A comparative study of spatial interpolation methods for determining fishery resources density in the Yellow Sea

CHEN Yunlong; SHAN Xiujuan; JIN Xianshi; YANG Tao; DAI Fangqun; YANG Dingtian

doi:10.1007/s13131-016-0966-y

Article Contents

Article Navigation > Acta Oceanologica Sinica > 2016 > 35(12): 65-72

CHEN Yunlong, SHAN Xiujuan, JIN Xianshi, YANG Tao, DAI Fangqun, YANG Dingtian. A comparative study of spatial interpolation methods for determining fishery resources density in the Yellow Sea[J]. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 2016, 35(12): 65-72. doi: 10.1007/s13131-016-0966-y

Citation:

CHEN Yunlong, SHAN Xiujuan, JIN Xianshi, YANG Tao, DAI Fangqun, YANG Dingtian. A comparative study of spatial interpolation methods for determining fishery resources density in the Yellow Sea[J]. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 2016, 35(12): 65-72. doi: 10.1007/s13131-016-0966-y

Citation:

CHEN Yunlong, SHAN Xiujuan, JIN Xianshi, YANG Tao, DAI Fangqun, YANG Dingtian. A comparative study of spatial interpolation methods for determining fishery resources density in the Yellow Sea[J]. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 2016, 35(12): 65-72. doi: 10.1007/s13131-016-0966-y

PDF( 5842 KB)

A comparative study of spatial interpolation methods for determining fishery resources density in the Yellow Sea

doi: 10.1007/s13131-016-0966-y

1.
Institute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Qingdao 266071, China;Key Laboratory of Sustainable Development of Marine Fisheries of Ministry of Agriculture, Yellow Sea Fisheries Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences, Qingdao 266071, China;Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Fishery Resources and Ecological Environment, Yellow Sea Fisheries Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences, Qingdao 266071, China;University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
2.
Function Laboratory for Marine Fisheries Science and Food Production Processes, Qingdao National Laboratory for Marine Science and Technology, Qingdao 266100, China;Key Laboratory of Sustainable Development of Marine Fisheries of Ministry of Agriculture, Yellow Sea Fisheries Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences, Qingdao 266071, China;Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Fishery Resources and Ecological Environment, Yellow Sea Fisheries Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences, Qingdao 266071, China
3.
Key Laboratory of Sustainable Development of Marine Fisheries of Ministry of Agriculture, Yellow Sea Fisheries Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences, Qingdao 266071, China;Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Fishery Resources and Ecological Environment, Yellow Sea Fisheries Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences, Qingdao 266071, China
4.
State Key Laboratory of Oceanography in the Tropics, South China Sea Institute of Oceanology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510301, China

Received Date: 2016-04-03
Rev Recd Date: 2016-08-19

Abstract

Abstract

Spatial interpolation is a common tool used in the study of fishery ecology, especially for the construction of ecosystem models. To develop an appropriate interpolation method of determining fishery resources density in the Yellow Sea, we tested four frequently used methods, including inverse distance weighted interpolation (IDW), global polynomial interpolation (GPI), local polynomial interpolation (LPI) and ordinary kriging (OK). A cross-validation diagnostic was used to analyze the efficacy of interpolation, and a visual examination was conducted to evaluate the spatial performance of the different methods. The results showed that the original data were not normally distributed. A log transformation was then used to make the data fit a normal distribution. During four survey periods, an exponential model was shown to be the best semivariogram model in August and October 2014, while data from January and May 2015 exhibited the pure nugget effect. Using a paired-samples t test, no significant differences (P>0.05) between predicted and observed data were found in all four of the interpolation methods during the four survey periods. Results of the cross-validation diagnostic demonstrated that OK performed the best in August 2014, while IDW performed better during the other three survey periods. The GPI and LPI methods had relatively poor interpolation results compared to IDW and OK. With respect to the spatial distribution, OK was balanced and was not as disconnected as IDW nor as overly smooth as GPI and LPI, although OK still produced a few "bull's-eye" patterns in some areas. However, the degree of autocorrelation sometimes limits the application of OK. Thus, OK is highly recommended if data are spatially autocorrelated. With respect to feasibility and accuracy, we recommend IDW to be used as a routine interpolation method. IDW is more accurate than GPI and LPI and has a combination of desirable properties, such as easy accessibility and rapid processing.
- spatial interpolation methods,
- fishery resources density,
- Yellow Sea

FullText(HTML)

References(39)

References

Alam R Q, Benson B C, Visser J M, et al. 2016. Response of estuarine phytoplankton to nutrient and spatio-temporal pattern of physico-chemical water quality parameters in Little Vermilion Bay, Louisiana. Ecological Informatics, 32:79-90

Appice A, Malerba D. 2014. Leveraging the power of local spatial autocorrelation in geophysical interpolative clustering. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 28(5-6):1266-1313

Cambardella C A, Moorman T B, Parkin T B, et al. 1994. Field-scale variability of soil properties in central Iowa soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 58(5):1501-1511

Campos J A D B, Melanda E A, Antunes J D S, et al. 2011. Dental caries and the nutritional status of preschool children-a spatial ana-lysis. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 16(10):4161-4168

Chen Tao, Liu Xingmei, Li Xia, et al. 2009. Heavy metal sources iden-tification and sampling uncertainty analysis in a field-scale ve-getable soil of Hangzhou, China. Environmental Pollution, 157(3):1003-1010

Cheung W W L, Pitcher T J. 2008. Evaluating the status of exploited taxa in the northern South China Sea using intrinsic vulnerabil-ity and spatially explicit catch-per-unit-effort data. Fisheries Research, 92(1):28-40

FAO. 2010. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2010. Rome:FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, 197

González-Longatt F, Medina H, González J S. 2015. Spatial interpola-tion and orographic correction to estimate wind energy re-source in Venezuela. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Re-views, 48:1-16

Gumiere S J, Lafond J A, Hallema D W, et al. 2014. Mapping soil hy-draulic conductivity and matric potential for water manage-ment of cranberry:characterisation and spatial interpolation methods. Biosystems Engineering, 128:29-40

Gyasi-Agyei Y, Pegram G. 2014. Interpolation of daily rainfall net-works using simulated radar fields for realistic hydrological modelling of spatial rain field ensembles. Journal of Hydrology, 519:777-791

Jerosch K. 2013. Geostatistical mapping and spatial variability of sur-ficial sediment types on the Beaufort Shelf based on grain size data. Journal of Marine Systems, 127:5-13

Jin Xianshi, Tang Qisheng. 1996. Changes in fish species diversity and dominant species composition in the Yellow Sea. Fisheries Re-search, 26(3-4):337-352

Jin Xianshi, Xu Binduo, Tang Qisheng. 2003. Fish assemblage struc-ture in the East China Sea and southern Yellow Sea during au-tumn and spring. Journal of Fish Biology, 62(5):1194-1205

Jin Xianshi, Zhao Xianyong, Meng Tianxiang, et al. 2005. Living Re-sources and Environment in the Yellow Sea and Bohai Sea (in Chinese). Beijing:Science Press, 149-158

Li Jin, Heap A D. 2014. Spatial interpolation methods applied in the environmental sciences:a review. Environmental Modelling & Software, 53:173-189

Li Jin, Heap A D, Potter A, et al. 2011a. Can we improve the spatial predictions of seabed sediments? A case study of spatial inter-polation of mud content across the southwest Australian mar-gin. Continental Shelf Research, 31(13):1365-1376

Li Zhonglu, Shan Xiujuan, Jin Xianshi, et al. 2011b. Long-term vari-ations in body length and age at maturity of the small yellow croaker (Larimichthys polyactis Bleeker, 1877) in the Bohai Sea and the Yellow Sea, China. Fisheries Research, 110(1):67-74

Lin Lin, Li Chunhou, Dai Ming, et al. 2007. Optimization of the spa-tial interpolation for marine phytoplankton abundance. Acta Ecologica Sinica (in Chinese), 27(7):2880-2888

Lin Zhonghui, Mo Xingguo, Li Hongxuan, et al. 2002. Comparison of three spatial interpolation methods for climate variables in China. Acta Geographica Sinica (in Chinese), 57(1):47-56

Liu Ruimin, Chen Yaxin, Sun Chengchun, et al. 2014a. Uncertainty analysis of total phosphorus spatial-temporal variations in the Yangtze River Estuary using different interpolation methods. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 86(1-2):68-75

Liu Zhanjun, Zhou Wei, Shen Jianbo, et al. 2014b. A simple assess-ment on spatial variability of rice yield and selected soil chem-ical properties of paddy fields in South China. Geoderma, 235-236:39-47

Miller R L. 1956. Trend surfaces:their application to analysis and de-scription of environments of sedimentation. The Journal of Geology, 64(5):425-446

Mueller T G, Pusuluri N B, Mathias K K, et al. 2004. Map quality for ordinary kriging and inverse distance weighted interpolation. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 68(6):2042-2047

Pérez-Lape.a B, Wijnberg K M, Stein A, et al. 2013. Spatial variogram estimation from temporally aggregated seabird count data. En-vironmental and Ecological Statistics, 20(3):353-375

Sanabria L A, Qin X, Li J, et al. 2013. Spatial interpolation of McAr-thur's forest fire danger index across Australia:observational study. Environmental Modelling & Software, 50:37-50

Scardi M, Chessa L A, Fresi E, et al. 2006. Optimizing interpolation of shoot density data from a Posidonia oceanica seagrass bed. Marine Ecology, 27(4):339-349

Scudiero E, Corwin D L, Morari F, et al. 2016. Spatial interpolation quality assessment for soil sensor transect datasets. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 123:74-79

.en Z,.ah.n A D. 2001. Spatial interpolation and estimation of solar irradiation by cumulative semivariograms. Solar Energy, 71(1):11-21

Shan Xiujuan, Chen Yunlong, Dai Fangqun, et al. 2014. Variations in fish community structure and diversity in the sections of the central and southern Yellow Sea. Acta Ecologica Sinica (in Chinese), 34(2):377-389

Weber D, Englund E. 1992. Evaluation and comparison of spatial in-terpolators. Mathematical Geology, 24(4):381-391

Wei Hao, Shi Jie, Lu Youyu, et al. 2010. Interannual and long-term hy-drographic changes in the Yellow Sea during 1977-1998. Deep Sea Research Part Ⅱ:Topical Studies in Oceanography, 57(11-12):1025-1034

Wu Tingting, Li Yingru. 2013. Spatial interpolation of temperature in the United States using residual kriging. Applied Geography, 44:112-120

Xie Yunfeng, Chen Tongbin, Lei Mei, et al. 2011. Spatial distribution of soil heavy metal pollution estimated by different interpola-tion methods:accuracy and uncertainty analysis. Chemo-sphere, 82(3):468-476

Xu Binduo, Jin Xianshi. 2005. Variations in fish community structure during winter in the southern Yellow Sea over the period 1985-2002. Fisheries Research, 71(1):79-91

Yao Liqiang, Huo Zailin, Feng Shaoyuan, et al. 2014. Evaluation of spatial interpolation methods for groundwater level in an arid inland oasis, northwest China. Environmental Earth Sciences, 71(4):1911-1924

Ye Yimin, Cochrane K, Bianchi G, et al. 2013. Rebuilding global fish-eries:the world summit goal, costs and benefits. Fish and Fish-eries, 14(2):174-185

Yu Hao, Jiao Yan, Carstensen L W. 2013. Performance comparison between spatial interpolation and GLM/GAM in estimating rel-ative abundance indices through a simulation study. Fisheries Research, 147:186-195

Zhu Xiaolin, Liu Desheng, Chen Jin. 2012. A new geostatistical ap-proach for filling gaps in landsat ETM+ SLC-off images. Re-mote Sensing of Environment, 124:49-60

Zimmerman D, Pavlik C, Ruggles A, et al. 1999. An experimental comparison of ordinary and universal kriging and inverse dis-tance weighting. Mathematical Geology, 31(4):375-390

Relative Articles

Supplements(0)

Cited By

Proportional views