Aerial surveys of fish in estuaries: a case study in Chesapeake Bay

The performance of a near-nadir, airborne lidar was compared with that of an airborne imagery (video) system for surveys of Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) in Chesapeake Bay, USA. Lidar had a greater probability of detecting a school (0.93 vs. 0.73) as a result of its greater depth penetration, a lesser probability of false identification (0.05 vs. 0.13) because it was less dependent on surface conditions and ambient illumination, and less variability [coefficient of variability of 0.34 vs. 0.73] in repeated coverage of the same area. Video had a lower statistical uncertainty in school detection [relative standard error 0.04 vs. 0.07] as a result of its greater swath width. The average depth penetration of lidar was 12 m, and the average depth of detected schools was 3 m. The performance of both techniques decreased with increasing windspeed, although the effect was smaller for lidar. The school area inferred by the two techniques was nearly the same. An examination of the missed schools and false identifications in lidar and video suggest that a combination of the two techniques would reduce most of the uncertainty associated with the use of either technique alone.

[1]  D. Heisey,et al.  Mycobacteriosis-associated mortality in wild striped bass (Morone saxatilis) from Chesapeake Bay, U.S.A. , 2008, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[2]  Pablo Carrera,et al.  Comparison of airborne lidar with echosounders: a case study in the coastal Atlantic waters of southern Europe , 2006 .

[3]  Joseph W. Smith Distribution of Atlantic menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus, purse-seine sets and catches from Southern New England to North Carolina, 1985-96 , 1999 .

[4]  David A. Demer,et al.  A comparison of lidar and echosounder measurements of fish schools in the Gulf of Mexico , 2003 .

[5]  James H. Churnside,et al.  Airborne lidar for fisheries applications , 2001 .

[6]  J H Churnside,et al.  Lidar profiles of fish schools. , 1997, Applied optics.

[7]  L. Jacobson,et al.  Indices of Relative Abundance from Fish Spotter Data based on Delta-Lognormal Models , 1992 .

[8]  K. Able,et al.  A re-examination of fish estuarine dependence: Evidence for connectivity between estuarine and ocean habitats , 2005 .

[9]  J. Uphoff Predator–prey analysis of striped bass and Atlantic menhaden in upper Chesapeake Bay , 2003 .

[10]  T. Munroe An overview of the biology, ecology, and fisheries of the clupeoid fishes occurring in the Gulf of Maine , 2000 .

[11]  U. Fish Fisheries of the United States , 1959 .

[12]  J. H. Churnside,et al.  Modeling statistical performance of an airborne lidar survey system for anchovy , 2000 .

[13]  Richard L. Collins,et al.  Remote sensing of capelin and other biological features in the North Pacific using lidar and video technology , 2002 .