The complexity of narrowband echo envelopes as a function of fish side-aspect angle

ICES Journal of Marine Science

Volumn 64, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 1066-1074

  Burwen, Debby L ^a   Nealson, Patrick A ^b   Fleischman, Steven J ^a   Mulligan, Timothy J ^c   Horne, John K ^b  

^a ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^c PACIFIC BIOLOGICAL STATION   (Canada)

Author keywords

Aspect angle; DIDSON sonar; Echo duration; Side aspect; Species classi.cation; Split beam echosounder; Target strength

Indexed keywords

EID: 38949095485     PISSN: 10543139     EISSN: 10959289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsm074     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Belcher, E. O., Matsuyama, G., and Trimble, R. 2001. Object identification with acoustic lenses. Proceedings of MTS/IEEE Oceans 2001, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1:6-11.
2. Burwen, D. L., and Fleischman, S. J. 1998. Evaluation of side-aspect target strength and pulse width as hydroacoustic discriminators of fish species in rivers. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 55:2492-2502.
3. Burwen, D. L., Fleischman, S. J., and Miller, J. D. Evaluation of a dualfrequency imaging sonar for detecting and estimating the size of migrating salmon. Fishery Data Series, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, AK, USA (in press).
4. Burwen, D. L., Fleischman, S. J., Miller, J. D., and Jensen, M. E. 2003. Time-based signal characteristics as predictors of fish size and species for a side-looking hydroacoustic application in a river. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 60:662-668.
5. Dahl, P. H., and Mathisen, O. A. 1983. Measurements of fish target strength and associated directivity at high frequencies. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 73:1205-1211.
6. Dawson, J. J., Wiggins, D., Degan, D., Geiger, H., Hart, D., and Adams, B. 2000. Point-source violations: split-beam tracking of fish at close range. Aquatic Living Resources, 13:291-295.
7. Ehrenberg, J. E., and Johnston, S. V. 1996. Evaluation of the use of hydroacoustic pulse width data to separate fish by size group. Report of Hydroacoustic Technology, Inc. to Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Sport Fish Division, Anchorage.
8. Fleischman, S. J., and Burwen, D. L. 2000. Correcting for positionrelated bias in estimates of the acoustic backscattering crosssection. Aquatic Living Resources, 13:283-290.
9. Fleischman, S. J., and Burwen, D. L. 2003. Mixture models for the species apportionment of hydroacoustic data, with echo envelope length as the discriminatory variable. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 60:592-598.
10. Foote, K. G. 1980a. Effect of fish behaviour on echo energy: the need for measurements of orientation distributions. Journal du Conseil International pour L'Exploration de la Mer, 39:193-201.
11. Foote, K. G. 1980b. Importance of the swimbladder in acoustic scattering by fish; a comparison of gadoid and mackerel target strengths. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 67:2084-2089.
12. Harden-Jones, F. R., and Pearce, G. 1950. Acoustic reflection experiments with perch (Perca fluviatatilis L.) to determine the proportion of echo returned from the swim bladder. Journal of Experimental Biology, 35:437-450.
13. Kieser, R., Mulligan, T. K., and Ehrenberg, J. E. 2000. Observation and explanation of systematic split-beam angle measurement errors. Aquatic Living Resources, 13:275-281.
14. Kubecka, J. 1994. Simple model on the relationship between fish acoustical target strength and aspect for high-frequency sonar in shallow waters. Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 10:75-81.
15. Lilja, J., Marjomaki, T. J., Jurvelius, J., Rossi, T., and Heikkola, E. 2004. Simulation and experimental measurement of sideaspect target strength of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) at high frequency. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 61:2227-2236.
16. Love, R. H. 1969. Maximum side-aspect target strength of an individual fish. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 46:746-752.
17. MacLennan, D. N., Magurran, A. E., Pitcher, T. J., and Hollingworth, C. E. 1990. Behavioural determinants of fish target strength. Rapports et Proce's-verbaux des Réunions du Conseil International pour l'Exploration de la Mer, 189:245-253.
18. Miller, J. D., and Burwen, D. L. 2002. Estimates of chinook salmon abundance in the Kenai River using split-beam sonar, 2000. Fishery Data Series No. 02-09. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, AK, USA.
19. Mulligan, T. K. 2000. Shallow water fisheries sonar, a personal view. Aquatic Living Resources 13:269-273
20. Nash, R. D. M., Sun, Y., and Clay, C. S. 1987. High resolution acoustic structure of fish. Journal du Conseil International pour L'Exploration de la Mer, 43:23-31.
21. Sound Metrics Corporation. 2004. Dual-frequency Identification Sonar. DIDSON Operation Manual V4.48. Seattle, WA, 39 pp.
22. Stanton, T. K., Reeder, D. B., and Jech, J. M. 2003. Inferring fish orientation from broadband-acoustic echoes. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 60:524-531.
23. Sun, Y., Nash, R., and Clay, C. S. 1985. Acoustic measurements of the anatomy of fish at 220 kHz. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 78:1772-1776.