Questionnaire Report for Spiny lobster
(MERA version 4.1.6)
Abdul Ben-Hasan (abenhasan@gmail.com)
2019-05-09
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 noaa website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/caribbean-spiny-lobster) “There is one stock in the southeast Atlantic—the South Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico stock. In addition, there are three stocks in the Caribbean—the Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix stocks. According to the 2010 stock assessment, the population status of the South Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico stock is unknown (there was too much uncertainty in the data to make a stock status determination). The population status of the Puerto Rico, St. John/St. Thomas, and St. Croix stocks are unknown because these stocks have not been assessed. The South Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico stock is not subject to overfishing based on 2016 catch data. The St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix stocks are not subject to overfishing, based on 2015 catch data. The Puerto Rico stock is not subject to overfishing based on 2017 catch data.” (from assessment report: http://sedarweb.org/docs/suar/Final_Spiny_lobster_Update%20SAR_final.pdf) Spiny lobsters are targeted by divers, traps and recreational fishers.
Describe the stock’s ecosystem functions, dependencies, and habitat types. (from noaa website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/caribbean-spiny-lobster) “Caribbean spiny lobster are found along the continental shelf of the southeastern United States from North Carolina to Texas, in Bermuda, throughout the Caribbean Sea, and south to Brazil.”
Provide all relevant reference materials, such as assessments, research, and other analysis. noaa website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/caribbean-spiny-lobster Assessment report: http://sedarweb.org/docs/suar/Final_Spiny_lobster_Update%20SAR_final.pdf Paper: The Florida spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) fishery (RESEARCH FINAL REPORT - 15 January 2018) (found in Supporting docs)
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 |
|---|
| Table 2.3.1. in the assessment report: http://sedarweb.org/docs/suar/Final_Spiny_lobster_Update%20SAR_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 |
|---|
| There is high uncertainty in the stock status as indicated in the assessment report (report: http://sedarweb.org/docs/suar/Final_Spiny_lobster_Update%20SAR_final.pdf); however, the assessment report that the stock is not experiencing overfishing and SSB is increasing in 2003-2009 (Figure 3.1.2.9.3) |
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 |
|---|
| Steepness is highly uncertain for this stock (assessment report: http://sedarweb.org/docs/suar/Final_Spiny_lobster_Update%20SAR_final.pdf) |
3.4 Historical effort pattern
| Answered |
|---|
| Stable |
| Two-phase |
| Boom-bust |
| Gradual increases |
| Stable, recent increases |
| Stable, recent declines |
| Justification |
|---|
| Fishing effort is highly correlated with landings, according to the assessment report (http://sedarweb.org/docs/suar/Final_Spiny_lobster_Update%20SAR_final.pdf). Therefore, see figures 2.1.1. and 2.1.2., which reflect changes in efforts over time. |
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 provided |
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 |
|---|
| Changes in catchability over time is shown in Figure 3.2.2.9.2., which show a consistent increase over time and a sharp decline in recent years. |
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 information 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 a maturity relative to asymptotic length is about between 0.24-0.36, calculated from the length at 50% maturity, which is about 61 mm CL (from assessment report: http://sedarweb.org/docs/suar/Final_Spiny_lobster_Update%20SAR_final.pdf); and Linf is either 170 or 250 mm CL (from sealifebase: https://www.sealifebase.ca/PopDyn/PopGrowthList.php?ID=26102&GenusName=Panulirus&SpeciesName=argus&fc=13). |
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 below the length at full capture (corresponding to age 2 in the assessment report; http://sedarweb.org/docs/suar/Final_Spiny_lobster_Update%20SAR_final.pdf) is 93 mm CL selectivity calculated from von Bertalanffy growth function. Asymptotic length is either 170 or 250 mm CL. |
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 |
|---|
|
Based on the assessment report: http://sedarweb.org/docs/suar/Final_Spiny_lobster_Update%20SAR_final.pdf. “Selectivity in spiny lobsters is dome-shaped with fewer age-1 lobsters available to the fishery, many of which were used as attractants, lobsters became fully available at age-3 and then fewer at older ages (Fig. 3.2.2.5).” |
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 discard rate, but it exists for this species (from assessment report) “…and various measures designed to reduce discard mortality (use of live wells on vessels transporting sub-legal lobsters; prohibition of spearing, etc).” |
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 |
|---|
| Based on the fact that there are measures to reduce discard mortality. |
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 infromation about recruitment variability. The relationship between biomass and recruitment is poorly understood for this species (from assessment report: http://sedarweb.org/docs/suar/Final_Spiny_lobster_Update%20SAR_final.pdf) “The poor relationship between biomass and the resulting recruitment in Caribbean spiny lobster was expected because spiny lobsters have an extensive (six to nine months or longer) planktonic phase prior to settlement.” |
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 |
|---|
|
No information was found on the size of the protected areas covering the species, but they are some. (form noaa website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/caribbean-spiny-lobster) “Harvest is prohibited at all times in several marine protected areas in southern Florida. Closed areas in the Florida Keys to protect threatened species of coral that can be damaged by fishing gear.” |
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 |
|---|
| Many lobsters are sedentary species. |
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 information 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 information 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 |
|---|
| No justification was provided |
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. (from noaa website: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/caribbean-spiny-lobster) “Streamlined management measures that extend regulations in Florida state waters into federal waters. Fishermen must have a permit to harvest spiny lobster. Annual catch limits in place. Bag limits for commercial and recreational fishermen, depending on where they are harvested. Fishing season closed from April 1 through August 5 off Florida and the Gulf states to protect spiny lobsters during peak spawning season. Prohibition on harvesting and importing egg-bearing females or females that have been stripped of eggs. Minimum size limits on harvested and imported lobsters to allow them to spawn before they are harvested. Prohibition on spears, hooks, piercing devices, explosives, or poisons to harvest spiny lobster. Non-wooden traps must have biodegradable escape panels. Harvest is prohibited at all times in several marine protected areas in southern Florida. Closed areas in the Florida Keys to protect threatened species of coral that can be damaged by fishing gear. Prohibition on imports of spiny lobster tail meat that is not in whole-tail form with the exoskeleton (shell) attached. Prohibition on the use of traps for the recreational harvest of spiny lobster in federal waters off North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. In Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, spiny lobster in federal waters are managed under the Fishery Managment Plan for the Spiny Lobster Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and under territorial regulations in each of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands: In federal waters only, annual catch limit allocated among the three island management areas (Puerto Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas/St. John). Minimum size limits that allow them to spawn before they are harvested. Bag limits for recreational harvest in federal waters of the U.S. Caribbean. Prohibition on spears, hooks, piercing devices, explosives, or poisons to harvest spiny lobster. Prohibition on the use of gillnets and trammel nets in federal waters to harvest spiny lobster. Traps, pots, buoys, and boats should be identified and marked and non-wooden traps must have biodegradable escape panels. Fishermen may not bring egg-bearing female lobsters aboard a vessel (they may be kept in pots or traps until the eggs are shed). Spiny lobsters must be whole when they are brought to port. Similar restrictions on importing spiny lobsters.” 2. Describe historical management measures, if any. (from the paper in supporting docs) “Until 1919, when a 3 months long closed season was first introduced, P. argus was fished in an “open access” manner after evolving from occasional spiny lobster by-catches mostly used as bait in the late 19th century very profitable snappers fishery (Crawford & De Smidt, 1922). In 1921 and in 1929 additional closed season variations were introduced and, also in 1929, a minimum harvest size was imposed to protect reproduction further regulating access but enforcement was, at best, inconsistent. " 3. Describe main strengths and weaknesses of current monitoring and enforcement capacity. No information was found with respect to strengths and weaknesses. 4. Describe and reference any legal/policy requirements for management, monitoring and enforcement. No information was found. |
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 |
|---|
| No information was found |
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 |
|---|
| No information was found |
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 implmeneted |
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 |
|---|
| NoTAE implemented. |
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 |
|---|
| No information was found about the size limit offset |
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 found. |
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. Figure 1 and Figure 3.1.2.1 in the assessment report: http://sedarweb.org/docs/suar/Final_Spiny_lobster_Update%20SAR_final.pdf 2. Describe how these data collected (e.g., log books, dealer reporting, observers). Unclear how data were collected for commercial fisheries, but the report states for the recreational fishery: “The recreational landings came from mail surveys to divers with lobster permits on their Saltwater Fishing licenses” (assessment report: http://sedarweb.org/docs/suar/Final_Spiny_lobster_Update%20SAR_final.pdf) 3. Describe what types of sampling programs and methodologies exist for data collection, including the time-series of available sampling data and quality. (from assessment report: http://sedarweb.org/docs/suar/Final_Spiny_lobster_Update%20SAR_final.pdf) About collecting catch-at-age data “NMFS’s Trip Interview Program, Biscayne National Park’s creel survey, FWC’s observer program, and FWC’s recreational creel survey” without providing details. 4. Describe all sources of uncertainty in the status, biology, life history and data sources of the fishery. Include links to documentation, reports. (from the assessemnt report: http://sedarweb.org/docs/suar/Final_Spiny_lobster_Update%20SAR_final.pdf) “First, there is uncertainty in the mortality effects that the PaV1 lobster virus might be having on juvenile lobster recruitment. This mortality occurs between the time the post-larvae recruitment index is obtained (at settlement) and the time the lobsters recruit to the fishery and may explain why the postlarvae recruitment index does not appear to be well estimated by the model. Alternatively, the lack-of-fit could be due to the limited geographic range of the larval samples. Indeed all the indices were very spatially limited. To date there is no evidence that the virus has increased in prevalence or virulence since its discovery; thus virus mortality may already be included in the estimated natural mortality rate. Second, the age-length key used in the assessment is not year-specific and thus tends to preserve the estimated age composition from year to year, potentially invalidating total mortality values as well as masking more dynamic changes that may be occurring in the population. Third, as the assessment team and AW acknowledged, there is a fundamental problem with determining biological reference points based on spawning biomass when an unknown but large fraction of the recruitment derives from upstream spawning biomasses, also of unknown magnitude. Thus, although a Beverton-Holt stock-recruitment curve is presented in the report it was rejected by the assessment team and AW as being invalid. The Panel heard strong genetic evidence that the southeast US lobster stock is dependent on at least four different external spawning stock sources. It is questionable how preserving the spawning biomass in the southeast US stock would benefit either the local stock or the broader Pan-Caribbean population since the southeast US is at the downstream end of the pertinent oceanographic regime responsible for larval distribution. It is conceivable that conservation of spawning biomass in the southeast US could provide recruitment to other possible downstream areas such as North Carolina and Bermuda, but, current genetic data is not robust enough to provide any such evidence (Tringali, personal communications).” |
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 found |
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 |
|---|
| No information was found about hyperstability in indices. |
5.4 Available data types
| Answered |
|---|
| Perfect |
| Good (accurate and precise) |
| Data moderate (some what inaccurate and imprecise) |
| Data poor (inaccurate and imprecise) |
| Justification |
|---|
| Based on the data presented in the assessment report: http://sedarweb.org/docs/suar/Final_Spiny_lobster_Update%20SAR_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-2019-05-09-06:22:39
Open Source, GPL-2 2019