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.