© 2006 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
Interpreting catch per unit effort data to assess the status of individual stocks and communities
a Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037-1508, USA
b Pelagic Fisheries Research Program, University of Hawaii 1000 Pope Road, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA
c Centre de Recherche Halieutique Méditerranéenne et Tropicale Avenue Jean Monnet BP 171, 34 203 Sete Cedex, France
d Oceanic Fisheries Programme, Secretariat of the Pacific Community BP D5, Noumea, New Caledonia
e National Marine Fisheries Service, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 2570 Dole Street, Honolulu, HI 96822-2396, USA
f Ministry of Fisheries PO Box 1020, Wellington, New Zealand
*Correspondence to M. N. Maunder: tel: +1 858 5467027; fax: +1 858 5467133. e-mail: mmaunder{at}iattc.org.
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.
Keywords: cpue, ecosystem, fisheries management, Pacific Ocean, stock assessment, tuna
Received 10 October 2005; accepted 19 May 2006.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. T. Dennard, M. A. MacNeil, M. A. Treble, S. Campana, and A. T. Fisk Hierarchical analysis of a remote, Arctic, artisanal longline fishery ICES J. Mar. Sci., August 22, 2009; (2009) fsp220v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. C. Leporati, P. E. Ziegler, and J. M. Semmens Assessing the stock status of holobenthic octopus fisheries: is catch per unit effort sufficient? ICES J. Mar. Sci., April 1, 2009; 66(3): 478 - 487. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. Rouyer, J.-M. Fromentin, F. Menard, B. Cazelles, K. Briand, R. Pianet, B. Planque, and N. C. Stenseth Complex interplays among population dynamics, environmental forcing, and exploitation in fisheries PNAS, April 8, 2008; 105(14): 5420 - 5425. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Bishop, W. N. Venables, C. M. Dichmont, and D. J. Sterling Standardizing catch rates: is logbook information by itself enough? ICES J. Mar. Sci., March 1, 2008; 65(2): 255 - 266. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|