Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues No 389 (2008) Knowl. Managt. Aquatic Ecosyst., 389 (2008) 04 References
Open Access
Issue
Knowl. Managt. Aquatic Ecosyst.
Number 389, 2008
Article Number 04
Number of page(s) 16
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae:2008005
Published online 10 January 2009
  • 2000/60/EC. Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities L 327, 22.12.2000, 1–73 [Google Scholar]
  • Appelberg M., 2000. Swedish standard methods for sampling freshwater fish with multi-mesh gillnets. Fiskerieverket Information, 1, 3–32. [Google Scholar]
  • Appelberg M., Berger H.-M., Hesthagen T., Kleiven E., Kurkilahti M., Raitaniemi J. and Rask M., 1995. Development and intercalibration of methods in Nordic freshwater fish monitoring. Water Air Soil Pollut., 85, 401–406. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Axenrot T. and Hansson S., 2004. Seasonal dynamics in pelagic fish abundance in a Baltic Sea coastal area. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci., 60, 541–547. [Google Scholar]
  • Balk H. and Lindem T., 2006. Sonar5 post processing systems. Operator manual version 5.9.6, 411 p. [Google Scholar]
  • CEN, 2005. Water Quality – Sampling of Fish with Multimesh Gillnets. European Committee for Standardization, EN 14757, Brussels. [Google Scholar]
  • Degerman E., Nyberg P. and Appelberg M., 1988. Estimating the number of species and relative abundance of fish in oligotrophic Swedish lakes using multi-mesh gillnets. Nordic J. Freshw. Res., 64, 91–100. [Google Scholar]
  • Degiorgi F., 1994. Étude de l’organisation spatiale de l’ichtyofaune lacustre. Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Franche Comté, France, 191 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Diekmann M., Brämick U., Lemcke R. and Mehner T., 2005. Habitat-specific fishing revealed distinct indicator species in German lowland lake fish communities. J. Appl. Ecol., 42, 901–909. [Google Scholar]
  • Foote K.G., Knudsen H.P., Vestnes G., MacLennan D.N. and Simmonds E.J., 1987. Calibration of acoustic instruments for fish-density estimation: a practical guide. ICES Cooperative Research Report, 144 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Gerdeaux D., 2001. Détermination de l’âge et de la croissance des poissons. In: Gerdeaux D. (ed.), Gestion piscicole des grands plans d’eaux, INRA Paris, 215–239. [Google Scholar]
  • Gerdeaux D. and Janjua M.Y., 2008. Contribution of obligatory and voluntary fisheries statistics to the knowledge of whitefish population in Lake Annecy (France). Fish. Res., doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2008.09.016. [Google Scholar]
  • Gerdeaux D., Anneville O. and Hefti D., 2006. Fishery changes during re-oligotrophication in 11 peri-alpine Swiss and French lakes over the past 30 years. Acta Oecol., 30, 161–167. [Google Scholar]
  • Guillard J. and Vergès C., 2007. The repeatability of biomass estimates and fish size distributions by hydroacoustic surveys using different sampling strategies and statistical methods. Internat. Rev. Hydrobiol., 92, 6, 605–617. [Google Scholar]
  • Guillard J., Perga M.-E., Colon M. and Angeli N., 2006. Hydroacoustic assessment of young-of-year perch, Perca fluviatilis, population dynamics in an oligotrophic lake (Lake Annecy, France). Fish. Man. Ecol.,13, 319–327. [Google Scholar]
  • Hansson S. and Rudstam L.G., 1995. Gillnet catches as an estimate of fish abundance: a comparison between vertical catches and hydroacoustic abundances of Baltic Sea herring (Clupea harengus) and sprat (Sprattus sprattus). Can. J. Fish. Aquatic Sci., 52, 75–83. [Google Scholar]
  • Holmgren K., 1999. Between-year variation in community structure and biomass-size distributions of benthic lake fish communities. J. Fish Biol., 55, 535–532. [Google Scholar]
  • Holmgren K. and Appelberg M., 2000. Size structure of benthic freshwater fish communities in relation to environmental gradients. J. Fish Biol., 57, 1312–1330. [Google Scholar]
  • Jeppesen E., Pekcan-Hekim Z., Lauridsen T.L., Sondergaard M. and Jensen J.P., 2006. Habitat distribution of fish in late summer: changes along a nutrient gradient in Danish lakes. Ecol. Freshwater Fish, 15, 180–190. [Google Scholar]
  • Juget J., Lafont M., Mouthon J. and Gerdeaux D., 1995. Structure des communautés benthiques et pisciaires. In: Pourriot R. and Meybeck M. (eds.), Limnologie Générale, Masson Paris, 494–513. [Google Scholar]
  • Kubecka J., Amarasinghe U.S., Bonar S.A., Hateley J., Hickley P., Hohausová E., Matena J., Peterka J., Suuronen P., Tereschenko V., Welcomme R., Winfield I.J., 2008. The true picture of a lake or reservoir fish stock: A review of needs and progress. Fish. Res., doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2008.09.021 [Google Scholar]
  • Lauridsen T.L., Landkildehus F., Jeppesen E., Jørgensen T.B. and Søndergaard M., 2008. A comparison of methods for calculating Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) of gill net catches in lakes. Fish. Res., 93, 204–211. [Google Scholar]
  • MacLennan D.N., Fernandes P.G. and Dalen J., 2002. A consistant approach to definitions and symbols in fisheries acoustics. ICES J. Marine Science, 59, 365–369. [Google Scholar]
  • Mehner T. and Schulz M., 2002. Monthly variability of hydroacoustic fish stock estimates in a deep lake and its correlation to gillnet catches. J. Fish Biol., 61, 1109–1121. [Google Scholar]
  • Mehner T., Diekmann M., Brämick U. and Lemcke R., 2005. Composition of fish communities in German lakes as related to lake morphology, trophic state, shore structure and human-use intensity. Freshwater Biol., 50, 70–85. [Google Scholar]
  • Mehner T., Holmgren K, Lauridsen T.L., Jeppesen E. and Diekmann M., 2007. Lake depth and geographical position modify lake fish assemblages of the European Central Plains ecoregion. Freshw. Biol., 52, 2285–2297. [Google Scholar]
  • OCDE, 1982. Eutrophisation des eaux. Méthodes de surveillance, d’évaluation et de lutte. Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques (OCDE), Paris, 164 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Peltonen H., Ruuhijärvi J., Malinen T. and Horppila J., 1999. Estimation of roach (Rutilus rutilus L.) and smelt (Osmerus eperlanus L.) stocks with virtual population analysis, hydroacoustics and gillnet CPUE. Fish. Res., 44, 25–36. [Google Scholar]
  • Prchalova M., Kubecka J., Vasek M., Peterka J., Sed’a J., Juza T., Riha M., Jarolim O., Tuser M., Kratochvil M., Cech M., Drastik V., Frouzova J. and Hohausova E., 2008. Distribution patterns of fishes in a canyon-shaped reservoir. J. Fish Biol., 73, 54–78. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Rudstam L.G., Van De Valk A.J. and Scheuerell M.D., 2002. Comparison of acoustic Miller high-speed sampler estimates of larval fish abundance in Oneida Lake, New York. Fish. Res., 57, 145–154. [Google Scholar]
  • Simmonds E.J. and MacLennan D.N., 2005. Fisheries Acoustics: Theory and Practice. Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd., 437 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Smith S., 1990. Use of statistical models for the estimation of abundance from groundfish survey data. Can. J. Fish. Aquatic Sci., 47, 894–903. [Google Scholar]
  • Vasek M., Kubecka J., Peterka J., Cech M., Drastik V., Hladik M., Prchalova M. and Frouzova J., 2004. Longitudinal and vertical spatial gradients in the distribution of fish within a canyon-shaped reservoir. Internat. Rev. Hydrobiol., 89, 4, 352–362. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Winfield I.J., 2004. Fish in the littoral zone: ecology, threats and management. Limnologica, 34, 124–131. [Google Scholar]
  • Winfield I.J., Fletcher J.M. and James J.B., 2007. Seasonal variability in the abundance of Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus (L.)) recorded using hydroacoustics in Windermere, UK and its implications for survey design. Ecol. Freshwater Fish, 16, 64–69. [Google Scholar]
  • Yule D.L., 2000. Comparison of horizontal acoustic and purse-seine estimates of salmonid densities and sizes in eleven Wyoming waters. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag., 20, 759–775. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.