Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorWilliams, Robert
dc.contributor.authorLeaper, R
dc.contributor.authorZerbini, AN
dc.contributor.authorHammond, Philip Steven
dc.date.accessioned2012-06-27T15:01:01Z
dc.date.available2012-06-27T15:01:01Z
dc.date.issued2007-02-26
dc.identifier.citationWilliams , R , Leaper , R , Zerbini , AN & Hammond , P S 2007 , ' Methods for investigating measurement error in cetacean line-transect surveys ' Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , vol. 87 , no. 1 , pp. 313-320 . https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315407055154en
dc.identifier.issn0025-3154
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 353830
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: f22274bc-bf5c-49e4-a594-5be3d0f8bbde
dc.identifier.otherWOS: 000245142700041
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 33847355251
dc.identifier.otherORCID: /0000-0002-2381-8302/work/47531606
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10023/2856
dc.description.abstractLine-transect estimates of abundance generally assume that distances and angles to animals are measured without error. Biased distance measurements will lead to corresponding bias in abundance estimates. Efforts to address this have been made, but measuring distance to cetaceans at sea remains problematic. Four distance-estimation experiments were conducted to explore relationships between estimated and measured distance, Heteroscedasticity was found in all four cases. Preliminary evidence suggested that an observer differed in the ability to judge distance to fixed, continuously-visible cues and ephemeral, cetacean cues, which calls into the question the common practice of using marker buoys as cetacean proxies in distance-estimation experiments. Two studies found visual estimates to be positively biased, and two studies found reticule measurements to be negatively biased. Suitable correction factors were developed to address systematic bias from visual estimates, but these varied widely among observers and were sometimes non-linear. Errors in three studies showed positive skew, suggesting that ranges were overestimated to a larger degree than they were underestimated. if reticule and photogrammetric measurements yield log-normally distributed errors generally, then a least-squares regression will always overstimate the correction factor, underestimate range, and overestimate abundance. Photogrammetric methods to measure range to cetaceans performed well, and their use is encouraged. When measurements cannot be made to all sightings, however, it is recommended that experiements be conducted that generate sufficient sample size (of the target species, across typical survey conditions, and beyond the maximum range that most estimates will be made during the survey) to assess error distributions, examine evidence for non-linearity, and to consider inter-observer differences. Distance experiments, and training on survey protocols, and be conducted using ships of opportunity prior to the beginning of a dedicated survey, which would improve observer efficiency while reducing the costs of dedicated vessel time.en
dc.format.extent8en
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdomen
dc.rightsCopyright © 2007 Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Published by Cambridge University Pressen
dc.subjectAbundanceen
dc.subjectDistanceen
dc.subjectQL Zoologyen
dc.subject.lccQLen
dc.titleMethods for investigating measurement error in cetacean line-transect surveysen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.description.versionPublisher PDFen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. School of Biologyen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Scottish Oceans Instituteen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315407055154
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden
dc.identifier.urlhttp://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33847355251&partnerID=8YFLogxK


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record