Cited by 41Turtle Biology and ConservationMarine and fisheries researchMarine animal studies overview

Bayesian inference and assessment for rare-event bycatch in marine fisheries: a drift gillnet fishery case study

Martin, Summer L., Stohs, Stephen M., Moore, Jeffrey E.·2015·Ecological Applications

Abstract

Fisheries bycatch is a global threat to marine megafauna. Environmental laws require bycatch assessment for protected species, but this is difficult when bycatch is rare. Low bycatch rates, combined with low observer coverage, may lead to biased, imprecise estimates when using standard ratio estimators. Bayesian model-based approaches incorporate uncertainty, produce less volatile estimates, and enable probabilistic evaluation of estimates relative to management thresholds. Here, we demonstrate a pragmatic decision-making process that uses Bayesian model-based inferences to estimate the probability of exceeding management thresholds for bycatch in fisheries with < 100% observer coverage. Using the California drift gillnet fishery as a case study, we (1) model rates of rare-event bycatch and mortality using Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo estimation methods and 20 years of observer data; (2) predict unobserved counts of bycatch and mortality; (3) infer expected annual mortality; (4) determine probabilities of mortality exceeding regulatory thresholds; and (5) classify the fishery as having low, medium, or high bycatch impact using those probabilities. We focused on leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) and humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae). Candidate models included Poisson or zero-inflated Poisson likelihood, fishing effort, and a bycatch rate that varied with area, time, or regulatory regime. Regulatory regime had the strongest effect on leatherback bycatch…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1890/14-0059.1

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Martin, S. L., Stohs, S. M., & Moore, J. E.
Affiliations
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (US)
Corresponding author
Martin, Summer L.
Venue
Ecological Applications
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-03
Volume
25
Issue
2
Pages
416-429
ISSN
  • 1051-0761 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-5582
OpenAlex
W2155734453
Cited by
40
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2
FWCI
2.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Ecological Applications (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Turtle Biology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Marine and fisheries research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Marine animal studies overview
Keywords
bycatch, Dermochelys coriacea, humpback whale, Bayesian inference, zero-inflated Poisson regression, management thresholds, potential biological removal, observer data, Endangered Species Act
MeSH terms
Animals, Bayes Theorem, California, Conservation of Natural Resources, Environmental Monitoring, Fisheries, Models, Biological, Pacific Ocean, Turtles, Models, Statistical, Humpback Whale

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