Quantifying and reducing the surface blind zone and the seabed dead zone using new technology

Totland, A., Johansen, G. O., Godo, O. R., Ona, E., and Torkelsen, T. 2009. Quantifying and reducing the surface blind zone and the seabed dead zone using new technology. - ICES Journal of Marine Science, 66: 1370-1376.The surface blind zone and the seabed dead zone are unobservable with hull-mounted acoustic systems. These constraints may seriously limit the effectiveness of acoustic observations in studies of ecosystem dynamics. In this paper, new technologies are used to make observations in these boundary zones, by augmenting conventional acoustic observations from transducers mounted in a retractable keel with simultaneous observations from two autonomous acoustic systems, one sampling the surface blind zone and the other the seabed dead zone. These observations to some extent overlap in depth, which allows comparisons between data collected with the vessel and the corresponding data from the two autonomous systems. The main targets of the investigation were young-of-the-year gadoids in the surface blind zone and older cod at least partly in the seabed dead zone. Species and their sizes were identified from trawl samples. The advantages and limitations of using new autonomous equipment for quantifying the acoustic backscattering within otherwise unobservable zones are discussed. The magnitudes of potential measurement biases in acoustic data collected with the vessel are also estimated for this survey.

[1]  S. Walsh,et al.  An adaptive, integrated “acoustic-trawl” survey design for Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) with estimation of the acoustic and trawl dead zones , 2005 .

[2]  D. Tjøstheim,et al.  Diurnal variation in acoustic densities: why do we see less in the dark? , 2004 .

[3]  O. Godø,et al.  Silent research vessels are not quiet. , 2007, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[4]  Anders Fernö,et al.  Marine fish behaviour in capture and abundance estimation , 1994 .

[5]  Egil Ona,et al.  Acoustic sampling and signal processing near the seabed: the deadzone revisited , 1996 .

[6]  R. Hewitt,et al.  Bias in acoustic biomass estimates of Euphausia superba due to diel vertical migration , 1995 .

[7]  A. Aglen,et al.  How vertical fish distribution may affect survey results , 1999 .

[8]  O. Godø,et al.  The effect of different sweep lengths on the length composition of bottom-sampling trawl catches , 1989 .

[9]  O. Godø,et al.  Monitoring changes in abundance of gadoids with varying availability to trawl and acoustic surveys , 1993 .

[10]  G. Walters,et al.  Survey Assessment of Semi-pelagic Gadoids: The Example ofWalleye Pollock, Theragra chalcogramma, in the Eastern Bering Sea , 1994 .

[11]  Jan Kubečka,et al.  Diurnal changes of fish behaviour in a lowland river monitored by a dual-beam echosounder , 1998 .

[12]  E. John Simmonds,et al.  Fisheries Acoustics: Theory and Practice , 2005 .

[13]  O. Godø,et al.  Behaviour of mackerel schools during summer feeding migration in the Norwegian Sea, as observed from fishing vessel sonars , 2004 .

[14]  Rudy J. Kloser.  Improved precision of acoustic surveys of benthopelagic fish by means of a deep-towed transducer , 1996 .

[15]  E. Ona,et al.  Synthetic echograms generated from the relative frequency response , 2003 .

[16]  D. Skagen,et al.  Improved mapping of schooling fish near the surface: comparison of abundance estimates obtained by sonar and echo integration , 1996 .

[17]  G. Lawson,et al.  The importance of detectability to acoustic surveys of semi-demersal fish , 1999 .

[18]  O. Bergstad,et al.  Strategies, methods, and technologies adopted on the R.V. G.O. Sars MAR-ECO expedition to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge in 2004 , 2008 .