On the variability of replicate plankton samples and some applications of ‘contagious’ series to the statistical distribution of catches over restricted periods
Abstract
The variability to be expected in replicate plankton hauls, using several methods of hauling and a number of different nets, has been examined by Winsor & Clarke (1940). Some of the variability is due to true sampling variations, inevitable when discrete entities in suspension are sampled, and some is due to inadequacies of sampling technique. Winsor & Walford (1936) found that the variability of their vertical net hauls could be explained on the basis of a random distribution of the population, the variations being ascribed to variations in the volume of water filtered in successive hauls. They fully realized that the alternative, namely a non-random distribution of the population, was not disproved; but they considered that since widely different organisms showed little difference in variability the evidence was strongly in favour of a random distribution. They did note, however, that agreement between these different organisms was less marked when the numbers caught were large.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A significant but under-studied potential bias in quantitative estimates of abundance of planktonic organisms is the patchy spatial and temporal distributions of their populations.
“A significant but under-studied potential bias in quantitative estimates of abundance of planktonic organisms is the patchy spatial and temporal distributions of their populations (Barnes and Marshall 1951;Cushing 1962;Wiebe and Holland 1968;Johnson and Morse 1994).”
From A comparison of sampling methods for larvae of medium and large epipelagic fish species during spring SEAMAP ichthyoplankton surveys in the Gulf of Mexico (2014) · cites this paper as Barnes and Marshall 1951
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Habtes, S., Muller‐Karger, F. E., Roffer, M. A., Lamkin, J. T., & Muhling, B. A. (2014) · Limnology and Oceanography: Methods · doi:10.4319/lom.2014.12.86 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
- Authors
- Barnes, H., & Marshall, S. M.
- Venue
- Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1951-10
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 233-263
- ISSN
- 0025-3154 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-7769
- OpenAlex
- W2001972495
- Cited by
- 81
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 9.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom (publishedVersion)
- Marine Biological Association (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Marine and fisheries research
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Oceanography › Marine and coastal ecosystems
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Probability and Statistical Research
- Keywords
- sampling error, sampling methods, plankton nets
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review