Interpreting catch per unit effort data to assess the status of individual stocks and communities
Abstract
Despite being one of the most common pieces of information used in assessing the status of fish stocks, relative abundance indices based on catch per unit effort (cpue) data are notoriously problematic. Raw cpue is seldom proportional to abundance over a whole exploitation history and an entire geographic range, because numerous factors affect catch rates. One of the most commonly applied fisheries analyses is standardization of cpue data to remove the effect of factors that bias cpue as an index of abundance. Even if cpue is standardized appropriately, the resulting index of relative abundance, in isolation, provides limited information for management advice or about the effect of fishing. In addition, cpue data generally cannot provide information needed to assess and manage communities or ecosystems. We discuss some of the problems associated with the use of cpue data and some methods to assess and provide management advice about fish populations that can help overcome these problems, including integrated stock assessment models, management strategy evaluation, and adaptive management. We also discuss the inappropriateness of using cpue data to evaluate the status of communities. We use tuna stocks in the Pacific Ocean as examples.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Fishery data have been criticised for inducing biased conclusions about stock abundance trends because CPUE series may not accurately reflect trends of population abundance due to changes in fishing practice, efficiency of fleets or environmental effects on catchability.
“Fishery data have been criticised for inducing biased conclusions about stock abundance trends because CPUE series may not accurately reflect trends of population abundance due to changes in fishing practice, efficiency of the fleets or environmental effects on catchability, among others (see Maunder and Punt, 2004;Maunder et al., 2006;Polacheck, 2006).”
From Global habitat preferences of commercially valuable tuna (2015) · cites this paper as Maunder et al., 2006
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 80 · Cited by 582
- Authors
- Maunder, M. N., Sibert, J. R., Fonteneau, A., Hampton, J., Kleiber, P., & Harley, S. J.
- Affiliations
- Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (US)
- University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (US)
- Centre de Recherche Halieutique Méditerranéenne et Tropicale Avenue Jean Monnet BP 171, 34 203 Sete Cedex, France
- Pacific Community (NC)
- NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (US)
- Ministry of Fisheries PO Box 1020, Wellington, New Zealand
- Venue
- ICES Journal of Marine Science
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-01-01
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1373-1385
- ISSN
- 1054-3139 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-9289
- OpenAlex
- W2161277812
- Cited by
- 582
- References
- 80
- Citations by year
- 2026: 32 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 59 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 25
- FWCI
- 9.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ICES Journal of Marine Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Marine and fisheries research
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Mathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology Models
- Keywords
- catch per unit effort, relative abundance index, CPUE standardization, fish stock assessment, ecosystem-based fisheries management, management strategy evaluation, adaptive management, tuna stocks, fisheries advice
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review