Line Transects by Design: The Influence of Study Design, Spatial Distribution and Density of Objects on Estimates of Abundance

Q2 Environmental Science Open Ecology Journal Pub Date : 2012-05-18 DOI:10.2174/1874213001205010025
S. Nomani, M. Oli, R. Carthy
{"title":"Line Transects by Design: The Influence of Study Design, Spatial Distribution and Density of Objects on Estimates of Abundance","authors":"S. Nomani, M. Oli, R. Carthy","doi":"10.2174/1874213001205010025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The line transect distance sampling method provides unbiased estimates of abundance when organisms are distributed randomly or line transects are laid out randomly, sample sizes are large and other assumptions of the method are met; such, however, is rarely the case in real life. We conducted a simulation study to investigate how spatial distribution and density of objects, and total length, layout and number of transects influence bias, precision, and accuracy of estimates of abundance obtained by distance sampling along line transects. Overall, density estimated using the distance sampling method was within 4.9% of the true density, but it varied substantially depending upon spatial distribution of objects. Of the three spatial distribution patterns considered, estimates of density were least biased, and most precise and accurate when objects were distributed randomly; they were most biased, and least precise and accurate when objects followed a clumped distribution. The estimated bias (% difference between true density and estimated density) for clumped, random and uniform distribution was 13.1%, -0.4%, and 2.1%, respectively; precision (% coefficient of variation, CV( ˆ D )) was 13.7%, 9.1%, and 9.2%; and accuracy (root mean-squared error, RMSE) was 27.9%, 7.4%, and 11.7% for clumped, random, and uniform distribution, respectively. Increasing total transect length and using several short transects (as opposed to few long transects) generally reduced bias, and increased accuracy and precision of estimates of abundance. A systematic layout of transects worked as well as, or better than, random layout, except when objects were distributed uniformly in space. This study advances the utility of the line transect method by providing information both on how study design affects accuracy and precision of abundance estimates, and how it can be improved when assumptions of the method are not strictly met based on a priori knowledge of the spatial distribution and presumed density of the target organism through appropriate changes in the study design.","PeriodicalId":39335,"journal":{"name":"Open Ecology Journal","volume":"5 1","pages":"25-44"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Ecology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874213001205010025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Environmental Science","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

The line transect distance sampling method provides unbiased estimates of abundance when organisms are distributed randomly or line transects are laid out randomly, sample sizes are large and other assumptions of the method are met; such, however, is rarely the case in real life. We conducted a simulation study to investigate how spatial distribution and density of objects, and total length, layout and number of transects influence bias, precision, and accuracy of estimates of abundance obtained by distance sampling along line transects. Overall, density estimated using the distance sampling method was within 4.9% of the true density, but it varied substantially depending upon spatial distribution of objects. Of the three spatial distribution patterns considered, estimates of density were least biased, and most precise and accurate when objects were distributed randomly; they were most biased, and least precise and accurate when objects followed a clumped distribution. The estimated bias (% difference between true density and estimated density) for clumped, random and uniform distribution was 13.1%, -0.4%, and 2.1%, respectively; precision (% coefficient of variation, CV( ˆ D )) was 13.7%, 9.1%, and 9.2%; and accuracy (root mean-squared error, RMSE) was 27.9%, 7.4%, and 11.7% for clumped, random, and uniform distribution, respectively. Increasing total transect length and using several short transects (as opposed to few long transects) generally reduced bias, and increased accuracy and precision of estimates of abundance. A systematic layout of transects worked as well as, or better than, random layout, except when objects were distributed uniformly in space. This study advances the utility of the line transect method by providing information both on how study design affects accuracy and precision of abundance estimates, and how it can be improved when assumptions of the method are not strictly met based on a priori knowledge of the spatial distribution and presumed density of the target organism through appropriate changes in the study design.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
设计样线:研究设计、空间分布和对象密度对丰度估计的影响
样线距离抽样法在生物随机分布或样线随机布置、样本量大且满足该方法的其他假设时,提供无偏丰度估计;然而,这种情况在现实生活中很少发生。我们进行了一项模拟研究,以调查物体的空间分布和密度、总长度、布局和样条数量如何影响沿直线样条进行距离采样获得的丰度估计的偏差、精度和准确性。总体而言,使用距离采样方法估计的密度在真实密度的4.9%以内,但根据物体的空间分布变化很大。在考虑的三种空间分布模式中,当物体随机分布时,密度估计偏差最小,最精确和准确;当物体呈块状分布时,它们是最不精确和准确的。块状分布、随机分布和均匀分布的估计偏倚(真实密度与估计密度之间的百分比差)分别为13.1%、-0.4%和2.1%;精密度(%变异系数,CV(D))分别为13.7%、9.1%和9.2%;聚类分布、随机分布和均匀分布的准确率(均方根误差,RMSE)分别为27.9%、7.4%和11.7%。增加总样条长度和使用几个短样条(而不是几个长样条)通常会减少偏差,并提高丰度估计的准确性和精度。除了物体在空间中均匀分布外,横断面的系统布局与随机布局一样有效,甚至更好。本研究通过提供研究设计如何影响丰度估计的准确性和精度的信息,以及如何通过适当改变研究设计,在基于对目标生物的空间分布和假定密度的先验知识的基础上,在方法的假设不严格满足时改进该方法,从而提高了样线方法的实用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Open Ecology Journal
Open Ecology Journal Environmental Science-Environmental Science (all)
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Open Ecology Journal is an open access online journal which embraces the trans-disciplinary nature of ecology, seeking to publish original research articles, reviews, letters and guest edited single topic issues representing important scientific progress from all areas of ecology and its linkages to other fields. The journal also focuses on the basic principles of the natural environment and its conservation. Contributions may be based on any taxa, natural or artificial environments, biodiversity, spatial scales, temporal scales, and methods that advance this multi-faceted and dynamic science. The Open Ecology Journal also considers empirical and theoretical studies that promote the construction of a broadly applicable conceptual framework or that present rigorous tests or novel applications of ecological theory.
期刊最新文献
ABUNDANCE OF INSECT POLLINATORS IN A MUSTARD FIELD AT DINAJPUR IN BANGLADESH DIETARY DICALCIUM PHOSPHATE SUPPLEMENTATION ENHANCES PRODUCTIVE AND REPRODUCTIVE PERFORMANCES OF CROSSBRED AND LOCAL DAIRY COWS RUGOSE SPIRALING WHITEFLY INFESTATION ON COCONUT: THREATS AND REMEDY ECO-FRIENDLY MANAGEMENT OF ANTHRACNOSE OF CHILI USING FORMULATED TRICHODERMA AND INDIGENOUS MEDICINAL PLANT MUNGBEAN VARIETIES EXPRESSED VARIATION IN MORPHOPHYSIOLOGICAL TRAITS AND YIELD UNDER WATER STRESS
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1