<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:contributor>Daniel A. Isermann</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Ryan P. Koenigs</dc:contributor>
  <dc:creator>Daniel J. Dembkowski</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2019</dc:date>
  <dc:description>&lt;div class="abstract-group"&gt;&lt;div class="article-section__content en main"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Within most resource management agencies, fish ages assigned by multiple readers are used to estimate age-based population metrics and to develop state or regional growth standards under the assumption that among-reader precision and accuracy are high. A cursory evaluation suggested that precision of age estimates among seven individuals who routinely estimate Walleye&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;Sander vitreus&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;age for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources was remarkably low (otolith mean coefficient of variation [CV]&amp;nbsp;=&amp;nbsp;37%; dorsal spine mean CV&amp;nbsp;=&amp;nbsp;35%), which prompted concern and interest in whether among-reader precision could be improved with a minimal level of training. Consequently, we compared among-reader precision and accuracy before and after a 1-d training exercise. We distributed images of sectioned otoliths and sectioned dorsal spines from a random sample of 50 Walleye, along with images of structures from 25 known-age Walleye, to 21 readers grouped into beginner, intermediate, and advanced experience levels based on responses to a pretraining survey. Among-reader precision was substantially higher after training (otolith mean CV&amp;nbsp;=&amp;nbsp;16%; dorsal spine mean CV&amp;nbsp;=&amp;nbsp;15%) than before (otolith mean CV&amp;nbsp;=&amp;nbsp;27%; dorsal spine mean CV&amp;nbsp;=&amp;nbsp;26%). Accuracy of age estimates also improved after training, but greater improvements were observed for otoliths (mean difference between estimated and known ages before training&amp;nbsp;=&amp;nbsp;0.80&amp;nbsp;year; after training&amp;nbsp;=&amp;nbsp;0.15&amp;nbsp;year) than for dorsal spines (mean difference between estimated and known ages before training&amp;nbsp;=&amp;nbsp;0.38&amp;nbsp;year; after training&amp;nbsp;=&amp;nbsp;0.22&amp;nbsp;year). Similar improvements in precision and accuracy were evident for all experience levels. Our results suggest that a simple, low-cost age estimation training can substantially increase precision and accuracy of age estimates among a large group of readers. However, additional training and quality control measures may be required to achieve higher levels of precision and accuracy.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.1002/nafm.10293</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:publisher>American Fisheries Society</dc:publisher>
  <dc:title>Potential for improving among-reader precision and accuracy of Walleye age estimates with minimal training</dc:title>
  <dc:type>article</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>