About this document

This is a prototype of an automatic report that documents how the user specified the operating model and their various justifications.


Introduction

  1. Describe the history and current status of the fishery, including fleets, sectors, vessel types and practices/gear by vessel type, landing ports, economics/markets, whether targeted/bycatch, other stocks caught in the fishery. from the asssessment report (Rico et al 2018): “Pez Palo (Percophis brasiliensis) is one of the main species landed from the set”varied coastal" fish in the Coastal Ecosystem of Buenos Aires, obtained from a fishery demersal multispecific-multiflora (Carozza et al., 2001). During 2016 the volumes landed They reached 7,193 t of the species, palo palo, representing 8% of the total catch of the set (Carozza et al., 2018)."
  2. Describe the stock’s ecosystem functions, dependencies, and habitat types. from the asssessment report (Rico et al 2018): “Percophis brasiliensis is a coastal demersal species whose distribution in the Southwestern Atlantic It covers from Rio de Janeiro (23 ° S) to the north of the Province of Chubut (47ºS) P. brasiliensis has a persistent distribution in the Coastal Bonaerense Ecosystem (ECB), however It presents seasonal migratory movements in the north-south and coast-platform (Figure one).”
  3. Provide all relevant reference materials, such as assessments, research, and other analysis. Asssessment report (Rico et al 2018); Assessment report (Rico et al 2016); Assessment report: CTMFM 2017 All reports are included in the “Supporting docs” folder.


Fishery Characteristics

Longevity

Answered
Very short-lived (5 < maximum age < 7)
Short-lived (7 < maximum age < 10)
Moderate life span (10 < maximum age < 20)
Moderately long-lived (20 < maximum age < 40)
Long-lived (40 < maximum age < 80)
Very long-lived (80 < maximum age < 160)
Justification
The maximum age observed is 17 according to Rico et al (2018).

Stock depletion

Answered
Crashed (D < 0.05)
Very depleted (0.05 < D < 0.1)
Depleted (0.1 < D < 0.15)
Moderately depleted (0.15 < D < 0.3)
Healthy (0.3 < D < 0.5)
Underexploited (0.5 < D)
Justification
See Figure 28 in Rico et al (2018) for the depletion trend.

Resilence

Answered
Not resilient (steepness < 0.3)
Low resilience (0.3 < steepness < 0.5)
Moderate resilence (0.5 < steepness < 0.7)
Resilient (0.7 < steepness < 0.9)
Very Resilient (0.9 < steepness)
Justification
Table 6 in Rico et al (2018). I am not sure how this parameter was derived in Rico et al (2018).

Historical effort pattern

Answered
Stable
Two-phase
Boom-bust
Gradual increases
Stable, recent increases
Stable, recent declines
Justification
Information about historical effort pattern was not found.

Inter-annual variability in historical effort

Answered
Not variable (less than 20% inter-annual change (IAC))
Variable (maximum IAC between 20% to 50%)
Highly variable (maximum IAC between 50% and 100%)
Justification
No information was found

Historical fishing efficiency changes

Answered
Declining by 2-3% pa (halves every 25-35 years)
Declining by 1-2% pa (halves every 35-70 years)
Stable -1% to 1% pa (may halve/double every 70 years)
Increasing by 1-2% pa (doubles every 35-70 years)
Increasing by 2-3% pa (doubles every 25-35 years)
Justification
No information was found on fishing efficiency changes

Future fishing efficiency changes

Answered
Declining by 2-3% pa (halves every 25-35 years)
Declining by 1-2% pa (halves every 35-70 years)
Stable -1% to 1% pa (may halve/double every 70 years)
Increasing by 1-2% pa (doubles every 35-70 years)
Increasing by 2-3% pa (doubles every 25-35 years)
Justification
No information was found

Length at maturity

Answered
Very small (0.4 < LM < 0.5)
Small (0.5 < LM < 0.6)
Moderate (0.6 < LM < 0.7)
Moderate to large (0.7 < LM < 0.8)
Large (0.8 < LM < 0.9)
Justification
Length at maturity for both sexes = 28.51 cm (Fig. 8 in Rico et al 2018); Asymptotic length for both sexes (Table 1 in Rico et al. 2018) = 67.39 cm

Selectivity of small fish

Answered
Very small (0.1 < S < 0.2)
Small (0.2 < S < 0.4)
Half asymptotic length (0.4 < S < 0.6)
Large (0.6 < S < 0.8)
Very large (0.8 < S < 0.9)
Justification
Size at selectivity is about 45 cm based on length composition data obtained from the fishing fleet; the asymptotic length for both sexes is 67.39 cm. from assessment report Rico et al (2018) Figure 18.

Selectivity of large fish

Answered
Asymptotic selectivity (SL = 1)
Declining selectivity with length (0.75 < SL < 1)
Dome-shaped selectivity (0.25 < SL < 0.75)
Strong dome-shaped selectivity (SL < 0.25)
Justification
This species undergoes a seasonal ontogenetic shift, which implies that large fish are not vulnerable to fishing when moving offshore or to deeper water. However, it is not clear whether the fishing fleet still pursues the large fish as they migrate, thus the uncertainty in whether the selectivity is asymptotic or dome-shaped. from assessment report Rico et al., (2018).

Discard rate

Answered
Low (DR < 1%)
Low - moderate (1% < DR < 10%)
Moderate (10% < DR < 30%)
Moderate - high (30% < DR < 50%)
High (50% < DR < 70%)
Justification
No information was found on the discard rate.

Post-release mortality rate

Answered
Low (PRM < 5%)
Low - moderate (5% < PRM < 25%)
Moderate (25% < PRM < 50%)
Moderate - high (50% < PRM < 75%)
High (75% < PRM < 95%)
Almost all die (95% < PRM < 100%)
Justification
No information was found on the post-release mortality rate.

Recruitment variability

Answered
Very low (less than 20% inter-annual changes (IAC))
Low (max IAC of between 20% and 60%)
Moderate (max IAC of between 60% and 120%)
High (max IAC of between 120% and 180%)
Very high (max IAC greater than 180%)
Justification
No information was found on recruitment variability.

Size of an existing MPA

Answered
None
Small (A < 5%)
Small-moderate (5% < A < 10%)
Moderate (10% < A < 20%)
Large (20% < A < 30%)
Very large (30% < A < 40%)
Huge (40% < A < 50%)
Justification
No information was found on spatial closures.

Spatial mixing (movement) in/out of existing MPA

Answered
Very low (P < 1%)
Low (1% < P < 5%)
Moderate (5% < P < 10%)
High (10% < P < 20%)
Fully mixed
Justification
No information was found.

Size of a future potential MPA

Answered
None
Small (A < 5%)
Small-moderate (5% < A < 10%)
Moderate (10% < A < 20%)
Large (20% < A < 30%)
Very large (30% < A < 40%)
Huge (40% < A < 50%)
Justification
No information was found.

Spatial mixing (movement) in/out of future potential MPA

Answered
Very low (P < 1%)
Low (1% < P < 5%)
Moderate (5% < P < 10%)
High (10% < P < 20%)
Fully mixed
Justification
No information was found

Initial stock depletion

Answered
Very low (0.1 < D1 < 0.15)
Low (0.15 < D1 < 0.3)
Moderate (0.3 < D < 0.5)
High (0.5 < D1)
Asymptotic unfished levels (D1 = 1)
Justification
See figure 28 in Rico et al. (2018)


Management Characteristics

Types of fishery management that are possible

Answered
TAC (Total Allowable Catch): a catch limit
TAE (Total Allowable Effort): an effort limit
Size limit
Time-area closures (a marine reserve)
Justification
1. Describe what, if any, current management measures are used to constrain catch/effort.
The assessment report did not mention any current management measures. However, the following was mentioned: “the WG suggested that catches in the Treaty area and adjacent waters, during the year 2017, they should be less than 6,500 tons. Finally, a CTP was established
of 6,000 t with administrative reserve of 500 t”

2. Describe historical management measures, if any.
No information was found on historical management measures.

3. Describe main strengths and weaknesses of current monitoring and enforcement capacity.
No information was found.

4. Describe and reference any legal/policy requirements for management, monitoring and enforcement.
No information was found.


TAC offset: consistent overages/underages

Answered
Large underages (40% - 70% of recommended)
Underages (70% - 90% of recommended)
Slight underages (90% - 100% of recommended)
Taken exactly (95% - 105% of recommended)
Slight overages (100% - 110% of recommended)
Overages (110% - 150% of recommended)
Large overages (150% - 200% of recommended)
Justification
No information was found.


TAC implementation variability

Answered
Constant (V < 1%)
Not variable (1% < V < 5%)
Low variability (5% < V < 10%)
Variable (10% < V < 20%)
Highly variable (20% < V < 40%)
Justification
No information was found.


TAE offset: consistent overages/underages

Answered
Large underages (40% - 70% of recommended)
Underages (70% - 90% of recommended)
Slight underages (90% - 100% of recommended)
Taken exactly (95% - 105% of recommended)
Slight overages (100% - 110% of recommended)
Overages (110% - 150% of recommended)
Large overages (150% - 200% of recommended)
Justification
No information was found.


TAE implementation variability

Answered
Constant (V < 1%)
Not variable (1% < V < 5%)
Low variability (5% < V < 10%)
Variable (10% < V < 20%)
Highly variable (20% < V < 40%)
Justification
No information was found.


Size limit offset: consistent overages/underages

Answered
Much smaller (40% - 70% of recommended)
Smaller (70% - 90% of recommended)
Slightly smaller (90% - 100% of recommended)
Taken exactly (95% - 105% of recommended)
Slightly larger (100% - 110% of recommended)
Larger (110% - 150% of recommended)
Much larger (150% - 200% of recommended)
Justification
No information was provided.


Size limit implementation variability

Answered
Constant (V < 1%)
Not variable (1% < V < 5%)
Low variability (5% < V < 10%)
Variable (10% < V < 20%)
Highly variable (20% < V < 40%)
Justification
No information was found.


Data Characteristics

Available data types

Answered
Historical annual catches (from unfished)
Recent annual catches (at least 5 recent years)
Historical relative abundance index (from unfished)
Recent relative abundance index (at least 5 recent years)
Fishing effort
Size composition (length samples)
Age composition (age samples)
Growth (growth parameters)
Absolute biomass survey
Justification
1. Provide the time series (specify years, if possible) that exist for catch, effort, and CPUE/abundance indices.
from assessment report Rico et al. (2018): catch (figure 16); cpue (figure 21); abundance indices (figure 22)

2. Describe how these data collected (e.g., log books, dealer reporting, observers).
No information was found.

3. Describe what types of sampling programs and methodologies exist for data collection, including the time-series of available sampling data and quality.
No information was found.

4. Describe all sources of uncertainty in the status, biology, life history and data sources of the fishery. Include links to documentation, reports.
The only uncertainty reported explicitly in Rico et al. (2018) report is natural mortality; but other major uncertainties including selectivity and stock-recruitment relationship. Fisheries-dependent data is generally bias since fishing fleet does not target fish randomly.


Catch reporting bias

Answered
Strong under-reporting (30% - 50%)
Under-reporting (10% - 30%)
Slight under-reporting (0% - 10%)
Reported accurately (+/- 5%)
Slight over-reporting (less than 10%)
Justification
No information was found.


Hyperstability in indices

Answered
Strong hyperdepletion (2 < Beta < 3)
Hyperdepletion (1.25 < Beta < 2)
Proportional (0.8 < Beta < 1.25)
Hyperstability (0.5 < Beta < 0.8)
Strong hyperstability (0.33 < Beta < 0.5)
Justification
No information was found.


Available data types

Answered
Perfect
Good (accurate and precise)
Data moderate (some what inaccurate and imprecise)
Data poor (inaccurate and imprecise)
Justification
Might be between data moderate and data poor, but I choose moderate based on the data presented in Rico et al 2018. Error around catch and abundance indices are unknown.


Version Notes

The package is subject to ongoing testing. If you find a bug or a problem please send a report to so that it can be fixed!




tcar_-2019-11-26-10:25:40

Open Source, GPL-2 2019