4.6 Article

Marine ecosystem acoustics (MEA): quantifying processes in the sea at the spatio-temporal scales on which they occur

期刊

ICES JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE
卷 71, 期 8, 页码 2357-2369

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsu116

关键词

acoustics; assessment; ecology; ecosystem-based fisheries management; ecosystem models; physical-biological coupling; recruitment processes; spatio-temporal scaling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sustainable management of fisheries resources requires quantitative knowledge and understanding of species distribution, abundance, and productivity-determining processes. Conventional sampling by physical capture is inconsistent with the spatial and temporal scales on which many of these processes occur. In contrast, acoustic observations can be obtained on spatial scales from centimetres to ocean basins, and temporal scales from seconds to seasons. The concept of marine ecosystem acoustics (MEA) is founded on the basic capability of acoustics to detect, classify, and quantify organisms and biological and physical heterogeneities in the water column. Acoustics observations integrate operational technologies, platforms, and models and can generate information by taxon at the relevant scales. The gaps between single-species assessment and ecosystem-based management, as well as between fisheries oceanography and ecology, are thereby bridged. The MEA concept combines state-of-the-art acoustic technology with advanced operational capabilities and tailored modelling integrated into a flexible tool for ecosystem research and monitoring. Case studies are presented to illustrate application of the MEA concept in quantification of biophysical coupling, patchiness of organisms, predator-prey interactions, and fish stock recruitment processes. Widespread implementation of MEA will have a large impact on marine monitoring and assessment practices and it is to be hoped that they also promote and facilitate interaction among disciplines within the marine sciences.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据