CIE Peer Review

Subject Status Review of Bumphead Parrotfish (Bolbometopon muricatum)
Document Reviewed (final version; see below)
Kobayashi, D., A. Friedlander, C. Grimes, R. Nichols, B. Zgliczynski
2011. Bumphead Parrotfish (Bolbometopon muricatum) Status Review. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-PIFSC-26, 101 p. + Appendices.
Download (6.9 MB PDF)
Date September 2011

A Status Review of the bumphead parrotfish (Bolbometopon muricatum) was conducted by a Biological Review Team (BRT) of expert federal scientists assembled by the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center pursuant to a petition for NMFS to list the species as threatened or endangered and designate critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act. The draft Report of the review team was the subject of the peer review. The draft report included a comprehensive presentation and evaluation of information on distribution, biology, abundance trends, threats and risks, information on population structure and genetics, and danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

Before publishing the final Status Review report (posted above), the NMFS solicited peer reviews of the draft Status Review document through the Center for Independent Experts (CIE). The CIE selected three experts external NOAA, asking each reviewer to adhere to the following terms of reference:

Evaluate the adequacy, appropriateness and application of data used in the Status Review document.

  1. In general, does the Status Review include and cite the best scientific and commercial information available on the species, its biology, stock structure, habitats, threats, and risks of extinction?
  2. Are methods used valid and appropriate?
  3. Are the scientific conclusions factually supported, sound, and logical?
  4. Where available, are opposing scientific studies or theories acknowledged and discussed?
  5. Are uncertainties assessed and clearly stated?

Evaluate the findings made in the Status Review.

  1. Are the results of the Extinction Risk Analysis supported by the information presented?

After studying the draft Status Review document, each reviewer provided comments and editorial suggestions to the BRT through the CIE. Reports of the independent peer reviewers are posted below. Comments and editorial suggestions of reviewers, including those provided in marked-up copies of the draft Status Review, were carefully considered by the BRT and the draft Status Review was revised accordingly. The final version of the Status Review document (posted above) takes into consideration responses of the peer reviewers as well as comments on the draft document by NMFS staff.

— Samuel G. Pooley, Director

Reviewer Comments

Dr. Nick Graham
James Cook University
Comments (0.1 MB PDF)

Dr. Robert Warner
University of California
Santa Barbara, CA, USA
Comments (0.1 MB PDF)

Dr. Nick Dulvy
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, BC, Canada
Comments (0.1 MB PDF)