{"title":"使用遥控飞行器进行鲑鱼红点计数的偏差和变化","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> < 0.05) and field counts (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> < 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":21513,"journal":{"name":"River Research and Applications","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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> < 0.05) and field counts (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> < 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\":21513,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"River Research and Applications\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"River Research and Applications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.4343\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"River Research and Applications","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.4343","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Bias and variation in salmonid redd counting using remotely piloted vehicles
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.
期刊介绍:
River Research and Applications , previously published as Regulated Rivers: Research and Management (1987-2001), is an international journal dedicated to the promotion of basic and applied scientific research on rivers. The journal publishes original scientific and technical papers on biological, ecological, geomorphological, hydrological, engineering and geographical aspects related to rivers in both the developed and developing world. Papers showing how basic studies and new science can be of use in applied problems associated with river management, regulation and restoration are encouraged as is interdisciplinary research concerned directly or indirectly with river management problems.