Garrido-Faustino, S. (Soledad)

Ramos, F. (Fernando)

Rincón-Hidalgo, M. (Margarita)

English

Ramos, Fernando

Rincón-Hidalgo, Margarita

Garrido-Faustino, Soledad

Digital.CSIC

Anchovy in Division 9a (ane.27.9a). 5) Surveys series.

Repositorio Institucional Digital del IEO

Anchovy in Division 9a (ane.27.9a). 5) S i  urveys ser es.F d R (1) M it Ri ó (2) S G id (3)ernan o  amos ,  argar a  nc n  ,  usana  arr o(1) Instituto Español de Oceanografía (IEO), Centro Oceanográfico de Cádiz. Spain  (2) Instituto de Ciencias Marinas de Andalucía (ICMAN). Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. España.(2)Instituto Português do Mar e da Atmosfera (IPMA). Portugal.ICES WKPELA‐2018 Data Evaluation Workshop. ICES HQ. Copenhagen, 04‐06 December 2017.Ane.27.9a. Stock assessment.• No analytical assessment. • Qualitative stock assessment: A survey biomass trend‐based assessment (without catch advice). ICES Stock Data Category 3.ICES stock data category 3 (ICES, 2016).Table 5 Anchovy in Division 9.a. Basis of assessment and advice.Assessment type Survey based assessment without catch advice (ICES, 2017b)Input dataCommercial landings, ages and length frequencies from landing sampling. Survey indices for 9.a South: SARQ2/PELAGO, ECOCÁDIZ, and BOCADEVA (triennial DEPM survey). Survey indices for 9.a West: acousticspring surveys PELACUS (Subdivision 9.a North) and SAR Q2/PELAGO (Subdivision 9.a Central–North,Central–South)Discards and bycatch Discard estimates are available for some fisheries since 2014 and are considered negligible.Indicators None.Other informationJUVESAR and ECOCADIZ‐RECLUTAS surveys have very short time‐series at the moment. These surveys aim at obtaining recruitment indicators potentially useful for advice in the future                  .Working group Working Group on Southern Horse mackerel, Anchovy and Sardine (WGHANSA)• A benchmark process will start in 2018:• Data Evaluation WK in December 2017: to fix data                . • Benchmark WK in February 2018 (WKPELA 2018): to explore an analytical assessment (Gadget).Ane.27.9a. Pelagic surveys providing anchovy populationestimates.Sub‐division Spring Summer  Autumn 9a N PELACUS (ES)WES9a CNPELAGO (PT)JUVESAR (PT)9a CSTERN   9a SECOCADIZ (SP)BOCADEVA (ES) ECOCADIZ‐RECLUTAS (Triennial) (SP)SOUTHERN Acoustics   DEPMAne.27.9a. Pelagic surveys providing anchovy populationestimates.Method Acoustics DEPMSurvey PELACUS SAR (Q1‐Q2)/PELAGO SAR (Q4) JUVESAR ECOCADIZECOCADIZ‐RECLUTAS BOCADEVAInstitute (Country)IEO(Spain)IPMA(Portugal)IPMA (Portugal)IPMA (Portugal)IEO(Spain)IEO(Spain)IEO(Spain)Subareas 9a N 9a CN‐9a S 9a CN‐9a S 9a CN 9a S 9a S 9a SYear/Quarter Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q4 Q4 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q2 Q31998 Nov1999 Mar 2000 Nov2001 Mar Nov2002 Mar 2003 Feb (Nov)2004 (Jun) Jun2005 Apr (Nov) Jun2006 Apr (Nov) Jun2007 Apr Nov Jul2008 Apr Apr (Nov) Jun2009 Apr Apr Jun (Oct)2010 Apr Apr (Jul)2011 Apr Apr Jul2012 Apr Nov2013 Mar Apr (Nov) Aug2014 Mar Apr (Nov) Jul Oct Jul2015 Mar Apr Dec Jul Oct2016 Mar Apr Dec Jul Oct2017 Mar Apr Jul Jul2008‐2017: period with spring estimates (PELACUS & PELAGO) for the whole Division. One gap in 2012.ECOCADIZ series (summer estimates) shows gaps in 2008, 2011 and 2012.BOCADEVA series (DEPM summer estimates) filled the gaps in 2008 and 2011. Ane.27.9a. Surveys methods. Surveys’ Standardisation.ICES Working Group on Acoustic and Egg Surveys for Sardine and Anchovy in areas 7,RV Noruega (IPMA_PT)8 and 9 (WGACEGG). Since 2005 on.Relevant ToRs:• Coordination and standardization of the surveys (updated surveys protocols).• Development and standardization of data processing methods for DEPM andacoustics for surveys in Atlantic and Mediterranean waters (MEDIAS group :Mediterranean acoustic survey group).• Ensure QA/QC (Quality Assurance/Quality Control) procedures are in place: Developan independent SISP (Series of ICES Surveys Protocols) for the data collection andproduct specification conducted under the auspices of WGACEGG (in progress).Ane.27.9a. Surveys methods. Vessels.RV Noruega (IPMA_PT)RV Cornide de Saavedra (IEO ES)RV Capricornio (IPMA_PT)_RV Thalassa (IFREMER_FR)RV Emma Bardán (SGP_ES)RV Miguel Oliver (SGP_ES)RV R ó M l f (IEO ES)  am n  arga e   _Ane.27.9a. Surveys methods. Vessels.Year/survey PELACUS SAR (Spring)/PELAGO ECOCADIZ BOCADEVA SAR (Aut) JUVESAR ECOCADIZ‐RECLUTAS1983198419851986 CS NRCS: Cornide de SaavedraEB: Emma Bardán1987 CS1988 CS NR19891990 IP1991 CS1992 CSIP: Ignat PavliuchenkovMO:Miguel OliverNR: NoruegaRM: Ramón Margalef2nd SystematicStandardisation phase1993 CS19941995 NR NR1996 CS1997 TH NRTH: Thalassa phase. Includes9a S (CAD)Consolidationphase1998 TH NR NR1999 TH NR2000 TH NR NR2001 TH NR NR2002 TH NRPELAGO surveys2003 TH NR NR2004 TH CS2005 TH NR CS NR2006 TH NR CS NR2007 TH NR CS NR2008 TH NR CS NR2009 TH NR CS2010 TH NR CS2011 TH NR CS2012 TH EB2013 TH NR CS NR2014 MO NR MO MO NR RM2015 MO NR MO NR RM2016 MO NR MO NR RM2017 MO NR MO MO RMNORUEGA CORNIDE DE SAAV A THALASSA MIGUEL OLIVERRAMÓN A GALAne.27.9a. Surveys methods. Equipment (most recent)EDR   M R EFLaunch. year 1978 1970 1997 2007 2011Length (m) 47.50 66.70 73.65 70.00 46.70Beam (m) 13.75 11.25 14.90 14.40 10.50GRT (t) 693 1113 2803 2495 988Main engine n.a Combustion (2 engines) Diesel‐electric Diesel‐electric Diesel‐electricPower 1500 HP 1500+750 HP 2000 kW 2000 kW 900 kWP ll Controllable‐pitch Fi d i h (FPP) Fi d i h (FPP) Fi d i h (FPP)rope er n.a   (CPP) xe ‐p tc xe ‐p tc xe ‐p tcTransducers Hull mountd. Hull mountd. Hull mountd. Hull mountd. Hull mountd.Fi hi Pelagic trawl;4 sides‐pelagict l Pelagic‐great Pelagic‐great P l i Gl i HODs ng gear Bottom trawl raw ;Bottom trawl meshes meshese ag c‐ or aDoors n.a SuberKrubb Morgére Apollo Poly‐Ice Apollo Poly‐IceEK 500 EK 60 EK 60 EK‐60  EK‐60 Echosounder‐38 kHz‐18/38/120/200 kHz(since 2007)‐  18/38/70/120/200 kHz18/38/120/200 kHz18/38/70/120/200/333 kHzAne.27.9a. Inter‐calibration (IC) exercises.• (2002: RV Cornide de Saavedra vs Vizconde de Eza: Not relevant.)• 2008 & 2009: RV Thalassa vs RV Noruega (PELACUS vs SAR‐PELAGO):l id d l i ( f fi hi h lResu ts were cons ere as not conc us ve very ew s ng au s,potential sources of bias needed to be evaluated). Pending a new ICexercise?.• 2014: RV Thalassa vs RV Miguel Oliver (PELACUS): No significantbetween vessels differences in mean backscattering energy catch‐ ,composition and length structure. It was concluded that PELACUS time‐series was not affected by the change from Thalassa toMiguel Oliver.Ane.27.9a. Inter‐calibration (IC) exercises.RVMiguel Oliver vs RV Noruega??PELACUS vs SAR‐PELAGO inter‐series comparability is still unknown.RV Cornide de Saavedra vs RV Miguel Oliver ???Intra‐series consistency of the ECOCADIZ series will remainunknown. RV Cornide de Saavedra “RIP”RV Cornide de Saavedra vs RV Noruega ???RVMiguel Oliver vs RV Noruega ???SAR PELAGO vs ECOCADIZ inter series comparability and relative‐ ‐catchabilities are unknown.Ane.27.9a. Surveys trends. Spring acoustic surveys.356620002500300035004000ass (t)9a N03062642150845 2050500100015001998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018BiomaYearPELACUS27050383022500030000350004000045000mass (t)9a CN190 281 472 0 0 0 0 3000 2089039551947823715481050001000015000200001998 2003 2008 2013 2018BiomYearPELAGO9aCS1070 10621945250511881500200025003000omass (t) 9a S40687 112 0 00 0 0 0 0 0050010001998 2003 2008 2013 2018BioYearPELAGO24763 2491321335245651404124082380203416224745 289173310065345200003000040000500006000070000Biomass (t)PELAGO7395012700 137970100001998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018Year9a SAne.27.9a. Surveys trends. Southern summer surveys.24763 249132133524565 24082380203416224745 2891733100653453000040000500006000070000omass (t)• Do spring and summer surveys series exhibit similar trends in GoCor not?140417395012700 13797010000200001998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018BioYearPELAGO• Causes for differences:• Strong anchovy dynamics? Possible.365212888221580292193418425000300003500040000s (t)9a S  • Survey season/Time effect? 3‐4 month lag. Sure.• Cumulated total mortality 181771233984872130512229050001000015000200001998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018BiomassECOCÁDIZfrom spring to summer? Sure.• Differences in catchability? Probable but not assessed.4500050000BOCADEVA (DEPM)9a SYear • Problems in the detection of echoes? Sure. Very difficult in the Southern Spanish waters.Wh t h ld b th th l t b1463731527 32757 31569150002000025000300003500040000Biomass (t)• a  s ou   e  en  e ro e  o  e played by the summer surveys in the trend‐based analyses?...As an independent tester of the spring1242205000100001998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018Year         estimate? As a “smoothing agent”? 42º Caminha200 mPELAGO10• PELAGO 2011:Ane.27.9a. Shortcomings in the 9a South acoustic surveying.g ( )38CUFES - April 2010 Egg/m3 39º40º41ºPortoFigueira da FozPenicheLisboaAnchovy acoustic energyc ircle area proporcional to SA   0.5 cm <> 2000 m^2Cascaisanchovy0.10.150.20.25%0 anchovies in the 9a S.No acoustic detection.No occurrence in fishing hauls…but3737.5Latitude (ºN)Anchovy Eggs(max:  320/m3) 36037º38º SinesFaroV. Real S to. Antón ioCádiz00.0588.5 99.5 1010.5 1111.5 1212.5 1313.5 1414.5 1515.5 1616.5 1717.5 1818.5 1919.5 20cmSouthanchovy0.2N=62417x10^3B=1188 Ton. N=963465 x10^3 B=7395 Ton. A relatively high anchovy egg densityby CUFES.Very bad weather conditionsaffecting echosounding and fishing?-9.5 -9 -8.5 -8 -7.5 -7 -6.5 -6Longitude (ºW)3636.5-11º -10º -9º -8º -7º -6º -5º35º36º00.040.080.120.165 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20cm%• How to handle this data point within itsseries?20anchovy%N= 1558 x 10^6B= 27 x 10^3 tons38PILANEHOMBOG• ICESWGACEGG0510157 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 203737.5tude (ºN)CUFES - April 2011Anchovy Eggs(max: 358/m3)Egg/m3360MACMASJAAHMM SNS + BOC2017 : thePELAGO 2011estimate for-9 -8 5 -8 -7 5 -7 -6 5 -63636.5Latit9aS should notbe considered.. . .Longitude (ºW)38Ane.27.9a. Shortcomings in the 9a South acoustic surveying.• Discrimination of echo‐traces verydifficult in the Spanish waters of the Gulf38 kHof Cadiz.• Anchovy schools are usually found  zembedded in a very dense (demersal)plankton layer. This layer maycontinuously extend over the inner‐18 kHzmiddle shelf of the central part of theCAD area.Ad f i l i f  • vantages o us ng mu t ‐ requencyecho‐sounding. Greater discriminatorypower. It improves the echogram“lecture”120 kHz.• PELAGO surveys with the 38 kHz only.Ane.27.9a. Computation of Stock (Biomass) Size Indicators.• Western component (9aN‐9aCN‐9aCS) : SUM of spring acoustic estimates fromPELACUS + PELAGO surveys.• Southern component (9aS) : MEAN of PELACUS spring acoustic estimate &ECOCADIZ summer acoustic estimate & BOCADEVA summer depm estimate .Rationale (under the –strong‐ assumption of equal catchabilities):‐Uncertainties /difficulties found in the acoustic assessment of the 9aS(CAD) in some years(e.g. the 2011 outlier estimate and the 2016 historical record reported by PELAGO for 9aS).‐ Gaps in the ECOCADIZ series, filled triennially by BOCADEVA.‐ Searching for a way of achieving an “average picture” of the population level.Problems:‐ In the moment of the provision of advice by ICES (late June), summer surveys estimates arenot yet available. The resulting indicator for the assessment year is incomplete, computedonly with the PELAGO spring estimate. The value for that year is then re‐computed in thenext year meeting with all the estimates available Not a very consistent approach. .‐ Serious doubts about the suitability of this computation method. A strange cocktail. Datapoints through the series are estimated with a different number of surveys depending ontheir availability.‐In fact…..Ane.27.9a. Computation of Stock (Biomass) Size Indicators.ICES ADGANE9a (18‐19/10/2016). ADG minutes:“…The main concern from ADG members and reviewers was the way thesurvey biomass estimates were combined to reach a total estimate of biomassfor Division 9.a. The method used to combine the available indices had notbeen presented before within the advice sheet for this stock and had not beenpreviously used to provide advice. It was a general feeling within ADGmembers that the agreement on a method to combine the different surveyestimates should be carefully considered and reviewed through a fullbenchmark process before it is used to provide advice. ADGANE9.ad WGHANSA l k h d bi i di frecommen s to oo at met o s to com ne survey n ces oreach stock components and the way to address the western and thesouthern component of this stock in its next WGHANSA meeting…”Ane.27.9a. Computation of Stock (Biomass) Size Indicators.Western component Southern component Division 9.aPELACUS+PELAGO PELAGOPELAGO+ECOCADIZ+PELACUS+PELAGOWestern Comp (PELACUS+PELAGO) + Year BOCADEVA Southern Comp (Avgd PELAGO+ECOCADIZ+BOCADEVA)9.a N to 9.a CS 9.a S 9.a N to 9.a SSUM OF ESTIMATES ESTIMATE MEAN ESTIMATE SUM OF ESTIMATES1999 596 24763 24763 25359 2535920002001 368 24913 24913 25281 252812002 1542 21335 21335 22877 228772003 112 24565 24565 24677 246772004 18177 181772005 1062 14041 14339 15103 154012006 0 24082 30301 24082 303012007 1945 38020 33451 39965 353962008 5811 34162 32845 39973 386552009 2115 24745 23163 26860 252782010 1230 7395 9867 8625 110972011 28558 0 16379 28558 4493720122013 4284 12700 10593 16655 145482014 1947 28917 29902 30864 318492015 8237 33100 27203 41337 354402016 38507 65345 49764  103852 882722017 19047 13797 12816 32844 31863Ane.27.9a. Computation of Stock (Biomass) Size Indicators.ICES WGACEGG 2017 (13‐17/11/2017) suggestions:• PELAGO 2011 estimate for 9a S should not be considered.• The sum of PELACUS (9aN) and PELAGO (9aCN‐9aCS) estimates to derive theStock Size Indicator for the western component in the trend‐based qualitativeassessment is possible (as it is done with the Ibero‐Atlantic sardine).• Averaging the PELAGO and ECOCADIZ survey estimates to derive the StockSize Indicator for the southern component in the trend‐based qualitativeassessment is possible since we’re dealing with relative indices and trends.• However, the DEPM BOCADEVA estimate should be not included in theaverage.• Some problems still persist for the southern component stock indicatorfollowing the above approach :o It is based on one only estimate (PELAGO estimate) in the assessment year.It i b d l ti t (PELAGO ti t ) i i th io s ase on one on y es ma e es ma e s some years n e ser es,when ECOCADIZ was not conducted.Ane.27.9a. Autumn acoustic surveys.• JUVESAR series: In 9a CN. Since 2013 on.• ECOCADIZ‐RECLUTAS series: In 9a S. Since (2012) 2014 on.• Both are very short time‐series at the moment. These surveys aim atobtaining recruitment indicators potentially useful for advice in the future.12000)Age 0(y) vs Age 1(y+1) anchovies  in 9a SECOCADIZ‐RECLUTAS Age 0 (y) PELAGO Age 1 (y+1) ECOCADIZ Age 1 (y+1)40006000800010000r of fish (million020002011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016NumbeYearAne.27.9a. Surveys indices for consideration in an analytical‐statistical assessment.• So far all the acoustic surveys series provide population estimates without ameasure of bias.• DEPM‐BOCADEVA SSB estimates are provided with a CV estimate.• Size composition (LFD) of the estimated population in numbers and biomassare available from all the acoustic surveys.• Age‐structured estimates are available for the whole series of PELACUS(spring in 9a N), ECOCADIZ (summer in 9a S), JUVESAR (autumn in 9a CN) andECOCADIZ‐RECLUTAS (autumn in 9a S) acoustic surveys series Age structure.from PELAGO (spring in 9a CN, 9a CS, 9a S) are provided since 2013 on.• DEPM‐BOCADEVA SSB estimates are provided without size composition andage structure.Ane.27.9a. Surveys indices for consideration in an analytical‐statistical assessment.SURVEY SUB‐DIVISION 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017PELACUS 9a NPELAGO9a CN9a CS9a S (ALG)9a S (CAD)ECOCADIZ9a S (ALG)9a S (CAD)   SURVEY SUB‐DIVISION 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017BOCADEVA 9a S (ALG & CAD)SURVEY SUB‐DIVISION 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017SAR (AUT)9a CN9a CS9a S (ALG)9a S (CAD)JUVESAR 9a CNECOCADIZ‐ 9a S (ALG)RECLUTAS 9a S (CAD)Aggregated estimatesLength‐based estimatesLength‐ and age‐structured estimatesAne.27.9a. Surveys indices for consideration in an analytical‐statistical assessment Potential of the ARSA (autumn).bottom‐trawl indices.• ARSA autumn survey = IBTS survey inSpanish GoC (9a S (CAD)).• Long series : since 1997 on.• Relative indices (cpue): number andg/trawling hour).• Absolute indices (swept area method).• Estimates of bias.• Size‐based estimates of the abundancerelative index. LFDs for the absolute indexnot provided but may be computed.• Age‐structured estimates are not providedbut may be computed (by applying Q4lab+surveys ALK).• Indices for Age 0 (juveniles) anchovies may be estimated. A longer series than the ECOCADIZ‐RECLUTAS survey series.  Its potential as an indicator of the anchovy recruitment not tested yet but it seems promising.

http://www.repositorio.ieo.es/e-ieo/bitstream/10508/13262/1/23888.pdf

Anchovy in Division 9a (ane.27.9a). 5) Surveys series.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Digital.CSIC

Repositorio Institucional Digital del IEO