4.4 Article

Introducing selfisher: open source software for statistical analyses of fishing gear selectivity

期刊

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/cjfas-2021-0099

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)
  2. Ministry of Environment and Food of Denmark [33112-P-15-013, 33112-P-18-051, 33113-I-16-068]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is a need to improve fishing methods to select for certain sizes and species while excluding others. A new tool called selfisher, which is an R package, has been developed to analyze data related to the selectivity of fishing gears. The tool allows for the estimation of fixed and random effects, and includes a bootstrapping procedure. It has been demonstrated through four case studies, showing its potential to model selectivity, teach statistical methods, and improve the repeatability of analyses.
There is a need to improve fishing methods to select for certain sizes and species while excluding others. Experiments are conducted to quantify selectivity of fishing gears and how variables such as gear design (e.g., mesh size, mesh shape), environmental parameters (e.g., light, turbidity, substrate) or biological parameters (e.g., fish condition) alter selectivity; the resulting data need to be analyzed using specialized statistical methods in many cases. Here, we present a new tool for analyzing this type of data: an R package named selfisher. It allows estimating multiple fixed effects (e.g., fish length, total catch weight, environmental variables) and random effects (e.g, haul). A bootstrapping procedure is also provided. We demonstrate its use via four case studies, including (A) covered codend analyses of four gears, (B) a paired gear study with numerous covariates, (C) a catch comparison study of unpaired hauls of gillnets and (D) a catch comparison study of paired hauls using polynomials and splines. This software will make it easier to model selectivity, teach statistical methods, and make analyses more repeatable.

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

4.4
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