Quote:
Originally Posted by MathGeek
Like any complex ecosystem, there are multiple contributing factors and interpretation is nuanced.
The loss of relative condition in the more benthic feeding fish (black drum, gafftops, bull redfish) is more attributable to the loss of oyster reef habitat. These are the fish experiencing the greatest loss of relative condition factor, with many fish only 75-85% of their healthy body weight.
The loss of relative condition factor among fish more strongly dependent upon the marsh and coupling between the marsh and lake (specks, shorter length classes of redfish, puppy drum) is more attributable to stress and depletion of their food sources. These fish are experiencing smaller, but still statistically significant reductions in relative condition factor, most coming in at 90-97% of their healthy body weight.
So, the bottom line is that oyster reef destruction is having a bigger negative effect on the fishery, but weir operation is having an effect large enough to be detectable and significant.
Saying that the oyster reef destruction is the "main reason" does not contradict weir management as an additional factor.
|
Right on
Preacher Man!!
Preaching to the choir again. I know all these things, but your last post spoke in a manner that suggested you felt the weirs were the main problem, when all other posts you have made in the past week pointed to oyster reefs. Just making sure you would clarify that for all your "constituents".
But again, we are talking about multiple causitive factors, are we not? It cannot just be attributed to weir management, or have we forgetten the large argument over the insufficient data that resulted in the unwarranted drop of the limit on specks? Is it possible that a nearly 50% reduction in the limit on speckled trout could be a big causitive factor in the decline of the fishery? You are, in theory, looking at a nearly 50% increase in that population. Couldn't that put a major strain on the food source for all species, if in fact they are all depended on the same organisms as you suggest?
So how can you attribute an "effect large enough to detect" to the weirs, if in fact multiple factors are causing this relative decline in body condition? Do you have data to back this up? You love data, so prove your point. How can you be so sure that it is in fact the weirs that is causing this relative decline?
By the way, half of my thesis was determining cause and effect relationships with multiple potential causitive factors. I know how this stuff works.