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
- 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)."
- 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).”
- 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)
|