[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-191607-105":53,"doc-detail-191607-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":119,"head_meta":121,"extra_data":123,"updated_unix":125},105,"en","india-bhathal-fisheries-research-2008","India Bhathal Fisheries Research 2008","","Research on fisheries in India focused on functional groups of marine organisms and their mean trophic levels (TL). The document reports TL ranges for diverse taxa such as sharks and skates, eels, clupeids, perches, jacks, pomfrets, tunas, billfishes, and crustaceans, as well as TL decline patterns across multiple Indian geographical entities. Regression outcomes include start years, presence or absence of clear trends, TL decline metrics for all shelf species and for species with TL greater than 3.25, and corresponding r2 and correlation coefficients.",{"@graph":63,"@context":118},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":51,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/general/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/india-bhathal-fisheries-research-2008/191607/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/india-bhathal-fisheries-research-2008/191607.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"\tWilliam","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-27","2026-09-03",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":79},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110,114],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"Which trophic level (TL) ranges are reported for major marine functional groups?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"The document lists TL values and ranges for groups including elasmobranchs, clupeids, perches, jacks and relatives, pomfrets, seer fishes, and tunas, along with crustaceans, molluscs, and cephalopods.","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"How is TL decline evaluated across regions?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"For each geographical entity, the document provides the regression start year, whether there is a clear trend, TL decline for all shelf species, TL decline for species with TL > 3.25, along with r2 and correlation coefficient (r).",{"name":115,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What does the analysis distinguish regarding shelf species with higher trophic levels?",{"text":117,"@type":109},"It separates TL decline estimates for all shelf species versus only species with trophic level greater than 3.25, allowing comparison of how stronger predator-like groups change relative to the broader community.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":120,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":122,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":124,"site_id":56},191607,1788409657,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":127},{"doc_id":124,"user_id":128,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":9,"category_id":50,"category_name":51,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":79,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":135,"language":136,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":125,"read_time":76},5909887254083,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","| Functional groups | Sub-groups | TL |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Elasmobranchs | Sharks, skates, skates | 3.7–4.2 |\n| Eels |  | 4.1 |\n| Catfishes |  | 3.9 |\n| Clupeids | Wolf herring, oil sardine, other sardines, hilsa shad, other shads, anchovies\u003Cbr>(Anchoviella, Thrissocles), other clupeids | 2.0–4.5 |\n| Bombay duck |  | 4.3 |\n| Lizard fishes |  | 4.4 |\n| Half beaks and full beaks |  | 3.4 |\n| Flying fishes |  | 3.8 |\n| Perches | Rock cods, snappers, pig face breams, threadfin breams, other perches | 3.4–4.1 |\n| Goatfishes |  | 3.5 |\n| Threadfins |  | 4.1 |\n| Croakers |  | 4 |\n| Ribbon fishes |  | 4.3 |\n| Jacks and their relatives | Horse mackerel, Scads, leather-jackets (Trachynotus), other carangids (Coryphaena, Elacate) | 3.6–4.5 |\n| Silverbellies | Leiognathus, Gazza | 2.9–3.7 |\n| Big jawed jumper |  | 4.0 |\n| Pomfrets | Black pomfret, silver pomfret, Chinese pomfret | 3.0 |\n| Mackerel | Indian mackerel, other mackerels | 3.1 |\n| Seer fishes | S. commersoni, S. guttatus, S. lineolatus, Acanthocybium spp. | 4.2–4.5 |\n| Tunas | [E. af](E. af)finis, Auxis spp., K. pelamis, T. tonggol, other tunnies | 4.1–4.5 |\n| Bill fishes |  | 4.5 |\n| Barracudas |  | 4.5 |\n| Mullets |  | 2.1 |\n| Unicorn cod |  | 3.3 |\n| Flatfishes | Halibut, flounders, soles |  |\n| Crustaceans | Penaeid prawns, non-penaeid prawns, crabs, lobsters, stomatopods | 2.7–3.1 |\n| Molluscs |  | 2.0 |\n| Cephalopods |  | 3.6 |\n\n\n| Geographical entity |  | Start of regression | TL decline (all shelf spp.) | TL decline (spp w/TL > 3.25) | r2 | Corr. (r) |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| India |  | 1964 | No clear trend | 0.058 | 0.858 | −0.926 |\n| A | Gujarat | 1961 | 0.120 | 0.075 | 0.840 | −0.917 |\n| B | Daman and Diu | 1960 | No clear trend | 0.043 | 0.432 | −0.657 |\n| C | Goa | 1973 | 0.024 | 0.091 | 0.643 | −0.801 |\n| D | Maharashtra | 1955 | No clear trend | 0.044 | 0.629 | −0.793 |\n| E | Karnataka | 1962 | No clear trend | 0.085 | 0.821 | −0.905 |\n| F | Kerala | 1964 | No clear trend | 0.080 | 0.555 | −0.744 |\n| G | Lakshadweep | 1965 | 0.055 | 0.055 | 0.707 | −0.841 |\n| L | Tamil Nadu | 1956 | 0.128 | 0.055 | 0.818 | −0.904 |\n| K | Pondicherry | 1955 | 0.123 | 0.024 | 0.194 | −0.441 |\n| J | Andhra Pradesh | 1968 | 0.036 | 0.028 | 0.333 | −0.576 |\n| I | Orissa | 1967 | No clear trend | 0.032 | 0.301 | −0.548 |\n| H | West Bengal | 1967 | 0.031 | 0.039 | 0.338 | −0.581 |\n| M | Andaman and Nicobar Islands | 1950 | 0.076 | 0.011 | 0.135 | −0.367 |","cbCailORmVot2IGh","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCailORmVot2IGh","pdf",893290,9,"English","# Functional groups\n## Fish and invertebrate TL ranges\n# Geographical regression results\n## TL decline across Indian regions","[{\"question\":\"Which trophic level (TL) ranges are reported for major marine functional groups?\",\"answer\":\"The document lists TL values and ranges for groups including elasmobranchs, clupeids, perches, jacks and relatives, pomfrets, seer fishes, and tunas, along with crustaceans, molluscs, and cephalopods.\"},{\"question\":\"How is TL decline evaluated across regions?\",\"answer\":\"For each geographical entity, the document provides the regression start year, whether there is a clear trend, TL decline for all shelf species, TL decline for species with TL \\u003e 3.25, along with r2 and correlation coefficient (r).\"},{\"question\":\"What does the analysis distinguish regarding shelf species with higher trophic levels?\",\"answer\":\"It separates TL decline estimates for all shelf species versus only species with trophic level greater than 3.25, allowing comparison of how stronger predator-like groups change relative to the broader community.\"}]","India Bhathal Fisheries Research 2008 | PDF"]