A meta-analytic approach to quantifying scientific uncertainty in stock assessments

Quantifying scientific uncertainty when setting total allowable catch limits for fish stocks is a major challenge, but it is a requirement in the United States since changes to national fisheries legislation. Multiple sources of error are readily identifiable, including estimation error, model specification error, forecast error, and errors associated with the definition and estimation of reference points. Our focus here, however, is to quantify the influence of estimation error and model specification error on assessment outcomes. These are fundamental sources of uncertainty in developing scientific advice concerning appropriate catch levels and although a study of these two factors may not be inclusive, it is feasible with available information. For data-rich stock assessments conducted on the U.S. west coast we report approximate coefficients of variation in terminal biomass estimates from assessments based on inversion of the assessment of the model’s Hessian matrix (i.e., the asymptotic standard error). To summarize variation “among” stock assessments, as a proxy for model specification error, we characterize variation among multiple historical assessments of the same stock. Results indicate that for 17 groundfish and coastal pelagic species, the mean coefficient of variation of terminal biomass is 18%. In contrast, the coefficient of variation ascribable to model specification error (i.e., pooled among-assessment variation) is 37%. We show that if a precautionary probability of overfishing equal to 0.40 is adopted by managers, and only model specification error is considered, a 9% reduction in the overfishing catch level is indicated.

Use of SARIMA models to assess data-poor fisheries: a case study with a sciaenid fishery off Portugal

Research on assessment and monitoring methods has primarily focused on fisheries with long multivariate data sets. Less research exists on methods applicable to data-poor fisheries with univariate data sets with a small sample size. In this study, we examine the capabilities of seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average (SARIMA) models to fit, forecast, and monitor the landings of such data-poor fisheries. We use a European fishery on meagre (Sciaenidae: Argyrosomus regius), where only a short time series of landings was available to model (n=60 months), as our case-study. We show that despite the limited sample size, a SARIMA model could be found that adequately fitted and forecasted the time series of meagre landings (12-month forecasts; mean error: 3.5 tons (t); annual absolute percentage error: 15.4%). We derive model-based prediction intervals and show how they can be used to detect problematic situations in the fishery. Our results indicate that over the course of one year the meagre landings remained within the prediction limits of the model and therefore indicated no need for urgent management intervention. We discuss the information that SARIMA model structure conveys on the meagre lifecycle and fishery, the methodological requirements of SARIMA forecasting of data-poor fisheries landings, and the capabilities SARIMA models present within current efforts to monitor the world’s data-poorest resources.

Measurements of resistance and reactance in fish with the use of bioelectrical impedance analysis: sources of error

New technologies can be riddled with unforeseen sources of error, jeopardizing the validity and application of their advancement. Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is a new technology in fisheries research that is capable of estimating proximate composition, condition, and energy content in fish quickly, cheaply, and (after calibration) without the need to sacrifice fish. Before BIA can be widely accepted in fisheries science, it is necessary to identify sources of error and determine a means to minimize potential errors with this analysis. We conducted controlled laboratory experiments to identify sources of errors within BIA measurements. We concluded that electrode needle location, procedure deviations, user experience, time after death, and temperature can affect resistance and reactance measurements. Sensitivity analyses showed that errors in predictive estimates of composition can be large (>50%) when these errors are experienced. Adherence to a strict protocol can help avoid these sources of error and provide BIA estimates that are both accurate and precise in a field or laboratory setting.

The measurement error in marine survey catches: the bottom trawl case

We have formulated a model for analyzing the measurement error in marine survey abundance estimates by using data from parallel surveys (trawl haul or acoustic measurement). The measurement error is defined as the component of the variability that cannot be explained by covariates such as temperature, depth, bottom type, etc. The method presented is general, but we concentrate on bottom trawl catches of cod (Gadus morhua). Catches of cod from 10 parallel trawling experiments in the Barents Sea with a total of 130 paired hauls were used to estimate the measurement error in trawl hauls. Based on the experimental data, the measurement error is fairly constant in size on the logarithmic scale and is independent of location, time, and fish density. Compared with the total variability of the winter and autumn surveys in the Barents Sea, the measurement error is small (approximately 2–5%, on the log scale, in terms of variance of catch per towed distance). Thus, the cod catch rate is a fairly precise measure of fish density at a given site at a given time.