The effect of random and density‐dependent variation in sampling efficiency on variance of abundance estimates from fishery surveys
Abundance indices (AIs) provide information on population abundance and trends over time, while AI variance (AIV) provides information on reliability or quality of the AI. AIV is an important output from surveys and is commonly used in formal assessments of survey quality, in survey comparison studi...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Fish and fisheries (Oxford, England) England), 2019-07, Vol.20 (4), p.760-774 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 774 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 760 |
container_title | Fish and fisheries (Oxford, England) |
container_volume | 20 |
creator | Kotwicki, Stan Ono, Kotaro |
description | Abundance indices (AIs) provide information on population abundance and trends over time, while AI variance (AIV) provides information on reliability or quality of the AI. AIV is an important output from surveys and is commonly used in formal assessments of survey quality, in survey comparison studies, and in stock assessments. However, uncertainty in AIV estimates is poorly understood and studies on the precision and bias in survey AIV estimates are lacking. Typically, AIV estimates are “design based” and are derived from sampling theory under some aspect of randomized samples. Inference on population density in these cases can be confounded by unaccounted process errors such as those due to variable sampling efficiency (q). Here, we simulated fish distribution and surveys to assess the effect of q and variance in q on design‐based estimates of AIV. Simulation results show that the bias and precision of AIV depend on the mean q and variance in q. We conclude that to fully evaluate the reliability of AI, both observation error and variability in q must be accounted for when estimating AIV. A decrease in mean q and an increase in the variance in q results in increased bias and decreased precision in survey AIV estimates. These effects are likely small in surveys with mean q ≥ 1. However, for surveys where q ≤ 0.5, these effects can be large. Regardless of the survey type, AIV estimates can be improved with knowledge of q and variance in q. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/faf.12375 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2252973977</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2252973977</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2975-b5d949dc5370c09d2ed8b2482f8655f33c854970eaaeb2ed87cab2e8062fa7533</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kLFOwzAQhiMEEqUw8AaWmBjSOk4cJ2NVUUCqxFJmy7HP1FXrBDsBZWNh5xl5EpwGseHB59N9d__5j6LrBM-ScOZa6FlCUkZPokmS5SwmJStP_945Po8uvN9hjPMiySbR52YLCLQG2aJaIyesqg8o3EiB9abtvz--FDRgQ9qiN-GMaE1tkbHIi0OzN_ZlaDfSgJU9CpUjYyUM40TVWXVMwLfmIFrwSLsgoI3fguuR79wb9P4yOtNi7-HqN06j59XdZvkQr5_uH5eLdSzDN2hcUVVmpZI0ZVjiUhFQRUWygugip1SnqSxoVjIMQkA1FJkUIRY4J1owmqbT6Gac27j6tQs78V3dORskOSE0aKQlY4G6HSnpau8daN64sLzreYL54DIPLvOjy4Gdj-y72UP_P8hXi9XY8QMUsYHO</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2252973977</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The effect of random and density‐dependent variation in sampling efficiency on variance of abundance estimates from fishery surveys</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Kotwicki, Stan ; Ono, Kotaro</creator><creatorcontrib>Kotwicki, Stan ; Ono, Kotaro</creatorcontrib><description>Abundance indices (AIs) provide information on population abundance and trends over time, while AI variance (AIV) provides information on reliability or quality of the AI. AIV is an important output from surveys and is commonly used in formal assessments of survey quality, in survey comparison studies, and in stock assessments. However, uncertainty in AIV estimates is poorly understood and studies on the precision and bias in survey AIV estimates are lacking. Typically, AIV estimates are “design based” and are derived from sampling theory under some aspect of randomized samples. Inference on population density in these cases can be confounded by unaccounted process errors such as those due to variable sampling efficiency (q). Here, we simulated fish distribution and surveys to assess the effect of q and variance in q on design‐based estimates of AIV. Simulation results show that the bias and precision of AIV depend on the mean q and variance in q. We conclude that to fully evaluate the reliability of AI, both observation error and variability in q must be accounted for when estimating AIV. A decrease in mean q and an increase in the variance in q results in increased bias and decreased precision in survey AIV estimates. These effects are likely small in surveys with mean q ≥ 1. However, for surveys where q ≤ 0.5, these effects can be large. Regardless of the survey type, AIV estimates can be improved with knowledge of q and variance in q.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1467-2960</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1467-2979</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/faf.12375</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Abundance ; additional variance ; Bias ; catchability ; design‐based estimate ; Estimates ; Fish ; Fisheries ; Fisheries surveys ; fisheries‐independent survey ; Fishery surveys ; gear efficiency ; Population density ; Population number ; Quality assessment ; Reliability ; Reliability analysis ; Sampling ; Stock assessment ; Surveying ; Variance ; variance of variance</subject><ispartof>Fish and fisheries (Oxford, England), 2019-07, Vol.20 (4), p.760-774</ispartof><rights>2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2975-b5d949dc5370c09d2ed8b2482f8655f33c854970eaaeb2ed87cab2e8062fa7533</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2975-b5d949dc5370c09d2ed8b2482f8655f33c854970eaaeb2ed87cab2e8062fa7533</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6112-5021</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Ffaf.12375$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Ffaf.12375$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kotwicki, Stan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ono, Kotaro</creatorcontrib><title>The effect of random and density‐dependent variation in sampling efficiency on variance of abundance estimates from fishery surveys</title><title>Fish and fisheries (Oxford, England)</title><description>Abundance indices (AIs) provide information on population abundance and trends over time, while AI variance (AIV) provides information on reliability or quality of the AI. AIV is an important output from surveys and is commonly used in formal assessments of survey quality, in survey comparison studies, and in stock assessments. However, uncertainty in AIV estimates is poorly understood and studies on the precision and bias in survey AIV estimates are lacking. Typically, AIV estimates are “design based” and are derived from sampling theory under some aspect of randomized samples. Inference on population density in these cases can be confounded by unaccounted process errors such as those due to variable sampling efficiency (q). Here, we simulated fish distribution and surveys to assess the effect of q and variance in q on design‐based estimates of AIV. Simulation results show that the bias and precision of AIV depend on the mean q and variance in q. We conclude that to fully evaluate the reliability of AI, both observation error and variability in q must be accounted for when estimating AIV. A decrease in mean q and an increase in the variance in q results in increased bias and decreased precision in survey AIV estimates. These effects are likely small in surveys with mean q ≥ 1. However, for surveys where q ≤ 0.5, these effects can be large. Regardless of the survey type, AIV estimates can be improved with knowledge of q and variance in q.</description><subject>Abundance</subject><subject>additional variance</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>catchability</subject><subject>design‐based estimate</subject><subject>Estimates</subject><subject>Fish</subject><subject>Fisheries</subject><subject>Fisheries surveys</subject><subject>fisheries‐independent survey</subject><subject>Fishery surveys</subject><subject>gear efficiency</subject><subject>Population density</subject><subject>Population number</subject><subject>Quality assessment</subject><subject>Reliability</subject><subject>Reliability analysis</subject><subject>Sampling</subject><subject>Stock assessment</subject><subject>Surveying</subject><subject>Variance</subject><subject>variance of variance</subject><issn>1467-2960</issn><issn>1467-2979</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kLFOwzAQhiMEEqUw8AaWmBjSOk4cJ2NVUUCqxFJmy7HP1FXrBDsBZWNh5xl5EpwGseHB59N9d__5j6LrBM-ScOZa6FlCUkZPokmS5SwmJStP_945Po8uvN9hjPMiySbR52YLCLQG2aJaIyesqg8o3EiB9abtvz--FDRgQ9qiN-GMaE1tkbHIi0OzN_ZlaDfSgJU9CpUjYyUM40TVWXVMwLfmIFrwSLsgoI3fguuR79wb9P4yOtNi7-HqN06j59XdZvkQr5_uH5eLdSzDN2hcUVVmpZI0ZVjiUhFQRUWygugip1SnqSxoVjIMQkA1FJkUIRY4J1owmqbT6Gac27j6tQs78V3dORskOSE0aKQlY4G6HSnpau8daN64sLzreYL54DIPLvOjy4Gdj-y72UP_P8hXi9XY8QMUsYHO</recordid><startdate>201907</startdate><enddate>201907</enddate><creator>Kotwicki, Stan</creator><creator>Ono, Kotaro</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>H98</scope><scope>H99</scope><scope>L.F</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>P64</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6112-5021</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201907</creationdate><title>The effect of random and density‐dependent variation in sampling efficiency on variance of abundance estimates from fishery surveys</title><author>Kotwicki, Stan ; Ono, Kotaro</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2975-b5d949dc5370c09d2ed8b2482f8655f33c854970eaaeb2ed87cab2e8062fa7533</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Abundance</topic><topic>additional variance</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>catchability</topic><topic>design‐based estimate</topic><topic>Estimates</topic><topic>Fish</topic><topic>Fisheries</topic><topic>Fisheries surveys</topic><topic>fisheries‐independent survey</topic><topic>Fishery surveys</topic><topic>gear efficiency</topic><topic>Population density</topic><topic>Population number</topic><topic>Quality assessment</topic><topic>Reliability</topic><topic>Reliability analysis</topic><topic>Sampling</topic><topic>Stock assessment</topic><topic>Surveying</topic><topic>Variance</topic><topic>variance of variance</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kotwicki, Stan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ono, Kotaro</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Aquaculture Abstracts</collection><collection>ASFA: Marine Biotechnology Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Marine Biotechnology Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Fish and fisheries (Oxford, England)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kotwicki, Stan</au><au>Ono, Kotaro</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The effect of random and density‐dependent variation in sampling efficiency on variance of abundance estimates from fishery surveys</atitle><jtitle>Fish and fisheries (Oxford, England)</jtitle><date>2019-07</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>20</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>760</spage><epage>774</epage><pages>760-774</pages><issn>1467-2960</issn><eissn>1467-2979</eissn><abstract>Abundance indices (AIs) provide information on population abundance and trends over time, while AI variance (AIV) provides information on reliability or quality of the AI. AIV is an important output from surveys and is commonly used in formal assessments of survey quality, in survey comparison studies, and in stock assessments. However, uncertainty in AIV estimates is poorly understood and studies on the precision and bias in survey AIV estimates are lacking. Typically, AIV estimates are “design based” and are derived from sampling theory under some aspect of randomized samples. Inference on population density in these cases can be confounded by unaccounted process errors such as those due to variable sampling efficiency (q). Here, we simulated fish distribution and surveys to assess the effect of q and variance in q on design‐based estimates of AIV. Simulation results show that the bias and precision of AIV depend on the mean q and variance in q. We conclude that to fully evaluate the reliability of AI, both observation error and variability in q must be accounted for when estimating AIV. A decrease in mean q and an increase in the variance in q results in increased bias and decreased precision in survey AIV estimates. These effects are likely small in surveys with mean q ≥ 1. However, for surveys where q ≤ 0.5, these effects can be large. Regardless of the survey type, AIV estimates can be improved with knowledge of q and variance in q.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/faf.12375</doi><tpages>15</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6112-5021</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1467-2960 |
ispartof | Fish and fisheries (Oxford, England), 2019-07, Vol.20 (4), p.760-774 |
issn | 1467-2960 1467-2979 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2252973977 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | Abundance additional variance Bias catchability design‐based estimate Estimates Fish Fisheries Fisheries surveys fisheries‐independent survey Fishery surveys gear efficiency Population density Population number Quality assessment Reliability Reliability analysis Sampling Stock assessment Surveying Variance variance of variance |
title | The effect of random and density‐dependent variation in sampling efficiency on variance of abundance estimates from fishery surveys |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T03%3A29%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20effect%20of%20random%20and%20density%E2%80%90dependent%20variation%20in%20sampling%20efficiency%20on%20variance%20of%20abundance%20estimates%20from%20fishery%20surveys&rft.jtitle=Fish%20and%20fisheries%20(Oxford,%20England)&rft.au=Kotwicki,%20Stan&rft.date=2019-07&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=760&rft.epage=774&rft.pages=760-774&rft.issn=1467-2960&rft.eissn=1467-2979&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/faf.12375&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2252973977%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2252973977&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |