Marine Biology

, Volume 116, Issue 2, pp 269–275 | Cite as

Comparison of krill (Euphausia superba) density estimates using 38 and 120 kHz echosounders

  • I. Everson
  • C. Goss
  • W. A. Murray


A series of observations, using a dual-frequency calibrated echosounder operating at 38 and 120 kHz, of a patch of Euphausia superba close to South Georgia in 1986 is described. Sea state is shown to cause significant noise close to the surface, but to cause no significant signal attenuation. There is a consistent difference of ∼5 dB between the signal levels at the two frequencies which is in line with the difference noted from independent observations, theoretical models and in studies on encaged aggregations of krill.


Attenuation Theoretical Model Density Estimate Significant Noise Consistent Difference 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Anonymous (1980). Merchant shipping search and rescue manual (MERSAR). International Maritime Organisation. LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. BIOMASS (1986). POST-FIBEX acoustic workshop. Frankfurt am Main. BIOMASS Rep. Ser. 40: 1–106Google Scholar
  3. CCAMLR (1989). Report of the Eighth Meeting of the Scientific Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). CCAMLR, Hobart, Tasmania (SC-CAMLR-VIII)Google Scholar
  4. Dalen, J., Løvik, A. (1981). The influence of wind-induced bubbles on echo-integration surveys. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 69: 1653–1659Google Scholar
  5. Everson, I. (1982). Diurnal variations in mean volume backscattering strength of an Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) patch. J. Plankton Res. 4: 155–162Google Scholar
  6. Everson, I., Bone, D. G. (1986). Effectiveness of the RMT8 system for sampling krill (Euphausia superba) swarms. Polar Biol. 6: 83–90Google Scholar
  7. Foote, K. G., Everson, I., Watkins, J. L., Bone, D. G. (1990). Target strengths of Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) at 38 and 120 kHz. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 87: 16–24Google Scholar
  8. Foote, K. G., Knudsen, H. P., Vestnes, G., MacLennan, D. N., Simmonds, E. J. (1987). Calibration of acoustic instruments for fish density estimation: a practical guide. Co-op. Res. Rep. int. Counc. Explor. Sea 144: 1–69Google Scholar
  9. Greene, C. H., Stanton, T. K., Wiebe, P. H., McClatchie, S. (1991). Acoustic estimates of Antarctic krill. Nature, Lond. 349: p. 110Google Scholar
  10. Greenlaw, C. F. (1979). Acoustical estimation of zooplankton populations. Limnol. Oceanogr. 24: 226–242Google Scholar
  11. Hampton, I. (1991). Measurements of differences in the target strength of Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) swarms at 38 kHz and 120 kHz. Scientific Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). Hobart, Tasmania (Selected Scientific, Papers, 1990; SC-CAMLR-SSP/7, 75–86)Google Scholar
  12. MacLennan, D. N., Simmonds, E. J. (1992). Fisheries acoustics. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Madureira, L. S. P., Everson, I., Murphy, E. J. (1993a). Interpretation of acoustic data at two frequencies to discriminate between Antarctic krill and other scatterers. (in preparation)Google Scholar
  14. Madureira, L. S. P., Ward, P., Atkinson, A. (1993b). Differences in backscattering strength determined at 120 and 38 kHz for three species of Antarctic macroplankton. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. (in press)Google Scholar
  15. Miller, D. J. M., Hampton, I. (1989). Biology and ecology of the Antarctic krill. BIOMASS scient. Ser. 9: 1–166Google Scholar
  16. Payne, R. W., Lane, P. W., Ainsley, A. E., Bicknell, K. E., Digby, P. G. N., Harding, S. A., Leech, P. K., Simpson, H. R., Todd, A. D., Verrier, P. J., White, R. P., Gower, J. C., Tunnicliffe Wilson, G., Patterson, L. J. (1987). GENSTAT 5 reference manual. 1st edn. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK. (ISBN No. 0 19 852212 6)Google Scholar
  17. Roe, H. S. J., Shale, D. M. (1979). A new multiple rectangular midwater trawl (RMT 1+8 M) and some modifications to the Institute of Oceanographic Sciences' RMT 1+8 Mar. Biol. 50: 283–288Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. Everson
    • 1
  • C. Goss
    • 1
  • W. A. Murray
    • 1
  1. 1.British Antarctic SurveyNERCCambridgeEngland

Personalised recommendations