1 / 63

Stock assessment of yellowfin tuna in the Indian Ocean using MULTIFAN-CL (IOTC-2011-WPTT13-36).

Stock assessment of yellowfin tuna in the Indian Ocean using MULTIFAN-CL (IOTC-2011-WPTT13-36). Adam Langley, Miguel Herrera and Julien Million. Introduction. Preliminary assessment using MFCL in 2008; refined during WPTT 10.

asabi
Télécharger la présentation

Stock assessment of yellowfin tuna in the Indian Ocean using MULTIFAN-CL (IOTC-2011-WPTT13-36).

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Stock assessment of yellowfin tuna in the Indian Ocean using MULTIFAN-CL (IOTC-2011-WPTT13-36). Adam Langley, Miguel Herrera and Julien Million

  2. Introduction • Preliminary assessment using MFCL in 2008; refined during WPTT 10. • Assessment updated and revised during WPTT-11 and WPTT-12 (2009 & 2010). • Starting point for WPTT-13 assessment.

  3. MFCL model dynamics • Regional structure. Spatially disaggregated, age structure population model. • Model fitting to catch, size data (length freq), and tag release/recovery data. • Fishery data (catch, effort, lf) by time step. • Movement between regions (can be age specific). • Tag dynamic similar to overall population dynamics. Reporting rates, mixing phase.

  4. WPTT-12 assessment • Commence model 1972. • Fixed growth (Fonteneau 2008). • Longline selectivity cubic spline. • Down-wt LF data (Sample size 10). • PS 2 fisheries: three time blocks. Different selectivity. • Low age-specific natural mortality (M). • SSR steepness options 0.60, 0.70, 0.80, 0.90. • Additional spatial aggregated model (one-region).

  5. WPTT-13 revisions • Additional year of data – all fisheries. • LL CPUE indices: JP updated (CPUE2010) and alternative indices with lat*long (R2-5); revised TW indices (R1). • Revised catch data. Major revision to TR 5 and OT 5 catch history. • Segregated distant-water (LL 5) and fresh tuna longline fleets (LF 5) in R5. 25 fisheries. • Range of steepness values (consistent with BET) 0.55,0.65,0.75,0.85, 0.95. • Single region, region 2 models.

  6. Spatial stratification Relatively homogeneous areas wrt species population dynamics (size, fishing mortality, fishery distribution). Consistent with spatial distribution of tag releases.

  7. Catch distribution Most of catch within regions 1, 2 and 5. PS and GN dominate total catch. Purse-seine catch largely restricted to region 2. Gillnet R1 and R5. Handline R1. LL fresh R5. High catches 2004/2005. PS free schools sets. Log sets dominate last few yrs. 2010 catch 294,000 t.

  8. Model structure • 5 regions. 28 age classes. 1972-2010. • LL CPUE index (1972 onwards) – shared (constant) catchability and selectivity among regions (LL 1-5). • Age-specific natural mortality (fixed). • Growth (fixed). • Common biol pars for male and female. • Movement dynamics (estimated). • Recruitment: overall regional proportion, temporal trend, regional deviates. • SRR steepness fixed (0.55,0.65, 0.75, 0.85,0.95).

  9. Fishery configuration

  10. Key inputs – biol. parameters M-at-age fixed. Growth parameters. Maturity at age. Fonteneau & Hallier (IOTC-2010-WPTT-27).

  11. Growth Fonteneau 2008 Variation of length at age.

  12. Key inputs – catch data Catch data complete to 2010. Expressed in tonnage for all fisheries, except LL. Recent drop in LL2 catch. Drop in LL 4 and 5 catches. High PS FS 2 catch in 2004/05. Increasing TR, GI, HD catches.

  13. Key inputs – effort data CPUE plotted for each fishery. Effort data not available for several fisheries (“missing”). Standardised CPUE indices for JP LL fleet (in regions 2-5). TW CPUE index in region 1. PS effort not separated by set type. Effort data for many fisheries considered unreliable.

  14. Key inputs – LL CPUE GLM standardised CPUE index of JP and TW LL data. JP indices incl. lat*long. Regional scaling (0.21, 1.00, 0.55, 0.15, and 0.85). Standardised effort series (effort = catch/CPUE). Sharp decline in LL2 from 2005. Steady decline in LL5. LL IO for single region model.

  15. Key inputs – size data Length frequency data from most of the key fisheries. No/limited data for some minor fisheries. Effective sample size 10 (n = 1000/100.

  16. Key inputs – size data LL2 length data, recent period. Contraction of the LF distribution. Uncertainty in the comparability of data over entire time period.

  17. Longline length frequency data, region 2 and region 5.

  18. Longline length frequency data.

  19. Key inputs – tag data Tag release/recoveries IO RT. 54,393 releases, 9961 recoveries (corrected). Not including recent small scale tag releases. Reporting rate information for PS fishery from tag seeding. Used to correct recoveries. Overall RR for PS fishery fixed at 0.81 (retention 90%, PS catch sampled = Seychelles landings 90%). PS recoveries aggregated within region.

  20. Key inputs – tag data Tag recoveries by release/recovery region. Mostly within region 2. Some movement of tags 1 > 2, 2 > 1, 2 > 5 (3 > 2, 2 > 3)

  21. Model runs • Approximate final 2010 model (WPTT 12) (CPUE2010). • New JP CPUE indices (CPUElatlong) (BASE). • New LL R5 structure and new JP CPUE indices (newLL). • Single region model (IOregion). • Region 2 model (region2). • 5 values of steepness. • Sensitivity. Tag mixing period (1-4 Q).

  22. Model diagnostics - catch Good fit to the catch data for all fisheries. High catch penalty.

  23. Model diagnostics – CPUE indices Effort deviates. Principal LL fisheries – no strong trend in edevs with the exception of LL1. High penalty assoc with LL edevs (cv 10%).

  24. Model diagnostics – CPUE indices Principal LL fisheries. Good fit to CPUE data. Strong recent decline in LL 2 CPUE.

  25. Model diagnostics – size data Selectivity functions (cubic spline ). Shared between LL fisheries. Shared between fisheries where size data not available. PS 2 – temporal split esp. LS.

  26. Model diagnostics – length data Overall fit to the length data (aggregated over time). Related to fixed-growth assumption?

  27. Model diagnostics – length data Overall fit to the length data (aggregated over time).

  28. Model diagnostics – length data Some lack of fit for some fishery/periods: HD 1 recent Maldives data. LL 2 and 5. Smaller fish in 1990s.

  29. Model diagnostics – length data Sampling error in some fisheries e.g. PS FS 3, TR 5.

  30. Model diagnostics – tag data Fixed tag reporting rate for PS fishery. PS grouped for tag returns. All other fisheries have uninformative priors on RR. LL in R2 reporting rate about 15%.

  31. Model diagnostics – tag data Recoveries by period at liberty. First 4 quarters not in LL (mixing period). Reflects size of fish tagged, fishery selectivity, fishery RR.

  32. Model diagnostics – tag data Tag recoveries by fishery and by quarter. Good fit to the PS tag recoveries, except for a couple of quarters. Reasonable fit to some of the other main fisheries recovering tags (except OT2).

  33. Improved fit with longer mixing rate (Q4). Figure includes mixing period.

  34. PS 2 fishery recoveries by age class. Figure excludes mixing period.

  35. Tag fits to diffusion rates (and tag recovery rates).

  36. Model pars/outputs – movement Max. 12.8% per quarter, 4 > 5 in Q2.

  37. Model pars/outputs – catchability Constant LL catchability. Dependent on effort data series. Increasing PS q ?? Free temporal q for fisheries with missing effort.

  38. Model pars/outputs – recruitment R2 and R5 account for most of the recruitment. Temporal trends in recruitment (initial and long-term). Low recruitment in R2 during 2000s. Recent recruitment 80% of long-term average.

  39. Model pars/outputs – recruitment Comparison of runs.

  40. Model pars/outputs – biomass Total and adult biomass. R2 and R5 (and 3) account for most of the biomass.

  41. Model pars/outputs – biomass Comparison of runs.

  42. Model pars/outputs – biomass Comparison of runs REGION2.

  43. Comparison with 2010 Differences in LL CPUE data set, LL5 fishery configuration and catch history for some key fisheries. Reconciliation of differences.

  44. Comparison with 2010 Run1. 2010 tag, LL CPUE 2010 approach, old LL 5 fishery, new catch/effort. Run10 2010 fishery catch/effort, 2010 year. Run12 Ex 2010 year

  45. Model pars/outputs – fishing mortality F for the “current” (2006-2009) period. F highest in R1, R2 and R5.

  46. Model pars/outputs – fishery impact Total biomass

  47. Model pars/outputs – fishery impact Main fishery impact occurring within R1, 2 and 5. Fishery impact lower in region 4. Overall, 45% reduction in biomass.

  48. Stock Status - SRR Fixed steepness = 0.75 (intermediate value from range). Uninformative about appropriate value for steepness.

  49. Stock Status – equilibrium conditions Fcurrent = F2006-2009 Steepness = 0.75 Fmult = 1.37 Ycurrent = 364,000 mt Beq = 0.462 * B0 BMSY = 0.315 * B0

  50. STEEPNESS = 0.75 F/Fmsy = 0.73; B/Bmsy = 1.41; SB/SBmsy = 1.54 F2009/Fmsy = 0.79; B2009/Bmsy = 1.17; SB2009/SBmsy = 1.21

More Related