Cited by 16Marine and fisheries researchFish Ecology and Management StudiesCensus and Population Estimation

Hydroacoustic Target Strength Distributions of Alewives in a Net-Cage Compared with Field Surveys: Deciphering Target Strength Distributions and Effect on Density Estimates

Brooking, Thomas E., Rudstam, Lars G.·2009·Transactions of the American Fisheries Society

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

Crossref · 10.1577/t07-215.1

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brooking, T. E., & Rudstam, L. G.
Affiliations
Cornell University (US)
Corresponding author
Brooking, Thomas E.
Venue
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
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