Data files pertaining to Recommendations to maintain functioning on the GBR 2018-2019 (NESP TWQ 4.6, UQ)

The majority of data integrated in NESP 4.6 was based on either a) expert elicitation and surveys, or b) literature reviews. Two case studies used data from additional sources: Case study 2: carbonate budget data was calculated for the GBR from AIMS LTMP data between 2014-2018. Case study 5: included experiments of CoTS juvenile feeding preferences between three algal types (biofilm, CCA and Ampiroa), and so data in this spreadsheet is unique. Methods: Elicitation scores and ranks: Main modes expert elicitation and literature review In a two-day workshop that convened our panel of GBR experts, we identified 70 functionally and taxonomically distinct groups of marine species common on the GBR. A methodology to assess functionally important species was developed by our scientific panel during the workshop. Outcomes were used to construct annotated online surveys that operated under three main criteria: (1) Functional importance: a process-based assessment of species’ contributions to ecosystem processes and functions; (2) Vulnerability: an assessment of the sensitivity and exposure of species to current and near-future stressors, and their likely recoverability; and (3) Manageability: an assessment of the probable effectiveness and feasibility of a management intervention in context of biological functioning. Surveys to address these criteria were developed online using the Surveymonkey platform, which were open for several weeks (July–August 2018). Surveys were targeted at our expert panel, but responses remained anonymous. A low-range scoring system (e.g. none/low/high) was employed to reduce ambiguity in responses, as qualitative words and broad scoring ranges are prone to subjectivity and uncertainty. Space for comments and feedback was provided throughout the surveys, which are available as an Appendix of the NESP 4.6 report. A total of 16 survey responses were completed across our taxonomic and functional groups, with equal-weighted averages taken across expert responses. Group averages are simple but can be effective in producing estimates of elicitation. Scores were checked and calibrated against the literature and empirical data (where possible) to reduce subjectivity and bias. Scoring criteria are explicitly outlined for each assessment in the NESP 4.6 report. CS1 data file: Main modes literature review A systematic literature review was conducted to identify the fish predators of mobile benthic invertebrates on the GBR. The literature was searched