Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of stratification and misspecification of covariates on species distribution models for abundance estimation from virtual line transect survey data

  • Original Article
  • Fisheries
  • Published:
Fisheries Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the effects of stratification of the survey region on the performance of species distribution models (SDMs) described by generalized linear models or generalized additive models when estimating school abundance by using a line transect survey. True covariates that define spatial school distribution are not always obtainable explanatory variables. When the true covariates differ from explanatory variables in the model, the explanatory variables are determined to be misspecified. We evaluated the performance of SDMs in abundance estimation with misspecified covariates by using dummy datasets for which the true abundance was known. Simulated replicates of spatial distributions of a whale school and sighting data were generated from possible scenarios motivated by the spatial school distribution of Antarctic minke whales Balaenoptera bonaerensis. This distribution was obtained from the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic. Our results showed that the relative bias of the abundance estimators was large when covariates were misspecified and a survey region was stratified. Although stratification of the survey region is intended to produce a conventional line transect estimator with a smaller variance than that of non-stratified survey region, it also acts to increase the bias of the abundance estimate obtained from SDMs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. De Segura AG, Hammond PS, Ca adas A, Raga JA (2007) Comparing cetacean abundance estimates derived from spatial models and design-based line transect methods. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 329:289–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Reeves RR, Smith BD, Crespo EA, di Sciara GN (2003) Dolphins, whales, and porpoises: 2002–2010 conservation action plan for the world’s cetaceans. World Conservation Union, Gland

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Buckland ST, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Laake JL, Borchers DL, Thomas L (2001) Introduction to distance sampling estimating abundance of biological populations. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  4. Marques FFC, Buckland ST, Goffin D, Dixon CE, Borchers DL, Mayle BA, Peace AJ (2001) Estimating deer abundance from line transect surveys of dung: Sika deer in southern Scotland. J Appl Ecol 38:349–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Roberts JP, Schnell GD (2006) Comparison of survey methods for wintering grassland birds. J Field Ornithol 77:46–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Buckland ST, Borchers DL, Johnston A, Henrys PA, Marques TA (2007) Line transect methods for plant surveys. Biometrics 63:989–998

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hedley SL, Buckland ST, Borchers DL (2004) Spatial distance sampling models. Advanced distance sampling. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 48–70

    Google Scholar 

  8. Thomas L, Williams R, Sandilands D (2007) Designing line transect surveys for complex survey regions. J Cetacean Res Manage 9:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hedley SL, Buckland ST, Borchers DL (1999) Spatial modelling from line transect data. J Cetacean Res Manage 1:255–264

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hedley SL, Buckland ST (2004) Spatial models for line transect sampling. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 9:181–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Guisan A, Thuiller W (2005) Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol Lett 8:993–1009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hirzel A, Guisan A (2002) Which is the optimal sampling strategy for habitat suitability modelling. Ecol Model 157:331–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Reese GC, Wilson KR, Hoeting JA, Flather CH (2005) Factors affecting species distribution predictions: a simulation modeling experiment. Ecol Appl 15:554–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Begg MD, Lagakos S (1992) Effects of mismodeling on tests of association based on logistic regression models. Ann Stat 20:1929–1952

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Brose U, Martinez ND, Williams RJ (2003) Estimating species richness: sensitivity to sample coverage and insensitivity to spatial patterns. Ecology 84:2364–2377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Magnus JR (1999) The traditional pretest estimator. Theory Probab Appl 44:293–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dominici F, McDermott A, Zeger SL, Samet JM (2002) On the use of generalized additive models in time-series studies of air pollution and health. Am J Epidemiol 156:193–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hoenig JM, Barrowman NJ, Pollock KH, Brooks EN, Hearn WS, Polacheck T (1998) Models for tagging data that allow for incomplete mixing of newly tagged animals. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 55:1477–1483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Jones FA, Muller-Landau HC (2008) Measuring long-distance seed dispersal in complex natural environments: an evaluation and integration of classical and genetic methods. J Ecol 96:642–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nishiwaki S, Ishikawa H, Fujise Y (2006) Review of general methodology and survey procedure under the JARPA. Paper SC/D06/J2. International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee, Impington

  21. Murase H, Matsuoka K, Ichii T, Nishiwaki S (2002) Relationship between the distribution of euphausiids and baleen whales in the Antarctic (35 E–145 W). Polar Biol 25:135–145

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ishikawa H, Murase H, Tohyama D, Yuzu S, Otani S, Mogoe T, Masaki T, Kimura N, Ohshima T, Konagai T (2000) Cruise report of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA) area IV and eastern part of area III in 1999/2000. JARPA Paper SC/52/O20

  23. Hosie GW, Schultz MB, Kitchener JA, Cochran TG, Richards K (2000) Macrozooplankton community structure off east Antarctica (80–150°E) during the Austral summer of 1995/1996. Deep Sea Res II 47:2437–2463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Naganobu M, Hirano T (1986) Environmental factors for geographical distribution of Euphausia superba Dana. Natl Inst Polar Res (Spec Issue) 40:191–193

    Google Scholar 

  25. Environmental Systems Research Institute (2008) ArcGIS 9.3. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands

  26. Meynard CN, Quinn JF (2007) Predicting species distributions: a critical comparison of the most common statistical models using artificial species. J Biogeogr 34:1455–1469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gilks WR, Wild P (1992) Adaptive rejection sampling for Gibbs sampling. Appl Stat 41:337–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Matsuoka K, Ensor P, Hakamada T, Shimada H, Nishiwaki S, Kasamatsu F, Kato H (2003) Overview of minke whale sightings surveys conducted on IWC/IDCR SOWER Antarctic cruises from 1978/79 to 2000/01. J Cetacean Res Manage 5:173–201

    Google Scholar 

  29. McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) Generalized linear models. Chapman & Hall/CRC, London

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hastie TJ, Tibshirani RJ (1990) Generalized additive models. Chapman & Hall/CRC, London

    Google Scholar 

  31. Cañadas A, Hammond P (2006) Model-based abundance estimates for bottlenose dolphins off southern Spain: implications for conservation and management. J Cetacean Res Manage 8:13–27

    Google Scholar 

  32. Redfern J, Ferguson M, Becker E, Hyrenbach K, Good CP, Barlow J, Kaschner K, Baumgartner MF, Forney K, Ballance L (2006) Techniques for cetacean–habitat modeling. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 310:271–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. R development core team (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna. Available at: http://www.R-project.org/

  34. Wood SN (2001) mgcv: GAMs and generalized ridge regression for R. R News 1(2):20–25

    Google Scholar 

  35. Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Auto Control 19:716–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to all those who contributed to the collection of cetacean sighting and oceanographic data. We would like to thank members of the Center for Research in Ecological and Environmental Modeling and the School of Mathematics and Statistics at the University of St. Andrews, members of our laboratory, the Center for Ocean Studies and Integrated Education of Yokohama National University, and anonymous reviewers. This work was supported by Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Fellows 201103934 to Y.S., a JSPS grant (10002451), and the Global COE (E-03) by MEXT to H.M. Special thanks to James Lawrence for improving the language of the manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Yasutoki Shibata

    Present address: Hachinohe Laboratory, Tohoku National Fisheries Research Institute, Fisheries Research Agency, 25-259, Shimomekurakubo, Same-machi, Aomori, 031-0841, Japan

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Environment and Information Sciences, Yokohama National University, 79-7 Tokiwadai, Hodogaya-ku, Yokohama, 240-8501, Japan

    Yasutoki Shibata & Hiroyuki Matsuda

  2. Faculty of Fisheries Sciences, Hokkaido University, 3-1-1 Minato-cho, Hakodate, 041-8611, Japan

    Takashi Matsuishi

  3. National Research Institute of Far Seas Fisheries, 2-12-4 Fukuura, Kanazawa, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 236-8648, Japan

    Hiroto Murase

  4. The Institute of Cetacean Research, 4-5 Toyomi-cho, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0055, Japan

    Koji Matsuoka & Takashi Hakamada

  5. Graduate School of Marine Science and Technology, Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology, 4-5-7 Konan, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 108-8477, Japan

    Toshihide Kitakado

Authors
  1. Yasutoki Shibata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Takashi Matsuishi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hiroto Murase
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Koji Matsuoka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Takashi Hakamada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Toshihide Kitakado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hiroyuki Matsuda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yasutoki Shibata.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 140 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shibata, Y., Matsuishi, T., Murase, H. et al. Effects of stratification and misspecification of covariates on species distribution models for abundance estimation from virtual line transect survey data. Fish Sci 79, 559–568 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12562-013-0634-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12562-013-0634-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation