Skip to main content
. 2015 May 9;5(11):2193–2202. doi: 10.1002/ece3.1471

Table 2.

Results of the simplified regression models assessing linear and quadratic relationships between removal pressure through angling and population responses (90% quantile fork length (mm); 90% quantile mass (g); total abundance (ind PASE−1); abundance of small-bodied (FLe < 60 mm), medium-bodied (60 mm ≥ FLe < 90 mm), and large-bodied individuals (FL ≥ 90 mm) (ind PASE−1); and biomass (g PASE−1); n = 10). Significant P-values are displayed in bold

Response variables Source of variation df Estimate (SE) F P
Fork length (90% quantile) Removal pressure 8 −0.18 (0.09) 4.69 0.062
Intercept 8 2.08 (0.07)
Mass (90% quantile) Removal pressure 8 −0.70 (0.28) 6.30 0.036
Intercept 8 1.60 (0.24)
Total abundance Removal pressure 8 0.52 (0.32) 2.63 0.143
Intercept 8 −0.12 (0.27)
Small-bodied abundance Removal pressure 8 0.19 (0.25) 0.60 0.460
Intercept 8 0.11 (0.21)
Medium-bodied abundance Removal pressure 7 −9.92 (4.78) 9.14 0.019
Removal pressure2 7 7.63 (2.86) 7.11 0.032
Intercept 7 3.42 (1.72)
Large-bodied abundance Removal pressure 8 −0.26 (0.20) 1.76 0.222
Intercept 8 0.44 (0.17)
Biomass Removal pressure 7 −3.42 (1.13) 0.33 0.583
Removal pressure2 7 2.15 (0.68) 10.05 0.016
Intercept 7 2.21 (0.41)