Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:01:52.603Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Application of a mixed modelling approach to standardize catch-per-unit-effort data for an abalone dive fishery in Western Victoria, Australia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2018

Khageswor Giri  and
Harry Gorfine
Khageswor Giri*
Affiliation:
Biometrics Unit, Agriculture Research Division, Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, Victoria 3053, Australia Fisheries Victoria, Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, 2A Bellarine Hwy, Queenscliff, Victoria 3226, Australia
Harry Gorfine
Affiliation:
Fisheries Victoria, Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, 2A Bellarine Hwy, Queenscliff, Victoria 3226, Australia School of Mathematical and Geospatial Sciences, RMIT University, 124 La Trobe Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: K. Giri, DEDJTR Queenscliff Centre, PO Box 114, Queenscliff, Victoria 3226, Australia email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite the prevalence of catch per unit effort (CPUE) as a key metric in fisheries assessments it can be fraught with inherent problems that often cause its use as an index of abundance to become contentious. This is particularly the case with abalone, a sedentary shellfish targeted by commercial dive fishers around the globe. It is common practice to standardize CPUE to at least partly address issues about how well it reflects the actual abundance of a stock. Differences between standardized and unstandardized trends may lead to controversy between scientists and stakeholders when standardized trends provide a less optimistic picture of stock status. It is within this context that we applied Linear Mixed Model (LMM) and Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM) methods to standardize CPUE for the Western Zone blacklip abalone fishery in Victoria, Australia. This fishery was chosen for our evaluation because it included substantial population losses from a disease shock during the middle of the time series. The effects of diver, reef location, month and their interactions with year were included as random effects in these models and the results compared with nominal geometric means. The two standardization methods provided similar standardized CPUE trends and clearly demonstrated that a large proportion of the variance could be attributed to diver and spatial effects. The GLMM seemed to explain more variability in the data and produced better precision for standardized CPUEs than LMM. The temporal trend in variability attributed to divers and spatial scales reveals the impact of disease as well as any homo/heterogeneity effect. The CPUE trends responded to the impact of disease against a backdrop of declining stock, however when compared with the inter-annual pattern in nominal CPUE, the standardized trends showed that the decline immediately following the onset of disease was less precipitous. In contrast to what appeared to be an increase in the nominal series during the more recent post-disease period, there was only a slight non-significant increase observable in the standardized trends.

Keywords

CPUE standardizationLinear Mixed ModelGeneralized Linear Mixed Modelabundance indexabalone fishery
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 99 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 187 - 195
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Brandao, A., Butterworth, D.S., Johnston, S.J. and Glazer, J.P. (2004) Using a GLMM to estimate the somatic growth rate for male South African west coast rock lobster Jasus lalandi. Fisheries Research 70, 335–345.Google Scholar
Candy, S.G. (2004) Modelling catch and effort data using generalised linear models, the tweedie distribution, random vessel effects and random stratum-by-year effects. Science 11, 59–80.Google Scholar
Cooke, J.G. (1997) A procedure for using catch-effort indices in bluefin tuna assessments (revised). ICCAT Collective Volume of Scientific Papers 46, 228–232.Google Scholar
Dichmont, C.M., Butterworth, D.S. and Cochrane, K.L. (2000) Towards adaptive approaches to management of the South African abalone Haliotis midae fishery. South African Journal of Marine Science 22, 33–42.Google Scholar
Erisman, B.E., Allen, L.G., Claisse, J.T., Pondella, D.J. II, Miller, E.F. and Murray, J.H. (2011) The illusion of plenty: hyperstability masks collapses in two recreational fisheries that target fish spawning aggregations. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 68, 1705–1716.Google Scholar
Gavaris, S. (1980) Use of a multiplicative model to estimate catch rate and effort from commercial data. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37, 2272–2275.Google Scholar
Gorfine, H.K., Forbes, D.A. and Gason, A.S. (1998) A comparison of two underwater census methods for estimating the abundance of the commercially important blacklip abalone, Haliotis rubra. Fishery Bulletin 96, 438–450.Google Scholar
Gordon, H.R. and Cook, P.A. (2013) World abalone supply, markets, and pricing: 2011 update. Journal of Shellfish Research 32, 5–7.Google Scholar
Harley, S.J., Myers, R.A. and Dunn, A. (2001) Is catch-per-unit-effort proportional to abundance? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58, 1760–1772.Google Scholar
Hobday, A.J., Tegner, M.J. and Haaker, P.L. (2001) Over-exploitation of a broadcast spawning marine invertebrate: decline of the white abalone. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 10, 493–514.Google Scholar
Ierodiaconou, D., Miller, A.D., Rattray, A., Weeks, A.R., Gorfine, H.K., Peeters, H., Van Rooyen, A., Jalali, M.A., Bell, J.D. and Worthington, D. (2014) Spatial patterns, landscape genetics and post virus recovery of blacklip abalone, Haliotis rubra (Leach), in the western commercial fishing zone of Victoria. Final report to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Project Number 2011/033, 78 pp.Google Scholar
Maggs, J.Q., Mann, B.Q., Potts, W.M. and Dunlop, S.W. (2015) Traditional management strategies fail to arrest a decline in the catch-per-unit-effort of an iconic marine recreational fishery species with evidence of hyperstability. Fisheries Management and Ecology 23, 187–199.Google Scholar
Maunder, M. and Punt, A. (2004) Standardizing catch and effort data: a review of recent approaches. Fisheries Research 70, 141–159.Google Scholar
Mayfield, S., McGarvey, R., Gorfine, H.K., Peeters, H., Burch, P. and Sharma, S. (2011) Survey estimates of fishable biomass following a mass mortality in an Australian molluscan fishery. Journal of Fish Diseases 34, 287–302.Google Scholar
Mayfield, S., Mundy, C., Gorfine, H., Hart, A.M. and Worthington, D. (2012) Fifty years of sustained production from the Australian abalone fisheries. Reviews in Fisheries Science 20, 220–250.Google Scholar
McCullagh, P. and Nelder, J. (1983) Generalized linear models. New York, NY: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Mogensen, S., Post, J.R. and Sullivan, M.G. (2014) Vulnerability to harvest by anglers differs across climate, productivity, and diversity clines. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 71, 416–426.Google Scholar
Mundy, C., Mayfield, S., Gorfine, H. and Liggins, G. (2014) Blacklip abalone Haliotis rubra. In Flood, M., Stobutzki, I., Andrews, J., Ashby, C., Begg, G., Fletcher, R., Gardner, C., Georgeson, L., Hansen, S., Hartmann, K., Hone, P., Horvat, P., Maloney, L., McDonald, B., Moore, A., Roelofs, A., Sainsbury, K., Saunders, T., Smith, T., Stewardson, C., Stewart, J. and Wise, B. (eds) Status of key Australian fish stocks reports 2014. Canberra: Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, pp. 81–92.Google Scholar
Mundy, C., Stobart, B., Green, C., Ferguson, G., Burnell, O., Chick, R. and Mayfield, S. (2016) Blacklip abalone Haliotis rubra. In Stewardson, C., Andrews, J., Ashby, C., Haddon, M., Hartmann, K., Hone, P., Horvat, P., Mayfield, S., Roelofs, A., Sainsbury, K., Saunders, T., Stewart, J., Stobutzki, I. and Wise, B. (eds) Status of Australian fish stocks reports 2016. Canberra: Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, pp. 43–50.Google Scholar
Officer, R.A., Gorfine, H.K. and Dixon, C.D. (2001) Movement and re-aggregation of the blacklip abalone, Haliotis rubra, after fishing. Journal of Shellfish Research 20, 771–779.Google Scholar
Peeters, H. (2011) Developing cost-effective and reliable industry-based surveys to advise reopening and conservative management of abalone populations on AVG-affected reefs. Final report to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Project Number 2008/077, 112 pp.Google Scholar
Robinson, G.K. (1991) That BLUP is a good thing: the estimation of random effects. Statistical Science 6, 15–32.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Marín, E., Arrizabalaga, H., Ortiz, M., Rodríguez-Cabello, C., Moreno, G. and Kell, L.T. (2003) Standardization of bluefin tuna, Thunnus thynnus, catch per unit effort in the baitboat fishery of the Bay of Biscay (Eastern Atlantic). ICES Journal of Marine Science 60, 1216–1231.Google Scholar
Shono, H. (2008) Application of the Tweedie distribution to zero-catch data in CPUE analysis. Fisheries Research 93, 154–162.Google Scholar
Tascheri, R., Saavedra-Nievas, C. and Roa-Ureta, R. (2010) Statistical models to standardize catch rates in the multi-species trawl fishery for Patagonian grenadier (Macruronus magellanicus) off southern Chile. Fisheries Research 105, 200–214.Google Scholar
Venables, W.N. and Dichmont, C.M. (2004) GLMs, GAM and GLMMs: an overview of theory for applications in fisheries research. Fisheries Research 70, 319–337.Google Scholar
Welham, S., Cullis, B., Gogel, B., Gilmour, A. and Thompson, R. (2004) Prediction in linear mixed models. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Statistics 46, 325–347.Google Scholar