Applications in adaptive cluster sampling of Gulf of Alaska rockfish

被引:0
|
作者
Hanselman, DH
Quinn, TJ
Lunsford, C
Heifetz, J
Clausen, D
机构
[1] Univ Alaska, Sch Fisheries & Ocean Sci, Juneau, AK 99801 USA
[2] Natl Marine Fisheries Serv, Alaska Fisheries Sci Ctr, Auke Bay Lab, Juneau, AK 99801 USA
来源
FISHERY BULLETIN | 2003年 / 101卷 / 03期
关键词
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
S9 [水产、渔业];
学科分类号
0908 ;
摘要
Adaptive cluster sampling (ACS) has been the subject of many publications about sampling aggregated populations. Choosing the criterion value that invokes ACS remains problematic. We address this problem using data from a June 1999 ACS survey for rockfish, specifically for Pacific ocean perch (,Sebastes alutus), and for shortraker (S. borealis) and rougheye (S. aleutianus) rockfish combined. Our hypotheses were that ACS would outperform simple random sampling (SRS) for S. alutus and would be more applicable for S. alutus than for S. borealis and S. aleutianus combined because populations of S. alutus are thought to be more aggregated. Three alternatives for choosing a criterion value were investigated. We chose the strategy that yielded the lowest criterion value and simulated the higher criterion values with the data after the survey. Systematic random sampling was conducted across the whole area to determine the lowest criterion value, and then a new systematic random sample was taken with adaptive sampling around each tow that exceeded the fixed criterion value. ACS yielded gains in precision (SE) over SRS. Bootstrapping showed that the distribution of an ACS estimator is approximately normal, whereas the SRS sampling distribution is skewed and bimodal. Simulation showed that a higher criterion value results in substantially less adaptive sampling with little tradeoff in precision. When time-efficiency was examined, ACS quickly added more samples, but sampling edge units caused this efficiency to be lessened, and the gain in efficiency did not measurably affect our conclusions. ACS for S. alutus should be incorporated with a fixed criterion value equal to the top quartile of previously collected survey data. The second hypothesis was confirmed because ACS did not prove to be more effective for S. borealis-S. aleutianus. Overall, our ACS results were not as optimistic as those previously published in the literature, and indicate the need for further study of this sampling method.
引用
收藏
页码:501 / 513
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Adaptive cluster sampling for estimation of deforestation rates
    Magnussen, S
    Kurz, W
    Leckie, DG
    Paradine, D
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH, 2005, 124 (03) : 207 - 220
  • [32] A review of adaptive cluster sampling: 1990–2003
    PHILIP TURK
    JOHN J. BORKOWSKI
    Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 2005, 12 : 55 - 94
  • [33] Improved unbiased estimators in adaptive cluster sampling
    Dryver, AL
    Thompson, SK
    JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES B-STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY, 2005, 67 : 157 - 166
  • [34] Adaptive cluster sampling based on order statistics
    Thompson, SK
    ENVIRONMETRICS, 1996, 7 (02) : 123 - 133
  • [35] Adaptive cluster sampling for estimation of deforestation rates
    Steen Magnussen
    Werner Kurz
    Don G. Leckie
    Dennis Paradine
    European Journal of Forest Research, 2005, 124 : 207 - 220
  • [36] Climate change attribution, appraisal, and adaptive capacity for fishermen in the Gulf of Alaska
    Szymkowiak, Marysia
    Steinkruger, Andrew
    CLIMATIC CHANGE, 2024, 177 (06)
  • [37] Bootstrap confidence intervals for adaptive cluster sampling
    Christman, MC
    BIOMETRICS, 2000, 56 (02) : 503 - 510
  • [38] Two-stage adaptive cluster sampling
    Naddeo S.
    Pisani C.
    Statistical Methods and Applications, 2005, 14 (1) : 3 - 10
  • [39] Some results on asymptotics in adaptive cluster sampling
    Di Consiglio, L
    Scanu, M
    STATISTICS & PROBABILITY LETTERS, 2001, 52 (02) : 189 - 197
  • [40] Unbiased estimators for restricted adaptive cluster sampling
    Salehi, MM
    Seber, GAF
    AUSTRALIAN & NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF STATISTICS, 2002, 44 (01) : 63 - 74