2000
DOI: 10.1016/s0165-7836(00)00168-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ground truth and target identification for fisheries acoustics

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
54
1

Year Published

2004
2004
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 95 publications
(56 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
1
54
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, it is critical to complement the acoustic surveys by using groundtruth methods (trawling, gillnets, seining, etc. ; for a review see McClatchie et al 2000). In the present study, nine detailed acoustic surveys did not provide a clear pattern between day and night results, meaning some other factors that were not monitored were important.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 58%
“…Therefore, it is critical to complement the acoustic surveys by using groundtruth methods (trawling, gillnets, seining, etc. ; for a review see McClatchie et al 2000). In the present study, nine detailed acoustic surveys did not provide a clear pattern between day and night results, meaning some other factors that were not monitored were important.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 58%
“…This study is based on data collected during the MEDIAS survey, which is of added value given that (1) the data lack spatial bias because the whole anchovy distribution area is covered and not only the fishing grounds; (2) catches are not restricted by depth or mesh size, so the entire population length range is sampled; (3) fisheries acoustics is a direct method based on "ground-truth" information, through which all the anchovy echotraces are identified (McClatchie et al 2000); and (4) the survey period coincides with the anchovy spawning peak (Giráldez andAbad 1995, Palomera 1992) and with the maximum anchovy abundance (Palomera and Sabatés 1990), so it is optimal for stock discrimination (Cadrin et al 2014).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Acoustic data were recorded every nm using a calibrated EK60 (SIMRAD) scientific echosounder working with five split-beam transducers at 18, 38, 70, 120 and 200 kHz frequencies, with a constant vessel speed of 10 knots (nm/h). Anchovy echotraces (fish schools) which were detected on the echogram were identified by "ground-truth" information (McClatchie et al 2000) obtained by pelagic trawl net samples targeted at the echotraces (Simmonds et al 1992). …”
Section: Study Area and Fish Samplingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Examples of behaviours that alter the availability of fish to acoustic surveys include reaction of fish to sounds and survey vessels (Gerlotto & Fréon 1992, Misund & Aglen 1992, Popper et al 2004, Handegard & Tjøs-theim 2005, De Robertis et al 2008, ICES 2010, De Robertis & Wilson 2011 and diel migrations (Lawson & Rose 1999). Coupling acoustic data with complementary data on size and species composition is often challenging, due to varying sampling selectivity and resolution among sampling methods, but it is necessary for proper interpretation of acoustic data, and comparisons among different complementary techniques can be insightful (McClatchie et al 2000, Yule et al 2007, Williams et al 2010a). …”
Section: Coupling Acoustic Data With Other Sampling Techniquesmentioning
confidence: 99%