, Volume 483, Issue 1–3, pp 265–273 | Cite as

The combined use of acoustic tracking and echosounding to investigate the movement and distribution of common bream (Abramis brama) in the River Trent, England

  • J. LyonsEmail author
  • M. C. Lucas


Spatial behaviour and distribution of fishes along a 7.6-km lowland reach of the River Trent, England, were examined using two complementary telemetry techniques: acoustic tracking to assess the movement and activity of common bream Abramis brama (L.) and quantitative echosounding for measuring the density and distribution of fish shoals. Nine adult bream (39.3–53.2 cm) were tracked by means of intraperitoneally implanted acoustic transmitters from 19 July to 12 September 2000. Home range size varied between 0.35 and 5.40 km of river length over this period. Bream were relatively inactive during daylight hours, began moving near dusk, and tended to move throughout the night. A distinct daytime residence area was occupied by most tagged fish on most occasions, while river use at night was more variable between individuals. Mobile echosounding surveys, with the transducer beaming horizontally across the river, conducted at night between July and September 2000, showed a highly contagious fish distribution within the study reach. For 200-m sections of river, there was a negative correlation between the relative frequency of acoustic tracking fixes at night and mean fish densities, as measured by echosounding for targets larger than −50 dB (c. 5-cm long). However, there was a highly significant positive rank correlation between the relative frequency of acoustic tracking fixes and acoustic targets larger than −30 dB (c. 22-cm long), most of which in this river are bream. This suggests that telemetry and echosounding can, in this part of the River Trent, be combined to provide valuable spatial information at individual and population scales for bream.

Abramis brama home range diel behaviour hydroacoustics telemetry 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baras, E., 1997. Environmental determinants of residence area selection by Barbus barbus in the River Ourthe. Aquat. Living Resour. 10: 195-206.Google Scholar
  2. Brandt, S. B., 1996. Acoustic assessment of fish abundance and distribution. In Murphy, B. R. & D. W. Willis (eds), Fisheries Techniques, 2nd edn. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland: 385-432.Google Scholar
  3. Caffrey, J. M., J. J. Conneely & B. Connolly, 1996. Radio telemetric determination of bream (Abramis brama L.) movement in Irish canals. In Baras, E. & J. C. Philippart (eds), Underwater Biotelemetry. University of Liège, Belgium: 59-65.Google Scholar
  4. Cooper, M. J. & G. A. Wheatley, 1981. An examination of the fish population in the River Trent, Nottingham using angler catches. J. Fish Biol. 19: 539-556.Google Scholar
  5. Duncan, A. & J. Kubecka, 1993. Hydroacoustic Methods of Fish Surveys. R&D Note 196, National Rivers Authority, Bristol.Google Scholar
  6. Duncan, A. & J. Kubecka, 1996. Patchiness of longitudinal distributions in a river as revealed by a continuous hydroacoustic survey. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 53: 161-165.Google Scholar
  7. Hyatt, P., 1999. Report on the Lower River Trent Fishery 1995-1999. Environment Agency, Nottingham: 56 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Kubecka, J., 1993. Night inshore migration and capture of adult fish by shore seining. Aquacult. Fish. Manage. 24: 685-689.Google Scholar
  9. Kubecka, J. & A. Duncan, 1998a. Acoustic size versus real size relationships for common species of riverine fish. Fish. Res. 35: 115-125.Google Scholar
  10. Kubecka, J. & A. Duncan, 1998b. Diurnal changes of fish behaviour in a lowland river monitored by a dual-beam echosounder. Fish. Res. 35: 55-63.Google Scholar
  11. Kubecka, J., J. Frouzová, A. Vilcinska, C. Wolter & O. Slavík, 2000. Longitudinal hydroacoustic survey of fish in the Elbe River, supplemented by direct capture. In Cowx, I. G. (ed.), Management and Ecology of River Fisheries. Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford: 14-25.Google Scholar
  12. Langford, T. E., 1981. The movement and distribution of sonictagged coarse fish in two British rivers in relation to power station cooling-water outfalls. In Lang, F. M. (ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Biotelemetry. University of Wyoming: 197-232.Google Scholar
  13. Langford, T. E., A. G. P. Milner, D. J. Foster & J. M. Fleming, 1979. The movements and distribution of some common bream (Abramis brama L.) in the vicinity of power station intakes and outfalls in British rivers as observed by ultrasonic tracking. Laboratory note RD/L/N 145/78. Central Electricity Research Laboratories, Fawley: 24 pp.Google Scholar
  14. Lucas, M. C. & E. Baras, 2000. Methods for studying the spatial behaviour of freshwater fishes in the natural environment. Fish and Fisheries 1: 283-316.Google Scholar
  15. Lucas, M. C. & E. Baras, 2001. Migration of Freshwater Fishes. Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford: 420 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Lyons, J., 1998. A hydroacoustic assessment of fish stocks in the River Trent, England. Fish. Res. 35: 83-90.Google Scholar
  17. Lyons, J., P. Hickley & S. Gledhill, 2002. An evaluation of recreational fishing in England and Wales. In Pitcher, T. J. & C. Hollingworth (eds), Evaluating Recreational Fisheries: an Ecological, Economic and Social Balance Sheet. Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford.Google Scholar
  18. MacLennan, D. N. & E. J. Simmonds, 1992. Fisheries Acoustics. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  19. Malinin, L., V. I. Kijasco, & V. D. Linnik, 1990. Ëkologiceskaja differenciacija nagulnyh skoplenij lesa. (Ecological differentiation of bream feeding shoals.) In Poddubnyi, A. G. (ed.), Struktura lokalnyh populjacii u presnovodnyh ryb. (The structure of local populations of freshwater fish). Academic Press, Rybinsk: 23-36.Google Scholar
  20. Malinin, L. K., V. I. Kijasko & P. L. Vääränen, 1992. Behaviour and distribution of bream (Abramis brama) in oxygen deficient regions. In Priede, I. G. & S. M. Swift (eds), Wildlife Telemetry: Remote Monitoring and Tracking of Animals. Ellis Horwood, Chichester: 297-306.Google Scholar
  21. Mann, R. H. K., 1996. Environmental requirements of European non-salmonid fish in rivers. Hydrobiologia 323: 223-235.Google Scholar
  22. Moore A., I. C. Russell & E. C. E. Potter, 1990. The effects of intraperitoneally implanted dummy acoustic transmitters on the behaviour and physiology of juvenile Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L. J. Fish Biol. 37: 713-723.Google Scholar
  23. Priede, I. G., 1992. Wildlife telemetry: an introduction. In Priede, I. G. & S.M. Swift (eds),Wildlife Telemetry-Remote Monitoring and Tracking of Animals. Ellis Horwood, Chichester: 3-28.Google Scholar
  24. Schulz, U. & R. Berg, 1987. The migration of ultrasonically-tagged bream, Abramis brama (L.) in Lake Constance (Bodensee-Untersee). J. Fish Biol. 31: 409-414.Google Scholar
  25. Stott, B., 1967. The movements and population densities of roach (Rutilus rutilus [L.]) and gudgeon (Gobio gobio [L.]) in the River Mole. J. anim. Ecol. 36: 407-423.Google Scholar
  26. Whelan, K. F., 1983. Migratory patterns of bream Abramis abramis, L. shoals in the River Suck system. Irish Fisheries Investigations, Series A. 23: 11-15.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environment Agency, Midlands RegionNottinghamU.K
  2. 2.School of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Science LaboratoriesUniversity of DurhamDurhamU.K.

Personalised recommendations