New Hydroacoustic Tools for Monitoring Migratory Fish Population. a Review
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260412430 The use of acoustic cameras in shallow waters: New hydroacoustic tools for monitoring migratory fish population. A review of DIDSON technology Article in Fish and Fisheries · January 2014 DOI: 10.1111/faf.12071 CITATIONS READS 35 2,041 5 authors, including: François Martignac aurélie Daroux French National Institute for Agriculture, Food, and Environment (INRAE) University of Maine 7 PUBLICATIONS 40 CITATIONS 3 PUBLICATIONS 53 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Jean-Luc Baglinière Dominique Ombredane French National Institute for Agriculture, Food, and Environment (INRAE) Agrocampus Ouest 184 PUBLICATIONS 3,102 CITATIONS 48 PUBLICATIONS 762 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: LaoPaDam project View project EAGLES View project All content following this page was uploaded by Jean-Luc Baglinière on 25 October 2017. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. F I S H and F I S H E R I E S , 2015, 16, 486–510 The use of acoustic cameras in shallow waters: new hydroacoustic tools for monitoring migratory fish population. A review of DIDSON technology Francßois Martignac1,2, Aurelie Daroux2, Jean-Luc Bagliniere2, Dominique Ombredane2 & Jean Guillard3 1ASCONIT Consultants, 3 impasse Sirius, 44470, Carquefou, France; 2UMR 985 INRA – Agrocampus Ouest «Ecologie et Sante des Ecosystemes» (ESE), 65 rue de St Brieuc, CS 84215, 35042 Rennes Cedex, France; 3INRA – Universitede Savoie. UMR «Centre Alpin de Recherches sur les Reseaux Trophiques et Ecosystemes Limniques» (CARRTEL), 75 avenue de Corzent, 74203 Thonon-les-Bains cedex, France Abstract Correspondence European Union legislation, through the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/ Francßois Martignac, ASCONIT Consul- EC), as well as national legislation, such as the ‘Grenelle Environnement’ (2007) in tants, 3 impasse France, requires restoration of ecological connectivity in streams to improve free Sirius, 44470 circulation of migratory fish. Different methods (e.g. capture by trap or net, teleme- Carquefou, France try, hydroacoustics) are used to evaluate the efficiency of fish passes to estimate Tel.: (+33) 2 51 13 the migratory species abundance and analyse changes in their within-river distri- 10 81 Fax: (+33) 2 40 04 butions. Among these methods, hydroacoustics is non-intrusive, allowing long-term 61 29 observation and description of fish populations based on physical properties of E-mail: francois. sound in water. However, the main limit to hydroacoustic tools is their difficulty in martignac@asconit. identifying species. Initially designed for military purposes, dual-frequency identifi- com cation sonar (DIDSON) has been used in environmental management for a decade. This acoustic camera uses higher frequencies and more sub-beams than common Received 27 May hydroacoustic tools, which improves image resolution and then enables observation 2013 of fish morphology and swimming behaviour. The ability to subtract static echoes Accepted 27 Nov from echograms and directly measure fish length improve the species-identification 2013 process. However, some limits have been identified, such as automatic dataset recording and the low range of the detection beam, which decreases accuracy, but efficient tools are now being developed to improve the accuracy of data recording (morphology, species identification, direction and speed). The new technological properties of acoustic cameras, such as the video-like visualization of the data, have greatly improved monitoring of diadromous fish populations (abundance, distribu- tion and behaviour), helping river and fisheries managers and researchers in mak- ing decisions. Keywords Acoustic camera, dual-frequency identification sonar, hydroacoustics, migratory fish, monitoring Introduction: General context and objectives 487 Common hydroacoustic methods for fish monitoring 488 Advantages 488 Disadvantages 490 486 DOI: 10.1111/faf.12071 © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd DIDSON use for migratory fish studies F Martignac et al. Description of DIDSON technology 491 High-frequency sonar: an acoustic camera 491 Recording and processing of DIDSON data 492 Setting and processing tools 492 Extraction of fish data from DIDSON records 493 Relevance of DIDSON data 495 Counting individual fish 495 Estimating fish length 496 Species identification 497 Operator effect 497 Technological improvements for identifying species 497 Identifying eels 497 Interpreting acoustic fish shadows 497 Studying frequency of caudal fin beating 498 Limits of DIDSON 498 Monitoring of migratory fish populations: an ecological purpose for the acoustic 500 cameras Installation of acoustic camera on study sites 500 Recommended study-site characteristics 500 Positioning and settings of acoustic camera 500 Recommended components 500 Monitoring examples 501 Does acoustic cameras replace, or instead complement, common hydroacoustic 502 methods? Conclusion 504 Acknowledgements 504 References 504 societal value (Bagliniere et al. 2003; Lackey Introduction: General context and objectives 2009; Limburg and Waldman 2009). So it is Migratory fish species have complex life histories important to know their abundance level and its characterized by migratory behavioural feature. In evolution in time. diadromous fish, life history can include alternat- European Union legislation, through the Water ing periods in water of different salinity, requiring Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) as well as active migrations, for example, between seas and national legislations, such as ‘Grenelle Environne- rivers (Verspoor et al. 2007), estuaries and rivers ment’, a law passed in 2007 in France, requires (Almeida 1996), or seas and lagoons (Beck et al. restoration of a good ecological status of rivers 2001). In other migratory fish, it can also include (water and habitat quality and connectivity) to long travel within rivers without leaving freshwa- improve access of migratory fish. Thus, the pres- ter (Bagliniere 1999; Radinger and Wolter 2013). ence and abundance of migratory fish are relevant Dam building and degradation of habitats and indicators of the good working function and bio- water quality have reduced the distribution and logical integrity of aquatic ecosystems (Karr 1991; abundance of migratory fish by decreasing the Rose 2000). Their complex life cycle and the number and area of zones suitable for spawning diversity of different life-history strategies make or growth (Ransom et al. 1998; Limburg and these species particularly relevant for studying the Waldman 2009). Most migratory fish are consid- evolutionary processes of aquatic organism adap- ered threatened or for some of them close to tive capacity facing to global change (Rivot et al. extinction even though they have ecological and 2009). © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, F I S H and F I S H E R I E S , 16, 486–510 487 DIDSON use for migratory fish studies F Martignac et al. At the watershed scale, managing populations of Thus, this review details the advantages and dis- these species depends on knowledge and under- advantages of common hydroacoustic methods, standing of factors influencing their sustainability, describes this recent technology and the interest of that is, fish ecology, such as life-history traits, acoustic camera techniques for fish monitoring. In demography, behaviour and environmental factors the conclusion, properties of both techniques in (Brehmer et al. 2011a). Their study at the biological monitoring studies are compared. watershed scale focuses on two concepts: an eco- system approach to fisheries (Garcia and Cochrane Common hydroacoustic methods for fish 2005; Cury et al. 2008) and ecological connectivity monitoring (Amoros and Bornette 2002). It is therefore impor- tant to know the spatial and temporal changes in Advantages abundance of these species to assess their status. Predictive models have been developed to monitor Acoustic systems are the only way to penetrate the fish stock, such as the simple Maximum Sustain- aquatic environment over great distances. Echo- able Yield (MSY), used notably in North America in sounders are electronic devices that transmit acous- salmon population studies (Fair et al. 2004). Never- tic pulses through a transducer into water. When a theless, limitations of these theoretical methods pulse is emitted into the environment, it spreads have been proved (Sissenwine 1978; Forbes and until it meets a target with a different density from Peterman 1994; Walters et al. 2005), and have led the propagation environment. Thus, fish and other managers and scientists to develop others monitor- objects can be detected (Simmonds and MacLennan ing methods, such as video-counting (Shardlow 2005). The acoustic pulse is reflected from this tar- 2004; Meynecke et al. 2008; Perrier et al. 2010), get and returns to the transmitter. The transducer and fish traps (Bagliniere et al. 2005). These tech- acts as a receiver, detecting some of the returning niques cannot be used on many rivers due to high energy. Echosounders can emit acoustic pulses at turbidity and expensive human and/or material several frequencies, but only acoustic waves of the resources. So, despite their limits, notably in species initially emitted frequency are received (Lucas and identification, hydroacoustic methods have been Baras 2000). The detected acoustic echoes are dis- increasingly used in fish ecology studies at sea played on an echogram, on which target echoes (Kracker