Fraser River sockeye salmon: data synthesis and cumulative impacts

Appendix D: Table of likelihood/ hypothesesWorkshop participants were asked to examine the PSC Report Probability of, or relativelikelihood of, alternative hypotheses (i.e. Table E-1, Peterman et al. 2010) and compare theresults to the workshop findings. Participants judged the relative likelihood that a givenhypothesis contributed to both the poor returns in 2009 and the long-term decline in productivityof Fraser River sockeye salmon. Ratings are shown for both the PSC Panel (“PSC”, grey -contributing factor; black - major factor) and the participants at the Cohen Commissionworkshop (“workshop”, orange – contributing; red - major). Participants used qualitative terms(very likely, likely, possible, unlikely, or very unlikely) to rate the hypotheses. Strength ofevidence was only recorded at the workshop where participants felt there was a need to qualifytheir judgments.CohenCommissionProject1 – Diseases &Parasites2 –Contaminants3 – FreshwaterFactors4 – MarineEcology (insideGeorgia Strait)4 – MarineEcology(outside GeorgiaStrait) 58 – Predators 1(Mammals)8 – Predators 2(Fish & Birds)TimePeriodStrengthofevidenceSource ofRatingsRelative likelihood that each hypothesis contributed significantlyto observed changes in productivityVeryVeryLikely Possible UnlikelyLikelyUnlikelyoverall Fair PSCWorkshop2009 Fair PSCWorkshopoverall Poor PSCGood Workshop2009 Poor PSCGood Workshopoverall Fair PSCND 4 Workshop2009 Fair PSCND Workshopoverall Fair PSCWorkshop2009 Good PSCWorkshopoverall Fair PSCWorkshop2009 Fair PSCGood Workshopoverall Fair PSCWorkshop2009 Fair PSCWorkshopoverall PSC not evaluated by PSCfew data Workshop2009 PSC not evaluated by PSCfew data Workshop9 – Climate overall Good PSC4 ND = no data presented at workshop; only qualitative judgments5 evaluation of this factor at the workshop focused on Queen Charlotte Sound