File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Grouper spawning aggregations: Be careful what you measure and how you measure it: A rebuttal of Golbuu and Friedlander (2011)

TitleGrouper spawning aggregations: Be careful what you measure and how you measure it: A rebuttal of Golbuu and Friedlander (2011)
Authors
KeywordsConservation
Grouper
Palau
Spawning Aggregation
Survey Methods
Traditional Ecological Knowledge
Issue Date2013
PublisherAcademic Press. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecss
Citation
Estuarine, Coastal And Shelf Science, 2013, v. 123, p. 1-6 How to Cite?
AbstractEstuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 92:223) used faulty methods, improper interpretation of historical data, and assumptions of little or no validity to conclude that despite protected status spawning aggregations of three groupers in Palau, western Caroline Islands declined between 1995-96 and 2005-06. Alternate survey methods indicated no drastic declines in these aggregations over the same period. failed to document the overall distribution of fishes in their aggregations, used poorly-located inadequate transects to sample the overall aggregation area, and did not identify and sample peak aggregations days. The use of visual length estimates as the basis for biomass values may introduce errors. Comparison of aggregation persistence between reference ("fished out") and protected sites is not possible because equivalent protected and exploited sites are not available. Different species at multi-species spawning aggregation sites commonly occupy somewhat discrete locations, with the densest concentrations (core areas) of one often being separated from those for another. There is usually a single peak day each month of a lunar-based aggregation, but it requires multiple days data collection to determine that peak. The shortcomings identified provide important lessons for the study of fish spawning aggregations and signal caution about the incomplete documentation of sampling methodology. Overly simplistic aggregation sampling methodologies may be superficially credible, but are not reflective of a complicated reality. Monitoring needs to produce a definitive repeatable baseline against which data can be gathered authoritatively in the future. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/179261
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 2.335
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.094
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorColin, PLen_US
dc.contributor.authorSadovy De Mitcheson, Yen_US
dc.contributor.authorDonaldson, TJen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-12-19T09:53:27Z-
dc.date.available2012-12-19T09:53:27Z-
dc.date.issued2013en_US
dc.identifier.citationEstuarine, Coastal And Shelf Science, 2013, v. 123, p. 1-6en_US
dc.identifier.issn0272-7714en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/179261-
dc.description.abstractEstuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 92:223) used faulty methods, improper interpretation of historical data, and assumptions of little or no validity to conclude that despite protected status spawning aggregations of three groupers in Palau, western Caroline Islands declined between 1995-96 and 2005-06. Alternate survey methods indicated no drastic declines in these aggregations over the same period. failed to document the overall distribution of fishes in their aggregations, used poorly-located inadequate transects to sample the overall aggregation area, and did not identify and sample peak aggregations days. The use of visual length estimates as the basis for biomass values may introduce errors. Comparison of aggregation persistence between reference ("fished out") and protected sites is not possible because equivalent protected and exploited sites are not available. Different species at multi-species spawning aggregation sites commonly occupy somewhat discrete locations, with the densest concentrations (core areas) of one often being separated from those for another. There is usually a single peak day each month of a lunar-based aggregation, but it requires multiple days data collection to determine that peak. The shortcomings identified provide important lessons for the study of fish spawning aggregations and signal caution about the incomplete documentation of sampling methodology. Overly simplistic aggregation sampling methodologies may be superficially credible, but are not reflective of a complicated reality. Monitoring needs to produce a definitive repeatable baseline against which data can be gathered authoritatively in the future. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherAcademic Press. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecssen_US
dc.relation.ispartofEstuarine, Coastal and Shelf Scienceen_US
dc.subjectConservationen_US
dc.subjectGrouperen_US
dc.subjectPalauen_US
dc.subjectSpawning Aggregationen_US
dc.subjectSurvey Methodsen_US
dc.subjectTraditional Ecological Knowledgeen_US
dc.titleGrouper spawning aggregations: Be careful what you measure and how you measure it: A rebuttal of Golbuu and Friedlander (2011)en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailSadovy de Mitcheson, Y: yjsadovy@hkucc.hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authoritySadovy de Mitcheson, Y=rp00773en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ecss.2011.10.011en_US
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84876313123en_US
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000318456100001-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridColin, PL=7101743597en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridSadovy de Mitcheson, Y=6603830002en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridDonaldson, TJ=7005955541en_US
dc.identifier.citeulike9994361-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats