1 / 34

CAPAM – Selectivity Workshop La Jolla, USA, 11-14 March, 2013

An exploration of alternative methods to deal with time-varying selectivity in the stock assessment of YFT in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Alexandre Aires-da-Silva and Mark Maunder. CAPAM – Selectivity Workshop La Jolla, USA, 11-14 March, 2013. Outline. Background on YFT assessment

loki
Download Presentation

CAPAM – Selectivity Workshop La Jolla, USA, 11-14 March, 2013

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. An exploration of alternative methods to deal with time-varying selectivity in the stock assessment of YFT in the eastern Pacific Ocean Alexandre Aires-da-Silvaand Mark Maunder CAPAM – Selectivity Workshop La Jolla, USA, 11-14 March, 2013

  2. Outline • Background on YFT assessment • Stock Synthesis (SS3) model • Selectivity issues: time-varying process • Retrospective pattern in recent recruitments • Explore SS3 approaches to deal with time- varying selectivity • Ignore time-varying selectivity (base case model) • Full time-varying selectivity (deviates) • Time-varying for terminal years only

  3. YFT fishery definitions

  4. YFT Stock Synthesis model • Quarterly time-step model • Fishery definitions: 16 fisheries • Data weighting: the CV of the southern LL fishery was fixed (0.2), others estimated (NOA, DEL) • Growth modeling: Richards curve, L2 and variance of length-at-age are fixed • Modeling of catchability and selectivity: • Catchability coefficients for 5 CPUE time series are estimated (NOA-N, NOA-S, DEL-N, DEL-I, LL-S) • Size-based selectivity curves for 11 of the 16 fisheries are estimated (fit to size composition data) • Logistic selectivity for LL-S and DEL-S, and dome-shape for other fisheries

  5. YFT size selectivity

  6. OBJ time-varying selectivity? F1-OBJ_S F3-OBJ_I F2-OBJ_C F4-OBJ_N

  7. OBJ LF residual pattern F1-OBJ_S F2-OBJ_C F4-OBJ_N F3-OBJ_I

  8. Retrospective pattern

  9. Projections CATCHES SPAWNING BIOMASS Purse seine Longline

  10. Numerical and convergence issues • Unstable selectivites (OBJ) • Sensitive to initial parameter values and phases • Long run times (> 4 hours) • Issues inverting hessian matrix (steepness run)

  11. Objectives of study • Test approaches available in SS to deal time- varying selectivity • Improve selectivity process (time-varying) • Minimize retrospective pattern • Shortcoming: more parameters, longer run times • Simplify model • Less data, collapse fisheries (OBJ) • Some considerations • We assume that retrospective pattern is mainly driven by model misfit to recent OBJ LF data caused by misspecified selectivity • We recognize that other sources of bias and misspecifcation may exist

  12. A single “lumped” OBJ fishery F1-OBJ_S F3-OBJ_I F4-OBJ_N F2-OBJ_C

  13. Model 0: Constant selectivity • Selectivity: Estimate “average” constant selectivity • Data: Fit to OBJ length-frequency data for all historic period • Base case model configuration

  14. Model 0: Constant selectivity

  15. Model 1 - Full time-varying selectivity • Selectivity: Quarterly time-varying selectivity • Estimate quarterly deviates on base selex parameters of double normal OBJ selectivity curve • Data: Fit to OBJ LF data for all historic period • SD of quarterly deviates need to be defined: • First run: freely estimate devs with high flexibility (SD=1) • Second run: Use SD of estimated devs from first run in penalized likelihood approach

  16. Model 1 - Full time-varying selectivity

  17. Model 1 - Full time-varying selectivity

  18. Model 1 - Full time-varying selectivity

  19. Model 1 - Full time-varying selectivity Time-variant model (M1-P2fix) Constant selectivity model 0

  20. Model 1 - Full time-varying selectivity

  21. Model 2 – “hybrid” approach • Recent period is the most influential on management quantities (recent recruitments, Fs) • Time-varying selectivity process in recent period only • Estimate quarterly deviates on base selex parameters of double normal OBJ selectivity curve • Fit to OBJ LF data for recent period only • 3 terminal years (3-year average used for management quantities) • 5 terminal periods (a longer period) • As for early period, fix to “average” constant selectivity from terminal years (base parameters)

  22. Model 2 – “hybrid” approach Tvarselex- 3 years Tvarselex - 5 years

  23. Model 2 – “hybrid” approach Tvarselex- 3 years Tvarselex - 5 years

  24. Model 2 – “hybrid” approach

  25. Conclusions • Allowing for OBJ time-varying selectivity helped to minimize retrospective pattern in recent YFT recruitment estimates • Balance between the amount of selectivity process (# of params.) needed in the model and the OBJ LF data to include in model fit (whole series or few recent years only?) • Allowing for time-varying selectivity (quarterly deviates) in terminal years of the assessment only while fitting to LF data for this period seems a reasonable compromise • An “average” constant selectivity curve is applied to the early period while not fitting to the LF data for that period • A simulation study is needed to more rigorously investigate selectivity issues and associated bias in the YFT assessment

  26. QUESTIONS?

  27. Total catches

  28. Models Fix selectivity • Assume “average” stationary OBJ selectivity • “Drop” (not fit) all OBJ LF data • Fix to base selectivity parameters estimated in full time-varying runs (models 1)

  29. Models Fix selectivity M2-P2fixed M2-P2est

  30. Models Fix selectivity M2-P2est M2-P2fixed

  31. Recruitment – all models

  32. SBR – all models

  33. Model type 1

  34. Model type 3

More Related