4.6 Article

Comparison of multiple approaches to calculate time-varying biological reference points in climate-linked population-dynamics models

期刊

ICES JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE
卷 77, 期 3, 页码 930-941

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsz215

关键词

biological reference points; climate; environmental effects; fisheries management; time varying

资金

  1. NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service Sea Grant Population and Ecosystem Dynamics Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fisheries managers use biological reference points (BRPs) as targets or limits on fishing and biomass to maintain productive levels of fish stock biomass. There are multiple ways to calculate BRPs when biological parameters are time varying. Using summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) as a case study, we investigated time-varying approaches in concert with climate-linked population models to understand the impact of environmentally driven variability in natural mortality, recruitment, and size-at-age on two commonly used BRPs [B-0(t) and F-35%(t)]. We used the following two approaches to calculate time-varying BRPs: dynamic-BRP and moving-average-BRP. We quantified the variability and uncertainty of different climate dependencies and estimation approaches, attributed BRP variation to variation in life-history processes, and evaluated how using different approaches impacts estimates of stock status. Results indicate that the dynamic-BRP approach using the climate-linked natural mortality model produced the least variable reference points compared to others calculated. Summer flounder stock status depended on the estimation approach and climate model used. These results emphasize that understanding climate dependencies is important for summer flounder reference points and perhaps other species, and careful consideration is warranted when considering what time-varying approach to use, ideally based upon simulation studies within a proposed set of management procedures.

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