2019
DOI: 10.1007/s13131-019-1486-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative analysis of CPUE standardization of Chinese Pacific saury (Cololabis saira) fishery based on GLM and GAM

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Distribution models including environmental effects should thus be preferred to predict species distributions and abundances at local scales [ 111 , 112 ]. However, when dealing with gaps in the spatiotemporal distribution of marine resources GAMs are more convenient than GLMs because they can easily incorporate the nonlinear responses of catches to geographic factors by smoothing rather than stratifying [ 32 , 33 ]. On the other hand, GAMs are likely to cause overfitting, especially with small sample sizes, because they allow the use of several fixed effects in nonlinear smoothing functions, which often reduce the predictive ability [ 113 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Distribution models including environmental effects should thus be preferred to predict species distributions and abundances at local scales [ 111 , 112 ]. However, when dealing with gaps in the spatiotemporal distribution of marine resources GAMs are more convenient than GLMs because they can easily incorporate the nonlinear responses of catches to geographic factors by smoothing rather than stratifying [ 32 , 33 ]. On the other hand, GAMs are likely to cause overfitting, especially with small sample sizes, because they allow the use of several fixed effects in nonlinear smoothing functions, which often reduce the predictive ability [ 113 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Historically, many efforts have been made to solve the difficulties associated with CPUE standardization [ 7 ] promoting the flexibility and the availability of well-tested and user-friendly tools such as Generalized Linear Models (GLMs) and Generalized Additive Models (GAMs) to perform calculation [ 31 ]. However, while considering the nonlinearity of predictors there is evidence that statistical models such as GAMs perform better than GLMs [ 32 ] even if the survey area is not well covered due to the lack of sampling locations or biased designs [ 33 ]. GAMs proved to be also helpful to understand the environmental processes underlying species distributions [ 34 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Before modeling, the variance inflation factor (VIF) test was performed to exclude highly correlated explanatory variables to prevent covariance from affecting the accuracy of the model [14]. It is generally believed that the problem of multicollinearity exists when VIF > 10 [16,30]. In addition, since this study focused on exploring the impact of modeling accuracy at different approaches, we used "season" as a categorical variable and did not test for covariance when building the Yearly-GAM.…”
Section: Selection Of Explanatory Variablesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although both modeling approaches have been widely used in fisheries in previous studies, there are differences in the fitting and predictive performance of these two modeling approaches, which need to be further explored. The generalized additive model (GAM), as a type of species distribution model, can explore the influencing factors of density as a whole or individually and can effectively handle the nonlinear relationship between response variables and explanatory variables [16]. It has the advantages of high accuracy and flexible application [17] and is useful in studying the relationship between fish resources and the environment.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, it may be more populated and robust for modeling and the spatial distribution of species ( Leathwick, Elith & Hastie, 2006 ; Schmiing et al, 2013 ). Meanwhile, GAMs are regarded as informative tools in fisheries management, and they have been widely used in recent years ( Auth et al, 2011 ; Choi, Min & Soh, 2021 ; Hua et al, 2019 ; Knutsen et al, 2007 ; Liu et al, 2019 ). While quantitative relationships between fishing grounds and environmental factors have used GAMs ( Arcos, Cubillos & Núez, 2001 ; Chen & Tian, 2007 ; Cornic & Rooker, 2018 ; Feng et al, 2021 ; Maxwell et al, 2012 ; Yu et al, 2019 ; Hou et al, 2021 ), few studies have investigated relationships between T. japonicus fishing grounds and environmental factors in the Beibu Gulf.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%