Marine benthic biodiversity can be measured using a range of sampling methods, including benthic sleds or trawls, grabs, and imaging systems, each of which targets a particular community or habitat. Due to the high cost and logistics of benthic sampling, particularly in the deep sea, studies are often limited to only one or two biological sampling methods. Results of biodiversity studies are used for a range of purposes, including species inventories, environmental impact assessments, and predictive modelling, all of which underpin appropriate marine resource management. However, the generality of marine biodiversity patterns identified among different sampling methods is unknown, as are the associated impacts on management decisions.

This report reviews studies that have used two or more sampling methods in order to determine the consistency of their results among gear types, as well as the optimum combination of gear types. In addition, we directly analyse data that were acquired using multiple gear types to examine the consistency of biodiversity patterns among different gear types. These data represent two regions: 1) Joseph Bonaparte Gulf (JBG) in northern Australia, and 2) Icelandic waters as part of the Benthic Invertebrates of Icelandic Waters (BIOICE) program. For each dataset, we investigate potential patterns of biodiversity (measured by species richness, diversity indices, abundance, and community structure) in relation to environmental variables such as depth, geomorphology, and substrate.

The availability of worldwide data from benthic marine biodiversity surveys reporting the results of two or more gear types is generally poor. Surveys were concentrated in the coastal regions of UK, Norway and Australia, with limited or no studies elsewhere and only 13% including the slope or deep sea.

Between different gear groups, our review and analysis of datasets from two regions (northern Australia and Iceland) demonstrates there is little consistency in marine biodiversity trends, with only one study yielding consistent ecological patterns between sampling gear groups (imagery and epifaunal). This indicates that ideal gear combinations are not easily able to be generalised among studies and regions. In addition, the lack of consistency between sampling gear groups highlights the need to analyse gear-specific data and avoid amalgamation. Even among gear that yielded relatively consistent ecological relationships, results varied across biological or environmental factors. Within a gear group, there are more consistencies in ecological relationships, with only two out of the eight studies compiled showing inconsistent ecological relationships

A lack of gear-specific studies precluded the determination of the optimal combination of gear types for a particular regions or environments. Nevertheless, based on our findings, we provide preliminary recommendations and inform further research: 1) If general biodiversity patterns are to be investigated, sampling for marine benthic surveys should be carried out using multiple gear types that are concurrently deployed; 2) Target measures of biodiversity need to be decided a priori and appropriate gear used; 3) Preliminary data will help determine the optimal combination of gear types used to sample that region and address a given hypothesis; and 4) If only two gear types are able to be deployed, a grab or corer should be one of them, as this sampling gear type samples a different habitat than other gear groups.