Estuaries and Coasts

, 34:739 | Cite as

Exploratory and Instantaneous Swimming Speeds of Amphidromous Fish School in Shallow-Water Coastal Lagoon Channels

  • Patrice BrehmerEmail author
  • Jean Guillard
  • Pablo I. Caballero Pinzon
  • Pascal Bach


Fish school swimming speeds is essential for ecological and management studies. The multibeam sonar in horizontal beaming provided dynamic echo traces of mobile fish schools. We used two school swimming speed indicators: the average of a series of instantaneous speed values, and the exploratory speed. These swimming speeds were estimated for each fish school observed on the basis of their Euclidian position within the sonar beams. The average ISS values per school ranged from 0.15 m s−1 to 4.46 m s−1, while the ESS values per school were lower, ranging from 0.04 m s−1 to 3.77 m s−1. Multibeam sonar technology makes it possible to measure fish school swimming speeds in their natural habitat at small spatio-temporal scales. This methodology can therefore be used to analyse in situ their movements, and has a wide range of applications in behavioural studies and management purposes.


Gregarious fish Direct approach Indicator Schooling Horizontal beaming Sonar 



This work has been supported by a state-regional grant ‘CPER XI’ and the GIS Europole Mer. We are grateful to our missed colleague Thang Do Chi who coordinated this project and also to Marc Soria, François Gerlotto and Laurence Vicens for their help to organise the project, and to everyone involved in the field surveys.


  1. Arrhenius, F., B.J. Benneheij, L.G. Rudstam, and D. Boisclair. 2000. Can stationary bottom split-beam hydroacoustics be used to measure fish swimming speed in situ? Fisheries Research 45: 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bach, P., P. Legendre, M. Amanieu, and G. Lasserre. 1992. Strategy of eel (Anguilla anguilla, L.) exploitation in the Thau lagoon. Estuarine. Coastal and Shelf Science 35: 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck, M.W., K.L. Heck, K.W. Able, D.L. Childers, D.B. Eggleston, B.M. Gillanders, B. Halpern, C.G. Hays, K. Hoshino, T.J. Minello, R.J. Orth, P.F. Sheridan, and M.P. Weinstein. 2001. The identification, conservation, and management of estuarine and marine nurseries for fish and invertebrates. Bioscience 51: 633–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bégout-Anras, M.-L., J.-P. Lagardère, and J.-Y. Lafaye. 1997. Diel activity rhythm of seabass tracked in a natural environment: group effects on swimming patterns and amplitudes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54: 162–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benhamou, S. 2004. How to reliably estimate the tortuosity of an animal’s path: straightness, sinuosity, or fractal dimension? Journal of Theoretical Biology 229: 209–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benhamou, S. 2006. Detecting an orientation component in animal paths when the preferred direction is individual-dependent. Ecology 87: 518–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brehmer, P., D. Mouillot, and T. Do Chi. 2006a. Amphidromus fish school diel flow in two Mediterranean lagoons by combining sonar and fishing data. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 334(1): 139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brehmer, P., C. Vercelli, F. Gerlotto, F. Sanguinède, Y. Pichot, D. Buestel, and Y. Guénnegan. 2006b. Multibeam sonar three-dimensional monitoring of mussel culture grounds in open sea for management purpose. Aquaculture 252(2–4): 234–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brehmer, P., T. Lafont, S. Georgakarakos, E. Josse, F. Gerlotto, and C. Collet. 2006c. Omnidirectional multibeam sonar monitoring: applications in fisheries science. Fish and Fisheries 7: 165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cech, M., and J. Kubecka. 2002. Sinusoïdal cycling swimming pattern of reservoir fishes. Journal of Fish Biology 61: 456–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cury, P.M., and V. Christensen. 2005. Quantitative ecosystem indicators for fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science 62: 307–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunlop, E., S.W. Milne, S.M. Ridgway, J. Condiotty, and I. Higginbottom. 2010. In situ swimming behavior of lake trout observed using integrated multibeam acoustics and biotelemetry. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 139: 420–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fängstam, H. 1993. Individual downstream swimming speed during the natural smolting period among young of Baltic salmon (Salmo salar). Canadian Journal of Zoology 71: 1782–1786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gauthier, S., D. Boisinclair, and P. Legendre. 1997. Evaluation of a variable angle scanning method to estimate relative abundance and distribution of fish using a single-beam echosounder in shallow lakes. Journal of Fish Biology 50: 208–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gillanders, B.M., K.W. Able, J.A. Brown, D.B. Eggleston, and P.F. Sheridan. 2003. Evidence of connectivity between juvenile and adult habitats for mobile marine fauna: an important component of nurseries. Marine Ecological Progress Series 247: 281–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guillard, J. 1998. Daily migration cycles of fish populations in a tropical estuary (Sine-Saloum, Senegal) using a horizontal-directed split-beam transducer and multibeam sonar. Fisheries Research 35: 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee, C.G., A.P. Farrell, A.G. Lotto, M.J. MacNutt, S.G. Hinch, and M.C. Healey. 2003. The effect of temperature on swimming performance and oxygen consumption in adult sockeye (Oncorhynchus nerka) and coho (O. kisutch) salmon stocks. The Journal of Experimental Biology 206: 3239–3251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Misund, O.A., and A. Algen. 1992. Swimming behavior of fish schools in the North Sea during acoustic surveying and pelagic trawl sampling. ICES Journal of Marine Science 49: 325–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Misund, O.A., and H.R. Skjoldal. 2005. Implementing the ecosystem approach: experiences from the North Sea, ICES, and the Institute of Marine Research, Norway. Marine Ecological Progress Series 300: 260–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moreno, G., E. Josse, P. Brehmer, and L. Nøttestad. 2007. Echotrace classification and spatial distribution of pelagic fish aggregations around drifting fish aggregating devices (DFAD). Aquatic Living Resources 20: 343–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mulligan, T.J., and D.G. Chen. 2000. Comment on `Can stationary bottom split-beam hydroacoustics be used to measure fish swimming speed in situ?’ by Arrhenius et al. Fisheries Research 49: 93–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mulligan, T.J., and R. Kieser. 1996. A split-beam echo counting model for riverine use. ICES Journal of Marine Science 53: 403–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nøttestad, L., M. Aksland, A. Beltestad, A. Ferno, A. Johannessen, and O.A. Misund. 1995. Schooling dynamics of Norwegian spring spawning herring (Clupea harengus L.) in a coastal spawning area. Sarsia 80: 277–284.Google Scholar
  24. Onsrud, M.S.R., S. Kaartvedt, and M.T. Breien. 2005. In situ swimming speed and swimming behaviour of fish feeding on the krill Meganyctiphanes norvegica. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62(8): 1822–1832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pitcher, J.T. 1984. Behaviour of teleost fishes. Chapman et Hall Londres, Fish and Fisheries, Series 7, 715 pp.Google Scholar
  26. Pitcher, T.J., O.A. Misund, A. Fernö, B. Totland, and V. Melle. 1996. Adaptive behaviour of herring schools in the Norwegian Sea as revealed by high-resolution sonar. ICES Journal of Marine Science 53: 449–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Scalabrin, C., and J. Massé. 1993. Acoustic detection of the spatial and temporal distribution of fish shoals in the Bay of Biscay. Aquatic Living Resources 6: 269–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sherman, K., and A.M. Duda. 1999. An ecosystem approach to global assessment and management of coastal waters. Marine Ecological Progress Series 190: 271–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Simmonds, E.J., and D.N. MacLennnan. 2005. Fisheries acoustics: theory and practice. Fish and fisheries series, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  30. Soria, M., P. Fréon, and P. Chabanet. 2007. Schooling properties of an obligate and a facultative fish species. Journal of Fish Biology 71: 1257–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stakenas, S., G.H. Copp, and D.M. Scott. 2009. Tagging effects on three non-native fish species in England (Lepomis gibbosus, Pseudorasbora parva, Sander lucioperca) and of native Salmo trutta. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 18: 167–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wardle, C.S. 1975. Limit of fish swimming speed. Nature 255: 725–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrice Brehmer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jean Guillard
    • 2
  • Pablo I. Caballero Pinzon
    • 3
  • Pascal Bach
    • 4
  1. 1.IRD, UMR 196 LEMAR (CNRS, IRD, UBO), Marine Environmental Sciences LaboratoryPlouzanéFrance
  2. 2.INRA, UMR CARRTEL, Centre Alpin de Recherche sur les Réseaux Trophiques et Ecosystèmes LimniquesThonon-les-BainsFrance
  3. 3.CRH (IRD, Ifremer, Université de Montpellier 2)SèteFrance
  4. 4.IRD, UMR 212 EME (IRD, Ifremer, Université de Montpellier 2)Marine Exploited Ecosystems, SEMIRLe PortFrance

Personalised recommendations