R. Lagarde, Jason Peyre, E. Amilhat, Manon Mercader, François Prellwitz, Gaël Simon, E. Faliex
{"title":"用声学相机(ARIS)原位评估欧洲鳗鱼数量和长度估算精度","authors":"R. Lagarde, Jason Peyre, E. Amilhat, Manon Mercader, François Prellwitz, Gaël Simon, E. Faliex","doi":"10.1051/kmae/2020037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite the increasing use of acoustic cameras in fish ecology and fisheries studies, the quantification of biases associated with this method have received little attention. In this note, we used data collected from an ARIS acoustic camera, positioned in a channel linking a lagoon to the sea, to quantify differences in European eel (Anguilla anguilla) counts and size estimates made by two experienced operators. Count estimates made from 58 videos were highly consistent between the two operators (R2 = 0.99), although statistically different. Compared to the known sizes for the 82 eels, sizes estimated manually from video were underestimated. The resulting mean error percentages were significantly different between the two operators (−3.9% ± 8.5 (SD) and −6.6% ± 8.9). This error percentage was significantly influenced by the known size of the eels but not by the detection range. Our results highlighted the importance of taking into account the biases in counts and size estimates in fish ecology and fisheries studies based on acoustic cameras. These biases have to be quantified and, if possible, corrected using similar protocols as described in this study, when multiple operators analyse acoustic videos or when comparing the results from different studies.","PeriodicalId":54748,"journal":{"name":"Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In situ evaluation of European eel counts and length estimates accuracy from an acoustic camera (ARIS)\",\"authors\":\"R. Lagarde, Jason Peyre, E. Amilhat, Manon Mercader, François Prellwitz, Gaël Simon, E. Faliex\",\"doi\":\"10.1051/kmae/2020037\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Despite the increasing use of acoustic cameras in fish ecology and fisheries studies, the quantification of biases associated with this method have received little attention. In this note, we used data collected from an ARIS acoustic camera, positioned in a channel linking a lagoon to the sea, to quantify differences in European eel (Anguilla anguilla) counts and size estimates made by two experienced operators. Count estimates made from 58 videos were highly consistent between the two operators (R2 = 0.99), although statistically different. Compared to the known sizes for the 82 eels, sizes estimated manually from video were underestimated. The resulting mean error percentages were significantly different between the two operators (−3.9% ± 8.5 (SD) and −6.6% ± 8.9). This error percentage was significantly influenced by the known size of the eels but not by the detection range. Our results highlighted the importance of taking into account the biases in counts and size estimates in fish ecology and fisheries studies based on acoustic cameras. These biases have to be quantified and, if possible, corrected using similar protocols as described in this study, when multiple operators analyse acoustic videos or when comparing the results from different studies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54748,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2020037\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"FISHERIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2020037","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"FISHERIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
In situ evaluation of European eel counts and length estimates accuracy from an acoustic camera (ARIS)
Despite the increasing use of acoustic cameras in fish ecology and fisheries studies, the quantification of biases associated with this method have received little attention. In this note, we used data collected from an ARIS acoustic camera, positioned in a channel linking a lagoon to the sea, to quantify differences in European eel (Anguilla anguilla) counts and size estimates made by two experienced operators. Count estimates made from 58 videos were highly consistent between the two operators (R2 = 0.99), although statistically different. Compared to the known sizes for the 82 eels, sizes estimated manually from video were underestimated. The resulting mean error percentages were significantly different between the two operators (−3.9% ± 8.5 (SD) and −6.6% ± 8.9). This error percentage was significantly influenced by the known size of the eels but not by the detection range. Our results highlighted the importance of taking into account the biases in counts and size estimates in fish ecology and fisheries studies based on acoustic cameras. These biases have to be quantified and, if possible, corrected using similar protocols as described in this study, when multiple operators analyse acoustic videos or when comparing the results from different studies.
期刊介绍:
Knowledge and Management of Aquatic Ecosystems (KMAE-Bulletin Français de la Pêche et de la Pisciculture since 1928) serves as a foundation for scientific advice across the broad spectrum of management and conservation issues related to freshwater ecosystems.
The journal publishes articles, short communications, reviews, comments and replies that contribute to a scientific understanding of freshwater ecosystems and the impact of human activities upon these systems. Its scope includes economic, social, and public administration studies, in so far as they are directly concerned with the management of freshwater ecosystems (e.g. European Water Framework Directive, USA Clean Water Act, Canadian Water Quality Guidelines, …) and prove of general interest to freshwater specialists. Papers on insular freshwater ecosystems and on transitional waters are welcome. KMAE is not a preferred journal for taxonomical, physiological, biological, toxicological studies, unless a clear link to ecological aspects can be established. Articles with a very descriptive content can be accepted if they are part of a broader ecological context.