Gladstone Fish Health Investigation 2011 - 2012 - Western Basin ...
Gladstone Fish Health Investigation 2011 - 2012 - Western Basin ... Gladstone Fish Health Investigation 2011 - 2012 - Western Basin ...
Table 5.3c. Regional group means and significance‐difference testing.Trip 1 –Liver form %abnormalLiver %discolo uredParasites% > zeroMesentaryfat (%)Fitzroy R / Bundaberg 0.0 20.6 a 5.0 19.5 aCalliope R 14.3b14.3 0.0 28.6 aUpper & Lower Boyne R 0.0 0.0 b 0.0 2.5 bRodds Bay 10.0 50.0 a 0.0 22.5 aGladstone area (overall) 6.1 16.1 0.0 14.0Trip 2 –Fitzroy R / Bundaberg 9.1 b 13.6 a 0.0 1.1 bCalliope R 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 7.7 bUpper & Lower Boyne R 40.0 a 15.0 a 5.0 0.0 bRodds Bay 0.0 b 0.0 b 0.0 37.5 aGladstone area (overall) 20.0 7.50 2.50 11.3a,b,c Within columns and trips, means for the individual regions which do not have a common superscriptletter are significantly different (P < 0.05).#For the overall ‘Gladstone area’ means, those which are bolded are significantly different from the meanfor the pooled reference sites (Fitzroy R / Bundaberg).6. SEPARATE ANALYSES FOR MUDCRAB DATA6.1 OverviewShell condition (as measured at capture) had 1599 observations of which only 57 (3.6%) were classifiedas abnormal. These were then further classified according to their lesion grades. The sub‐samples (140individual crabs) were submitted to laboratory study for re‐checking the lesion gradings as well asmeasuring overall size (carapace width and weight) and hepatopancreas weight. Again, analyses of thelaboratory sample data were appropriately weighted to accurately reflect the observed damagedproportions in the overall sample.Crab class (defined as small females, large females, undersized males, and retained males) was included inall analyses, as this effect was always significant (P < 0.05). Carapace width and total weight were trialledseparately as a covariate for percentage damage, under the hypothesis of a positive relationship(increasing amounts of damage with increasing size). However, these relationship were nowhere nearsignificant (P > 0.20), and actually fitted as slightly negative, possibly due to ‘crab class’ capturing themajority of any effect here. Hence ‘crab class’ was retained in the final model but size was omitted.6.2 Comparing the laboratory and field assessmentsThe comparison between the lesion grade ratings showed a significant (P < 0.01) degree of association,with the counts listed in Table 6.1. There was agreement in 72% of these cases. Interestingly, the fieldassessment was higher than the laboratory assessment in 23% of these cases, whereas the reverse onlyoccurred in 5% of the crabs.Table 6.1. Highest lesion grade for each crab (Field = field assessment; Lab. = laboratory assessment).Field ‐ 0 1 2 3 4 5Lab. ‐ 0 88 2 7 6 7 01 3 1 2 0 2 12 1 1 2 0 1 13 0 0 0 1 0 04 0 0 1 0 1 25 0 0 0 0 1 5125
6.3 ResultsThere was no significant difference (P = 0.68) between the hepatosomatic index of normal and abnormalcrabs (0.057 ± 0.002 vs. 0.054 ± 0.002). Missing appendages (any vs. none) appeared to be randomoccurrences, with an overall mean rate of 16.9%, and not related to any of the design factors.The key variables analysed were the percentage abnormal (field‐assessed using all 1599 observations; aBinomial proportions model), the distribution of counts according to highest lesion class (a Poisson linearmodel), and hepatosomatic index (Normal model). In these analyses ‘crab category’ was always significant( P < 0.05), justifying its inclusion as a stratifying term, with the means shown in Table 6.2.Table 6.2. Mea n values and standard errors (s.e.) for the crab categories.Hepatosomatic index s.e. Percent abnorm al s.e.Female large 0.059 0.002 3.8 0.8Female small 0.064 0.004 1.8 0.7Male retained 0.043 0.003 7.1 1.7Male undersize 0.056 0.002 2.5 0.7Regarding locations and trips, the only significant (P < 0.01) effect was for the hepatosomatic index, wheretrip 2 (overall, 0.061 ± 0.002) was higher than trip 1 (0.050 ± 0.002). Despite the interaction betweenlocation and trip being non‐significant (P > 0.66) for all variables, it is the relationships amongst thesevalues that are of prime interest, and the two‐way means are presented here for consistency with theresults for the fish species. Table 6.3 lists these means, and the two‐dimensional spatial representation isshown in Figure 6.1. No principal components analysis was needed to summarise these results, as thereare only these two key continuous variates.Table 6.3. Mean values and average standard errors for locations and trips.Hepatosomatic index ‐ Percent abno rmal ‐Trip 1 Trip 2 Trip 1 Trip 2Fitzroy River 0.046 0.060 4.5 1.4Bundaberg 0.050 0.061 3.7 3.1The Narrows 0.055 0.059 3.2 5.2Port 0.057 0.068 8.8 4.4Hamilton Point 0.050 0.061 3.1 3.7Calliope River 0.049 0.063 5.8 2.7Rodds Bay 0.043 0.056 2.3 2.4(average s.e.) 0.004 (average s.e.) 2.0126
- Page 79 and 80: ConclusionsIn 2011, a wide range of
- Page 81 and 82: Mud crabsFisheries Queensland did n
- Page 83 and 84: Owens, L. 1983. Bopyrid isopod Epip
- Page 85 and 86: Candidate speciesThe monitoring pro
- Page 87 and 88: Table 1: Candidate species for each
- Page 89 and 90: Sample processingSample processing
- Page 91 and 92: Herring/grinner/Australian threadfi
- Page 93 and 94: For example: the third specimen, re
- Page 95 and 96: oooGonad - present/absentHepatopanc
- Page 97 and 98: Cloudy eye,swollen,redness orhemorr
- Page 99 and 100: Red pin pointmarks - nogeneral redn
- Page 101 and 102: Lesion photos Description GradeThis
- Page 103 and 104: L4continuedoperculumgrazing;cuts or
- Page 105 and 106: Appendix A-3: Fish health assessmen
- Page 107 and 108: Appendix B - Statistical report: Gl
- Page 109 and 110: analyses, but this was not done for
- Page 111 and 112: was a significant (P < 0.05) locati
- Page 113 and 114: Percentage with fin condition > 015
- Page 115 and 116: Table 3.6b. Effects of locations an
- Page 117 and 118: Table 3.7d. Spleen categories - cou
- Page 119 and 120: 32Bundy2Bundy1UpBoyne1UpBoyne2LwBoy
- Page 121 and 122: Table 3.9c. Regional group means an
- Page 123 and 124: Table 4.2c. Effects of locations an
- Page 125 and 126: 4.5 Summarising by regionsThe means
- Page 127 and 128: Ta ble 5.2a. Effects of locations a
- Page 129: 5.5 Summarising by regionsThe means
- Page 133 and 134: Table 6.5 lists the mean values whe
- Page 135 and 136: Standardized residualsStandardized
- Page 137 and 138: Table 2.3f. Muscle lesions.Lake Fit
- Page 139 and 140: Table 4. 1f. Muscle lesions.Fitzroy
- Page 141 and 142: Table 5.6. Regiona l m eans for the
- Page 143 and 144: Contaminants in Tissue ofFish and C
- Page 145 and 146: Contaminants in Tissue of Fish and
- Page 147 and 148: Contaminants in Tissue of Fish and
- Page 149 and 150: Contaminants in Tissue of Fish and
- Page 151 and 152: Department of Science, Information
- Page 153 and 154: Department of Science, Information
- Page 155 and 156: Department of Science, Information
- Page 157 and 158: Department of Science, Information
- Page 159 and 160: Department of Science, Information
- Page 161 and 162: Department of Science, Information
- Page 163 and 164: Department of Science, Information
- Page 165 and 166: Department of Science, Information
- Page 167 and 168: Department of Science, Information
- Page 169 and 170: Department of Science, Information
- Page 171 and 172: Department of Science, Information
- Page 173 and 174: Department of Science, Information
- Page 175 and 176: Department of Science, Information
- Page 177 and 178: Department of Science, Information
- Page 179 and 180: Department of Science, Information
6.3 ResultsThere was no significant difference (P = 0.68) between the hepatosomatic index of normal and abnormalcrabs (0.057 ± 0.002 vs. 0.054 ± 0.002). Missing appendages (any vs. none) appeared to be randomoccurrences, with an overall mean rate of 16.9%, and not related to any of the design factors.The key variables analysed were the percentage abnormal (field‐assessed using all 1599 observations; aBinomial proportions model), the distribution of counts according to highest lesion class (a Poisson linearmodel), and hepatosomatic index (Normal model). In these analyses ‘crab category’ was always significant( P < 0.05), justifying its inclusion as a stratifying term, with the means shown in Table 6.2.Table 6.2. Mea n values and standard errors (s.e.) for the crab categories.Hepatosomatic index s.e. Percent abnorm al s.e.Female large 0.059 0.002 3.8 0.8Female small 0.064 0.004 1.8 0.7Male retained 0.043 0.003 7.1 1.7Male undersize 0.056 0.002 2.5 0.7Regarding locations and trips, the only significant (P < 0.01) effect was for the hepatosomatic index, wheretrip 2 (overall, 0.061 ± 0.002) was higher than trip 1 (0.050 ± 0.002). Despite the interaction betweenlocation and trip being non‐significant (P > 0.66) for all variables, it is the relationships amongst thesevalues that are of prime interest, and the two‐way means are presented here for consistency with theresults for the fish species. Table 6.3 lists these means, and the two‐dimensional spatial representation isshown in Figure 6.1. No principal components analysis was needed to summarise these results, as thereare only these two key continuous variates.Table 6.3. Mean values and average standard errors for locations and trips.Hepatosomatic index ‐ Percent abno rmal ‐Trip 1 Trip 2 Trip 1 Trip 2Fitzroy River 0.046 0.060 4.5 1.4Bundaberg 0.050 0.061 3.7 3.1The Narrows 0.055 0.059 3.2 5.2Port 0.057 0.068 8.8 4.4Hamilton Point 0.050 0.061 3.1 3.7Calliope River 0.049 0.063 5.8 2.7Rodds Bay 0.043 0.056 2.3 2.4(average s.e.) 0.004 (average s.e.) 2.0126
Change language