+Advanced Search

Advanced Search

Volume 35 Issue 12
. 
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents
Abstract
References
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
shu

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
  • 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.
    • FullText(HTML)
    • References(39)
  • 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

  • Relative Articles

    • Supplements(0)
    • Cited By

  • Cited by

    Periodical cited type(21)

    1. D. Escobar-Ortega, N. Fernández, G. Casal, et al. Understanding the density patterns of the polychaete Diopatra neapolitana and its relationship with environmental factors in the NW Spain. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 2024, 296: 108590. doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2023.108590
    2. R. Kiruba-Sankar, K. Saravanan, Sirisha Adamala, et al. First report of marine debris in Car Nicobar, a remote oceanic Island in the Nicobar archipelago, Bay of Bengal. Regional Studies in Marine Science, 2023, 61: 102845. doi:10.1016/j.rsma.2023.102845
    3. Gonzalo Rodríguez-Rodríguez, Hugo M. Ballesteros, Eduardo Sánchez-Llamas, et al. The state of the art in cost-benefit of HTS methods for stock assessment: An overview. Frontiers in Marine Science, 2022, 9 doi:10.3389/fmars.2022.1005534
    4. Dhayalan V., Karuppasamy Sudalaimuthu Geostatistical, deterministic and interpolation with barriers methods—a comparative analysis for interpolating soil NPK. Geocarto International, 2022, 37(13): 3721. doi:10.1080/10106049.2022.2063413
    5. Baizhi Jiang, Wenyue Xu, Di Zhang, et al. Contrasting multiple deterministic interpolation responses to different spatial scale in prediction soil organic carbon: A case study in Mollisols regions. Ecological Indicators, 2022, 134: 108472. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108472
    6. Rodney Ewusi-Wilson, Junghee Park, Boyoung Yoon, et al. Geostatistics and Artificial Intelligence Applications for Spatial Evaluation of Bearing Capacity after Dynamic Compaction. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2022, 2022: 1. doi:10.1155/2022/7053228
    7. Zhuoyu Yu, Yifan Song, Dexuan Song, et al. Spatial interpolation-based analysis method targeting visualization of the indoor thermal environment. Building and Environment, 2021, 188: 107484. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107484
    8. Shaoyuan Pan, Siquan Tian, Xuefang Wang, et al. Comparing different spatial interpolation methods to predict the distribution of fishes: A case study of Coilia nasus in the Changjiang River Estuary. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 2021, 40(8): 119. doi:10.1007/s13131-021-1789-z
    9. Sahar Dehnavi, Yasser Maghsoudi, Klemen Zakšek, et al. Cloud Detection Based on High Resolution Stereo Pairs of the Geostationary Meteosat Images. Remote Sensing, 2020, 12(3): 371. doi:10.3390/rs12030371
    10. Aslihan KATİP. KİMYASAL GÜBRE TÜKETİMİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ: BURSA İLİ ÖRNEĞİ. Uludağ University Journal of The Faculty of Engineering, 2020. doi:10.17482/uumfd.782633
    11. Alice E. Lown, Leanne J. Hepburn, Rob Dyer, et al. From individual vital rates to population dynamics: An integral projection model for European native oysters in a marine protected area. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 2020, 30(11): 2191. doi:10.1002/aqc.3445
    12. Hongwu Zhou, Haidong Pan, Shuang Li, et al. Application of Empirical Orthogonal Function Interpolation to Reconstruct Hourly Fine Particulate Matter Concentration Data in Tianjin, China. Complexity, 2020, 2020: 1. doi:10.1155/2020/9724367
    13. Dimitra Kitsiou, Anastasia Patera, George Tsegas, et al. A webGIS Application to Assess Seawater Quality: A Case Study in a Coastal Area in the Northern Aegean Sea. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 2020, 9(1): 33. doi:10.3390/jmse9010033
    14. Matthew D. Taylor, Daniel D. Johnson. Evaluation of adaptive spatial management in a multi-jurisdictional trawl fishery. Regional Studies in Marine Science, 2020, 35: 101206. doi:10.1016/j.rsma.2020.101206
    15. Pengwei Qiao, Peizhong Li, Yanjun Cheng, et al. Comparison of common spatial interpolation methods for analyzing pollutant spatial distributions at contaminated sites. Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 2019, 41(6): 2709. doi:10.1007/s10653-019-00328-0
    16. Marta M. Rufino, Nicolas Bez, Anik Brind'Amour. Influence of data pre-processing on the behavior of spatial indicators. Ecological Indicators, 2019, 99: 108. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.11.058
    17. Mahrokh Moknatian, Michael Piasecki, Fred Moshary, et al. Development of digital bathymetry maps for Lakes Azuei and Enriquillo using sonar and remote sensing techniques. Transactions in GIS, 2019, 23(4): 841. doi:10.1111/tgis.12532
    18. Cástor Guisande, Andrés J. Rueda-Quecho, Fabián A. Rangel-Silva, et al. SINENVAP: An algorithm that employs kriging to identify optimal spatial interpolation models in polygons. Ecological Informatics, 2019, 53: 100975. doi:10.1016/j.ecoinf.2019.100975
    19. Yongjiu Feng, Yang Liu, Xinjun Chen. Modeling Monthly Spatial Distribution of Ommastrephes bartramii CPUE in the Northwest Pacific and Its Spatially Nonstationary Relationships with the Marine Environment. Journal of Ocean University of China, 2018, 17(3): 647. doi:10.1007/s11802-018-3495-9
    20. Rasha M. Abou Samra, R. R. Ali. The development of an overlay model to predict soil salinity risks by using remote sensing and GIS techniques: a case study in soils around Idku Lake, Egypt. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2018, 190(12) doi:10.1007/s10661-018-7079-3
    21. Gang Wang, Hou-Qi Liu, Yu Gong, et al. Risk Assessment of Metals in Urban Soils from a Typical Industrial City, Suzhou, Eastern China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2017, 14(9): 1025. doi:10.3390/ijerph14091025

    Other cited types(0)

  • Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Amount of accessChart context menuAbstract Views, HTML Views, PDF Downloads StatisticsAbstract ViewsHTML ViewsPDF Downloads2024-052024-062024-072024-082024-092024-102024-112024-122025-012025-022025-032025-0405101520
    Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Chart context menuAccess Class DistributionFULLTEXT: 26.8 %FULLTEXT: 26.8 %META: 70.0 %META: 70.0 %PDF: 3.3 %PDF: 3.3 %FULLTEXTMETAPDF
    Created with Highcharts 5.0.7Chart context menuAccess Area Distribution其他: 1.5 %其他: 1.5 %Argentina: 0.4 %Argentina: 0.4 %Cameroon: 1.3 %Cameroon: 1.3 %Canada: 0.7 %Canada: 0.7 %China: 13.8 %China: 13.8 %Egypt: 1.5 %Egypt: 1.5 %France: 1.3 %France: 1.3 %Greece: 0.7 %Greece: 0.7 %Hong Kong, China: 0.7 %Hong Kong, China: 0.7 %India: 2.2 %India: 2.2 %Iran (ISLAMIC Republic Of): 0.7 %Iran (ISLAMIC Republic Of): 0.7 %Ireland: 0.9 %Ireland: 0.9 %Italy: 0.7 %Italy: 0.7 %Korea Republic of: 0.7 %Korea Republic of: 0.7 %Netherlands: 0.7 %Netherlands: 0.7 %New Zealand: 0.7 %New Zealand: 0.7 %Nigeria: 0.7 %Nigeria: 0.7 %Norway: 0.7 %Norway: 0.7 %Russian Federation: 3.1 %Russian Federation: 3.1 %South Africa: 2.4 %South Africa: 2.4 %Spain: 2.2 %Spain: 2.2 %Sri Lanka: 0.7 %Sri Lanka: 0.7 %Taiwan, China: 2.0 %Taiwan, China: 2.0 %Thailand: 1.8 %Thailand: 1.8 %United Kingdom: 1.3 %United Kingdom: 1.3 %United States: 57.0 %United States: 57.0 %其他ArgentinaCameroonCanadaChinaEgyptFranceGreeceHong Kong, ChinaIndiaIran (ISLAMIC Republic Of)IrelandItalyKorea Republic ofNetherlandsNew ZealandNigeriaNorwayRussian FederationSouth AfricaSpainSri LankaTaiwan, ChinaThailandUnited KingdomUnited States

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索
    Get Citation
    PDF
    XML

    Article Metrics

    Article views (1192) PDF downloads(1058) Cited by(21)
    Proportional views
    Related
    Govern Body: China Association for Science and Technology
    Sponsor: Chinese Society for Oceanography
    Tel: 86-10-62179976
    E-mail: ocean2@hyxb.org.cn
    Website: http://www.aosocean.com/
    京ICP备12043220号-7

    Supported by: Beijing Renhe Information Technology Co. Ltd     百度统计

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return