Technology Answers to the Requirements Set by the Ecosystem Approach

  • Olav Rune Godø
Part of the Fish & Fisheries Series book series (FIFI, volume 31)

Time series of abundance indices from scientific surveys are often the backbone in assessing the present state and expected development of exploited fish stocks. However, landing statistics, which have associated uncertainties often set the historic trends, and thus might be misleading with respect to ecosystem dynamics. The extended demand in the ecosystem approach is to consider the welfare of the whole ecosystem. Can this be done adequately with traditional tools? And what solutions can be expected from new technologies?

Future methods must enable quantitative observation of biotic densities with adequate resolution in both time and space. We also need to quantify the dynamics, including inter- and intra-specific competition and interactions between biology and environment. Advanced technology and knowledge have created a new scientific base for the ecosystem approach. Remote sensing techniques based on acoustics and optics offer both detailed and overview pictures, and can be deployed in time and space from innovative platforms and vessels of opportunity. Remote categorisation of information, e.g. species and size identification, is no longer a dream and modern observation techniques give the scientists information about processes with adequate time resolution. In the short term, we need to uncover the actual efficiencies of sampling trawls. The research should aim at establishing sampling tools based on knowledge of behavioural stimuli and responses of the target species rather than traditional ideas in trawl construction. In the long term, the limiting factor is not the technology, but our ability to develop integrated observation-modelling solutions that merge complex data from a multitude of sensors and platforms and extract the essential information.


Ecosystem survey technology acoustics optics platforms sensors integrated monitoring 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams PB, Butler JL, Baxter CH, Laidig TE, Dahlin KA, Wakefield WW (1995) Population estimates of pacific coast groundfishes from video transects and swept-area trawls. Fish Bull 93:446–455Google Scholar
  2. Aglen A (1994) Sources of error in acoustic estimation of fish abundance. In: Fernö A, Olsen S (eds) Marine Fish Behaviour in Capture and Abundance Estimation. Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp 107–133Google Scholar
  3. Aglen A (1996) Impact of fish distribution and species composition on the relationship between acoustic and swept-area estimates of fish density. ICES J Mar Sci 53:501–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aksland M (2006) Applying an alternative method of echo-integration. ICES J Mar Sci 63: 1438–1452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amaratunga T, Lassen H (1998) What future for capture fisheries — a shift in paradigm: visioning sustainable harvest from the Northwest Atlantic in the twenty-first century. J Northw Atl Fish Sci 23:1–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson ED (2002) 100 Years of science under ICES. ICES Mar Sci Symp 215Google Scholar
  7. Ben-Tuvia A, Dickson W (1968) Proceedings of the Conference on Fish behaviour in relation to Fishing Techniques and Tactics. FAO Fish Rep 62Google Scholar
  8. Beverton RJH, Holt SJ (1957) On the Dynamics of Exploited Fish Populations. Her Majesty's Stationary Office London, 577 ppGoogle Scholar
  9. Bishop J, Venables WN, Wang YG (2004) Analysing commercial catch and effort data from a penaeid trawl fishery — a comparison of linear models, mixed models, and generalised estimating equations approaches. Fish Res 70:179–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bombeo-Tuburan I, Coniza EB, Rodriguez EM, Agbayani RF (2001) Culture and economics of wild grouper (Epinephelus coioides) using three feed types in ponds. Aquaculture 201:229–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brehmer P, Do Chi T, Mouillot D (2006) Amphidromous fish school migration revealed by combining fixed sonar monitoring (horizontal beaming) with fishing data. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 334:139–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Browman HI, Stergiou KI (2004) Marine protected areas as a central element of ecosystem-based management: defining their location, size and number. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 274:271–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chu DZ, Wiebe PH, Copley NJ, Lawson GL, Puvanendran V (2003) Material properties of North Atlantic cod eggs and early-stage larvae and their influence on acoustic scattering. ICES J Mar Sci 60:508–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Churnside JH, Okumura K S (2001) A comparison of airborne LIDAR and echo sounder performance in fisheries. J Mar Acoust Soc Jpn 28(3):49–61Google Scholar
  15. Churnside JH, Wilson JJ, Tatarskii VV (1997) Lidar profiles of fish schools. Appl Opt 36:6011–6020PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cury P, Christensen V (2005) Quantitative ecosystem indicators for fisheries management — introduction. ICES J Mar Sci 62:307–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Doubleday WG, Rivard D (1981) Bottom trawl surveys. Can Sp Publ Fish Aquat Sci 58:1–273Google Scholar
  18. Dybedal JI (1993) TOPAS: parametric end-fire array used in offshore applications. In: Hobaek H (ed) Advances in Nonlinear Acoustics. World Scientific, Singapore, pp 264–275Google Scholar
  19. Engås A (1994) The effects of trawl performance and fish behaviour on the catching efficiency of demersal sampling trawls. In: Fernö A, Olsen S (eds) Marine Fish Behaviour in Capture and Abundance Estimation. Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp 45–68Google Scholar
  20. Engås A, Godø OR (1989) Escape of fish under the fishing line of a Norwegian sampling trawl and its influence on survey results. Journal du Conseil International pour l'Exploration de la Mer 45:269–276Google Scholar
  21. FAO (2001) Declaration of the Reykjavik Conference on Responsible Fisheries. Reykjavik Iceland 2001. C 2001/INF/25Google Scholar
  22. Farmer DM, Trevorrow M V, Pedersen B (1999) Intermediate range fish detection with a 12-kHz sidescan sonar. J Acoust Soc Am 106(5):2481–2490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Favali P, Beranzoli L (2006) Seafloor observatory science: a review. Ann Geophys 49:515–567Google Scholar
  24. Fernandes PG, Brierley AS, Simmonds EJ, Millard NW, McPhail SD, Armstrong F, Stevenson P, Squires M (2000) Fish do not avoid survey vessels. Nature 407:152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fernandes PG, Gerlotto F, Holliday DV, Nakken O, Simmonds EJ (2002) Acoustic applications in fisheries science: the ICES contribution. ICES Mar Sci Symp 215:483–492Google Scholar
  26. Fernö A, Olsen S (1994) Marine fish behaviour in capture and abundance estimation. Fishing News Books, Oxford, 222 ppGoogle Scholar
  27. Field JC, Punt AE, Methot RD, Thomson CJ (2006) Does MPA mean ‘major problem for assessments’? Considering the consequences of place-based management systems. Fish Fisheries 7:284–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Finstad JL, Nordeide JT (2004) Acoustic repertoire of spawning cod, Gadus morhua. Environ Biol Fish 70:427–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fossa J, Mortensen PB, Furevik DM (2002) The deep-water coral Lophelia pertusa in Norwegian waters: distribution and fishery impacts. Hydrobiology 471:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fréon P, Misund OA (1999) Dynamics of pelagic fish distribution and behaviour: effects on fisheries and stock assessment. Fishing New Books, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  31. Frid CLJ, Harwood KG, Hall SJ, Hall JA (2000). Long-term changes in the benthic communities on North Sea fishing grounds. ICES J Mar Sci 57:1303–1309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gerlotto F, Soria M, Fréon P (1999) From two dimensions to three: the use of multibeam sonar for a new approach in fisheries acoustics. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 56:6–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Godø OR (1994) Factors affecting the reliability of groundfish abundance estimates from bottom trawl surveys. In: Fernö A, Olsen S (eds) Marine Fish Behaviour in Capture and Abundance Estimation. Oxford Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp 166–199Google Scholar
  34. Godø OR (1998) What can technology offer the future fisheries scientist — possibilities for obtaining better estimates of stock abundance by direct observations. J Northw Atl Fish Sci 23:105–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Godø OR (2003) Fluctuation in stock properties of North-east Arctic cod related to long-term environmental changes. Fish Fisheries 4:121–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Godø OR, Engås A (1989) Swept area variation with depth and its influence on abundance indices of groundfish from trawl surveys. J Northw Atl Fish Sci 9:133–139Google Scholar
  37. Godø OR, Tenningen E (2009) Remote sensing. In: Megrey B, Moksnes E (eds) Computers in Fisheries Research. Springer, London (in press)Google Scholar
  38. Godø OR, Walsh SJ (1992) Escapement of fish during bottom trawl sampling — implications for resource assessment. Fish Res 13:281–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Godø OR, Patel R, Torkelsen T, Vagle S (2005) Observatory technology in fish resources monitoring. Proceedings of the International Conference “Underwater Acoustic Measurements: Technologies & Results”. 28 June–1 July 2005. Heraklion, Crete, Greece.Google Scholar
  40. Gonzalez L, Gerlotto F (1998) Observation of fish migration between the sea and a Mediterranean Lagoon (Etang De L'or, France) using multibeam sonar and split beam echo sounder. Fish Res 35:15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gunderson DR (1993) Surveys of fisheries resources. Wiley, New York, 248 ppGoogle Scholar
  42. Handegard NO (2007) Observing individual fish behavior in fish aggregations: tracking in dense fish aggregations using a split-beam echosounder. J Acoust Soc Am 122:177–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hjellvik V, Godø OR, Tjøstheim D (2004) Diurnal variation in acoustic densities: why do we see less in the dark? Can J Fish Aquat Sci 61:2237–2254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Holley SE, Hydes DJ (2002) ‘Ferry-Boxes’ and data stations for improved monitoring and resolution of eutrophication-related processes: application in Southampton Water UK, a temperate latitude hypernutrified Estuary. Hydrobiology 475:99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Horne JK (2000) Acoustic approaches to remote species identification: a review. Fish Ocean 9:356–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Horne JK (2003) The influence of ontogeny, physiology, and behaviour on the target strength of walleye Pollock (Theragra chalcogramma). ICES J Mar Sci 60:1063–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Horne JK (2005) Fisheries and marine mammal opportunities in ocean observatories. In: Proceedings of Underwater Acoustic Measurements: Technologies & Results. Heraklion, Crete, 8 ppGoogle Scholar
  48. ICES (2007) Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (SFWG) 18–27 April 2007, Vigo, Spain. ICES CM 2007/ACFM 16:1–651Google Scholar
  49. Jech JM, Michaels WL (2006) A multifrequency method to classify and evaluate fisheries acoustics data. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63:2225–2235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jennings S (2005) Indicators to support an ecosystem approach to fisheries. Fish Fisheries 6:212–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Jennings S, Dinmore TA, Duplisea DE, Warr KJ, Lancaster JE (2001) Trawling disturbance can modify benthic production processes. J Anim Ecol 70:459–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Johannesson KA, Mitson RB (1983) Fisheries acoustics — a practical manual for aquatic biomass estimation. FAO Fish Tech Pap 240:1–249Google Scholar
  53. Johansen GO, Skogen MD, Godø OR, Torkelsen T (2007) Predicting recruitment of. 0-group gadoids in the Barents Sea critical interaction between models and observations. ICES CM/ B07:1–17Google Scholar
  54. Johnson M, Madsen PT, Zimmer WMX, De Soto NA, Tyack PL (2004) Beaked whales echolocate on prey. Proc Roy Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 271:383–386. Notes: Suppl. 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Karp W (2007) Collection of acoustic data from fishing vessels. ICES Coop Res Rep 287:1–90Google Scholar
  56. Kloser RJ, Ryan T, Sakov P, Williams A, Koslow JA (2002) Species identification in deep water using multiple acoustic frequencies. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59:1065–1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Knutsen O, Svendsen H, Osterhus S, Rossby T, Hansen B (2005) Direct measurements of the mean flow and eddy kinetic energy structure of the upper ocean circulation in the NE Atlantic. Geophys Res Lett 32(14):L14604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Korneliussen RJ, Ona E (2000) Some applications of multiple frequency echo sounder data. ICES J Mar Sci 59:291–313Google Scholar
  59. Kubecka J, Duncan A, Butterworth AJ (1992) Echo counting or echo integration for fish biomass assessment in shallow waters. In: Weydert M (ed) Proceedings of the European Conference on Underwater Acoustics. Elsevier, London, pp 129–132Google Scholar
  60. Levin SA (2003) Complex adaptive systems: exploring the known, the unknown and the unknowable. Bull Am Math Soc 40:3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Livingston PA (2005) Pices' role in integrating marine ecosystem research in the North Pacific. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 300:257–259Google Scholar
  62. Lorance P, Trenkel VM (2006) Variability in natural behaviour, and observed reactions to an ROV, by mid-slope fish species. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 332:106–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mackinson S, Van Der Kooij J (2006) Perceptions of fish distribution, abundance and behaviour: observations revealed by alternative survey strategies made by scientific and fishing vessels. Fish Res 81:306–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Madsen PT, Wahlberg M, Mohl B (2002) Male sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) acoustics in a high-latitude habitat: implications for echolocation and communication. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 53:31–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Makris NC, Ratilal P, Symonds DT, Jagannathan S, Lee S, Nero RW (2006) Fish population and behavior revealed by instantaneous continental shelf-scale imaging. Science 311:660–663PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Matsuoka T, Nakashima T, Nagasawa N (2005) A review of ghost fishing: scientific approaches to evaluation and solutions. Fish Sci 71:691–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Maunder MN, Punt A (2004). Standardizing catch and effort data: a review of recent approaches. Fish Res 70:141–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. McCartney BS, Stubbs AR (1971) Measurements of acoustic target strengths of fish in dorsal aspect, including swimbladder resonance. J Sound Vib 15:397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Misund OA (1994) Swimming behaviour of fish schools in connection with capture by purse seine and pelagic trawl. In Fernö A and Olsen S (eds) Marine Fish Behaviour in Capture and Abundance Estimation. Fishing News Books, Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp 84–106Google Scholar
  70. Misund OA (1997) Underwater acoustics in marine fisheries and fisheries research. Rev Fish Biol Fish 7:1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Misund OA, Skjoldal HR (2005) Implementing the ecosystem approach: experiences from the North Sea, ICES and the Institute of Marine Research, Norway. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 300:260–265Google Scholar
  72. Misund OA, Aglen A, Hamre J, Ona E, Røttingen I, Skagen DW, Valdemarsen JW (1996) Improved mapping of schooling fish near the surface: comparison of abundance estimates obtained by sonar and echo integration. ICES J Mar Sci 53:383–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Mitson R (1995) Underwater noise of research vessels: review and recommendations. ICES Coop Res Rep 209:1–61Google Scholar
  74. Mous J, Sadovy Y, Halim A and Pet JS (2006) Capture for culture: artificial shelters for grouper collection in SE Asia. Fish Fisheries 7:58–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Mueller RP, Brown RS, Hop H, Moulton L (2006) Video and acoustic camera techniques for studying fish under ice: a review and comparison. Rev Fish Biol Fish 16:213–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Murray J, Hjort J (1912) The depths of the ocean: a general account of the modern science of oceanography based largely on the scientific researches of the Norwegian steamer Michael Sars in the North Atlantic. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  77. Nero RW, Thompson CH, Jech JM (2004) In situ acoustic estimates of the swimbladder volume of Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus). ICES J Mar Sci 61:323–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. NRC (1998) Improving Fish Stock Assessments. National Academic Press, Washington, DC, 177 ppGoogle Scholar
  79. Ona E (2003). An expanded target-strength relationship for herring. ICES J Mar Sci 60:493–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Ona E, Mitson RB (1996) Acoustic sampling and signal processing near the seabed: the deadzone revisited. ICES J Mar Sci 53:677–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Ona E, Dalen J, Knudsen H, Patel R, Andersen LN, Berg S (2006) First data from sea trials with the new MS70 multibeam sonar. J Acoust Soc Am 120:3017–3018Google Scholar
  82. Ona E, Godø OR, Handegard NO, Hjellvik V, Patel R, Pedersen G (2007a) Silent research vessels are not quiet. J Acoust Soc Am 121:EL145–EL150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Ona E, Andersen LN, Knudsen HP, Berg S (2007b) Calibrating multibeam, wideband sonar with reference targets. Proceedings of OCEANS 2007, Aberdeen, Scotland: 1-5 [doi:10.1109/ OCEANSE.2007.4302473]Google Scholar
  84. Patel R, Handegard NO, Godø OR (2004) Behaviour of herring (Clupea harengus L.) towards an approaching autonomous underwater vehicle. ICES J Mar Sci 61:1044–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Pedersen R, Ona E (2007) Size-dependent frequency response in sandeel schools. ICES J Mar Sci (in preparation)Google Scholar
  86. Popper AN, Fay RR (1993) Sound detection and processing by fish — critical-review and major research questions. Brain Behav Evol 41:14–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Popper AN, Plachta DTT, Mann DA, Higgs D (2004) Response of clupeid fish to ultrasound: a review. ICES J Mar Sci 61:1057–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Priede IG, Bagley PM (2000) In situ studies on deep-sea demersal fishes using autonomous unmanned lander platforms. Oceanogr Mar Biol Ann Rev 38:357–392Google Scholar
  89. Rose CR, Stoner AW, Matteson K (2005) Use of high-frequency imaging sonar to observe fish behaviour near baited fishing gears. Fish Res 76:291–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Sakshaug E, Bjørge A, Gulliksen B, Loeng H, Mehlum F (1994) Økosystem Barentshavet. Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, 303 ppGoogle Scholar
  91. Sigurdsson T, Thorsteinsson V, Gústafsson L (2006) In situ tagging of deep-sea redfish: application of an underwater, fish-tagging system. ICES J Mar Sci 63:523–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Simmonds EJ, Armstrong F, Copland PJ (1996) Species identification using wideband backscatter with neural network and discriminant analysis. ICES J Mar Sci 53:189–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Simmonds J, MacLennan DN (2005) Fisheries Acoustics. Blackwell Science, Oxford, 437 ppGoogle Scholar
  94. Sissenwine M, Murawski S (2004) Moving beyond ‘intelligent tinkering’: advancing an ecosystem approach to fisheries. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 274:291–295Google Scholar
  95. Somerton DA, Munro PT, Weinberg KL (2007) Whole-gear efficiency of a benthic survey trawl for flatfish. Fish Bull 105:278–291Google Scholar
  96. Stergiou KI, Browman HI (2005) Bridging the gap between aquatic and terrestrial ecology — introduction. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 304:271–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Tenningen E, Churnside JH, Slotte A, Wilson JJ (2006) Lidar target-strength measurements on northeast atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus). ICES J Mar Sci 63:677–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Thompson CH, Love RH (1996) Determination of fish size distributions and areal densities using broadband low frequency measurements. ICES Int Symp Fish Plank Acoust 53:197–202Google Scholar
  99. Toresen R, Østvedt O (2000) Variation in abundance of Norwegian spring — spawning herring (Clupea harengus, Clupeidae) throughout the 20th century and the influence of climatic fluctuations. Fish Fisheries 1:231–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Tudela S, Short K (2005) Paradigm shifts, gaps, inertia, and political agendas in ecosystem-based fisheries management. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser 300:282–286Google Scholar
  101. UN Declaration of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) (or the Earth Summit 2002). Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August 4–September 2002Google Scholar
  102. Valdemarsen JW (2001) Technological trends in capture fisheries. Ocean Coast Manage 44:635–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Walsh SJ, Engas A, Ferro R, Fonteyne R, Marlen B (2002) To catch or conserve more fish: the evolution of fishing technology in fisheries science. ICES Mar Sci Sympos 215Google Scholar
  104. Watanabe M, Sekine M, Hamada E, Ukita M, Imai T (2002) Monitoring of shallow sea environment by using snapping shrimps. Water Sci Technol 46:419–424PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. Zagaglia CR, Lorenzzetti JA, Stech JL (2004) Remote sensing data and longline catches of yellow-fin tuna (Thunnus albacares) in the equatorial Atlantic. Remote Sens Environ 93:267–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Marine ResearchNordnesNorway

Personalised recommendations