Accounting for Spatial Population Structure in Stock Assessment: Past, Present, and Future

Part of the Fish & Fisheries Series book series (FIFI, volume 31)

Stock identification has been an important prerequisite for stock assessment throughout its history. The earliest evaluations of recruitment variability recognized that understanding the spatial scale of a fishery resource is essential for studying population dynamics. A paradigm of stock structure was based on closed migration circuits and geographic variation of phenotypic traits and formed a premise for fishery modeling conventions in the mid-1900s. As genetic techniques developed in the late 1900s, the “stock concept” was refined to include a degree of reproductive isolation. Realization that there was no single method that addressed the various assumptions of stock assessment and needs of fishery management prompted a more holistic view of population structure that called for multiple sources of demographic and genetic data. Recent applications of advanced techniques challenge the traditional view of populations as geographically distinct units with homogeneous vital rates and isolation from adjacent resources. More complex concepts such as metapopulations and “contingent theory” may be more applicable to many fishery resources with sympatric population structure. These more complex patterns of population structure have been incorporated into some advanced stock assessment techniques and metapopulation models that account for movement among areas and sympatric heterogeneity. Wider application of spatially explicit models in future stock assessments will require clear identification of stock components, evaluating movement rates and determining the degree of reproductive isolation. Because spatial structure affects how populations respond to fisheries, incorporation of heterogeneous patterns and movement in stock assessment models should improve advice for fishery management.

Keywords

Mixed-stock fisheries migration spatial heterogeneity stock assessment stock identification 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abaunza P, Murta AS, Mattiucci R, et al. (2004) Stock discrimination of horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus) in the northeast Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea: integrating the results from different stock identification approaches. ICES CM 2004/EE:19Google Scholar
  2. Banks MA (2005) Stock identification for conservation of threatened or endangered species. In: Cadrin SX, Friedland KD, Waldman JR (eds) Stock identification methods. Elsevier Academic Press, Burlington, MAGoogle Scholar
  3. Begg GA, Waldman JR (1999) A holistic approach to fish stock identification. Fish Res 43:37–46Google Scholar
  4. Beverton RJH, Holt SJ (1957) On the dynamics of exploited fish populations. UK Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Fish Invest Ser 2:19Google Scholar
  5. Block BA, Teo LLH, Walli A, et al. (2005) Electronic tagging and population structure of Atlantic bluefin tuna. Nature 434:1121–1127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Booke HE (1981) The conundrum of the stock concept — are nature and nurture definable in fishery science?. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 38:1479–1480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown BE, Darcy GH, Overholtz W (1987) Stock assessment /stock identification: an interactive process. In: Kumpf HE, Vaught RN, Grimes CB, et al. (eds) Proceedings of the stock identification workshop. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-199Google Scholar
  8. Cadrin SX, Friedland KD, Waldman J (2005) Stock identification methods: applications in fishery science. Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  9. Cadrin, SX, Rothschild BJ, Wirgin I (2007) To Lump, or to Split?. … maybe the wrong question for stock identification of fishery resources. ICES CM 2007/L:01.Google Scholar
  10. Campana SE, Thorrold SR (2001) Otoliths, increments, and elements: keys to a comprehensive understanding of fish populations?. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 58(1):30–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark J (1968) Seasonal movements of striped bass contingents of Long Island Sound and the New York Bight. Trans Am Fish Soc 97:320–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Conover DO, Clarke LM, Munch SB, et al. (2006) Spatial and temporal scales of adaptive divergence in marine fishes and the implications for conservation. J Fish Biol 69(Suppl C):21–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coyle T (1998) Stock identification and fisheries management: the importance of using several methods in a stock identification study. In: Hancock DA (ed) Taking stock: defining and managing shared resources. Australian Society for Fishery Biology, Sydney, pp 173–182Google Scholar
  14. Cushing DH (1982) Fisheries biology: a study in population dynamics, 2nd edn. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WIGoogle Scholar
  15. Dizon AE, Lockyer C, Perrin WF, et al. (1992) Rethinking the stock concept — a phylogeographic approach. Conserv Biol 6(1):24–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fetterolf CM Jr (1981) Foreword to the Stock Concept Symposium. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 38:iv–vGoogle Scholar
  17. Field JC, Punt AE, Methot RD, et al. (2006) Does MPA mean “major problem for assessments”?. Considering the consequences of place-based management systems. Fish Fisheries 7(4):284–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fisher RA (1932) Statistical methods for research workers. Oliver and Boyd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Fromentin JM, Powers JE (2005) Atlantic bluefin tuna: population dynamics, ecology, fisheries and management. Fish Fisheries 6(4):281–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilbert CH (1914) Contributions to the life history of the sockeye salmon. Report to British Columbia Fisheries Department, Vancouver, BCGoogle Scholar
  21. Gould SJ (1981) Mismeasure of man. W.W. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Graham M (1935) Modern theory of exploiting a fishery and application to North Sea trawling. J Cons Int Explor Mer 10:264–274Google Scholar
  23. Harden Jones FR (1968) Fish migration. St. Martin's, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Hare JA (2005) The use of early life stages in stock identification studies. In: Cadrin SX, Friedland KD, Waldman JR (eds) Stock identification methods. Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  25. Hart D, Cadrin SX (2004) Yellowtail flounder (Limanda ferruginea) off the northeastern United States, implications of movement among stocks. In: Akçakaya HR et al. (eds) Species conservation and management: case studies. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Hart DR (2001) Individual-based yield-per-recruit analysis, with an application to the Atlantic sea scallop, Placopecten magellanicus. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 58:2351–2358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hatfield EMC, Zuur AF, Boyd J, et al. (2005) WESTHER: a multidisciplinary approach to the identification of herring (Clupea harengus L.) stock components west of the British Isles using biological tags and genetic markers. ICES CM 2005/K:01Google Scholar
  28. Hedgecock D (ed) (1984) Identifying fish subpopulations. California Sea Grant College Program Publication, Rep T-CSGCP-013Google Scholar
  29. Heinke, F (1898) Naturgeschichte des herings. Teil 1. Deutscher Seefischerei Verein. Band IIIGoogle Scholar
  30. Hilborn R (1990) Determining fish movement patterns from tag recoveries using maximum likelihood estimators. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 47:635–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hilborn R, Walters CJ (1992) Quantitative fisheries stock assessment: choice, dynamics, and uncertainty. Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  32. Hightower JE, Jackson JR, Pollock KH (2001) Use of telemetry methods to estimate natural and fishing mortality of striped bass in Lake Gaston, North Carolina. Trans Am Fish Soc 130:557–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hjort J (1914) Fluctuations in the great fisheries of northern Europe. Rapp p-v Réun Cons Int Explor Mer 20:1–228Google Scholar
  34. Hohn AA (1997) Design for a multiple-method approach to determine stock structure of bot-tlenose dolphins in the mid-Atlantic. NOAA Tech Mem NMFS-SEFSC 401Google Scholar
  35. Huxley THH (1882) Inaugural address. Fisheries exhibition, London (from Blinderman C, Joyce D (1998) The Huxley file (available at: http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/SM5/fish.html)
  36. ICES (2007) Report of the Workshop on Testing the Entrainment Hypothesis (WKTEST), 4–7 June 2007, Nantes, France. ICES CM 2007/LRC:10Google Scholar
  37. Ihssen PE, Booke HE, Casselman JM, et al. (1981) Stock identification: materials and methods. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 38:1838–1855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jakobsson J (1970) On fish tags and tagging. Oceanogr Mar Biol Ann Rev 8:457–499Google Scholar
  39. Jordan DS (1905) A guide to the study of fishes. Henry Holt and Co. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Kraus RT, Secor DH (2005) Application of the nursery-role hypothesis to an estuarine fish. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 291:301–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kritzer JP, Sale PF (2004) Metapopulation ecology in the sea: from Levins' model to marine ecology and fisheries science. Fish Fisheries 5:131–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Larkin PA (1972) The stock concept and management of pacific salmon. In: Simon RC, Larkin PA (eds) The stock concept in Pacific salmon. H.R. MacMillan Lectures in Fisheries, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BCGoogle Scholar
  43. Lebedev NV (1969) Elementary populations of fish (translated from Russian: Elementarnye populyatsii ryb, Izdatel'sto “Pishchevaya Promyshlennost” Moskva 1967). Israel Program for Scientific Translation, JerusalemGoogle Scholar
  44. Levins R (1968) Evolution in changing environments: some theoretical explorations. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  45. MacCall AD (1990) Dynamic geography of marine fish populations. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WAGoogle Scholar
  46. Marr JC (1957) Contributions to the study of subpopulations of fishes. US Dept Int Fish Wildl Serv Sp Sci Rep Fish 208Google Scholar
  47. Mayr E (1982) The growth of biological thought. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  48. McQuinn IH (1997) Metapopulations and the Atlantic herring. Rev Fish Biol Fish 7:297–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Methot RD (2005) Technical description of the stock synthesis II assessment program (available at: http://nft.nefsc.noaa.gov/)
  50. National Research Council (NRC) (1994) An assessment of Atlantic bluefin tuna. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  51. Overholtz W, Friedland K (2002) Recovery of the Gulf of Maine-Georges Bank Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus) complex: perspectives based on bottom trawl survey data. Fish Bull 100:593–608Google Scholar
  52. Palsbol PJ, Berube M, Allendorf FW (2006) Identification of management units using population genetic data. Trends Ecol Evol 22:11–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pauly D (1986) Concepts that work: some advances in tropical fisheries research. In: Dizon JL, Hosillos LV (eds) The first Asian fisheries forum. Asian Fisheries Society, Manila, PhilippinesGoogle Scholar
  54. Pella J, Masuda M (2006) The Gibbs and split-merge sampler for population mixture analysis from genetic data with incomplete baselines Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63:576–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Policansky D, Magnuson JJ (1998) Genetics, metapopulations, and ecosystem management of fisheries. Ecol Appl 8:S119–S123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Porch CE (2003) VPA 2-Box version 3.01 user's guide. Sustainable Fisheries Division Contribution SFD-01/02–151Google Scholar
  57. Porch CE, Turner SC (1999) Virtual population analyses of Atlantic bluefin tuna with alternative models of trans-Atlantic migration. ICCAT Coll Vo l Sci Pap 49:291–305Google Scholar
  58. Porch C, Kleiber P, Turner S, et al. (1998) The efficacy of VPA models in the presence of complicated movement patterns. ICCAT Coll Vol Sci Pap 50(2):591–622Google Scholar
  59. Powers PE, Porch CE (2004) Approaches to developing management procedures which incorporate mixing. ICCAT Coll Vol Sci Pap 56(3):1144–1152Google Scholar
  60. Prager MH, Shertzer KW (2005) An introduction to statistical algorithms useful in stock composition analysis. In: Cadrin SX, Friedland KD, Waldman JR (eds) Stock identification methods. Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  61. Quinn TJ (2003) Ruminations on the development and future of population dynamics models in fisheries. Nat Res Model 16:341–392Google Scholar
  62. Quinn TJ II, Deriso RB (1999) Quantitative fish dynamics. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  63. Ricker WE (1954) Stock and recruitment. J Fish Res Bd Canada 11:559–623Google Scholar
  64. Ricker WE (1958) Maximum sustainable yields from fluctuating environments and mixed stocks. J Fish Res Bd Canada 15:991–1006Google Scholar
  65. Ricker WE (1972) Hereditary and environmental factors affecting certain Salmonid populations. In: Simon RC, Larkin PA (eds) The stock concept in Pacific salmon. H.R. MacMillan Lectures in Fisheries, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BCGoogle Scholar
  66. Royce WF, Smith LS, Hartt AC (1968) Models of oceanic migrations of Pacific salmon and comments on guidance mechanisms. US Fish Bull 66:441–462Google Scholar
  67. Russell ES (1931) Some theoretical considerations on the “overfishing” problem. Cons Perm Int Explor Mer 6:3–20Google Scholar
  68. Schwarz CJ (2005) Estimation of movement from tagging data. In: Cadrin SX, Friedland KD, Waldman JR (eds) Stock identification methods. Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  69. Secor DH (1999) Specifying divergent migrations in the concept of stock: the contingent hypothesis. Fish Res 43:13–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Secor DH (2001) Is Atlantic bluefin tuna a metapopulation?. ICCAT SCRS/2001/056Google Scholar
  71. Secor DH (2002) Historical roots of the migration triangle. ICES J Mar Sci 215:329–335Google Scholar
  72. Secor DH (2005) Fish migration and the unit stock: three formative debates. In: Cadrin SX, Friedland KD, Waldman JR (eds) Stock identification methods. Applications in fishery science. Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  73. Shepherd TD, Litvak MK (2004) Density-dependent habitat selection and the ideal free distribution in marine fish spatial dynamics: considerations and cautions. Fish Fisheries 5:141–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sibert JR, Hampton J, Fournier DA, et al. (1999) An advection-diffusion-reaction model for the estimation of fish movement parameters from tagging data, with application to skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis). Can J. Fish Aquat Sci 56:925–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sinclair M (1988) Marine populations: an essay on population regulation and speciation. Washington Sea Grant Program, Seattle, WAGoogle Scholar
  76. Sinclair MM, Smith TD (2002) The notion that fish species form stocks. ICES Mar Sci Symp 215:297–304Google Scholar
  77. Smedbol RK, Stephenson RL (2001) The importance of managing within-species diversity in cod and herring fisheries of the north-western Atlantic. J Fish Biol 59(Suppl A):109–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Smedbol RK, Wroblewski JS (2002) Metapopulation theory and northern cod population structure: interdependency of subpopulations in recovery of a groundfish population. Fish Res 55:161–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Smedbol RK, McPherson A, Hansen MM, et al (2002) Myths and moderation in marine “ metapopulations.” Fish Fisheries 3:20–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Smith PJ, Jamieson A (1986) Stock discreteness in herrings: a conceptual revolution. Fish Res 4:223–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Smith PJ, Jamieson A, Birley AJ (1990) Electrophoretic studies and the stock concept in marine teleosts. J Cons Int Explor Mer 47:231–245Google Scholar
  82. Smith TD (1988) Stock assessment methods: the first fifty years. In Gulland JA (ed) Fish population dynamics, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  83. Smith TD (1994) Scaling fisheries, the science of measuring the effects of fishing, 1855–1955. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  84. Stephenson RL (2002) Stock structure management and structure: an ongoing challenge for ICES. ICES Mar Sci Symp 215:305–314Google Scholar
  85. Stephenson RL, Clark KJ, Power MJ, et al. (2001) Herring stock structure, stock discreteness, and biodiversity. In: Funk F, Blackburn J, Hay D, et al. (eds) Herring, expectations for a new millennium. Lowell Wakefield Fisheries Symposium Series No. 18. Alaska Sea Grant College Program, FairbanksGoogle Scholar
  86. Stratoudakis G (2006) SARDYN: Sardine dynamics and stock structure in the north-eastern Atlantic. Final report Q5RS — 2002 — 000818 (available at: http://ipimar-iniap.ipimar.pt/sardyn)Google Scholar
  87. Thompson WF, Bell FH (1934) Biological statistics of the Pacific halibut fishery. (2) Effect of changes in intensity upon total yield and yield per unit of gear. Int Fish Comm Rep 8Google Scholar
  88. Thorrold SR, Latkoczy C, Swart PK, et al. (2001) Natal homing in a marine fish metapopulation. Science 291:297–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Thorsteinsson V (2002) Tagging methods for stock assessment and research in fisheries. Report of concerted action FAIR CT.96.1394 (CATAG). Reykjavik. Mar Res Inst Tech Rep 79Google Scholar
  90. Tuckey T, Yochum N, Hoenig J, et al. (2007) Evaluating localized vs. large-scale management: the example of tautog in Virginia. Fisheries 32:21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Utter FM (1991) Biochemical genetics and fishery management: an historical perspective. J Fish Biol 39:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Waldman JR (1999) The importance of comparative studies in stock analysis. Fish Res 43(1–3):237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Waldman JR, Richards RA, Schill WB, et al. (1997) An empirical comparison of stock identification techniques applied to striped bass. Trans Am Fish Soc 126:369–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Waples RS (1998) Separating the wheat from the chaff: patterns of genetic differentiation in high gene flow species. J Heredity 89:438–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Waples RS, Gaggiotti O (2006) What is a population?. An empirical evaluation of some genetic methods for identifying the number of gene pools and their degree of connectivity. Mol Ecol 15:1419–1439Google Scholar
  96. Waples RS, Winans GA, Utter FM, et al. (1990) Genetic approaches to the management of Pacific salmon. Fisheries 15(5):19–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Wirgin I, Waldman JR (2005) Use of nuclear DNA in stock identification: single-copy and repetitive sequence markers. In: Cadrin SX, Friedland KD, Waldman JR (eds) Stock identification methods. Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NOAA/UMass Cooperative Marine Education and Research ProgramSchool for Marine Science & TechnologyNew BedfordUSA
  2. 2.Chesapeake Biological LaboratoryUniversity of Maryland Center for Environmental ScienceSolomonsUSA

Personalised recommendations