Jérôme
I do not have the definitive answer to your question. There are a number of factors that influence the design engine's ability to place effort within the study area or stratum; such as the shape of the study area, the design angle specified. It may not be the case that you are doing anything "wrong". Possibly you might need to experiment a bit with the design angles or adjust the stratum-specific line lengths (juggle the values a bit: 530/246, 520/256) and see if you have success.
If you wish to send your shape file along,
I could spend a bit of time investigating your situation.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "distance-sampling" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to distance-sampl...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/distance-sampling/9dd6cbfe-bd94-466c-a3bb-0ecc8a25f884n%40googlegroups.com.
-- Eric Rexstad Centre for Ecological and Environmental Modelling University of St Andrews St Andrews is a charity registered in Scotland SC013532
Happy to help; I will log the issue
regarding the failure of the design engine to cope with your
situation. Thanks for forwarding information to the list.
Thanks Eric. I was thinking of going around the problem as well so I am fine with that solution. Thank you very much for the time you spent on this. I will copy your response to the discussion to get the information to everyone. Thanks again.
Jérôme
Le sam. 12 déc. 2020 à 07:45, Eric Rexstad <er...@st-andrews.ac.uk> a écrit :
Jérôme
I have not done anything elegant, more the "brute force" approach. I noticed in the project you sent, for some reason, the design engine had not calculated a spacing for the second stratum:
I don't know what that was not calculated, but instead of trying to solve that problem, I decided to go around the problem. Instead of specifying line lengths, the design engine alternatively allows the user to specify the spacing of the waypoints, then computes transect lengths based upon the desired spacing. I tried this approach:
I fiddled a bit with spacing values for Stratum 2 until I arrived at an effort allocation close to your desired 70/30 ratio.
This set of input seemed to please the design engine, as it carried on and generated a coverage for this survey design and subsequently generated a single realisation of the design to show this survey.
I realise it is not an elegant solution; I can't explain why your approach did not work. But the work-around might get you the result you need to design your study.
If you are content with this approach, I would appreciate if you would write back to the list with this solution. That way, should anyone else have this difficulty, they can benefit from the work-around. Let me know if this works for you.
On 11/12/2020 20:11, Jérôme Couvat wrote:
Thank you Eric for your quick response. I did try to adjust design angles or effort length. Angles did not change a thing, although my stratum is far from being a perfect square. Line length was never a success either, even if I dramatically increase it to unrealistically-long distances... That worries me.
I've attached the files if you want to have a look. "Martinique_Project" includes the whole study area. "Stratum2" includes the successful design when I only consider the second stratum.
Thank you very much for your help.
Best,
Jérôme

Jérôme
No harm in reinstalling Distance; I don't expect that to have an effect, but no harm done. Would you like me to send your project (upon which I experimented) back to you?
Sorry we are trying to resolve this
problem on a day when Google is experiencing difficulties;
messing with our ability to email each other.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/distance-sampling/CA%2BWvfQ%2BCCWsP-puBQX1jeHf2X%2Bbgpj4rbfWNYEXL12gF8xDewA%40mail.gmail.com.