Comparison of acoustic measurements of zooplankton populations using an Acoustic Water Column Profiler and an ADCP
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Self-contained, moored echo sounders are a means of monitoring the behavior of populations of zooplankton and small fish over extended periods of time. Such instruments, either moored at or near the seafloor looking upward, or mounted on a surface buoy looking downward, record profiles of acoustic backscatter as a time series, and thus can provide insights into the long-term behavior and distribution of these populations. Single-frequency instruments are not capable of identifying the source of acoustic backscatter as species, but nevertheless can provide valuable information with low-cost, easily-deployed instrumentation over extended periods of time. This type of data can be collected either with an echo sounder designed for the task, or as an auxiliary output of an ADCP, using the RSSI (Received Signal Strength Indicator) output. In each case, without precise instrument calibration, an estimation of volume backscatter strength can be made from the data recorded by the two types of instrument. In this paper, we will compare the capabilities of an example of each type of instrument in terms of their spatial and temporal resolution and deployment endurance for extended monitoring. Calibration issues will also be discussed. In June 2004, a 200 kHz Acoustic Water Column Profiler (Version 4) and a 300 kHz RDI ADCP were co-located in Saanich Inlet, BC. The instruments were mounted on a surface buoy looking downward in 150 metres water depth for a period of 10 days. The two instruments were configured to operate with similar range and time resolution. The ADCP recorded a 30-ping ensemble every minute in 1 metre range bins. The AWCP4 recorded a 3-ping average every 12 seconds with 0.5 m range resolution. The sampling regions of the two instruments were not exactly co-located, but were close enough to show the same larger scale features. Echograms from the two clearly show the two primary zooplankton populations in the Inlet, one migrating diurnally, and the other remaining at depth. Data from both instruments, when converted to volume backscatter strength are in agreement within the limitations of their approximate calibrations. Examples of these will be shown. The difference in performance between the two instruments appears when longer or more-frequently sampled deployments are considered. With the spatial and temporal resolution used in the Saanich Inlet deployment, the ADCP is limited to a 20-day deployment on a standard battery pack (80 days would be possible if 2 more batteries were added in an external case). The AWCP4, in contrast, would last over 8 months operating with those parameters. Operating the ADCP to achieve high-resolution backscatter data also degrades its performance in measuring current velocity in most cases. The AWCP4 therefore allows greater temporal and spatial resolution over the extended monitoring periods of many months that are one of the primary motivations for using a single-frequency instrument. The AWCP4 has recently been replaced by a new model, the AWCP5, which has increased data storage (up to 16 GBytes vs. 138 Mbytes), greater flexibility in choice of sampling strategies and 16-bit as opposed to 8-bit digitization for greater dynamic range. The AWCP5 offers even greater advantages in time and space resolution and length of operation for acoustically monitoring zooplankton populations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».