Summer 2022 Survey Report (2207RL)

[kstierhoff]

👋 Welcome!

We’re using Discussions as a place to connect with other members of our community. We hope that you:

• Ask questions you’re wondering about.
• Share ideas.
• Engage with other community members.
• Welcome others and are open-minded. Remember that this is a community we
  build together 💪.

To get started, comment below with an introduction of yourself and tell us about what you do with this community.

[jrenfree]

Here is the current version of the 2022 Summer Survey report. I'm still waiting to obtain the rest of the processed acoustic data before updating many of the results summaries, but wanted to get input on some of the changes that I made compared to the 2021 report.
reportSurvey_2207RL.pdf

• I replaced Figure 4 with a habitat map from a single timepoint at the beginning of the survey. Then, I relocated the figure of the accomplished transects overlayed on the time-aggregated habitat map to the Results section (now Figure 11). How do you feel about this change?
• For Figure 12, is it necessary to include the transect lines and/or the vessel navigation? I don't feel that it adds up, and if anything makes the figure caption uneccessarily complicated when referencing solid/dashed grey and black lines.
• For the calibration results, I trimmed down a lot of what parameters are presented. Currently, the calibration results are taken from the template .ecs files that were used to process the acoustic data. Moreover, for the Lasker results which show the beam pattern, I still use the single-target data from the .xml files. Those, however, are computed using differing calibration parameters. Do you think this is worth fixing? If so we will need to discuss how best to format and read the calibration data.
• In Appendix B, should we include a summary of the Shimada CTD casts, since those were used for processing the Lisa Marie and Saildrone data?

[kstierhoff]

A few thoughts: - I think the revised Fig 4 is OK, given those were the conditions closest to when the survey plan was finalized, but I don't know if it really has much bearing on the survey design. That is, we define the survey area based on historic habitat distribution, so I'm not sure this figure adds a lot and I'm not even sure that the sentence beginning on line 92 is even accurate (i.e., the transects don't extend into Canada, where a lot of potential habitat existed) . I really like the aggregated map to indicate the habitat conditions at that time that we actually collected the data, and I believe that map should be in the Results as you have it. If we keep Fig 4 as-is, I think we need to explain why the survey area didn't extend north to Vancouver Is. - I think that having either the vessel tracks or sampled acoustic transects provides context to the station sampling. I think you could remove the vessel path (gray line) if it simplified things. - I like the reduced calibration tables. If they're adequate for someone to use our .raw files and get the same results, then I'd say we're good. I'm not sure how much is involved in "fixing" the single target detection data. Honestly, I'm not sure how critical it is to have the beam pattern mapped. That could be one of those things where we included the figures because I made them, not because they were useful/informative. Your thoughts on that? - I think we should add an appendix for SH casts, since they're used for processing data.

…

On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 12:43 PM jrenfree ***@***.***> wrote: Here is the current version of the 2022 Summer Survey report. I'm still waiting to obtain the rest of the processed acoustic data before updating many of the results summaries, but wanted to get input on some of the changes that I made compared to the 2021 report. reportSurvey_2207RL.pdf <https://github.com/kstierhoff/estimATM/files/9923610/reportSurvey_2207RL.pdf> - I replaced Figure 4 with a habitat map from a single timepoint at the beginning of the survey. Then, I relocated the figure of the accomplished transects overlayed on the time-aggregated habitat map to the Results section (now Figure 11). How do you feel about this change? - For Figure 12, is it necessary to include the transect lines and/or the vessel navigation? I don't feel that it adds up, and if anything makes the figure caption uneccessarily complicated when referencing solid/dashed grey and black lines. - For the calibration results, I trimmed down a lot of what parameters are presented. Currently, the calibration results are taken from the template .ecs files that were used to process the acoustic data. Moreover, for the Lasker results which show the beam pattern, I still use the single-target data from the .xml files. Those, however, are computed using differing calibration parameters. Do you think this is worth fixing? If so we will need to discuss how best to format and read the calibration data. - In Appendix B, should we include a summary of the Shimada CTD casts, since those were used for processing the Lisa Marie and Saildrone data? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#8 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AARG62TD4YXHHHEGN2YRRE3WGK75VANCNFSM6AAAAAARVHLJIE> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

-- Kevin L. Stierhoff Research Fisheries Biologist, NOAA/NMFS/SWFSC

[jrenfree]

Thanks, and I think I agree with most of these ideas.

I think the revised Fig 4 is OK, given those were the conditions
closest to when the survey plan was finalized, but I don't know if it
really has much bearing on the survey design. That is, we define the survey
area based on historic habitat distribution, so I'm not sure this figure
adds a lot and I'm not even sure that the sentence beginning on line 92 is
even accurate (i.e., the transects don't extend into Canada, where a lot of
potential habitat existed) . I really like the aggregated map to indicate
the habitat conditions at that time that we actually collected the data,
and I believe that map should be in the Results as you have it. If we keep
Fig 4 as-is, I think we need to explain why the survey area didn't extend
north to Vancouver Is.

Yeah if we aren't actively choosing transect lines based on the pre-survey habitat, then probably easiest to just remove this figure and any reference to it. Agreed that the figure in the Results section is nice and should remain.

I think that having either the vessel tracks or sampled acoustic
transects provides context to the station sampling. I think you could
remove the vessel path (gray line) if it simplified things.

Will try it without the vessel path.

I like the reduced calibration tables. If they're adequate for someone
to use our .raw files and get the same results, then I'd say we're good.
I'm not sure how much is involved in "fixing" the single target detection
data. Honestly, I'm not sure how critical it is to have the beam pattern
mapped. That could be one of those things where we included the figures
because I made them, not because they were useful/informative. Your
thoughts on that?

The beam pattern maps are more of a niceity than a necessity, and they certainly do look cool. They do give a sense of the quality of the calibration, so not completely useless. Another option is to export the single-target detections in Echoview using the correct calibration parameters, then the survey report would simply need to read that CSV file and plot the compensated target strength, which is already calculated for us. I can submit that as a feature request and we can discuss there.

I think we should add an appendix for SH casts, since they're used for
processing data.

Easy enough. Thanks.