Acoustic Methods of Monitoring Antarctic Silverfish Distribution and Abundance

  • Richard L. O’Driscoll
  • Iole Leonori
  • Andrea De Felice
  • Gavin J. Macaulay
Part of the Advances in Polar Ecology book series (AVPE, volume 3)


Acoustic methods have the ability to detect and quantify distribution and abundance of Antarctic silverfish (Pleuragramma antarctica) across a range of spatial and temporal scales. The main advantage of acoustic surveys over traditional net-based sampling methods for silverfish is that the larger adult fish are unlikely to avoid the echosounder. Acoustic surveys also allow relatively wide coverage over the whole water column in a short time period because data are collected while the vessel is steaming at 8–10 knots. The key uncertainties, as with most acoustic surveys, are target identification and target strength. These uncertainties are compounded because silverfish do not have a gas-filled swim-bladder and so are a relatively weak acoustic target. Use of multi-frequency acoustic data helps discriminate silverfish from krill and other associated species, and broadband acoustics has considerable potential in this regard. Acoustic target strength has been derived from scattering models and in situ and ex situ measurements. Adult silverfish exhibit different scattering properties to post-larvae and juveniles. In the Ross Sea, adult silverfish are distributed widely over the shelf and tend to form layers at 100–400 m depth. Juvenile silverfish of 50–80 mm standard length occur shallower and were observed as a weak layer centred at about 80 m depth.


Acoustics Target strength Geographical distribution Forage fish Ross Sea Antarctica 



NZ IPY-CAML research was funded by the New Zealand Government under the New Zealand International Polar Year-Census of Antarctic Marine Life Project (Phase 1: So001IPY; Phase 2: IPY2007-01). We gratefully acknowledge project governance by the Ministry of Fisheries Science Team and the Ocean Survey 20/20 CAML Advisory Group (Land Information New Zealand, Ministry of Fisheries, Antarctica New Zealand, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and National Institute of Water and Atmosphere Ltd). The authors also acknowledge the Italian National Programme for Research in Antarctica (PNRA) and ENEA for supporting the acoustic survey in the Ross Sea during several expeditions to Antarctica by R/V Italica.


  1. Ackley SF, Bengtson JL, Boveng P et al (2003) A top-down, multidisciplinary study of the structure and function of the pack-ice ecosystem in the eastern Ross Sea, Antarctica. Polar Rec 39:219–230Google Scholar
  2. Azzali M, Leonori I, Biagiotti I et al (2010) Target strength studies on Antarctic silverfish (Pleuragramma antarcticum) in the Ross Sea. CCAMLR Sci 17:75–104Google Scholar
  3. Brierley AS, Axelsen BE, Boyer DC et al (2004) Single-target echo detections of jellyfish. ICES J Mar Sci 61:383–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brierley AS, Saunders RA, Bone DG et al (2006) Use of moored acoustic instruments to measure short-term variability in abundance of Antarctic krill. Limnol Oceanogr-Meth 4:18–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chu D, Wiebe PH (2005) Measurements of sound-speed and density contrasts of zooplankton in Antarctic waters. ICES J Mar Sci 62:818–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Demer DA (ed) (2015) Calibrations of acoustic instruments. ICES Cooperative Res Report 326Google Scholar
  7. Demer DA, Conti SG (2003) Validation of the stochastic distorted-wave Born approximation model with broad bandwidth total target strength measurements of Antarctic krill. ICES J Mar Sci 60:625–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Donnelly J, Torres JJ, Sutton TT et al (2004) Fishes of the eastern Ross Sea, Antarctica. Polar Biol 27:637–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eastman JT, AL DV (1989) Ultrastructure of the lipid sac wall in the Antarctic notothenioid fish Pleuragramma antarcticum. Polar Biol 9:333–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fernandes PG (2009) Classification trees for species identification of fish-school echotraces. ICES J Mar Sci 66:1073–1080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gauthier S, Oeffner J, O’Driscoll RL (2014) Species composition and acoustic signatures of mesopelagic organisms in a subtropical convergence zone, the New Zealand Chatham Rise. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 503:23–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Handegard NO, du Buisson L, Brehmer P et al (2013) Towards an acoustic-based coupled observation and modelling system for monitoring and predicting ecosystem dynamics of the open ocean. Fish Fish 14:605–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lavery AC, Chu D, Moum JN (2010) Measurements of acoustic scattering from zooplankton and oceanic microstructure using a broadband echosounder. ICES J Mar Sci 67:379–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Madureira LSP, Everson I, Murphy EJ (1993) Interpretation of acoustic data at two frequencies to discriminate between Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba Dana) and other scatterers. J Plankton Res 15:787–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Near TJ, Jones CD, Eastman JT (2009) Geographic intraspecific variation in buoyancy within Antarctic notothenioid fishes. Antarct Sci 21:123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. O’Driscoll RL, Macaulay GJ, Gauthier S et al (2011) Distribution, abundance and acoustic properties of Antarctic silverfish (Pleuragramma antarcticum) in the Ross Sea. Deep-Sea Res Pt II 58:181–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pinkerton MH, Bradford-Grieve JM, Hanchet SM (2010) A balanced model of the food web of the Ross Sea, Antarctica. CCAMLR Sci 17:1–31Google Scholar
  18. Simmonds EJ, MacLennan DN (2005) Fisheries acoustics theory and practice, 2nd edn. Blackwell Science, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Watkins JL, Hewitt R, Naganobu M et al (2004) The CCAMLR 2000 survey: a multinational, multi-ship biological oceanography survey of the Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean. Deep-Sea Res Pt II 51:1205–1213CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard L. O’Driscoll
    • 1
  • Iole Leonori
    • 2
  • Andrea De Felice
    • 2
  • Gavin J. Macaulay
    • 3
  1. 1.National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research LimitedWellingtonNew Zealand
  2. 2.CNR-Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, ISMAR Istituto di Scienze MarineAnconaItaly
  3. 3.Institute of Marine ResearchBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations