Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T13:27:29.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of the acoustic and biological sampling of the sonic scattering layers: R.R.S. ‘Discovery’ SOND Cruise, 1965

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

B. S. McCartney
B. S. McCartney
Affiliation:
Institute of Oceanographic Sciences, Wormley, Godalming, Surrey, U.K.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The acoustic measurements made during the SOND cruise are presented in the form of vertical profiles of relative scattering coefficient at day and night and its time dependence over sunrise and sunset for the four echo-sounders used. These profiles are compared with the scattering which is calculated would be returned from the vertical distributions of biological samples reported by other workers, but particularly from the distribution ofswimbladder fish analysed by Badcock. The similarities between the calculated and measured profiles support the assumption that swimbladder fish dominate the scattering due to their high target strengths, particularly at frequencies up to and including 36 kHz. By correlating fish sizes, daytime depth, migration behaviour and acoustic scattering several of the layers may be tentatively attributed to particular species. A calibrated echo-sounder in the frequency range up to 36 kHz is size selective, but can nevertheless be useful for looking at broad distributional features. However, because the numerically more abundant small planktonic animals are inadequately represented by the sounder the records are little more than a guide to net sampling programmes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , February 1976 , pp. 161 - 178
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1976

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

Anderson, V. C., 1953. Wide-band sound scattering in the deep scattering layer. Report, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, No. 53–36.Google Scholar
Andreeva, I. B., 1964. Scattering of sound air bladders of fish in deep sound-scattering ocean layers. Soviet Physics: Acoustics, 10 (1), 17–20. (English translation.)Google Scholar
Andreeva, I. B. & Chindonova, Y. G., 1964. On the nature of sound-scattering layers. Okeanologiya, 1, 112–24. (In Russian.)Google Scholar
Angel, M. V., 1969. Planktonic ostracods from the Canary Island region; their depth distributions, diurnal migrations, and community organisation. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 49, 515–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angel, M. V. & Fasham, M. J. R., 1973. SOND Cruise 1965: factor and cluster analyses of the plankton results, a general summary. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 53, 185–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badcock, J., 1970. The vertical distribution of mesopelagic fishes collected on the Sond Cruise. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 50, 1001–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, A. De C., 1970. The vertical distribution of euphausids near Fuerteventura, Canary Islands (‘Discovery’ Sond Cruise, 1965). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 50, 301–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batzler, W. E. & Westerfield, E. C., 1953. Sonar studies of the deep scattering layer in the North Pacific. Report, U.S. Navy Electronics Laboratory, No. 334.Google Scholar
Beamish, P., 1971. Quantitative measurements of acoustic scattering from zooplanktonic organisms. Deep-Sea Research, 18, 811–22.Google Scholar
Brooke Farquhar, G. (ed.), 1970. Proceedings of an international symposium on biological sound scattering in the ocean, Warrenton, Virginia, 1970, Report No. 005, xi, 629 pp. Washington: Maury Center for Ocean Science.Google Scholar
Chapman, R. P. & Marshall, J. R., 1966. Reverberation from deep scattering layers in the western North Atlantic. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 40, 405–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, M. R., 1969. Cephalopoda collected on the Sond Cruise. Journal of the Marine Bio-logical Association of the United Kingdom, 49, 961–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, M. R., 1970. Growth and development of Spirula spirula. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 50, 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currie, R. I., Boden, B. P. & Kampa, E. M., 1969. An investigation on sonic-scattering layers: the R.R.S. ‘Discovery’ Sond Cruise, 1965. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 49, 489–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enright, J. T., 1963. Estimates of the compressibility of some marine crustaceans. Limnology and Oceanography, 8, 382–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foxton, P., 1969. Sond Cruise 1965. Biological sampling methods and procedures. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 49, 603–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foxton, P., 1970 a. The vertical distribution of pelagic decapods (Crustacea: Natantia) collected on the Sond Cruise 1965. I. The Caridea. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 50, 939–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foxton, P., 1970 b. The vertical distribution of pelagic decapods (Crustacea: Natantia) collected on the Sond Cruise 1965. II. The Panaeidea and general discussion. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 50, 961–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haslett, R. W. G., 1969. The target strengths of fish. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 9, 181–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hersey, J. B. & Backus, R. H., 1954. New evidence that migrating gas bubbles, probably the swimbladders of fish, are largely responsible for scattering layers on the continental rise south of New England. Deep-Sea Research, 1, 190–1.Google Scholar
Hersey, J. B., Johnson, H. R. & Davis, L. C., 1952. Recent findings about the deep scattering layer. Journal of Marine Research, 11, 1–9.Google Scholar
Kampa, E. M., 1970. Underwater daylight and moonlight measurements in the eastern North Atlantic. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 50, 397–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebedeva, L. P., 1964. Measurement of the bulk modulus of elasticity of animal tissues. Soviet Physics: Acoustics, 10, 410–11.Google Scholar
Marshall, N. B., 1960. Swimbladder structure of deep-sea fishes in relation to their systematics and biology. ‘Discovery’ Reports, 31, 1–122.Google Scholar
Matsui, T., Teramoto, Y. & Kaneko, Y., 1972. Target strengths of squid. F.A.O. Fisheries Circular, No. 142, 27–9.Google Scholar
Mccartney, B. S., 1970. Changes in scattering layer strength during depth migration. In Proceedings of an international symposium on biological sound scattering in the ocean, Warrenton, Virginia, 1970, ed. G., Brooke Farquhar, Report No. 005, 356–9. Washington: Maury Center for Ocean Science.Google Scholar
Mccartney, B. S. & Stubbs, A. R., 1971. Measurements of the acoustic target strengths offish in dorsal aspect, including swimbladder resonance. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 15, 397–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickwell, G. V., 1967. Gas and bubble production by siphonophores. Report, Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Marine Environment Division, San Diego, California, No. Tp8, 98 pp.Google Scholar
Pieper, R. E., 1971. A study of the relationship between zooplankton and high frequency scattering underwater sound. Ph.D. Thesis, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Roe, H. S. J., 1972 a. The vertical distributions and diurnal migrations of calanoid copepods collected on the Sond Cruise, 1965. I. The total population and general discussion. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 52, 277–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roe, H. S. J., 1972 b. The vertical distributions and diurnal migrations of calanoid copepods collected on the Sond Cruise, 1965. II. Systematic account: families Calanidae up to and including the Aetideidae. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 52, 315–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roe, H. S. J., 1972 c. The vertical distributions and diurnal migrations of calanoid copepods collected on the Sond Cruise, 1965. III. Systematic account: families Euchaetidae up to and including the Metridiidae. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 52, 525–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roe, H. S. J., 1972 d. The vertical distributions and diurnal migrations of calanoid copepods collected on the Sond Cruise, 1965. IV. Systematic account of families Lucicutiidae to Candaciidae. The relative abundance of the numerically most important genera. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 52, 1021–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shearer, L. W., 1970. Comparisons between surface-measured swimbladder volumes, depth of resonance, and 12 kHz echograms at the time of capture of sound-scattering fishes. In Proceedings of an international symposium on biological sound scattering in the ocean, Warrenton, Virginia, 1970, ed. G., Brooke Farquhar, Report No. 005,453–71. Washington: Maury Center for Ocean Science.Google Scholar
Smith, P. F., 1951. Measurements of the sound scattering properties of several forms of marine life. Report, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, No. 51–68.Google Scholar
Smith, P. F., 1954. Further measurements of the sound scattering properties of several forms of marine organisms. Deep-Sea Research, 2, 71–9.Google Scholar
Weston, D. E., 1966. Sound propagation in the presence of bladderfish. In Underwater acoustics, 2, ed. Albers, V. M., Chapter 5. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar