Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
I. Kalikhman (2001)
Patchy distribution fields: Sampling distance unit and reconstruction adequacyICES J. Mar. Sci., 58
I. Kalikhman (2006)
Patchy Distribution Fields: Sampling Distance Unit of a Spiral Survey and Reconstruction AdequacyEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment, 129
E. Beach, F. Croxton, D. Cowden (1940)
Applied General Statistics.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 35
I. Kalikhman, I. Ostrovsky (1997)
Patchy distribution fields: Survey design and adequacy of reconstructionICES J. Mar. Sci., 54
N. Cressie (1992)
Statistics for Spatial Data.Biometrics, 48
I. Kalikhman (2007)
Patchy distribution fields: A spiral survey design and reconstruction adequacyEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment, 124
I. Kalikhman (2001)
Patchy distribution fields: sampling distance unit and reconstruction adequacyJournal of Materials Science, 58
J. H. Steele (1976)
The Ecology of the Seas
I. Kalikhman (2004)
Environmental Monitoring
D. N. MacLennan, E. J. Simmonds (1992)
Fisheries Acoustics
I. Kalikhman, I. Ostrovsky (1997)
Patchy distribution fields: survey design and adequacy of reconstructionJournal of Materials Science, 54
G. Rose, W. Leggett (1990)
The importance of scale to predator-prey spatial correlations: an example of Atlantic fishesEcology, 71
A mathematical model was used to compare the effects of a regular (one-pass) or interleaved (two-pass) acoustic survey on the adequacy of reconstructing patchy distribution fields. The model simulates fish or plankton patches of different shapes and spatial orientations, and a set of parallel or zigzag transects forming a regular or interleaved acoustic survey. The efficiency of a survey is determined by the adequacy of a reconstructed field to that originally generated, which is evaluated by calculating their correlations. Regarding the immovable fields, the efficiency of a regular or interleaved acoustic survey was tested with the following two alternative assumptions: (1) the entire survey was completed; (2) the survey was interrupted for some reason at the moment when one transect remained non-accomplished. In the former case, the efficiencies of both acoustic surveys were nearly the same; in the latter case, the efficiency of an interleaved survey was superior to that of a regular one. With respect to movable fields, the efficiency of the completed interleaved surveys was even higher than that of the regular ones. Thus, the results obtained allow us to conclude that an interleaved survey is expedient in cases where there is no preference regarding the position of a vessel for further work.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment – Springer Journals
Published: Jan 1, 2005
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.