, Volume 780, Issue 1, pp 113–124 | Cite as

Fish density and target strength distribution of single fish echoes in varying light conditions with single and split beam echosounding and trawling

  • Juha Jurvelius
  • Timo J. Marjomäki
  • Heikki Peltonen
  • Andrei Degtev
  • Eva Bergstrand
  • Olof Enderlein
  • Heikki AuvinenEmail author
European Large Lakes IV


To evaluate the consistency of mobile and vertical echosounding results from the 1980s to the 2000s, fish density (fish ha−1) and target strength (TS, dB) estimates of single (70 and 200 kHz) and split (38 and 120 kHz) beam echo sounders were compared under varying light conditions. Acoustic estimates were compared with trawling results. During daytime hauls, the catch per swept area (CSA) of vendace and smelt were high at 10–15 m depth and low at 15–30 m depth. Around sunset, vendace and to some degree also smelt were concentrated at some meters above the thermocline. Around midnight, the CSA showed that smelt occupied higher water layers than vendace. Under different light conditions, both single and split beam echo sounders were in good agreement regarding the general level of fish density. In dusk and darkness, density estimates from echosounding and trawling as well as the TS-distribution between the single and split beam sounders were more consistent than those in daylight. We conclude that in boreal lakes single and split beam echosoundings outline, in comparable light conditions, consistent time series from the 1980s up to the year 2010. Darkness gives the best condition for estimating fish density and acoustic fish size.


CSA Coregonus albula DVM History Hydroacoustics Lake 



The Nordic Council of Ministers gave financial support, and Helge Balk, Frank R. Knudsen, and Torfinn Lindem helped during this study. Two anonymous reviewers gave valuable comments to improve this manuscript. Thanks to all!


  1. Auvinen, H. & J. Jurvelius, 1994. Comparison of pelagic vendace (Coregonus albula) stock density estimation methods in a lake. Fisheries Research 19: 31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Auvinen, H., J. Jurvelius, J. Koskela & T. Sipilä, 2005. Comparative use of vendace by humans and Saimaa ringed seal in Lake Pihlajavesi, Finland. Biological Conservation 125: 381–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balk, H. & T. Lindem, 2003. Report from fish avoidance experiment in Finland 11-Sept 2002. 4 p. University of Oslo, Department of Physics.Google Scholar
  4. Craig, R. E. & S. T. Forbes, 1969. Design of sonar for fishcounting. Fiskeridirektoratets Skrifter Serie Havundersökelser 15: 210–219.Google Scholar
  5. Dahm, E., J. Hartman, J. Jurvelius, H. Löfler & V. Völzke, 1991. Review of the European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission (EIFAC) experiments on stock assessment in lakes. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 8: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Degtev, A. I. & D. E. Ivanter, 2002. Computerized system of assessment of fish resources ASKOR-2. Rybnoe Hozajstvo 4: 58–60. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  7. Degtev, A. I. & A. N. Sychev, 2002. Quantitative assessment of fish resources by use of hydroacoustic complex “ASKOR-2”. Rybnoe Hozajstvo 5: 29–31. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  8. Engel, J. M. & J. J. Magnuson, 1976. Vertical and horizontal distribution of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), and cisco (Coregonus artedii) in Palatte Lake, Wisconsin. Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada 33: 2710–2715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. European Standard, 2013. Water quality – Guidance on the estimation of fish abundance with mobile hydroacoustic methods. European Committee for Standardization. Final Draft. FprEN 15910: 34 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Foote, K. G., 1985. Rather-high frequency sound scattering by swimbladderred fish. Journal of Acoustic Society of America 78: 688–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Godlewska, M., M. Colon, L. Doroszczyk, C. Verges & J. Guillard, 2009. Hydroacoustic measurements at two frequencies: 70 and 120 kHz – consequences for fish stock estimation. Fisheries Research 96: 11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jurvelius, J. & T. Heikkinen, 1988. Seasonal migration of vendace, Coregonus albula (L.), in a deep Finnish lake. Finnish Fisheries Research 9: 205–212.Google Scholar
  13. Jurvelius, J. & T. J. Marjomäki, 2008. Night, day, sunrise, sunset: do fish under snow and ice recognize the difference? Freshwater Biology 53: 2287–2294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jurvelius, J., T. Lindem & J. Louhimo, 1984. The number of pelagic fish in Lake Paasivesi, Finland, monitored by hydroacoustic methods. Fisheries Research 2: 273–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jurvelius, J., T. Lindem & T. Heikkinen, 1988. The size of vendace, Coregonus albula L., stock in a deep lake basin monitored by hydroacoustic methods. Journal of Fish Biology 32: 679–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jurvelius, J., H. Auvinen, I. Kolari & T. Marjomäki, 2005. Density and biomass of smelt (Osmerus eperlanus) in five Finnish lakes. Fisheries Research 73: 353–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jurvelius, J., F. R. Knudsen, H. Balk, T. J. Marjomäki, H. Peltonen, J. Taskinen, A. Tuomaala & M. Viljanen, 2008. Echosounding can discriminate between fish and macroinvertebrates in fresh water. Freshwater Biology 53: 912–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jurvelius, J., I. Kolari & A. Leskelä, 2011. Quality and status of fish stocks in lakes: gillnetting, seining trawling, and hydroacoustics as sampling methods. Hydrobiology 660: 29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Knudsen, F. R. & H. Seagrov, 2002. Benefits from horizontal beaming during acoustic survey: application to three Norwegian lakes. Fisheries Research 56: 205–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lilja, J., J. Jurvelius, M. Rahkola-Sorsa, A. Voutilainen & M. Viljanen, 2013. Diel vertical movements: warm water does not prevent vendace (Coregonus albula (L.)) from tracking zooplankton. Advances in Limnology 64: 153–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lindem, T., 1983. Successes with conventional in situ determinations of target strength. In Nakken, O. & S.C. Venema (eds), Symposium on Fisheries Acoustics. Selected papers of the ICES/FAO Symposium on fisheries acousis. Bergen, Norway, 21–24 June 1982. Rome. FAO/Fisheries Report 300: 104–111.Google Scholar
  22. Lindem Data Acquisition, 1991. Hydro acoustic data acquisition system HADAS. Instruction manual. 24 p.Google Scholar
  23. MacLennan, D. N. & E. J. Simmonds, 1995. Fisheries acoustics. Chapman & Hall, London: 325.Google Scholar
  24. MacLennan, D. N., P. G. Fernandes & J. Dalen, 2002. A consistent approach to definations and symbols in fisheries acoustics. ICES Journal of Marine Science 59: 365–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marjomäki, T. J. & M. Huolila, 1995. Monitoring the density of Lake Puulavesi vendace (Coregonus albula (L.)) by hydroacoustics, catch per unit effort, virtual population and catch per swept area. Archiv für Hydrobiologie Special Issues of Advanced Limnology 46: 267–276.Google Scholar
  26. Nyberg, P., E. Bergstrand, E. Degerman & O. Enderlein, 2001. Recruitment of pelagic fish in an unstable climate: studies in Sweden’s four largest lakes. Ambio 8: 559–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rahkola, M., V. Avinski, A.-L. Holopainen, J. Jurvelius, J. Karjalainen & M. Viljanen, 1999. Interacting in the dark; a study on diel vertical migration of plankton and fish in Lake Ladoga. Boreal Environmental Research 3: 245–255.Google Scholar
  28. Rudstam, R. G., S. Hansson, T. Lindem & D. 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
  29. SAS® Institute, 2011. SAS/STAT user’s guide. SAS Institute, Cary.Google Scholar
  30. Tuser, M., J. Frouzova, H. Balk, M. Muska, T. Mrkvicka & J. Kubecka, 2014. Evaluation of potential bias in observing fish with a DIDSON acoustic camera. Fisheries Research 155: 114–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juha Jurvelius
    • 1
  • Timo J. Marjomäki
    • 2
  • Heikki Peltonen
    • 3
  • Andrei Degtev
    • 4
  • Eva Bergstrand
    • 5
  • Olof Enderlein
    • 5
  • Heikki Auvinen
    • 6
    Email author
  1. 1.Finnish Game and Fisheries Research InstituteEnonkoskiFinland
  2. 2.Department of Biology and Environmental ScienceUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  3. 3.Finnish Environmental InstituteHelsinkiFinland
  4. 4.Northern Fisheries Research InstitutePetrozavodsk State UniversityPetrozavodskRussia
  5. 5.Institute of Freshwater ResearchDrottningholmSweden
  6. 6.Natural Resources Institute FinlandTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations