Journal of Oceanology and Limnology

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 973–980 | Cite as

The impact of spatial autocorrelation on CPUE standardization between two different fisheries

  • Luoliang Xu (许骆良)
  • Xinjun Chen (陈新军)Email author
  • Wenjiang Guan (官文江)
  • Siquan Tian (田思泉)
  • Yong Chen (陈勇)


Catch per unit of effort (CPUE) data can display spatial autocorrelation. However, most of the CPUE standardization methods developed so far assumes independency of observations for the dependent variable, which is often invalid. In this study, we collected data of two fisheries, squid jigging fishery and mackerel trawl fishery. We used standard generalized linear model (GLM) and spatial GLMs to compare the impact of spatial autocorrelation on CPUE standardization for different fisheries. We found that spatial- GLMs perform better than standard-GLM for both fisheries. The overestimation of precision of CPUE estimates was observed in both fisheries. Moran’s I was used to quantify the level of autocorrelation for the two fisheries. The results show that autocorrelation in mackerel trawl fishery was much stronger than that in squid jigging fishery. According to the results of this paper, we highly recommend to account for spatial autocorrelation when using GLM to standardize CPUE data derived from commercial fisheries.


spatial autocorrelation catch per unit effort (CPUE) standardization squid jigging fishery mackerel trawl fishery 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



We thank Chinese Oversea Fishery Association (COFA) and NOAA for providing data. We are grateful of CHANG Yongbo in College of Marine Sciences Shanghai Ocean University who has spent much time working in a mackerel trawl vessel and provides the information about the fishery. We also thank the Chinese Distant-water Squid Jigging Technical Group for providing fishery data and information.


  1. Bhattarai K R, Vetaas O R, Grytnes J A. 2004. Fern species richness along a central Himalayan elevational gradient, Nepal. Journal of Biogeography, 31 (3): 389–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Campbell R A. 2004. CPUE standardisation and the construction of indices of stock abundance in a spatially varying fishery using general linear models. Fisher ies Research, 70 (2–3): 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Campbell R A. 2015. Constructing stock abundance indices from catch and effort data: some nuts and bolts. Fisheries Research, 161: 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carl G, Kühn I. 2007. Analyzing spatial autocorrelation in species distributions using Gaussian and logit models. Ecological M odelling, 207 (2–4): 159–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cressie N A. 1993. Statistics for Spatial Data. Wiley, New York. p.1-202.Google Scholar
  6. Dormann C F. 2007. Effects of incorporating spatial autocorrelation into the analysis of species distribution data. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 16 (2): 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dunn P K. 2009. Improving comparisons between models for CPUE. Fisheries Research, 97 (1–2): 148–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Guan W J, Tian S Q, Wang X F, Zhu J F, Chen X J. 2014. A review of methods and model selection for standardizing CPUE. Journal of Fishery Sciences of China, 21 (4): 852–862. (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  9. Guisan A, Thuiller W. 2005. Predicting species distribution: offering more than simple habitat models. Ecology Letters, 8 (9): 993–1 009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Haining R. 2003. Spatial Data Analysis: Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. p.50-290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harley S J, Myers R A, Dunn A. 2001. Is catch-per-unit-effort proportional to abundance? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 58 (9): 1 760–1 772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hawkins B A, Porter E E. 2003. Does herbivore diversity depend on plant diversity? The case of California butterflies. The American Naturalist, 161 (1): 40–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hinton M G, Maunder M N. 2004. Methods for standardizing CPUE and how to select among them. Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 56 (1): 169–177.Google Scholar
  14. Jiao Y, O’reilly R, Smith E, Orth D. 2016. Integrating spatial synchrony/asynchrony of population distribution into stock assessment models: a spatial hierarchical Bayesian statistical catch-at-age approach. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil, 73 (7): 1 725–1 738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kleisner K M, Walter J F, Diamond S L, Die D J. 2010. Modeling the spatial autocorrelation of pelagic fish abundance. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 411: 203–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Li G, Cao J, Zou X R, Chen X J, Runnebaum J. 2016. Modeling habitat suitability index for Chilean jack mackerel (Trachurus murphyi) in the South East Pacific. Fisheries Research, 178: 48–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Li Z G, Ye Z J, Wan R, Zhang C. 2015. Model selection between traditional and popular methods for standardizing catch rates of target species: a case study of Japanese Spanish mackerel in the gillnet fishery. Fisheries Research, 161: 161–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liebhold A, Koenig W D, Bjørnstad O N. 2004. Spatial synchrony in population dynamics. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 35 (1): 467–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Maunder M N, Sibert J R, Fonteneau A, Hampton J, Kleiber P, Harley S J. 2006. Interpreting catch per unit effort data to assess the status of individual stocks and communities. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 63 (8): 1 373–1 385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nelder J A, Wedderburn R W M. 1972. Generalized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, 135 (3): 370–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nishida T, Chen D G. 2004. Incorporating spatial autocorrelation into the general linear model with an application to the yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) longline CPUE data. Fisheries Research, 70 (2–3): 265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Seibel B A. 2013. The jumbo squid, Dosidicus gigas (Ommastrephidae), living in oxygen minimum zones II: Blood-oxygen binding. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 95: 95–139..Google Scholar
  23. Stewart J S, Field J C, Markaida U, Gilly W F. 2013. Behavioral ecology of jumbo squid (Dosidicus gigas) in relation to oxygen minimum zones. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 95: 95–197..Google Scholar
  24. Thorson J T, Shelton A O, Ward E J, Skaug H J. 2015. Geostatistical delta-generalized linear mixed models improve precision for estimated abundance indices for West Coast groundfishes. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 72 (5): 1 297–1 310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tian S Q, Chen X J, Chen Y, Xu L X, Dai X J. 2009. Standardizing CPUE of Ommastrephes bartramii for Chinese squid-jigging fishery in Northwest Pacific Ocean. Chinese Journal of Oceanology and Limnology, 27 (4): 729–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Tian S Q, Han C, Chen Y, Chen X J. 2013. Evaluating the impact of spatio-temporal scale on CPUE standardization. Chinese Journal of Oceanology and Limnology, 31 (5): 935–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Walsh W A, Brodziak J. 2015. Billfish CPUE standardization in the Hawaii longline fishery: model selection and multimodel inference. Fisheries Research, 166: 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yu H, Jiao Y, Winter A. 2011. Catch-rate standardization for yellow perch in Lake Erie: a comparison of the spatial generalized linear model and the generalized additive model. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 140 (4): 905–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yu W, Yi Q, Chen X J, Chen Y. 2016. Modelling the effects of climate variability on habitat suitability of jumbo flying squid, Dosidicus gigas, in the Southeast Pacific Ocean offPeru. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 73 (2): 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zhang T L, Lin G. 2008. Identification of local clusters for count data: a model-based Moran’s I test. Journal of Applied Statistics, 35 (3): 293–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Chinese Society for Oceanology and Limnology, Science Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luoliang Xu (许骆良)
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Xinjun Chen (陈新军)
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Wenjiang Guan (官文江)
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Siquan Tian (田思泉)
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Yong Chen (陈勇)
    • 4
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Marine SciencesShanghai Ocean UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Sustainable Exploitation of Oceanic Fisheries Resources (Shanghai Ocean University)Ministry of EducationShanghaiChina
  3. 3.National Engineering Research Center for oceanic FisheriesShanghai Ocean UniversityShanghaiChina
  4. 4.School of Marine SciencesUniversity of MaineOronoUSA

Personalised recommendations