ArticleEvolutionary applications2021
A three-pronged approach that leans on Indigenous knowledge for northern fish monitoring and conservation.
Article in Evolutionary applications, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A three-pronged approach that leans on Indigenous knowledge for northern fish monitoring and conservation.Evolutionary applications · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Investigating whether changes within fish populations may result from harvesting requires a comprehensive approach, especially in more data-sparse northern regions. Our study took a three-pronged approach to investigate walleye population change by combining Indigenous knowledge (IK), phenotypic traits, and genomics. We thank Larson et al. (2020) for their critiques of our study; certainly, there are aspects of their critique that are warranted and merit further investigation. However, we argue that their critique is over-stated and misleading, primarily given that (a) one of three prongs of our research, IK, was dismissed in their assessment of our study's conclusions; (b) our Bayesian size-at-age modeling should help to mitigate sample size issues; (c) their re-analysis of our size-at-age data does not actually refute our results; (d) genomic changes that we observed are nascent; (e) the data file that Larson et al. (2020) used for their genomic re-analysis was not correct; and (f) criteria that Larson et al. (2020) use for their genomic re-analysis were not properly justified.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.