Environmental and Ecological Statistics

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 215–236 | Cite as

Random versus stratified location of transects or points in distance sampling: theoretical results and practical considerations

  • Lucio Barabesi
  • Lorenzo Fattorini


A composite approach mixing design-based and model-based inference is considered for analyzing line-transect or point-transect data. In this setting, the properties of the animal abundance estimator stem from the sampling scheme adopted to locate transects or points on the study region, as well as from the modeled detection probabilities. Moreover, the abundance estimation can be viewed as a “generalized” version of Monte Carlo integration. This approach permits to prove the superiority of the stratified placement of transects or points (based on a regular tessellation of the study region) over the uniform random placement. Even if the result was already established for the fixed-area sampling, i.e., when a perfect detection takes place, it was lacking in distance sampling. Comparisons with other widely-applied schemes pursuing an even placement of transects or points are also considered.


Composite approach Coverage probability Detection probability Monte Carlo integration Tessellation stratified sampling Uniform random sampling 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baddeley A, Jensen EBV (2005) Stereology for statisticians. Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability, vol 103. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  2. Barabesi L (2000) Local likelihood density estimation in line transect sampling. Environmetrics 11: 413–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barabesi L, Franceschi S (2011) Sampling properties of spatial total estimators under tessellation stratified designs. Environmetrics 22: 271–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barabesi L, Marcheselli M (2003) A modified Monte Carlo integration. Int Math J 3: 555–565Google Scholar
  5. Barabesi L, Marcheselli M (2005) Some large-sample results on a modified Monte Carlo integration method. J Stat Plan Inference 135: 420–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barabesi L, Marcheselli M (2008) Improved strategies for coverage estimation by using replicated line-intercept sampling. Environ Ecol Stat 15: 215–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barabesi L, Franceschi S, Marcheselli M (2012) Properties of design-based estimation under stratified spatial sampling. Ann Appl Stat 6: 210–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borchers DL, Buckland ST, Zucchini W (2002) Estimating animal abundance. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buckland ST, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Laake JL, Borchers DL, Thomas L (2001) Introduction to distance sampling. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Buckland ST, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Laake JL, Borchers DL, Thomas L (2004) Advanced distance sampling. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (1976) Mathematical models for nonparametric inferences from line transect data. Biometrics 32: 325–336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burnham KP, AndersonDR Laake JL (1980) Estimation of density from line transect sampling of biological populations. Wildl Monogr 72: 1–203Google Scholar
  13. Eberhardt LL (1968) A preliminary appraisal of line transect. J Wildl Manag 32: 82–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fattorini L (2006) Applying the Horvitz-Thompson criterion in complex designs: a computer-intensive perspective for estimating inclusion probabilities. Biometrika 93: 269–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fattorini L (2009) An adaptive algorithm for estimating inclusion probabilities and performing Horvitz-Thompson criterion in complex designs. Comput Stat 24: 623–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fewster RM (2011) Variance estimation for systematic designs in spatial surveys. Biometrics 67: 1518–1531PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fewster RM, Buckland ST, Burnham KP, Borchers DL, Jupp PE, Laake JL, Thomas L (2009) Estimating the encounter rate variance in distance sampling. Biometrics 65: 225–236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gates CE, Marshall WH, Olson DP (1968) Line transect method for estimating grouse population densities. Biometrics 24: 135–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gibbons DW, Gregory RD (2006) Birds. In: Sutherland WJ (ed) Ecological census techniques. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 227–255Google Scholar
  20. Gregoire TG, Valentine HT (2008) Sampling strategies for natural resources and the environment. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  21. Jang W, Loh JM (2010) Density estimation for grouped data with application to line transect sampling. Ann Appl Stat 4: 893–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kissa DO, Sheil D (2012) Visual detection based distance sampling offers efficient density estimation for distinctive low abundance tropical forest tree species in complex terrain. For Ecol Manag 263: 114–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leopold A (1933) Game management. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York (reprinted in 1986 by University of Wisconsin Press, Madison)Google Scholar
  24. Marques FFC, Buckland ST (2003) Incorporating covariates into standard line transect analyses. Biometrics 59: 924–935PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Patil GP, Rao CR (1978) Weighted distribution and size-biased sampling with applications to wildlife populations and human families. Biometrics 34: 179–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stevens DL (1997) Variable-density grid-based sampling designs for continuous spatial populations. Environmetrics 8: 167–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Strindberg S, Buckland ST (2004) Zigzag survey designs in line transect sampling. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 9: 443–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thomas L, Buckland ST, Rexstad EA, Laake JF, Strindberg S, Hedley SL, Bishop JRB, Marques TA, Burnham KP (2010) Distance software: design and analysis of distance sampling surveys for estimating population size. J Appl Ecol 47: 5–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thompson SK (2002) Sampling, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and StatisticsUniversity of SienaSienaItaly

Personalised recommendations