EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 20 / No 4 (October-December 2007) Aquat. Living Resour., 20 4 (2007) 377-384 References
Free Access
Issue
Aquat. Living Resour.
Volume 20, Number 4, October-December 2007
Fish Aggregating Devices as Instrumented Observatories of Pelagic Ecosystems
Page(s) 377 - 384
Section Technical Note
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/alr:2008016
Published online 26 February 2008
  • Andersen L.N., Berg S., Gammelsæter O.B., Lunde E.B., 2006, New scientific multibeam systems for fisheries research applications. In: Rodriguez J.SM. (Eds), Proc. 8th Eur. Conf. Underwater Acoustics, pp. 385-386. [Google Scholar]
  • Brehmer P., Gerlotto F., Samb B., 2000, Measuring fish avoidance during surveys. ICES CM 2000/K:07. [Google Scholar]
  • Brehmer P., Gerlotto F., Rouault A., 2002, In situ inter-standardisation of acoustic data: an integrated database for fish school behavioural studies. Acta Acoust.88, 730-734. [Google Scholar]
  • Brehmer P., Gerlotto F., Guillard J., Sanguinède F., Guénnegan Y., Buestel D., 2003, New applications of hydroacoustic methods for monitoring shallow water aquatic ecosystems: the case of mussel culture grounds. Aquat. Living Resour. 16, 333-338. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Brehmer P., Lafont T., Georgakarakos S., Josse E., Gerlotto F., Collet C., 2006, Omnidirectional multibeam sonar monitoring: Applications in fisheries science. Fish Fish. 7, 165-179. [Google Scholar]
  • Brehmer P., Gerlotto F., Laurent C., Cotel P., Achury A., Samb B., 2007, Schooling behaviour of small pelagic fish: phenotypic expression of independent stimuli. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 334, 263-272. [Google Scholar]
  • Castro J.J., Santiago J.A., Santana-Ortega A.T., 2001, A general theory on fish aggregation to floating objects: an alternative to the meeting point hypothesis. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 11, 255-277. [Google Scholar]
  • Dagorn L., Holland K.N., Itano, D.G., 2007, Behaviour of yellowfin (Thunnus albacares) and bigeye (T. obesus) tuna in a network of fish aggregating devices (FADs). Mar. Biol. 151, 595-606. [Google Scholar]
  • Dempster T., Taquet M., 2004, Fish aggregation device (FAD) research: gaps in current knowledge and future directions for ecological studies. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 14, 21-42. [Google Scholar]
  • Dempster T., Sanchez-Jerez P., Bayle-Sempere J.T., Giménez-Casalduero F., Valle C., 2002, Attraction of wild fish to sea-cage fish farms in the south-western Mediterranean Sea: spatial and short-term temporal variability. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 242, 237-252. [Google Scholar]
  • Diner N., Massé J., 1987, Fish school behaviour during echo survey observed by acoustic device. Internat. Symp. Fisheries Acoustics, 21-24 June, 1987, Seattle. [Google Scholar]
  • Diner N, 2007, Evaluating uncertainty in measurements of fish shoal aggregate backscattering cross-section caused by small shoal size relative to beam width. Aquat. Living Resour. 20, 17-121. [Google Scholar]
  • Doray M., Josse E., Gervain P., Reynal L., Chantrel J., 2006, Acoustic characterisation of pelagic fish aggregations around moored fish aggregating devices in Martinique (Lesser Antilles). Fish. Res. 82, 162-175. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Fedoryako B.I., 1988, Fish accumulations in the open ocean near stationary buoys. J. Ichthyol. 28, 667–669. [Google Scholar]
  • Fonteneau A., Ariz J., Gaertner D., Nordstrom V., Pallares P., 2000, Observed changes in the species composition of tuna schools in the Gulf of Guinea between 1981 and 1999, in relation with the Fish Aggregating Device fishery. Aquat. Living Res. 13, 253-257. [Google Scholar]
  • Foote K.G., Chu D., Hammar T.R., Baldwin K.C., Mayer L.A., Hufnagle L.C., Jech J.M., 2005, Protocols for calibrating multibeam sonar. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117, 2013-2027. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Fréon P., Dagorn L., 2000, Review of fish associate behaviour: toward a generalisation of the meeting point hypothesis. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 10, 183-207. [Google Scholar]
  • Gerlotto F., Hamitouche C., Simmonds E.J., Georgakarakos S., Fernandes P., 2001, Analyse et visualisation tri-dimensionnelle des images sonar. Final report, Fair CT 96 1717, CRHMT, Sète. [Google Scholar]
  • Gaertner D., Pagavino M., Marcano J., 1996, Utilisation de modèles linéaires généralisés pour évaluer les stratégies de pêche thonière à la senne en présence d'espèces associées dans l'Atlantique ouest. Aquat. Living Resour. 9, 305-323. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Gerlotto F., 1993, Identification and spatial stratification of tropical fish concentrations using acoustic populations. Aquat. Living Resour. 6, 243-254. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Goncharov S.E., Borisenko E.S., Pyanov A., 1989, Jack mackerel schools defence reaction to a surveying vessel. Proc. Inst. Acoust. 11, 74-78. [Google Scholar]
  • Hafsteinsson M.T., Misund O.A., 1995, Recording the migration behaviour of fish schools by multi-beam sonar during conventional acoustic surveys. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 52, 915-924. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Haugland E.K., Misund O.A., 2004, Evidence for a clustered spatial distribution of clupeid fish schools in the Norwegian Sea and off the coast of southwest Africa. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 61, 1088-1092. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Josse E., Bertrand A., 2000, In situ acoustic target strength measurements of tuna associated with a fish aggregating device. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 57, 911-918. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Josse E., Dagorn L., Bertrand A., 2000, Typology and behaviour of tuna aggregations around fish aggregating devices from acoustic surveys in French Polynesia. Aquat. Living Resour. 13, 183-192. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Mackinson S., Nøttestad L., Guénette S., Pitcher T.J., Misund O.A., Fernö A., 1999, Cross-scale observations on distribution and behavioural dynamics of ocean feeding Norwegian spring spawning herring (Clupea harengus L.). ICES J. Mar. Sci. 56, 613-626. [Google Scholar]
  • Marsac F., Fonteneau A., Ménard F., 2000, Drifting FADs used in tuna fisheries: an ecological trap? In: Le Gall J.Y., Cayré P., Taquet M. (Eds.), Pêche thonière et dispositifs de concentration de poissons. Ed. Ifremer, Actes Colloq. 28, 537-552. [Google Scholar]
  • Miquel J., Delgado de Molina A., Ariz J., Delgado de Molina R., Déniz S., Díaz N., Iglesias M., Santana J.C., Brehmer P., 2006, Acoustic Selectivity in Tropical Tuna (Experimental Purse-seine Campaign in the Indian Ocean). Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, `WCPFC-SC2', FT WP-8; IOTC-2006-WPTT-06, Manila. [Google Scholar]
  • Misund O.A., 1990, Observation of schooling herring: school dimensions, swimming behaviour and avoidance of vessel and purse seine. Rapp. P.-v. Réun. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer 189, 135–146. [Google Scholar]
  • Misund O.A., Aglen A., Beltestad A.K., Dalen J., 1992, Relationship between the geometric dimensions and biomass of schools. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 49, 305-315. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Misund O.A., Coetzee J., 2000, Recording fish schools by multi-beam sonar: potential for validating and supplementing echo integration recordings of schooling fish. Fish. Res. 47, 149-159. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Palud P., Brehmer P., 2004, Montage du sonar multifaisceaux omnidirectionnel de longue portée SIMRAD SP91–160; Navire: Indian ocean explorer (Belize) EU project: FADIO, 5th Framework Programme, Research Directorate General; Contract #QLRI-CT-2002-02773. Rapp. Techn. CRHMT, Sète. [Google Scholar]
  • Parin N.V., Fedoryako B.I., 1999, Pelagic fish communities around floating objects in the open ocean. In: Scott M.D., Bayliff W.H., Lennert-Cody C.E., Schaefer K.M. (Eds.), Proc. Int. Workshop on the Ecology and Fisheries for Tuna Associated with Floating Objects. Inter-Am. Trop. Tuna Comm. Spec. Rep. 11, La Jolla, CA, pp. 447-458. [Google Scholar]
  • Pedersen B., Trevorrow M.V., 1999, Continuous monitoring of fish in a shallow channel using a fixed horizontal sonar. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 105, 3126-3135. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Petitgas P., Monimeau L., Brehmer P., Gerlotto F., 1996, Characterizing the spatial distribution of fish schools with a point process approach: a first application on sonar recordings. ICES CM 1996/B:31. [Google Scholar]
  • Pitcher T. J., 1986, The behavior of teleost fishes. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. [Google Scholar]
  • Relini G., Relini M., Montanari M., 2000, An offshore buoy as a small artificial island and a fish-aggregating device (FAD) in the Mediterranean. Hydrobiologia 440, 65-80. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Rose G.A., Legget W.C., 1988, Hydroacoustic signal classification of fish schools by species. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 45, 597-604. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Simrad 1992, Operator Manual Simrad SR240, Fishery sonar. P2291E Software Version 5.0X.Mar, Simrad AS, Horten, Norway. [Google Scholar]
  • Simrad 2003, New Sonar Scientific Data Logger. News Bulletin, Fishery 11, Horten, Norway. [Google Scholar]
  • Simrad 2004, Simrad SP90 Low frequency long range fishery sonar; Operator manual. 850-164511 / Rev. E, Simrad AS, Horten, Norway. [Google Scholar]
  • Simrad 2007, Operator Manual SX90, Fish finder sonar, Simrad AS, 307672 / Rev. A, Horten, Norway. Taquet M., 2004, Le comportement agrégatif des dorades coryphènes (Coryphaena hippurus) autour des objets flottants. Thèse Doct. Univ. Paris 6. [Google Scholar]
  • Tang Y., Iida K., Mukai T., Nishimori Y., 2006, Estimation of fish school volume using omnidirectional multibeam sonar: scanning modes and algorithms. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 45, 4868-4974. [Google Scholar]
  • Trygonis V., Georgakarakos S., 2007, Investigation of school speed measurement errors by simulation. In: Report, the Working Group on Fisheries Acoustics Science and Technology (WGFAST), ICES Fish. Technol. Comm. ICES CM 2007/FTC:09. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.