Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:15:57.347Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When good neighbours become good friends: observing small scalestructures in fish aggregations using multibeam sonar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2010

Francois Gerlotto ,
Emma Jones ,
Nicolas Bez  and
David G. Reid
Francois Gerlotto*
Affiliation:
IRD, CRH, avenue Jean Monnet, 34203 Sète, France
Emma Jones
Affiliation:
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd. (NIWA), 269 Khyber Pass Road, Newmarket, Auckland 1023, PO Box 109-695, Newmarket, Auckland 1149, New Zealand
Nicolas Bez
Affiliation:
IRD, CRH, avenue Jean Monnet, 34203 Sète, France
David G. Reid
Affiliation:
Marine Institute, Rinville, Oranmore, Co. Galway, Ireland
*
a Corresponding author:francois.gerlotto@ird.fr
Get access

Abstract

Converging results in different scientific fields (behavioural ecology, fisheriesbiology, acoustic tagging, fisheries acoustics, behavioural modelling) suggest theexistence of “micro-groups” inside fish schools. These would comprise a few (5–10) fishmaintaining contact during a period long enough to allow individuals to recognise eachother. It is hypothesised that they would prefer to share the space with familiar ratherthan anonymous conspecifics. To evaluate whether acoustic methods could be used torecognise “micro-structures” inside fish schools and help test the “micro-group” hypothesiswe analysed acoustic data from anchovy schools off Peru, and gadoids in the North Sea.Data collection used a multibeam sonar (Reson SeaBat 6012). In the Peruvian case study,the sonar was mounted set horizontally on a drifting research vessel and the internalstructure of the schools of anchovies was analysed, although individual fish could not bediscriminated. In the North Sea case study, the sonar was orientated vertically above ademersal trawl to allow observation of individual fish entering the trawl. Geostatisticalanalyses were used to evaluate the existence of small spatial structures in anchovyschools. In these schools, “micro-structures” with a scale as small as 0.5 m were observedacoustically. For the gadoids nearest neighbour distance (NDD) measurements were carriedout, suggesting that the fish aggregated in small groups (2 to 25 individuals, with anaverage of 3.7 fish per group) in the trawl catches. The perspectives and limitations ofthese results are discussed.

Keywords

AnchovyBehaviourGeostatisticsMultibeam sonarFish schoolSpatial structureMicro-group
Type
Research Article
Information
Aquatic Living Resources , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 143 - 151
Copyright
© EDP Sciences, IFREMER, IRD 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Axelsen, B.J., Nøttestad, L., Fernø, A., Johannessen, A., Misund, O.A., 2000, “Await in the pelagic”: dynamic trade-off between reproduction and survival within a herring school splitting vertically during spawning. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 205, 259–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballerini, M., Cabibbo, N., Candelier, R., Cavagna, A., Cisbani, E., Giardina, I., Lecomte, V., Orlandi, A., Parisi, G., Procaccini, A., Viale, M., Zdravkovic, V., 2008, Interaction ruling animal collective behavior depends on topological rather than metric distance: evidence from a field study. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 1232–1237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bertrand, A., Gerlotto, F., Bertrand, S., Gutiérrez, M., Alza, L., Chipollini, A., Díaz, E., Espinoza, P., Ledesma, J., Quesquén, R., Peraltilla, S., Chavez, F., 2008, Schooling behaviour and environmental forcing in relation to anchoveta distribution: an analysis across multiple spatial scales. Prog. Oceanogr. 79, 264–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown C., Laland K., Krause J., 2006, Fish cognition and behaviour. Blackwell, Fish and Aquatic Resources Series N° 11.
Couzin, I.D., Krause, J., James, R., Ruxton, G.D., Franks, N.R., 2002, Collective memory and spatial sorting in animal groups. J. Theor. Biol. 218, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dagorn, L., Holland, K.N., Itano, D.G., 2007, Behavior of yellowfin (Thunnus albacares) and bigeye (T. obesus) tuna in a network of fish aggregating devices (FADs). Mar. Biol. 151, 595–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fréon, P., Gerlotto, F., Soria, M., 1992, Changes in school structure according to external stimuli: description and influence on acoustic assessment. Fish. Res. 15, 45–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fréon, P., Gerlotto, F., Soria, M. 1996, Diel variability of school structures with special reference to transition periods. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 53, 459–464. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 6–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerlotto, F., Paramo, J., 2003, The three-dimensional morphology and internal structure of clupeid schools as observed using vertical scanning multibeam sonar. Aquat. Living Resour. 16, 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerlotto, F., Bertrand, S., Bez, N., Gutierrez, M., 2006, Waves of agitation inside anchovy schools observed with multibeam sonar: a way to transmit information in response to predation. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 63, 1405–1417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godø, O.R., Walsh, S.J., Engås, A., 1999, Investigating density dependent catchability in bottom trawl surveys. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 56, 292–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, S.V., Magurran, A.E., 1997, Familiarity in schooling fish: how long does it take to acquire? Animal Behav. 53, 945–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths S.W., Ward A., 2006, Learned recognition of conspecifics. In: Brown C., Laland K., Krause J. (Eds.) Fish cognition and behaviour (Chapter 8), Blackwell, Fish and Aquatic Resources Series N° 11, pp. 139–165.
Harden-Jones, F.R., 1963, The reaction of fish to moving backgrounds. J. Exp. Biol. 40, 437–446.Google Scholar
Hay, D.E., McKinnell, S.M., 2002, Tagging along: association among individual Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi) revealed by tagging. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 58 1960–1968. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huth, A, Wissel, C., 1992, The simulation of the movement of fish schools. J. Theor. Biol. 156, 365–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones E.G., Copland P.J., Reid D.G., 2001, Combined acoustic and video observations of fish behaviour in a survey trawl. Report of the Joint Session of the Working Groups on Fisheries Acoustics Science (WGFAST) and Technology (WGFAST) and Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour (WGFTFB), pp. 4–5. ICES CM 2001/B: 04, 15p.
Kimley, A.P., Holloway, C.F., 1999, School fidelity and homing synchronicity of yellowfin tuna, Thunnus albacares . Mar. Biol. 133, 307–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konstantinov, K.G., 1961, Tagging demersal fish in the Barents Sea. Voprosy Ikhtiologii 1, 1–19.Google Scholar
Konstantinov K.G., Ponomarenko V.P., 1960, Prolonged group movements of Barentz Sea cod according to tagging data. Trudy Murmanskogo Morskogo Biologicheskogo Instituta 2, N° 6.
Mirabet, V., Auger, P., Lett, C., 2007, Spatial structures in simulations of animal grouping. Ecol. Model. 201, 468–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odling-Smee L., Simpson S.D., Braithwaite V.A., 2006, The role of learning in fish orientation. In: Brown C., Laland K., Krause J. (Eds.) Fish cognition and behaviour (Chapter 7). Blackwell, Fish and Aquatic Resources Series N° 11.
Parrish, J.K., Edelstein-Keshet, L., 1999, Complexity, pattern, and evolutionary trade-offs in animal aggregation. Science 284, 99–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parrish, J.K., Viscido, S.V., Grunbaum, D., 2002, Self-organized fish schools: an examination of emergent properties. Biol. Bull. 202, 296–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petitgas, P., 2003, A method for the identification and characterization of clusters of schools along the transect lines of fisheries-acoustic surveys. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 60, 872–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitcher T.J., 2001, Fish schooling. Encyclopedia of Ocean Sciences, Vol. 2 (D-H), pp. 975–987.
Radakov D.V., 1973, Schooling in the Ecology of Fish. Wiley, New York.
Reid D.G. (Ed.), 2000, Report on echo trace classification. ICES Coop. Res. Rep. N° 238.
Rivoirard J., Simmonds J., Foote K.G., Fernandes P., Bez, N., 2000, Geostatistics for Estimating Fish Abundance. Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Soria M., 1994, Structure et stabilité des bancs et agrégations de poissons pélagiques côtiers tropicaux: applications halieutiques. Thèse Dr Univ. Rennes 1.
Soria, M., Gerlotto, F., Fréon, P., 1993, Study of learning capabilities of a tropical clupeoids using an artificial stimulus. ICES Mar. Sci. Symp. 196, 17–20.Google Scholar
Soria, M., Fréon, P., Chabanet, P., 2007, Schooling properties of an obligate and a facultative fish species. J. Fish Biol. 71, 1257–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svendsen, J.C., Skov, J.B., Bildsoe, M., Steffensen, J.F., 2003, Intra-school positional preference and reduced tail-beat frequency in trailing position in schooling roach under experimental conditions. J. Fish Biol. 62, 834–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vabø, R., Nøttestad, L., 1997, An individual-based model of fish-school reactions: predicting antipredator behaviour as observed in nature. Fish. Oceanogr. 6, 155–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viscido, S.V., Parrish, J.K., Grunbaum, D., 2005, The effect of population size and number of influential neighbors on the emergent properties of fish schools. Ecol. Model. 183, 347–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wardle C.S., 1983, Fish reaction to towed fishing gears. In: MacDonald A.G., Priede I.G. (Eds.). Experimental biology at sea. Academic Press, London, pp. 167–195.
Zaferman M., 2005, Fine structure of fish aggregation: methods of study, effect on acoustic characteristics and fishing-gear catchability. ICES Doc. CM/2005/U: 13.