Literature DB >> 29777392

Determining representative ranges of point sensors in distributed networks.

John K Horne1, Dale A Jacques2,3.   

Abstract

Distributed networks of stationary instruments provide high temporal scope (i.e., range/resolution) observations but are spatially limited as a set of point measurements. Measurement similarity between points typically decays with distance, which is used to set interpolation distances. The importance of analyzing spatiotemporal data at equivalent spatial and temporal scales has been identified but no standard procedure is used to interpolate space using temporally-indexed observations. Using concurrent mobile and stationary active acoustic, fish density data from a tidal energy site in Puget Sound, WA, USA, six methods are compared to estimate the range at which stationary measurements can be spatially interpolated. Four methods estimate the representative range of the mean using autocorrelation or paired t-test and repeated measures ANOVA. Accuracy of resulting sensor density estimates was modeled as departures from interpolated linear and aerial estimates. Two methods were used to estimate representative range of the variance by comparing theoretical spectra or by determining equivalent spatial and temporal scales. Representative ranges of means extended from 30.57 to 403.9 m. Estimation error (i.e., standard deviation) ranges of linearly interpolated or aerially extrapolated values ranged from 42.5 to 82.3%. Representative ranges using variance measurements differed by a factor of approximately two (scale equivalence = 648.7 m, theoretical = 1388.1 m). A six-step decision tree is presented to guide identification of monitoring variables and choice of method to calculate representative ranges in distributed networks. This approach is applicable for networks of any size, in aquatic or terrestrial environments, and monitoring the mean or variance of any quantity.

Keywords:  Distributed networks; Point sensors; Representative range; Spatial representativeness

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29777392     DOI: 10.1007/s10661-018-6689-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Monit Assess        ISSN: 0167-6369            Impact factor:   2.513


  6 in total

1.  Developing an optimal sampling design. A case study in a coastal marine ecosystem.

Authors:  D Kitsiou; G Tsirtsis; M Karydis
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 2.513

2.  Wavelet transforms and atmopsheric turbulence.

Authors: 
Journal:  Phys Rev Lett       Date:  1993-11-15       Impact factor: 9.161

3.  Estimation from samples.

Authors:  Lisa M Sullivan
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2006-08-01       Impact factor: 29.690

4.  Extreme spatial variability in marine picoplankton and its consequences for interpreting Eulerian time-series.

Authors:  Adrian P Martin; Mikhail V Zubkov; Peter H Burkill; Ross J Holland
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2005-09-22       Impact factor: 3.703

5.  A feasible method to assess inaccuracy caused by patchiness in water quality monitoring.

Authors:  Saku Anttila; Timo Kairesalo; Petri Pellikka
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2007-09-23       Impact factor: 2.513

6.  Population diversity and the portfolio effect in an exploited species.

Authors:  Daniel E Schindler; Ray Hilborn; Brandon Chasco; Christopher P Boatright; Thomas P Quinn; Lauren A Rogers; Michael S Webster
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2010-06-03       Impact factor: 49.962

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.