Geolocating Fish Using Hidden Markov Models and Data Storage Tags

  • Uffe Høgsbro Thygesen
  • Martin Wæver Pedersen
  • Henrik Madsen
Part of the Reviews: Methods and Technologies in Fish Biology and Fisheries book series (REME, volume 9)

Abstract

Geolocation of fish based on data from archival tags typically requires a statistical analysis to reduce the effect of measurement errors. In this paper we present a novel technique for this analysis, one based on Hidden Markov Models (HMM’s). We assume that the actual path of the fish is generated by a biased random walk. The HMM methodology produces, for each time step, the probability that the fish resides in each grid cell. Because there is no Monte Carlo step in our technique, we are able to estimate parameters within the likelihood framework. The method does not require the distribution to be Gaussian or belong to any other of the usual families of distributions and can thus address constraints from shorelines and other nonlinear effects; the method can and does produce bimodal distributions. We discuss merits and limitations of the method, and perspectives for the more general problem of inference in state-space models of animals. The technique can be applied to geolocation based on light, on tidal patterns, or measurement of other variables that vary with space. We illustrate the method through application to a simulated data set where geolocation relies on depth data exclusively.

Keywords

Fish migrations Geolocation uncertainty Hidden Markov Model State-space models 

References

  1. Ådlandsvik, B., G. Huse, and K. Michaelsen (2007). Introducing a method for extracting horizontal migration patterns from data storage tags. Hydrobiologia 582: 187–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen, K. H., A. Nielsen, U. H. Thygesen, H. H. Hinrichsen, and S. Neuenfeldt (2007). Using the particle filter to geolocate atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) in the Baltic Sea, with special emphasis on determining uncertainty. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 64(4): 618–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertsekas, D. P. (1995). Dynamic Programming and Optimal Control, Vol. 1–2. Athena Scientific, Belmont, Mass.Google Scholar
  4. Brockwell, P. and R. Davis (1987). Time Series: Data Analysis and Theory. New York.Google Scholar
  5. Cappé, O., E. Moulines, and T. Ryden (2005). Inference in Hidden Markov Models. Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Harvey, A. C. (1989). Forecasting, Structural Time Series Models and the Kalman Filter. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hunter, E., J. N. Aldridge, J. D. Metcalfe, and G. P. Arnold (2003). Geolocation of free-ranging fish on the european continental shelf as determined from environmental variables. Mar. Biol. 142: 601–609.Google Scholar
  8. Hunter, E., J. D. Metcalfe, B. H. Holford, and G. P. Arnold (2004). Geolocation of free-ranging fish on the european continental shelf as determined from environmental variables ii. reconstruction of plaice ground tracks. Mar. Biol. 144: 787–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jonsen, I. D., J. M. Flemming, and R. A. Myers (2005). Robust state-space modeling of animal movement data. Ecology 86(11): 2874–2880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jonsen, I. D., R. A. Myers, and J. M. Flemming (2003). Meta-analysis of animal movement using state-space models. Ecology 84(11): 3055–3065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Metcalfe, J. D. and G. P Arnold (1997). Tracking fish with electronic tags. Nature 387: 665–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Morales, J. M., D. T. Haydon, J. Frair, K. E. Holsinger, and J. M. Fryxell (2004). Extracting more out of relocation data: Building movement models as mixtures of random walks. Ecology 85(9): 2436–2445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nielsen, A. and J. R. Sibert (2007). State-space model for light-based tracking of marine animals. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 64: 1055–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Okubo, A. (1980). Diffusion and Ecological Problems: Mathematical Models. Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Patterson, T.A., L. Thomas, C. Wilcox, O. Ovaskainen, and J. Mathhiopoulos (2008). State-space models of individual animal movement. Tree 23(2): 87–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Pedersen, M. W. (2007). Hidden markov models for geolocation of fish. Master’s thesis, Informatics and Mathematical Modelling, Technical University of Denmark.Google Scholar
  17. Pedersen, M. W., D. Righton, U. H. Thygesen, K.H. Andersen, and H. Madsen (2008). Geolocation of north sea cod using hidden markov models and behavioural switching. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 65: 2367–2377.Google Scholar
  18. Righton, D., O. S. Kjesbu, and J. D. Metcalfe (2006). A field and experimental evaluation of the effect of data storage tags on the growth of cod. J. Fish Biol. 68: 385–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ristic, B., S. Arulampalam, and N. Gordon (2004). Beyond the Kalman Filter. Particle Filters for Tracking Applications. Artech House.Google Scholar
  20. Royer, F., J.-M. Fromentin, and P. Gaspar (2005). A state-space model to derive bluefin tuna movement and habitat from archival tags. Oikos 109(3): 473–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shaffer, S. A., Y. Tremblay, J. A. Awkerman, R. W. Henry, S. L. H. Teo, D. J. Anderson, D. A. Croll, B. A. Block, and D. P. Costa (2005). Comparison of light-and sst-based geolocation with satellite telemetry in free-ranging albatrosses. Mar. Biol. 147(4): 833–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sibert, J. R., J. Hampton, D. A. Fournier, and P. J. Bills (1999). An advection-diffusion-reaction model for the estimation of fish movement parameters from tagging data, with application to skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56: 925–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sibert, J. R., M. K. Musyl, and R. W. Brill (2003). Horizontal movements of bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) near hawaii determined by Kalman filter analysis of archival tagging data. Fish. Oceanogr. 12: 141–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Thygesen, U. H. and A. Nielsen (2009). Lessons from a prototype geolocation problem. In J. L. Nielsen et al. (eds.), Tagging and Tracking of Marine Animals with Electronic Devices, Reviews: Methods and Technologies in Fish Biology and Fisheries 9, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-9640-2. Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Versteeg, H. K. and W. Malalasekera (1995). An Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics: The Finite Volume Method. Prentice Hall, Harlow, England.Google Scholar
  26. Viterbi, A. J. (2006). A personal history of the Viterbi Algorithm. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 23(4): 120–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Uffe Høgsbro Thygesen
    • 1
  • Martin Wæver Pedersen
    • 2
  • Henrik Madsen
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Aquatic Resources, Technical University of DenmarkCharlottenlundDenmark
  2. 2.Institute for Informatics and Mathematical Modelling, Technical University of Denmark2800 Kgs. LyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations