Towards a standard operating procedure for fishery acoustic surveys in the Laurentian Great Lakes, North America
Open accessAbstract
Rudstam, L. G., Parker-Stetter, S. L., Sullivan, P. J., and Warner, D. M. 2009. Towards a standard operating procedure for fishery acoustic surveys in the Laurentian Great Lakes, North America. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 66: 1391–1397. Acoustic surveys are conducted annually in all five of the Laurentian Great Lakes and Lake Champlain to assess forage-fish abundance. The main target species are rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), and several coregonine species (Coregonus spp.). The Great Lakes Fishery Commission sponsored an Acoustic Study Group from 2002 to 2006 to discuss common problems and suggest standardized methods across these lakes. The study group produced a set of recommendations, available as a Great Lakes Fishery Commission Special Publication and on the web, that use in situ target strength (TS) to scale volume backscattering. Here, we review these recommendations with special attention to four often-overlooked topics of interest to all acoustic users, namely issues associated with first, the choice of thresholds for both TS and volume-backscattering strength, second, different settings for single-echo detection algorithms for measures of in situ TS, third, those taking account of measuring in situ TS in dense fish concentrations, and finally, detection limits.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Acoustic returns from targets larger than -60 dB were analyzed with EchoView software using standard methods.
“Acoustic returns from targets larger than -60 dB were analyzed with the EchoView software (version 4.40; Myriax 2008) using standard methods (Rudstam et al. 2009).”
From Food web effects and the disappearance of the spring clear water phase in Onondaga Lake following nutrient loading reductions (2010) · cites this paper as Rudstam et al. 2009
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- Brooking, T. E., and Rudstam, L. G. Hydroacoustic target strength dis- tributions of alewife in a net cage compared to field surveys: deci- phering target strength distributions and effect on density estimates. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, in press.
- Gauthier, S., and Rose, G. A. 2001. Diagnostic tools for unbiased in situ target strength estimation. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 58: 2149-2155.
- Heist, B. G., and Swenson, W. A. 1983. Distribution and abundance of rainbow smelt in western Lake Superior as determined from acous- tic sampling. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 9: 343-353.
- Horne, J. K., and Jech, J. M. 2005. Models, measures, and visualiza- tions of fish backscatter. In Sounds in the Sea. From Ocean Acoustics to Acoustical Oceanography, pp. 374-397.
- Korneliussen, R. J., Diner, N., Ona, E., Berger, L., and Fernandes, P. G. 2008. Proposals for the collection of multifrequency acoustic data. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 982 -994.
- Lurton, X. 2002. An Introduction to Underwater Acoustics: Principles and Applications. Springer Verlag, London, UK.
- Mason, D. M., Goyke, A., Brandt, S. B., and Jech, J. M. 2001. Acoustic fish stock assessment in the Laurentian Great Lakes. In The Great Lakes of the World Food-Web, Health and Integrity, pp. 317 -340.
- Peterson, M. L., Clay, C. S., and Brandt, S. B. 1976. Acoustic estimates of fish density and scattering function. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 60: 618-622.
- Rudstam, L. G., Parker, S. L., Einhouse, D. W., Witzel, L. D., Warner, D. M., Stritzel, J. L., Parrish, D. L., et al. 2003. Application of in situ target strength estimations in lakes: examples from rainbow-smelt surveys in Lakes Erie and Champlain. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 60: 500-507.
- Sawada, K., Furusawa, M., and Williamson, N. J. 1993. Conditions for the precise measurement of fish target strength in situ. Journal of the Marine Acoustical Society of Japan, 20: 73-79.
- Simmonds, E. J., Williamson, N. J., Gerlotto, F., and Aglen, A. 1992. Acoustic survey design and analysis procedures: a comprehensive review of current practice. ICES Cooperative Research Report, 187.
- Simmonds, E. J., and MacLennan, D. N. 2005. Fisheries Acoustics. Theory and Practice, 2nd edn. Blackwell, Oxford, 437 pp.
- Soule, M., Barange, M., Solli, H., and Hampton, I. 1997. Performance of a new phase algorithm for discriminating between single and overlapping echoes in a split-beam echosounder. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 54: 934 -938.
- Soule, M., Hampton, I., and Barange, M. 1996. Potential improve- ments to current methods of recognizing single targets with a split- beam echo-sounder. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 53: 237 -243.
- Warner, D. M., Rudstam, L. G., and Klumb, R. A. 2002. In situ target strength of alewives in freshwater. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 131: 212-223. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsp014
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wang, R. W., Rudstam, L. G., Brooking, T. E., Snyder, D. J., Arrigo, M. A., & Mills, E. L. (2010) · Lake and Reservoir Management · doi:10.1080/07438141.2010.504070 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Rudstam, L. G., Parker-Stetter, S. L., Sullivan, P. J., & Warner, D. M.
- Affiliations
- Cornell University (US)
- School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, PO Box 355020, Seattle, WA 98195-5020, USA
- United States Geological Survey (US)
- Corresponding author
- Rudstam, Lars G.
- Venue
- ICES Journal of Marine Science
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-02-10
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1391-1397
- ISSN
- 1054-3139 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-9289
- OpenAlex
- W2105467792
- Cited by
- 103
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 5.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- ICES Journal of Marine Science (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Commerce
- Great Lakes Fishery Commission
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NA16RG1645)
- New York Sea Grant, State University of New York (# NA16RG1645)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Marine and fisheries research
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Oceanography › Underwater Acoustics Research
- Keywords
- standard operating procedures, volume backscattering strength, rainbow smelt, alewife, detection threshold, detection limit, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Great Lakes
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
