@article{fdi:010078393,
  title = {{I}ncluding 38 k{H}z in the standardization protocol for hydroacoustic fish surveys in temperate lakes},
  author = {{M}ouget, {A}. and {G}oulon, {C}. and {A}xenrot, {T}. and {B}alk, {H}. and {L}ebourges {D}haussy, {A}nne and {G}odlewska, {M}. and {G}uillard, {J}.},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{H}ydroacoustics has become a requisite method to assess fish populations and allows to describe the relationships of fish with other elements of the aquatic ecosystem. {T}his nonintrusive method is currently an integral part of the sampling procedures recommended for fish stock assessment by the {W}ater {F}ramework {D}irective and has been standardized by the {E}uropean {C}ommittee for {S}tandardization [{CEN} (2014) {CSN} {EN} 15910 - {W}ater quality - {G}uidance on the estimation of fish abundance with mobile hydroacoustic methods, {C}ategory: 7577 {W}ater quality. {B}iological.]. {I}n {E}urope, hydroacoustic surveys are performed in freshwater using different frequencies. {C}onsequently, there is a need to evaluate if survey results can be compared. {T}his study aimed to carry out in situ comparisons at the 38 k{H}z frequency (noted f) with two other commonly used frequencies, 70 and 200 k{H}z. {T}he 38 k{H}z frequency has seldom been compared with other frequencies in freshwater although it is widely used worldwide, especially in the {G}reat {L}akes of {N}orth {A}merica and in {S}weden. {I}n 2016, hydroacoustic data were acquired in {L}akes {A}nnecy and {B}ourget using methods validated in previous studies that compared the frequencies 70, 120 and 200 k{H}z. {T}his study showed similar density and biomass estimations as a function of frequency, density(f) and biomass(f), between the frequencies studied for low to moderate fish densities. {F}or higher fish densities, the results were more variable and need to be verified. {F}ish density(f) and biomass(f) estimations sometimes exhibit differences between frequencies, which is not fully in agreement with theoretical calculations. {T}he aim of this study was to evaluate frequency comparisons in practise. {H}owever, if the differences on acoustic metrics, density(f) or biomass(f) between frequencies were occasionally statistically significant, the differences were small enough to be considered negligible for fish population management. {T}hese analyses led to better knowledge of the responses from fish in temperate lakes for the studied frequencies. {O}ur findings should be considered when revising the {CEN} standard.},
  keywords = {{PROSPECTION} {ACOUSTIQUE} ; {LAC} ; {POISSON} {D}'{EAU} {DOUCE} ; {DENSITE} {DE} {POPULATION} ; {BIOMASSE} ; {MESURE} ; {ANALYSE} {STATISTIQUE} ; {ZONE} {TEMPEREE} ; {FRANCE} ; {ANNECY} {LAC}},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{R}emote {S}ensing in {E}cology and {C}onservation},
  volume = {5},
  numero = {4},
  pages = {332--345},
  ISSN = {2056-3485},
  year = {2019},
  DOI = {10.1002/rse2.112},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010078393},
}