4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Assessing billfish stocks: A review of current methods and some future directions

期刊

FISHERIES RESEARCH
卷 166, 期 -, 页码 103-118

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fishres.2014.07.016

关键词

Biomass dynamics models; Marlin; Sailfish; Swordfish; Statistical catch-at-age analysis; Stock synthesis

资金

  1. NOAA [NA100AR4320148]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Billfishes, excluding swordfish, are typically not the primary targets of large-scale fisheries, which has historically led to a lack of targeted monitoring efforts. The lack of data on age-composition, missing catch data and species identification problems for some species, lack of fishery-independent index data, as well as environmental influences on population dynamics is compounded by the international nature of how fisheries for billfishes are assessed and managed. This paper overviews the most recent assessments conducted for 20 stocks of billfishes in the Indian, Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and how management advice is provided for these stocks. Assessments for billfishes are conducted using a wide range of techniques, ranging from catch-only methods which infer stock status based primarily on the prior distributions assumed for the parameters of a population dynamics model, to statistical catch-at-age analyses that integrate a wide range of data types. Key recommendations arising from this review include that age-structured stock assessments should be based on models that allow sex-structure to be represented, a full accounting for uncertainty requires adequately representing uncertainty regarding growth rates, natural mortality, the form and parameters of the stock recruitment relationship, and how data are weighted, and that if biomass dynamics models are to be applied, they should be based on Bayesian state-space formulations rather than observation or process error estimators because such formulations are better able to represent uncertainty. Crown Copyright (C) 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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