Recruitment: Theory, estimation, and application in fishery stock assessment models

Many authors have referred to the attempts to quantify spawner–recruit relationships with confidence as the Holy Grail of fisheries science. Sometimes new measurement technologies or modeling methods get us excited and optimism reigns, only to be put to the test of stock assessment and management decisions that show we were, at best, partially correct with improved forecasting. However, the improvements are fleeting and never long-lived, and often do not withstand the intense scrutiny when stakeholders and others win or lose with the resulting management decisions that depend on the spawner–recruit relationship. This has led scientists, managers, and stakeholders to call for giving up on understanding and predicting recruitment dynamics. I argue that while the study of recruitment may seem self-defeating, what we have learned has been underappreciated. I cover several topics that illustrate the usefulness of our quest for finding the Holy Grail, even if we never get to the ultimate endpoint of high predictability. Fisheries science and management benefit from our attempts. Keynote Address 2 (Presentation 4) Mathematical and Statistical Modeling of the Spawner–Recruit Relationship in Fish Populations: How to Unfailingly Make Fish Biologists Smirk

[1]  André E. Punt,et al.  Management strategy evaluation: best practices , 2016 .

[2]  David A. Demer,et al.  Environmental and parental control of Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax) recruitment , 2014 .

[3]  Robert Fonner,et al.  Marine Protected Resources on the U.S. West Coast: Current Management and Opportunities for Applying Economic Analysis , 2018 .

[4]  K. Rose,et al.  Demonstration of a fully-coupled end-to-end model for small pelagic fish using sardine and anchovy in the California Current , 2015 .

[5]  Richard D. Methot,et al.  Adjusting for bias due to variability of estimated recruitments in fishery assessment models , 2011 .

[6]  A. Punt,et al.  Extending integrated stock assessment models to use non-depensatory three-parameter stock-recruitment relationships , 2017, Fisheries Research.

[7]  J. Thorson,et al.  Steepness for West Coast rockfishes: Results from a twelve-year experiment in iterative regional meta-analysis , 2019, Fisheries Research.

[8]  J. V. Rosenhead,et al.  The Advanced Theory of Statistics: Volume 2: Inference and Relationship , 1963 .

[9]  R. Beverton,et al.  On the dynamics of exploited fish populations , 1993, Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries.

[10]  L. Cubillos,et al.  Applying a separability assumption in a length-based stock assessment model to evaluate intra-annual effects of recruitment process error of small-pelagic fish , 2019, Fisheries Research.

[11]  Felix Hueber,et al.  Computation And Interpretation Of Biological Statistics Of Fish Populations , 2016 .

[12]  K. Lorenzen,et al.  Density-dependence in the life history of fishes: When is a fish recruited? , 2019, Fisheries Research.

[13]  C. Davies,et al.  Recruitment in tuna RFMO stock assessment and management: A review of current approaches and challenges , 2019, Fisheries Research.

[14]  Merrill B. Rudd,et al.  The case for estimating recruitment variation in data-moderate and data-poor age-structured models , 2019, Fisheries Research.

[15]  André E. Punt,et al.  Modelling recruitment in a spatial context: A review of current approaches, simulation evaluation of options, and suggestions for best practices , 2017, Fisheries Research.

[16]  W. Ricker.  Stock and Recruitment , 1954 .

[17]  J. Field,et al.  Effects of recruitment variability and fishing history on estimation of stock-recruitment relationships: Two case studies from U.S. West Coast fisheries , 2019, Fisheries Research.

[18]  G. Watters,et al.  Estimating recruitment variability and productivity in Antarctic krill , 2019, Fisheries Research.

[19]  T. Good,et al.  Seabird Mortality in U.S. West Coast Groundfish Fisheries, 2002–16 , 2018 .

[20]  Claire B. Paris,et al.  Connectivity Modeling System: A probabilistic modeling tool for the multi-scale tracking of biotic and abiotic variability in the ocean , 2013, Environ. Model. Softw..

[21]  Elise F. Zipkin,et al.  How variable is recruitment for exploited marine fishes? A hierarchical model for testing life history theory , 2014 .

[22]  Hans J. Skaug,et al.  Spatial factor analysis: a new tool for estimating joint species distributions and correlations in species range , 2015 .

[23]  Ray Hilborn,et al.  Depensation in fish stocks : a hierarchic Bayesian meta-analysis , 1997 .

[24]  D. Boyd,et al.  Quality Assurance Plan for Analyses of Environmental Samples for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Persistent Organic Pollutants, Dioctyl Sulfosuccinate, Estrogenic Compounds, Steroids, Hydroxylated Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Stable Isotope Ratios, and Lipid Classes , 2019 .

[25]  James T. Thorson.  Perspective: Let’s simplify stock assessment by replacing tuning algorithms with statistics , 2018 .

[26]  W. Herrnkind,et al.  RECRUITMENT IN DEGRADED MARINE HABITATS: A SPATIALLY EXPLICIT, INDIVIDUAL-BASED MODEL FOR SPINY LOBSTER , 2005 .

[27]  K. F. Johnson,et al.  Unraveling the recruitment problem: A review of environmentally-informed forecasting and management strategy evaluation , 2019, Fisheries Research.

[28]  R. Deriso.  Harvesting Strategies and Parameter Estimation for an Age-Structured Model , 1980 .

[29]  Richard McGarvey,et al.  Modeling fish numbers dynamically by age and length: partitioning cohorts into "slices" , 2007 .

[30]  C. Walters,et al.  Quantitative fisheries stock assessment: Choice, dynamics and uncertainty , 2004, Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries.

[31]  Daniel R. Goethel,et al.  "So, where do you come from?" The impact of assumed spatial population structure on estimates of recruitment , 2019, Fisheries Research.

[32]  James T. Thorson,et al.  Modeling temporal variation in recruitment in fisheries stock assessment: A review of theory and practice , 2019, Fisheries Research.

[33]  The influence of metrics for spawning output on stock assessment results and evaluation of reference points: An illustration with yellowfin tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean , 2019, Fisheries Research.

[34]  O. Bjørnstad,et al.  Trends and cohort resonant effects in age-structured populations , 2004 .

[35]  M. Maunder,et al.  Good practices for including environmental data to inform spawner-recruit dynamics in integrated stock assessments: Small pelagic species case study , 2019, Fisheries Research.

[36]  K. F. Johnson,et al.  Paulik revisited: Statistical framework and estimation performance of multistage recruitment functions , 2019, Fisheries Research.

[37]  Steven R. Hare,et al.  Inverse Production Regimes: Alaska and West Coast Pacific Salmon , 1999 .

[38]  Melanie A. Harsch,et al.  Economic Performance Metrics : An Overview of Metrics and the Use of Web Applications to Disseminate Outcomes in the U.S. West Coast Groundfish Trawl Catch Share Program , 2018 .

[39]  J. Wallace,et al.  A Pacific Interdecadal Climate Oscillation with Impacts on Salmon Production , 1997 .

[40]  M. Mangel,et al.  Reproductive ecology and scientific inference of steepness: a fundamental metric of population dynamics and strategic fisheries management , 2010 .

[41]  M. McClure,et al.  Anadromous salmonid reintroductions : general planning principles for long-term viability and recovery , 2018 .

[42]  C. Walters,et al.  Effects of Measurement Errors on the Assessment of Stock–Recruitment Relationships , 1981 .

[43]  M. Basson,et al.  The importance of environmental factors in the design of management procedures , 1999 .