4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Can estimates of genetic effective population size contribute to fisheries stock assessments?

Journal

JOURNAL OF FISH BIOLOGY
Volume 89, Issue 6, Pages 2505-2518

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jfb.13129

Keywords

absolute abundance; fishery-independent data; linkage disequilibrium; N-e; sustainable exploitation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sustainable exploitation of fisheries populations is challenging to achieve when the size of the population prior to exploitation and the actual numbers removed over time and across fishing zones are not clearly known. Quantitative fisheries' modeling is able to address this problem, but accurate and reliable model outcomes depend on high quality input data. Much of this information is obtained through the operation of the fishery under consideration, but while this seems appropriate, biases may occur. For example, poorly quantified changes in fishing methods that increase catch rates can erroneously suggest that the overall population size is increasing. Hence, the incorporation of estimates of abundance derived from independent data sources is preferable. We review and evaluate a fisheries-independent method of indexing population size; inferring adult abundance from estimates of the genetic effective size of a population (N-e). Recent studies of elasmobranch species have shown correspondence between N-e and ecologically determined estimates of the population size (N). Simulation studies have flagged the possibility that the range of N-e/N ratios across species may be more restricted than previously thought, and also show that declines in N-e track declines in the abundance of model fisheries species. These key developments bring this new technology closer to implementation in fisheries science, particularly for data-poor fisheries or species of conservation interest. (C) 2016 The Fisheries Society of the British Isles

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available