{"title":"白鲸年龄估计研讨会报告:2011年12月5日至9日,美国北卡罗来纳州博福特","authors":"C. Lockyer, Aleta A Hohn, R. Hobbs, R. Stewart","doi":"10.7557/3.3731","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A workshop convened by C. Lockyer and A. A. Hohn to examine variation among readers in estimating beluga ages was held in Beaufort, North Carolina, US. Terms of Reference for the workshop included the following: 1. Provide a guide as to acceptable levels of accuracy and precision for age reading that will enable ages to be used in population models. 2. Conduct an inter-reader/laboratory comparison for calibration and standardization of age readings from GLG counts among all readers/laboratories. 3. Provide information on validation that will enable GLG counts to be translated to real age. 4. Produce a manual of guidelines for the preparation and reading of GLGs in beluga teeth. Presentations by participants are abstracted here. Then we report on the processes used to compare sections, images, and interpretation, and generate guidelines for best practices in beluga age estimation. A comparative study quantified differences among readers and found that precision of experienced readers was good, higher than reported for other odontocetes. Participants agreed that counting GLGs using well prepared thin sections was preferred because they are simpler to prepare than stained sections and there was more agreement among readers compared to using half sections. Examination of teeth from captive beluga as both untreated sections and stained sections and did not clarify the reading of wild beluga teeth. This Workshop concurred with Workshop 1 (Tampa 26-27 November 2011) that interpreting one GLG as an annual record is irrefutable. Guidelines for best practices were developed.","PeriodicalId":30560,"journal":{"name":"NAMMCO Scientific Publications","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Report of the workshop on age estimation in beluga: Beaufort, North Carolina, US 5-9 December 2011\",\"authors\":\"C. Lockyer, Aleta A Hohn, R. Hobbs, R. Stewart\",\"doi\":\"10.7557/3.3731\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A workshop convened by C. Lockyer and A. A. Hohn to examine variation among readers in estimating beluga ages was held in Beaufort, North Carolina, US. Terms of Reference for the workshop included the following: 1. Provide a guide as to acceptable levels of accuracy and precision for age reading that will enable ages to be used in population models. 2. Conduct an inter-reader/laboratory comparison for calibration and standardization of age readings from GLG counts among all readers/laboratories. 3. Provide information on validation that will enable GLG counts to be translated to real age. 4. Produce a manual of guidelines for the preparation and reading of GLGs in beluga teeth. Presentations by participants are abstracted here. Then we report on the processes used to compare sections, images, and interpretation, and generate guidelines for best practices in beluga age estimation. A comparative study quantified differences among readers and found that precision of experienced readers was good, higher than reported for other odontocetes. Participants agreed that counting GLGs using well prepared thin sections was preferred because they are simpler to prepare than stained sections and there was more agreement among readers compared to using half sections. Examination of teeth from captive beluga as both untreated sections and stained sections and did not clarify the reading of wild beluga teeth. This Workshop concurred with Workshop 1 (Tampa 26-27 November 2011) that interpreting one GLG as an annual record is irrefutable. Guidelines for best practices were developed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30560,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"NAMMCO Scientific Publications\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-02-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"NAMMCO Scientific Publications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7557/3.3731\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NAMMCO Scientific Publications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7557/3.3731","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
摘要
C. Lockyer和A. A. Hohn召集的一个研讨会在美国北卡罗来纳州的博福特举行,目的是研究读者在估计白鲸年龄方面的差异。讲习班的职权范围包括:提供关于年龄读数可接受的准确度和精度水平的指南,以便在人口模型中使用年龄。2. 在所有读者/实验室之间对GLG计数的年龄读数进行校准和标准化的读者/实验室之间的比较。3所示。提供验证信息,使GLG计数能够转换为实际年龄。4所示。为准备和阅读白鲸牙齿的GLGs制作指南手册。与会者的发言摘要在此。然后,我们报告了用于比较剖面、图像和解释的过程,并为白鲸年龄估计的最佳实践生成指导方针。一项比较研究量化了阅读者之间的差异,发现经验丰富的阅读者的精确度较好,高于其他牙齿动物的报道。参与者一致认为,使用精心准备的薄切片计数glg是首选,因为薄切片比染色切片更容易制备,而且与使用半切片相比,读者之间的一致性更高。对圈养白鲸的牙齿进行检查,包括未经处理的部分和染色的部分,并没有澄清野生白鲸牙齿的读数。本次研讨会同意第1次研讨会(2011年11月26日至27日在坦帕举行)的观点,即将一个GLG解释为年度记录是无可辩驳的。制定了最佳实践准则。
Report of the workshop on age estimation in beluga: Beaufort, North Carolina, US 5-9 December 2011
A workshop convened by C. Lockyer and A. A. Hohn to examine variation among readers in estimating beluga ages was held in Beaufort, North Carolina, US. Terms of Reference for the workshop included the following: 1. Provide a guide as to acceptable levels of accuracy and precision for age reading that will enable ages to be used in population models. 2. Conduct an inter-reader/laboratory comparison for calibration and standardization of age readings from GLG counts among all readers/laboratories. 3. Provide information on validation that will enable GLG counts to be translated to real age. 4. Produce a manual of guidelines for the preparation and reading of GLGs in beluga teeth. Presentations by participants are abstracted here. Then we report on the processes used to compare sections, images, and interpretation, and generate guidelines for best practices in beluga age estimation. A comparative study quantified differences among readers and found that precision of experienced readers was good, higher than reported for other odontocetes. Participants agreed that counting GLGs using well prepared thin sections was preferred because they are simpler to prepare than stained sections and there was more agreement among readers compared to using half sections. Examination of teeth from captive beluga as both untreated sections and stained sections and did not clarify the reading of wild beluga teeth. This Workshop concurred with Workshop 1 (Tampa 26-27 November 2011) that interpreting one GLG as an annual record is irrefutable. Guidelines for best practices were developed.