Table 7.
Estimated percentage of the test samples of returning adults that is apportioned back to proximate river and region of capture using cBAYES.
| Test Sample ID | Test Sample | Allocation to River of Capture | Assignment to River of Capture | Allocation to Pooled River of Capture | Assignment to Pooled River of Capture | Allocation to Region of Capture | Assignment to Region of Origin |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | Lune (2005-05) |
15.751* (8.101) |
13.725 (0.747, 0.4343-0.999) | 74.391 (13.783) | 88.235 (0.793, 0.440-0.999) | 92.320 (6.200) |
100 |
| T2 | Ribble (2004) |
56.282* (24.379) | 74.000 (0.658, 0.197-0.997) | 66.488* (9.371) | 76.000 (0.759, 0.279-1.000) | 93.389 (5.153) |
100 |
| T3 | Dee (1984-88) |
3.563* (4.820) |
2.041 (0.751, 0.290-0.998) | 45.607* (15.734) | 46.000 (0.668, 0.2682-0.998) | 77.427 (9.189) |
87.76 |
| T4 | Tamar (1987) |
95.070* (3.860) |
100.000 (0.857, 0.475-1.000) | 84.513* (7.008) | 90.000 (0.930, 0.670-1.000) | 96.356 (3.472) |
100 |
| T5 | Mudeford (2006) |
97.601 (2.163) |
100.000 (0.999, 0.991-1.000) | 97.527 (2.172) |
100 (0.999, 0.978-1.000) | 97.802 (2.127) |
100 |
| T6 | Aven+ (2005) |
87.172 (5.885) |
91.892 (0.961, 0.616-1.000) | 86.438 (6.621) |
91.892 (0.956, 0.506-1.000) | 96.347 (3.260) |
100 |
| T7 | Narcea (2006) |
83.287 (5.207) |
87.387 (0.919, 0.502-1.000) | 85.819 (6.294) |
91.892 (0.900, 0.515-1.000) | 99.068 (0.875) |
100 |
| Mean | 34.00 | 56.44 | 85.82 | 91.89 | 93.24 | 98.25 | |
Estimates are given as the sum of apportionment to all samples within a catchment, the apportionment to catchment when all samples from within a catchment are pooled (i.e. the 'pool and allocate' method), and as the sum of apportionment to all samples within a reporting region (SDs of estimates are given in brackets). Individual assignment was also used to estimate the percent of test samples that would assign back to catchment and reporting region of capture (and from those fish successfully assigned back to river of capture the average and range for the probability of individual assignment is given in brackets). The geographical location of each test sample is given in Fig. 1; see Table 1 for full sample details (incl. latitude and longitude).
*Shrink factor exceeded 1.2 for estimates of stock allocation to one or more rivers.
+A sample from the Aven (47°48'6" N, 3°44'7" W) was not included in the baseline, therefore values relate not to river of capture, but to another proximate river in Brittany, NW France, the Scorff.