 |
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
 |
||
|
||||
      |
Study Group on Fisheries Acoustics in the Great Lakes
This project is no longer current. Please see the Research Programs page for a list of current research projects.
Collaborators
Lars Rudstam, Cornell University (CU
Biological Field Station web site)
Patrick Sullivan, Cornell University (Cornell
DNR web site)
Thomas Hrabik, University of Minnesota-Duluth (UMN-D
Dept. of Biology web site)
Donna Parrish, University of Vermont
(UVM Rubenstein School of the Environment
and Natural Resources web site)
Michael Jech, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service - Fisheries Acoustics
Research Group
(NEFSC
Fisheries Acoustic Group web site)
Dave Warner, United States Geological Survey - Great Lakes Science Center
(USGS Great Lakes Science Center web
site)
Randy Claramunt, Michigan Department of Natural Resources (Michigan
DNR web site)
John Dettmers, Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS
web site)
Don Einhouse, New York Department of Environmental Conservation(NYDEC
web site)
Steve LaPan, New York Department of Environmental Conservation
Ted Schaner, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR
web site)
Larry Witzel, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Sponsor Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC web site)
A thorough understanding of forage fish distribution and abundance is
a key component of efforts to maintain the economically and internationally
important sport fish stocks in the Great Lakes. Hydroacoustics is a standard
procedure for marine stock assessment that should be even more applicable
to the relatively simple systems of the Great Lakes. Acoustic methods
are now used in all the Great Lakes, but comparability is difficult due
to the lack of a standard sampling protocol. The Great Lakes acoustic
community needs to understand the limitation and uncertainties with the
sampling procedures currently in use. Based on discussions at previous
acoustics workshops and the results from an inter-calibration project,
we propose to form study group on hydroacoustics to achieve the following
objectives:
- To develop a standard data acquisition protocol for collection of hydroacoustics data in the great lakes (thresholds, single fish filter settings, pulse length)
- To develop a standard processing protocol for estimates of fish density and biomass (density effects on in situ target strength, appropriate target-strength to length relationships for different species)
- To develop recommendations for survey design including the use of geostatistics for density estimates, and recommendations for appropriate stratification of collected data.
- Final document describing the standards developed in objective 1 to 3.
Project Rationale
The application of acoustic methods have become an important tool in developing this understanding and this tool is currently used in all the Great Lakes, Lake Champlain and several inland New York lakes (Brandt et al. 1991; Argyle 1992, Fleischer et al. 1997, Einhouse et al. 1997, Schaner and Lantry 1999, Warner et al. 2002). Acoustic surveys provide measures of abundance, distribution, and size of forage fish across a range of spatial scales (MacLennan and Simmonds 1992, Brandt 1996, Mason et al. 2001). Knowledge of the accuracy and comparability of these results are essential to fully utilize the data in both fisheries science and management.
The Great Lake Fisheries Commission (GLFC web site), the Great Lakes Research Consortium (GLRC web site), and New York Sea Grant (NYSG web site) have supported several workshops that have explored different aspects of the use of hydroacoustics in the Great Lakes region. These included an introduction to hydroacoustics (May 1997 workshop I - Brandt, Horne and Jech), application of geostatistics (May 1998, workshop II - Rudstam, Horne and MacNeill), and importance of target strength determination (Nov 1998, workshop III - Rudstam, Horne, and Fleischer). The GLFC also sponsored a workshop on emerging technologies at the Harkness Laboratory in 2000 where problems with target strength to size and species relationships as well an approaches to study target strength using combination of telemetry and acoustics was discussed and tried. The latest effort was an inter-calibration exercise performed in Lake Champlain in 2000 (Mason and Schaner 2001). The primary objective of this exercise was to compare the acoustic size and abundance estimates between 4 different frequencies that represented 3 different manufacturers (Biosonics, HTI, and Simrad) and three different signal processing software packages. These systems are representative of the frequencies, models and software used throughout the Great Lakes basin. The study found that several of these units gave comparable results, however, there were notable differences in abundance and size estimates both between frequencies and between systems. In addition, differences in analysis settings and software (thresholds, single fish filters, pulse length) provided significantly different results (Mason and Schaner 2001). These differences led Mason and Schaner (2001) to call for a study group to develop a standardized protocol for data acquisition and analysis across the Great Lakes so that results are comparable. This proposal is the response to this plea.
Currently, we do not have a standard sampling protocol for the Great Lakes basin. Continuous changes in hardware and software as well as differences in availability of ship time and size of the various water bodies have hampered the development of a standard approach. A standard approach is needed if we are to compare data from the different lakes and from the same lakes but between different acoustics systems. The closest to a standardized protocol available is written by Argyle et al. (1998), who developed a compendium for acoustic data acquisition and analysis in Lake Michigan. We can build on this document, but several of the suggestion are specific to the software used (Biosonics) and there are inconsistency between data presented in that document and new analysis from other users around the lakes (Mason et al. 2001, Warner et al. 2002). There are several good overviews of acoustic techniques in general (MacLennan and Simmonds 1992, Brandt 1996) and of the use of acoustics in the Great Lakes in particular (Mason et al. 2001). However, these more general texts do not give the details needed to address specific standardization issues across the Great Lakes. It is not our intention to repeat the theory and other information contained in these texts, neither is it our intention to provide a compendium of new emerging technologies. Rather we propose to develop a standard sampling and processing protocol for the Great lakes for the equipment already available. It is important that the Great Lakes acoustic community understand the limitation and uncertainties with the sampling procedures currently in use, and an agreed upon standard approved, before embarking on new technologies.
Uncertainties in the translation of echoes to fish occur in all three steps outlined below as objective 1 to 3. The confidence in an acoustic estimate of whole lake fish abundance is therefore dependent on the cumulative uncertainty in all three steps. There are currently two projects that deal with this problem, one with Rudstam, Sullivan, Horne, Einhouse, Witzel, Schaner and Lantry working in Lakes Erie, Ontario and Champlain (New York Sea Grant), and one with Mason, Hoff and Hrabik working in Lake Superior (Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act). In addition, assessment biologist around the Great Lakes are working with the issues of data acquisition and statistical analysis raised above. What we need is a study group to bring these scientists together and resolve sampling issues. This will greatly increase the utility of acoustics in the Great Lakes region.
2005 Plans
In this final year of the project, we will write the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) document for the application of fisheries acoustics in the Great Lakes. This document will house the results of the previous workshops held over the last two years, and contain the protocols as addressed for objectives 1-3 above.
Project Accomplishments
We have assembled a group of competent scientist representing all lakes except Lake Huron and organizations ranging from NOAA-GLERL and USGS at the US federal level, Michigan, Illinois, and New York at the state level, and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. In addition, we have included three graduate students in the working group. We have also invited a representative from outside the Great Lakes region to participate- Dr. Michael Jech from the National Marine Fisheries Service at Woods Hole.
2004 Progress
Workshops- The Study Group has held two workshops during
this period, on February 13-14, 2004 (Workshop III) in Ann Arbor (at the
U.S. Geological Survey) and on June 24-25, 2004 (Workshop IV) at the Cornell
Biological Field Station.
Workshop III – Target Strength-
The third workshop addressed the important issue of target strength use
in acoustic estimates. Dr. John Horne (University of Washington, Alaska
Fisheries Science Center) provided a presentation entitled, “Trials
and tribulations of target strength,” highlighting the effect of
both physical and biological factors on the magnitude of echo return from
a fish target. John provided a great deal of insight on the importance
of fish physiology and behavior on target strength and outlined methods
by which models are being developed to address these topics further. Group
members representing each lake gave presentations on their use of in situ
target strength and how values are used throughout their analyses. Tom
Hrabik presented findings from his study of the relationship between pulse
length of a hydroacoustics unit and target strength. The Group discussed
issues related to target strength that will need to be addressed in the
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). Mike Jech distributed a table of contents
for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Hydroacoustic Protocols.
The Group discussed this document as a possible template for our SOP.
Workshop IV: SOP definition and development- The most
recent workshop dealt with further defining and evaluating the structure
and content of the SOP. Group members came prepared with data and suggestions
for addressing acoustic topics. Mike Jech provided a presentation entitled,
“Marine versus Great Lakes Acoustic Surveys: Are there any differences?”
with an emphasis on how marine systems have dealt with some of the same
acoustic issues that are emerging in the Great Lakes. Sandra Parker Stetter
prepared a comparison between the NMFS Hydroacoustic Protocols and the
proposed SOP layout. The Group discussed how well the NMFS document addressed
similar topics and whether it could be used as a template for the SOP.
Seven discussion topics were identified and groups formed to address them
in detail with the goal of either identifying the need for further research/analysis
or providing recommendations on the topic to be included in the SOP. The
discussion topics were:
1. Publication and dissemination of the SOP
2. Calibration/Limitations/Problems
3. Data collection settings, software, and hardware
4. Analysis of acoustic data
5. Combining acoustic data with data from other sampling gear
6. Survey design
7. Publications associated with the study group
2003 Progress
Workshop I was held January 9-10, 2003 in Ann Arbor Michigan
The first workshop resulted in an outline for the standard operating procedure (SOP) we are going to produce. We also made plans for three future workshops and identified several action items.
Workshop II was held May 19-20, 2003 at the Cornell Biological Field Station
This workshop held at the Cornell Biological Field Station (CBFS web site) had over 20 participants. The workshop included presentations by some of the world's experts on acoustical survey design - John Simmonds from Aberdeen, Scotland (General problems and issues with survey design with applications to the North Sea), Patrick Sullivan from Cornell (Model versus design based variance), and Bill Overholz from NMFS-Woods Hole (Survey design and issues in Georges Bank). Survey Designs used in the Great Lakes and other lake systems were compared and discussed and included Lake Champlain, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, and small Canadian lakes.
Publications
Mason, D.M., T.B. Johnson, C.J. Harvey, J.F. Kitchell, S.T. Schram, C.R. Bronte, M.H. Hoff, S.T. Lozano, A.S. Trebitz, D.R. Schreiner, E.C. Lamon, and T. Hrabik. Hydroacoustic estimates of abundance and spatial distribution of pelagic fishes in western Lake Superior. Journal of Great Lakes Research. (Accepted pending revisions)
References
Argyle, R. L. 1992. Acoustics as a Tool for the Assessment of Great Lakes Forage Fishes. Fisheries Research 14:179-196.
Argyle, R. L., G. W. Fleischer, C. L. Curtis, J. V. Adams, and R. G. Stickel. 1998. An integrated acoustic and trawl based prey fish assessment strategy for Lake Michigan. A report to Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin Departments of Natural Resources.
Brandt, S. B., D. M. Mason, E. V. Patrick, R. L. Argyle, L. Wells, P. A. Unger, and D. J. Stewart. 1991. Acoustic measures of the abundance and size of pelagic planktivores in Lake Michigan. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48:894-908.
Brandt, S. B. 1996. Acoustic assessment of fish abundance and distribution. Pages 385-431 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries Techniques 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Brandt, S. B., D. M. Mason, E. V. Patrick, R. L. Argyle, L. Wells, P. A. Unger, and D. J. Stewart. 1991. Acoustic measures of the abundance and size of pelagic planktivores in Lake Michigan. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48:894-908.
Einhouse, D., J. Tyson, M. Bur, J. Deller, R. Haas, C. Murray, S. Nepszy, L. Sztramko, M. Thomas, E. Trometer, L. Rudstam, and L. Witzel. 1997. Report of the Forage Task Group to the Lake Erie Committee and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
Fleischer, G. W., R. L. Argyle, and G. L. Curtis. 1997. In situ relations of target strength to fish size for Great Lakes pelagic planktivores. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126:786-794.
Fleischer, G. W., and L. M. TeWinkle. 1998. Buoyancy characteristics of the bloater (Coregonus hoyi) in relation to patterns of vertical migration and acoustic backscattering. Arch. Hydrobiol. Spec. Issues Advanc. Limnol. 50:219-225
MacLennan, D. N., and E. J. Simmonds. 1992. Fisheries Acoustics. Chapman & Hall, London, England.
Mason, D.M., A.P. Goyke, S.B. Brandt and J.M. Jech. 2001. Acoustic fish stock assessment in the Laurentian Great Lakes. In M. Munawar and R.E. Hecky (eds), The Great Lakes of the World (GLOW): Food web, health and integrity. Ecovision World Monograph Series. Backhuys, Leiden, The Netherlands. pp. 317-339.
Mason, D. M., and T. Schaner. 2001. Final report to the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission for the acoustics inter-calibration exercise in 1999.
Schaner, T., and B. F. Lantry. 1999. Pelagic planktivores. Pages section 1 in Lake Ontario Management Unit 1998 Annual Report. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.
Warner, D. M., L. G. Rudstam, and R. A. Klumb. 2002. In situ target strength of alewives in freshwater. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131:212-223.
Milestone Report
Milestone: Develop standard operating procedures for the application of fisheries acoustics in the Great Lakes Region: workshops I and II
