The evaluation of reference points and stock productivity in the context of alternative indices of stock reproductive potential
Abstract
In this study, we explore the impact of four alternative indices of reproductive potential (RP) on perceptions of population productivity for eight fish populations across the North Atlantic. The four indices of RP included increasing biological complexity, adding variation in maturation, sex ratio, and fecundity. Perceptions of stock productivity were greatly affected by the choice of index of RP. Population status relative to reference points, RP per recruit, and projections of population size all varied when alternative indices of RP were used. There was no consistency in which index of RP gave the highest or lowest estimate of population productivity, but rather, this varied depending on how much variation there was in the reproductive biology of the population and the age composition. Estimates of sustainable harvest levels and recovery time for depleted populations can vary greatly depending on the index of RP.
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?
Life history information such as age and growth, reproduction, maturity and mortality is required to determine population productivity and, hence, resilience to fisheries.
“Life history information such as age and growth, reproduction, maturity and mortality is required to determine population productivity and, hence, resilience to fisheries (King and McFarlane, 2003; Morgan et al., 2009)”
From A review of the fisheries, life history and stock structure of tropical tuna (skipjack Katsuwonus pelamis, yellowfin Thunnus albacares and bigeye Thunnus obesus) in the Indian Ocean (2021) · cites this paper as Morgan et al., 2009
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Murua, H., Rodriguez-Marin, E., Neilson, J. D., Farley, J. H., & Juan-Jordá, M. J. (2017) · Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries · doi:10.1007/s11160-017-9474-1 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Self-citation(2021) · Advances in Marine Biology · doi:10.1016/bs.amb.2020.09.002 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Morgan, M. J., Murua, H., Kraus, G., Lambert, Y., Marteinsdóttir, G., Marshall, C. T., O’Brien, L., & Tomkiewicz, J.
- Affiliations
- Fisheries and Oceans Canada (CA)
- Venue
- Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
- Publisher
- Canadian Science Publishing
- Published
- 2009-03
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 404-414
- ISSN
- 0706-652X (ISSN-L)
- 1205-7533
- OpenAlex
- W2111567962
- Cited by
- 54
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 4.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences (publishedVersion)
- Technical University of Denmark, DTU Orbit (Technical University of Denmark, DTU) (submittedVersion)
- 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
- fertility, reference points, stock productivity, fish populations, North Atlantic fisheries, biological complexity, sex ratio, fecundity, sustainable harvesting, age structure
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