Hydroacoustic Target Strength Distributions of Alewives in a Net-Cage Compared with Field Surveys: Deciphering Target Strength Distributions and Effect on Density Estimates
Abstract
Acoustic estimation of fish abundance requires knowledge of the target strength (TS) distribution associated with the fish present. We measured the TS distribution at 70 kHz for five size-groups of alewives Alosa pseudoharengus (mean total length = 68-138 mm) swimming freely in a large net-cage. Although the mean and mode of the distributions were significantly related to fish length, the TS range obtained from each length-class was over 25 decibels (dB). The TS distributions were negatively skewed and had a tendency toward bimodality. The TS distributions at 70 and 123 kHz were similar for one alewife size-group that was measured with both frequencies. Small but inconsistent differences were found between day and night for the same groups of fish. Shapes of the TS distributions were similar when centered on the mode, and we derived a probability density function (PDF) for TS at 70 kHz as a function of fish length to describe these distributions. We used this PDF to predict TS distributions based on alewife gill-net catch from six lake surveys and compared predictions with in situ TS distributions from each acoustic survey. Observed and predicted distributions were similar for TS values greater than −50 dB, but the observed number of small TS values exceeded the predicted number for several of the surveys. Some of these smaller TS values were probably from invertebrates or smaller fish or were indicative of noise. Estimates of alewife density from lake surveys were highly aff…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Observed acoustic target strengths were consistent with the expectation based on the size of alewife caught in the gill nets.
“Observed acoustic target strengths were also consistent with the expectation based on the size of alewife caught in the gill nets (Brooking and Rudstam 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 Brooking and Rudstam 2009
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
- Brooking, T. E., & Rudstam, L. G.
- Affiliations
- Cornell University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Brooking, Thomas E.
- ORCID
- Rudstam, Lars G.
- Venue
- Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-05-01
- Volume
- 138
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 471-486
- ISSN
- 0002-8487 (ISSN-L)
- 1548-8659
- OpenAlex
- W2167831126
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 1.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Transactions of the American Fisheries Society (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
- New York Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Project (F-48-R)
- Cornell University
- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
- NOAA (NA46RG0090)
- SUNY Research Foundation for New York Sea Grant (R/FBF-12)
- SUNY Oneonta and Mark Cornwell from SUNY Cobleskill (262)
- Cornell University Biological Field Station
- 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 › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Census and Population Estimation
- Keywords
- alewife, acoustic target strength, fish density estimation, acoustic abundance estimation, probability density function, fish length, gillnet catch, lake survey
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