4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Demonstration of a spatially explicit, tag-integrated stock assessment model with application to three interconnected stocks of yellowtail flounder off of New England

期刊

ICES JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE
卷 72, 期 1, 页码 164-177

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsu014

关键词

AD model builder; movement; New England groundfish; population dynamics; spatial modelling; stock assessment; tagging; yellowtail flounder

资金

  1. Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Institute
  2. NOAA/Sea Grant Population Dynamics fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ignoring population structure and connectivity in stock assessment models can introduce bias into important management metrics. Tag-integrated assessment models can account for spatially explicit population dynamics by modelling multiple population components, each with unique demographics, and estimating movement among them. A tagging submodel is included to calculate predicted tag recaptures, and observed tagging data are incorporated in the objective function to inform estimates of movement and mortality. We describe the tag-integrated assessment framework and demonstrate its use through an application to three stocks of yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea) off New England. Movement among the three yellowtail flounder stocks has been proposed as a potential source of uncertainty in the closed population assessments of each. A tagging study was conducted during 2003-2006 with over 45 000 tagged fish released in the region, and the tagging data were included in the tag-integrated model. Results indicated that movement among stocks was low, estimates of stock size and fishing mortality were similar to those from conventional stock assessments, and incorporating stock connectivity did not resolve residual patterns. Despite low movement estimates, new interpretations of regional stock dynamics may have important implications for regional fisheries management given the source-sink nature of movement estimates.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据