ArticlePloS one2024
Exploring the effects of methodological choices on the estimation and biological interpretation of life history parameters for harbour porpoises in Norway and beyond.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates effects of subtle methodological choices on the estimation and biological interpretation of age, growth and reproductive parameters for harbour porpoises. The core analyses are based on a focal Norwegian data set built on samples from 134 harbour porpoises caught incidentally in gillnet fisheries along the Norwegian coast during autumn 2016 and spring 2017. Two contrasting practices for interpretation of seasonal and ontogenetic characteristics of tooth growth layer formation resulted in significant age differences among spring samples of young porpoises and for older animals across seasons. In turn, these differences affected estimates of age at maturity and asymptotic lengths, respectively. We also found significant differences in male age at maturity between two well-documented maturity criteria and between mathematical estimators of age at maturity for both sexes. Two different criteria for corpus albicans classification furthermore resulted in different patterns of ovarian corpora accumulation, which may affect some estimates of fecundity rates and contaminant loads. Both corpora accumulation patterns were also found in reanalysed data from German and Greenlandic porpoises. Based on tabulated overviews of methodological choices made in previous harbour porpoise studies, we argue that several of the issues mentioned above have wider relevance and may affect the validity of meta-analyses as a tool for estimating harbour porpoise sensitivity to extrinsic pressures. Differences in cause of death (COD) composition between data sets can have a similar effect. We demonstrate this in a meta-analysis of published harbour porpoise pregnancy rates, showing significantly higher values for trauma-killed samples compared to samples comprising mixed COD categories. COD also affected the estimated impacts of three previously analysed extrinsic predictors as well as an added predictor for vessel noise levels. We discuss the potential contributions of methodological, biological and anthropogenic factors in shaping observed regional differences in estimates of harbour porpoise life history parameters.
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.