Bayesian Calibration of Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus) Abundance Indices Based on Probability Surveys
Abundance and standard error estimates in surveys of fishery resources typically employ classical design-based approaches, ignoring the influences of non-design factors such as varying catchability. We developed a Bayesian approach for estimating abundance and associated errors in a fishery survey by incorporating sampling and non-sampling variabilities. First, a zero-inflated spatial model was used to quantify variance components due to non-sampling factors; second, the model was used to calibrate the estimated abundance index and its variance using pseudo empirical likelihood. The approach was applied to a winter dredge survey conducted to estimate the abundance of blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) in the Chesapeake Bay. We explored the properties of the calibration estimators through a limited simulation study. The variance estimator calibrated on posterior sample performed well, and the mean estimator had comparable performance to design-based approach with slightly higher bias and lower (about 15% reduction) mean squared error. The results suggest that application of this approach can improve estimation of abundance indices using data from design-based fishery surveys.
KeywordsAuxiliary information Empirical likelihood Integrated Nested Laplace Approximation (INLA) Model-assisted approach Survey design Index standardization Variance estimation
We thank the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science for conducting the Chesapeake Bay blue crab winter dredge survey and G. Davis (MDNR), L. Fegley (MDNR), S. Iverson (Virginia Marine Resource Commission), and A. Sharov (MDNR) for providing the data. Two anonymous reviewers provided helpful comments. The work was funded by Grant CBSAC4 from the Chesapeake Bay Trust. This is contribution number 5383 of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science.
- Chen, J., & Sitter, R. R. (1999). A pseudo empirical likelihood approach to the effective use of auxiliary information in complex surveys. Statistica Sinica, 385-406.Google Scholar
- Chesapeake Bay Program (2016). “The Data Hub. Chesapeake Bay Program”. Annapolis, Maryland, U.S. URL http://www.chesapeakebay.net/data.
- Lindgren, F., & Rue, H. (2015). Bayesian spatial modelling with R-INLA. Journal of Statistical Software, 63(19).Google Scholar
- Lindgren, F., Rue, H., & Lindström, J. (2011). “An explicit link between Gaussian fields and Gaussian Markov random fields: the stochastic partial differential equation approach”. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 73(4), 423-498.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- Liu, H., Ciannelli, L., Decker, M. B., Ladd, C., & Chan, K.-S. (2011). “Nonparametric threshold model of zero-inflated spatio-temporal data with application to shifts in jellyfish distribution”. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics, 16(2), 185-201.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- Särndal, C. E., Thomsen, I., Hoem, J. M & Lindley, D. V. (1978).“Design-based and model-based inference in survey sampling [with discussion and reply]”. Scandanavian Journal of Statistics, 5(1), 27-52.Google Scholar
- Sharov, A., Vølstad, J., Davis, G., Davis, B., Lipcius, R., & Montane, M. (2003). “Abundance and exploitation rate of the blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) in Chesapeake Bay”. Bulletin of Marine Science, 72(2), 543-565.Google Scholar
- Wu, C. (2005). “Algorithms and R codes for the pseudo empirical likelihood method in survey sampling”. Survey Methodology, 31(2), 239.Google Scholar