4.6 Article

Potential acoustic discrimination within boreal fish assemblages

Journal

ICES JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE
Volume 61, Issue 5, Pages 836-845

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.icesjms.2004.03.033

Keywords

Bering Sea; forage fish; Gulf of Alaska; KRM model; species identification; target strength

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Differences in the acoustic characteristics of forage fish species in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea were examined using Kirchhoff ray-mode (KRM) backscatter models. Our goal was to identify species-specific characteristics and metrics that facilitate the discrimination of species using acoustic techniques. Five fish species were analyzed: capelin (Mallotus villosus), Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii), walleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma), Atka mackerel (Pleurogrammus monopterygius), and eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus). Backscatter amplitude differences exist among these species, especially between swim-bladdered and non-swimbladdered fish. Echo intensities were variable within and among species. The effect of morphological variability was indexed using the ratio of the Reduced-scattering length (RSL) standard deviation over its mean. Morphological variability was low only at fish length to acoustic wavelength ratios less than eight. Target strength differences between pairs of carrier frequencies (ranging from 12 kHz to 200 kHz) differed among species, and were dependent on fish size and body orientation. Frequency differencing successfully discriminated between fish species but the choice of frequency to maximize target strength differences was not consistent among species pairs. Frequency-dependent, backscatter model predictions facilitate comparison of target strength differences prior to acoustic data collection. (C) 2004 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available