7 – The extent and adequacy of monitoring for Australian threatened freshwater fish species^93
Table 7.2.Mean scores and statistical tests comparing medians of adequacy of monitoring of Australian threatened freshwater fish.Letters indicate significantly different categories after correction for type 1 error.ComparisonCategoriesSample sizePeriodicityCoverageManagementlinkageCoordinationData availabilityand reportingDesign qualityFit-for-purposeDemographicparametersLongevityEPBC StatusListed382.42.31.61.91.51.82.11.51.7Not Listed191.61.91.81.70.50.81.60.80.8z test1.670.230.020.432.31*2.35*1.031.451.92EPBC categoriesEndangered152.93 .1a2.22.51.92.22.82.12.5aVulnerable171.91.4b1.31.10.91.21.51.11.2bCritically Endangered52.42.4ab0.82.42.01.81.81.21.0ab(^2) χ
test
1.70
6.77
- 3.98
 5.30
 4.98
 2.79
 3.71
 4.02
 6.34
 - Type of EPBC listing 
 State only
 23
 2.6
 2.3
 1.9
 2.3
 1.6
 1.9
 2.3
 1.6
 1.8
 Multi-jurisdictional
 15
 2.1
 2.3
 1.2
 1.4
 1.3
 1.6
 1.9
 1.4
 1.7
 z test
 0.84
 0.02
 1.19
 0.87
 0.47
 0.66
 0.70
 0.27
 0.20
 State comparisons
 Tasmania
 8
 4.6
 a
 3.9
 a
 3.5
 a
 4.0
 a
 2.5
 3.4
 a
 4.0
 a
 3.3
 a
 2.9
 a
 Queensland
 8
 1.9
 b
 1.3
 b
 1.3
 b
 1.1
 b
 1.3
 1.0
 b
 1.6
 b
 1.0
 b
 1.0
 ab
 Western Australia
 4
 0.8
 b
 0.8
 b
 0.0
 b
 0.8
 b
 0.8
 0.8
 b
 0.5
 b
 0.0
 b
 0.23
 b
 (^2) χ
 test
 7.7 8
 
 - 9.86 
 
 10.97
 
 13.76
 
 - 4.02 
 
- 24
***- 9 4
*11.6 6**7.7 2*Recovery Plan status (EPBC listed)Recovery plan272.92.82.12.41.92.22.62.02.1No recovery plan111.20.90.50.70.50.60.90.50.8z test2.24*2.53*2.6**2.60**2.58*2.84***2.45*2.59*2.26**Statistical level of significance <0.05** Statistical level of significance <0.01*** Statistical level of significance <0.005.