceinent to the holeand pack it full. Thestake is driveninto the mortar mixture and aligned with a bull's-eye bubblelevel perpendicularlyto the seafloor. The cementhardens rapidly and is solid within 24 hours. A crew of four for mixing,2 for drilling and ceinenting!was required to install five referencestakes at eachof the five sitesat Dry Tortugas.At PulaskiShoal, stations were situatedalong a 78-mlong transectin depthsranging from 27 to 35 ft 8.2 to 10.7m!. Positioningthe stations,drilling the holes, and installingthe stakesrequired 9 hours an averageof 1 hourand 49 minutesper stake!.

Quadrat and '&snseetSampling

The quadrat frame is deployedover the stake,and observersmap organismsfound within the quadratperimeter on polypaperprinted forzns. Transectsare sampledbetween stakesusing a techniquedeveloped by Porter 972! and refined by Rogerset al. 983!, A fiberglass tape is stretched above the reef surface between two stakes located 20 to 25m apart. A 2-inlength af small7.5 mm per link! chainis laid underthe tapein conformitywith bottom topography.The numberof chainlinks that cover anorganism or abioticsubstrate is recorded bymeter increments. The transect is sampled 3 timesto provide data for estimatingvariability amongobservers and within the habitat. The dataprovide an estiinateof samplingadequacy, speciesrichness, and surface heterogeneity the ratioof measuredchain length to thelinear distanceof the tapemeasure!. Thephotographic apparatus is alsodeployed over the reference stake. A 25-lb1.3- kg! lift bagis usedto maneuverthe device.The distance from thecamera film planeto the reef surfaceis measuredwith a rodmarked in 1-in .5 ctn! incretnents,and the lensaperture and distanceadjustments are set, taking into accountthe refractive index of water. An identificationreference is placedin the frameof the photograph,and the photo is taken. The camerais movedto the nextposition on the apparatusand the processis repeatedfor a total of six camerapositions.

Videoinsect Sampling

Thevideo apparatus poles are set over the referencestakes at the endsof the video transectand adjustedso that the tops of the Ps are parallel. The clutch on the winch is released.A diver then swimswith the cableto the other pole, slipsthe cablethrough the two eyeboltson the top of theT, returns the cable to thefirst pole, and snaps the stainless steel clip on thecable end to the fourtheyebolt. Tension is takenup with thewinch until the cableis taut,and the clutchis re-engaged.The video carriage, with the cameraaimed vertically, is suspendedon the cables,and the diver pushesthe carriagevery slowlyto the oppositepole andback, providing a videorecord of benthosbetween the stakes.A tapemeasure in the video field providesa sizereference. Because there is somebowing in themiddle of thecable and the seafloor isirregular, the camerais not maintainedat fixed distancefrom the bottom.Once on site,the time required to deployand recover the equipmentis approximatelyten minutes.

197 Nviagfor Science...1990

ReeraitIneatSampling

Afterother sampling has been completed, a recruitmentarray is placed over each stake andsecured with two jam bolts.A pairof tileswill beremoved and replaced with clean plates annuallyfor theduration of theproject. Encrustingorganisms will beidentified to thelowest possible taxoa aad enumerated to determine their abundaaces and densities. Particular attention will be focused on scleractiriian recruitment at each of the five reefs.

Becauserecruitment arraysprovide protection from fouling, and corrosion of the stainlesssteel stakes is minimal, cleaning of referencestakes prior to resatnplingrequires only an abrasivepad.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This workis supportedby a U. S.National Park Service NPS! cooperativeagreement and contract CA 5000-8-8014!with the Florida Marine ResearchInstitute FMRI! and is supplementedby a grantfrom the John D. andCatherine T. MacArthurFoundation through theFlorida Institute of Oceanography.We appreciate the assistance in designand fabrication ofthe apparatusby James Mullins and Rich Schinid, Machine Shop, Departxnent of Marine Sciences,University of SouthHorida. RobertMuller FMRI! counseledon samplingstrategy andon the configurationof cameramountings. The NPSpersonnel, especially Caroline Rogers,Jim Tilmant, Dominic Dottavio, and Trish Patterson, are recognized for their interest andsupport in sustainedecological research. We thankthe NPSstaff at Ft. JeffersonNational Monumentfor assistanceabove and beyond the call of duty,particularly Bruce and Chris Rodgers,Mike and Monica Eng, Pat Givea, Lucy Doyle, Drew Gottshall, John Gibson, CHK Green,Tom Rutledge, Al Brown,and Matthew Fagan. We thank Horida PortlandCements fordonating the Type II Portlandcement and Designer Tile and Marble, Inc. for donating the ceramictiles. We thank FMM colleaguesHector Cruz-Lopez, Paula Dolan, Peter Hood, Joe Kirnmel,Steve Kinsey, and RonMatchok for assistancewith fieldwork at Fort Jeffersonand KeyWest. We also appreciate the coinrnents provided by Tom Perkins aad W. G. Lyons.

Connell,J. 1973.Population ecology of reef-buildingcorals. Pp. 205-245 in OA. Jonesand R. Endean,eds. Biology and Geology of CoralReefs. VoL 2. Acadenuc Press, New York.

Dana,T. F. 1976.Reef coraldispersion patterns and environmental variables oa a Caribbean coral reef. Bull. Mar. Sci.26!: 1-13.

198 Jaap et al: ResearchStations on Coral Reefsat Dry Tortugas

Done,T. 1981.Photogrammetry in coral reef ecology:a techniquefor the studyof changein coral communities.Proc. 4th Int. Coral ReefSymp., Manila 2: 315-320.

Dustan,P., and J. Halas. 1987.Changes in the reef coral communityof CarysfortReef, Key Largo, Florida. Coral Reefs6!: 91-106.

Gislen, T. 1930. Epibiosesof the Gullmar Fjord II. Stockholm,Kristinebergs Zoologiska Station4, 387 pp.

Gittings, S. R., T J. Bright, A. Choi, and R. R. Barnett. 1988. The recoveryprocess in a mechanically damaged coral reef community: recruitment and growth. Proc. 6th Int. Coral Reef Symp., Townsville 2: 225-230.

Goldberg,W. M. 1973.The ecologyof the coral-octocoralcommunities off the southeastern Florida coast: geomorphology,species composition, and zonation. Bull. Mar. Sci. 23!: 465%89.

Hanisak, M. D., S. M. Blair, and J. K. Reed. 1989. Use of photogrammetric techniques to monitor coral reef recoveryfollowing a major ship grounding. Proc. Amer. Acad. UnderwaterSci., 9th ScientificDiving Syrnp.,Woods Hole: 119-135.

Hughes,T. P.,and J. B. C. Jackson.1985. Population dynamics and life historiesof foliaceoiis corals. Ecol. Monogr.55!: 141-166.

Hughes,T. P.,and J. H. Connell. 1987. Populationdynamics based on size or age?A reef coral analysis.Amer. Nat. 129!: 819-829.

Jaap,W. C. 1984.The ecologyof the southFlorida coralreefs: a communityprofile. U.S.Fish Wildl. Serv.FWS/OBS-82/08. 138pp.

Laxton,J.H., andW.J. Stablum. 1974.Sampledesign forquantitativeestimationofsedentary organismsof coral reefs. J. Linn. Soc.Zool. 6: 1-18.

Littler, M. M., and D.S. Littler. 1985.Nondestructive sampling. Pp. 161-175inM.M. Littler and D.S. Littler, eds. Handbookof phycologicalmethods. Ecologicalfield methods: macroalgae.Cambridge Univ. Press,New York. Loya,Y. 1972.Community structure and species diversity of herrnatypiccorals at Eilat,Red Sea. Mar. Biol. Berlin! 13: 100-123.

Lundalv, T. 1971. Quantitative studies on rocky-bottom biocoenosesby underwater photogrammetry.Thalassia Jugoslavica 7: 201-208. Manton,S. M. 1935.Ecological surveys of coralreefs. Sci. Rep. Great Barrier ReefExp. 3: 274-312.

Ohlhorst,S. L, W. D. Liddell, R. J. Taylor,and J. M. Taylor. 1988.Evaluation of reef census techniques.Proc. 6th Int. CoralReef Symp., Townsville 2: 319-324.

199 Divingfor Science...l990

Ott,B. 1975.Community patterns on a submergedbarrier reef at Barbados,West Indies- Int. Rev.ges. Hydrobiol. 60!: 719-736. Porter,J. 1972.Patterns of speciesdiversity in Caribbeanreef corals. Ecology 53: 745-V~ Rogers,C S. M. Gilnack,and H. C. FitzIII. 1983.Monitoring of coral reefswith linear transoms:a studyof stormdamage. J, Exp,Mar. Biol. Ecol. 66: 285-300. %beaton,J.L, andW. C. Jaap. 1988. Corals and other prominent benthic Cnidaria of Laos KeyNational Marine Sanctuary, Florida. Fla. Mar. Res. Publ. No. 43. 25 pp. Jaapet aL'Research Stations on CoralReefs at DrY To~as

Figure1. Quadratframe.

Figare2. Photographicapparatuo- DivingforScience...1990Figure3.Videocarriage.

Figure4. VideoT-potes.

202 Jaapet aLResearch Stations on CoralReefs at Dry Tortugas

Fibre S. Recruitmentarray, LEGAL AND RISK MANAGEMENT ASPECTS OF WARM MINERAL SPRINGS PROJECT

Gerald B. Jasla General Counsel The Florida StateUniversity 311 Hecht House Tallahassee,FLORIDA 32306 U. S. A.

TheLegal aspects of the BairnMineral Sprrqgs project flow directlyfrom the statutoryauthority which the Universityhas under Rorida law. As a state@re~ the Universityis endowedwith a missionand legal authority to cavyit out. ?his statutoryauthority also deiines the legal liability of theUniversity and any of its projects. It providesthe basic insurance "umbrella" covenng all employeesand agentsagainst claims for personalor propertydamages. ?he perimeters of that protectionare directly related to thescope of theactivity. If a claimagairrst an employeeor agent arises out of an activity within the scope of hislheremployment bythis program and thestandard ofcare was reasonable asthat r'sdefined bysafety, industryand other appropriate standards!, the state nsk ma~ament insurance will coverit. Reasonablecare requires clear lines of authority,aqvrvision and implementation.There are a nurriberof suggestedways of stayingwithin the umbrellaof protection.

THE LEGAL ASPECTS

Tounderstand the legaland risk management aspects of thisproject, it is necessaryto understandthe generallegal responsibility of a stateagency such as The FloridaState University.Mere areessentially two aspects to thislegal responsibility. The first is the enablingauthority within the structure of thestate as defined by Florida statutory law; the secondisthe responsibility, and thus liability, which the statutory and cominon law has imposed onstate agencies in dealingwith employees,agents, and third parties. Chapters20 and 240 of theFlorida Statutes create the technical legal structure of the educationalsystem in Florida.Among other things, those statutory provisions create the relationship and authority! of theuniversity to theother components of that educational system..The university authority is historicallyuniqiie and extensive, particularly in termsof itsinterface with not onlythe Board of Regentsbut with other state agencies. Ae importance ofspecific statutory authority relates directly to theextent to whichthe university can operate andaccomplish its mission.The best way I havelearned to describeit is thatwhereas a private

205 Divingfor Science...19% entitycan do anything itwants unless a law says it can' t,a stateagency canonly do soxxxetbiog if a lawsays it can. TheBoard ofRegents isessentially thedirector ofthe Division ofUniversities, uxMIer theDepartment ofEducation. It is a bodycorporate bystatute with presumably allof tbe rightsattached tosuch status. The university isnot. Nevertheless, withinthe realm of ~ AdministrativeProcedures Act Chapter120, F S.!,the university isseparate and distinct from theBoard of Regents and the other universities. Butfor customary and general legal purposes it must act on behalf of the Board of Regents. Initially,because states are sovereign they were immune from any liability for their negligentacts. In recent times, however, states, including Florida, have waived that ixnxxnxnity tovarying degrees byspecific legislative statute. Chapter 768.28, Florida Statutes, isFlorida's partialwaiver of sovereign immunity. That statute does at least two things. It authorizesclaims against the State for the tortious conduct of itsemployees and agents;it further defines the perimeters and process for perfecting those claims. This statute formsthe basis for defining what is that legal liability of the State and university! regardiag anyof its projects, including this project. It also defines the basic insurance "uxnbrella" which will coverall employeesand agents of the university against claiins for personalor property daxnages. Thisuxnbrella ofprotection opens only if, andalways when, the claim arises out of any actionor inaction within the scope of employment of the employee or@gent. But if theemployee's actionor inactionis foundto be comnuttedin "badfaith or with maliciouspurpose or in a inannerexhibiting wanton and willful disregard ofhuxnan rights, safety, or property,"thea the umbrellacloses and the employee or agentrather than the Stateshall be liable.

The State shall be liable for tort claims in the same manner and to the same exteat as a privateindividual under like circumstancesbut such liability shall not includepunitive damagesnor be for claimsexceeding $100,000.00 individually or $200,000.00in the aggregate. No officer,employee or agentof theState shall be held personally liable in tortor naxned~ a partydefendant in anyaction for any injury or damagesuffered if the employeeor agexeis within that uxnbrella.There are other proceduralliinitations, including tixne limits aad tbe speciTicprocess to befollowed, in perfectingthe claiin.

All suchclaixns and insurance coverage related thereto are generallyunder the Statp Division of Risk Management,although both the Board of Regentsand the universityItive specificadditional statutory authority to purchaseinsurance and otherwise indemnify ~ employees,students or agents.Normally court claims and insurance coverage for personal injuryand property damage are handled through the State Risk Management program. Jaski:Legal & RiskManagement Aspects of WMSProject

Thus,when the university has in placean approved program, the State waiver of sovereignimmunity attaches both in its responsibility/liability aspectand in its insurance/in- demnificationaspect. The trick, usually not complicated atall, is to be within the umbrella and to stay there. Thisproject isunder the umbrella. Thus, all of its employees andagents should be also. Onceyou are operating within the scope ofyour employment, thenext trick is to stay there. Thereare some common things you can do to proveyou are; for example,keeping logs, calendars,mileage, expense records. Having conferences suchas this is especially important aswell. In otherwords, whether you can stay under the umbrella depends on howyou conduct yourselfonce you are there. NegligenceinFlorida boils down to two things inthis context, a breach ofa specific dutyowed to the claimant and provable damages. Generally, theduty is defined bythe nature ofthe relationship. Theboundaries ofthe duty are measured bywhat is reasonable under the circumstances.Inthis project, reasonable care is largely defined by safety, industry and agency standards.Theprogram standards areyour guide and directive asto what is due or reasonable care. Thus,in theunfortunate event of a divingaccident, if it occurredwithin the scope of employmentandit happened toan employee ofthe program, thatemployee willbe entitled toapplicable benefits including workers' compensation. If theeinployee caused theinjury to a thirdparty, still within the scope ofhis/her employment andin accord with such reasonable standards,that claim against the employee should be indemnified by the State. Inthe event of any ernergerrcy, including thenecessity foremergency treatment, similar guidelinesapply. For example, if such emergency treatment requires a professional medical person'sintervention, asin the use of the hyperbaric chamber, theappropriate procedure must befollowed and treatment should be pursuant toapplicable medical emergency standards. In riskrnanagernent assessment, recordkeeping is a critical element and is also of assistancein showing that reasonable care is beingused so that foreseeable risks can be avoided.University risk management intkis regard takes the position that, for example, it can bepermissible tomake a distinction between a clear case ofthe bends orother diving related illnessand simply being "under the weather." The former situations require accident reports alongwith appropriate entries in thediving and ADP logs. Reasonablecarealso requires that the program supervisors beresponsible forassuring thatuse of the facilities and equipment beonly done by trained and approved individuals. Applicationofa reasonablestandard indealing with employees aswell as agents orthe publicwill ensure being under the umbrella andentitled tofull coverage andindemnification by the State.

207 Divingfor Science... 1990

Similarly,theState's authority tocontract iscreated byspecific statutes foreach agencff. Anofficer or employee ofany state agency, including the University, canlegally bind the ageM toa contractonlyif heor she has been appropriately delegated thatauthority. Such delegation shouldbeauthoritative, inwriting and clear. Likewise, certain provisions areby law required andothers are not permitted. Thus, improperly drawn contracts could be invalid aad thoIe signingthempersoaally liable.Here agai~ prevention means taking the time tosee to it tbNt thecontracting processhas been properly reviewed andapproved. Thatis the best kind of re managementand insurance. FURTHER EVIDENCE OF COOPERATIVE FORAGING BY THE TURKEYFISH PTEROISMiLES IN THE GULF OF AQABA, RED SEA WITH COMMENTS ON SAFETY AND FIRST AID

1 J Kendall, Jr. MineralsManagement Service Gulf of Mexico OCS Region Office of Leasingand Environment MS 5430! 1201 Ehnwood Park Boulevard New Orleans,LOUISIANA 70123-2394U.S.A.

Coopenitiveforqgingbypiscivorous fishes is believedto be an evolved response to theschooling defenses ofprey species. In 1987, cooperative foraging was suggested for thefirst time for theturkeyfish Pterois miles formerly P.volitans! in theGulf of Aqaba Eilat!, Red Sea. Further evidence of turlcegBh exhibiting such behavior is reportedhere with a discussionof its ecologicalsignificance of permitting a relativelyslow, predominantly benthic predator to capture faster moving, pelagic prey.Oe several occasions, inthe Late afternoon, sixto fen tudcevfish were observed Leavingtheir daytime resting station and proceeding toherd dense schools ofsmall fish.In whatappeared tobe a cooperativeegort, the turkeyfish were able to offset thespeed and well-developed schooling ability of their prey. Aspects ofthis and similarforagingbehaviors arediscussed astopics for additional study; first-aid and safetyconsiderations tobe observed inthe study ofsuch venomous species arealso mviewed.

INTRODUCTION It hasbeen the contention for sometime that individual fish in groups schools! are lessvulnerable to predators than are solitary individuals Neill aud Cullen, 1974; Seghers, 1974;Pitcher, 1986; Landeau and Terborgh, 19&6!. Group members inay suffer less predation becausepredators aredetected earlier Magurran etal, 19&5!or becausepredators are confusedbythe abundance andthe movement ofthe prey Neill and Cullen, 1974; Hobson, 1978!.Members ofa school tnay also derive a feeding benefit because ofthe decrease intime anindividual spends watching forpredators Pitcher and Magurran, 1983!, shorter between- patchsearch times Pitcher etal, 1982!, mimicking other school members Pitcher and Magurran,1983!, and by overwhelming thedefender ofa territory Foster, 1985!. Cooperativeforaging bypiscivorous fishesis believed tobe an evolved response tothe schoolingdefenses ofprey species Hobson, 1968; Major, 1978; Schmitt and Strand, 19&2!. Whilesome marine mammals use elaborate cooperative hunting behaviors to captureprey Divingfor Science...1996

e.g.,Martinez andKlinghammer, 1970;Tarpy, 1979; Smith etal, 1981!, suchcooperation bas beeninfrequently documented inthe foraging behaviors ofpiscivorous fishes Schmitt and Strand,1982!. Todifferentiate cooperative foragingfrom other lesscoinplex formsof group hunting behaviors,Schinittand Strand 982! established twocriteria: ! individual predators adopt different,mutually complementary rolesduring foraging ventures i.e.,a divisionoflabor!, and! individualsexercise temporary restraint bynot feeding untilprey have been rendered more vulnerable.

OBSERVATIONSAND DISCUSSION Golf ofArabs, ReiI Sea Theterm "Red Sea" generally denotes themain basin beginning inthe south atthe StraitsofBab al-Mandeb andextending northward toinclude thedeep Gulf ofAqaba andthe shallowGulfofSuez Figure 1!.In terms ofthe distribution ofspecies, thisforms a single area inwhich seatemperature seasonalranges relative tolatitudinal differences arebelieved to exerta more significant influence onthe geographic distribution ofspecies thando any physical barriersbetween themain basin andits two northern extremities Vine,1986!. Theinarine life of the Red Sea is essentially a modification ofthe Indo-Pacific assemblage.Inmost groups, themajority ofspecies alsooccur inthe Indian Ocean with relativelyfewspecies regarded asRed Sea endemics. Itis, however, a measure ofthe degree ofisolation ofthe Red Sea fauna from that ofthe Indo-Pacific thatendemic species doexist, andingreater numbers thanone would find in more open regions suchas the western Indian Ocean Vine, 1986!. Thecoral reefs ofthe northern GulfofAqaba belong tosome ofthe best ecologically investigatedreefsofthe world e.g., Benayahue andLoya, 1977; Fishelson, 1970;1973; 1977; Loyaand Rinkevicb, 1980;Mergner, 1981;Vaissiere andSeguin, 1984!. Thereefs areof the Fringingtypewith scleractinian coralsasthe most important hermatypic organisms Loyaand Slobodkin,1971!.The mean annual temperature ofthe surface wateris 23.0 C Loyaand S]obodkin,1971!butmay fallto 21.2 C inthe winter Mergner andSchuhmacher, 1974!.The waterishypersaline withsalinities of41.0 to 42 0 partsperthousand. Surfacecurrents typically fiowcounterclockwise fromnorth tosouth along theSinai coast Loya andSlobodkin, 1971!. Normaltidelevels are0.4 to 0.7 m, with occasional spring-tidal differences ofmore than 1.2 m Mergner,1981!.

ScorpiontIshes Thescorpionfish family,Scorpaenidae, hasmore than 300 species worldwide, ofwhich approximately35are known from the Red Sea Randall, 1983!. Scorpionfish havebeen dividedintothree groups onthe basis ofthe structure oftheir venoin organs: ! turkeyfish

210 Kendall:TicrkeyfishPterois miles, Red Sea and lionfish e.g.,Pterois!; ! scorpionfishproper e.g.,Scorpaena!; and ! stonefish e.g., Synanceja! Bridges, 1970!. There are a numberof different generaand speciesin eachof thesebasic groups.

'Membersof the genusPrerois, scorpionfish subfamily Pteroinae, have been referred to asturkeyfish, zebrafish, lionfish, dragonfish,and devilfish. trois live in the shallowsof the tropical Indian and westernPacific oceans Bridges,1970!. Theyare predatorycarnivores Mills, 1987!feeding on crabs,shrimps, and smallfishes Bridges,1970!. Pterois,like most scorpionfishes,are lie-and-waitor ambushpredators, feeding on smallfishes and crustaceans that mistakinglyventure too near. In contrast to most scorpionfishes,which rarely move, Pteroiscan often be found swimmingslowly just off the bottom Randall,1983!. It is possible to distinguishthe genderin all Pteroisspecies at breedingtime sincethe malesdarken and the feinalesbecome paler and havenoticeably larger abdomens Mills, 1987!.

PreroisvoLitans is the mostwell-known fish in this group. It canattain a lengthof 35cm and wasonce believed to occur throughoutthe Indo-Pacific Randall, 1983!. However,the specificepithet volitans is now reservedfor the PacificOcean variety. Basedon meristic number of dorsal and anal rays!and morphometric length of pectoralfin, sizeof spotson vertical fins! evidence, two allopatric species are now recognized: P. volitant in the western and south-central PaciTicand off Western Australia, and P. mdesin the Indian Ocean from South Africa to the Red Sea and east to Sumatra Schultz, 1986!.

Behavioral Observations

The observationsreported herewere madein 1984and 1985during severaldives at a reef formation approximately0.5 km south-southwestof the H. Steinitz Marine Biology Laboratory now the Marine Biology Laboratoryof the Inter-UniversityInstitute of Eilat!, Eilat, Israel. The Laboratoryis locatedon the coastof the Gulf of Aqaba,6 kmsouth-south- westof thecity of Eilat,and adjacent to a coralreef nature reserve Figure 2!. All photographs weretaken by the author during a singledive madeon April 6, 1984,between 1710 and 1750 h localtiine. Photographswere takenwith a NikonosIV-A underwatercamera complete with a 35-nun lens, and an Oceanic 2000 underwater strobe.

The reef formationruns roughlynorth-south and is approximately25 m fromshore, 25 m long,and 5 to 10m wide.The reef is borderedon its shorewardside by rock andcoral rubble andseaward by coral rubblegrading into a sandflat 20 to 25 m fromthe baseof the formation. The water depth at the baseof the reef variesfrom 4 to 5 m. At meanlow water,the top of the reef is at the water'ssurface and is exposedduring exceptionallylow tides: tired and/or carelesstourists were often seenwalking acrossthe top of the reef. A cavern-liketunnel penetratesthe forination at its northernend Figure3!. The tunnelis approximately5 mlong; hasa maximumdepth of 4 in; and hasseveral short, blind chambersto either side. During daylighthours 6 to 12 turkeyfishwere frequently found suspendedfrom the ceilingand walls of the tunneland side chambers. On severaloccasions, the turkeyfishwere observed leaving this daytimeresting station in the late afternoon Figure 4! to herdschools of smallfish henceforthreferred to as baitfish!. These schoolsof baitfish were generally2 to 3 m in

211 ggygggfor Science...1990

diameterand were common to tbearea. The turkeyfish would position themselves around the schoolsofbaitfish Figures 5 to 7!, spreading their dorsal and pectoral fins and spines inwhat wereapparent attempts toprevent the escape of theirprey Figures8 and9!. Severaltim duringthese encounters 1 or2 turkeyfishwould quietly swim into the school, gulping dawn severalpf thesmall fish. Tbeturkeyfish made no obviousattempts tp outswimandlpr outmaneuvertheir prey, including stragglers. ln what appeared to bea cooperativeeffort, the tuJkeyfish were able to o6set the speed and schooling defense oftheir prey. This is particularly noteworthysince the turkeyfish isa slow-movingbottom feeder, and this posture ofspread 6nsand spines further reduced their speed and inaneuverability. Fprsome time this reef has been an excellent location for observingfish behavior. Becauseof its constantuse by both tourists and scientists, it isassumed that the6shes have becomerelatively accustomed tothe presence of divers. Turkey6sh make little attempt tp evadedivers. When approached, however, they react by bringing their dorsal spines fully erect andthen rotating their bodies todirect the spines towards the intruder Steinitz, 1959!. If provokedfurther, they may strike forward with a rapiddarting or thrusting motion MIller, 1979;RandaU, 1983!. Such a defensiveposture was not witnessed during these observatipns offoraging. Even when the observer wasin the center ofthe school ofbaitfish, theturkeyfish ignoredhim, concentrating their attention on their prey.

EcologicalSignilcance Cooperativeforaging byP. miles was suggested forthe first time by Doubilet 987!: Aschool ofsmall fish hung likea chandelier beneath thesurface. Five tudcegbh circled,herding theschoolinto a tighter ness. Tivo turkeyfish drifted closer, lunged, anda fewsdvery fishdisappeared. Thenthe hunters became herders again, while theothers took their turn. Schoolingisgenerally believed tobe an effective preydefense onlyduring noncrepus- culardaylight hours. Only when light isdiminished twilight periods! arepredators electively abletoovercome schooling defenses Hobson, 1968!. Cooperative foraging tactics allow a predatortospecialize ondiurnally schooling species during periods ofthe day when non- cooperativeforagingbehaviors arelargely ineffective Schmit t and Strand, 1982!. This tray beof particular benefit tosuch a predator asthe turkey6sh. Turkeyfish,likemost scorpioufishes, areambush predators. They are cpmmp y observedhovering aboutin a creviceorswimming slowlyover the bottom. They area relatively slow-movingGsh,often remaining motionless underledges orin cave mouths waiting fora potentialmealto pass. Another technique ofcapture observed inaquaria isfor the turkey6sh tomaQeuver itsprey into a cornerorarea ofno retreat, theoutspread finspreventing et~pe followedbya quick gulp Mills, 1987!. A fiim made ofa stonefishatthe New York Aquarium showedthatthe opening ofthe mouth, thesnap atapproaching food,and the return tothe restng position tookplace inonly one-sixteenth ofa second Bridges, 197'0!.

212 Kendall:Twkeyfish Pterois miles, Red Sea

Variousaspects of thesebehavioral characteristics may be integratedinto a "behavior profile" of the cooperativeforaging of the turkeyfish.The herdingwith outspreadappendages effectively"cornered" the prey, reducingthe possibilityof its escape i.e., Mills, 1987!. This permitted individual predatorsthen to enter the schoolsand feed in more of a lie-and-wait predatorfashion. Furthermore, the foragingtook placein the lateafternoon when the baitfish may havebeen less likely to dependupon schoolingas a defense.Being forcedto schoolat this time may have subjectedthem to a reversedconfusion-effect Miller, 1922!. Among fishes,species that primarily consumepelagic prey are likely to meetthe conditionsfostering cooperativeforaging behaviors. These observationsof P. miles suggestthat cooperative foragingis alsoutilized by speciesgenerally believed not to consumepelagic prey.

The greatprotection affordedby a schoolingdefense should increase the importance of predatorrnechanisrns that deny these prey refuge through schooling. Patchily distributed resourcesthat are locally superabundant,such as schooled prey, will reducethe importance of competitionamong predators for a specificprey individual Schmitt and Strand, 1982!. Hamilton 971! proposedthat schoolingmay be selectedfor by the continuedincidence of predationand predicted that centrally located individuals would be safer than their peripheral counterparts.This "selfish herd" theory predicts that, as long as predators concentrate on the nearestprey, peripheral individuals should be at higherrisk relative to centralindividuals, as somepart of the formeris directlyexposed to theoutside and therefore closer to predators. A predatorusing an attackstrategy of marginalpredation would support this model. It has beendemonstrated that stragglers are attacked more frequently than the school and suffer a significantlyhigher risk in comparisonto those in theschool proper Hobson, 1968; Parrish, 1989!.However, the relative benefit of occupyinga given location within an aggregation is dependentupon the school size and the mode of predatorattack. Under some circumstances centralmembers of a schoolmay sustain a significantlyhigher percentage of risk than peripheralindividuals Pamsh, 1989!. In this case,the schoolingbehavior may have been detrimental and the baitfish betteroffif theyhad not schooled.The turkcyfishwere observed to ignorestragglers, preferringtoconcentrate their efforts on cornering prey rather than chasing them down. This strategyallowed for a typical,lie-and-wait predator to utilizea fastermoving, pelagic food soul'ce.

Topicsfor Additional Study

Theseobservations, and thoseof Doubilet 987!, supportprevious reports that cooperativeforaging behavior has evolved inpiscivorous fishes, including P.miles. However, whilethese observations may further support the notion of an evolved response toschooling, thereare a numberofareas requiring additional study. For example, doother species ofPterus exhibitthis behavior? Does the behavior exhibited by P. rIriks entirely ful611 the two criteria usedby Schmitt and Strand 982! to distinguish cooperative foraging from other, less complex formsof group hunting behaviors? What is the minimum and optimum number ofindividuals predators!necessary forthis behavior tobe effective? Does P. miles use different feeding tacticstocapture fish prey with qualitatively dissimilar defenses? Schmitt and Strand 982!

213 Divingfor Science...1990

observeddifferent feeding tactics by the yel}owt~} S ~g differentde e~a Tbeye}}owtai} herded an open water schooling pre, ' k k I ~ ~m!, ag'nst tbe shore, offsetting thespeed and well-developed scbh abilities edby the Prey to evade predators in pelagicwaters. ye}}octal we herdinga scbool ofthe Cortez grunts Lan~i~~~! intoopen wat aw Q f substmewhere key norma}}y takerefuge- These different hunting behaviors su~ t th t ' theyH~l g oupfor%i g behaviorisplastic enough torespond tothe different pr hunted.Is this plasticityfound in P.rndes and how f}exib}eis it?

SAFKTYAND FIRST-AIDCONSIDERATIONS Fishesthat can inflict poisonous puncture-type wounds are found throughout theworld butare most common intropical waters. These fishes, however, areusually not aggressive, andthe injuries thatdo result are generally dueto carelessness onthe part of the diver Steinitz, 1959!oraquarist Wasserman andJohnson, 1979!. Because ofthe potential forinjury to researchers,technicians, andaquarium personnel during the handling ofthese animals, asweH asthe necessity ofinsiiu observations duringbehavioral studies such asthe above, thefollowing isa briefsynopsis ofsafety and erst-aid considerations forwork with such venomous fishes. Whilethe specific symptoms andsigns vary with the type of fish inflicting the wound, generalindications ofa venomous injuryinclude a puncture inthe affected area; excruciating pain;fainting, weakness, nausea, andshock; local swelling, inflammation, orwelts; mental confusion;spreading nuinbness; paralysis; convulsions; respiratory depression orarrest; and sometimescardiac arrest PADI, 1987!. Treatment ofany venomous fishsting should include immediateattention towards alleviating thepairi, combating theeffects ofthe venoni, and preventingsecondary infection Ha}stead, 1976!. The pain from such stings isproduced bya combinationoffactors, inc}uding trauma from the offending spine, venom, and the introduc- tionof foreign substances intothe wound. Puncture-type wounds areusually small insize, and removalofthe venom isdifficult. Suction may be of limitedvalue since the venom tissue is partof the integumentary sheathofthe spine, and a portionofthe sheath may become lodged inthe wound and continue toenvenom thevictim after the spine itself has been removed. Scorpionfisharethe most widespread andnumerous family of venomous fishes. 'Am familyhas representatives throughout theworld, but the most dangerous species occur inthe t~opics Mi}}er, 1979!. Atleast 80species ofscorpionfishes havebeen known tocause injuries toswimmers anddivers. Scorpionfish stingsvary according tothe species. Thetype of sting, species, amount ofvenom released, andthe age and health ofthe victimall affect the severity ofthe injury PADI, 1989!. Anatomicai}y,thevenom organs ofscorpionfishes differfrom one group to the next, butgenerally consist ofdorsal, pelvic, and anal spines and associated venom glands- ~e turkeyfishhaslong, slender, delicate spines; thescorpionfish moderately stoutspines; andthe

214 Kendall:Turkeyfish Pterois mi les, Red Sea stonefishheavy, robust spines covered by a thick,warty integumentary sheath Bridges, 1970!. Eighteenofthe striped and spotted spines ofthe turkeyfish are venomous; thirteen are dorsal, theremaining five anal and pelvic Bridges, 1970!. The spines are V'or "anchor-shaped"in crosssection. The glandulartissue producing the venom lies in the longitudinalgroove on eachside of the spines Randall, 1983!. Stonefish also have thirteen venoinous spines on their back;however, the venomis containedwithin paired venom sacs at the baseof eachspine Bridges,1970!. Thepain from scorpionfish general designation! stings is usually described as imme- diate,intense, sharp, shooting or throbbing,and radiating from the affected part. Untreated, thepain reaches its peak in 60to 90minutes and persists 6 to12 hours. The character of the painvaries greatly with the amount of venom delivered and the species. The most severe pain isproduced by Synanceja, the stonefish, and may persist for severaldays. Complete recovery fromstonefish stings may require months Wasserrnan and Johnston, 1979! and inay have an adverseeffect on the general health of thevictim Halstead,1976!. Stonefish stings have been knownto befatal Bridges,1970; PADI, 1989!. Scorpionfish and turkeyfish stings generally resultonly in pain Steinitz,1959; Saunders, 1960; Wasserman and Johnston, 1979!. Stonefishvenom is an unstableprotein with a pH of 6.0and a molecularweight of 150,000.It produces an intense vasoconstriction andthereafter tends to localizeitself. It is destroyedbyheat, alkalis and acids pH greater than 9 orless than 4!, potassium permanganate andcongo red. Thetoxin is a myotoxin,which acts on skeletal,involuntary, and cardiac muscles,blocking conduction in these tissues and causing muscle paralysis, respiratory depres- sion,peripheral vasodilation, shock, and cardiac arrest. It isalso capable of producingcardiac arrhythmia Edmonds,1989!. Thevenom of otherscorpionfishes, including Pterois, is watersoluble and a heatlabile polypeptide.It reduces the rate of inactivationof thesodium channel and produces a fall in arterialpressure, an increaseand then a decreasein centralvenous pressure, respiratory depression,and abnormalities in electrocardiogram andelectroencephalogram tracings Ed- monds, 1989!,

A stonefish antivenornserum has been developedby the CommonwealthSerum Laboratories,Melbourne, Australia Wiener, 1959;Dueker, 1970;Wasserman and Johnston, 1979;Edmonds, 1989! and is preparedby hyperinununizinghorses with the venomof the stonefishSynancej a trachynis Edmonds, 1989!. One unit of stonefishantivenom neutralizes 0.01mg of stonefishvenom: typically there are 5 to10 mg of venomin eachof 13dorsal spines of the stonefish. The initial antivenomdose will dependon the numberof visiblepunctures andis given by intramuscular injection, but in severecases may be administered intravenously.

Stonefishantivenom is issuedin containersof 2,000units approximately2 ml! and shouldbe stored protected from light at 2 to8 C not frozen!. Becauseof thepossibility of severeallergic reactions, the serumshouM be usedonly understrict medicalsupervision Dueker,1970!. Stonefish antivenom has also been found to beeffective in thetreatment of otherscorpionfish stings Edmonds,1989!, Injected ernetine hydrochloride has also been

215 Divirrgfor Science...1990

foundtogive dramatically quickrelease from the intense pain Bridges 1970!. Morphine aray ormay not be effective when treating stonefish stings Wiener, 1959!. Firstaid for the victims of venomous fishes, including scorpionfish, canbe found in a numberof texts e.g., Halstead, 1976; Auerbacb, 1987; PADI, 1987; 1989; Edmonds, 1989!. Whilethe precise treatment will vary with the species encountered, theextent of envenoma- tion,the general health and sensitivity ofthe victim, and the available medical care, some generalizationsregarding firstaid can be made. Treatment should include immersing tbe puncturesin nonscalding hotwater of 43 to 48 C 10 to 120F!. Faceor body wounds will necessitatetheuse of hot moist compresses. Theheat will neutralize thevenom, contributirig greatlytothe relief of pain. This treatment usually requires 30to 90 minutes and may have to berepeated if pain recurs. Ifthe area affected isa limb,the victim should bekept in a position allowingthe limb to remain below the level of the heart. Prompt treatment forshock must be includedbecause fainting iscommon with venomous wounds. Any visible pieces ofthe spinesheath, s!, orother foreign bodies should beremoved withprobing instruments orby flushingthewound with water. However, thehot-water soakshould not be delayed during attemptstoremove foreign pieces from the wound. The wound should be scrubbed with soap andwater, then irrigated vigorously withfresh water. The wound should not be taped orsewn closed,butmay be covered after the pain has subsided. If the wound shows signs ofinfection, antibioticsshould beadmirristered. Fortreatment ofstonefish stings, the arrtiveriom should beadministered bya physician. Othersymptoms mayinclude fever, hypertension, respiratory andheart effects, and shock In the case of cardiacarrest, cardiopulmonary resuscitation CPR! maybe required.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wishtothank the staff ofthe H. Steinitz Marine Biology Laboratory forfield logistics, divingsupport, andassistance inphotograph development; Ms.Janice Blake and Ms. Debbie Millerfor assisting inmanuscript preparation; Mr.Michael Dorner for grammatical review; andDrs. Richard Defenbaugh, RobertRogers, andAnn Scarborough Bulland Messrs. Steven R.Derit and Charles W.Hill, Jr. for their technical reviews. Thisproject wassupported through a postdoctoralfellowship tothe author from the Hebrew University ofJerusalem andassis- tanceinmanuscript preparation fromthe Minerals Management Service MMS!. The in- tentsdo not necessarily reflect the views and policies ofthe MMS nor does mention oftrade namesor commercialproducts constitute endorsement orrecommendation of use.

LITERATURE CITED Auerbach,P.S. 1987. A Medical Guideto Hazardous MarineLife. Progressive PrintingCo Inc.,Jacksonville, Fla. 47 pp.

216 Kendall:TurkeyfishPterois miles, Red Sea

Benayahue,Y. and Y. Loya.1977. Space partitioning bystony corals, soft corals and benthic algaeon thecoral reefs of thenorthern Gulf of Eilat RedSea!. Helgolander wiss. Meeresunters 30: 362-382. Bridges,W. 1970.The New York Aquarium Book of the Water World. New York Zoological Society,American Heritage Publishing Co., Inc., New York. 287pp. Doubilet,D. 1987. Scorpionfish: danger in disguise.Natl. Geogr. 172: 634-644. Dueker,C. W. 1970. MedicalAspects of SportDiving. A.S. Barnes and Co., Inc., Cranbury, N3. 232 pp. Edinonds,C. 1989.Dangerous Marine Creatures. Reed Books Pty. Ltd., Australia. 192 pp. Fishelson,L 1970. Littoral faunaof the Red Sea:the populationof non-scleractinian anthozoansof shallowwaters of the Red Sea Eilat!. Mar. Biol. 6: 106-116. Fishelson,L 1973. Ecologicaland biological phenoinena influencingcoral-speciescomposi- tionon the reef tablesat Eilat Gulf of Aqaba,Red Sea!. Mar. Biol. 19: 183-196. Fishelson,L 1977.Stability and instability of marineecosystetns, illustrated by examples f'rom the RedSea. Helgolander wiss. Meeresiinters 30: 18-29. Foster,S. A. 1985.Group foraging by a coralreef fish: a rnechanisrnfor grazingaccess to defended resources. Anim. Behav. 33: 782-792.

Halstead.B. W. 1976.Hazardous marine life. pp. 227-256.In: DivingMedicine. R.H. Strauss ed.!.Grune and Stratton,Inc., NewYork. 420 pp. Hamilton,W. D. 1971.Geometry for theselfish herd. J. theor.Biol. 31: 295-311. Hobson,E. S. 1968.Predatory behavior of someshore fLshes in theGulf of California.Res. Rp. U.S.Fish Wildl. Serv.73: 1-92. Hobson,E. S. 1978.Aggregating as a defenseagainst predators in aquaticand terrestrial environinents.pp.213-234. In: Contrasts in Behavior.E.S. Reese and FL Lighter eds.!. John Wiley, New York. 406 pp. Landeau,L andJ. Terborgh.1986, Oddity and the 'confusion effect' in predation.Anim. Behav. 34: 1372-1380. Loya,Y. andB. Rinkevich.1980. Effects of oil pollutionon coralreef cointnunities. Mar. Ecol. Frog. Ser. 3: 167-180. Loya,Y. andL B.Slobcdkin. 1971. The coral reefs of Eilat Gulfof Eilat,Red Sea!. Symp. zool. Soc. Lond. 28: 117-139. Magurran,A. E., W. Oulton,and T. J. Pitcher.1985. Vigilant behavior and shoal size in minnows.Z. Tierpsychol.67: 167-178.

217 Divingfor Science...NQ9

Major,P. F. 1978.Predator-prey interactions in two schooling fishes, Caranxignobilir and Srolephorusptupureus. Anim. Behav.26: 760-777. Martinez,D. R.and E. Klinghammer. 1970. The behavior of thewhale Orcinus orca: a review of theliterature. Z. Tierpsych.27'. 828-839. Mergner,H. 1981.Man-made influences onand natural changes in the settlement of the AqabaReefs Red Sea!. Proc. 4th lnt. Coral Reef Symp. 1: 257-267, Mergner,H.and H. Schuhmacher. 1974.Morphologic, okologie und zonierung von koral- lenriffenbei Aqaba Golf von Aqaba, Rotes Meer!. Helgolander wiss. Meeresunters. 26: 238-357. Miller,R. C. 1922.The significance ofthe gregarious habit. Ecology 3: 122-126. Miller,J. W,, ed. 1979. NOAA Diving Manual: Diving for Science and Technology. 2nd Edition,U.S. Department ofCommerce Stock No. 003-017-00468-6. 450pp. Mills,D. 1987.The Encyclopedia ofThe Marine Aquarium. Cresent Books, New York. 208 PP. Neill,S. R. St. J. and J. M. Cullen. 1974. Experiments onwhether schooling bytheir prey affectsthe hunting behaviour ofcephalopods andfish predators. J.Zool. Lond. 172'. 549-569. Parrish,J.K. 1989.Re-examining theselfish herd: are central fish safer? Anim. Behav. 38: 1048-1053. Pitcher,T J. 1986.Functions ofshoaling behavior inteleosts. pp.291-337. In:The Behavior ofTeleost Fishes. TJ. Pitch ed.!. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md. 553 PP- Pitcher,T.J. and A. E, Magurran. 1983. Shoal size, patch profitability and informatiort exchangein foraginggoldfish. Anim. Behav. 31: 546-555. Pitcher,T.J., A. E. Magurran, andI.J. Winfield. 1982. Fish in larger shoals find food faster Behav,Ecol. Sociobiol. 10: 149-151. ProfessionalAssociation ofDiving Instructors PADI!. 1987. PADI Rescue Diver Manual, RevisedEdition. PADI, Santa Ana, Ca. 170 pp. ProfessionalAssociation ofDiving Instructors PADI!. 1989. The Encyclopedia ofRecrea- tionalDiving. PADI, Santa Ana, Ca. 348 pp. Randall,J.E. 1983.Red Sea Reef Fishes. IMMEL Publishing, 34Stansfield Road, London SW99RZ, 192pp.

218 Kendall:Ticrkeyfish Pterois nules, Red Sea

Saunders,P.R. 1960. Pharmacological & chemical studies of thevenom of thestonefish genus Synanceja and other scorpionfish. Annuals of theNew York Academy ofSciences. 90: 798-804. Schrnitt,R. J. andS. W. Strand. 1982. Cooperative foraging by yeUowtail, Seriola kahndei Carangidae!,ontwo species of fishprey. Copeia 3: 717-719, Schultz,E. T. 1986.Prefois volans and Prerois miks: two valid species. Copeia 3: 686-690. Seghers,B.H. 1974.Schooling behavior in the guppy FbecNa reticulata!: anevolutionary responseto predation.Evolution 28: 486-489. Smith,T. G.,D. B. Siniff, R. Reichle,and S. Stone.1981. Coordinated behavior of killer whales,Cbcimcs or@a, hunting a crabeaterseal, Lobodon carcinophagus. Can. J. Zool. 59: 1185-1189. Steinitz,H. 1959.Observations onPterois volitans L! andits venom. Copeia 2: 158-160. 'Ptrpy,C. 1979.Killer whale attack. Natl. Geogr. 155: 542-545. Vaissiere,R. and G. Seguin.1984. Initial observations of the zooplanktonmicrodistribution onthe fringing coral reef at Aqaba Jordan!. Mar. Biol. 83: 1-11. Vine,P. 1986.Red Sea Invertebrates. IMMEL Publishing,Ely House,37 Dover Street, London, WIX 3RB, 224 pp. Wassermatt,G, S. and R. M. Johnston.1979. Poisoning &om a Iionfishsting. Vet. Hum. Toxicol. 21: 344-345. Wiener,S. 1959.Observations on thevenom of thestone fish Synanceja trachynis. Med. J. Aust. 1: 620-627.

219 Divingfor Science...1990

Figure1. %beRed Sea, extending from the Straits ofBab al-Mandeb northward totnelnde thedeep Gulf of Atyaba KHat! and the shallow Gulf of Suez adapted from Raadntl, f983!. Kendall: TurkeyfishPterois milesian the RedSea

Figure2. Tbeaortheru Gulf of Aqaba including tbecity of Edat, tbc MarbM Blologkal Laboratory MBL!, thc coral reef nature reserve CRNR!, «nd the study site adapted fromMcrgacr, 1981!.

ptgurc3. ~ frowninside tbc cavcrn4ike tunnel iooidng outwarrL 'fbc tunnel isspproxi- matciy5 m long has a maximumdepth of4 m; and has several short, blind chambers to either side. IXvingfor Science...1990

Figure4. fhlrlngthc daylight bours 6 to12 turkeyflsh Pterois mifes! were frequently found suspeadedkern tbc ceiling snd walls of' the tunnel. la tbelate afternoon they would leave the tunnel.

FigureS. hamaHatelyupon leaving thc tuanel the turkcyflsh would begin to posit/on themselvesto herd schoolsof small baitgsh.

Figure6. 1' bArty5sbsurrounded schools ofbaltfisb. The schools of baltfisbwere typkslly2 to3 m in dbuaeterand elnmon to the area. Kentlall: T~rkeyfishPterois miles in theRed Sea

Figure7.Me turkeyfish spread their dorsal and pectoral finsand spines inwhat were apparentattempts to prevent the escape oftheir prey.

FigureiL Severaltimes during these encounters oneor two turkepfish would quietly swixa intothe school, gulping down several ofthe small fish. The turkeyfish made no obvious attemptstooutswim and/or outmaneuver their prey, including stragglers.

r+'W

Figure9.Yhts cooperative foragingbehavior allowed theturkeyflsh, a slow,primarily benthic predator,Co capture a pelagicprey.