Data Management Plan
GUID: gov.noaa.nmfs.inport:24914 | Published / External
Data Management Plan
DMP Template v2.0.1 (2015-01-01)
Please provide the following information, and submit to the NOAA DM Plan Repository.Reference to Master DM Plan (if applicable)
As stated in Section IV, Requirement 1.3, DM Plans may be hierarchical. If this DM Plan inherits provisions from a higher-level DM Plan already submitted to the Repository, then this more-specific Plan only needs to provide information that differs from what was provided in the Master DM Plan.
1. General Description of Data to be Managed
A reassessment of the diet of the Atlantic sharpnose shark Rhizoprionodon terraenovae was conducted to provide an update on their trophic level (n390). Rhizoprionodon terraenovae primarily consume teleost fish however, loggerhead sea turtles Caretta caretta were also found in the diet for the first reported time. Analysis suggests that calculated trophic level may significantly depend on geographic area, thus adding a new factor to fishery management decisions.
Notes: Only a maximum of 4000 characters will be included.
Notes: Data collection is considered ongoing if a time frame of type "Continuous" exists.
Notes: All time frames from all extent groups are included.
Atlantic Ocean, U.S. South
Notes: All geographic areas from all extent groups are included.
(e.g., digital numeric data, imagery, photographs, video, audio, database, tabular data, etc.)
(e.g., satellite, airplane, unmanned aerial system, radar, weather station, moored buoy, research vessel, autonomous underwater vehicle, animal tagging, manual surveys, enforcement activities, numerical model, etc.)
Platform(s): Commercial Florida Shark Gillnet Fishing Fleet
2. Point of Contact for this Data Management Plan (author or maintainer)
Notes: The name of the Person of the most recent Support Role of type "Metadata Contact" is used. The support role must be in effect.
Notes: The name of the Organization of the most recent Support Role of type "Metadata Contact" is used. This field is required if applicable.
3. Responsible Party for Data Management
Program Managers, or their designee, shall be responsible for assuring the proper management of the data produced by their Program. Please indicate the responsible party below.
Notes: The name of the Person of the most recent Support Role of type "Data Steward" is used. The support role must be in effect.
4. Resources
Programs must identify resources within their own budget for managing the data they produce.
5. Data Lineage and Quality
NOAA has issued Information Quality Guidelines for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information which it disseminates.
(describe or provide URL of description):
Process Steps:
- Rhizoprionodon terraenovae were collected by onboard National Marine Fisheries Service contract fishery observers in the Florida shark drift gillnet fishery from 2001 to 2005 (n390). All R. terraenovae were collected in areas off the east coast of Florida ranging from 27 05 to 28 43 N. A complete description of the observer program and shark processing is detailed in Carlson Bethea (2006). Rhizoprionodonterraenovae were randomly selected from the catch, and fork length (LF) andsex were recorded. Stomachs were removed and immediately frozen or stored on iceprior to transport. At the laboratory, stomachs were stored in a large walk-in freezer(c. -12 C) until dissection. Upon dissection, prey items were identified to the lowestpossible taxonomic level, counted, measured and weighed wet (with a precision of001 g).A cumulative prey curve was created to determine if sample size was sufficient toaccurately describe diet. The order of stomach analysis was randomized 10 times,and the mean number of new prey species found in consecutive stomachs was plottedagainst the number of non-empty stomachs. The existence of an asymptotic relationshipindicates that sample size is adequate to represent overall dietary habits (Cailliet et al.,1986 Ferry Cailliet, 1996). The final 10 values of the cumulative prey curve weresignificantly different from a slope0 (t 4669, P001), and the slope increased at589. While greater sampling could yield an even more comprehensive analysis ofR. terraenovae diet, the slope was only slightly higher than the threshold of 5 (Ferry Calliet, 1996), indicating that the diets were well described overall.Published 2014. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.Journal of Fish Biology 2015, 86, 385391DIET AND TROPHIC ANALYSIS OF R . TERRAENOVAE 387Diet was analysed following Corts (1997) using four standard indices: per cent bynumber (N), per cent by mass (W), per cent frequency of occurrence (O) (Hyslop,1980) and the index of relative importance (IRI Piankas et al., 1971). The IRI wasused to facilitate comparison with previous diet studies and was calculated as IRI O(N W). The IRI was then expressed on a per cent basis (IRI Corts, 1997) by summing all IRI values for every prey item and then dividing each individual IRI valueby the total.To calculate the TL, the stomach contents were pooled into eight major diet categories:cephalopods, chondrichthyans, decapods, teleosts, invertebrates (excludingdecapods and molluscs), molluscs, marine plants and marine reptiles (Corts, 1999).Each prey category was assigned an average trophic level, TLj, based on estimatesaggregated by Corts (1999) in order to compare values. The TL was expressed asTL 1 8Sj1PjTLj, where Pj is the proportion by IRI of each category.The means.d. TL calculated for R. terraenovae was 4201, with the teleost preycategory comprising 9103 IRI, followed by invertebrates (excluding decapods) at261 IRI and decapods at 200 IRI (Table II). While the majority of fishes in thediet was unidentifiable, the increase in TL from Corts (1999) is due to an increase infish consumption (664 v. 910 IRI) over crustaceans (316 v. 26 IRI). Comparisonof the IRI of the four major prey categories between this study, Gelsleichter et al.(1999), Bethea et al. (2006) and Drymon et al. (2012) shows that results reported byDrymon et al. (2012) and Bethea et al. (2006) closely resemble the findings reportedhere, with a very high IRI of teleosts. While the percentages were similar, each study reported unique prey items not found in the other studies, thus demonstrating regional differences.
(describe or provide URL of description):
Findings from this dataset are published in a peer-reviewed journal. This is a static data set that has undergone rigorous QA/QC prior to publication.
6. Data Documentation
The EDMC Data Documentation Procedural Directive requires that NOAA data be well documented, specifies the use of ISO 19115 and related standards for documentation of new data, and provides links to resources and tools for metadata creation and validation.
(describe or provide URL of description):
7. Data Access
NAO 212-15 states that access to environmental data may only be restricted when distribution is explicitly limited by law, regulation, policy (such as those applicable to personally identifiable information or protected critical infrastructure information or proprietary trade information) or by security requirements. The EDMC Data Access Procedural Directive contains specific guidance, recommends the use of open-standard, interoperable, non-proprietary web services, provides information about resources and tools to enable data access, and includes a Waiver to be submitted to justify any approach other than full, unrestricted public access.
NOAA and NCEI cannot provide any warranty as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of furnished data. Users assume responsibility to determine the usability of these data. The user is responsible for the results of any application of this data for other than its intended purpose.
Notes: The name of the Organization of the most recent Support Role of type "Distributor" is used. The support role must be in effect. This information is not required if an approved access waiver exists for this data.
Notes: This field is required if a Distributor has not been specified.
Notes: All URLs listed in the Distribution Info section will be included. This field is required if applicable.
Access via specified url
N/A
Notes: This field is required if applicable.
8. Data Preservation and Protection
The NOAA Procedure for Scientific Records Appraisal and Archive Approval describes how to identify, appraise and decide what scientific records are to be preserved in a NOAA archive.
(Specify NCEI-MD, NCEI-CO, NCEI-NC, NCEI-MS, World Data Center (WDC) facility, Other, To Be Determined, Unable to Archive, or No Archiving Intended)
Notes: This field is required if archive location is World Data Center or Other.
Notes: This field is required if archive location is To Be Determined, Unable to Archive, or No Archiving Intended.
NCEI Archive
Notes: Physical Location Organization, City and State are required, or a Location Description is required.
Discuss data back-up, disaster recovery/contingency planning, and off-site data storage relevant to the data collection
N/A
9. Additional Line Office or Staff Office Questions
Line and Staff Offices may extend this template by inserting additional questions in this section.