12.07.2015 Views

Fraser River sockeye salmon: data synthesis and cumulative impacts

Fraser River sockeye salmon: data synthesis and cumulative impacts

Fraser River sockeye salmon: data synthesis and cumulative impacts

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Model: A4bBrood years: 1969-2001A second set of analyses were performed on a modified version of this model set, in which <strong>data</strong>on the abundance of pink <strong>salmon</strong> in the Northeast Pacific <strong>and</strong> from Russia were added. Theanalysis was extended to include pink <strong>salmon</strong> because: 1) the hypothesis that competition withodd-year pink <strong>salmon</strong> is a factor that has potentially contributing to the decline of <strong>Fraser</strong> <strong>River</strong><strong>sockeye</strong> <strong>salmon</strong> productivity was included in the Expert Panel’s Report to the Pacific SalmonCommission (Peterman et al., 2010), though not included among the Cohen commissionTechnical Reports; <strong>and</strong> 2) the <strong>data</strong> were made readily available to us from an early date. Asidentified in Appendix 4-3 Data preparation pink <strong>salmon</strong> are hypothesized to compete with<strong>sockeye</strong> during their forth year (i.e., second ocean year). For the purpose of this analysis theywere lined up with life stage 4b, Return to the <strong>Fraser</strong> <strong>and</strong> included in Model 6. The results forthis analysis were similar to the previous analysis with M10 achieving the lowest AICc, but nowM4 (Inshore Migration) receives strong support as well.Table A4.3-6. A4b c<strong>and</strong>idate models ordered by AICc from best (lowest) to worst (biggest). M.ID=modelidentification, M.AIC=the estimated AIC for the model, num.obs=the total number of observations (i.e.,complete rows in the <strong>data</strong> set), num.par=the total number of fixed effects + r<strong>and</strong>om effects, Correction= thedifference between the AICc (corrected for small sample size compared to number of parameters) <strong>and</strong> theAIC, M.AICC= the AICc for the model, min.AICC = the smallest AICc observed within the model set,delta= the difference between the min.AICC <strong>and</strong> each M.AICC, <strong>and</strong> AICC_wts= the Akaike weight (i.e.,support) for each model.M.ID M.AIC num.obs num.par Correction M.AICC min.AICC delta AICC_wtsM10 1130.72 463 43 9.03 1139.75 1139.75 0 58.75M4 1135.78 463 32 4.91 1140.69 1139.75 0.94 36.66M6 1142.88 463 28 3.74 1146.62 1139.75 6.87 1.89M1 1133.22 463 52 13.44 1146.66 1139.75 6.91 1.85M5 1146.65 463 21 2.10 1148.75 1139.75 9.00 0.65M8 1151.31 463 19 1.72 1153.02 1139.75 13.27 0.08M2 1151.31 463 19 1.72 1153.02 1139.75 13.27 0.08M7 1152.93 463 23 2.51 1155.44 1139.75 15.69 0.02M3 1155.74 463 25 2.97 1158.71 1139.75 18.96 0.0045M9 1156.46 463 26 3.22 1159.68 1139.75 19.93 0.0028241

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!