Advertisement

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 118, Issue 1–3, pp 147–163 | Cite as

Patchy Distribution Fields: Sampling Distance Unit of an Interleaved Survey and Reconstruction Adequacy

  • I. Kalikhman
Article

Abstract

A mathematical model was used to examine the effects of choosing various units of sampling distance of an interleaved (two-pass) acoustic survey on the adequacy of reconstructing patchy distribution fields. The model simulates fish or plankton patches (or gaps) of different shapes and spatial orientations, and an interleaved survey by parallel or zigzag transects, along which a unit of sampling distance is set. The efficiency of a survey is determined by the adequacy of a reconstructed field to that originally generated, which is evaluated by calculating their correlations (r). Regarding immovable fields, the experiments conducted indicate that a patchy field can be reconstructed properly (r 2 > 0.70) if the distance between transects D < (1.5–2.0)R and the unit of sampling distance d < (1.5– 2.0)R p. As, for regular surveys d < (1.0–1.5)R p, it may be concluded that interleaved surveys are more efficient than regular ones because of the factor studied. In regard to movable fields, a comparison of the results of interleaved surveys with those of regular surveys directly indicates that the former may ensure a more adequate field reconstruction than the latter do. This fact confirms the previous conclusion that an interleaved survey is expedient in cases where there is no preference regarding the position of a vessel for further work.

Keywords

adequacy interleaved survey mathematical simulation patch reconstruction sampling distance unit 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Caissie, D., El-Jabi, N. and Satish, M. G.: 2001, ‘Modelling of maximum daily temperatures in a small stream using air temperatures’ J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam) 251(1–2), 14–28.Google Scholar
  2. Coetzee, J. C., Misund, O. A. and Oechslin, G.: 2001, ‘Variable spatial structure of schooling pelagic fish off Namibia: Implications for acoustic surveys’ South African J. Mar. Sci. 23, 99–109.Google Scholar
  3. Cressie, N. A. C.: 1991, Statistics for Spatial Data, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 900 p.Google Scholar
  4. Croxton, F. E., Cowden, D. J. and Klein, S.: 1968, Applied General Statistics, Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, London, 754 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Foote, K. G.: 1993, Abundance Estimation of Herring Hibernating in a Fjord, ICES, Copenhagen (Denmark).Google Scholar
  6. Gandin, L. S.: 1965, Objective Analysis of Meteorological Fields, Translated from Russian. Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, 242 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Giannoulaki, M., Machias, A., Somarakis, S. and Koutsikopoulos, K.: 2003, ‘The effect of area topography on the spatial structure of Anchovy and Sardine in Greek waters’ 7th Hellenic Symposium on Oceanography and Fisheries, Chersonissos, Greece, 6–9 May 2003, Abstracts, 190.Google Scholar
  8. Hawkins, A. D., Urquhart, G. G. and Smith, G. W.: 1979, ‘Ultrasonic Tracking of Juvenile Cod by Means of a Large Spaced Hydrophone Array’ in: A Handbook on Biotelemetry and Radio Tracking.Google Scholar
  9. Jaffe, G. S.: 1995, ‘Space/Time Processing of Acoustic Multi-Beam Data’ ICES International Symposium on Fisheries Acoustics, Aberdeen (UK), 12–16 June 1995.Google Scholar
  10. Jumars, P. A., Jackson, D. R., Gross, T. F. and Sherwood, C.: 1996, ‘Acoustic remote sensing of benthic activity: A statistical approach’ Limnol. Oceanogr. 41(6), 1220–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kalikhman, I.: 2001, ‘Patchy distribution fields: Sampling distance unit and reconstruction adequacy’ ICES J. Mar. Sci. 58, 1184–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kalikhman, I.: 2002a, ‘Patchy distribution fields: A zigzag survey design and reconstruction adequacy’ Environ. Monit. Assess. 76, 275–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kalikhman, I.: 2002b, ‘Patchy distribution fields: Sampling distance unit of a zigzag survey and reconstruction adequacy’ Environ. Monit. Assess. 80(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kalikhman, I.: 2004, ‘Patchy distribution fields: Acoustic survey design and reconstruction adequacy’ in: G. Bruce Wiersma (ed.), Environmental Monitoring, CRC Lewis Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kalikhman, I.: 2005, ‘Patchy distribution fields: An interleaved survey design and reconstruction adequacy’ Environ. Monit. Assess. 110, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kalikhman, I. and Ostrovsky, I.: 1997, ‘Patchy distribution fields: Survey design and adequacy of reconstruction’ ICES J. Mar. Sci. 54, 809–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kern, J. W. and Coyle, K. O.: 2000, ‘Global block kriging to estimate biomass from acoustic surveys for zooplankton in the western Aleutian Islands’ Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 57(10), 2112–2121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kizner, Z. I., Tesler, W. D. and Zaripov, B. R.: 1983, Methodological Recommendations on Mathematical Simulation of Commercial Concentrations and Treatment of Survey Data with Computers, VNIRO, Moscow, 44 pp. (in Russian).Google Scholar
  19. MacLennan, D. N. and MacKenzie, I. G.: 1988, ‘Precision of acoustic fish stock estimates’ Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 45(4), 605–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. MacLennan, D. N. and Simmonds, E. J.: 1992, Fisheries Acoustics, Chapman & Hall, London, 325 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Meir, E., Greene, C. H. and Zamon, J. E.: 1995, ‘Analytical technique for the detecting and characterising small-scale zooplankton patchiness in acoustic data sets’ ICES International Symposium on Fisheries Acoustics, Aberdeen (UK), 12–16 June 1995.Google Scholar
  22. Olden, J. D. and Neff, B. D.: 2001, ‘Cross-correlation bias in lag analysis of aquatic time series’ Mar. Biol. 138(5), 1063–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Paramo, J. and Roa, R.: 2003, ‘Acoustic-geostatistical assessment and habitat-abundance relations of small pelagic fish from the Colombian Caribbean’ Fish. Res. (Amsterdam) 60(2–3), 309–319.Google Scholar
  24. Rose, G. A. and Leggett, W.: 1990, ‘The importance of scale to predator-prey spatial correlations: An example of Atlantic fishes’ Ecology 71(1), 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Simmonds, E. J.: 2003, ‘Weighting of acoustic- and trawl-survey indices for the assessment of North Sea herring’ ICES J. Mar. Sci. 60(3), 463–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Simard, Y., Marcotte, D. and Naraghi, K.: 2003, ‘Three-dimensional acoustic mapping and simulation of krill distribution in the Saguenayu St. Lawrence Marine Park whale feeding ground’ Sixth ICES Symposium on Acoustics in Fisheries and Aquatic Ecology (SAFAE), Aquat. Living Resources 16(3), 137–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Steele, J. H.: 1976, ‘Patchiness’ in: D. H. Cushing and J. J. Walsh (eds), The Ecology of the Seas, Blackwell Scientific Publications, London, pp. 98–115.Google Scholar
  28. Wilkinson, C. D. and Edds, D. R.: 2001, ‘Spatial pattern and environmental correlates of a midwestern stream fish community: Including spatial autocorrelation as a factor in community analyses’ Am. Midland Nat. 146(2), 271–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Williamson, N. T.:1980, ‘Effect of Serial Correlation on Precision of Fish Abundance Estimates Derived from Quantitative Echo Sounder Survey, BIOMASS’ Acoustic Krill Estimation Working Party News, vol. 2, 16 p.Google Scholar
  30. Yudanov, K. I.: 1971, Interpretation of Echograms of Hydroacoustic Fish-Finding Instruments, Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem, 120 pp. (translated from Russian).Google Scholar
  31. Zaripov, B. R., Kizner, Z. I. and Tesler, W. D.: 1983, ‘The Analysis of Methods Used in the Treatment of Data Obtained in Echo Surveys by Means of a Mathematical Model of Moving Fish Aggregations’ Fishery Acoustic Problems, Scientific Proceedings of VNIRO, pp. 25–36 (in Russian).Google Scholar
  32. Zedel, I. and Knutsen, T.: 2000, Measurement of Fish Velocity Using Doppler Sonar, Where Marine Science and Technology Meet Oceans 2000 CD-ROM.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Yigal Allon Kinneret Limnological LaboratoryIsrael Oceanographic and Limnological Research LtdHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations