Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T04:33:51.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How pulse lengths impact fish stock estimations during hydroacoustic measurements at 70 kHz

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2011

Małgorzata Godlewska ,
Michel Colon ,
Adam Jóźwik  and
Jean Guillard
Małgorzata Godlewska
Affiliation:
Stanislaw Sakowicz Inland Fisheries Institute, Oczapowskiego 10, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland International Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences, European Regional Centre for Ecohydrology under the auspices of UNESCO, Tylna 3, 90-364 Łódź, Poland
Michel Colon
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR CARRTEL, BP 511, 74203 Thonon les Bains, France
Adam Jóźwik
Affiliation:
Institute of Biocybernetics and Biomedical Engineering, Polish Academy of Sciences, ul. Ks. Trojdena 4, 02-109 Warszawa, Poland
Jean Guillard*
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR CARRTEL, BP 511, 74203 Thonon les Bains, France
*
a Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Water Framework Directive requires reliable and effective monitoring tools, and hydroacoustics has a potential to be one of them. The effect of pulse duration on in situ acoustical estimates of fish density and their size distribution was investigated. Measurements were performed in the oligo-mesotrophic Lake Hancza (Poland) using a SIMRAD EK60 split-beam echo-sounder at 70 kHz frequency. During the survey, two similar transducers pinged alternatively through the multiplexer using 4 different pulse lengths, from short to long ones. The results show that the volume backscattering coefficient (Sv) values, equivalent of the fish biomass, were not influenced by the pulse length. However, the number of the detected fish, the mean target strength (TS), and consequently the fish density, differed significantly for the long pulse duration data. This was especially noticeable in the layer above the thermocline with dense fish populations. In this upper layer, for the long pulse the Sawada index frequently exceeded value of 0.1 leading to overestimation of the mean TS and underestimation of the fish density.

Keywords

LakeFreshwater fishHydroacousticsPulse lengthFish stockWFD
Type
Research Article
Information
Aquatic Living Resources , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 71 - 78
Copyright
© EDP Sciences, IFREMER, IRD 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Balk H., Lindem T., 2006, Sonar 4, Sonar 5, Sonar 6 – Post-processing Systems. Operator Manual. Lindem Data Acquisition, Oslo.
Barange, M., Hampton, I., 1996, Empirical determination of in situ target strengths of three loosely aggregated pelagic fish species. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 53, 225–232. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CEN (European Committee for Standardization) 2009, Water quality – Guidance on the estimation of fish abundance with mobile hydroacoustic methods, prEN 1591041.
Djemali, I., Toujani, R., Guillard, J., 2009, Hydroacoustic fish biomass assessment in man-made lakes in Tunisia: horizontal beaming importance and diel effect. Aquat. Ecol. 43, 1121–1131. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falster D.S., Warton D.I., Wright I.J., 2006, SMATR: Standardised major axis tests and routines, ver 2.0. http://www.bio.mq.edu.au/ecology/SMATR/.
Forbes S.T., Nakken O., 1972, Manual of methods for fisheries resource survey and appraisal., Part. 2, The use of acoustic instruments for fish detection and abundance estimation. FAO Manuals in Fisheries Science, 5.
Foote, K.G., 1987, Fish target strengths for use in echo integrator survey. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 82, 981–987. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote K.G., Knudsen H.P., Vestnes G., MacLennan D.N., Simmonds E.J., 1987, Calibration of acoustic instruments for fish-density estimation: a practical guide. ICES Coop. Res. Rep., 144.
Gauthier, S., Rose, G.A., 2001, Diagnostic tools for unbiased in situ target strength estimation. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58, 2149–2155. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godlewska, M., Swierzowski, A., Winfield, I.J., 2004, Hydroacoustics as a tool for studies of fish and their habitat. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 4, 417–427. Google Scholar
Guillard, J., Balay, P., Colon, M., Brehmer, P., 2010, Survey boat effect on YOY fish schools in a pre-alpine lake: evidence from multibeam sonar and split-beam echosounder data. Ecol. Freshw. Fish 19, 373–380. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guillard, J., Lebourges-Dhaussy, A., Brehmer, P., 2004, Simultaneous Sv and TS measurements on YOY fresh water fish using three frequencies. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 61, 267–273. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guillard, J., Perga, M.E., Colon, M., Angeli, N., 2006, Hydroacoustic assessment of young-of-year perch, Perca fluviatilis, population dynamics in an oligotrophic lake (Lake Annecy, France). Fish. Manage. Ecol. 13, 319–327. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guillard, J., Verges, C., 2007, The repeatability of fish biomass and size distribution estimates obtained by hydroacoustic surveys using various sampling strategies and statistical analyses. Int. Rev. Hydrobiol. 92, 605–617. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaartvedt, S., Røstad, A., Klevjer, T.A., Staby, A., 2009, Use of bottom-mounted echo sounders in exploring behavior of mesopelagic fishes. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 395, 109–118. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knudsen, F.R., Larsson, P., Jakobsen, P.J., 2006, Acoustic scattering from a larval insect (Chaoborus flavicans) at six echosounder frequencies: implication for acoustic estimates of fish abundance. Fish. Res. 79, 84–89. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozłowski J., Poczyczyñski P., Zdanowski B., 2008, Środowisko i ichtiofauna jeziora Hañcza. IRŚ, Olsztyn.
Kubecka J., 1995, Effect of pulse duration and frequency bandwidth on fish target strength and echo shape in horizontal sonar applications. In: XII Symposium on Hydroacoustics, Jurata 16–19 May 1995, Polish Naval Military Academy, 913/95, pp. 187–174.
MacLennan, D., Fernandes, P.G., Dalen, J., 2002, A consistent approach to definitions and symbols in fisheries acoustics. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 59, 365–369. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masson, S., Angeli, N., Guillard, J., Pinel-Alloul, B., 2001, Diel vertical and horizontal distribution of crustacean zooplankton and Y-O-Y fish in a sub alpine lake: an approach based on high frequency sampling. J. Plankton Res. 23, 1041–1060. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehner, T., Busch, S., Helland, I.P., Emmrich, M., Freyhof, J., 2010, Temperature related nocturnal vertical segregation of coexisting coregonids. Ecol. Freshw. Fish 19, 408–419. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehner, T., Kasprzak, P., Hölker, F., 2007, Exploring ultimate hypotheses to predict diel vertical migrations in coregonid fish. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 64, 874–398. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’ Driscoll, S., Rose, G.A., 2001, In situ acoustic target strength of juvenile capelin. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 58, 342–345. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy B.R., Willis D.W., 1996, Fisheries Techniques, 2nd edn. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
Rose, G.A., 1998, Acoustic target strength of capelin in Newfoundland waters. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 55, 918–923. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudstam, L G., Parker-Stetter, S. L., Sullivan, P. J., Warner, D.M., 2009, Towards a standard operating procedure for fishery acoustic surveys in the Laurentian Great Lakes, North America. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 66, 1391–1397. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawada, K., Furusawa, M., Williamson, N.J., 1993, Conditions for the precise measurement of fish target strength in situ. Fish. Sci. 20, 15–21. Google Scholar
Simmonds, E.J., Gutierrez, M., Chipollini, A., Gerlotto, F., Woillez, M., Bertrand, A., 2009, Optimizing the design of acoustic surveys of Peruvian anchoveta. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 66, 1341–1348. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmonds E.J., MacLennan D.N., 2005, Fisheries acoustics: theory and practice. Wiley- Blackwell, 2nd edn., Oxford.
Soule, M., Barange, M., Hampton, I., 1995, Evidence of bias in estimates of target strength obtained with a split beam echosounder. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 52, 139–144. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soule, M., Barange, M., Solli, H., Hampton, I., 1997, Performance of a new phase algorithm for discriminating between single and overlapping echoes in a split beam echosounder. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 54, 934–938. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprent P., 1992, Pratique des Statistiques non Parametriques. INRA, Paris.
Trenkel, V.M., Berger, L., Bourguignon, S., Doray, M., Fablet, R., Massé, J., Mazauric, V., Poncelet, C., Quemener, G., Scalabrin, C., Villalobos, H., 2009, Overview of recent progress in fisheries acoustics made by Ifremer with examples from the Bay of Biscay. Aquat. Living Resour. 22, 1–13. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wanzenböck, J., Mehner, T., Schulz, M., Gassner, H., Winfield, I.J., 2003, Quality assurance of hydroacoustic surveys: the repeatability of fish-abundance and biomass estimates in lakes within and between hydroacoustic systems. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 60, 486–492. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, D.M., Schaeffer, J.S., O’ Brien, T.P., 2009, The Lake Huron pelagic fish community: persistent spatial pattern along biomass and species composition gradients. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 66, 1199–1215. Google Scholar
Warton, D.I., Wright, I.J., Falster, D.S., Westoby, M., 2006. Bivariate line-fitting methods for allometry. Biol. Rev. 81, 259–291. Google ScholarPubMed
Winfield, I.J., Fletcher, J.M., James, J.B., Bean, C.W., 2009, Assessment of fish populations in still waters using hydroacoustics and survey gill netting: experiences with Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus) in the UK. Fish. Res. 96, 30–38. CrossRefGoogle Scholar