Quote:
Originally Posted by Speckmeister
I applaud your research here . . . but it is only correlational in inference . . . no cause and effect.
And I am not criticizing here - because you did something that the purpose of correlational research suggests. And that is to point out factors which may associated with the health of the species you studied.
But....oyster reefs in themselves provide habitat for trout forage species. The habitat issue...the marsh loss on the southeastern section of the lake that is noted may also contribute to the lack of forage species entering the lake as well as the numbers of the species themselves - such as speckled trout and redfish. This would be certainly a competing hypothesis.
|
We've given a lot of consideration to competing hypotheses, and there are most likely many contributing environmental factors to the decline of fish condition.
The loss of marsh is certainly important. However, if the marsh loss were the dominant factor, then one would expect that the fish most strongly dependent on the marsh (speckled trout and shorter length classes of redfish) would be most strongly impacted. We find the opposite. The most strongly impacted fish are the more benthic species and the fish most strongly associated with oyster reef habitat: black drum, gafftop catfish, bull redfish. The shortest length classes of redfish and specks are the least impacted. We expect to post additional data in coming days as the discussion develops. The most convincing evidence of the role of oyster reefs will be if the fish condition rebounds with the oyster stocks.
USGS data showed that prior to 2005, fish condition in Big Lake was above the long term statewide average with mean Kn 1.03 +/- 0.02. The main reason to boycott the S.T.A.R. is because CCA has been pushing fishing restrictions since 2000 when they should have been more focused on habitat issues (oyster reefs, weir management, saltwater intrusion, marsh loss, erosion, etc.)