Characterization of sound scattering layers in the Bay of Biscay using broadband acoustics, nets and video.

Sound scattering layers (SSLs) are observed over a broad range of spatio-temporal scales and geographical areas. SSLs represent a large biomass, likely involved in the biological carbon pump and the structure of marine trophic webs. Yet, the taxonomic composition remains largely unknown for many SSLs. To investigate the challenges of SSL sampling, we performed a survey in a small study area in the Northern Bay of Biscay (France) by combining broadband and narrowband acoustics, net sampling, imagery and video recordings. In order to identify organisms contributing to the observed SSLs, we compared measured frequency spectra to forward predicted spectra derived from biological data. Furthermore, to assess the confidence in SSL characterization, we evaluated uncertainties in modeling, acoustical and biological samplings. Here, we demonstrate for the first time that SSL backscattering intensity in the Bay of Biscay can be dominated in springtime by resonant gas bearing organisms below 100 kHz, namely siphonophores and juvenile fishes and by pteropods at higher frequencies. Thus, we demonstrate the importance of broadband acoustics combined to nets, imagery and video to characterize resonant backscatterers and mixed mesozooplankton assemblages.

Introduction

Sound Scattering Layers (SSLs) are routinely observed with active acoustic devices in a great variety of ecosystems and over wide depth ranges in the global ocean [1-4].

Deep Scattering Layers [5] inhabiting the mesopelagic zone worldwide, are e.g. known to perform daily the largest migrations on earth [6] and their fish component might dominate the world total fishes biomass [4, 7]. SSLs might hence play an important role in the biological carbon pump [8] and in the structure of marine trophic webs [9, 10].

SSLs are generally composed of mixed species assemblages of great diversity in taxa, body size and acoustic backscattering. Mesozooplankton (0.2-20 mm, [11]), macrozooplankton (> 20 mm, mainly shrimp and gelatinous zooplankton, [11]) and micronekton (20-50 mm, mainly small mesopelagic fish and other fish juveniles, [12]) have hence been reported to significantly contribute to SSLs backscatter. If SSLs are easy to observe with active acoustic devices, their taxonomic and size diversity makes them difficult to sample and identify [1]. Uncertainty of the species composition in the SSL’s generally hinders the comprehension of their ecological functions. To overcome SSLs composition identification issues, we must to understand: i) the limits of each sampling method, and ii) how these methods can complement one another.

Net sampling is a traditional way to identify organisms composing SSLs, but it is discrete in time and space and highly dependent on target catchability, as some organisms actively avoiding nets [13]. Furthermore, nets generally destroy fragile organisms such as jellyfish. Optical sampling is a good way to evaluate the presence of fragile organisms, albeit with low range and small sampling volumes. Still, like nets, optical sampling is affected by avoidance and behavior of organisms [14]. Acoustic sampling is continuous over various spatial scales with good resolution. It is however an indirect sampling method with low taxonomic resolution [15] and sensitivity to shadowing issues [16]. Additionally, the backscattering intensity of different types of scatterers is extremely variable [16] and the strongest backscatterers are not necessarily the most abundant. Until recently, most SSL acoustic studies were conducted using narrowband, multi-frequency acoustics [1, 14, 17]. However, the emergence of broadband acoustics [18] as standard monitoring tools has the potential to improve species identification based on their broadband frequency spectra [19-21].

Ubiquitous dense SSLs have been routinely observed during the PELGAS (PELagic GAScogne) multidisciplinary integrated survey which has taken place in springtime since 2000 [22]. Still to date, the composition of these layers remained largely unknown. Interestingly though, the presence of small gas-bearing targets in the Bay of Biscay water column was demonstrated by the detection of distinct acoustic resonance peaks [23, 24].

Resonance occurs when some specific types of targets (as gas bubbles) increasingly vibrate upon insonification at a given frequency [25, 26]. This natural frequency of the target depends on the target size and its physical properties as well as the one of the surrounding medium. This resonance can induce a dramatic increase in the backscattering intensity of small gas-bearing organisms (e.g. physonect siphonophores or small swimbladdered fish), relatively to their size [4, 14]. Previous studies suggested that Biscay dense SSLs were mainly composed of gaseous resonant target, as fish larvae, gelatinous gas-bearing siphonophores or phytoplankton [23, 27]. But no biological sampling had supported these conclusions.

In this study, we investigated the composition of SSLs observed on the continental shelf of the northwestern Bay of Biscay. We combined broadband acoustic data with alternative sampling methods, including optical and net recordings. Our goals were to (i) evaluate the input of broadband acoustics in SSL studies, (ii) improve the identification of organisms dominating the SSL backscattering by using a forward approach [28], and (iii) investigate the various sources of uncertainty associated to each SSL characterization method.

Materials and methods

Sampling

The PELGAS survey take place every year with the French Navy (Marine Nationale) permission. The 2016 permit number is: IF 14 CECLANT/OPS/OPSCOT. Sampling took place on the R/V Thalassa at the end of the PELGAS2016 survey [29] in the Northern Bay of Biscay, between the 27th and the 28th of May. SSLs were sampled over a diel cycle in one area off south Brittany (Fig 1). Here, we present the daytime biological sampling and the corresponding acoustic data that were collected at speeds between 2 and 3 knots.

Fig 1

Study area in the north-western Bay of Biscay (average depth: 110 m).

Acoustic sampling

R/V Thalassa was equipped with two hull-mounted Simrad EK60 split-beam narrowband (Continuous Wave pulse, CW) echosounders transmitting at 18 kHz and 38 kHz and four hull-mounted Simrad EK80 split-beam echo-sounders operated in broadband mode (Frequency Modulated pulse, FM) transmitting from 47 kHz to 420 kHz in plural upward sweeps (Table 1). The 6 echosounders were set to ping sequentially at 2 pings per second (PPS) (i.e. one ping every 3 seconds in each band) to avoid cross-channel interferences. The transducers were located at 6m below sea surface. Acoustic data collected above 10 m deep were discarded to exclude the 18 kHz echosounder post transmit ringing and to ensure that acoustical data were collected within the far field of each echosounders.

Table 1

Echosounders settings.

Transducer	ES18-11	ES38B	ES70-7C	ES120-7C	ES200-7C	ES333-7C
Signal	CW	CW	FM	FM	FM	FM
Rampinga	NA	NA	Fast	Fast	Fast	Fast
Bandwidthb (kHz)	18	38	47-90	95-160	180-240	280-420
Pulse durationb(ms)	1.024	1.024	2.048	2.048	2.048	2.048
Transmit powerb (W)	2000	2000	600	200	90	40
Nominal openingc	11°	7°	7°	7°	7°	7°
Calibration sphere size (mm)	38.1	38.1	38.1	38.1	22.0	22.0
Calibration gains	PELGAS2016	PELGAS2016	PELGAS2017	PELGAS2017	IFREMERBrest Tank	IFREMERBrest Tank

a [18]

b Value recommended by the manufacturer

c In FM mode, beam angles vary with frequency. We assumed that variable beam angle had no impact on the SSLs volume backscattering strength at frequency f assuming a homogeneous target distribution.

Calibration was performed using the SIMRAD EK80 software (version 1.11.1) with default calibration settings [30] (see details in S1 Appendix). Frequency regions with noise spikes or low backscattering sensibility were removed from any further analysis (e.g. 240-260 kHz, part of 200 kHz and 333 kHz bandwidth when noise peak at depth interfered with the signal, S1 Fig in the Supporting Informations). Due to its limited range, the 333 kHz band was not used in the following cluster analysis.

EK80 broadband raw data were pre-processed using customized MATLAB codes developed at Ifremer to obtain measurements of frequency-dependent volume backscattering strength (S, dB re 1m−1, [31]), following the 2016 USA–Norway EK80 Workshop recommendations [18]. These code routine are implemented in MOVIES3D freeware [32]. An important step in broadband data post-processing is the choice of the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) window width (i.e. the amount of data points used to compute frequency spectra) [21]. Reducing the FFT window length increases the spatial resolution, but decreases the frequency resolution. We used a frequency resolution of 2 kHz for the spectrum analysis, corresponding to an effective temporal resolution of 0.34 m. A 0.6-Tukey shading window was applied to the data before applying the FFT to reduce the leakage of spectral analysis. Individual S spectra were obtained by an echo-integration of 1.5 m vertically and 5 pings horizontally, which covered a horizontal distance of approximately 15-23 m. This integration volume contained approximately 20 points, and was a trade-off between a stable frequency response and spatial resolution (ideally around 100 points, [33]).

Biological sampling

Biological sampling was performed with a Methot Isaac Kidd (MIK) net for specimens over 2 mm and with a Multinet (Hydro-Bios, Germany) for individuals under 2 mm. Net characteristics are presented in Table 2, using [34] tow type nomenclature. Net tow depths and durations are presented in S1 Table in the Supporting Informations. All nets were equipped with a depth sensor. The multinet was equipped with 5 nets and an opening/closing system triggered by a pressure sensor. The MIK net was equipped with a GOPRO Hero 4 video camera encased in a pressure container fitted with two 2000 lumens white LED spotlights. The video camera system was used to detect the presence of fragile centimetric organisms that would have been destroyed by the net. The camera was oriented towards the MIK codend to ensure that all organisms entering the net would pass in the camera field of view.

Table 2

Characteristics of the nets used for biological sampling.

	Mesh (μm)	Mouth shape	Mouth surface (m2)	Net length (m)	Sampled volume estimation	Type of deploymenta
Multinet 5xb	335	square	0.25	2.50	flow-meter	Multiple (5) closing nets, oblique tow
MIK net	1600/500	cylindrical	3.14	13	surface × distance	oblique-horizontal tow

a Based on [34] tow type nomenclature

b Multiple closing gear with 5 nets equipped with opening/closing system triggered by a pressure sensor

Additionally, we performed Conductivity-Temperature-Density (CTD, Seabird, USA) vertical profiles. The CTD probe was equipped with a fluorometer (Seabird, USA), a turbidimeter (Campbell Scientist, USA) and an oxygen sensor (Seabird, USA). The CTD profiles are presented in S3 Fig in the Supporting Informations.

We sampled two different depth layers, corresponding to the depth ranges of the densest and most structured SSLs observed in real time on pulse compressed echograms (Fig 2): i) a surface layer (from 10 to 24m depth, located at the thermocline/halocline level) and ii) a deep layer (from 70 to 96m depth). Each layer was sampled by two MIK tows and two multinet net tows.

Fig 2

Pulse compressed S echograms recorded during net tows.

The vertical blackline separate data collected on May, 27th and 28th. Blue and red horizontal lines represent the boundaries of surface and deep sampled layers, respectively.

Micronekton and gelatinous zooplankton caught by the MIK nets were identified and measured immediately after collection, or later in the laboratory after formalin fixation (4%). Multinet mesozooplankton samples were also imaged immediately after collection using the ZooCAM in-flow imaging system [35]. Mesozooplankton between 1 and 3 mm from the MIK samples were imaged using a ZooScan [36] after formalin fixation (4%) in the laboratory. The Ecotaxa web application [37] was used to identify, count and archive images originating from both instruments. The video footage recorded during MIK tows were visually analysed to detect the presence of large gelatinous organisms, such as jellyfish or siphonophores.

Density and size of fish and euphausiids larger than 2 mm were estimated from MIK samples. Density and size of mesozooplankton (copepods, pteropods) and euphausiids smaller than 2 mm were estimated from Multinet samples.

Large physonect siphonophore bodies were visually counted on GOPRO videos. As they are always composed of colonial bodies with one single gaseous inclusion (the pneumatophore), densities of pneumatophores were estimated by dividing organism counts by the net sampling volume. We assumed that pneumatophores larger than 0.3 mm found in the catches came from large siphonophore bodies observed on the videos recorded during the same tow. Siphonophores bearing pneumatophores smaller than 0.3 mm were too small to be observed on videos. Their densities were estimated based on the number of pneumatophores found in the Multinet samples which we processed using imagery. A small number of other weak acoustic scatterers (small jellyfish, comb jelly and swimming crabs) were also caught but were not included in the forward approach.

Forward approach

Using the forward approach [28, 38], a predicted Volume backscattering Strength (S, dB re 1m−1, [31]) at a given frequency (f) is estimated with individual Target Strength (TS, dB, [31]) models, parameterized by the biological samples (size and shape). Predicted S(f) were then compared to our in situ S(f) averaged in the area where biological samplings were performed.

The predicted S(f) (S(f)) were calculated for each depth layer as the sum in natural scale of the frequency spectrum S(f) of each sampled taxa j (Eq 1): S(f) was calculated as: Where TS represents the modeled Target Strength of length class i in dB re 1m2 and D the sampled density of the organisms (in individual by m3) belonging to the i length class (Eq 2). Models and parameters used for each organism are presented in the next section.

The measured S(f) (S(f)) of each layer were calculated as the median of the S(f) in echo-integration cells along the sampling net trajectory. These cells were defined as 2 echo-integration cells located below the top of the net. Uncertainty in the predicted and measured S(f) curves are considered below.

Scattering models

Fluid-like organisms

A scattering model based on the distorted-wave Born approximation (DWBA) [39] was used to model the backscattering of Fluid-like (FL) organisms [16], for all frequencies and averaged over a normal distribution of orientation angles. A prolate spheroid model was used for copepods and an uniformly-bent and tapered cylinder model for shrimp-like organisms and fish lacking swimbladders. Model parameters are summarized in Table 3. Euphausiids model parameters come from [2], copepods model parameters from [40] and fish without swimbladders model parameters from [41].

Table 3

Scattering model parameters used for Fluid-like organisms.

SD: Standard Deviation.

Organism (Scattering Model)	Length(L)-to-width(2a) ratio (L/2a)a	Orientation (Mean, SD)	Density contrast (g)	Sound speed contrast (h)
Euphausiids and Decapod Shrimp (DWBA uniformly-bent cylinder)	5	N(20,20)b	1.016b	1.019b
Copepods (DWBA prolate spheroid)	2.55	N(90,30)b	0.949c	0.995c
Fish without Swimbladders (DWBA uniformly-bent cylinder)	4	N(0,30)	1.01d	1.025d

a is the radius of the spherical section of the cylinder or of the prolate spheroid

b [2]

c [40]

d Value reported by [41] for Scomber scombrus

In the case of net samples processed with imagery, the length of FL organisms was estimated as the major axis of their silhouette area observed on imagery pictures. The radius a of an organism’s cross section was estimated as the semi-minor axis of the planar projection of the model shape (rectangle for a cylinder, ellipse for a spheroid) whose area was equal to the silhouette area. The mean ratio L/a of body Length (L) over cross section radius (a) was calculated on a subset (n > 30 by scatterer types) of imagery pictures without flexion or cut body part. In the case of organisms processed manually, the mean ratio L/a was estimated based on a subset of a dozen individuals.

Elastic shell organisms

Thecosome gastropods (common name pteropods) produce relatively high backscattering in geometric scattering compared to FL organisms of similar size [16]. Pteropods are caracterized by a hard aragonite shells, with a large discontinuity: the opercular opening [2]. Based on the review of Elastic Shell (ES) scattering models by [2], we selected a high-pass dense-fluid sphere model with an empirically derived reflection coefficient (R = 0.5) to predict the backscattering intensity of ES organisms [16].

Pteropods sampled in the nets were measured by plankton imagery. Their cross section radius a was estimated as the radius of a disc of the same area as the organism’s silhouette image.

Gas-Bearing organisms

We used a gaseous prolate spheroid model [42], supplemented with [26]’s damping equation (see details of the model in S2 Appendix) to predict the backscattering of Gas Bearing (GB) organisms [16]. This model is valid for Rayleigh scattering, i.e. for ka < kb < 0.1; where a and b are respectively the semi-minor and semi-major axes of the spheroid in meter and k is the wave number (m−1).

Swimbladdered fish viscosity and surface tension parameters come from [43] and [44]. Swimbladder semi-minor axis a and length-to-width ratios (L/2a) of transparent fish (juveniles or larvae of Crystallogobius linearis and Carapus acus) were visually measured in a sample of thirty specimens, all of which were in good condition. A mean ratio relating fish body length to swimbladder length was derived based on these measurements. This ratio was used to predict the swimbladder cross-section of damaged individuals.

When direct measurements were impossible, we approximated the fish body volume as a prolate spheroid, with the fish length as the major axis and 1/6 of the fish length as the minor axis (based on the mean of all visual measurements). Following the estimations and measurements of [45], [46] and [47], swimbladder volume was then estimated as 2.5% of the body volume, using an empirical swimbladder length-to-width ratio of 1.5. These values were in line with the swimbladder to body volume estimations made on transparent fishes.

Pneumatophores of physonect siphonophores displayed a pneumatophore mean length-to-width ratio (L/2a) of 2.35, regardless of their size. As no specific value of viscosity and surface tension could be found in the literature for siphonophores pneumatophores, those parameters were arbitrarily set to 0.1 Pa.s−1 and 15 N.m−1, respectively. Those values were chosen to lay between values reported for fish flesh (1 Pa.s−1 and 200 N.m−1, from [44]) and water (0.0013 Pa.s−1 and 0.075 N.m−1) and to provide the best fit between the measured and predicted S(f). Parameters used in GB organisms scattering models are presented in Table 4.

Table 4

Scattering model parameters used for Gas Bearing organisms.

Taxon	Length-to-width ratio (L/2a)	Viscosity (η, in Pa.s−1)	Surface tension (τ, in N.m−1)
Crystallogobius linearis	1.63	1a	200a
Carapus acus	2.75	1a	200a
Other fish	1.5	1a	200a
Siphonophores pneumatophore	2.35	0.1b	15b

a [43] and [44]

b No specific value for viscosity/surface tension of the pneumatophores, they were fixed arbitrarily

Uncertainty analysis

Uncertainty analysis of scattering models

Model parameters used in this study to estimate organisms backscatter were not specific to the Bay of Biscay. We performed an uncertainty analysis for each scattering model to assess the reliability of model predictions, when accounting for uncertainty in model parameters derived from the literature. Reference values for parameters other than length (that was measured on all organisms) are presented in Tables 3 and 4. The standard deviations of the parameter distributions were based on the range of the literature. Alternative values for the parameters were drawn from statistical distributions centered on reference values. The mean, standard deviation and quantiles of these model parameter distributions are presented in Table 5. The uncertainty on the FL organism’s orientation was represented by using a mean angle distribution in the DWBA model (Table 3) and was therefore not included in the uncertainty analysis.

Table 5

Statistical distributions for the model parameters used in the uncertainty analysis.

μ: mean, SD: standard deviation, 5% and 95% quantiles of the distribution: Confidence Interval (0.05-0.95) the, L/2a: length/width ratio, L/a length/half-width ratio.

Parameters	Distribution	μ	SD	Median	CI(0.05-0.95)
Siphonophores, Ye modified model
L/2a	Normal	2.35	0.3	2.35	1.86-2.84
Viscosity (τ)	Log-normal	-2.3	1	0.1	0.019-0.52
Surface tension (η)	Log-normal	2.7	1	14.88	2.87-77.1
Swimbladdered fish, Ye modified model
L/2a	Normal	Species dependenta	0.2		Species dependenta
Viscosity (τ)	Log-normal	0	1	1	0.19-5.18
Surface tension (η)	Log-normal	5.3	1	200.3	38.7-1037.8
Copepods, DWBA model
L/a	Normal	5.5	1	5.5	3.86-7.15
Density contrast (g)	Normal	0.96	0.0075	0.96	0.948-0.978
Sound speed contrast (h)	Normal	0.99	0.0075	0.99	0.978-1.002
Euphausiids, DWBA model
L/a	Normal	10	1.5	10	7.53-12.47
Density contrast (g)	Normal	1.016	0.0075	1.016	1.004-1.028
Sound speed contrast (h)	Normal	1.019	0.0075	1.019	1.007-1.031
Fish without swimbladder, DWBA model
L/a	Normal	8	1.5	8	5.53-10.47
Density contrast (g)	Normal	1.01	0.0075	1.01	1.000-1.022
Sound speed contrast (h)	Normal	1.025	0.0075	1.025	1.0127-1.037
Pteropods, High pass dense-fluid sphere model
Reflection coefficient (R)	Log-normal	-0.69	0.4	0.50	0.26-0.97

aFish swimbladder length-to-width ratios (L/2a) per species are presented in Table 4

The uncertainty analysis consisted of 1000 model simulations run in each 0.1 μm scatterer size class. The parameter values were drawn from the distributions presented in Table 5, using Latin Hyper Cube sampling [48]. This near-random sampling method ensured that each parameter was sampled according to its distribution, and that the parameter space was homogeneously explored. Confidence intervals around scattering model predictions were defined as the 5% and 95% quantiles of the simulation results.

Variability of in situ frequency responses

The SSLs spatial and frequential heterogeneity along net trajectories was estimated to assess the representativity of biological sampling. Clusters of echo-integration cells were defined on echograms based on S(f) and net tracks were superimposed on the segmented echograms. To assess frequency spectra heterogeneity along each net track, we compared median frequency spectra computed along net tracks to the median S(f) of each cluster. Echogram segmentation was performed using Expectation Maximization (EM) clustering [49], following [50] recommendations. Data used in EM clustering were standardized by the mean of the S(f) spectrum weighted by each transducer bandwidth, as follows:

with the s mean value (in natural scale) over the whole bandwidth of the transducer n:

with Sv the backscattering at the b frequency of the transducer n bandwidth, f the number of frequency bins within the bandwidth, fmin and fmax the bandwidth boundaries of transducer n, presented in Table 1.

We hypothesized that layers were stratified horizontally (coherent with the echograms on Fig 2), thus each “k” cluster was initialized by the mean (in natural scale) S(f) of “k” equal horizontal bands stratifying the layer. The number of clusters used in the final segmentation was set to maximize the diversity of S(f) spectra shapes while minimizing the number of clusters.

Results

Biological sampling

The density, mean length and Standard Deviation (SD) of sampled organisms in each zone and layer are presented in Table 6. Illustrations of the sampled main scatterers can be find in the S2 Fig in the Supporting Informations. CTD profiles are presented in the S3 Fig in the Supporting Informations.

Table 6

Composition and length of each layer main scatterers.

SD: Standard Deviation.

	Surface layer		Deep layer
Dominant scatterers	Mean length (SD)(mm)	Density(ind/m3)	Mean length (SD)(mm)	Density(ind/m3)
Euphausiids	4.26 (2.22)	14.2	13.7 (9.15)	1.53
Limacina sp.	0.75 (0.12)	5358	0.71 (0.15)	126
Copepods	1.28 (0.37)	1403	1.41 (0.52)	126
Swimbladdered fisha	1.53 (0)b	NAb	0.52 (0.15)	0.0065
Fish without swimbladder Argentina sphyranea			21.5 (3.89)	0.012
Physonect siphonophore pneumatophorea	0.27 (0.11)	8.32	1.23 (0.31)	0.48
Jellyfish (Pandeiidae)c	30.1 (10)	0.033	24.47 (13.38)	0.006
Swimming crabs Polybius henslowii c			31.75 (3.54)	0.0015
Comb jelly Pleurobrachia pileus c			13.6 (7)	0.0022

a Fish swimbladder length-to-width ratios (L/2a) per species are presented in Table 4

b Only one individual sampled, not modeled

c Not modeled due to low densities and weak backscattering

We found Pteropods (Limacina sp.) and Copepods in high density near the surface (5300 ind.m−3 and 1403 ind.m−3 respectively). High densities of small euphasiids (4.26 mm of mean length, 14 ind.m−3) were also found in the surface layer, while large euphausiids were sampled in the deep layer (14 mm of mean length, 1.5 ind.m−3).

We sampled two sizes of physonect siphonophore pneumatophores: small siphonophores (mean pneumatophore length 0.3 mm) present in the surface layer (8.3 ind.m−3) and larger siphonophores (mean pneumatophore length 2 mm) caught at a lower density in the deep layer (0.5 ind.m−3). The body length of large siphonophore was estimated at about 1 meter, based on video recordings, using the known MIK net opening as scale. The body size of small siphonophores was unknown as they were not observed by the video camera.

We only caught one fish in the surface layer, a Ciliata mustela larvae. In the deep layer we mostly caught non-swimbladdered juveniles of Argentina sphyranea [51] which were more abundant in the catch than swimbladdered fish species (0.012 ind.m−3 and 0.0065 ind.m−3 respectively). The swimbladdered fish were mostly composed of Crystallogobius linearis juveniles (50% in number) and Carapus acus larvae (20%). The remaining 30% was composed of juvenile gobiidae, blenniidae, triglidae and gadidae.

Lastly, we found a small amount of jellyfish (Pandeiidae spp.), Polybius henslowii swimming crabs and Pleurobrachia pileus comb jellies in the samples (Table 6).

Sound scattering layers internal variability

The results of the EM clustering of echo-integration cells within the layers sampled by the nets are presented in Fig 3.

Fig 3

EM clustering results for (a) the surface layer and (b) the deep layer.

Upper panels: echo-integration cells belongings to cluster; left of vertical black line: data collected on May, 27th, right of black line: data collected on May, 28th. Middle panel: net trajectories (black lines). Lower panel: median volume backscattering strength spectra at frequency f (S(f)) in the whole depth layer (red and blue curve with 25% and 75% quantiles confidence intervals) and in each cluster.

The surface layer was split into two vertically stratified clusters (Fig 3(a)). The S(f) spectra of both cluster displayed a similar shape above 100 kHz with a decrease in the overall backscattering intensity with depth. In contrast, both spectra differed between 38 and 95 kHz, with a single broad peak around 80 kHz for cluster 2, and two peaks at 38 and 80 kHz for cluster 1. Multinet U0354 and MIK net tows each sampled exclusively one cluster, cluster 1 and 2, respectively. However, the multinet U0341 sampled clusters 1 and 2 equally.

The deep layer was separated into three vertically stratified clusters, whose mean backscattering intensity increased with depth (Fig 3(b)). The median S(f) spectrum of each cluster displayed specific shapes: a peak at 38 kHz then a rise for cluster 3; a flat spectrum for cluster 2 and a bump between 18 and 150 kHz for the cluster 1, followed by a flat curve beyond 150 kHz. Most net tows sampled the deepest cluster (1), with the exception of the W-shaped MIK U0352 tow that sampled the whole layer and the multinet U0341 that sampled the interface between cluster 1 and cluster 2.

Predicted and measured S(f) curves of each layer are presented with their confidence intervals in Fig 4. We also represented the narrowband equivalent S spectra (small crosses on the spectrum at 18, 38, 70, 120, 200 and 333 kHz).

Fig 4

Forward approach results: modeled frequency spectra (S(f)) are represented in the left column (Fig (a) for surface layer, (c) for deep layer). Coloured areas: confidence intervals (5th and 95th percentiles of uncertainty analysis results). Measured S(f) (red or blue lines) and predicted S(f) (black line) frequency spectra are represented in the right column, (Fig (b) for surface layer,(d) for deep layer). Coloured areas around measured S(f): confidence intervals (25th and 75th percentiles). Volume backscattering strength S level at 18, 38, 70, 120, 200 and 333 kHz and their 25th and 75th percentiles confidence intervals are represented by crosses.

The predicted S(f) spectrum in the surface layer (Fig 4(a)) was dominated by small siphonophores (mean pneumatophore size 0.27 mm) and limacina pteropods. The modeled S(f) of small siphonophores displayed a widely spread resonance peak between 38 and 150 kHz. At low frequencies (18-160 kHz) the modeled siphonophore contribution roughly followed the measured S(f) shapes although 3-4 dB lower in level. However, the peak at 38 kHz detected in the measured S(f) was not observed in the modeled S(f). Futhermore, the predicted S(f) was 5 dB higher than the measured S for frequencies greater than 225 kHz due to the high contribution of pteropods (Fig 4(b)). Of note, narrowband frequency responses did not capture peaks at 38 and 80 kHz, which would have potentially lead to misinterpretation, had narrowband acoustics been used alone.

The predicted S(f) of the deep layer (Fig 4(c)) was dominated by pteropod and large siphonophore (mean pneumatophore size 1.23 mm) backscatter. The siphonophore and fish resonant peaks occurred between the 18 and 38 kHz narrowband point. Importantly, predicted and measured S(f) were close at frequencies below 38 kHz. At higher frequencies, we observed large discrepancies between both curves, with non-overlapping uncertainty. Indeed, the frequency content between 38 and 250 kHz on the measured frequency spectrum, similar to those produced by the small siphonophores in the S(f) surface layer (Fig 4(a)), could not be reproduced based on our biological sampling data. Notice that in this case, narrowband and broadband frequency spectra displayed similar shapes.

Discussion

In this paper, the composition of two SSLs detected in the Bay of Biscay in springtime was characterized by jointly analyzing acoustic and groundtruthing data. In doing so, fine scale heterogeneity within SSLs was evidenced and its importance for sampling was highlighted. The SSLs were generated by a variety of scatterers belonging to several taxa. Their frequency responses from 18 to 100 kHz were dominated by GB siphonophores. As reported in previous studies [1, 2], the resonance frequency of small GB organisms fall within the range of frequencies commonly used in fisheries acoustics, namely at lower frequencies (18-50 kHz). Our study confirms that small GB organisms can dominate the total backscattering at these frequencies, even at low density. Pteropods were the main contributors at higher frequencies (> 100 kHz), with very high densities recorded in the surface SSL (4000-5000 ind.m−3). To our knowledge, this is the first mention of such high pteropod density.

The unsupervised clustering of broadband echograms revealed a high frequential heterogeneity within the SSLs. SSLs were stratified vertically, with mild horizontal heterogeneity at our sampling scale. Interestingly, the surface layer was composed of two sub-layers indicating a potential shift in the siphonophore size composition. These two sub-layers were sampled differently by the nets. Two sub-layers out of three were sampled in the deep layer: one had a flat S(f) spectrum that could be attributed to gaseous scatterers, and the other showed a bump in its S(f) curve which not be assigned to any known scatterer. Unfortunately, these SSL frequency heterogeneities could not easily be assessed during the survey by simply looking at the pulse compressed echograms displayed in real time. Hence, net sampling targeted at best the larger scale features of SSLs. The lack of real-time information on these SSL fine scale frequency heterogeneities thus hindered the characterization of their fine scale composition.

Despite some uncertainty in the net positioning in the surface layer, the measured and predicted S(f) matched reasonably well in the forward approach, when considering the uncertainties around the two median curves. The two dominant scatterers producing these SSLs were likely siphonophores and pteropods. However the size diversity of siphonophores is suspected to be greater in the water than in the nets, as a peak at 38 kHz in the measured S(f) remained unexplained by the catches. Additionally, some of the mismatch observed at higher frequency (> 200 kHz) might be explained by complex scattering [52] due to the high density of pteropods, or by a non-random distribution of pteropods in their position or angle (e.g. because of aggregation due to mucus or opercular opening in the beam direction).

The physical vertical gradients were weak in the study area, and the surface backscattering at 18 kHz was low (-77 dB) relatively to higher frequencies. We therefore neglected the potential backscattering caused by physical phenomena such as microstructures [2] in the surface layer, as microstructures normally present a high backscattering at 18 kHz [53], and a relatively stable frequency response at higher frequencies [2].

In the deep layer, discrepancies between predicted and measured S(f) curves could not be explained by the uncertainty in model parameters. Those differences likely resulted from the under-sampling of important scatterers. The resonance of larger siphonophores and fish juveniles was positioned between 18 and 38 kHz, while the spectrum bump at higher frequency could not be explained by the biological sampling. This could be caused by the presence of un-sampled small siphonophores, or by a hypothetical accumulation of centimetric flocks of suspended matter [54] in relation with the high turbidity (S3 Fig in the Supporting Informations).

Moreover, Argentina sphyranea juveniles were modeled as FL organisms. The timing of Argentina sphyranea juveniles swimbladder development is however unclear [51, 55]. Therefore, the modeled S(f) of Argentina sphyranea juveniles might have been largely underestimated at lower frequencies if a functional swimbladder was in fact present.

The forward approach required accurate acoustic backscattering models of dominant scatterers and a good parameterization of these models. The uncertainty analysis enabled to represent the potential errors on model parameters and better assess the discrepancies between predicted and measured S(f) curves. However, [42]’s model, which was used here, is designed for ka < 0.1, and is less reliable for a higher ka. This decrease in GB model precision at higher frequencies has low impact on the overall results, as GB backscattering was generally low at higher frequencies relatively to other scatterers. Nonetheless, it could be necessary to supplement [42]’s model with a gaseous cylinder model (e.g. [56]) when GB organism backscattering dominates the entire frequency spectrum.

The largest source of bias and uncertainty however likely resided in the biological sampling, due to avoidance [13] and fragile organism destruction by the nets issues [57]. Biological sampling errors were however not included in our uncertainty analysis, due to difficulties to quantify them. One way forward might be to use the discrepancies between the measured and predicted S(f) curves to assess the catchability bias of the nets, when measured S(f)’s are higher than predicted ones [13].

Our results illustrate the potential of broadband acoustics to (i) fill-in the gaps between narrowbands, (ii) investigate the SSLs fine frequential heterogeneity and (iii) ascertain the presence or absence of resonance peaks [21] and derive their actual maximum backscattering intensity (Fig 4(b)). Narrow-band acoustics can lead to serious miss-interpretation when resonant peaks are present far away from the sampled frequency (Fig 4(d)).

Siphonophores, especially smaller ones, were difficult to sample, as they are partially destroyed by classical plankton nets [58]. This difficulty (here, one net out of two sampled them) can lead to an underestimation of pneumatophore size diversity and density. The use of ZooCAM imaging [35] was essential for detecting their presence and counting the small siphonophore pneumatophores, too small to be seen on in situ video recordings. The in situ video recordings were essential to ascertain the presence and count large siphonophores [59].

Importantly, the presence of physonect siphonophores was confirmed in the Bay of Biscay [24, 60], as well as their potential strong backscattering intensity from 18 to 120 kHz. This finding could explain the frequent occurrence of widely spread SSLs displaying resonance-like peaks in the Bay of Biscay during springtime ([23, 24, 27], whose origin remained unexplained.

In conclusion, the combination of broadband acoustics, nets, imagery and video presented in this paper paves the way for the characterization of composite SSLs produced by complex assemblages of scatterers, of various taxa and size class. This opens up a perspective for acoustic monitoring of the spatio-temporal dynamics of well identified SSL, which might be an essential step in a general comprehension of pelagic ecosystems in the context of global climate change.

Echosounder calibrations.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Gaseous target backscattering model.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Noise spectrum.

Noise measurements (volume backscattering in decibel, color key) performed with the echosounders in passive mode during the PELGAS2017 survey. x-axis: acoustic frequency (kHz), y-axis: range from transducer (m).

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Images of main scatterers.

Images of main scatterers in the samples taken with (a), (b) and (c): zooCAM; (d) and (e): Zooscan; (f), (g) and (h): binocular microscope.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Hydrological context.

Temperature (a), salinity (b), fluorescence (c) and turbidity (d) profiles. Each dashed line represent one profile, the solid lines represent the mean profile for daytime (red) and night time (blue).

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Description of used mesozooplankton and micronekton nets.

Depth and time of the net tows. Each gear was associated with a station number. The multinet open each of its nets at a specified depth, presented in net depth interval. Only the multinet nets sampling in a sampled layer are presented in this table.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

9 Aug 2019

PONE-D-19-17373

Characterization of sound scattering layers in the Bay of Biscay using broadband acoustics, nets and video

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Blanluet,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Sep 23 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Stavros Ntalampiras

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

3. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

A. Blanluet doctoral grant was co-funded by the Conseil R ´egional des Pays de la Loire and IFREMER.

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: First of all, for question 3 above I found some 2013 PELGAS data (475 MB) at

DORAY Mathieu, DUHAMEL Erwan, HURET Martin, PETITGAS Pierre, MASSE Jacques (2000) PELGAS, https://doi.org/10.18142/18,

but I never located the 2016 data analyzed in this paper.

I feel that the paper is publishable. It compares broadband acoustic backscatter data collected from a ship with expectations based on net sampling and forward modeling of scattering strength. The comparison shows some discrepancies between the two that illustrate the challenges of both types of sampling. The acoustic data show some informative patterns.

First of all, the paper cites important and needed scientific work in the area. The net collection and forward modeling is explained. I have only a few other comments on the paper, mostly minor.

There is a font problem with greater than and/or less than symbols, as at line 11, line 163, line 341, line 367, maybe other places.

The sentence at line 15 could be changed to begin 'Uncertainty of the species composition in the SSL's ...

The resonance discussion (line 39) should mention that there is a frequency of energetic response related to the vibrational characteristics of the scatterer, the resonant frequency. The term 'given frequency' doesn't really convey any useful information. Also resonance is not restricted to gaseous inclusions.

Line 104: Do you mean fluorometer?

Page 7: I could not find what EI means.

page 11: I could not determine the reason for making Sv standardized. Is this a function of frequency? If Sv(f) is from calibrated systems, what is the reason for adding on the quantity that is an average over the transducers? (N=6 transducers, correct?)

The language of the sentence at line 364 needs repair. I don't understand the statement. This is true at line 414 also, in S1 Appendix.

Reviewer #2: This is one of a few high quality manuscripts I have reviewed over decades of my professional career. The field experiment was carefully designed and the co-registered acoustic, biological, optical, and oceanographic data were collected properly. Analysis of collected data including the scattering modeling and uncertainty assessment is scientifically sound and very objective. I recommend it be published with some minor revisions suggested in the attached file.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dezhang Chu

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: PONE-D-19-17373 - Review Comments.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

13 Sep 2019

Reviewer 1: I have incorporated all your suggestion to my revision. Thank you for your help.

Reviewer 2: I have incorporated all your suggestion to my revision. Thank you a lot for your helpful comments and your encouragement!

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers PLOES ONE.docx

Click here for additional data file.

25 Sep 2019

Characterization of sound scattering layers in the Bay of Biscay using broadband acoustics, nets and video

PONE-D-19-17373R1

Dear Dr. Blanluet,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Stavros Ntalampiras

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The small improvements needed in the paper have been done. There are a few places where the language is troublesome and the meaning is not absolutely clear (e.g lines 16-18) but this does not stand in the way of the science.

Reviewer #2: The figures are all in low-resolution format and may be they are only for the review purpose. If the final pdf will have full resolution, I'll satisfied with this revised manuscript and recommend its acceptance.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dezhang Chu

10 Oct 2019

PONE-D-19-17373R1

Characterization of sound scattering layers in the Bay of Biscay using broadband acoustics, nets and video

Dear Dr. Blanluet:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Stavros Ntalampiras

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE