Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 34 references

A Zero-Inflated Spatio-Temporal Model for Integrating Fishery-Dependent and Independent Data under Preferential Sampling

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A six-layer joint model integrates survey and commercial fishery data under preferential sampling, separating presence from biomass to correct bias.

desk verdict Coherent six-layer ZI spatio-temporal model with separate PS terms for presence and biomass; worth reviewing, but the abstract oversells accuracy and the shared-W identifiability needs a misspecification check. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09336 v1 pith:PWTXBYBV submitted 2025-09-11 stat.AP stat.ME

Daniela Silva , Raquel Menezes , Gonçalo Araújo , Ana Machado , Renato Rosa , Ana Moreno , Alexandra Silva , Susana Garrido This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.APstat.ME MSC 62M3062P12
keywords dataintegrationpreferentialsamplingzero-inflatedmodelsspatio-temporalmodelingspeciesdistributionmodelfishery-dependentfishery-independentsardine
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes a single spatio-temporal model that pools fishery-independent survey data (FID) with fishery-dependent commercial catch data (FDD), sources with opposite strengths: surveys are unbiased but sparse, catches are dense but collected where fishermen prefer to fish. The central claim is that the model separates the presence-absence process from the biomass process conditional on presence, and explicitly links the locations of commercial fishing to both processes through time-varying preferential-sampling coefficients, thereby correcting the bias that would arise from naively pooling the sources. Simulation experiments show accurate recovery of most parameters, detection of preferential-signal strength and sign, and better predictive distributions than using either source alone. Applied to sardine off southern Portugal, the model yields annual preferential-sampling estimates and spatio-temporal biomass maps with clearer hotspots than survey-only modeling. If correct, the framework gives fisheries managers a way to combine cheap, abundant commercial data with scarce scientific surveys without losing validity.

What carries the argument

The central object is a six-layer hierarchical model with factorized joint distribution L(Θ)=L(ζ,σ;y)·L(π;z)·L(λ;x)·L(U)·L(V)·L(W). Presence Z follows a Bernoulli with a logit predictor containing spatial field V and shared spatio-temporal field W; biomass Y conditional on presence is Gamma with mean from a predictor containing U and W; FDD locations follow an inhomogeneous Poisson process with log-intensity α''(t)+β'(t)V+β(t)U, whose coefficients are the time-varying preferential-sampling parameters; vessel catchability k(v) scales the relative biomass index. Inference is carried out by Laplace approximation of the marginal likelihood with automatic differentiation, using a stochastic-parti

What would settle it

Simulate a scenario in which the shared spatio-temporal field enters the presence and biomass predictors with different coefficients, fit the proposed model with the restricted equal-coefficient structure, and quantify the bias in β(t) and β'(t); the paper's reported compensation between α''(t) and β(t) already hints that this restricted structure is where the model would lose the preferential signal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's key discovery claim is that zero-inflated spatio-temporal data from two differently-sampled sources can be integrated by factorizing the joint distribution into presence-absence observations, biomass-on-presence observations, the point process of commercial fishing locations, two static spatial latent fields, one shared spatio-temporal latent field, and vessel-specific catchability effects. FDD locations are modeled as an inhomogeneous Poisson process whose log-intensity is a time-varying linear combination of the presence and biomass latent fields; the coefficients β'(t) and β(t) quantify preferential sampling for each process and each year. The shared spatio-temporal field W(x,

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the same unmeasured spatio-temporal signal enters the presence and biomass linear predictors with exactly the same coefficient; if real shared dynamics move occupancy and abundance on different scales, the estimated preferential-sampling signals will be distorted by compensating biases between the intercept and the preferential coefficients.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Pooling FID and FDD in this framework yields better spatio-temporal distribution predictions than either source alone, particularly when FDD strongly outnumbers FID.
  • The annual preferential coefficients provide a quantitative window into fishing-effort allocation, potentially supporting assessments of quota effects and spatial management measures.
  • Separating presence and biomass layers handles zero inflation explicitly, so maps can distinguish habitat occupancy from expected abundance rather than confounding the two.
  • The vessel-specific catchability correction makes relative biomass indices from acoustic surveys and purse-seine catches comparable within one model.
  • The framework generalizes to other paired 'unbiased but sparse / dense but preferential' data sources, such as epidemiology, citizen science, and other environmental monitoring settings.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the shared-field structure is identifiable in real applications, the estimated β(t) and β'(t) series could be tested against external records of fishing closures and quota changes to see whether effort shifts reflect regulation rather than fish movement; the paper does not compare its estimates to such records.
  • A natural robustness check is to free the coefficient of the shared spatio-temporal field in one of the linear predictors; the paper fixes it to 1 in both, and its own discussion of α''(t)/β(t) compensation suggests identifiability is the fragile point.
  • A seasonal or higher-order version of the AR(1) shared field might matter for small pelagics with strong within-year dynamics; the paper only treats time as annual observations.
  • The preferential-sampling layer could be adapted to model observer-based or port-sampling bias in other disciplines where sampling intensity depends on a latent intensity field.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a six-layer hierarchical spatio-temporal model that jointly analyzes fishery-independent (FID) and fishery-dependent (FDD) data under preferential sampling (PS). The model separates a binary presence–absence process and a positive biomass process, shares a spatio-temporal latent field W between their linear predictors, adds source- and vessel-specific catchability, and models FDD locations as an inhomogeneous Poisson process whose intensity depends on two static spatial fields U and V through time-varying coefficients beta(t) and beta'(t). Inference is performed via Laplace approximation in TMB. The authors report a simulation study across three PS scenarios and four sample-size combinations, claiming accurate parameter estimation and improved prediction over single-source models, and apply the model to sardine data off southern Portugal from 2013–2018.

Significance. If the central claims held, the model would be a valuable contribution to fisheries stock-assessment practice: it offers a single framework for zero-inflated spatio-temporal data with distinct observation processes, explicit preferential-sampling coefficients, and vessel catchability. The Appendix likelihoods are carefully written, the TMB implementation is a sensible computational choice, and the sardine application is relevant. However, the manuscript's two load-bearing claims — that the model estimates PS effects accurately and that it can integrate FID/FDD without bias — are undermined by the simulation tables and by an untested structural identifiability assumption on the shared field W. These issues are fixable, but they are not merely presentational.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1.1, Eqs. (2)–(3); Section 2.1.3, Eq. (5)] The shared spatio-temporal field W enters the presence and biomass linear predictors with the same fixed coefficient 1, and the FDD intensity depends only on the static spatial fields U and V, not on W. This structural choice forces any omitted time-varying shared driver to shift logit(pi) and log(mu) by exactly the same amount, and assumes fishing intensity does not respond to the time-varying shared component of abundance. If the true shared dynamics act on presence and biomass at different scales, or if fishers respond to the current year's W, the excess variation is absorbed by U, V, and intercepts, and the estimated beta(t), beta'(t) become composites rather than preferential-sampling effects. The simulation study is generated from the same constrained model, so it cannot detect this misspecification. I recommend an identifiability analysis and/or a misspecification simulation (e.g.
  2. [Section 3.4.1, Table 1] The paper's claim of 'robust performance' and 'highly accurate parameter estimates' for the preferential parameters is not supported by Table 1. In Scenario 3, the median relative bias of beta'(t) is about -0.96 to -1.03 for Comb(100,200) and Comb(100,500), meaning the presence-preferential signal is essentially estimated as zero; many 90% intervals include -1. In Scenarios 1 and 3, beta(t) is systematically underestimated by 27–50% (e.g., beta(t1) median relative bias -0.27 to -0.58). These are not 'slight biases' as stated in Section 3.4.1 and Section 5; they directly affect the model's ability to detect and quantify preferential signals, which is a central advertised contribution.
  3. [Section 5, Discussion] The paper acknowledges that alpha''(t) tends to be overestimated whenever beta(t) is underestimated, and describes this as a compensatory mechanism that preserves spatial predictions. This is a symptom of weak identifiability between the baseline intensity and the preferential-sampling parameters. Since the annual beta(t) and beta'(t) estimates (Figure 8) are presented as management-relevant outputs, the authors should quantify this identifiability, for example with profile likelihoods or sensitivity analyses, rather than treating the compensation as benign. Without this, the claim that the model can infer fishing behavior 'quantitatively' is not established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1.1, Eq. (1)] The stated median identity F_S^{-1}(0.5) = E[Z] F_Y^{-1}(0.5) is not correct for a zero-inflated distribution: if P(Z=0)=1-pi, then the median of S is 0 when pi<0.5 and otherwise equals F_Y^{-1}((pi-0.5)/pi). This identity is not used elsewhere in the paper, so it is a presentation issue, but it should be corrected.
  2. [Section 3.4.1] The text describing beta' underestimation as 'slight' should be reconciled with Table 1, where median relative biases close to -1 occur in Scenario 3 for n_D > 100. The language should match the reported magnitudes.
  3. [Section 4.3 / Discussion] The Discussion refers to 'the significant influence of ocean current direction on sardine biomass,' but the model expressions in Table 4 and the effects in Figure 7 are for current intensity (INT), not direction. Either include the direction covariate in the analysis or correct the wording.
  4. [General notation] The notation for the intensity intercept is inconsistent: alpha''(t) in Eq. (5) but alpha''_t in the discussion and Supplement. Please unify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model specification, likelihood, simulation, and application form a self-contained derivation chain; self-citations are background building blocks, not load-bearing reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are (i) a six-layer joint spatio-temporal model can integrate FID and FDD under zero-inflation and preferential sampling, and (ii) simulation shows parameter recovery and PS detection. The model is specified in Eqs (1)-(7) and the likelihood in Eq (9); none of the parameters are defined as functions of the quantities they are used to predict. The preferential parameters beta(t) and beta'(t) enter only the FDD intensity (5) and are estimated from the IPP likelihood (A.6) using observed locations; they are not fitted to the biomass/presence predictions and then reported as independently predicted. The simulation study generates data from the fitted model class and checks whether estimation recovers the generating parameters; this is an internal consistency check, not a circular derivation, and it is not used as external validation. The real-data application is a new fit; the environmental covariate formulations are taken from Silva et al. (2024), but those citations supply modeling ingredients, not the paper's conclusions. Section 5 explicitly acknowledges identifiability-related biases (e.g., alpha'' overestimation when beta is underestimated); this is a limitation/correctness risk, not circularity. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation in a load-bearing way. Therefore no step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The model is a hierarchical construct whose predictions depend on many estimated covariance and regression parameters, plus structural assumptions (unit coefficient on shared field W, log-linear IPP intensity, ignorable FID design, AR(1) dynamics, fixed Matern smoothness). The paper counts dozens of moving parts, several of which (phi_U, phi_V, sigma_U, sigma_V, beta, beta') are recovered with substantial bias in the paper's own simulations.

free parameters (7)
  • Matern range and marginal variance for latent fields U, V, W: phi_V, phi_U, phi_W, sigma_V, sigma_U, sigma_W = Case study: phi_V=19.41 km, phi_U=54.57 km, phi_W=8.00 km; sigma_V=1.89, sigma_U=0.71, sigma_W=1.40 (Table 5)
    Estimated from data via Laplace approximation; simulation fixes truths (0.15/0.20/0.20 ranges, 0.80/1.00/1.00 variances). These covariance parameters drive the entire PS correction and the prediction surfaces.
  • Temporal AR(1) correlation delta of the shared field W = delta = 0.17 in case study (SE reported only for delta* = 0.34/0.05)
    Estimated from data; the temporal dynamics are the paper's main spatio-temporal extension.
  • Preferential sampling coefficients beta(t), beta'(t) for each year t = 2013..2018 = Annual estimates in Figure 8, not tabulated numerically
    The central claimed deliverable: separate PS effects of biomass and presence on FDD intensity (Eq 5). Time-varying by design.
  • Intercepts alpha, alpha', alpha''(t) = Not tabulated
    Intercepts of the presence, biomass, and FDD intensity predictors. alpha''(t) is admitted to be overestimated with compensation against beta(t).
  • Covariate effects (SST, CHL, bathymetry, current intensity) for pi and mu = Smooth effects in Figure 7, not tabulated
    Estimated from data; covariates and their K() lag-weight scheme are taken from Silva et al. (2024).
  • Gamma dispersion sigma (biomass variance) = Not reported
    A single global variance parameter for the Gamma biomass likelihood (Appendix A), constant across locations and time despite the varying mean.
  • Catchability parameter alpha_c = Not reported numerically
    The AIC-selected catchability model is k(v) = exp{alpha_c}, a single constant (Table 6). A constant multiplier merges with the overall intercept, so catchability is not separately identifiable in the final model.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Conditional independence decomposing the biomass process as presence (Bernoulli) times biomass-given-presence (Gamma), Eq (1).
    Structural two-part model for zero-inflation, inherited from Silva et al. (2024); the paper does not test alternatives (e.g., hurdle vs ZIP link, or a common latent process for both parts).
  • ad hoc to paper Identical spatio-temporal field W enters both the presence and biomass linear predictors with coefficient 1 (Eqs 2-3).
    Identifiability choice: shared unmeasured dynamics are forced to act on presence and biomass with equal log-scale weight; no sensitivity analysis is given.
  • domain assumption FDD locations follow an IPP with log intensity linear in U and V, with baseline alpha''(t) separately identifiable from beta and beta' (Eq 5).
    Standard Diggle et al. (2010) preferential-sampling model; Section 5 documents a compensation between alpha''(t) and beta(t), so the identifiability is empirically fragile.
  • domain assumption FID locations are non-informative: HPP or deterministic systematic transects, so X_I is excluded from the likelihood (Section 2.1.3).
    Reasonable for the PELAGO survey but load-bearing: if the survey design correlates with the latent process, ignoring it biases inference.
  • domain assumption Latent fields are stationary Matern GMRFs with nu=1 fixed and one range per field (Sections 2.1.2, 2.2).
    Standard SPDE approximation (Lindgren et al. 2011); smoothness is pinned to 1 rather than estimated.
  • domain assumption Temporal dynamics of W follow AR(1) with constant delta, |delta|<1 (Eq 4).
    First-order Markov structure chosen for tractability; higher-order or regime-dependent dynamics are excluded.
  • ad hoc to paper The median identity F^-1_S(0.5) = E[Z] F^-1_Y(0.5) in Eq (1).
    Imported from Silva et al. (2024) without proof; false in general for zero-inflated products (the median is 0 when pi<0.5, and otherwise solves F_Y(m) = (pi-0.5)/pi). Not used downstream, but an unverified inherited claim.
invented entities (2)
  • Shared spatio-temporal latent field W
    purpose: Carries AR(1) dynamics common to the presence and biomass processes (Eqs 2-4).
    Statistical latent construct; identified only through the covariance structure the model asserts. Its parameters are well recovered in simulation, but it has no external falsifiable handle.
  • Spatial latent fields U and V
    purpose: Capture process-specific spatial dependence for biomass and presence, and drive FDD sampling intensity in Eq 5.
    Standard geostatistical random fields; their empirical content is the fitted covariance parameters, which the simulations show are biased in several scenarios (phi_U, phi_V, sigma_U, sigma_V).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Zero-Inflated Spatio-Temporal Model for Integrating Fishery-Dependent and Independent Data under Preferential Sampling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PWTXBYBV

@misc{pith2026250909336,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Zero-Inflated Spatio-Temporal Model for Integrating Fishery-Dependent and Independent Data under Preferential Sampling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PWTXBYBV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09336}
}
read the original abstract

Sustainable management of marine ecosystems is vital for maintaining healthy fishery resources, and benefits from advanced scientific tools to accurately assess species distribution patterns. In fisheries science, two primary data sources are used: fishery-independent data (FID), collected through systematic surveys, and fishery-dependent data (FDD), obtained from commercial fishing activities. While these sources provide complementary information, their distinct sampling schemes - systematic for FID and preferential for FDD - pose significant integration challenges. This study introduces a novel spatio-temporal model that integrates FID and FDD, addressing challenges associated with zero-inflation and preferential sampling (PS) common in ecological data. The model employs a six-layer structure to differentiate between presence-absence and biomass observations, offering a robust framework for ecological studies affected by PS biases. Simulation results demonstrate the model's accuracy in parameter estimation across diverse PS scenarios and its ability to detect preferential signals. Application to the study of the distribution patterns of the European sardine populations along the southern Portuguese continental shelf illustrates the model's effectiveness in integrating diverse data sources and incorporating environmental and vessel-specific covariates. The model reveals spatio-temporal variability in sardine presence and biomass, providing actionable insights for fisheries management. Beyond ecology, this framework offers broad applicability to data integration challenges in other disciplines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09336 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Diagram of the joint model, including the preferential sampling (PS) for fishery [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of simulated latent fields. V(X) and U(X) represent realizations of the simulated GMRFs, while W(x,t) are the realizations of simulated spatio-temporal field with temporal correlation δ = 0.8 and t = 1,··· ,T where T = 4. The biomass process S(x,t) is derived as S(x,t) = Z(x,t)·Y(x,t), where Y(x,t) represents realizations of the biomass process under presence determined by ζ (x,t). The Z(x,t) represents real… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Estimates of regression coefficients (with true values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evaluation of predictive performance, using the Hellinger distance, across sampling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evaluation of the contribution of each data source, using the Hellinger distance, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Observed biomass index of sardine off the southern coast of Portugal between 2013 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Fixed (environmental) effects for sardine presence (first column) and relative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Annual estimates of preferential parameters associated with sardine [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Predicted relative biomass index of sardines, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references

  1. [1]

    T., and Vermard, Y

    Alglave, B., Rivot, E., Etienne, M.-P., Woillez, M., Thorson, J. T., and Vermard, Y. (2022). Combining scientific survey and commercial catch data to map fish distribution . ICES Journal of Marine Science , 79(4):1133--1149

    2022

  2. [2]

    and Rosa, R

    Ara\' u jo, G. and Rosa, R. (2023). [Unpublished data]. Nova School of Business and Economics, Nova University Lisbon

    2023

  3. [3]

    S., Bohnsack, J

    Ault, J. S., Bohnsack, J. A., and Meester, G. A. (1998). A retrospective (1979-1996) multispecies assessment of coral reef fish stocks in the Florida Keys . Fishery Bulletion , 98(3):395--414

    1998

  4. [4]

    Diggle, P., Menezes, R., and Su, T.-l. (2010). Geostatistical inference under preferential sampling. Journal of Royal Statistics Society, Series C , 59(2):191--232

    2010

  5. [5]

    Diggle, P. J. (2013). Statistical Analysis of Spatial and Spatio-Temporal Point Patterns . Chapman and Hall/CRC, 3rd edition

    2013

  6. [6]

    and Salibian-Barrera, M

    Dinsdale, D. and Salibian-Barrera, M. (2019). Methods for preferential sampling in geostatistics. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics , 68(1):181--198

    2019

  7. [7]

    Doray, M., Boyra, G., and van der Kooij, J. (2021). ICES Survey Protocols – Manual for acoustic surveys coordinated under ICES Working Group on Acoustic and Egg Surveys for Small Pelagic Fish (WGACEGG) (Version 1) . ICES Techniques in Marine Environmental Science (TIMES) , 64:100pp

    2021

  8. [8]

    W., Leuenberger, W., Sillett, T

    Doser, J. W., Leuenberger, W., Sillett, T. S., Hallworth, M. T., and Zipkin, E. F. (2021). Integrated community occupancy models: A framework to assess occurrence and biodiversity dynamics using multiple data sources . Methods in Ecology and Evolution , 13:919 -- 932

    2021

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    C., and Monterroso, P

    Ferreras, P., Jiménez, J., Díaz-Ruiz, F., Tobajas, J., Alves, P. C., and Monterroso, P. (2021). Integrating multiple datasets into spatially-explicit capture-recapture models to estimate the abundance of a locally scarce felid. Biodivers Conserv , 30:4317--4335

    2021

  2. [10]

    E., Sahu, S

    Gelfand, A. E., Sahu, S. K., and Holland, D. M. (2012). On the effect of preferential sampling in spatial prediction. Environmetrics , 23(7):565--578

    2012

  3. [11]

    Gelfand, A. E. and Shirota, S. (2019). Preferential sampling for presence/absence data and for fusion of presence/absence data with presence-only data. Ecological Monographs , 89(3):e01372

    2019

  4. [12]

    and Lahoz-Monfort, J

    Guillera-Arroita, G. and Lahoz-Monfort, J. J. (2012). Designing studies to detect differences in species occupancy: power analysis under imperfect detection. Methods in Ecology and Evolution , 3(5):860--869

    2012

  5. [13]

    and Kéry, M

    Guélat, J. and Kéry, M. (2018). Effects of spatial autocorrelation and imperfect detection on species distribution models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution , 9(6):1614--1625

    2018

  6. [14]

    Hefley, T. J. and Hooten, M. B. (2016). Hierarchical Species Distribution Models . Curr Landscape Ecol Rep , 1:87--97

    2016

  7. [15]

    Izquierdo, F., Menezes, R., Wise, L., Teles-Machado, A., and Garrido, S. (2022). Bayesian spatio-temporal CPUE standardization: Case study of European sardine (Sardina pilchardus) along the western coast of Portugal . Fisheries Management and Ecology , 29(5):670--680

    2022

  8. [16]

    E., Savage, R

    Kirk, P., Griffin, J. E., Savage, R. S., Ghahramani, Z., and Wild, D. L. (2012). Bayesian correlated clustering to integrate multiple datasets . Bioinformatics , 28(24):3290--3297

    2012

  9. [17]

    W., Skaug, H., and Bell, B

    Kristensen, K., Nielsen, A., Berg, C. W., Skaug, H., and Bell, B. M. (2016). Tmb: Automatic differentiation and laplace approximation. Journal of Statistical Software , 70(5):1–21

    2016

  10. [18]

    Lambert, D. (1992). Zero-inflated Poisson regression, with an application to defects in manufacturing . Technometrics , 34(1):1--14

    1992

  11. [19]

    Le Cam, L. (1986). Asymptotic Methods in Statistical Decision Theory . SpringerVerlag

    1986

  12. [20]

    Lindgren, F., Rue, H., and Lindstr\" o m, J. (2011). An explicit link between gaussian fields and gaussian markov random fields: the stochastic partial differential equation approach. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , 73:423--498

    2011

  13. [21]

    D., Royle, J

    MacKenzie, D., Nichols, J. D., Royle, J. A., Pollock, K., Bailey, L., and Hines, J. E. (2006). Occupancy Estimation and Modeling: Inferring Patterns and Dynamics of Species Occurrence . Academic Press, Burlington, MA, 2nd edition

    2006

  14. [22]

    V., and Pennino, M

    Martínez-Minaya, J., Cameletti, M., Conesa, D. V., and Pennino, M. G. (2018). Species distribution modeling: a statistical review with focus in spatio-temporal issues. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment , 32:3227--3244

    2018

  15. [23]

    A., DeFilippo, L

    O'Leary, C. A., DeFilippo, L. B., Thorson, J. T., Kotwicki, S., Hoff, G. R., Kulik, V. V., Ianelli, J. N., and Punt, A. E. (2022). Understanding transboundary stocks' availability by combining multiple fisheries-independent surveys and oceanographic conditions in spatiotempora...

    2022

  16. [24]

    V., López-Quílez, A., and Bellido, J

    Paradinas, I., Conesa, D. V., López-Quílez, A., and Bellido, J. M. (2017). Spatio-temporal model structures with shared components for semi-continuous species distribution modelling. Spatial Statistics , 22:434--450

    2017

  17. [25]

    G., Conesa, D., López-Quílez, A., Muñoz, F., Fernández, A., and Bellido, J

    Pennino, M. G., Conesa, D., López-Quílez, A., Muñoz, F., Fernández, A., and Bellido, J. M. (2016). Fishery-dependent and -independent data lead to consistent estimations of essential habitats . ICES Journal of Marine Science , 73(9):2302--2310

    2016

  18. [26]

    A., Bolster, W

    Rosenberg, A. A., Bolster, W. J., Alexander, K. E., Leavenworth, W. B., Cooper, A. B., and McKenzie, M. G. (2005). The history of ocean resources: modeling cod biomass using historical records. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment , 3(2):84--90

    2005

  19. [27]

    R., and Bastardie, F

    Rufener, M.-C., Kristensen, K., Nielsen, J. R., and Bastardie, F. (2021). Bridging the gap between commercial fisheries and survey data to model the spatiotemporal dynamics of marine species. Ecological Applications , 31(8)

    2021

  20. [28]

    and Menezes, R

    Silva, D. and Menezes, R. (2025). A simulation comparison of spatial models for preferential sampling. In New Frontiers in Statistics and Data Science, 26th Congress of the Portuguese-Statistical-Society, SPE2023 , volume 398

    2025

  21. [29]

    Silva, D., Menezes, R., Ara\' u jo, G., Rosa, R., Moreno, A., Silva, A., and Garrido, S. (2025a). Joint model for zero-inflated data combining fishery-dependent and fishery-independent sources. Spatial Statistics . (Accepted manuscript)

  22. [30]

    Silva, D., Menezes, R., Araújo, G., Teles-Machado, A., Rosa, R., Silva, A., and Garrido, S. (2025b). Supplement to ``a zero-inflated spatio-temporal approach for joint modeling of fishery-dependent and fishery-independent data to understand fish distribution"

  23. [31]

    Silva, D., Menezes, R., Moreno, A., Teles-Machado, A., and Garrido, S. (2024). Environmental effects on the spatiotemporal variability of sardine distribution along the portuguese continental coast. JABES

    2024

  24. [32]

    Skaug, H. J. and Fournier, D. A. (2006). Automatic approximation of the marginal likelihood in non-Gaussian hierarchical models . Computational Statistics & Data Analysis , 51(2):699--709

    2006

  25. [33]

    and Tucker, A

    Steele, E. and Tucker, A. (2008). Consensus and meta-analysis regulatory networks for combining multiple microarray gene expression datasets. Journal of Biomedical Informatics , 41(6):914--926

    2008

  26. [34]

    A., Naimi, B., and Jaboyedoff, M

    Tehrani, N. A., Naimi, B., and Jaboyedoff, M. (2022). A data-integration approach to correct sampling bias in species distribution models using multiple datasets of breeding birds in the swiss alps. Ecological Informatics , 69:101501

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.