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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Fish and fisheries (Oxford, England) England), 2019-07, Vol.20 (4), p.760-774
Hauptverfasser: Kotwicki, Stan, Ono, Kotaro
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 &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2019 John Wiley &amp; 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 &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences &amp; Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Aquaculture Abstracts</collection><collection>ASFA: Marine Biotechnology Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Marine Biotechnology Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; 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