Effect of in situ radiated noise of the platform used on shallow water area on echo sounder data in fisheries-acoustics

• Autorzy: Brehmer P. , Guennegan Y. , Arzelies P. , Guillard J. , Cheret Y. , Duformentelle P. , Colon M.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The shallow water area of the coastal fringes is important to take into consideration in fish stock assessment because a great part of the stock, especially for the small pelagic fish is distributed in this area (20). In shallow water research vessels are prohibited to navigation (usually <20m) and usually only small boats can be used. One of the main source error in acoustics fish sampling is due to the avoidance reaction generated by the three dimensional noise diagram emitted by the boat. In this paper we highlighted the importance of wind direction and strength in the noise diagram emitted by the boat under in situ condition. A comparison of the noise level of two boats (a Research Vessel and a Speedboat equipped of similar echo sounder) has been made before simultaneous records of echo sounder data: the speedboat is more silent as revealed by in situ hydrophone measurement and near the ICES recommendations. The observation of shoal echo sounder descriptors shows an avoidance reaction as expected more important for the noisier boat: there the schools avoid more the research vessel. The avoidance reaction is characterised by a deeper position of the fish school barycentre, in the water column, detected by the research vessel and a shoal minimum depth higher than for the speedboat. The effect of noise diagram difference is clear on the same shoal descriptors, the difference appears for the vertical position of the barycentre and minimum altitude.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

in situ; echo sounder; fisheries; acoustics

• Wydawca: Polskie Towarzystwo Akustyczne. Oddział Gdański
• Czasopismo: Hydroacoustics
• Rocznik: 2003
• Tom: Vol. 6
• Strony: 31--40
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 33 poz., rys.

Twórcy

autor

Brehmer P.

• IRD, Centre de Recherche Halieutique Mediterraneenne et Tropicale, UR061, US 004, BP 171, 34 203, Sete, France

autor

Guennegan Y.

• Ifremer, Centre de Recherche Halieutique Mediterraneenne et Tropicale, Sète, France

autor

Arzelies P.

• Ifremer, DNIS, Toulon, France

autor

Guillard J.

• IRD, Centre de Recherche Halieutique Mediterraneenne et Tropicale, Sète, France
• NRA, Station Hydrobiologic Lacustre, Thonon les bains, France

autor

Cheret Y.

• Ifremer, Centre de Recherche Halieutique Mediterraneenne et Tropicale, Sète, France

autor

Duformentelle P.

• Ifremer, DNIS, Toulon, France

autor

Colon M.

• NRA, Station Hydrobiologic Lacustre, Thonon les bains, France

Bibliografia

• 1. P. Arzelies, P. Duformentelle, Bruit rayonne par le CHLAMY S, lere campagne de mesure, Rap. Sci. Ifremer TMSI Toulon DNIS/SM/AO/03-064, 2003.
• 2. P. Brehmer, F. Gerlotto, B. Samb, Measuring fish school avoidance during acoustic surveys, ICES-CM-2000/K:07, 1-13,2000.
• 3. P. Brehmer, F. Gerlotto, A. Rouault, Inter-standarsisation of acoustic devices: an integrated fish schooI data base for behaviouraI studies. VoI 88, Acta Acoustica, 730-734, 2002.
• 4. Ceteb. Navire de recherche l'EUROPE Ifremer .Contróle du bruit rayonne, station de mesure de Lanveoch., Centre d'Essais Techniques et d'Evaluation de Brest, marine national, 1994.
• 5. J. Coetzee, O.A. Misund & D.Boyer, Survey vessel avoidance reaction of sardinella off Angola, ICES CM 2000/K.:10, 2000.
• 6. N. Diner and P. Marchand, Acoustique et pćche maritime, Ifremer, 1-147, Brest 1995.
• 7. N. Diner, C. Marchalot and L. Berger, Echo integration by shoal using Movies+ software, DTI/DSIIDTI/98-243, version 3.4, Ifremer, France Apri12002.
• 8. P.G. Fernandes, A.S. Brierley, E.J. Simmonds, N.W. Millard, S.D. McPhai1, F. Armstrong, P. Stevenson, M. Squires, Fish do not avoid survey vessels, Nature, 404, 6773,35-36, 2000.
• 9. K.G. Foote, A. Aglen, and O. Nakken, Measurement offish target strength with a splitbeam sounder, J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 80(2),612-621,1986.
• 10. K.G. Foote, Fish target strength for use in echo integrator surveys, lAcoust. Soc. Am, 82, 981-987,1987.
• 11. S.T. Forbes and O. Nakken, Manual ofmethods for fisheries resource survey and appraisal, Part2: The use of acoustic instrument for fish detection and abundance estimation, FAO(Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) Management of fisheries and Science, 5, 1972.
• 12. P. Freon, F. Gerlotto, M. Soria, Variabi1ity ofHarengu1a spp. school reactions to boats or predators in shallow water, 196,30-35,1993.
• 13. P. Freon, F. Gerlotto, M. Soria, Die1 variability of schoo1 structure with special reference to transition, Simmonds E.l, Maclennan D.N., ICES l Mar. Sci., 53, 2, 459-464,1996.
• 14. P. Freon and O.A. Misund, Effects ofbehaviour on Stock Assessment using Acoustic Survey, Chapter 9, 258-273,1999.
• 15. S. Gauthier, G.A. Rose, In situ target strength studies on Atlantic redfish (Sebastes spp.), ICES Journal ofMarine Science, 59,4,805-815,2002.
• 16. F. Gerlotto and P. Freon, Influence of the structure and behaviour of fish school on acoustic assessment, ICES C.M. 1988/B : 53 Ref H, Sess, 1-28, 1988.
• 17. F. Geriotto, P. Freon, Some elements on vertical avoidance of fish schools to a vessel during acoustics surveys, Fisheries Research, 14,251-259,1992.
• 18. F. Geriotto, Methodologie d'observation et d'evaluation par hydroacoustique des stoeks tropicaux de poisons pelagiques cótiers: impact du comportement et de la distribution spatiale, These doc. Univ. de Brest Occi., Mars 1993.
• 19. Y. Guennegan, I Guillard, lL. Bigot, M. Colon and B. Liorzou, Importance ofthe costal area in the fish stock estimation : comparison of acoustica1 data from the 40 - 20 meters depth area obtained from an oceanographic vessel with the ones from the 30 - 5 meters depth with a shallow draught boat. ICES 6th Symposium AFAE. Session 2, poster n019, 2002.
• 20. l Guillard, A. Lebourges, Preliminary results of fish populations distribution in a Senegalese coastal area with depths less than 15 m, using acoustic methods. Aquat. Living. Resour.,11 , 13-20, 1998.
• 21. R. Jorgensen, K. Olsen, Acoustic target strength of capelin measured by single-target tracking in a controlled cage experiment, ICES l Mar. Sci.,159, 1081-1085,2002.
• 22. X. Lurton, An Introduction to Underwater Acoustics : Principles and Applications, Praxis- Springer, 2002.
• 23. D.N. Macl.ennan and EJ. Simmonds, Fisheries acoustics, Chapman et hall, fish and fisheries serie 5, 1-325, Londres 1992.
• 24. D. MacLennan, P.G. Femandes, 1. Dalen, A consistent approach to definitions and symbols in fisheries acoustics. ICES Joumal of Marine Science, 59: 365-369, 2002.
• 25. O.A. Misund, Sonar observations ofhorizontal extension, swimrning behaviour and vessel and purse seine avoidance ofherring school, Int. Symp. Fish, Acoustics, 22-26, Seattle 1987.
• 26. O.A. Misund, Swimming behaviour of schools related to fish capture and acoustic abundance estimation, Phd. Thesis. Univ. Bergen, Norway. Dpt. offisheries and marine biology, 1991.
• 27. R.B. Mitson, Underwater noise ofresearch vessels, Review and recommendations, lCES Coop. Res. Rep. W 209, 1-61, May 1995.
• 28. E. Ona and R. Korneliussen, Herring vessel avoidance; Diving or density draining, Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Underwater Acoustics, 1515-1520, Lyon 2000.
• 29. M. Soria, Structure et stabilite des bancs et agregations de poissons pćlagiques cótiers tropicaux: application halieutique, These Doct. Univ. Rennes I, 1-284, 1994.
• 30. P. Sprent, Pratique des statistiques non-paramćtriques, INRA (Eds), 1-312,1992.
• 31. J.J Urick, Principal ofunder water sound for engineer, Mc Graw Hill Book Company, 2nd Ed., 1-384, New York 1975.
• 32. R. Vabo, K. Olsen, I. Huse, The effect ofvessel avoidance ofwintering Norwegian spring spawning herring. Fisheries Research, 58, 1,59-77, 2002.
• 33. G.M. Wenz, Acoustic ambient noise in the ocean: soectra and sources, Journal Society of America, 34, 1936-1956, 1962.