Power of monitoring programmes to detect decline and recovery of rare and vulnerable fish

By David Maxwell, S. Jennings. 2005

170 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Aquatic Science, Global and Planetary Change, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f62d02667f1cc59f1c1b81c048c67928bd3d005e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Aquatic Science

1. N. Dulvy
2. P. Hulme
3. K. Robert Clarke
4. P. Somerfield
5. R. Warwick
6. S. Jennings
7. S. Wilson
8. P. Taberlet

In Global and Planetary Change

1. N. Dulvy
2. S. Jennings
3. J. Reynolds
4. S. Wilson
5. A. Grant
6. N. B. Goodwin
7. J. Pinnegar
8. T. Langlois

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

1. S. Jennings
2. N. Dulvy
3. J. Reynolds
4. Jon E. Swenson
5. P. Somerfield
6. K. Robert Clarke
7. A. Grant
8. J. Pinnegar

Citations in the corpus

• Comparison of threat and exploitation status in North‐East Atlantic marine populations (2005, background): “There are usually few data available for assessing the most threatened marine populations; even when data are available power is too low to detect all except the steepest declines (Dulvy, Sadovy & Reynolds 2003; Maxwell & Jennings 2005 ).”
• The ‘shifting baseline’ phenomenon: a global perspective (2008, background): “A recent paper by Maxwell and Jennings (2005) set out to explore the power of a large-scale annual monitoring programme to detect decline and/or recovery of species that are vulnerable to fishing (elasmobranchs, cod, etc.).”
• Beyond control : wider implications for the management of biological invasions (2006, background): “An alternative approach to improve the power of IAS surveys might be to use composite indicators rather than individual species (Maxwell & Jennings 2005).”
• Observer bias and random variation in vegetation monitoring data (2008, background): “2 and 6). Such information is crucial for the overall trustworthiness of a monitoring scheme, as well as for any study of temporal, or spatial, trends based on its data (Strayer 1999, Maxwell & Jennings 2005, Legg & Nagy 2006).”
• A comparison of visual‐ and stereo‐video based fish community assessment methods in tropical and temperate marine waters of Western Australia (2013, background): “…issue in the development of marine research and monitoring programs is the identification of robust methodologies aimed at detecting spatial and temporal changes in abundance, diversity, and biomass of faunal assemblages (e.g., Maxwell and Jennings 2005; Cheal et al. 2008; Murphy and Jenkins 2010).”
• Estimating population size and trends of the Swedish brown bear Ursus arctos population (2011, background): “The interest among volunteersmust bemaintained, with feedback as one of the most important factors, for obtaining the long data series, 8-10 years, required for trend estimations (Maxwell & Jennings 2005, Harris et al. 2007).”
• Indicators to support an ecosystem approach to fisheries (2005, methodology): “Maxwell and Jennings (2005) calculated the power to detect decline and recovery of bottom dwelling species that are vulnerable to fishing, based on CPUE data.”
• Average functional distinctness as a measure of the composition of assemblages (2008, methodology): “The English groundfish survey is conducted annually in autumn and aims to estimate the abundance, size, and species composition of fish at locations throughout the North Sea (Maxwell and Jennings, 2005).”