Vincent Cattoni, Leah F. South, David J. Warne, Carl Boettiger, Bhavya Thakran, Matthew H. Holden
{"title":"重新审视渔业可持续性目标","authors":"Vincent Cattoni, Leah F. South, David J. Warne, Carl Boettiger, Bhavya Thakran, Matthew H. Holden","doi":"10.1007/s11538-024-01352-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Density-dependent population dynamic models strongly influence many of the world’s most important harvest policies. Nearly all classic models (e.g. Beverton-Holt and Ricker) recommend that managers maintain a population size of roughly 40–50 percent of carrying capacity to maximize sustainable harvest, no matter the species’ population growth rate. Such insights are the foundational logic behind most sustainability targets and biomass reference points for fisheries. However, a simple, less-commonly used model, called the Hockey-Stick model, yields very different recommendations. We show that the optimal population size to maintain in this model, as a proportion of carrying capacity, is one over the population growth rate. This leads to more conservative optimal harvest policies for slow-growing species, compared to other models, if all models use the same growth rate and carrying capacity values. However, parameters typically are not fixed; they are estimated after model-fitting. If the Hockey-Stick model leads to lower estimates of carrying capacity than other models, then the Hockey-Stick policy could yield lower absolute population size targets in practice. Therefore, to better understand the population size targets that may be recommended across real fisheries, we fit the Hockey-Stick, Ricker and Beverton-Holt models to population time series data across 284 fished species from the RAM Stock Assessment database. We found that the Hockey-Stick model usually recommended fisheries maintain population sizes higher than all other models (in 69–81% of the data sets). Furthermore, in 77% of the datasets, the Hockey-Stick model recommended an optimal population target even higher than 60% of carrying capacity (a widely used target, thought to be conservative). However, there was considerable uncertainty in the model fitting. While Beverton-Holt fit several of the data sets best, Hockey-Stick also frequently fit similarly well. In general, the best-fitting model rarely had overwhelming support (a model probability of greater than 95% was achieved in less than five percent of the datasets). A computational experiment, where time series data were simulated from all three models, revealed that Beverton-Holt often fit best even when it was not the true model, suggesting that fisheries data are likely too small and too noisy to resolve uncertainties in the functional forms of density-dependent growth. Therefore, sustainability targets may warrant revisiting, especially for slow-growing species.</p>","PeriodicalId":9372,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of Mathematical Biology","volume":"188 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revisiting Fishery Sustainability Targets\",\"authors\":\"Vincent Cattoni, Leah F. South, David J. Warne, Carl Boettiger, Bhavya Thakran, Matthew H. Holden\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11538-024-01352-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Density-dependent population dynamic models strongly influence many of the world’s most important harvest policies. Nearly all classic models (e.g. Beverton-Holt and Ricker) recommend that managers maintain a population size of roughly 40–50 percent of carrying capacity to maximize sustainable harvest, no matter the species’ population growth rate. Such insights are the foundational logic behind most sustainability targets and biomass reference points for fisheries. However, a simple, less-commonly used model, called the Hockey-Stick model, yields very different recommendations. We show that the optimal population size to maintain in this model, as a proportion of carrying capacity, is one over the population growth rate. This leads to more conservative optimal harvest policies for slow-growing species, compared to other models, if all models use the same growth rate and carrying capacity values. However, parameters typically are not fixed; they are estimated after model-fitting. If the Hockey-Stick model leads to lower estimates of carrying capacity than other models, then the Hockey-Stick policy could yield lower absolute population size targets in practice. Therefore, to better understand the population size targets that may be recommended across real fisheries, we fit the Hockey-Stick, Ricker and Beverton-Holt models to population time series data across 284 fished species from the RAM Stock Assessment database. We found that the Hockey-Stick model usually recommended fisheries maintain population sizes higher than all other models (in 69–81% of the data sets). Furthermore, in 77% of the datasets, the Hockey-Stick model recommended an optimal population target even higher than 60% of carrying capacity (a widely used target, thought to be conservative). However, there was considerable uncertainty in the model fitting. While Beverton-Holt fit several of the data sets best, Hockey-Stick also frequently fit similarly well. In general, the best-fitting model rarely had overwhelming support (a model probability of greater than 95% was achieved in less than five percent of the datasets). A computational experiment, where time series data were simulated from all three models, revealed that Beverton-Holt often fit best even when it was not the true model, suggesting that fisheries data are likely too small and too noisy to resolve uncertainties in the functional forms of density-dependent growth. Therefore, sustainability targets may warrant revisiting, especially for slow-growing species.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9372,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bulletin of Mathematical Biology\",\"volume\":\"188 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bulletin of Mathematical Biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"100\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-024-01352-7\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"数学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of Mathematical Biology","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-024-01352-7","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"数学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Density-dependent population dynamic models strongly influence many of the world’s most important harvest policies. Nearly all classic models (e.g. Beverton-Holt and Ricker) recommend that managers maintain a population size of roughly 40–50 percent of carrying capacity to maximize sustainable harvest, no matter the species’ population growth rate. Such insights are the foundational logic behind most sustainability targets and biomass reference points for fisheries. However, a simple, less-commonly used model, called the Hockey-Stick model, yields very different recommendations. We show that the optimal population size to maintain in this model, as a proportion of carrying capacity, is one over the population growth rate. This leads to more conservative optimal harvest policies for slow-growing species, compared to other models, if all models use the same growth rate and carrying capacity values. However, parameters typically are not fixed; they are estimated after model-fitting. If the Hockey-Stick model leads to lower estimates of carrying capacity than other models, then the Hockey-Stick policy could yield lower absolute population size targets in practice. Therefore, to better understand the population size targets that may be recommended across real fisheries, we fit the Hockey-Stick, Ricker and Beverton-Holt models to population time series data across 284 fished species from the RAM Stock Assessment database. We found that the Hockey-Stick model usually recommended fisheries maintain population sizes higher than all other models (in 69–81% of the data sets). Furthermore, in 77% of the datasets, the Hockey-Stick model recommended an optimal population target even higher than 60% of carrying capacity (a widely used target, thought to be conservative). However, there was considerable uncertainty in the model fitting. While Beverton-Holt fit several of the data sets best, Hockey-Stick also frequently fit similarly well. In general, the best-fitting model rarely had overwhelming support (a model probability of greater than 95% was achieved in less than five percent of the datasets). A computational experiment, where time series data were simulated from all three models, revealed that Beverton-Holt often fit best even when it was not the true model, suggesting that fisheries data are likely too small and too noisy to resolve uncertainties in the functional forms of density-dependent growth. Therefore, sustainability targets may warrant revisiting, especially for slow-growing species.
期刊介绍:
The Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, the official journal of the Society for Mathematical Biology, disseminates original research findings and other information relevant to the interface of biology and the mathematical sciences. Contributions should have relevance to both fields. In order to accommodate the broad scope of new developments, the journal accepts a variety of contributions, including:
Original research articles focused on new biological insights gained with the help of tools from the mathematical sciences or new mathematical tools and methods with demonstrated applicability to biological investigations
Research in mathematical biology education
Reviews
Commentaries
Perspectives, and contributions that discuss issues important to the profession
All contributions are peer-reviewed.