Fish Stock Assessment

Ang Nagkakaisang Mamamayang Kostal ng Balayan [ANAKBALAYAN], Inc.
Tolentino Boulevard, Barangay District #10, Balayan, 1st District Batangas, Philippines 4213
anakbalayan@yahoo.com, anakbalayan151@gmail.com
(+63)(043) 921-1910 (+63)9109192842
http://www.freewebs.com/anakbalayan/ http://anakbalayanfill.webs.com
http://anakbalayan.multiply.com
_____________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION TO FISH STOCK ASSESSMENT

What is FSA?
Fish Stock Assessment or FSA is a method of determining presence and stocking of fish in any
particular area regardless of its specie, volume, fishing ground, weather, size, age or maturity. Forms and
techniques in conducting FSA which is also a type of fishery researches and studies are being developed
or improved in different countries.
The aim of Fish Stock Assessment is to establish the status of a resource and to determine the level at
which it may be sustainably exploited. Age data is one of the fundamental input parameters to a model
used to perform stock assessments. The management of marine fisheries presents a complex mixture of
biological, economic and social problems. Fisheries management may be regarded as everything done to
maintain or improve fisheries resources and their utilization. Fisheries management ranges from
managing the resource to understanding activities that promote fisheries development (exploratory
fishing, gear and fleet development, environmental maintenance, processing and marketing). Initial
efforts at fisheries management have focused on the conservation of wild fish stocks. However, in recent
years, there has been a growing recognition that fisheries have to be viewed as a total system from the fish
in the water to the fish on the table. This system includes harvesting, processing and the marketing sectors
as well as the resource, and it combines economic, diverse social and political as well as biological
factors. To undertake a fish stock monitoring and knowing the result thereof may led us all to better
understanding of the "total system".
“Most countries that exploit marine fish stocks conduct stock monitoring programs that provide data
on the current status of the fish stocks. These monitoring programs consist of the sampling of daily fish
catch data, or data from commercial landings, sea based sampling of discards, research vessel surveys
(ground fish, young fish, egg and larval), ageing programs, analysis of fishing effort, catch per unit effort
(CPUE) and landings statistics. The results from various national stock monitoring programs are
combined with other international data to carry out annual stock assessments. These assessments are vital
to the provision of scientific advice on the status of fish stocks and form the basis of management advice
on the fisheries, essential in the management of marine fish stocks as sustainable and renewable
resources. In the EU, most assessments are conducted by the International Council for the Exploration of
the Seas (ICES). The assessments are conducted at various ICES Working Groups for stocks in different
ICES fishing areas. The results are used to give scientific advice to the EU which manages the stocks
using Total Allowable Catches (TAC's), supplemented by various Technical Measures (i.e. mesh sizes,
minimum landing sizes, closed areas).”
Fish Specie
Fish species are relative to their characteristics and habitats. Oftentimes fishes are associated to their
way of feeding, bone and fin structures, and physical shapes. For fishers especially at the local areas, fish
specie is of no importance. The very reason for this is their lack of scientific knowledge of determining
the species of their catch. Therefore, the determination lies on the person/s ability to research the
appropriate specie base on the local name supplied in the FSA forms. Validation of the specie may done
by actual looking at sample catches.
Volume of Catch
The recorded number of fishes in one catch or its equivalent in weight denoted by its kilograms plays
an important role in determining fish stocks in any given and particular area. Increase and decrease in
volume of any specie in the area where fisher usually catch them may mean problem in the system,
habitat or recruitment.
Fish Size
Size of the fish catch also is an important part of FSA. Fish size is related to the specie maturity and
fecundity. Like specie, fish size is of no importance to fisher, the bigger the size the better income they
Page 1 of 6
(+63)(043) 921-1910 (+63)9109192842
_____________________________________________________________________
could get thus the probability of proper resource-use and maintaining yield capacity in a stock is
sometimes put aside.
Fishing Ground
Fishing grounds denotes specie and at times fish value as well as sustained stocks due to the systems
reigning in the area such as in reefs and other habitats. In some fishing grounds, the marine spaces in
between two or more habitats, fish catch depends on the occurring recruitment transport system of the
habitats. Fishing grounds are susceptible to coastal environment thus the mismanaged environment meant
death of the fishing grounds.
Weather
Though basically less important in FSA, weather may explain or attribute to the increase or decrease
of fish catch. Sometimes size and volume of fish catch may not be sufficient enough to establish fish
stocks fact in a certain fishing ground or area. The changes in temperature and current may influence the
existence of fish specie in any particular area most probably in non-habitat places.
Age Estimation in Fish
“Age estimation is a fundamental part of studies of the life history of fish. In commercial marine
fisheries, age estimation is a key area in the monitoring, assessment and management of fish stocks
because age determined parameters underlie the population dynamics models used to perform fish stock
assessments. These ages determined parameters include age profiles, age at first maturity, spawning
frequency, recruitment success and growth and mortality.
The ability to estimate the age of a fish is an important tool in fisheries biology and, in conjunction
with length and weight measurements, provides valuable information on stock composition, age at
maturity, life span, mortality, and production of a fish stock. A variety of structures have been used to
estimate the age of fish including opercular bones, fin rays, scales and sagittal otoliths. In elasmobranchs
which are composed of a cartilaginous skeleton, centra and dorsal spines have been traditionally used in
age estimation studies.
Age estimation plays a fundamental role in the assessment of commercial marine fish species. Most of
the models used in stock assessment rely on age data and if these data are inaccurate, scientific advice on
the state of stocks will be flawed leading to inappropriate management advice. It is therefore essential to
ensure that age data are precise and accurate.
Three broad approaches to age estimation have evolved and can be categorized as follows:
an empirical approach, based on direct observations of individual fish held in captivity, or from
fish marked and recaptured;
a statistical approach, based on length frequency distributions;
an anatomical approach, based on ageing individual fish from body structures, such as scales, opercular
bones, vertebrae, fin rays, and otoliths.
The empirical approach to ageing was initially used by fish culturists. It relies on measuring the size of
confined fish at different ages, and is by far the oldest method of age estimation. Today, the empirical
approach is the least used method, because the confined fish seldom experience the same conditions
(temperature, day length, food availability, predation) that fish in natural conditions experience. As a
result, captive fish often have different sizes at a given age than wild fish. A logical extension of this
method was the discovery that the ages of wild fish could be determined if the fish had been marked,
released, and recaptured. These methods depend on observing individuals and extrapolating the results to
populations.
The second basic approach, the statistical analysis of length frequency distribution, has been used to
estimate the age of fish since the late nineteenth century. In 1892, the Danish biologist John Petersen
showed that the number of age groups in a length frequency distribution could be determined by counting
the number of peaks in the distribution. More sophisticated methods of modal analysis are still in use
today, especially for species which cannot be aged using hard body parts (e.g., Nephrops norvegicus).
Page 2 of 6
(+63)(043) 921-1910 (+63)9109192842
_____________________________________________________________________
Nowadays, the most popular method of age estimation in fish involves the use of body parts, the
anatomical method. This method of age estimation relies on the existence of regular, periodic growth
markings on the hard body parts to which a regular timescale can be assigned. This concept is analagous
to determining the age of a tree by counting annual rings in a cross section of the trunk. Seasonal changes
in the growth of fish in temperate waters are generally recorded as contrasting bands in body parts such as
scales, fin rays, spines, opercular bones and otoliths. In bivalve molluscs, contrasting bands found on the
shell can be used to estimate age.”
Strengths and weaknesses of fish stock assessment techniques.

Accurate stock assessment is of growing importance as the human population and demand for fish
increases. Continued technological advances in fishing fleets increase efficiency directly effecting natural
fish stocks. Attempting to match natural stock fluctuation with fishing effort may help to avoid any
further long term damage of exploited species; this is of great importance as fish provide vital
contributions to food supplies and influence employment in coastal areas.
Various methods are applied to calculate estimates of recruitment, stock sizes, and age groups. It is
apparent that stock assessment techniques are highly dependent on available data, whether long or short-
term predictions are the aim, both strengths and weaknesses are influenced by the abundance of this
information. For correct predictions many techniques require large inputs of unbiased data, therefore the
strength of any stock biomass prediction will be influenced by the weakness of the available inputs;
validating final modal estimates of a fishery.
Rose (1997) offers another view for these problems, indicating that fisheries scientists have lost track
of their science by becoming 'keyboard ecologists' whom rarely, if ever work directly with real fisheries.
This of course does not reflect on the collection of fisheries data but more the interpretation and wisdom
required to gain results. This diversion may lead to incorrect long-term analysis; potentially undermining
fishery techniques, therefore it is crucial that all stakeholders in a fishery increase an understanding and
trust in stock assessment procedures (Anon 1998).
Cortes's (1998) study of shark stock assessment concluded no accurate results could be gained without
increased collections of biological and fishery data, coinciding with a better understanding of stock
recruitment relationships. Many fisheries are in dire straits due to data collection leaving them with a
retrospective problem for stocks. This is pinpointed by Mohn (1999), who studied data on the East
Scotian Shelf cod fishery. He concludes that failure to correct the problems encountered by traditional
analysis techniques, leads to catch level advice twice or more the intended level. Stock and recruitment
data sets should not be published or used unless estimates of error variance are shown; without this
information Walters & Ludwig (1981) believe they are meaningless and misleading.
Data types can be split into two groups, dependent or independent of the fishery. Fishery dependent
data comprises of four usable types, the total catch, amount of fishing, (the combination known as) catch
per unit effort (CPUE) and age or size compositions. Catch data is essential for most stock production
models, inaccurate or biased collection can have damaging long term effects. Importantly, this data
should be totaled over ages, fleets, and nations with longer term information helping to predict the past
life of the fishery.
Problems arise with data collection as some fleet members find financial rewards in discarding initial
catches, searching for larger or higher valued cohorts. When total catches are calculated these discarded
fish that obviously made up part of the initial stock are rarely accounted for. The result can be higher
biomass predictions, thus allocation of total allowable catches are higher than the available stock. This
incorrect estimation of stocks can result in either continued over exploitation or economic hardship when
quotas are cut. Some models include discard data, but as Mesnil (1996) points out, the general assumption
is that all discards die even though there is proof that in some fisheries (usually shellfish) a significant
fraction are able to survive. Either way the incorrect analysis of discarded fish will result in wrong
estimates of the fishery.
The 'amount of fishing' or 'effort data' on its own is less important to fishery scientists unlike
economists who study activity trends. The collection of days fished at sea and number of boats operating
in conjunction with the previously mentioned catch data is much more valuable. This information known
as catch per unit effort (CPUE), if based on age and composition, can be a very important factor in
Page 3 of 6
(+63)(043) 921-1910 (+63)9109192842
_____________________________________________________________________
fisheries modelling. Effort based production models (PM) use this catch effort data with catches recorded
in weight, in an attempt to estimate parameters as a stock production curve. They also assume that effort
is closely related to fishing mortality (Kimura et al. 1984).
When writers such as Roff (1983) suggest the catch/effort data is only reliable to detect major
fluctuations in population size and "attempts to determine equilibrium yields from catch/effort data are as
likely to be successful as finding the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow", doubts over the strengths of
models using CPUE data must arise. Collie & Sissenwine (1983) were more liberal in their views but still
express difficulties in the standardising of CPUE data from commercial and recreational fisheries. They
pinpoint the of 'constant catchability coefficients' and continued 'technical improvements' as the main
areas for biased data.
Many models rely on accurate age, length, and age-length calculations of a stock. The difficult nature
of collecting this data probably has the most influence hence the most accurate sources are usually from
survey vessels. If capable industry collects this data, but usually samples are taken from the catch when
landed; the two usual techniques of ageing these fish are via scale and otolith readings. Otolith ageing is
less adaptable to a fishery wide sampling program than scale readings, due to the difficult and time-
consuming nature of collection. Otolith morphology has also been shown to be an effective tool for stock
discrimination in certain species (Freidland and Reddin 1994).
Independent data collection via fishing surveys helps limitations apparent from actual fishery
dependent data. As with commercial methods, variable catches and weather conditions affect surveys;
technical influences such as mesh size and vessel efficiency may not coincide with actual fleet averages.
Changes in vessel efficiency or shifts in effort may not accurately reflect trends of abundance or fishing
mortality. Therefore, in the determining of age structures, growth, mortality rates and historical trends,
survey techniques may provide the only basis of data collection (Clark 1979). Simplistic assumptions that
areas have been swept clean of fish, and common assumptions that trawls are giving unbiased samples
both as to species and size of the local demersal fish abundance, may prove inaccurate and damaging in
the long-term.
Acoustic methods can be used to either estimate population sizes of pelagic species directly or in
conjunction with survey vessels when beam trawling for demersal fish. Engas & Vold Soldal (1992)
believe trawl catch rates cannot be relied upon to provide representative estimates and any bias will
therefore affect the equivalent acoustic estimates. This may be due to unrealistic requirements such as the
confinement of a stock in an area small enough to be surveyed in a set time, at a required intensity, in
mid-water not to close to the shore (MacLennan & Forbes 1987). Further assumptions are limited
numbers of other species detected, the target strength of the species is accurately known, acceptable
weather conditions and no response from the fish to the vessel. Fish densities estimated by horizontal
beaming can be up to fifty times higher than vertical beaming due to boat avoidance creating large errors
in final data (Kubecka & Wittingerova 1998). Although much interference may be apparent, Pope (1982)
still believes the data gained may be valuable when setting precautionary catch levels.
Methods of tagging can be applied to gain imprecise levels of natural mortality (Shepherd 1988),
main weaknesses being the sometimes over-expectant assumptions that need to be made. A fixed
population with an equal capture rate and no change in catchability level, coinciding with no loss of
marks or tags, all seems a little un-realistic. Peterson's closed population method cannot even test these
assumptions whereas the Scnabel open population system can, but still with uncertainties. These methods
are applied throughout the world indicating that they must work with certain species under perfect
conditions. Uncertainties, as with many other techniques do not seem unique, but the methodology of
tagging does seem to have greater assumptions than any other method applied to fisheries.
The choice of assessment type will depend on the biology of the species, the time scale required, the
area and purpose of the assessment and any specific goal of the fisheries manager. This choice may be
difficult as stock production models used for long-term management are frequently no better in the
forecasting of the following years CPUE than is the previous years CPUE (Stocker & Hilborn 1981).
Long-term assessments aid strategic decisions by managers, information such as maximum sustainable
yield (MSY) can be estimated and relationships between stock and recruits can be found. Short-term
assessments can reveal information on the likely catch in the next or following years (CPUE), as well as
consequences of recruitment in the near future. The latter relates to the suggestion and tactics of long-
term strategy. Describing of uncertainties in these strategies is of great importance to managers when
Page 4 of 6
(+63)(043) 921-1910 (+63)9109192842
_____________________________________________________________________
weighing the benefits and losses of different techniques. Rosenberg & Restrepo (1994) suggest methods
of analysing and assessing risk in management strategies implying that every possible analysis of risk
should be undertaken.
Hilborn (1992) pinpoints three dominant approaches to fisheries stock assessment: the investigation
into catch at age data, uninvolved models of biomass dynamics, and examination of length-frequency
data. He suggests that these methods ignore what is known about the biology of the fish and tend to rely
on single types of data. This point is of importance as natural mortality, assumed in many modals may
increase via predation or reduced food sources causing large errors in calculations.
Age based methods such as Virtual population analysis (VPA), require catches recorded in numbers
at age on an individual cohort basis to solve the exponential form of the catch equations (Kimura et al.
1984). The dependency of knowing the catch at age in numbers is a downfall as age data is costly and
technically difficult to obtain. VPA or simpler cohort analysis needs data from various other sources, any
of which could be bias or incorrect.
Catch in weight, natural and fishing mortality, weights at cohort, and proportion of mature fish are all
required for cohort analysis. Although these methods are the most commonly applied to stock assessment,
the large variety of necessary information will have any final say on the weakness of this technique.
Interestingly, Agnew et al. (1998) believes that cohorts of certain species have differing dynamics, and
therefore should be considered as different stocks. This would render total stock calculation models
redundant, with very few other options available to fishery scientists this opinion seems to be alone.
Some typical problems arising with these methods includes the missing of year data, changes in
survey techniques and age determination methodologies; Richards et al. (1997) suggests some graphical
techniques to portray these uncertainties. The errors encountered in age structure data can to some extent
be cancelled by using mean age calculations in the assessment models (Richards & Schnute 1998). These
of course are statistical problems that may be lost in complicated calculations. Important and essentially
undetectable problems arise with discard levels, the guessing of terminal fishing mortality, and predation
mortality (Christensen 1996). The statistical problems can be corrected with the application of more
accurate data collection, but these biological influences need highly intensive studies before a complete
understanding can be hoped for. The effects of various percentage errors in the population of a year class,
due to incorrect values of fishing mortality are shown in figure 1.
Figure 1: This graph plots percentage error of

Ni (population of year class at the ith
birthday), against cumulative fishing
mortality. The under estimation of Ft (fishing
mortality at the last age of a year class to
which catch data are available) will result in
guesses of Nt that are to small, overestimation
has the reverse effect. Interestingly, as the
cumulative fishing mortality increases errors
in both Ft and Ni decrease. If the cumulative
fishing mortality is greater than 2 and Ft can
be estimated within the given range many
users will find errors in Ni and Fi small
enough to work with. Accurate estimations of
Ni and Fi require careful choices of Ft if the
cumulative fishing mortality is small. This
case may arise when numbers of recruits to a
year class is guessed from catches of partially
recruited age groups. Similar graphs allow
fishery scientists to produce the error range of
their calculations that will aid assessment of
their value. Source: Pope (1983)
When age data is sparse or the species cannot easily be aged, length based assessments are an
alternative. Chen's (1997) comparison between age and length structured yield-per-recruit models showed
length structured techniques better incorporated information observed from fisheries, but age structured
Page 5 of 6
(+63)(043) 921-1910 (+63)9109192842
_____________________________________________________________________
gave more precise and conservative estimates of yield-per-recruit. This is the main reason why age
structured models are chosen from the conservation perspective in fisheries management. The obvious
difference between age and length is that age is a linear measure of time whereas length is non-linear.
This makes data interpretations more difficult, more assumptions of growth reductions due to age must be
made. Assumptions removed from a model increase accuracy, this is why age methods are preferred if
feasible.
A potential strength of fishery science will be the adoption of multi-species models to fisheries that
currently utilise single species methods. These models, although essential for future management
purposes, seem unreliable and more imprecise than the currently used methods. They require more data
that could lead to inaccurate assumptions, thus leaving fisheries in a worse state.
The key area that multi-species models address is predation. It is often assumed that fishing mortality
alone is responsible for the variation in fish survival, but in some fisheries, losses to predation can exceed
losses to fisheries (Bax 1998). This could indicate that assumptions of natural mortality in single species
models are drastically misleading. Mertz & Myers (1997) point out that if bad estimations of natural
mortality are used in calculations of cohort strength derived from catch data, the accuracy may be greatly
corrupted. Pereiro (1995) supports that where species are not linked to a specific substratum natural
mortality will always predominate over fishing mortality thus fishing mortality is not the subsidiary
factor. Either way the addition of accurate natural mortality estimations into models must be welcomed.
This review has shown some major problems encountered when estimating populations from a
fishery. Strengths seem sparse, maybe the biggest being that these techniques are the only available
methods for estimating stock dynamics. Assessment techniques have strengths over each other and it is
imperative the correct method is paired to its purpose.
Weaknesses seemed over bearing and many writers have tried to remove errors from previously
presented models resulting in a claim that theirs is now the most accurate. Until data collection methods
have improved there will always be inaccuracies in results. The addition of computer programs should aid
time-consuming calculations allowing scientists to return to the field of study to uncover new methods of
improving the currently used stock assessment techniques.
Participatory Fisheries Stock Assessment (ParFish)

ParFish is an approach to fisheries stock assessment and a tool for involving fishers in the
development of management actions. It is a particularly suitable methodology for small-scale
fisheries in developing countries as it: Allows a rapid assessment; Encourages participation of
fishers; Does not require data recorded over a long time series.
At the centre of ParFish is a software for stock assessment that can use a number of different
sources of information including fisher interviews. The ParFish software gives an indication of
the level of exploitation of fisheries stocks. It also indicates what the optimal level of control
(e.g. catch quota, the number of boats fishing or area of refuge) should be, to sustain fish stocks
and give catch rates acceptable to fishers. However ParFish is not only about stock assessment
but is an holistic approach that assists fishers and other stakeholders to enter a cycle of learning,
management planning and implementation.
Page 6 of 6

Fish Stock Assessment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fish Stock Assessment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ang Nagkakaisang Mamamayang Kostal ng Balayan [ANAKBALAYAN], Inc.

INTRODUCTION TO FISH STOCK ASSESSMENT

Age Estimation in Fish

Strengths and weaknesses of fish stock assessment techniques.

Figure 1: This graph plots percentage error of

Participatory Fisheries Stock Assessment (ParFish)

You might also like