Questionnaire Report for Banded Morwong
(MERA version 4.1.6)
Abdul Ben-Hasan (abenhasan@gmail.com)
2019-05-04
1 About this document
This is a prototype of an automatic report that documents how the user specified the operating model and their various justifications.
2 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 assessment report: http://www.imas.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1088411/BMW_Fishery-2016_17_FINAL.pdf) “In Tasmania, Banded Morwong are commercially harvested by a small-scale coastal gillnet fishery. Prior to 1990, the species had little commercial value apart from use as bait by rock lobster fishers (Ziegler et al. 2007a). In the early 1990s a targeted fishery for Banded Morwong started to supply domestic live fish markets, primarily in Sydney and Melbourne. All holders of a Tasmanian Fishing Boat Licence were able to take this species and, as a result, there was a dramatic increase in effort directed at the species, with reported catches peaking at 145 t in 1993/94. Catches fell dramatically in the late 1990s, with 34.6 t landed in 1999/00. Since then, catches have stabilised around 30–40 t.”…“Banded Morwong are currently targeted almost exclusively for the live fish market with large mesh gillnets, primarily of 130–140 mm stretched mesh.”….“Banded Morwong are a relatively minor component of the recreational fishery. A total of 298 individuals were reported as retained in the 2012/13 recreational fishing survey of Lyle et al. (2014b), equating to a total estimated harvest of 0.5 tonnes, or around 1% of the total Banded Morwong landings (commercial + recreational) for that year.”
Describe the stock’s ecosystem functions, dependencies, and habitat types. (from assessment report: http://www.imas.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1088411/BMW_Fishery-2016_17_FINAL.pdf): “Banded Morwong (Cheilodactylus spectabilis; Figure 1) are large, sedentary fish that inhabit temperate reefs around south-eastern Australia and New Zealand (Gomon et al 1994). In Australia, the species distribution extends from Sydney, through Victorian and Tasmanian waters, to eastern South Australia. The species has occasionally been observed in Western Australia. Banded Morwong are long-lived, and can reach ages of at least 97 years (Ewing et al. 2007). While longevity is similar among sexes, the species displays strong sexual dimorphism in growth, with males growing substantially faster and reaching larger maximum sizes than females (Ziegler et al. 2007a).”
Provide all relevant reference materials, such as assessments, research, and other analysis. Assessment report: http://www.imas.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1088411/BMW_Fishery-2016_17_FINAL.pdf
3 Fishery Characteristics
3.1 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 |
|---|
| Natural mortality = 0.05 (from: http://www.imas.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1088411/BMW_Fishery-2016_17_FINAL.pdf) |
3.2 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 |
|---|
| Although there is no information on SSB relative to unfished, the assessment report shows that the current biomass is above Bmsy. (report: http://www.imas.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1088411/BMW_Fishery-2016_17_FINAL.pdf) |
3.3 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 |
|---|
| No information was provided on steepness. |
3.4 Historical effort pattern
| Answered |
|---|
| Stable |
| Two-phase |
| Boom-bust |
| Gradual increases |
| Stable, recent increases |
| Stable, recent declines |
| Justification |
|---|
| Fishing effort start high and then continuously decline (Fig 9 in: http://www.imas.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1088411/BMW_Fishery-2016_17_FINAL.pdf) |
3.5 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 on the interannual variability in effort in the report: http://www.imas.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1088411/BMW_Fishery-2016_17_FINAL.pdf |
3.6 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 provided about the fishing efficiency changes in this fishery |
3.7 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 justification was provided |
3.8 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 |
|---|
| “Size-at-50% maturity estimated at 320 mm for females (~2.5 years of age)” and Linf = 442 mm. (from assessment: http://www.imas.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1088411/BMW_Fishery-2016_17_FINAL.pdf) |
3.9 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 |
|---|
| Length at 50% selectivity obtained from the latest length composition samples (the year 2017; http://www.imas.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1088411/BMW_Fishery-2016_17_FINAL.pdf) by choosing the second highest length class occurred in the sample (371-380 mm). |
3.10 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 |
|---|
| Selectivity likely to be dome-shaped since the fishery use gillnet to catch this species. (http://www.imas.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1088411/BMW_Fishery-2016_17_FINAL.pdf) |
3.11 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, but the report indicates that total catches include discards. (source: http://www.imas.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1088411/BMW_Fishery-2016_17_FINAL.pdf) |
3.12 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 |
|---|
|
(from assessment report) “Post-release survival of Banded Morwong under current maximum permitted gillnet soak durations is very high”…Table 1 “Gillnet post release survival High: 97% irrespective of gillnet soak duration” |
3.13 Recruitment variability
| Answered |
|---|
| Very low (less than 10% 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 provided on recruitment variability in the report (http://www.imas.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1088411/BMW_Fishery-2016_17_FINAL.pdf) |
3.14 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 |
|---|
3.15 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 justification was provided |
3.16 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 justification was provided |
3.17 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 justification was provided |
3.18 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 |
|---|
| (from assessment: http://www.imas.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1088411/BMW_Fishery-2016_17_FINAL.pdf) |
4 Management Characteristics
4.1 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. Table 3 (http://www.imas.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1088411/BMW_Fishery-2016_17_FINAL.pdf) 2. Describe historical management measures, if any. Table 3 (http://www.imas.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1088411/BMW_Fishery-2016_17_FINAL.pdf) 3. Describe main strengths and weaknesses of current monitoring and enforcement capacity. This information was not provided in the assessment report 4. Describe and reference any legal/policy requirements for management, monitoring and enforcement. Not provided by the assessment report. |
4.2 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 |
|---|
| (from assessement report http://www.imas.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1088411/BMW_Fishery-2016_17_FINAL.pdf) Table 4 and Figure 8 (right). |
4.3 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 |
|---|
| Not provided by the assessment report |
4.4 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 TAE |
4.5 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 justification was provided |
4.6 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 |
|---|
| Not provided by the assessment report (http://www.imas.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1088411/BMW_Fishery-2016_17_FINAL.pdf) |
4.7 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 provided in the assessment report (http://www.imas.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1088411/BMW_Fishery-2016_17_FINAL.pdf) |
5 Data Characteristics
5.1 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 http://www.imas.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1088411/BMW_Fishery-2016_17_FINAL.pdf) Figure 8 shows catch time series; Figure 9 Relative Effort; Figure 11 CPUE 2. Describe how these data collected (e.g., log books, dealer reporting, observers). (from assessment report http://www.imas.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1088411/BMW_Fishery-2016_17_FINAL.pdf) “Biological characteristics A sampling program commenced in 1995 to obtain biological information, in particular size and age composition, to inform assessments for Banded Morwong. Sampling was conducted annually in 1996, 1997 and between 2001–2005, then every second year from 2007 onwards. In this sampling program fish are collected during the spawning closure by commercial fishers working under permit and contracted to the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies. Sampling sites and general fishing practices (including the use of standard commercial ‘Banded Morwong nets’) have been standardised as much as possible. Approximately 400 fish were collected in each sampling year. For each fish collected, the fork length (to the nearest 1 mm) and weight (to the nearest 1 g) were measured and the pair of sagittal otoliths (hereafter otoliths) were removed, cleaned, and stored dry in plastic vials. Gonads were dissected, weighed (to the nearest 0.1 g), sexed and staged macroscopically according to West (1990). Commercial fishery data Commercial catch and effort data are collected through compulsory Tasmanian Commercial Catch, Effort and Disposal Returns. The catch and effort logbooks have been amended several times (1995, 1999, 2007, 2010 and 2013) in an effort to report at finer spatial scales and provide greater operational detail. While the offshore fishing blocks are still at the 30 nm (1/2 degree) spatial resolution, the logbooks introduced in 2010 have redefined the scale of the coastal blocks (Figure 3). In analysing catch and effort information data quality control has been undertaken, details of which are explained the data analysis section below.” 3. Describe what types of sampling programs and methodologies exist for data collection, including the time-series of available sampling data and quality. Same as the answer for question 2 4. Describe all sources of uncertainty in the status, biology, life history and data sources of the fishery. Include links to documentation, reports. |
5.2 Catch reporting bias
| Answered |
|---|
| Strong under-reporting (30% - 50%) |
| Under-reporting (10% - 30%) |
| Slight under-reporting (less than 10%) |
| Reported accurately (+/- 5%) |
| Slight over-reporting (less than 10%) |
| Justification |
|---|
| No information was provided in the assessment report (http://www.imas.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1088411/BMW_Fishery-2016_17_FINAL.pdf) |
5.3 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 |
|---|
| Information not provided. There is also little information on the biology of this species; for example, whether this species form aggregations. And there is no information about any “technology creep”. |
5.4 Available data types
| Answered |
|---|
| Perfect |
| Good (accurate and precise) |
| Data moderate (some what inaccurate and imprecise) |
| Data poor (inaccurate and imprecise) |
| Justification |
|---|
| See report (http://www.imas.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1088411/BMW_Fishery-2016_17_FINAL.pdf) |
6 Version Notes
The package is subject to ongoing testing. If you find a bug or a problem please send a report to t.carruthers@oceans.ubc.ca so that it can be fixed!
shiny-2019-05-03-23:22:09
Open Source, GPL-2 2019