Analysis of non-linear relationships between catch per unit effort and abundance in a tuna purse-seine fishery simulated with artificial neural networks

A simulation study, combining grid- and individual-based approaches, was conducted to analyse the shape of the relationship between catch per unit effort (cpue) and abundance in a tuna purse-seine fishery. To understand the effect of fleet dynamics on the interpretation of cpue, the decision-making process used by fishers while searching for the resource is modelled with artificial neural networks. The cpue of fishers operating independently (i.e. individuals) vs. fishers sharing information (i.e. a code-group) is compared, accounting for different environmental scenarios. The results show that a power curve non-proportional relationship between cpue and abundance performs better than a linear relationship. As the shape parameter of the power curve for the code-group fishers was lower in every scenario than that of individual fishers, we conclude that hyperstability, a phenomenon commonly observed in schooling fisheries, is mainly attributable to information exchange among vessels. Setting the individual-level state variables of the virtual system at a specific spatial and temporal scale may affect the results of the simulations.

[1]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Learning representations by back-propagation errors, nature , 1986 .

[2]  S. Bannerot,et al.  Using Frequency Distributions of Catch per Unit Effort to Measure Fish‐Stock Abundance , 1983 .

[3]  H. Campbell,et al.  Search behavior in the purse seine tuna fishery , 1993 .

[4]  Volker Grimm,et al.  Individual-based modelling and ecological theory: synthesis of a workshop , 1999 .

[5]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Data-Based Selection of an Appropriate Biological Model: The Key to Modern Data Analysis , 1992 .

[6]  D. McCullough,et al.  Wildlife 2001: Populations , 1996 .

[7]  G A Rose,et al.  Hyperaggregation of fish and fisheries: how catch-per-unit-effort increased as the northern cod (Gadus morhua) declined , 1999 .

[8]  R. Myers,et al.  Is catch-per-unit-effort proportional to abundance? , 2001 .

[9]  R. Peterman,et al.  Implications of interference among fishing vessels and the ideal free distribution to the interpretation of CPUE , 1998 .

[10]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Learning representations by back-propagating errors , 1986, Nature.

[11]  Harry F. Campbell,et al.  Modeling the spatial dynamics of the U.S. purse-seine fleet operating in the western Pacific tuna fishery , 1999 .

[12]  Daniel Gaertner,et al.  Influence of fishers’ behaviour on the catchability of surface tuna schools in the Venezuelan purse-seiner fishery in the Caribbean Sea , 1999 .

[13]  Daniel S. Holland,et al.  An empirical model of fleet dynamics in New England trawl fisheries , 1999 .

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

[15]  David R. Anderson,et al.  AIC MODEL SELECTION IN OVERDISPERSED CAPTURE-RECAPTURE DATA' , 1994 .

[16]  Dario Floreano,et al.  Fleet dynamics and information exchange simulation modeling with artificial neural networks , 2002 .

[17]  L. Dagorn,et al.  Modeling tuna behaviour near floating objects: from individuals to aggregations , 2000 .

[18]  M. Dorn,et al.  Fine-scale fishing strategies of factory trawlers in a midwater trawl fishery for Pacific hake (Merluccius productus) , 1998 .

[19]  Ding-Geng Chen,et al.  A neural network model for forecasting fish stock recruitment , 1999 .

[20]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Null Hypothesis Testing: Problems, Prevalence, and an Alternative , 2000 .

[21]  Saul B. Saila,et al.  Guide to some computerized artificial intelligence methods , 1996 .

[22]  John B. Gatewood.  cooperation, competition, and synergy: information‐sharing groups among Southeast Alaskan salmon seiners , 1984 .

[23]  R. Freckleton,et al.  The Ecological Detective: Confronting Models with Data , 1999 .

[24]  A. Agresti,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis , 1991, International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science.

[25]  C. Walters,et al.  Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment , 1992, Springer US.

[26]  I. Dimopoulos,et al.  Application of neural networks to modelling nonlinear relationships in ecology , 1996 .

[27]  Randall M. Peterman,et al.  Relation Between Sport-Fishing Catchability Coefficients and Salmon Abundance , 1981 .

[28]  Michel Dreyfus-León,et al.  Individual-based modelling of fishermen search behaviour with neural networks and reinforcement learning , 1999 .

[29]  R. Peterman,et al.  Comparison of methods to account for autocorrelation in correlation analyses of fish data , 1998 .

[30]  N Oreskes,et al.  Verification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences , 1994, Science.

[31]  C. Clark,et al.  Uncertainty, search, and information in fisheries , 1983 .

[32]  Carl J. Walters,et al.  A General Model for Simulation of Stock and Fleet Dynamics in Spatially Heterogeneous Fisheries , 1987 .

[33]  David R. Anderson,et al.  Modeling Survival and Testing Biological Hypotheses Using Marked Animals: A Unified Approach with Case Studies , 1992 .

[34]  James A. Wilson.  Fishing for Knowledge , 1990 .

[35]  Peter J. Allen,et al.  Dynamics of discovery and exploitation: the case of the Scotian Shelf groundfish fisheries. , 1986 .

[36]  J. Schnute,et al.  An Experimental and Statistical Approach to the Question: Is CPUE an Index of Abundance? , 1986 .

[37]  M. Dorn.  Fishing behavior of factory trawlers: a hierarchical model of information processing and decision-making , 2001 .

[38]  Pierre Borne.  Les réseaux de neurones. , 2006 .

[39]  Brad Warner,et al.  Understanding Neural Networks as Statistical Tools , 1996 .