將空間自我相關(guān)與泛線性模式結(jié)合

1、Incorporating spatial autocorrelation into the general linear model with an application to the yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) longline CPUE data 將空間自我相關(guān)與泛線性模式結(jié)合，並應(yīng) 用在黃鰭鮪魚延繩釣的CPUE數(shù)據(jù)資料中。指導(dǎo)老師 王勝平 學(xué)生 賴冠宇FrameResultsMethodsIntroduction DiscussionCPUEStandardCase studyStandard-GLMStandard-GLM/HBMSpati

2、al-GLMSpatial-GLM/HBM Evaluation of the spatial-GLMIntroductionCPUEn Often been utilized to obtain a relative index of the abundance of a fish stock.n Affected by changes of year, season, area of fishing and various environmental factors.StandardMany statistical methods have been used to standardize

3、 them to account for such variations.n generalized linear models (standard- GLM) the most commonly usedn general additive models (GAM)n neural networks (NN)n regression trees (RT)The spatial autocorrelation brings a potentially major problem in standardizing the CPUEs by use of the standard-GLM, GAM

4、, NN or RT.ProblemStandardSolutionHBM Standard-GLM = Standard-GLM/HBM Habitat-based models Spatial autocorrelationStandard-GLM/HBM = Spatial-GLM/HBMMore accurate Standardized CPUEs Relative indices of the abundance of the fish Case studyWe use these models to analyze data on the CPUE of yellowfin tu

5、na (Thunnus albacares) of the Japanese longline fisheries in the Indian Ocean.Finallyn Evaluate the results of the spatial-GLMsMethodsIntroductionn standard-GLM and spatial-GLM were used to analyze the Japanese yellowfin tuna longline CPUE data in the Indian Ocean.n Each method was employed with and

6、 without HBM. The data were detailed in Nishida et al. (2003) and summarized in Table 1.MethodsMethodsStandard-GLMThe standard-GLM without HBM is of the form:Standard-GLMStandard-GLMnFollowing Bigelow and Nishida:HBF(the number of hooks between two floats) was divided into six classes: 56、79、1011、12

7、15、1620、2125. n The Japanese tuna longline fisheries with 34 HBF Swordfish. Excluded the data from this type of gear.n Also added the effects : SST (sea surface temperature ) TD (thermocline depth ) to the model. May have affected the distribution and abundance of yellowfin tuna.Standard-GLM/HBMStan

8、dard- GLM/HBM :Spatial-GLMEq. (1) can be written as:The assumption of independent CPUE or in the standard-GLM, Eq. (3), is obviously violated for a fish population, for it ignores the spatial autocorrelation in the many features of the population.After all, fish move together with a positive spatial

9、 dependency. The more closely in space the observations are made, the more similar they are.Spatial-GLMWith cov(i, j) = ij 0, i is not equal to j:Spatial-GLMSpatial-GLMSpatial-GLM/HBMLRT(likelihood ratio test) used for the spatial-GLM can be applied to the effective CPUE, as defined in Eq. (2), to y

10、ield the spatial-GLM/HBM. For both spatial-GLM and spatial-GLM/HBM, the spatial autocorrelation structure was modeled as covariograms, as defined in Eq.(5)In the spatial-GLM, three distancerelated parameters (sill, range and nuggets) were estimated, along with those in the standard-GLM. A case study

11、Four GLMs (standard-GLM, standard-GLM/HBM, spatial-GLM and spatial-GLM/HBM) were used to analyze yellowfin tuna CPUE data (19582001) of the Japanese longline fisheries in the Indian Ocean, together with some environmental factors.In the spatial-GLM and spatial-GLM/HBM, four distance models (Gaussian

12、, exponential, linear, and spherical) were also examined.ResultsMethodsIntroductionResultsOf the four distance models, the Gaussian model had the best goodness-of-fit. The ResultsResultsResultsResultsResultsResultsResultsMethodsIntroduction Discussion Evaluation of the spatial-GLMAlthough the tempor

13、al trends in the CPUEs from the spatial-GLMs did not differ greatly from those from the standard-GLMs, the spatial-GLMs are preferred for analyzing the CPUE data on yellowfin tuna, especially if there is strong spatial autocorrelation among the data.This is because the spatial-GLMs took account of t

14、he spatial autocorrelation effectively and yielded more realistic estimates of the variances. This is not surprising, especially considering the semivariograms and covariograms from the standard-GLMs (Fig. 3).A covariogram is a function of the distance between data points that measures how strong th

15、eir spatial autocorrelation is. A positive spatial autocorrelation manifests itself in a decrease with distance to zero at some distance, where observations are no longer autocorrelated.The likelihood ratio tests (LRT) for spatial independence of H0: r = 0 showed that the test statistics were highly significant in all cases (Table 3).The