4.6 Article

Turning reference points inside out: comparing MSY reference points estimated inside and outside the assessment model

期刊

ICES JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE
卷 79, 期 4, 页码 1232-1244

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsac047

关键词

EqSim; fisheries management; maximum sustainable yield; recruitment; SAM; stock assessment

资金

  1. European Maritime and Fisheries Foundation
  2. Ministry of Environment and Food of Denmark [33113-B-20-168]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reference points play a crucial role in fisheries management for inferring stock status and guiding future fishing opportunities. Internal estimation yields more accurate and reliable results compared to external estimation.
Reference points are used in fisheries management to infer stock status and inform future fishing opportunities. They can be estimated externally to the assessment model assuming attributes such as stock size to be known without error, or internally where the uncertainty can be accounted for in the estimation. Little is known about the effect of choosing one approach over another on reference point estimates. We compare maximum sustainable yield (MSY) reference points obtained internally in the assessment model (SAM) with those obtained by external estimation (EqSim) via simulations using 11 stocks with known and unknown stock-recruitment relationships (SRRs). Internal estimation of reference points does better on average than external estimation in terms of bias, variance, and SRR selection. Coverage probability of the reference point confidence intervals is good for the internal approach. Stochasticity considerations via re-sampling in the external approach can lead to bias. Bias in reference points have consequences on future yield, stock development, and status. However, it is difficult to predict them by solely looking at bias because they depend on current stock status, recruitment, and extent of bias, but also bias direction since a harvest control rule might compensate for the bias in the future.

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