Interdecadal change in growth of sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) in the northeast Pacific Ocean

Errors in growth estimates can affect drastically the spawner-perrecruit threshold used to recommend quotas for commercial fish catches. Growth parameters for sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) in Alaska have not been updated for stock assessment purposes for more than 20 years, although aging of sablefish has continued. In this study, length-stratified data (1981–93 data from the annual longline survey conducted cooperatively by the Fisheries Agency of Japan and the Alaska Fisheries Science Center of the National Marine Fisheries Service) were updated and corrected for discovered sampling bias. In addition, more recent, randomly collected samples (1996–2004 data from the annual longline survey conducted by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center) were analyzed and new length-at-age and weight-at-age parameters were estimated. Results were similar between this analysis with length-at-age data from 1981 to 2004 and analysis with updated longline survey data through 2010; therefore, we used our initial results from analysis done with data through 2004. We found that, because of a stratified sampling scheme, growth estimates of sablefish were overestimated with the older data (1981–93), and growth parameters used in the Alaskan sablefish assessment model were, thus, too large. In addition, a comparison of the bias-corrected 1981–93 data and the 1996–2004 data showed that, in more recent years, sablefish grew larger and growth differed among regions. The updated growth information improves the fit of the data to the sablefish stock assessment model with biologically reasonable results. These findings indicate that when the updated growth data (1996–2004) are used in the existing sablefish assessment model, estimates of fishing mortality increase slightly and estimates of female spawning biomass decrease slightly. This study provides evidence of the importance of periodically revisiting biological parameter estimates, especially as data accumulate, because the addition of more recent data often will be more biologically realistic. In addition, it exemplifies the importance of correcting biases from sampling that may contribute to erroneous parameter estimates.