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 m
onitoring of Australian threatened freshwater fish.
Letters indicate significantly different categories after correction for type 1 error
.
Comparison
Categories
Sample size
Periodicity
Coverage
Management
linkage
Coordination
Data availability
and reporting
Design quality
Fit-for-purpose
Demographic
parameters
Longevity
EPBC Status
Listed
38
2.4
2.3
1.6
1.9
1.5
1.8
2.1
1.5
1.7
Not Listed
19
1.6
1.9
1.8
1.7
0.5
0.8
1.6
0.8
0.8
z test
1.67
0.23
0.02
0.43
2.31
*
2.35
*
1.03
1.45
1.92
EPBC categories
Endangered
15
2.9
3 .1
a
2.2
2.5
1.9
2.2
2.8
2.1
2.5
a
Vulnerable
17
1.9
1.4
b
1.3
1.1
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.1
1.2
b
Critically Endangered
5
2.4
2.4
ab
0.8
2.4
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.2
1.0
ab
(^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 plan
27
2.9
2.8
2.1
2.4
1.9
2.2
2.6
2.0
2.1
No recovery plan
11
1.2
0.9
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.5
0.8
z test
2.24
*
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.