Quote:
Originally Posted by MathGeek
Actually, the USGS study by Jill Jenkins in 2004 compared contaminated and non-contaminated sites in the Calcasieu estuary and yielded statistically significant results with numbers of fish much smaller than our studies.
"Confidence" can be quantified with standard statistical techniques. The Jenkins study yielded a p = 0.0032. Comparing our 2011 data with the long term LA average for expectation yielded the observation that spotted seatrout were smaller than the LA average with p = 0.003 in the Calcasieu estuary, that black drum were smaller than the LA average with p < 0.001, and that red drum were smaller than the LA average with p = 0.012. It is well known and widely accepted that using the relative condition factor can produce statistically significant stock assessments without weighing and measuring thousands of fish, and the practice is common and accepted in fisheries management.
|
Thank you for your words Mathgeek. I'm sorry if it came across wrong...I wasn't intending to doubt any differences in sizes or health, but rather what causes any differences in sizes or health. What were the constituents involved in the "contaminated" areas of Calcasieu?
Having done some research work in this area, my personal opinion is that it's really hard to nail down any true cause/effect "ideas" because of the thousands and thousands and thousands of variables that affect the health of an estuary and its biological population.