Bias and variation in salmonid redd counting using remotely piloted vehicles

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Daniel S. Auerbach, Alexander K. Fremier
{"title":"Bias and variation in salmonid redd counting using remotely piloted vehicles","authors":"Daniel S. Auerbach, Alexander K. Fremier","doi":"10.1002/rra.4343","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Redd surveys estimate spawning population size for many salmonid species. Studies of field‐based redd counting methods highlight observer bias caused by redd density, observer experience, and environmental factors. Researchers have begun using remotely piloted vehicles (RPVs, drones) to count redds; yet, no studies have quantified bias and variability in counts. This study aimed to quantify the influence of redd density, observer experience, and environmental factors (namely, water clarity) on redd counting bias and variability when using RPVs. We found that technological and procedural improvements from our previous study increased precision and reduced variability among observers (coefficient of variation, <jats:italic>с</jats:italic><jats:sub>υ</jats:sub> = 11% compared to <jats:italic>с</jats:italic><jats:sub>υ</jats:sub> = 42%). Redd density was the leading covariate causing differences between RPV and both “best counts” (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.05) and field counts (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.05). We found a reduction in variability with experience level (no experience <jats:italic>с</jats:italic><jats:sub>υ</jats:sub> = 78%; semi‐experienced <jats:italic>с</jats:italic><jats:sub>υ</jats:sub> = 33%; experienced <jats:italic>с</jats:italic><jats:sub>υ</jats:sub> = 20%), with no directional bias in counting. Our paper is the first to quantify observer bias in RPV‐based redd counts. This study describes RPV methods and can help agencies decide how to use RPVs in redd counting and incorporate RPV methods into long‐term datasets.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.4343","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Redd surveys estimate spawning population size for many salmonid species. Studies of field‐based redd counting methods highlight observer bias caused by redd density, observer experience, and environmental factors. Researchers have begun using remotely piloted vehicles (RPVs, drones) to count redds; yet, no studies have quantified bias and variability in counts. This study aimed to quantify the influence of redd density, observer experience, and environmental factors (namely, water clarity) on redd counting bias and variability when using RPVs. We found that technological and procedural improvements from our previous study increased precision and reduced variability among observers (coefficient of variation, сυ = 11% compared to сυ = 42%). Redd density was the leading covariate causing differences between RPV and both “best counts” (p < 0.05) and field counts (p < 0.05). We found a reduction in variability with experience level (no experience сυ = 78%; semi‐experienced сυ = 33%; experienced сυ = 20%), with no directional bias in counting. Our paper is the first to quantify observer bias in RPV‐based redd counts. This study describes RPV methods and can help agencies decide how to use RPVs in redd counting and incorporate RPV methods into long‐term datasets.
使用遥控飞行器进行鲑鱼红点计数的偏差和变化
红点调查可以估计许多鲑科鱼类的产卵种群数量。对野外红点计数方法的研究强调了红点密度、观察者经验和环境因素造成的观察者偏差。研究人员已经开始使用遥控飞行器(RPV,无人机)来计数红点;然而,还没有研究对计数的偏差和变异性进行量化。本研究旨在量化红点密度、观察者经验和环境因素(即水体透明度)对使用遥控飞行器进行红点计数时的偏差和变异性的影响。我们发现,与之前的研究相比,技术和程序上的改进提高了精度,降低了观察员之间的变异性(变异系数сυ = 11%,而сυ = 42%)。红点密度是造成 RPV 与 "最佳计数"(p < 0.05)和野外计数(p < 0.05)之间差异的主要协变量。我们发现,随着经验水平的提高,变异性也在降低(无经验 сυ = 78%;半经验 сυ = 33%;有经验 сυ = 20%),但计数没有方向性偏差。我们的论文首次量化了基于 RPV 的红点计数中的观察者偏差。这项研究描述了 RPV 方法,可帮助机构决定如何在红点计数中使用 RPV,并将 RPV 方法纳入长期数据集。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信