My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7733
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
7733
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 5:02:30 PM
Creation date
5/18/2009 12:39:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7733
Author
McAda, C. W.
Title
Evaluation of Aerial-Video Measurement of Backwaters as Part of the Interagency Standardized Monitoring Program for Age-0 Colorado Squawfish.
USFW Year
1993.
USFW - Doc Type
\
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
90
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> EXAMPLE A EXAMPLE B <br />Mean BA Total Mean BA Total <br />CPE Area Fish CPE Area Fish <br />5 100 500 5 200 1,000 <br />5 500 2,500 10 100 1,000 <br />5 1000 5,000 15 67 1,000 <br />These examples depict two very different potential problems. Example A illustrates a <br />situation where CPE does not identify a trend in fish abundance when one does exist. In <br />contrast, CPE in example B shows a trend in abundance where such a trend does not exist. <br />A plot of total fish vs mean CPE in the above examples would result in straight lines with <br />slopes of either 1 or 0. Clearly these examples are over simplifications of a complex <br />problem. They assume that all backwaters are equal and that Colorado squawfish do not <br />discriminate among backwaters by water depth, water quality or clarity, or any other <br />parameter that we can or can not measure. Further, they assume that Colorado squawfish <br />are randomly distributed among all backwaters. River habitat and Colorado squawfish <br />behavior are more complicated than these examples. More than likely, if mean CPE alone <br />was not a valid index of total number of fish (and this estimate truly represents the actual <br />number of Colorado squawfish), plots of estimated number of fish vs mean CPE would <br />simply be scatters of points with no meaningful relationship. <br />Plots of Gmean CPE and estimated number of fish in this study showed positive <br />relationships between the two variables in most of the cases examined, although correlation <br />coefficients and significance levels varied widely among years and reaches. The data plots <br />were not random (which would indicate a potential problem); but they were not good linear <br />relationships in all cases either. Because we do not have independent estimates of the total <br />number of small fish in the study reaches, there is no way to determine whether one variable <br />is more accurate than the other, or whether both are inaccurate. However, because <br />backwater area varied during data collection and because there were apparent differences <br />among investigators in identifying backwaters, we can assume that multiplying Total CPE by <br />backwater area actually adds error to abundance indices in an unknown number of cases. <br />Nonetheless, the two parameters do increase and decrease in relation with each other in many <br />instances. <br />This analysis suggests that variations in backwater area among years or sampling <br />reaches is not a serious problem for ISMP because there were no dramatic shifts in <br />17
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.