Estuaries and Coasts

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 607–617 | Cite as

Hydroacoustics as a tool for assessing fish biomass and size distribution associated with discrete shallow water estuarine habitats in Louisiana

  • Kevin M. BoswellEmail author
  • Matthew P. Wilson
  • Charles A. Wilson


We developed a relative index of fish biomass and size distribution in ultra-shallow waters (< 2 m) of Barataria Bay, Louisiana, based on the comparison of horizontal hydroacoustic data with gill net and push trawl catches in an effort to understand the role that habitat plays in both fish biomass and distribution. Exclosure net experiments indicated that the contribution of acoustic backscattering from sources other than fishes were negligible. Split-beam transducer, gill net, and push trawl sampling were conducted concurrently in Barataria Bay to provide information on fish composition and length distributions and for comparisons among gear types. Results suggest that acoustic fish biomass was generally higher in the low salinity stations and lower at the high salinity stations, at least in March 2004. We observed a greater mean length of fishes associated with oyster shell habitats when compared to adjacent sand-mud habitats. This paper demonstrates the utility of hydroacoustics as a tool to quantify relative acoustic fish biomass and size distribution associated with common estuarine habitats in ultra-shallow waters. This study also illustrates the potential of using acoustics for augmenting traditional sampling procedures.


Habitat Type Standard Length Fish Biomass Target Strength Acoustic Data 
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. Allen, Y. C., C. A. Wilson, H. R. Roberts, andJ. Supan. 2005. High resolution mapping and classification of oyster habitats in nearshore Louisiana using sidescan sonar.Estuaries 28:435–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boswell, K. M. 2006. Quantifying changes in fish habitat use in coastal waters of Louisiana, USA: A hydroacoustic approach. Ph.D. Dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana URL: Scholar
  3. Boswell, K. M., M. W. Miller, and C. A. Wilson. 2007. A lightweight transducer platform for use in stationary shallow water horizontal-aspect acoustic surveys.Fisheries Research Scholar
  4. Burwen, D. andS. J. Fleischman. 1998. Evaluation of side-aspect target strength and pulse width as potential hydroacoustic discriminators of fish species in rivers.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55:2492–2502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burwen, D. andS. J. Fleischman. 2003. Mixture models for the species apportionment of hydroacoustic data, with echoenvelope length as the discriminatory variable.ICES Journal of Marine Science 60:592–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Conner, W. H. and J. W. Day. 1987. Description of the basin, p. 1–7.In W. H. Conner and J. W. Day (eds.), The Ecology of Barataria Basin, Louisiana, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85 (7.13). Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  7. Foote, K. G. 1987. Fish target strengths for use in echo-integrator surveys.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 82:981–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Foote, K. G., H. P. Knudsen, G. Vestnes, D. N. MacLennan, andE. J. Simmonds. 1987. Calibration of acoustic instruments for fish density estimation: A practical guide ICES Cooperative Research Report No 144. ICES, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
  9. Frouzova, J., J. Kubecka, H. Balk, andJ. Frouz. 2005. Target strength of some European fish species and its dependence on fish body parameters.Fisheries Research 5:86–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gelwick, F. P., S. Akin, D. A. Arrington, andK. O. Winemiller. 2001. Fish assemblage structure in relation to environmental variation in a Texas Gulf coastal wetland.Estuaries 24:285–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guillard, J. A. 1998. Daily migration cycles offish populations in a tropical estuary (Sine-Saloum, Senegal) using a horizontaldirected split-beam transducer and multibeam sonar.Fisheries Research 35:23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guillard, J. A., J. J. Albaret, M. Simier, I. Sow, J. Raffray, andL. Tito de Morias. 2004b. Spatio-temporal variability of fish assemblages in the Gambia estuary (West Africa) observed by two vertical hydroacoustic methods: Moored and mobile sampling.Aquatic Living Resources 17:47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guillard, J., A. Lebourges-Dhaussy, andP. Brehmer. 2004a. Simultaneous Svv and TS measurements in young-of-the-year (YOY) freshwater fish using three frequencies.ICES Journal of Marine Science 61:267–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoese, H. D. andR. H. Moore. 1998. Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico, 2nd edition. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, Texas.Google Scholar
  15. Hubert, W. A. 1996. Passive capture techniques, p. 157–192.In B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis (eds.), Fisheries Techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.Google Scholar
  16. Jones, R. F., D. M. Baltz, andR. L. Allen. 2002. Patterns of resource use by fishes and macroinvertebrates in Barataria Bay, Louisiana.Marine Ecology Progress Series 237:271–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Knudsen, F. R. andH. Sægrov. 2002. Benefits from horizontal beaming during acoustic survey: Application to three Norwegian lakes.Fisheries Research 56:205–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Krumme, U. 2004. Patterns in tidal migration of fish in a Brazilian mangrove channel as revealed by a split-beam echosounder.Fisheries Research 70:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krumme, U. andU. Saint-Paul. 2003. Observations of fish migration in a macrotidal mangrove channel in northern Brazil using a 200-kHz split-beam sonar.Aquatic Living Resources 16: 175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kubecka, J. 1996. Use of horizontal dual-beam sonar for fish surveys in shallow waters, p. 165–178.In I. G. Cowx (ed.), Stock Assessment in Inland Fisheries. Fishing News Books, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  21. Kubecka, J. andM. Wittingerova. 1998. Horizontal beaming as a crucial component of acoustic fish stock assessment in freshwater reservoirs.Fisheries Research 35:99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lilja, J., T. Keskinen, T. J. Marjomaki, P. Valkeajarvi, andJ. Karjalainen. 2003. Upstream migration activity of cyprinids and percids in a channel, monitored by a horizontal split-beam echosounder.Aquatic Living Resources 16:185–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lima, I. D. andJ. P. Castello. 1995. Distribution and abundance of south-west Atlantic anchovy spawners (Engraulis anchoita) in relation to oceanographic processes in the southern Brazilian shelf.Fisheries Oceanography 4:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Love, R. H. 1971. Dorsal-aspect target strength of an individual fish.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 49:816–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. MacLennan, D. N., P. G. Fernandes, andJ. Dalen. 2002. A consistent approach to definitions and symbols in fisheries acoustics.ICES Journal of Marine Science 59:365–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moursund, R. A., T. J. Carlson, andR. D. Peters. 2003. A fisheries application of a dual-frequency identification sonar acoustic camera.ICES Journal of Marine Science 60:678–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mouse, P. J. andJ. Kemper. 1996. Applications of a hydroacoustic sampling technique in a large wind-exposed shallow lake, p. 179–195.In I. G. Cowx (ed.), Stock Assessment in Inland Fisheries. Fishing News Books, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  28. Pedersen, B. andM. V. Trevorrow. 1999. Continuous monitoring of fish in a shallow channel using a fixed horizontal sonar.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 105:3126–3135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Prchalova, M., V. Drastik, J. Kubecka, B. Sricharoendham, F. Schiemer, andJ. Vijverberg. 2003. Acoustic study of fish and invertebrate behavior in a tropical reservoir.Aquatic Living Resources 16:325–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rozas, L. P. andT. J. Minello. 1998. Nekton use of salt marsh, seagrass, and nonvegetated habitats in a south Texas (USA) estuary.Bulletin of Marine Science 63:481–501.Google Scholar
  31. Rozas, L. P. andD. J. Reed. 1994. Comparing nekton assemblages of subtidal habitats in pipeline canals traversing brackish and saline marshes in coastal Louisiana.Wetlands 14:262–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rozas, L. P. andR. J. Zimmerman. 2000. Small-scale patterns of nekton use among marsh and adjacent shallow non-vegetated areas of the Galveston Bay Estuary, Texas (USA).Marine Ecology Progress Series 193:217–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rudstam, L. G., S. Hansson, T. Lindem, andD. W. Einhouse. 1999. Comparison of target strength distributions and fish densities obtained with split and single beam echo sounders.Fisheries Research 42:207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Simmonds, E. J. andD. N. MacLennan. 2005. Fisheries Acoustics: Theory and Practice, 2nd edition. Blackwell Science, Oxford, U.K.Google Scholar
  35. Sokal, R. R. andF. J. Rohlf. 1995. Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research, 3rd edition. W. H. Freeman and Co., New York.Google Scholar
  36. Stanley, D. R. andC. A. Wilson. 1998. Spatial variation in fish density at three petroleum platforms as measured with dualbeam hydroacoustics.Gulf of Mexico Science 1:73–82.Google Scholar
  37. Subrahmanyam, C. B. andC. L. Coultas. 1980. Studies on the animal communities in two north Florida salt marshes. Part III. Seasonal fluctuations of fish and macroinvertebrates.Bulletin of Marine Science 30:790–818.Google Scholar
  38. Swartzman, G. andB. Hickey. 2003. Evidence for a regime shift after the 1997–1998 El Niño, based on 1995, 1998, and 2001 acoustic surveys in the Pacific eastern boundary current.Estuaries 26:1032–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thompson, B. A. and W. W. Forman. 1987. Nekton, p. 80–95.In W. H. Conner and J. W. Day (eds.), The Ecology of Barataria Basin, Louisiana, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85 (7.13). Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  40. Trevorrow, M. V. 1998. Boundary scattering limitations to fish detection in shallow waters.Fisheries Research 35:127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Underwood, A. J. 1981. Techniques of analysis of variance in experimental marine biology and ecology.Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review 19:513–605.Google Scholar
  42. Yule, D. 2000. Comparison of horizontal acoustic and purse-seine estimates of salmonid densities and sizes in eleven Wyoming waters.North American Journal of Fisheries Management 20:759–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zar, J. H. 1996. Biostatistical Analysis, 3rd edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.Google Scholar

Source of Unpublished Materials

  1. Froese, R. and D. Pauly (eds.). 2006. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication., version (05/2006).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Estuarine Research Federation 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin M. Boswell
    • 1
    Email author
  • Matthew P. Wilson
    • 2
  • Charles A. Wilson
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences, School of the Coast and EnvironmentLouisiana State UniversityBaton Rouge
  2. 2.SonarData Pty LtdHobartAustralia
  3. 3.Louisiana Sea Grant College ProgramLouisiana State UniversityBaton Rouge

Personalised recommendations