Methods For Stock Assessment Management: Advanced

Lecture Note Series No.
2/2017
ICAR Sponsored
Summer School on
Advanced Methods for
Fish Stock Assessment
and Fisheries Management
12thJuly - 01" August 2017
Fishery Resources Assessment Division

ICAR-Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute
Post Box No. 1603, Ernakulam North P.O., Kochi-682 018
I Kerala, India
Course Manual
ICAR funded Summer School on
Advanced Methods for

Fish Stock Assessment and
Fisheries Management
12th July to 1st August 2017
FISHERY RESOURCES ASSESSMENT DIVISION

(Department of Agricultural Research and Education, Government of India)
P.B. No. 1603, Ernakulam North P. O., Kochi – 682018, Kerala, India
Course Manual
Summer School on
Advanced Methods for Fish Stock Assessment and Fisheries Management
CMFRI Lecture Note Series No.2/2017
ICAR-Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute,
12 July - 1 August, 2017
Publisher
A. Gopalakrishnan
Director
Ernakulam North P.O.,
Kochi - 682018, Kerala
Compilation
Somy Kuriakose
Mini K. G.
Sathianandan T. V.
Technical Assistance
Sindhu K. Augustine
Ammu J. V.
Course Director
Somy Kuriakose
Principal Scientist
FisheryResources Assessment Division
Course Co-Directors
Sathianandan T. V.
Head of Division & Principal Scientist
Mini K. G.
Principal Scientist
Cover Design
Abhilash P. R.
© CMFRI 2017
This manual has been prepared as a reference material for the ICAR funded Summer School on “Advanced
Methods for Fish Stock Assessment and Fisheries Management” held at Central Marine Fisheries Research
Institute, Kochi during 12th July to 1st August 2017.
FOREWORD
The fish production from marine sector is contributed by
the wild capture that is happening from the sea. There
are nearly 1 million active fishermen and nearly 4 million
people directly or indirectly involved in this fishing activity.
They harvest nearly 3.5 million tonnes of fish every year.
Scientific studies have estimated Indian marine fisheries
potential as 4.41 million tonnes. This indicates that our
resources are exploited almost to its potential level and
we have very few untapped resources. The fish production in the sector is
contributed by more than 800 species of fish that constitute our commercial
fishery. Most these species are not exploited in a sustainable manner. In
India, the capacity of fishing fleets is more than our harvestable potential.
Therefore it is imperative to know the stock size of various commercially
harvested species. It is difficult to really estimate the fish biomass in the
sea. It is like lifting the entire fish biomass form the seas and estimating the
mass of individual species also and arriving at a potentially harvestable value.
With various concentrated efforts in fisheries science, CMFRI was able to
deduce few mechanisms to estimate the fish stock available in our coastal
waters. Since long officials from CMFRI have been involved in gathering the
species-wise and gear-wise information on fish landings from around 1300
landing centres based on a scientifically designed estimation procedure
known as stratified multi stage random sampling method. The estimates
of landings along with the fishing effort expended and the data on the
biology of various species collected enable us to identify whether a stock is
over exploited. Few years back CMFRI developed a rapid stock assessment
method too. Based on such assessment methods, the information on stock
status of various species was ascertained and the knowledge is passed on to
policy planners at international, national and state/UT level for management
of fishery.
The proposed national level summer school is for teaching the theory,
practical, analysis and interpretation techniques in marine fish stock
assessment, including the most modern methods. This is organized with
the full funding support from ICAR New Delhi and the 25 participants who
are attending this programme has been selected after scrutiny of their
applications based on their bio-data. We have participants form north,
south, east west and Islands of India. They are serving as academicians
such as Professors/ scientists and in similar posts. This training will enable
them to do their academic programmes in a better manner. Selected
participants will be scrutinized initially to understand their knowledge level
and classes will be oriented based on this. In addition all of them will be
provided with a study manual. All selected participants are provided with
their travel and accommodation grants. The faculty include the scientists
who developed this technology, those who are practicing it and few user
groups who do their research in related areas. The programme is coordinated
by the fishery resources assessment division of CMFRI. This programme will
generate a team of elite academicians who can contribute to marine fish
stock assessment studies of the country in a big way and they will further
contribute to capacity building in the sector by training many more in the
years to come. The unique selling point of this programme is that CMFRI
is the only organization with such vast experience in fish stock assessment
with indigenously developed methods and analytical soft wares.
A. Gopalakrishnan
PREFACE
Fisheries Monitoring has a role to play in all aspects of management, including those related
to the sustainability of the resource, the economic performance of the fishery, the distribution
of benefits from the exploitation of the resource and use of the environment.Monitoring
fisheries operations to assist fisheries management faces formidable technical challenges.
The large number of species involved, the multiplicity of fishing gears, the dynamic marine
environment and the widely dispersed landing sites make monitoring, enforcement and
compliance measures extremely difficult. As the demands on fisheries resources become
greater, the problems of fisheries management become more complex, and we will be facing
escalating needs for good fisheries monitoring data. Without the ability to estimate how
many fish exist in the ocean there’s no way to determine how many of them we can catch
while allowing the remaining fish populations to stay viable. But fish live in a mostly invisible
world beneath the ocean surface, they move around constantly, and they eat each other.
This creates a dynamic population structure that’s incredibly difficult to track, making fish
virtually impossible to count. We collect the samples, raise it for the entire population and
plug them into scientific models which, in turn, create estimates of population health. Because
the entire population of a given species is frequently divided into subpopulations known
as “stocks,” these estimates are called “stock assessments,” and they form the backbone of
modern fishery management. These assessments provide an estimate of the current state
of a fish population and in some cases, forecast future trends.
The present summer school on Advance Methods for Fish Stock Assessment and Fisheries
Management is design to acquaint the participants with the advances in stock assessment
of fisheries with emphasis of ecosystem and multispecies approach. The course is planned
in such a way that it covers both theoretical and practical aspect of all stock assessment
methods. Participants will analyse several data sets of marine fisheries by using MS-Excel/
R-Computing Environment/FiSAT, etc. This programme will strengthen the knowledge of
participants in regards of fisheries management aspects.
I wish to thank the Education Division of Indian Council of Agricultural Research for giving us
an opportunity to organize this summer school. We are also grateful to Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan,
Director, ICAR-CMFRI, for his guidance, continuous interest in the course and providing all
necessary facilities. I am highly obliged to Dr. T. V. Sathianandan, Head, Fishery Resources
Assessment Division for his guidance and support forthe programme. All the scientists of
Fishery Resources Assessment Division, technical staff, supporting staff and research scholars
also supported us in organizing the Summer School. I recall with gratitude the marvelous
effort and help in preparing this manual by Dr. Mini, K.G., Principal Scientist, Fishery Resources
Assessment Division. I take this opportunity to thank all the faculty members who have
devoted their valuable time and contributed material for the preparation of the manual.
I am confident that the Course Manual would aid the participants to enhance their knowledge
and competence in the area of Fish Stock Assessment and Management.
Somy Kuriakose
July, 2017 Course Director
CONTENTS
Chapter Topic Page
1 Present status of ichthyofaunal diversity of Indian seas 1

K. K. Joshi, Thobias P. A. and Varsha M. S.
2 Marine fish production in India - Present Status 23

T. V. Sathianandhan
3 Pelagic fin fishery resources of India 28

E. M. Abdussamad
4 Diversity and exploitation status of demersal fishery 32

resources in India
P. U. Zacharia and T. M. Najmudeen
5 Diversity and exploitation status of crustacean fishery 47

resources in India
G. Maheswarudu
6 Marine molluscan diversity in India – exploitation, 56

conservation
K. Sunilkumar Mohamed and V. Venkatesan
7 Statistical methods 82
Somy Kuriakose
8 Sampling techniques for fisheries data collection 97

V. Geethalekhsmi
9 Sampling methodology employed by CMFRI for monitoring 109

the fishery and estimation of marine fish landings in India
K. G. Mini
Chapter Topic Page
10 Concept and objectives of stock assessment 113

E. Vivekanandan
11 Importance of fish stock assessment to fisheries management 123

E. Vivekanandan
12 Stock assessment models and methods 132

M. Srinath
13 Computational options for marine fisheries research 136

and management
J. Jayasankar
14 An introduction to R programming 148

J. Jayasankar, T. V. Ambrose and R. Manjeesh
15 Estimation of growth parameters 195

T. V. Sathianandhan
16 Estimation of mortality 205

J. Jayasankar
17 Estimation of length weight relationship in fishes 215

Somy Kuriakose
18 Thompson and Bell prediction model 221

Sobha J. Kizakkudan
19 Beverton and Holt’s yield per recruit model 228

Ganga U.
20 Virtual population analysis 232

Vivekanand Bharti
21 Multispecies virtual population analysis 238

Vivekanand Bharti
22 Macro analytical models 246

Somy Kuriakose and Sobha J. Kizakkudan
Chapter Topic Page
23 Maximum economic yield and its importance in 252

fishery management
R. Narayankumar
24 Gear selectivity 258

T. V. Sathianandhan
25 Exploratory survey for biomass estimation 262

T. V. Sathianandan, Grinson George and Somy Kuriakose
26 Age determination in fishes 270

E. M. Abdusammad
27 Truss network analysis 274

T. V. Sathianandhan and K. G. Mini
28 Trophic levels and methods for stomach content analysis of fishes 278
P. U. Zacharia
29 Role of environmental variables on spawning and recruitment 289

of small pelagics in an upwelling system :
The Indian oil sardine – A case study
V. Kripa
30 New methods of fish stock assessment 296

T. V. Sathianandhan
31 A concept for estimation of secondary and tertiary biomass 301

from primary production
Grinson George, J. Jayasankar, Phiros Shah and Shalin S.
32 Genetic stock characterization of fish using molecular markers 308

A. Gopalakrishnan
33 Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding-based estimation 317

of marine stocks
P. Jayasankar
Chapter Topic Page
34 Development of individual based models in marine 320

fisheries research
J. Jayasankar, Tarun Joseph and Shruthy Abraham
35 Trophic modelling of marine ecosystems and ecosystem 328

based fisheries management
K. Sunilkumar Mohamed
36 Technical measures in fisheries management 343

T. V. Sathianandhan and K. Sunilkumar Mohamed
37 Responsible fisheries – A prelude to the concept, 350

context and praxis
Ramachandran C., Vipinkumar V. P. and Shinoj Parappurathu
38 Harnessing co-management for addressing sociological 367

issues and reinvigorating fishery management regime
in the Indian context
V. P. Vipinkumar, Ramachandran C., Shyam S. Salim,
Ann Mary Jephi and Athira P. V.
Present status of Ichthyofaunal diversity of Indian Seas
PRESENT STATUS OF ICHTHYOFAUNAL

DIVERSITY OF INDIAN SEAS
1
K. K. Joshi, Thobias P. A. and Varsha M. S.
Marine Biodiversity Division
Introduction
Indian fish taxonomy has a long history, which started with Kautilya’s Arthasastra describing
fish as a source for consumption as early as 300 B.C and the epic on the second pillar of
Emperor Ashoka describing the prohibition of consumption of fish during a certain lunar
period which can be interpreted as a conservation point of view. Modern scientific studies
on Indian fishes could be traced to the initial works done by Linnaeus in 1758. M. E. Bloch
is one of the pioneers in the field of fish taxonomy along with the naturalists, zoologists
and botanists who laid the foundation for fisheries research in India such as Bloch and
Schneider (1795-1801) and Lacepède (1798-1803). Russell who worked on 200 fishes off
Vizagapatanam during 1803. Hamilton (1822) described 71 estuarine fishes of India in
his work An Account of Fishes Found in the River Ganges and Its Branches. The mid 1800s
contributed much in the history of Indian fish taxonomy since the time of the expeditions
was going through. Cuvier and Valenciennes described 70 nominal species off Puducherry,
Skyes, Gunther and The Fishes of India by Francis Day and another book Fauna of British
India Series in two volumes describing 1,418 species are the two most indispensable works
on Indian fish taxonomy to date.
In the 20th century, the basis of intensive studies on the different families and groups of
freshwater fishes was done by Chaudhuri along with Hora and his co-workers. Misra published
An Aid to Identification of the Commercial Fishes of India and Pakistan and The Fauna of
India and Adjacent Countries (Pisces) in 1976. Jones and Kumaran (1980) described about
600 species of fishes in the work Fishes of Laccadive Archipelago in 1980. Talwar and Kacker
(1984) gave a detailed description of 548 species under 89 families in his work Commercial
Sea Fishes of India. The FAO Species Identification Sheets for Fishery Purposes- Western Indian
Ocean (Fischer and Bianchi, 1984) is still a valuable guide for researchers. Recently, Talwar and
Jhingran (1991a, 1991b) published description on 930 inland species of India known till date.
Summer School on Advanced Methods for Fish Stock Assessment and Fisheries Management 1
Basics of sample collection, preservation and species identification of finfish

Fish resources are considered as an important renewable resources. With increasing fishing
pressure, the only option left for the sustainability of fisheries is their rational management.
Proper management is possible with a thorough knowledge of the dynamics of the fish
stocks. For a meaningful study of the dynamics, knowledge of natural history of the species
is necessary and this in turn can be acquired by the correct identification of fish species.
This assumes greater importance in tropical seas where, a multitude of closely related and
morphologically similar species occur. The role of taxonomy and proper identification cannot
be overstressed in studies of population dynamics. Acquaintance with the main species
should be such that there should no errors in identification of them in any special form
such as racial differentiation, abnormalities, malformation due to decay or disease. Species
identification study is also a step towards understanding the bewildering biodiversity that
characterizes in the marine ecosystem. Measuring linear dimensions of whole or parts of fish
is probably the most widely used technique in taxonomic studies. Such observations are made
with taps and calipers. Measurements are usually but not always taken along straight lines.
A. Fish Collection Methods. The major objective of the bioinventory is to identify all the
available species in the habitat using all the gear combinations. Two types of gears
are employed viz., active and passive categories. Passive gear is usually set and left
stationary for a period and commonly used gear are gillnet and traps. Active gears used
in the inventory are seine nets, trawl nets, dip nets, hooks and line and electric fishing.
Different factors affect fish sampling such as water depth, conductivity, water clarity,
water temperature, fish size and fish behavior.
B. Identification of fish: Characters of importance for the identification of fishes should be
studied correctly to identify the species. Line drawings, colour plates and photographs
provide basis for the learning the salient characters which can be for their classification.
Identification keys can be used as distinguishing characters of each family and order
according to the phylogeny.
1. Determine the family based on “Key”.
2. Identify to the lowest taxonomic unit listed in key to the family of which the fish is
a member
3. Verify the final determination by ascertaining or by comparing the similarities of
the specimen with illustration.
4. Match the collected specimen with previously identified specimen by taxonomist.
5. Confirm the geographical range as given in the standard texts includes the locality
from which the specimen was taken.
2 Summer School on Advanced Methods for Fish Stock Assessment and Fisheries Management
6. Compare the descriptions given in the FAO identification sheets, Catalog of Fishes
and Fish base.
C. Measurements
Smoothly working dividers or digital calipers can be used for measurements. A steel scale
of good quality is recommended for precise reading. Measuring board commonly used
in fishery biology investigations is not suitable for taxonomic studies. All measurements
are taken in a straight line. Definition of Body Measurements (All measurements along
the antero-posterior axis).
1. Total Length (TOL): The greatest dimension between the most anteriorly projecting
part of the head and the farthest tip of the caudal fin when the caudal rays are
spread out together.
2. Standard Length (STL): The distance from the anterior most part of the head
backward to the end of the vertebral column (structural base of caudal rays).
3. Fork Length (FOL): Distance from the tip of snout to the end of the middle ray of
the caudal fork when the fish is being flattened out.
4. Head Length (HEL): Taken from the tip of the snout to the posterior most point
reached by the bony margin of the operculum.
5. Pre-orbital length (PRO): Distance from the tip of the snout to the forward point
of eye.
6. Eye diameter (EYD): Horizontal diameter of the visible part of the eye, i.e., the
distance between the front edge and the back edge of the orbit.
7. Postorbital length (PSO): Distance from the backward point of eye to middle of
the backward bony edge of the operculum.
8. Upper jaw length (UPJ): Length of maxillary is taken from the anterior most point
of the premaxillary to the posterior point of the maxilla.
9. Lower jaw length (LOJ): Length of lower jaw from anterior tip to angle of mouth.
10. Body depth (BDD): Distance between the middle point of dorsal finbase to straight
downward central margin of the body, excluding fins.
11. Pre-dorsal length 1 (PD1): Distance from the tip of the snout to the forward origin
of the dorsal (intersection point of the forward edge of the first ray of the dorsal,
D1, with the outline of the back, the fish being flattened out)
12. Pre-dorsal length (PD2): Distance from the tip of snout to the forward origin of
the dorsal (intersection point of the forward edge of the first ray of the dorsal, D2,
with the outline of the back, the fish being flattened out).
13. Pectoral fin length (PEL): Distance from the extreme base of the uppermost ray
to the farthest tip of the fin, filament if any.
14. Pelvic fin length (PVL): Distance from the extreme base of the uppermost ray to
the farthest tip of the fin, filament if any.
15. Dorsal fin length 1 (DF1): Distance from the origin of the tip of the fin to the
anterior lobe.
16. Dorsal fin length 2 (DF2): Distance from the origin of the tip of the fin to the
anterior lobe.
17. Inter dorsal length (IDL): Distance from the base of the last spine (ray) of first
dorsal to the intersection point of second dorsal fin.
18. Pectoral fin base length (PEB): Distance from the base of the anterior fin ray of
the pectoral (P) to the backward end of the last ray, the pectoral being extended
on the side of the fish in its normal position.
19. Pelvic fin base length (PVB): Distance from the base of the anterior fin ray of the
pelvic fin (P) to the backward end of the last ray, the ray being extended on the
side of the fish in its normal position.
20. Dorsal fin base length (DB1): Distance from the forward origin of the dorsal (D1)
to the backward edge (Intersection point of the backward edge of the last spine,
D’, with the outline of the back, the fin being extended).
21. Dorsal fin base length (DB2): Distance from the forward origin of the dorsal (D2)
to the backward edge (Intersection point of the backward edge of the last ray, D2,
with the outline of the back, the fin being extended.
22. Anal fin length (AFL): Distance from the origin of the anal between the and fin
tip of the fin to the anterior most outer tip of the anal fin.
23. Anal fin base length (ABL): Distance from the forward origin of the anal (A) to
its backward edge (intersection point of the backward edge of the last ray, A’ with
outline of the abdomen, the fin being extended).
24. Caudal peduncle length (CPL): Distance from the base of the second dorsal end
to origin of the caudal fin.
25. Caudal peduncle depth (CPD): Depth of the caudal peduncle.
26. Pre-pelvic length (PRP): Distance from the tip of the snout to the anterior origin
of the pelvic (intersection point of the forward edge of the first ray of the pelvic,
with the contour of the abdomen, the fin being extended).
27. Pre-pectoral length (PRV): Distance from the tip of the snout to the margin of
the insertion of pectoral fin.
28. Pre-anal distance (PRA): Distance from the tip of the snout to the forward origin
of the anal (interior point of the forward edge of the first ray of the anal, A, with
the outline of the abdomen, the fin being extended).
Taxonomists also play an important role in supporting the study of the richness of diversity
as well as protecting and making vigilant of the diverse system. The assessed diversity of
the oceans is just a drop, and the unrevealed sources are yet to be explored making the
world more biodiversity rich. Hence the need to conserve the ichthyofaunal diversity is to
be looked into as they pose major threats that need to be tackled and sorted out. The role
of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and fish sanctuaries have been designated in many places
worldwide, which can help to protect and restore threatened species. Human activities
are the major causes for the loss of biodiversity and degradation of marine and coastal
habitats, which needs immediate attention and comprehensive action plan to conserve
the biodiversity for living harmony with nature. Some of the measures such as control of
excess fleet size, control of some of the destructive gears, regulation of mesh size, avoid
habitat degradation of nursery areas of the some of the species, reduce the discards of the
low value fish, protection of spawners, implementation of reference points and notification
of marine reserves for protection and conservation of marine and coastal biodiversity. The
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 amended by the Government make sure of the species
protected under this Act and any capture, killing and trade of these species is punishable.
Species richness
Of the 33,059 total fish species from the world, India contributes of about 2492 marine fishes
owing to 7.4% of the total marine fish resources. Of the total fish diversity known from India,
the marine fishes constitute 76 percent, comprising of 2492 species belonging to 941 orders
240 families (Table 1). Among the fish diversity-rich areas in the marine waters of India, the
Andaman and Nicobar archipelago shows the highest number of species, 1431, followed
by the east coast of India with 1121 species and the west coast with 1071. As many as 91
species of endemic marine fishes are known to occur in the coastal waters of India. As of
today, about 50 marine fishes known from India fall into the Threatened category as per
the IUCN Red List, and about 45 species are Near-Threatened and already on the path to
vulnerability. However, only some species (10 elasmobranchs, 10 seahorses and one grouper)
are listed in Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 of the Government of India.
Table 1. Species diversify of marine fishes of India

No Order Family No. of Genera No. of species
Class: Elasmobranchii
1 Hexanchiformes
1 Hexanchidae 2 2
2 Heterodontiformes
2 Heterodontidae 1 1
3 Echinorhiniformes
3 Echinorhinidae 1 1
4 Orectolobiformes
4 Rhincodontidae 1 1
5 Hemiscylliidae 1 5
6 Stegostomatidae 1 1
7 Ginglymostomatidae 1 1
5 Lamniformes
8 Odontaspididae 2 3
9 Pseudocarchariidae 1 2
10 Lamnidae 2 3
11 Alopiidae 1 3
6 Carcharhiniformes
12 Pseudotriakidae 1 1
13 Scyliorhinidae 6 9
14 Proscylliidae 1 1
15 Triakidae 2 4
16 Hemigaleidae 4 4
17 Carcharhinidae 10 26
18 Sphyrnidae 2 5
7 Squaliformes
19 Etmopteridae 2 7
20 Somniosidae 2 2
21 Centrophoridae 2 8
22 Squalidae 1 5
8 Pristiformes
23 Pristidae 2 5
9 Torpediniformes
24 Narkidae 2 4
25 Narcinidae 2 7
26 Torpedinidae 1 5
10 Rajiformes
27 Rhinobatidae 4 10
28 Rhyncobatidae 1 4
29 Zonobatidae 1 1
30 Acanthobatidae 1 1
31 Rajidae 7 8
11 Myliobatiformes
32 Hexatrygonidae 1 1
33 Dasyatidae 7 28
34 Gymnuridae 2 4
35 Myliobatidae 2 8
36 Mobulidae 2 9
37 Placiobatidae 1 1
Sub class: Holocephali
12 Chimaeriformes
38 Rhinochimaeridae 1 1
39 Chimaeridae 1 1
Class Actinopterygii
13 Elopiformes
40 Elopidae 1 2
41 Megalopidae 1 1
14 Albuliformes
42 Albulidae 1 2
15 Notacanthiformes
43 Halosauridae 2 5
44 Notacanthidae 1 1
16 Anguilliformes
45 Anguillidae 1 5
46 Moringuidae 1 6
47 Muraenidae 10 38
48 Synaphobranchidae 2 3
49 Ophichthidae 17 24
50 Colocongridae 1 1
51 Congridae 12 17
52 Muraenesocidae 4 6
53 Nemichthyidae 2 2
54 Serrivomeridae 1 1
55 Nettastomatidae 2 2
17 Clupeiformes
56 Clupeidae 12 26
57 Dussumieriidae 1 2
58 Engraulidae 5 34
59 Chirocentridae 1 2
60 Pristigasteridae 4 12
18 Gonorynchiformes
61 Chanidae 1 1
19 Siluriformes
62 Ariidae 10 25
63 Plotosidae 1 3
64 Bagaridae 2 4
20 Stomiiformes
65 Gonostomatidae 4 6
66 Sternoptychidae 4 8
67 Phosichthyidae 2 3
68 Stomiidae 6 9
21 Aulopiformes
69 Chlorophthalmidae 1 3
70 Ipnopidae 2 4
71 Synodontidae 4 23
72 Paralepididae 2 3
73 Evermannellidae 2 2
74 Alepisauridae 1 2
22 Myctophiformes
75 Neoscopelidae 2 3
76 Myctophidae 11 41
23 Lampriformes
77 Veliferidae 1 1
78 Lophotidae 1 1
79 Regalecidae 1 1
80 Ateleopodidae 2 3
24 Polymixiiformes
81 Polymixiidae 1 4
25 Gadiformes
82 Bregmacerotidae 1 1
83 Macrouridae 9 18
84 Moridae 1 2
26 Ophidiiformes
85 Ophidiidae 16 28
86 Carapidae 3 5
87 Bythitidae 6 7
88 Aphyonidae 1 1
27 Batrachoidiformes
89 Batrachoididae 4 6
28 Lophiiformes
90 Lophiidae 2 4
91 Antennariidae 2 9
92 Chaunacidae 1 1
93 Ogcocephalidae 5 11
94 Diceratiidae 1 1
95 Oneirodidae 1 1
96 Ceratiidae 1 1
29 Mugiliformes
97 Mugilidae 7 18
30 Atheriniformes
98 Atherinidae 4 9
99 Notocheiridae 1 1
31 Beloniformes
100 Belonidae 4 8
101 Hemiramphidae 5 16
102 Zenarchopteridae 2 8
103 Exocoetidae 6 18
32 Stephanoberyciformes
104 Melamphaidae 1 1
33 Cypridontiformes
105 Aplocheilidae 1 1
34 Beryciformes
106 Monocentridae 1 1
107 Trachichthyidae 2 3
108 Berycidae 2 4
109 Holocentridae 4 25
35 Argentiniformes
110 Platytroctidae 3 4
111 Alepocephalidae 9 14
36 Zeiformes
112 Parazenidae 1 1
113 Grammicolepididae 2 2
114 Zeidae 1 2
37 Gasterosteiformes
115 Pegasidae 2 4
38 Syngnathiformes
116 Aulostomidae 1 1
117 Fistulariidae 1 3
118 Centriscidae 2 4
119 Macrorhamphosidae 1 1
120 Solenostomidae 1 2
121 Syngnathidae 14 42
39 Scorpaeniformes
122 Apistidae 1 1
123 Aploactinidae 4 6
124 Bembridae 1 1
125 Dactylopteridae 1 5
126 Peristediidae 5 7
127 Platycephalidae 11 16
128 Scorpaenidae 15 35
129 Setarchidae 2 3
130 Synanceiidae 5 13
131 Tetrarogidae 9 12
132 Triglidae 2 7
40 Polynemiformes
133 Polynemidae 5 11
41 Perciformes
134 Acropomatidae 2 5
135 Ambassidae 2 11
136 Apogonidae 19 63
137 Bathyclupeidae 1 1
138 Bramidae 3 3
139 Caesionidae 4 16
140 Caproidae 1 2
141 Carangidae 20 66
142 Centrogenyidae 1 1
143 Chaetodontidae 8 48
144 Coryphaenidae 1 2
145 Datnioididae 1 1
146 Drepaneidae 1 2
147 Echeneidae 3 6
148 Emmelichthyidae 1 1
149 Gerreidae 2 11
150 Haemulidae 3 28
151 Hapalogenyidae 1 1
152 Kyphosidae 1 3
153 Lactariidae 1 1
154 Latidae 2 2
155 Leiognathidae 9 22
156 Lethrinidae 5 24
157 Lobotidae 1 1
158 Lutjanidae 10 45
159 Malacanthidae 2 3
160 Menidae 1 1
161 Monodactylidae 1 3
162 Mullidae 3 27
163 Nemipteridae 4 33
164 Opistognathidae 1 7
165 Ostracoberycidae 1 1
166 Pempheridae 2 7
167 Plesiopidae 3 5
168 Pomatomidae 1 1
169 Priacanthidae 3 9
170 Pseudochromidae 4 9
171 Rachycentridae 1 1
172 Sciaenidae 19 43
173 Serranidae 19 85
174 Sillaginidae 2 11
175 Sparidae 7 12
176 Symphysanodontidae 1 3
177 Toxotidae 1 2
178 Acanthuridae 5 39
179 Ammodytidae 1 3
180 Blenniidae 26 65
181 Callionymidae 4 21
182 Cepolidae 2 4
183 Champsodontidae 1 2
184 Chiasmodontidae 3 3
185 Cirrhitidae 4 8
186 Clinidae 1 1
187 Creediidae 1 1
188 Eleotridae 11 18
189 Ephippidae 3 4
190 Gobiidae 71 190
191 Kuhliidae 1 3
192 Kurtidae 1 1
193 Labridae 28 85
194 Cichlidae 2 3
195 Samaridae 2 2
196 Microdesmidae 3 9
197 Pentacerotidae 1 1
198 Percophidae 2 3
199 Pholidichthyidae 1 1
200 Pinguipedidae 1 12
201 Pomacanthidae 6 21
202 Pomacentridae 19 92
203 Scaridae 7 29
204 Scatophagidae 1 1
205 Schindleriidae 1 2
206 Siganidae 1 17
207 Terapontidae 2 4
208 Trichonotidae 1 2
209 Tripterygiidae 3 8
210 Uranoscopidae 2 6
211 Xenisthmidae 1 1
212 Zanclidae 1 1
213 Ariommatidae 1 1
214 Centrolophidae 1 2
215 Istiophoridae 3 5
216 Nomeidae 2 3
217 Scombridae 11 22
218 Scombrolabracidae 1 1
219 Stromateidae 1 2
220 Trichiuridae 6 12
221 Kraemeriidae 1 1
222 Sphyraenidae 1 10
223 Gempylidae 9 10
224 Xiphiidae 1 1
42 Pleuronectiformes
225 Psettodidae 1 1
226 Citharidae 1 1
227 Paralichthyidae 2 9
228 Bothidae 9 21
229 Pleuronectidae 3 4
230 Soleidae 11 27
231 Cynoglossidae 3 21
43 Tetradotnifromes
232 Triacanthodidae 6 6
233 Triacanthidae 3 5
234 Balistidae 11 22
235 Monacanthidae 14 22
236 Ostraciidae 4 7
237 Triodontidae 1 1
238 Tetradontidae 8 32
239 Diodontidae 3 6
240 Molidae 3 4
941 2492
Reference: Table prepared based on the list of species published in Eschmeyer, W. N., 1998. Eschmeyer,
W. N. and R. Fricke (eds). 2015. Gopi, K.C. and Mishra, S. S., 2014. Akhilesh et al., 2014; Joshi et al., 2016.
Marine and coastal diversity

Gujarat Coast
Gujarat has the longest coastline of more than 1,600 km and the most extensive continental
shelf of nearly 164,000 km2, which represents nearly 20% and 32 % of India’s coastline and
continental shelf. The EEZ of Gujarat covers 214,000 km2. The coast has been broadly divided
into four sections: the Gulf of Kachchh, the Saurashtra coast, the Gulf of Khambhat and the
South Gujarat coast. The ecological India’s first Marine National Park was notified in the Gulf
of Kachchh. The habitats exhibit considerable diversity and they include mangroves, salt
marshes, coral reefs, beaches, dunes, estuaries, intertidal mudflats, gulfs, bays and wetlands.
Gujarat has India’s second largest extent of area under the mangroves. The major rivers are
Narmada, Tapti, Sabarmati and Mahi. Gulf of Khambhat (Gulf of Cambay) is 190 km wide at
its mouth between Diu and Daman, rapidly narrows to 24 km. The gulf receives many rivers,
including the Sabarmati, Mahi, Narmada, and Tapti. The Gulf of Kachchh is rather shallow with
a depth of nearly 60 m at the mouth to less than 20 m near the head. The total gulf area is
about 7350 km2. In the Gulf of Kachchh, there are 42 islands & some islets, covering a total
area of about 410.6 km2. About 306 fish species are listed from the sea and coastal waters of
Gujarat. The fishery at present is dominated by fishes like ribbonfishes (Trchiurus lepturus),
Bombay duck (Harpodon nehereus), croakers, carangids, threadfin breams, lizardfishes,
tuna (Euthynnus affinis, Thunnus tonggol, Katsuwonus pelamis, Thunnus albacores and Sarda
orientalis), seerfish, pomfrets, catfish, flatfishes and non-penaeid prawns. The Bombay duck
(Harpodon nehereus) fishery was dominant at Nawabunder, Rajpara and Jaffrabad along
the Saurashtra coast. Out of total 306 reported species, 23 fish species were found in the
IUCN’s Red Data list. Importantly, 9 of these species belong to shark families, including the
whale shark, are also listed in Schedule I of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
Mumbai Coast
The Maharashtra coast that stretches between Bordi/Dahanu in the North and Redi/Terekhol
in the South is about 720 km long and 30-50 km wide. The shoreline is indented by numerous
west flowing river mouths, creeks, bays, headlands, promontories and cliffs. There are about
18 prominent creeks/estuaries along the coast many of which harbor mangrove habitats.
Bombay duck fisheries form the mainstay of the commercially important fisheries of the
coast from Ratnagiri to Broach. The coastline between Bombay and Kathiawar is found to be
productive for Sciaenids, Leptomelanosoma indicus (=Polynemus indicus), Polynemus spp.,
perches and eels. The Gulf of Cambay and North Bombay coast are also rich in Bombay
duck fisheries. About 285 species have been reported from the coast. Major finfishes along
this coast was Bombay duck, ribbonfish, sharks, pomfrets, lizardfish, catfishes, oil sardine,
anchovy, barracudas, full beaks, sailfish, cobia, wolf herring, groupers, whitefish and mackerel.
Konkan Coast
The Konkan coast stretches like a beautiful chain of 720 km formed from the coastal districts
of states of Maharashtra, Goa and Karnataka. Many river mouths, creeks, small bays, cliffs and
beaches, interspersed with historic forts, lend an alluring charm to this landscape. Konkan
is also rich in coastal and marine biodiversity. Mangrove forests, coral reefs, charismatic
marine species like dolphins, porpoises, whales, sea turtles, etc., many species of coastal birds
and other fauna make the Konkan coast a veritable treasure trove biological diversity. The
Malvan Marine Sanctuary has spread over 29 km2; the sanctuary is rich in coral and marine
life. The Karwar group of islands with its unique rocky with sandy shore supports a wide
range of fauna. There are more than 170 different species of food fishes landing in the coast
and is famous for its large shoals of mackerel, Rastrelliger kanagurta dominating the coasts
of Karnataka. Oil sardine along with Sardinella fimbriata, anchovies, clupeids, ribbonfishes,
seerfishes, Lactarius sp., carangids, pomfrets, croakers, catfish, whitefish, flatfishes, silver
bellies also contribute much to the fisheries of both the coasts.
Malabar Coast
Malabar Coast which stretches from Goa to Kanyakumari supports vast habitats such as
Mangroves, Swamps, coral reefs, Sea grass meadows, beaches and deltaic regions. About
308 fish species has been reported off Malabar Coast of which most of them are clupeids
followed by, groupers, anchovies, scombirds, snappers and butterfly fishes. Oil sardine along
with Indian mackerel, threadfin beams, lizardfish’s, eels, several carangids, sharks, rays, the
Malabar sole, Cynoglossus semifasciatus, catfishes, small croakers, pomfrets, tuna, groupers,
snappers, pigfacebreams, priacanthids, silverbellies, contribute to the commercial fishery
along the Malabar coast. Acanthurus matoides, A. xanthopteres, Apogon aureus, Chaetodon
collare, Diodon hystrix, Gymnothorax flavimarginatus, Pseudobalistes flavimarginatus,
Ostracion tuberculatum, Lactaia cornuta, Plataxteira, Pteroise volitans, Siganus javus, Tetradon
immaculatus are important ornamental species for their abundance and economic value.
Lakshadweep
The Union territory of Lakshadweep consists of 36 islands covering an area of 32 km2 of
which 10 islands are inhabited, 20,000 km² of lagoons and 4000 km2 oceanic zones. Among
the fishes of Lakshadweep, those of ornamental value are abundant. Of 603 species of
marine fishes belonging to 126 families that are reported from the islands, at least 300
species belong to the ornamental fish category. Oceanic species of tuna such as Skipjack
and Yellowfin tuna constitute the major tuna resources from Lakshadweep Islands. The main
economy of the islanders is dependent on the tuna catch and fishing is done for nearly six
months of the year from October to April. The most common species of sharks that occur in
Lakshadweep are the Spade-nose shark/Yellow dog shark, and the Milk shark. The Blacktip
Shark and Hammerhead shark are also commonly found in the waters around Lakshadweep.
Gulf of Mannar
The Gulf of Mannar located in the Southern part of the Bay of Bengal with a string of 21
islands which has been declared as a marine national park under the Wild Life (Protection)
Act 1972 by the Government of India. The reserve covers 10,500 km2, which comprises of a
variety of sensitive marine habitats like coral reefs, mangroves and sea grasses, and could
be considered as one of the most productive ecosystems. The core area of the reserve is
comprised of a 560 km2 of coral islands and shallow marine habitat. The Gulf of Mannar
alone produces about 20% of the marine fish catch in Tamil Nadu. Of 2200 fish species
distributed in Indian waters, 650 species have so far been recorded from the Gulf of Mannar.
The finfish resources, mainly comprises of small pelagics, barracudas, silver bellies, rays,
skates, eels, carangids, flying fish, full beaks and half beaks. The demersal finfish resources,
mainly associated coral reefs are threadfin breams, grouper, snappers, emperor and reef
associated fishes. Further, large pelagic species like skipjack tuna, yellow fin tuna, bigeye
tuna, kawakawa, frigate tuna and seer fish, bill fishes, eagle rays are most abundant in
offshore and oceanic areas, but also occur in coastal waters are found in certain areas of
the Gulf of Mannar.
Palk bay
Palk Bay is situated on the southeast coast of India encompassing the sea between
Point Calimere near Vedaranyam in the north and the northern shores of Mandapam to
Dhanushkodi in the south. The Palk Bay itself is about 110 km long and is surrounded on the
northern and western sides by the coastline of the State of Tamil Nadu in the mainland of
India. The coastline of Palk Bay has coral reefs, mangroves, lagoons and sea grass ecosystems.
Elasmobranchs are the largest group of fishes and are well represented in the fishery wealth
of the Rameswaram Island on the Palk Bay side. This is one of the best fishing grounds for
smaller sardines, silver bellies, common white fish and half beaks, mullets and sciaenids.
The common fishes found in this area also include Sharks, Rays, Skates, Tiger-sharks rays,
and Hammer-headed sharks.
Coromandel Coast
Seer fishes are most abundant in the coromandel coast of Tamil Nadu along with
miscellaneous fisheries formed of trichiurids and percoids. The flying fish fishery is an
important seasonal fishery on the east coast of India extending from Madras to Point Calimere
along the Coromandel coast. Three species of flying-fish, viz., Hirundichthys coromandelensis,
Cheliopogon spilopterus and C. bahiensis, are generally found in these waters, but more than
90% of the catch consists of H. coromandelensis.
Andaman and Nicobar islands
The Andaman and Nicobar islands situated in the Bay of Bengal constitutes of about 524
islands with a coastline of 1962 km. The major habitats of the coastal region include the
bio-diverse coral reefs with both fringing reefs off the east coast and barrier reefs off the
west coast, mangroves, estuaries and wetlands. Coral reefs are the most complex ecosystems
in the seas. Fish communities reach their highest degree of diversity in these ecosystems,
and differ enormously within and between reefs in the same area and between geographic
regions since the confluence of Andaman fishes with the waters of pacific as well as Indian
Ocean. A total of 1431species under 586 genera with 175 families has been reported from
Andaman waters. The number of reef fishes is the highest among the Indian reefs with a
contribution of 72.5% of the recorded fishes of the region. Major species belong to the
family pomacentridae and gobiidae.
West Bengal
The Sundarbans mangrove forests form a geographical landmark at the Ganges delta. The
Sundarbans biosphere reserve is a majestic natural region in the world which covers 102
swampy island, mangroves, estuaries, backwaters and waterways. The Sundarbans represent
the largest remaining tract of coastal mangrove wetlands in tropical Asia formed at the
estuarine phase of the Ganges- Brahmaputra river system. The Indian Sundarbans in the north
east coast of India occupies 9630 Km2 and are bounded by River Hooghly in the West, River
Raimangal in the East, Bay of Bengal in the South and Dampier Hodges line in the North.
There are 56 islands of various sizes and shapes in Sundarbans and these are separated from
each other by a network of tidal channels. Sundarban boast around 172 species of fishes.
Along the coast the fisheries comprise of sardines, sharks, anchovies and other miscellaneous
clupeoids. Sundarbans is the nursery for nearly 90% of the aquatic species of the eastern
coast, the coastal fishery of eastern India is dependent upon Sundarban. Most commercially
important marine and estuarine fishes are; Lates calcarifer, Tenualosa ilisha, Liza parsia,
Liza tade, Harpadon nehereus, Plotosus canius, Pampus argenteus, Rhinobatos annandalei,
Pangasius pangasius, Polydactylus indicus, Chanos chanos, Eleutheronema tetradactylum,
Leptomelanosoma indicum, Polynemous paradiseus and Pama pama.
Estuarine and brackish water diversity
India has rich estuarine and other brackish water resources along the east and west coasts
formed by the Ganges, Mahanadi, Brahmaputra, Godavari, Krishna, Cauvery, Narmada and
Tapti rivers, and smaller coastal rivers along the west coast, mainly in Kerala, Karnataka
and Goa. The total brackish water resources of India as estimated by the Government of
India were 1.44 million ha. The states of Odisha, Gujarat, Kerala and West Bengal have rich
brackish water resources. West Bengal is endowed with rich brackish water area, estimated
to be 405,000 ha with Hooghly-Matlah estuary accounting for 8,029 km² and marshy
area of Sunderbans to be 2,340 km². The estuary serve as a nursery ground for migrant
species proving spawning grounds for the migratory fishes such as Hilsa ilisha, Polynemus
paradiseus, Sillaginopsis domina, Pangasius pangasius, Pama pama, Polynemus tetradactylus
and Leptomelanosoma indicum. About 172 species of fishes has been reported from the
estuary of which 99 occupy higher salinity zones. Odisha has a total brackish water resource
of 417,537 ha. Estuaries, lakes and backwater account for 247,850 ha, 79,000 ha and 8,100
ha respectively. The Mahanadi estuary lies in the Cuttack and Puri districts of Odisha and
drains into Bay of Bengal. The major fauna includes Tenualosa ilisha, Nematalosa nasus,
Sardinella sp., Ilisha sp., Mugil cephalus, Planiliza parsia and other perches.
The Chilka lagoon is the biggest brackish water lagoon of the east coast of India and is
designated as a Ramsar site since 1981. The area during summer and rainy season has been
estimated to be 906 and 1,105 km², respectively. The brackish water of Andhra Pradesh is
about 2.0 lakh ha and mangrove swamp of 27,500 ha. It supports almost 268 species of
fishes which includes Nematalosa nasus, Mystus gulio, Planiliza macrolepis, Tenualosa ilisha
and Gerres setifer. Pulicat Lake is a very important brackish water lake of Nellore district of
Andhra Pradesh and the rest in Tamil Nadu region with a total area 77,000 ha. The fishery
includes Nematalosa nasus, Planiliza macrolepis, Sillago sihama, Chanos chanos, etc. The
Godavari estuarine system has an area of 330 km², drains to Bay of Bengal on the east coast
in the state of Andhra Pradesh. The major fisheries are formed by Gerres filamentosus, Caranx
sp., Sillago sihama, Platycephalus sp., Lates calcarifer and Mugil cephalus.
Threats and conservation of ichthyofaunal diversity
The major threats to ichthyofaunal diversity are:
 Pollution: Untreated sewage, garbage, fertilizers, pesticides, industrial chemicals,
plastics. Most of the pollutants on land eventually make their way into the ocean,
either deliberately dumped there or entering from water run-off and the atmosphere.
Not surprisingly, this pollution is harming the entire marine food chain - all the way
up to humans.
 Unsustainable fishing: 90% of the world’s fisheries are already fully exploited
or overfished, the catch of juveniles also pose threat to the diversity of fishes.
Unsustainable fishing is the largest threat to ocean life and habitats. Untargeted
fish catching methods brings about large quantities of fishes and other fauna that
leads to loss of the species.
 Inadequate protection: Oceans cover over 70% of our planet’s surface, but only
a tiny fraction of the oceans has been protected: just 3.4%. Even worse, the vast
majority of the world’s few marine parks and reserves are protected in name only.
 Tourism and development: Around the world, coastlines have been steadily turned
into new housing and tourist developments, and many beaches all but disappear
under flocks of holiday-makers each year.
 Shipping: Heavy traffic is leaving its marks of oil spills; ship groundings, anchor
damage, and the dumping of rubbish, ballast water, and oily waste are endangering
marine habitats around the world.
 Oil and gas: Important reserves of oil, gas, and minerals lie deep beneath the
seafloor. However, prospecting and drilling for these poses a major threat to sensitive
marine habitats and species.
 Aquaculture: Fish farming is often regarded as the answer to declining wild fish
stocks. But the farming of fish is actually harming wild fish, through the pollution
from the farms discharge, escaped farmed fish, increased parasite loads, and the
need to catch wild fish as feed.
 Climate change: Global warming and climate change are already having a marked
effect on the oceans through coral bleaching, rising sea level and changing species
distribution. Strategies are needed to deal with these phenomena, and to reduce
other pressures on marine habitats already stressed by rising water temperatures
and levels.
 Invasion of alien species: The introduction of harmful aquatic organisms to new
marine environments is believed to be one of the four greatest threats to the world’s
oceans. Those species are described as ‘invasive’ if they are ecologically and/or
economically harmful.
Fishes are of immense value for ecosystems, hence they are to be valued, nourished and
conserved. Fish as well as fisheries forms the economic as well as social backbone of
Indian society. Unfortunately, over dependence and over exploitation of these naturally
bestowed resources has led to a heavy fall in the number and in turn affect the biodiversity
of the system. These provide recreational, physiologic and aesthetic values to the people
of interest. This has been a resource of exchange in capital, investment and livelihood for
majority. Fish culture, processing, trade and marketing have been providing with sufficient
job opportunities for the common man. Various fishery agreements have been established
internationally as well as domestically, which have immense importance in conservation of
fish biodviersity. Institutes and researchers are greatly indebted to nature for the scientific
information collected from various research activities.
Suggested Reading
Akhilesh, K. V., Bineesh, K. K. Gopalakrishnan, A. Jena, J. K. Basheer, V. S. and Pillai, N. G. K. 2014. Checklist

of Chondrichthyans in Indian waters. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of India, 56 (1). pp.
109-120.
Arora, H. L. and Banerji, S. K., 1957. Flying-fish fishery along the Coromandel Coast. Indian Journal of
Fisheries, 4(1), pp.80-91.
Chaudhuri, B. L. 1916. Fauna of the Chilka Lake. Fish. Part I. Mem. Indian Mus. vol. 5 (no. 4): 403- 439.
Day, F., 1875. The Fishes of India being a natural history of the fishes part 1: know to inhabit the seas and
fresh waters of India, Burma, and Ceylon.
Eschmeyer, W. N. and R. Fricke (eds). Catalog of Fishes: Genera, Species, References. (http://researcharchive.
calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp). Electronic version accessed 12 June,
2017.
Fischer, W. and Bianchi, G., 1984. FAO species identification sheets for fishery purposes: Western Indian
Ocean (Fishing Area 51) vols.1- 5.
Joshi, K. K., Sreeram, Miriam Paul, Zacharia, P. U. Abdussamad, E. M. Varghese, Molly, Habeeb Mohammed,
O. M. M. J. Jayabalan, K. Kanthan, K . P. Kannan, K. Sreekumar, K. M. George, Gimy, Varsha, M. S.
2016. Check list of fishes of the Gulf of Mannar ecosystem, Tamil Nadu, India. Journal of the Marine
Biological Association of India, 58 (1). pp. 34-54. ISSN 2321-7898.
Joshi, K. K. 2013. Marine Biodiversity of India – A Perspective for RFM. In: ICAR funded Short Course on
“ICT -oriented Strategic Extension for Responsible Fisheries Management, 05-25 November, 2013,
Kochi pp. 37-55.
Misra, K. S. 1962. An aid to the identification of the common commercial fishes of India and Pakistan. Rec.
Indian Mus. (Calcutta) vol. 57:1-320, Pls. 1-4.
Silas, E. G., 2003. History and development of fisheries research in India .Journal of Bombay Natural History
Society, 100 (2 & 3), pp. 502-520.
Talwar, P. K. and Jhingran, A. G., 1991. Inland Fishes Vol 1 & 2.
Talwar, P. K. and Kacker, R. K. 1984. Commercial sea fishes of India. Zoological Survey of India, Cacultta, 896 pp.
Diversity and exploitation status of Crustacean Fishery
Marine
Resources
fish production
in India in India – present status
MARINE FISH PRODUCTION IN INDIA – PRESENT STATUS
2
T. V. Sathianandan
Introduction
India being a tropical country is blessed with highly diverse nature of marine fishery
resources in its 2.02 million square kilometer Exclusive Economic Zone with an estimated
annual harvestable potential of 4.414 million metric tonnes. The marine fisheries sector
provide livelihood to nearly 4.0 million people of India and meets the food and nutritional
requirements of a significant proportion of the population. Also, it contributes to export
earnings of the country. Sustainable harvest of the marine fishery resources are necessary
as over exploitation of the resources is likely to harm the diversity and cause reduction in
the availability of some of the resources. Monitoring of the harvest of the diverse marine
fishery resources of the country is being carried out regularly by CMFRI since its inception
through a scientific data collection and estimation system from all along the Indian coast
leading to fish stock assessment for deriving management measures to keep the harvest
of the resources at sustainable levels.
Marine fisheries is an important source of food, nutrition, employment and income

generation. In India, four million people depend for their livelihood on marine fisheries
sector which provides employment to nearly one million fishermen and contributes
significantly to the export earnings of the country and balance of trade. The sector
contributes to an economic wealth valued at nearly Rs. 65,000 crores annually.The marine
fisheries of the country consist of small-scale and artisanal fishers belonging mechanized,
motorized and non-mechanized sectors and a range of other stakeholders, including
governmental and non-governmental agencies. The marine fisheries resources are not in-
Marine fish production in India – present status
exhaustive and over-exploitation would lead to loss of biodiversity and reduced availability
of resources for our future generations. Uncontrolled harvest will result in depletion of the
resources. Management and regulations are necessary for sustainable harvest of marine
fishery resources India is one among the top marine fish producing countries of the world
and at present the country is at 7th position in global marine capture fish production after
China, Indonesia, USA, Russia, Japan and Peru. The global marine fish catch remains almost
stagnant after 1990 whereas the marine fish production in India showed a steady increase
from 2.3 million tonnes in 1990 to 3.94 million tonnes in 2012.
Many of the world’s fisheries have experienced series of environmental shifts in recent
decades involving collapse or fluctuations in the dominant fish assemblages and as a result,
many fisheries-dependant human communities have lost majority of their population,
while the respective countries in general were growing (Hamilton and Otterstand 1998).
In a tropical country like India, wherein the marine fisheries is supported by multispecies
assemblages, severe collapses in fishery are unlikely and the marine fish production of the
country has been increasing from a meager of 0.05 million t to 3.94 million t over the last
62 years. This is imperative, as the marine fisheries sector in India is characterised by the
dominance of small scale subsistence based fishery. In many of the societies, small-scale
fishermen suffer the greatest deprivations as they have low social status, low incomes, poor
living conditions and little political influence (Pomeroy and Williams 1994). Implementation
of regulations in the fishery for the sustained production from the sector have to take
the sustaained producction from the sector have to take into account its impact on the livelihood
into account its coimpact
of the onsiderablyon the
poor livelihood
fisher population..of
Thethe considerably
mation necesssary poor
inform for suchfisher population.
e are
inference The
generateed through ceensus.
information necessary for such inference are generated through census.
4
4.50
4
4.00
3
3.50
3
3.00
2
2.50
2
2.00
1
1.50
1
1.00
0
0.50
0
0.00
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2
2000 20
010
Tim
me series plo
ot of marine fish landingss in India fro
om 1950 to 2016
2 (in milliion tonnes)
The estim mate of landings of marine fishery reesources along the coastt in the mainn land of India for
the year 2016 is 3.63 3 million mettric tonnes. The contribuution by thee maritime sttates West Begal,
B
24 Odisha, Andhra Summer School
Pradesh, on
Tamil Advanced
l Nadu, Methods
Kerrala, for
Karnataaka,Fish Stock
Goa, M Assessment
Maharashtra and Fisheries
, Gujarat, u
union Management
territoriees of Puduchherry and Daamen & Diu towards thee total landings (in lakh tonnes) are 2.72
(7.5%), 1.17
1 (3.2%), 1.92 (5.3%
%), 7.07(19.5 5%), 5.23 (114.4%), 5.30 0 (14.6%), 0.61
0 (1.7%), 2.92
(8.1%), 7.74
7 (21.3%), 0.45 (1.2%
%), 1.17 (3.2%) respectivvely. The inccrease in lanndings in 20 016 is
The estimate of landings of marine fishery resources along the coast in the main land of
India for the year 2016 is 3.63 million metric tonnes. The contribution by the maritime states
West Begal, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Goa, Maharashtra,
Gujarat, union territories of Puducherry and Damen & Diu towards the total landings (in
lakh tonnes) are 2.72 (7.5%), 1.17 (3.2%), 1.92 (5.3%), 7.07(19.5%), 5.23 (14.4%), 5.30 (14.6%),
0.61 (1.7%), 2.92 (8.1%), 7.74 (21.3%), 0.45 (1.2%), 1.17 (3.2%) respectively. The increase in
landings in 2016 is mainly due to increase in marine fish landings along the coasts of West
Bengal by 1.53 lakh tonnes, Karnataka by 86,000 tonnes, Gujarat by 53,000 tonnes, Kerala
by 40,000 tonnes, Damen & Diu by 35,000 tonnes and Maharashtra by 27,000 tonnes.
There is reduction in landings in Andhra Pradesh by 1.03 lakh tonnes, Puducherry by 34,000
tonnes, Odisha by 24,000 tonnes, Goa by 7,000 tonnes and Tamil Nadu by 2,000 tonnes.
When examined at the resource level contribution, Indian mackerel had the maximum with
2.49 lakh tonnes (6.8% of total landings) followed by oil sardine 2.45 lakh tonnes (6.7%),
ribbonfishes 2.20 lakh tonnes (6.0%), penaeid prawns 2.01 lakh tonnes (5.5%) and lesser
sardines 1.95 lakh tonnes (5.4%). The resources showed increased landings in 2016 are
Perches by about 77,000 tonnes (81%), Hilsa shad 73,000 tonnes (354%), Ribbon fishes
43,000 tonnes (24%), Bombayduck 35,000 tonnes (31%), Squids 22,000 tonnes (24%) and
Non-penaeid prawns 21,000 tonnes (14%). The resources with significant reduction in
landings are Lesser sardines 61,000 tonnes (24%) and oil sardine 21,000 tonnes (8%).
Among the three sectors there was 81% contribution from mechanized sector towards the
total landings, motorized sector contributed 17% and the contribution from the traditional
non-mechanized sector was only 2%. Mechanized trawlnets accounted for 58% of the total
marine fish landings Among
whereas mechanized
the three sectors there wasgillnets andfrom
81% contribution outboard
mechanized ringseines contributed
sector towards the total 8%
landings, motorized sector contributed 17% and the contribution from the traditional non-
each. The total number of species found in the landings along the Indian
mechanized sector was only 2%. Mechanized trawlnets accounted for 58% of the total marine coast during 2016
fish landings whereas mechanized gillnets and outboard ringseines contributed 8% each. The
is 817 where as it was 730
total in of2015.
number species Numbers of species
found in the landings landed
along the Indian in different
coast during maritime
2016 is 817 where as states
in 2016 and 2015 are it wasshown inNumbers
730 in 2015. the following
of species landeddiagram. Though
in different maritime states inGujarat
2016 and 2015had
are maximum
shown in the following diagram. Though Gujarat had maximum landings among all the maritime
landings among all the maritime
states species diversity states species
is less compared diversity
to Kerala is less compared to Kerala and
and Tamil Nadu.
Tamil Nadu.
India is one among few countries where a system based on sampling theory is used to collect
Summer School on Advanced Methods
marine for
fish catch Fish Stock
statistics. Assessment
The sampling designand Fisheries by
was developed Management
CMFRI in association with the 25
Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute by conducting preliminary surveys. The sampling
design adopted is stratified multistage random sampling, stratification being done over space
and time
India is one among few countries where a system based on sampling theory is used to collect
marine fish catch statistics. The sampling design was developed by CMFRI in association
with the Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute by conducting preliminary surveys.
The sampling design adopted is stratified multistage random sampling, stratification being
done over space and time
Fish landings takes place at numerous locations all along the coastline in all seasons during
day and night.Sampling and estimation are performed for geographical area referred as
fishing zone.There are 75 fishing zones covering 9 maritime states and two coastal Union
territories. All the 1511 landing centres are covered under the sample design and data
collection is by qualified and trained field staff stationed at 25 locations across all maritime
states. The overall operation is coordinated by the Fishery Resources Assessment Division
of CMFRI.
Fish is a natural resource with capacity to rebuild. If not monitored and managed over
exploitation will lead to stock depletion and some may become extinct. Harvest of this
resource needs to be maintained at sustainable level through monitoring and control.
The primary objective of fish stock assessment is to provide advice on the optimum
exploitation of aquatic living resources. Fish stock assessment can be described as the
search for the exploitation level that in the long run gives maximum yield from the fishery.
The aim of fish stock assessment is for a fishing strategy that gives the highest steady yield
year after year.
The basic goal of fishery management is to estimate the amount of fish that can be removed
safely while keeping the fish population healthy. These estimates may be modified by
political, economic, and social considerations to arrive at an optimum yield.
Overly conservative management can result in wasted fisheries production due to under-
harvesting, while too liberal or no management may result in over-harvesting and
severely reduced populations.Fisheries Management draws on fisheries science inorder
to find ways to protect fishery resources so that sustainable exploitation is possible.
Fisheries Management is the integrated process of information gathering, data analysis,
planning, consultation, decision making, allocation of the resources and implementation
of regulations or rules to govern fishing activities with enforcement as and when necessary
to ensure steady and sustainable harvest of the resources. Fisheries Management is not
about managing fish but about managing people and related businesses. Fish populations
are managed by regulating the actions of people. These management regulations should
also consider its implications on the stakeholders.
Pelagic fin fishery resources of India
PELAGIC FIN FISHERY RESOURCES OF INDIA
3
E. M. Abdussamad
Pelagic Fishery Resources Division
Introduction
India is endowed with a long coastline of 8129 km. Being tropical country, the marine
ecosystem bordering Indian sub-continent contain large number of species adapted to wide
range of habitats, from mangrove swamps, estuaries, saline lagoons, sea grass meadows,
sandy/ muddy/rocky coasts, coral reefs, oceanic islands to deep oceanic realms. Theses
resources are supporting the marine fishery of the country. The water spread of continental
shelf is 0.5 million sq. km and of EEZ is 2.02 million sq. km. The annual catchable marine
fishery potential of the EEZ is 4.42 million tonnes. India is one of the leading nation of the
world in marine fish production and export.
Growth in Marine Fisheries
Coastal marine fishery made remarkable growth since mechanisation started in early sixties.
The marine fish production increased steadily from 0.68 million t in 1961 to 3.94 million t in
2012. This increase may be attributed mainly to the increase in fishing intensity coupled with
introduction of mechanised fishing vessels, motorisation of the country crafts, modernisation
of harvesting techniques coupled and extension of fishing to deeper waters. Mechanisation
and diversification of fishing have slowly extended fishing activity beyond the continental
shelf. Adoption of advanced techniques to detect resources and to identify productive ground
and use of fish aggregating devices added to the efficiency of fishing operation. Yield of
pelagic resources also registered similar growth as of total marine production from 0.44 to
2.1 million t by 2011. Fishery registered marginal decline thereafter.
Marine Finfish Resources
Fishery resources are classified broadly as pelagic and demersal based on their distribution
in the water column. Pelagics are diverse group of small to large fishes which occupy mainly
the surface and column layers of the water mass. Most of them are characterised by their
shoaling behaviour. Large numbers of species which are either bottom dwelling or inhabiting
mainly along the lower layers of water column are termed as demersal resources. Assessment
of the stocks of major exploited resources from the coastal waters have revealed the present
level of fishing pressure, which each resource is experiencing.
Oil sardine
The resource is represented by a single species, Sardinella longiceps and distributed widely
along the Indo-Pacific region. They form the mainstay of pelagic fishery of India. They occur
all along the Indian coast. Till recently their abundance was largely restricted to the coastal
waters between Quilon and Ratnagiri with 90% of the reported fishery from this area alone.
However, in recent years, they emerged as the major resource along the entire east coast
up to Orissa waters towards north.
Lesser sardines
Nearly 13 species constituted the resource and fishery. They occur along the entire Indian
coast but their abundance and fishery confined largely to the inshore waters of Kerala,
Tamilnadu and Andhrapradesh. It include 10 species under the genus Sardinella, two species
under Dussumieria and Esculosa thoracat. Dominant species are Sardinella gibbosa, S.albell,a
S.fimbriata S.dayii and S.sirm. Species show discontinuous distribution.
Dorabs
They are non-shoaling fishes, abundant along both east and west coast with large abundance
along the southeast coast. Two species namely, Chirocentrus dorab and C.nudus supported
the resource and fishery. Large abundance in shallow waters between 10 –30 m depth.
They migrate to deeper waters for spawning. They usually form fishery along with other
resources. Their average annual landing is 18,403 t during the last decade, forming 0.6% of
the total marine production. 50% of the total landing is from the Tamilnadu coast between
Palkbay and Gulf of Mannar.
Anchovies
Resources and fishery are supported by species belonging to the genera Stolephores, Thryssa,
Thryssina, Coilia and Setipinna. White bait belonging to the genus Stolephores constitite
nearly 70% of the catch. They are abundant in coastal waters of 5-20 m depth. 90% of the
resource was concentrated in area between Ratnagiri and Gulf of Mannar. Abundance of
other anchovies are relatively large along the coastal waters of Andhra, Tamilnadu, Kerala,
Karnataka and Maharashtra.
Other Clupeids
Several species belonging to different genera, Pellona, Hilsa, Ilisha, Elops, Megalops,
Anadontosoma etc. support the fishery. They are widely distributed along the east and west
coast, with large abundance along the east coast.
Mackerel
Resource is represented by three species in Indian waters. However more than 98% of
the stock and fishery was supported by Indian mackerel, Rastrelliger kanagurta alone.
R.brachisoma and R.faugni form sporadic fishery respectively in Andaman Madras waters.
Mackerel is abundant in coastal waters within 25 m depth. Nearly 80-90% of the total
mackerel catch is from west coast. However in recent years, their abundance and fishery is
on the increase along east coast. The present average production was 176,103 t during the
last decade and constitute nearly 5.7% of the marine fish production during this period.
Tunas
These are typical oceanic fast swimming and highly migratory pelagic fishes and most of
them have cosmopolitan distribution. Resource is represented by nine species belonging to
the genus Auxis, Euthynnus, Thunnus Katsuonus Sarda and Gymnosarda. These are typical
shoaling fishes and aggregate in large numbers around any floating objects in open sea.
Billfishes
Bill fishes form by-catch in oceanic tuna and shark fishery. They are represented by Istiophores,
Makyra and Xiphia Spp. Their average production was 6,372 t during last decade. They
constitute only 0.3% of the marine fish production during this period.
Seerfishes
They are the most relished fishes with very high market demand. Five species namely
Scomberomores commerson, S.guttatus, S.lineolatus, S.koreanus and Acanthocybium solandri
supported the resource and fishery. They are abundant in the neretic and oceanic waters of
both coasts. But undertake long term inshore migration and form fishery in shallow waters.
S.guttatus is available in less saline turbid waters of coastal belt. Average production was
50,450 t during the last decade and constitute nearly 1.6 % of the marine fish production.
Carangids
Carangids are a diverse group of fishes having different body shapes. They are widely
distributed along the entire coastal waters of India, Their major abundance confined to
shallow waters up to 60 m depth. More than 35 species constituted the resource, with many
species showing discontinuous distribution. However, commercial fishery was supported
by few species. Horse mackerel and scads dominated the fishery. Average production was
200,324 t during the last decade constitute nearly 6.5% of the marine fish production.
Ribbonfishes
They are abundant along east and west coast with large abundance along the peninsular
region. Resource was supported by six species dominated by Trichiurus lepturus. Their
maximum abundance was reported in deeper waters between 25-75 m depth. They being
carnivores, used to follow shoals of small pelagics and Acetes and were fished in large
quantities by shrimp trawls. Average production was 168,853 t during last decade and
constitute nearly 5.5% of the marine fish production.
Bombay duck
Fishery was supported by three coastal water species dominated by Harpodon neherius.
Resource distribution was discontinuous confined to northern sector of east and west
coast. Major share of the resource and fishery is confined to north west coast ie. Gujarat
and Maharashtra coast and the rest from coast of Orissa, Andhrapradesh and Tamilnadu.
They are fished mainly by fixed Dolnetat 15-50m depth zone. Sizeable quantities were also
landed by trawls. Average production was 114,576 t during last decade and constitute nearly
3.7% of the marine fish production.
Flying Fishes
They inhabit off shore waters of 30-40 km away from the shore. Several species belonging
to Parexocoetus, Cypselurus and Exocoetus supported the fishery. Good fishery occur along
the Coramandal and Gulf of Mannar coast of Tamilnadu and small quantities from Andhra
coast. Average production was 1,825 t during last decade.
Belonids and Hemirhamphids
Good resource of garfishes and half- beaks were available in the Gulf of Mannar and Palk
Bay and support a potential local fishery. Average production was 4,140 t during last decade.
Other pelagic
Other resources which contribute considerably to pelagic fishery are barracudas, king fishes
(cobias),barramundi, mullets, milkfish, tarpons, lady fishes, glossy perclets, fusiliers etc. They
form commercial fishery at varying levels at certain areas.
DIVERSITY AND EXPLOITATION STATUS OF DEMERSAL FISHERY RESOURCES
OF INDIA
P.U. Zacharia
Diversityand T.M. Najmudeen
and exploitation status of demersal fishery resources of India
Demersal Fisheries Division
DIVERSITY AND EXPLOITATION STATUS OF DEMERSAL

FISHERY RESOURCES OF INDIA
P.U. Zacharia and T.M. Najmudeen
ICAR- Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute
4
Introduction
Fisheries are an important source of income and means of livelihood in

developing countries, particularly in rural areas. Estimates by the Food and
Agricultural Organisation indicates that capture fisheries employ over 27 million
people worldwide, of which 85% live in Asia. Marine fisheries play an important
role in food security and nutrition in developing countries. There is serious
concern about the state of marine fisheries worldwide. While over-fishing is likely
to have been the major cause of the serious setbacks, these have probably been
exacerbated by habitat degradation. Fisheries sector plays an important role in
the overall socio-economic development of India. The fisheries sector contributed
76,913 crores to the GDP during 2009-10 which is 0.96 per cent of the total GDP
at factor cost and 5.4 per cent of the GDP at factor cost from agriculture forestry
and fishing (Zacharia and Najmudeen, 2013). During 2015-16, the export of
marine products from India reached over 9.45 lakh tonnes valued at Rs.30,421
crores and US$ 4.688 billion (MPEDA, 2017). India is one of major fish producing
countries in the world contributing over 3 per cent of both marine and freshwater
fishes to the world production (Srinath and Pillai, 2006) with third position in
capture fisheries and second in aquaculture. India has an Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ) covering a total area of 2.02 million sq. km, i.e., 0.86 million sq. km on the
west coast including the Lakshadweep Islands and 1.16 million sq. km on the east
coast, including the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and a continental shelf of half a
million sq. km (Vivekananadan et al., 2003).
The marine fishes, based on their depth-wise distribution may be grouped mainly
as pelagic and demersal, the former occupying surface and subsurface waters and
the latter the neretic areas in the continental shelf. Demersal fishes can be divided
into two main types: Strictly benthic fish which can rest on the sea floor, and
(EEZ) covering a total area ofand
Diversity 2.02 millionstatus
exploitation sq. km, i.e., 0.86
of demersal fisherymillion
resourcessq. km on the
of India
west coast including the Lakshadweep Islands and 1.16 million sq. km on the east
coast, including the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and a continental shelf of half a
million sq. km (Vivekananadan et al., 2003).
The marine fishes, based on their depth-wise distribution may be grouped mainly
as pelagic and demersal, the former occupying surface and subsurface waters and
the latter the neretic areas in the continental shelf. Demersal fishes can be divided
into two main types: Strictly benthic fish which can rest on the sea floor, and
bentho pelagic fish which can float in the water column just above the sea floor.
Benthic fish, sometimes called groundfish, are denser than water, so they can rest
on the sea floor. Benthic fish which can bury themselves include dragonets, flatfish
and stingrays. Demersal finfishes are one of the major components in the marine
fish landings along the Indian coast. The major gear which exploit the demersal
finfish resources in India are bottom trawlnets. Demersal fish though generally
occupy the seafloor; feeding on the benthic organisms and detritus, perform
vertical and horizontal migration in search of their feeding and breeding grounds.
Hence, the day and night catches in bottom trawl show differences, eg. catfish,
rays, eels etc. In the in shore fishing activities below 50 m depth, occurrence of
pelagics in bottom trawl and catfish, perches and penaeid prawns in pelagic net is
common. Trawl catch consists of 76% demersal (finfish 38% and inveretebares-
38%) remaining pelagic or column water fishes.
When compared to the pelagic resources, proper exploitation of the demersal

finfishes in India has been a initiated only three decades ago (Bensam, 1992). With
the introduction of mechanized bottom trawling from the late fifties, the
exploitation of demersal finfishes attained a 2.7- fold increase during late eighties.
With the large-scale introduction of mechanized trawling, several environmental
problems and stock-recruitment hazards to inshore fisheries have come up.
Demersal fish groups such as the sharks, groupers, snappers, threadfins, pomfrets
and Indian halibut are commercially valuable and contribute substantially to the
economy of Indian marine fisheries. Some of these groups, especially of large-size,
are targeted by the fishermen by using different craft and gear combinations.
However, several other demersal finfishes are not targeted, but are landed as by
catch by shrimp trawlers (Vivekanandan, 2011).
Diversity and exploitation status of demersal fishery resources of India
5000000 35.00
Total Fish
30.00
catch (in tonnes)
4000000
25.00
3000000 20.00
2000000 15.00
10.00
1000000
5.00
0 0.00
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Fig.1. Trends in the landings of demersal finfishes in India during 1980-2014
The landings of demersal finfishes

350,000
India during 1980-2014 period shows
280,000
that the catch is increasing steadily
Catch (t)
210,000
over the years from a meagre of
2,34,408 tonnes to nearly 10,76,789 140,000
tonnes in 2012, and thereafter 70,000

declined to 8,42,199 tonnes in 2014. 0
However, the catch share of demersal NE SE SW NW
finfishes during the last 35 years
indicate that the contribution of Fig. 2. Region-wise landings of demersal
finfishes for the period
demersal finfishes to the total Indian
2007– 2012
marine landings are decreasing over
the years. The maximum share was reported in 1983 with 33% contribution and
the lowest share (21.7%) was in 1989. The region-wise average share of demersal
finfishes along the Indian coast shows that the northwest region comprising of
Gujarat and Maharashtra contributes the highest share, followed by southwest
coast comprising Kerala and Karnataka and southeast coast comprising Tamil
Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. The share of demersal finfishes to all India marine
landings of India in 2016 was 29%.
The group wise composition of Mollusc

demersal finfish assemblages in 7%
Crustacean
Indian marine fish landings during 12%
Demersal
2016 indicate that the major 29%
contributors are the perches (37%),

followed by the croakers (18%), Pelagic
52%
silverbellies (11%), lizardifishes and
catfishes each contributed 9%,
elasmobranchs (6%) and flatfishes
and promfrets (5% each). The
exploitation status of the important Fig. 3. Share of demersal finfishes to the all
groups of demersal finfishes along India Marine Capture fisheries during 2016
the coast of India are briefly
mentioned below.
ELASMOBRANCHS
In India, there are

about110 species of
elasmobranchs, of which
66 species of sharks, 4
sawfishes, 8 guitarfishes
and 32 species of rays are
landed in the commercial Fig. 4. Share of demersal finfishes to the all India
catches. Among these, 34 Marine Capture fisheries during 2016
species are commercially

important. Some species of
elasmobranchs are protected under
the Wildlife Protection Act (10
species), which include, Pristis
microdon, Rhynchobatus djiddensis,
Pristis zijsron Carcharhinus hemiodon
(Pondicherry shark), Glyphis glyphis,
Fig. 5. Heavy landings of sharks at Rhincodon typus (whale shark),
Cochin Fisheries Harbour, Kerala Urogymnus asperrimus (Porcupine
coast
ray). Majority of the species of elasmobranchs in the Indian seas are viviparous,
some are oviparous and few are ovo-viviparous with very low fecundity. All India
landings of elasmobranchs during 2016 was 52,424 tonnes, forms 5.6% of
demersal catch. Trawl nets accounting for 48.8%, gillnets 35.6% and hook & line
units 6% of the total elasmobranch landings of the country.
Sharks : Shark landings in India during 2016 was 23,002 tonnes, which formed
45% of the total elasmobranch landings of the country. The major families
appeared in the landings were Carcharhinidae, Triakidae, Sphyrnidae,
Echinorhinidae, Hemiscylliidae, Alopiidae, Lamnidae, Centrophoridae, Squalidae
and Stegostomatidae. The dominant species in the landings were Carcharhinus
falciformis(37.25%), Alopias superciliosus (11.85%), Sphyrna lewini(11.53%), Alopias
pelagicus(8.53%).
Rays: The landing of rays in India during 2016 was 26,211 tonnes, which formed
51% of the total elasmobranch landings of the country. The major families in the
landings were Dasyatidae, Mobulidae, Myliobatidae, Gymnuridae and
Rhinopteridae
Fig. 6. Landings of rays at Cochin Fisheries Harbour along Kerala coast
Skates/guitar fishes: All India landings

of guitarfishes were estimated at 3627
tonnes, which constituted 4% of the total
elasmobranch landings of the country.
Fig. 7. Landings of guitarfishes along the

Kerala coast
The major families of guitarfishes landed along the coast are Rhinidae and
Rhinobatidae.
There are significant changes in the share of sharks and rays to total
elasmobranch landings recent years. The all India Production Elasmobranchs
during 1999-2010, shows that sharks were dominant in the catch with 49.7%
share and that of the rays was 44.5%. However, the landings during 2006 indicate
that the rays has emerged as the dominant group with 51% followed by sharks
with 45% share.
Other perches Rock codes Snappers
10% 10%
PERCHES 3%
This group was abundant

Bullseyes
in the rocky grounds off 32% Pigface
breams
Kerala and Tamil Nadu 3%
and was exploited by drift

nets, hooks and lines and Threadfinbrea
ms
traps. All India landings of 42%
Perches is 4.07 lakh

tonnes and forms 40% Fig. 8. Composition of different groups to the total
of total demersal finfish perch landings in India
landings. Among the
different groups of perches landed along the Indian coast, threadfin breams were
the dominant group with 42% of the total perch landings, followed by bullseyes
belonging to the family priacanthidae with 32% share, rock codes/groupers 10%,
snappers and pigface breams 3%
each and other minor perch groups
contributed 10%.
THREADFIN BREAMS
Six species of thredfin breams are

known from the seas around India.
Nemipterus japonicus, N. randalli, N.
bipunctatus, N. metopias, N. zysron,
N. nematophorus, N. tolu. Among Fig. 9. Landings of threadfin breams
these, Nemipterus japonicus, along southwest of India
N. randalliare commercially important. Their abundance is influenced by upwelling

and are known to move to inshore waters during monsoon period along the west
coast. They are Fractional spawners with protracted spawning periods. Spawning
in N. japonicas takes place during October-April with a peak during October -
December along Gujarat. In Kerala, N. japonicus and N. randalli spawn during
monsoon and post monsoon periods with peaks during monsoon in the former
and during post monsoon in the latter species. All India landings of threadfin
breams in 2016is 1.63 lakh tonnes, forms 17.3% of the total demersal finfish catch
in India.
100000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Production (tonnes)
50000
0
Kerala
Goa
Pradesh
Bengal
Gujarat
Maharashtr
Tamil Nadu
Karnataka
Andhra
West
a
Fig. 10. State-wise trend of threadfin breams during 2012-2016
GROUPERS
Rock cods or groupers are

protogynous hermaphrodites,
initially maturing as females
then reverting to males as they
grow in age and size. The major
species observed in the landings
are Epinephelus chlorostigma, E.
diacanthus, E. areolatus, E.
tauvina, E. morrhua, E. bleekeri, Fig. 11. Landings of groupers along
southwest coast of India
E. longispinnis, Cephalopholis argus, Aetheloperca rogaa, Variola louti. The total

landings of groupers during 2016 in India was 42781 tonnes, which formed 10% of
the perch landings of India.
SNAPPERS
The major species observed in the all India

landings of snappers were Pristipomoides
typus, L. argentimaculatus, Lutjanus gibbus,
L. rivulatus, L. bohar, and L. lutjanus. The
Fig. 12. Landings of Snappers at

Cochin Fisheries Harbour,
Kerala
catch of snappers during 2016

in India was 10,533 tonnes.
Southeast coast of India
contributed the majority of
landings of snappers in India
Fig. 13. Region wise distribution of snappers followed by southwest coast of
along the Indian coast India.
BULLSEYES
The landings of Bullseyes during

2016 in India was 130740 tonnes,
which formed 32% of the total
perch landings of the country.
They belongs to a single family
Priacanthidae. The major species
observed in the landings are
Priacanthus hamrur, Oookeolus Fig. 14. Catch of Bullseye, Priacanthus sp
japonicas and Priacanthus
sagittarius. From a mere 43,576 tonnes in 2015 its landings of bullseye has been
escalated to a three- times-high of 1.3 lakh tonnes during 2016.
PIGFACE BREAMS
The major species observed in the landings of pigface breams/ emperor breams in
India are Lethrinus mahsena, L. lentjan, L. conchyliatus, L. nebulosus, L. ramak, L.
elongatus and Lethrinus miniatus. The landings of Pigface breams in India during
2016 was 12519 t, which formed about 3% of the total perch landings of the
country. Southeast coast of India contributed the major share of landings of
pigface breams in India.
Fig. 15. Emperor bream/ pigface Fig. 16. Region wise distribution of
bream landings along the Kerala pigface breams in India
coast
coast
LIZARDFISHES
All India landings of lizardfishes is 94, 817 tonnes, forms 8.3% of demersal catch20
- 40 m depth up to 150-200 m depth. The species of lizardfishes landed along the
west coast of India are Saurida
tumbil, S. undosquamis,
Trachinocephalus myops, Synodus
englemani and that of East coast are
Saurida undosquamis, S. longimanus
and S. micropectoralis, Saurida
tumbil, Trachinocephalus myops,
Synodus englemani. Spawning in S.
tumbil occurs during September to Fig. 17. Lizardfish landings along the
March off Veraval and Bombay along west coast of India
North west coast; August to
coast
November off Cochin.
CATFISHES
Catfishes are important demersal resources which have wide distributional range
in the Indo-Pacific region. They are distributed all along the Indian coastal waters
up to the middle shelf with preferential concentration on muddy grounds of 30-70
m depths. Catfishes migrate both
vertically (diurnal migration) and
horizontally (seasonal) in small
schools to large shoals in response
to seasonal climatic / hydrographic
variations. Marine catfishes belong to
the family Ariidae, of which 11
species appear in the commercial
Fig. 18. Catfish landings along the fisheries.
west coast of India
coast
West coast of India landed 70% of the total catfish catch and the east coast 30%,
northwest coast landed 90% of
the west coast catch. All species
of catfishes exhibit parental care -
the male carrying the brood (25-
120 eggs) in the oro-buccal cavity
for 1 to 2 months’ time until the
juveniles (4-7 cm) are released.
After spawning the brooding
males segregate into shoals and
move along the surface and
prefer shallow water. The newly
Fig. 18. Catfish landings along the west
released juveniles of all species of coast of India
tachysurids live in the shallow
coast
muddy grounds feeding on the bottom epi-and in-fauna – become easy target in
fishing. The all India landings of catfishes is during 2016 was estimated at 80559
tonnes, which formed 8.9% of demersal finfish catch of India.
FLATFISHES
These were abundant in muddy and/or sandy bottom up to about 80 m depth

belonging to genera such as Cynoglossus, Psettodes, Pseudorhombus, Bothus,
Paraplagusia, etc. and exploited by
trawl nets, gill nets and other artisanal
gears. The Commercial exploitation of
flatfishes along the Indian coast varies
widely with Cynoglossus macrostomus
dominating in the West Coast and
Cynoglossus macrolepidotus along the
East coast. The Fishery of Psettodes
erumei showed a decline in recent
Fig. 20. Landings of flatfishes along the
southwest coast of India years. The all India landings of
flatfishes during 216 was 43,828
tonnes, which formed 4.7% of demersal finfish catch of India.
SCIAENIDS
Sciaenids include high value demersal resources like croakers, which are landed
mainly from Gujarat and Maharashtra.
The important gears used are trawls
and gill nets. These fishes are caught
mainly during October - December
and January - March. They mainly
consist of the species like
Pseudosciaena diacanthus, Otolithes
spp. and Johneiops spp. Protonibea
diacanthus, Johniops macrorhynus,
Fig. 21. Sciaenid landings along the
southwest coast of India Otolithe scuvieri, J. dussumieri, J.
glaucus, and O. ruber. All India
landings of Sciaenids during 2016 is 1, 57, 793 tonnes, which forms 16.5% of
demersal finfish catch of the country.
POMFRETS
Pomfrets belong to two families, the black pomfret Parastromateus niger is

coming under the family Carangidae and the silver pomfret Pampus argenteus
belongs to the family Stromateidae. They are landed abundantly in Gujarat and
Maharashtra. The blackpomfret landings in India during 2016 was 13,924 tonnes,
and that of silver pomfret was 26,012 tonnes, which formed 3.3% of demersal
finfish catch of the country
Fig. 22. Black pomfret Fig. 23. Silver pomfret

(Parastromateus niger) (Pampus argenteus)
Table.1. Changes in the scientific names of

the silverbellies exploited in India
SILVERBELLIES Previous name Present name
Silverbellies belonging to the Leiognathus bindus Photopectoralis bindus

family Leiognathidae. Exploited L. blochi Nuchequula blochii
by trawl nets and artisanal gears, L. edwardsi Equulites elongatus
this group formed about 12% of
L. insidiator Secutor insidiator
demersal finfishes L. jonesi Eubleekeria jonesi
production.The major species L. splendens Eubleekeria splendens
landed along the coast of India L. ruconius Secutor ruconius
are Leiognathus splendens, L. L. daura L. daura
equlus, Gazzaminuta, L. bindus, L. dussumieri L. dussumieri
L. dussumieri, L. jonesi, Secutor L. longispinis L. longispinis
insidiator.
All India landings of silverbellies is 92764 tonnes, which forms 10.4% of demersal
finfish catch of India.
WHITEFISH
This resource is also called

butterfish and known to be
depleted/overexploited by the
mechanised trawl operations
along the near-shore waters of
west coast of India. Although
distributed all along the coastline,
it has been supporting notable Fig. 24. Whitefish Lactarius lactarius
landed along the Kerala coast
fisheries along the southwest and
southeast regions. All India
landings of whitefish is 6,312 tonnes, forms 0.8% of demersal catch Lactarius
lactariusis the only species available in this family. Whitefish production in India
shows wide fluctuation. Shows steady fall except spurt in 1983 and 1985. In
Karnataka it fluctuated between a lowest of 37t in 1964 and highest of 2,930 t in
1988. East coast shows a steady decline from 4,738 t in 1960-69 to 888 t in 1990-
99. West coast showed an increase from 2,901 t in 1960-69 to 12,354 t in 1980-89
then steep decline to 6,109 in 1990-99.
GOATFISHES
This group has three important

genera in India, Upeneus, Parupeneus
and Mulloidichthys. These were
exploited by trawls and traditional
gears mostly in Tamil Nadu, Andhra
Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka and
Maharashtra. Dominant species along
the east coast of India include Upneus
taenipterus, Upeneus bensasi, Upenues
sulphureus, Upeneus sundaicus, Fig. 25. Goatfish landings along
southeast coast of India
Parupenus indicus and U. molluccensis. All India landings of goatfishes during 2016
was 30,276 tonnes, which formed 3.2% of demersal finfish catch of the country.
EELS
Eels are long-bodied, snake like fishes, having a crevice dwelling or sediment-
burrowing mode of life, though some live in the pelagic realm of the open oceans.
Traditionally marketable
species of eels are caught
from conventional fishing
grounds of northwest and
northeast coasts of India
and are largely a by-catch.
Pike congers belonging to
the family Muraenesocidae
occur in tropical waters in
Fig. 26. Eels belonging to the family the soft bottoms upto 100
Muraenesocidae landed along the Kerala coast m depth and in estuaries.
Four species are recorded in
Indian waters and they grow to a maximum length of 80 cm (Congresox talabon)
(Cuvier, 1829), 250 cm (C. talabonoidies) (Sleeker, 1853), 180 cm (Muraenesox
bagio) (Hamilton-Buchanan) and of 80 cm (M. cinereus) (Forsskal, 1775).
250000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
Catfishes
Rays
Croakers
Whitefish
Flatfishes
Silverbellies
Sharks
Threadfin breams
Goatfishes
Eels
Threadfins
Skates
Lizardfishes
Pigface breams
Pomfrets
Snappers
Rock cods
Fig. 27. Trends in the landings of major demersal finfish species during 2010-2016
Regionwise Distribution of Species
Finfishes exploited by trawls belong to 21 major fish groups, which are mostly
demersal groups. Each maritime region of India is characterized by dominance of
specific demersal finfish groups. Along the northeast (NE) coast, sciaenids,
catfishes and pomfrets (74.0% to the demersal landings) are dominant. The
southeast coast is characterised by the abundant landings of silverbellies and
pigface breams. Along the southwest coast of India, threadfin breams and other
perches are the major demersal resources and the northwest coast is
characterised by the dominance of sciaenids, catfish, pomfrets and threadfin
breams.
Diversity and exploitation status of crustacean fishery resources in India
DIVERSITY AND EXPLOITATION STATUS OF

CRUSTACEAN FISHERY RESOURCES IN INDIA
5
G. Maheswarudu
Crustacean Fisheries Division
Introduction
India is blessed with long coastline of about 8118 km along the West Bengal, Odisha, Andhra
Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry along the east coast; along Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa,
Karnataka, Kerala along the west coast. India has 2.02 million sq.km exclusive economic zone
area and 0.53 million sq.km continental shelf area, a potential source for marine fisheries.The
rich continental shelf area, a good habitat for demmersal fishes as well as crustaceans such
has penaeid prawns , non-penaeid prawns, crabs, lobsters and stomatopods. Mechanised
trawler is the main gear operated in the continental area targeting crustacean resources,
Though trawl net is operated for penaeid prawn, non penaeid prawns, crabs and stomatopods
will be formed as by catch because all these resources habituate in the same fishing ground.
Crustacean resources
Crustacean resources comprises with penaeid prawns, non-penaeid prawns, crabs, lobsters
and stomatopods. Total annual marine fish landings of India ranged from 2.29 to 3.93 million
t with mean at 2.92 million t. Annual total crustacean resources ranged from 3.52 lakh t to
5.32 lakh t with mean at 4.45 lakh t, and its contribution to total marine fish landings ranged
from 12.6 % to 18.9 % with mean at 15.2 %. The landings of penaeid prawns ranged from
1.71 lakh t to 2.67 lakh t with mean at 2.07 lakh t. Landings of non-penaeids ranged from
1.04 lakh t to 2.13 lakh t with mean at 1.54 lakh t. The catches for lobsters ranged from 1,201
t to 2,787 t with mean at 1,860 t. Crab landings ranged from 27,538 t to 55,695 t with mean
at 42,675 t. Stomatopod catches varied from 21,187 t to 92,611t with mean at 39,433 t.
On an average penaeid prawns contributed 7.1%, non-penaeidprawns 5.3 %, crabs 1.5%,

stomatopods 1.3 % and lobsters 0.1 % (Fig.1).
Trends in crustacean resource landings, group wise, are shown in fig.2. Increasing trend
was observed in total crustacean resources during the 19 years period. Both penaeids and
non –penaeids have shown increasing trends. A marginal increasing trend was observed in
crab landings. Though lobster catches have shown decreasing trend, its contribution to total
crustacean resources was very less (0.1%). Despite increasing trends exhibited by penaeids,
non penaeids, crabs, stomatopods have shown decreasing trend because of competing in
the same fishing ground with penaeids.
East Coast
Mean state-wise contribution (%) of crustacean resources to total crustacean landings of
India for the period 1996-2014 along the east coast and state-wise contribution (%) to
the total crustacean resources of the east coast are shown in Fig. 3 & 4. The contribution
of crustacean resources from the east coast is 27.0 % to total crustacean landings. Tamil
Nadu contributed highest (8.3 %) followed by Andhra Pradesh (6.8 %), West Bengal (6.1%),
Odisha (5.5%) and Pondicherry (0.3 %). Tamil Nadu contributed 30.9 % to the total crustacean
resources of the east coast, followed by Andhra Pradesh (25.0%), West Bengal (22.7%),
Odisha (20.4%) and Pondicherry (1.1%).
West Coast
State-wise contribution (%) to the total crustacean resources of the west coast and mean
state-wise contribution (%) of crustacean resources to total crustacean landings of India for
the period 1996-2014 along the west coast are shown in Fig. 5 and 6. West coast contributed
72.9 % of total crustacean resources of India. Gujarat contributed high (28.3 %) followed
by Maharastra (23.9 %), Kerala (13.2 %), Karnataka (6.3 %) and Goa (1.3 %). Along the west
coast Gujarat contributed high (38.9%), followed by Maharastra (33.7%), Kerala (18.1%),
Karnataka (8.6%) and Goa (1.7%)
Commercially important species
Commercially important of penaeids, non penaeids, crabs, lobsters, state-wise, are shown
in table 1.
Fig. 1. Mean contribution of crustacean resources, group wise, to total marine fish landings for the
nineteen years period (1996-2014)
Fig.2. Group-wise, trends in crustacean resource landings during 1996-2014
Fig. 3. Mean state-wise contribution (%) of crustacean resources to total crustacean landings of India for
the period 1996-2014 along the east coast
Fig.4. State-wise contribution (%) to the total crustacean resources of the east coast
Fig.5. State-wise contribution (%) to the total crustacean resources of the west coast
Fig.6. Mean state-wise contribution (%) of crustacean resources to total crustacean landings of India for the
period 1996-2014 along the west coast
Table 1. Commercially important species of penaeids, non-penaeids, crabs, lobsters and

stomatopods
State Penaeids Non-penaeids Crabs Lobsters
Gujarat 1. Penaeus 1. Acetes spp. 1. Portunus 1. P. polyphagus
semisulcatus sanguinolentus
2. Fenneropenaeus 2. N. tenuipes 2. C. feriatus
merguiensis
3. Metapenaeus 3. E. ensirostris
affinis
M. monoceros
4.
5. M. kutchensis
Parapenaeopsis stylifera
6.
7. P. hardwickii
8. P. sculptilis
9. Metapenaeopsis stridulans
10. Solenocera crassicornis
Maharashtra 1. Fenneropenaeus 1. Acetes spp. 1.
C. feriatus 1. P. polyphagus
indicus
2. Metapenaeus 2. N. tenuipes 2. P. sanguinolentus
affinis
3. M.monoceros 3. Exhippolysmata 3. P. pelagicus
ensirostris
4. M. dobsoni
5. Parapenaeopsis stylifera
8. S. choprai
Fenneropenaeus
Karnataka 1. 1. C. feriatus
indicus
2. Penaeus monodon 2. P. sanguinolentus
3. P. canaliculatus 3. P. pelagicus
M. dobsoni
1.
2. M. monoceros
3. M. affinis
4. P. stylifera
5. S. choprai
Kerala 1. M. monoceros 1. Plesionika spinipes 1. P. pelagicus 1. Thenus

unimaculatus
2. M. affinis 2. Heterocarpus 2. P. sanguino- 2. P. homarus
gibbossus lentus
3. M. dobsoni 3. H. woodmasoni 3. C. feriatus
4. F. indicus 4. C. lucifera
5. P. stylifera 5. Podophthalmus vigil
6. S. choprai 6. Scylla serrata
7. Metapenaeopsis
andamanensis
8. Aristeus alcocki
Tamil Nadu 1.Penaeus semisulcatus 1. Plesionika spinipes 1. P. pelagicus 1. P. homarus
2.Fenneropenaeus indicus 2. Heterocarpus gibbossus 2. P. sanguinolentus 2. P. ornatus
3. P. latisulcatus 3. H. woodmasoni 3. C. feriatus 3. P. polyphagus
4. Metapenaeus dobsoni 4. C. natator 4. P. versicolor
5. M. moyebi 5. C. smithii 5. P. ornatus
6.Parapenaeopsis maxillipedo 6. C. annulata 6. P. penicillatus
7. P. uncta 7. C.lucifera 7. Thenus unimaculatus
8. Metapenaeopsis stridulans 8. C. hellerii
9. Solenocera hextii 9. Podophthalmus vigil
10. Aristeus alcocki 10. P. gladiator
11. Parapenaeus fissuroides 11. P. haanii
12. Parapenaeus investigatoris
13. Penaeopsis jerry
14. M. andamanensis
15. Solenocera alphonso
Andhra 1. Metapenaeus 1. Acetes spp. 1. P. pelagicus 1. Thenus

Pradesh monoceros unimaculatus
2. M. dobsoni 2. N. tenuipes 2.
P. sanguinolentus
3. M. brevicornis 3. E. ensirostris 3. C. feriatus
4. M. affinis 4. Scylla serrata
5. M. lysianassa 5. S. olivacea
6. F. indicus
7. P. monodon
8. F. merguiensis
9. P. japonicus
10. P. semisulcatus
11. Metapeaeopsis stridulans
12. M. barbata
13. M. mogiensis
15. S. melantho
16. Parapenaeopsis stylifera
17. P. hardwickii
18. P. uncta
19. P. maxillipedo
20. P. coromondelica
21. Trachypenaeus curvirostris
22. T.granulosus
23. T.sedili
24. Parapenaeus longipes
Odisha 1. Metapenaeus dobsoni 1. P. pelagicus
2. M. monoceros 2. P. sanguinolentus
3. M. affinis 3. C. feriatus
4. F. merguiensis 4. Scylla serrata
5. P. monodon 5. S. olivacea
6. F.indicus
7. P. stylifera
8. P. hardwicki
9. M. lysianasa
10. Solenocera spp.
11. M. burkenroadi
West Bengal 1. Metapenaeus dobsoni
2. M. monoceros
3. M. affinis
4. M. lysianasa
5. F. penicillatus
6. F. merguiensis
7. P. monodon
8. P. stylifera
9. P. hardwicki
10. Solenocera spp.
11. M. burkenroadi
Marine Molluscan Diversity in India - Exploitation, Conservation
MARINE MOLLUSCAN DIVERSITY IN INDIA -

EXPLOITATION, CONSERVATION
6
K. Sunil Mohamed and V. Venkatesan
Molluscan Fisheries Division
Introduction
The molluscs (soft bodied animals) belong to the large and diverse phylum Mollusca, which
includes a variety of familiar animals well-known as decorative shells or as seafood. These
range from tiny snails, clams, and abalone to larger organisms such as squid, cuttlefish and
the octopus. These molluscs occupy a variety of habitats ranging from mountain forests,
freshwater to more than 10 km depth in the sea. They range in size from less than 1 mm
to more than 15 m (for example the giant squid) and their population density may exceed
40,000/m2 in some areas. In the tropical marine environment, molluscs occupy every trophic
level, from primary producers to top carnivores. India has extensive molluscan resources
along her coasts. In the numerous bays, brackish waters and estuaries and in the seas around
the subcontinent; molluscs belonging to different taxonomic groups, such as, mussels,
oysters, clams, pearl-oysters, window-pane oysters, ark-shells, whelks, chanks, cowries,
squids and cuttlefish have been exploited since time immemorial for food, pearls and shells.
About 3270 species have been reported from India belonging to 220 families and 591 genera.
Among these the bivalves are the most diverse (1100 species), followed by cephalopods
(210 species), gastropods (190 species), polyplacophores (41 species) and scaphopods (20
species). The first three orders are exploited by Indian fishermen from time immemorial.
Presently over 150,000 tonnes of cephalopods, over 100,000 t of bivalves and nearly 20,000
t of gastropods are exploited from Indian waters. The importance of molluscs in the coastal
economy of India is often overlooked. For example, the cephalopod fishery is now a US$
250 million industry and is one of the mainstays of the Indian trawl fleet in terms of revenue.
The bivalve exports amount to US$ 1.2 million and gastropod exports amount to US$ 1.8
million per annum.
The importance of gastropods, clams, oysters and mussels in maintaining both the economic
base and the ambiance of our coastal communities is also frequently overlooked. Details
on specific aspects of bivalve and gastropod management, biology, aquaculture and their
relations to economic, public and ecosystem health are of paramount importance, but are at
present lacking. An endangered species is an animal or plant that is in danger of becoming
extinct. In most cases species that are listed as endangered will become extinct in the very
near future unless some positive action is taken. The fact that a large number of gastropods
have been placed in the endangered list is a cause for major concern. The importance of
maintaining healthy molluscan populations and the type of information needed to sustain
these structural and functional resources cannot be over emphasized.
General Characteristics of Molluscs
Three classes of the phylum Mollusca namely, Gastropoda, Bivalvia and Cephalopoda are
of fisheries interest and their general characters as given by (Narasimham, 2005) are briefly
given below.
Gastropoda: Gastropoda is the largest molluscan class with about 35,000 extant species.
The gastropods are torted asymmetrical molluscs and usually possess a coiled shell. The
soft body normally consists of head, foot, visceral mass and the mantle. Among the marine
gastropods, the members belonging to the subclass Prosobranchia, are of major fishery
importance (Poutiers, 1998). The shell in this subclass is typically coiled with an opening
at the ventral end known as aperture. The aperture is covered by operculum which closes
the opening of the shell. The head normally protrudes anteriorly from the shell and bears
mouth, eyes and tentacles. The foot is muscular, ventrally located with a flattened base
and is used for creeping or burrowing. The visceral mass fills dorsally the spire of the shell
and contains most of the organs. The mantle forms mantle cavity which lines and secrets
the shell. Asymmetry of the internal anatomy of the gastropods is due to twisting through
180o called the ‘torsion’ which takes place during the first few hours of larval development.
Bivalvia: There are about 10,000 living bivalve species. The bivalve as the name implies,
possesses two valves (shells) lying on the right and left sides of the body. Bilateral symmetry
is a characteristic feature. The shell is mostly composed of calcium carbonate. Umbo is the
first formed part of the valve and is above the hinge. The soft body of the bivalve is covered
by the mantle comprising two lobes. The foot is muscular and is ventral. Byssus is a clump
of horny thread spun in the foot and helps the sedentary bivalve to attach to hard substrates.
In bivalves head is absent. Many bivalves possess a pair of gills, which are respiratory in
function and produce water currents from which food is collected (Poutiers, 1998).
Cephalopoda: Cephalopods are purely marine in habit, and there are about 600 living
species. They are considered as the fastest marine invertebrates. Head is highly developed.
The cuttlefishes come under the order Sepioidea and are characterised by the presence of
a shell (chitinous or calcareous), 10 circum oral appendages and the tentacles are retractile
into pockets. Suckers have chitinous rings. Posterior fin lobes are free and not connected at
midline. The cuttlebone is internal and located dorsally underneath the skin.
The squids come under the order Teuthoidea. The shell is internal and is known as gladius
or pen. It is chitinous and feather or rod shaped. There are 8 sessile arms and 2 tentacular
arms which are contractile but not retractile. Suckers are stalked, and with or without hooks.
Fin lobes are fused posteriorly. Eyes are without lids and either (1) covered with a transparent
membrane, with a minute pore (Myopsida) or (2) completely open to the sea, without a
pore (Oegopsida).
Octopuses are members of the order Octopoda. There are 8 circumoral arms and tentacles
are absent. Fins are sub-terminal (on sides of mantle), widely separated or absent. Shell is
reduced, vestigial, “cartilaginous”, or absent. Suckers are without chitinous rings and are
set directly on the arms without stalks.
Magnitude of Molluscan Fisheries in India
Cephalopods are by far the most important group with decadal average annual production
of about 1, 70,000 tonnes and in 2016, the production has touched an all-time high of 2,
31,276 t. They are landed as by-catch and as a targeted fishery mostly in mechanized
trawlers operating up to 200 m depth, and beyond in some areas. Next in importance are
the bivalves and fishing is pursued as a small-scale activity, mostly at subsistence level in
various estuaries and inshore seas. The annual average clam production is about 57,000 t,
oysters about 18,800 t, and marine mussels about 14,900 t. There was no fishery for marine
pearl oysters since 1962 in the Gulf of Mannar area, which earlier supported major fisheries.
Scallops occur in stray numbers and do not form a fishery, while the windowpane oyster was
of considerable fishery value till a few years back. Among gastropods, the chank is most
important with annual production of over 1,000 t till a few years back. The fishing for top
shell (Trochus sp) has been banned as they have been declared as endangered. Abalones
occur in stray numbers and are not fished. Mining for subsoil shell deposits for industrial
purposes is a major activity in the Ashtamudi and Pulicat Lakes.
A brief description of gastropod, bivalve and cephalopod fisheries of India is given below.
Material from recent reviews by Mohamed (2006), Narasimham (2005) on molluscan fisheries;
Ramadoss (2003) on gastropod fisheries; Kripa and Appukuttan (2003) on bivalve fisheries
and Meiyappan and Mohamed (2003) on cephalopod fisheries have been principally used
in this paper.
Bivalve Fishery
A variety of clams, oysters, mussels and the windowpane oysters are distributed along the
Indian coastline where they are fished by the local people (Table 1). Clams and cockles form
73.8%, followed by oysters (12.5%), mussels (7.5%) and windowpane oysters (6.2%). The
major bivalve resources and their total landing are given in Table 2. The production levels
in other states are meagre. Information on the bivalve production from the NE and NW
states are scanty.
Table 1. Commercially important bivalves of India
Resource Common English name Local name
Clams and Cockles
Villorita cyprinoides Black clam Karutha kakka,(Ma)
Paphia malabarica, Paphia sp. Short neck clam, textile clam Manja kakka (Ma), Chippi kallu (Ka),
Tisre (Ko)
Meretrix casta, Meretrix meretrix Yellow clam Matti (Ta)
Mercia opima Baby clam Njavala kakka (Ma), Vazhukku matti (Ta)
Mesodesma glabaratum Kakkamatti (Ta)
Resource Common English name Local name
Clams and Cockles
Sunetta scripta Marine clam Kadal kakka (Ma)
Donax sp. Surf clam Mural,Vazhi matti (Ta)
Geloina bengalensis Big black clam Kandan kakka (Ma)
Anadara granosa Cockle Aarippan kakka (Ma)
Placenta placenta Window pane oyster
Tridacna sp., Giant clam Kakka ( Ma)

Hippopus hippopus
Mussel
Perna viridis Green mussel Kallumakkai, Kadukka (Ma)
Alichippalu (Te)
Perna indica Brown mussel Kallumakkai, Chippi (Ma)
Pearl oyster
Pinctada fucata Indian pearl oyster Muthu chippi, (Ma, Ta)
Pinctada margaritifera Blacklip pearl oyster Muthu chippi (Ma, Ta)
Edible oysters
Crassostrea madrasensis Indian backwater oyster Kadal muringa (Ma); Ali,
Kalungu (Te) Patti ( Ta)
Saccostrea cucullata Rock oyster Kadal muringa (Ma);
Ali,Kalungu, Patti (Ta)
Ka – Kannada, Ko – Konkani, Ma- Malayalam, Mr – Marati, Ta- Tamil, Te- Telugu
Table 2. Bivalve fishery details in different maritime states

State
State Commercially
Commercially Average
Average Prospects
Prospects
important
important Total
Total
bivalve
bivalve landing
landing (t)
(t)
resources
resources
Kerala
Kerala Vc,
Vc, Pm,
Pm, Mc,
Mc, 58763
58763 Clams
Clams and
and mussels
mussels are
are optimally
optimally exploited.
exploited.
Mo,
Mo, Cm,
Cm, Sc,
Sc, Fishing
Fishing effort for oysters can be
effort for oysters can be increased.
increased. As
As
Pv,
Pv, Pi
Pi management
management measures
measures forfor Vc
Vc and
and Pm
Pm which
which
are
are intensely
intensely fished
fished semiculture
semiculture is
is
recommended
recommended
Karnataka
Karnataka Mc,
Mc, Vc,
Vc, Pm,
Pm, 12750
12750 Clams
Clams areare optimally
optimally fished.
fished. Effort
Effort can
can be
be
Cm,
Cm, Sc,
Sc, Pv
Pv increased
increased for
for oysters
oysters and
and mussels.
mussels.
Establishment
Establishment of of Clam
Clam fishermen
fishermen Cooperative
Cooperative
societies
societies for marketing is suggested.
for marketing is suggested.
Goa
Goa Mc,
Mc, Vc,
Vc, Pm,
Pm, 1637
1637 Effort
Effort can
can be
be increased
increased for
for all
all resources.
resources.
Cm,
Cm, Sc,
Sc, Pv
Pv
Maharashtra
Maharashtra Pm, Mc,
Pm, Mc, Gb,
Gb, 2035
2035 Effort can
Effort can be
be increased
increased for
for all
all resources.
resources.
Cg, Cr, Sc
Cg, Cr, Sc
Gujarat
Gujarat Cg,
Cg, Cr,
Cr, Sc,
Sc, Pp,
Pp, 4202
4202 Utilization
Utilization of
of pearls
pearls from
from windowpane
windowpane oysters,
oysters,
Pf
Pf Repopulating
Repopulating of pearl oyster beds
of pearl oyster beds inin Gulf
Gulf of
of
Kutch will be beneficial
Kutch will be beneficial
Tamil
Tamil Nadu
Nadu &
& Mc,
Mc, Mm,
Mm, Pm,
Pm, 2098
2098 Resources
Resources are are fished
fished only
only for
for shell;
shell; meat
meat can
can
Pondicherry
Pondicherry Cm,
Cm, Sc,
Sc, Pv,
Pv, Pi,
Pi, be used instead of being
be used instead of being discarded. discarded.
Pf
Pf Establishment of
Establishment of Clam
Clam fishermen
Cooperative
societies
societies for marketing is suggested.
for marketing is suggested.
Repopulating
Repopulating of of pearl
pearl oyster
oyster beds
beds ofof Gulf
Gulf of
of
Mannar
Mannar and PalkBay will help to revive the
and PalkBay will help to revive the
pearl
pearl industry
industry
Andhra
Andhra Ag,
Ag, Gb,
Gb, Mc,
Mc, 1278
1278 Resources
Resources are are fished
fished only
only for
for shell;
shell; meat
meat can
can
Pradesh
Pradesh Mm,
Mm, Pm,
Pm, Cm,
Cm, be used instead of being
be used instead of being discarded. discarded.
Pv,
Pv, Pp,
Pp, Establishment
Establishment of of Clam
Clam fishermen
Cooperative
societies for
societies for marketing
marketing isis suggested.
suggested.
Andaman
Andaman &
& Tc,
Tc, Tm,
Tm, Pmar,
Pmar, NA
NA Intense
Intense effort
effort to to be
be made
made to to replenish
replenish and
and
Nicobar
Nicobar Pv,
Pv, Pm
Pm conserve the existing stock
conserve the existing stock
Islands
Islands
Lakshadweep
Lakshadweep Tc,
Tc, Tm
Tm NA
NA Estimation
Estimation ofof standing
standing stock
stock of
of these
these
endangered
endangered resources, Effort
resources, Effort to
to repopulate
repopulate
the
the coral
coral reef
reef with
with giant
giant clams
clams and
and pearl
pearl
oysters
oysters
Ag-
Ag- Anadaragranosa,
Anadaragranosa, Cg-Cg- Crassostreagryphoides,
Crassostreagryphoides, Cm Cm -- C.madrasensis,
C.madrasensis, Cr-
Cr- C.
C. rivularis,
rivularis,
Mc
Mc – Meretrixcasta, Mo – Mercia opima, Mm – Meretrix meretrix, Pf – Pinctadafucata, Pi
– Meretrixcasta, Mo – Mercia opima, Mm – Meretrix meretrix, Pf – Pinctadafucata, Pi –
– Pernaindica,
Pernaindica, Pv
Pv –
–
Pernaviridis, Pm
Pernaviridis, Pm –– Paphiamalabarica,
Paphiamalabarica, PpPp –– Placenta
Placentaplacenta,
placenta, Pmar-
Pmar- Pinctadamargaritifera,
Pinctadamargaritifera, Sc-Sc- Saccostrea
Saccostrea
cucullata,
cucullata, Tc
Tc –
– Tridacnacrocea,
Tridacnacrocea, Tm
Tm –– TT .maxima,
.maxima, VcVc –– Villorita
Villorita cyprinoids,
cyprinoids, Gb
Gb –
– Geloinabengalensis
Geloinabengalensis
Stock Assessment of Bivalves
Only few studies have been made to assess the stock of bivalves. However, short term surveys
have been conducted in the estuaries and coastal regions of maritime states to study the
standing stock bivalve resource. Using the standing stock estimates by CMFRI the potential
yield of bivalves has been estimated (Table 3).
The present status
shows that the clam
and oyster resources are
underutilized in Gujarat
and Maharashtra and
effort to utilize these
resources should be
e n h a n c e d . H o we ve r
bivalves have varied
reproductive potential
hence these resource
estimates have to be
revalidated frequently.
In other states like
Kerala and Karnataka
the resources are utilized
and in some regions they
require conservation.
Management
Strategies
Bivalves offer one of

the important examples
of m a r i n e re s o u rc e
management along the
Indian coast. However,
apart from the restriction
on the pearl oyster
fishery by the Government of Tamil Nadu, and the management measures on the short-
neck clam fishery of Ashtamudi Lake, Kerala, there are no regulations for effective utilization
and conservation of these sedentary marine resources.
One of the major bivalve resources, the short-neck clam (P.
malabarica) is well protected by the following regulations
formulated by the Government of Kerala based on
recommendations made by CMFRI. a) Ban on fishing activity
during breeding season (September to February), b) use
of gears with 30 mm mesh size to avoid exploitation of
smaller clam, c) Restrict the grade of export of frozen clams
meat to 1400 nos/kg and above and d) Initiate semi-culture
or relaying of small clams. The minimum legal size (MLS)
for exploitation of P. malabarica and Villorita cyprinoides
from Vembanad Lake has been set at 20 mm APM. After
the creation of the fishery management plan (FMP) for Ashtamudi Lake short-neck clams
and the Ashtamudi Lake Clam Fisheries Governance Council (ACFGC), the fishery became
the first Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certified fishery in the country in November
2014. This will help to boost sustainable fisheries and also protect the ecosystem. Benefits of
certification include potential for premium prices, access to new markets, preferred supplier
status, potential to attract ethical investment in the fishery, improvements in management
of fisheries and public recognition of fishery conservation effort.
One of the major drawbacks in bivalve fishery management is that there is no proper data
collection system on the fishery landings. A proper database on the resource availability
and their utilization pattern is essential.
Cephalopod Fishery
Cephalopods are a marine fishery resource of increasing importance and many species are
exploited as by-catch by trawlers from throughout the Indian coast. Although they form only
4-5% of the total marine fish landings, cephalopod stocks are under heavy fishing pressure
because of their high value as an exportable commodity. So much so, of late, they are even
targeted by the trawl fleet in certain seasons of the year along parts of the west coast of
India. The CMFRI has initiated studies on cephalopod stock from Indian waters during the
seventies. The initial results of this programme on the taxonomy, biology, fishery and stock
assessment of cephalopod stocks pertaining to the seventies were published as a bulletin
(Silas, 1985). Subsequently a major exercise on the stock assessment of Indian cephalopod
stocks with data of 1979-89 was made by CMFRI. These studies indicated that squids were
exploited at optimum level on both coasts (Meiyappan et al, 1993) and cuttlefishes were
optimally exploited along east coast and under exploited along west coast (Nair et al., 1993
and Rao et al., 1993). Besides, a number of authors (Kasim, 1985; Rao, 1988; Mohamed, 1996;
Mohamed and Rao, 1997) have published information on specific aspects of cephalopod
stocks. Other contributions from India on cephalopod resources, biology and population
dynamics include that of Kore and Joshi (1975) on the food of squids, Oommen (1977) on
the food, feeding and fishery of squids, Silas et al (1982) on the resources, Philip and Ali
(1989) on cuttlefish population dynamics, Nair et al (1992a and b) on squids caught by
jigging along SW coast and the monsoon fishery for cephalopods along west coast and
Kripa and Mathew (1994) on the octopus resources of Cochin.
Exploited Cephalopods
Cephalopods exploited from Indian seas can be broadly divided into three, viz., squids (order
Teuthoidea), cuttlefishes (order Sepiiodea) and octopuses (order Octopodidea). A list of
neretic species commercially exploited is given in Table 4.
Table 4. List of commercially exploited cephalopods from Indian Seas
Species Common Name Distribution
Squids
Uroteuthis(P.) duvaucelii Indian squid All along Indian coast
Loliolus (N) uyii Little squid Madras & Visakhapatnam
U (P) edulis Swordtip squid SW coast
U (P) singhalensis Long barrel squid SW and SE coast
Loliolus (L) hardwickei Little Indian squid All along Indian coast
Sepioteuthis lessoniana Palkbay squid Palk bay & Gulf of Mannar
Sthenoteuthis oualaniensis Oceanic squid Oceanic Indian EEZ
Thysanoteuthis rhombus Diamond squid Oceanic Indian EEZ
Species Common Name Distribution
Cuttlefishes
Sepia pharaonis Pharaoh cuttlefish All along Indian coast
S. aculeata Needle cuttlefish All along Indian coast
S. elliptica Golden cuttlefish Veraval & Cochin
S. prashadi Hooded cuttlefish SW & SE coast
S. brevimana Shortclub cuttlefish Madras & Visakhapatnam
Sepiella inermis Spineless cuttlefish All along Indian coast
Octopuses
Amphioctopus neglectus Webfoot octopus SW & SE coast and islands
A. marginatus Veined Octopus SW & SE coast and islands
A.aegina Marbled octopus SW & SE coast and islands
O. lobensis Lobed octopus SW & SE coast and islands
O. vulgaris Common octopus SW & SE coast and islands
Cistopus indicus Old woman octopus SW & SE coast and islands
The dominant species occurring in commercial catches are Uroteuthis (Photololigo) duvaucelii,
Sepia pharaonis, S. aculeata and Amphioctopus neglectus.
Methods of Exploitation
Although about 40% of the world’s cephalopod catches are taken by squid jigging and
25% by trawling (Rathjen, 1991), in India, cephalopods are principally caught by bottom
trawlers operating upto 200m depth zones. While most of the catch is brought in as by-
catch from the shrimp and fish trawls employed by the trawlers, of late, there is a targeted
fishery for cuttlefishes during the post monsoon period (Sep-Dec) using off bottom high
opening trawls along the SW and NW coast. Prior to the seventies traditional gears like
shore seines, boat seines, hooks and lines and spearing were the principal gear employed to
capture cephalopods. These traditional gears continue to be used especially for cuttlefishes
at Vizhinjam, where there is no trawl fishery. Experimental squid jigging has been tried with
Japanese expertise along the west coast by GOI vessels with considerable success (Nair et
al., 1992a). However, commercial squid jigging is not practised in India.
Cephalopod Production
Cephalopod production, which remained at very low level upto the early seventies, has
shown a remarkable increase crossing the 150,000 tonne mark in 2006. From 1973 onwards
the commencement of export of frozen cephalopod products to several countries saw the
transition of the resource from a discard to a quality resource fetching high foreign exchange
(Silas, 1985). Thereafter its production showed a steep increase. The west coast maritime
states, Gujarat (GUJ), Maharashtra (MAH), Goa (GOA), Karnataka (KAR) and Kerala (KER)
contribute to the bulk (86%) of the production. While the production from the east coast
amounts to only 14%, of which, Tamil Nadu (TN) contributes the maximum followed by
Andhra Pradesh (AP). The states of West Bengal (WB), Orissa (OR) and Pondicherry (PON)
contribute only a small percentage. Overall, KER ranks first contributing a third of the all
India production followed by MAH, GUJ and KAR. The cephalopod production (t.km-2) in
different maritime states indirectly this indicates the relative abundance in the continental
shelf and level of exploitation of cephalopods in the different maritime states. Maximum
productivity (0.699 t/km2) was observed in Kerala, followed by Tamil Nadu, Karnataka,
Maharashtra and Goa.
At the national level, Jan-Mar and Oct-Dec were the most productive period. Along the
upper east and west coast, the above months were the most productive, while in KAR, KER,
TN and AP Jul-Sep was also equally productive.
Species-wise Production
The neretic squid U. (P) duvaucelii followed by the pharaoh cuttlefish S. pharaonis and the
needle cuttlefish S. aculeata together contribute to 84% of the total cephalopod production
from India. Along the west coast, U. (P) duvaucelii contributes to more than 50% of the
landings, followed closely by S. pharaonis and S. aculeata (47%). Among squids, Doryteuthis
sp. and among cuttlefishes, S. elliptica form significant part of the catch from Kerala and
Gujarat respectively. A number of octopus species, chiefly, O. membranaceous forms 1% of
the catch mainly from Kerala.
The dominant species in landings from the east coast is S. pharaonis, followed by U.
(P) duvaucelii and S. aculeata. The diversity of squid and cuttlefish species exploited in
commercial quantities is more along east coast as compared to west coast. Doryteuthis
sp. and S. lessoniana are also caught in considerable quantities from TN and AP. Octopus
species, which were formerly discarded, has gained importance in recent years. The major
production is from Kerala State (Kripa and Mathew, 1994). Their proportions in the landings
from both the coasts are increasing considering the export value of the same.
Stock Assessment and Management of Cephalopods
Ever since the CMFRI initiated a major research project on the biology and stock assessment
of cephalopod resources of India, a number of research papers have been published on
the subject (see Table 7 for complete list). Mostly F based models have applied to study
cephalopod stocks. In the first study on Indian cephalopod stocks, Silas et al (1985) used
length cohort analysis to estimate stock sizes. Later studies (Meiyappan et al., 1993; Nair
et al., 1993 and Rao et al., 1993) also used cohort analysis to estimate mortality and stock
and the yield and biomass estimates were obtained with length based Thomson and Bell
analysis. Mohamed (1996) used the yield per recruit model to estimate MSY for Mangalore
populations of U.(P) duvaucelii. Later Mohamed and Rao (1997) assessed the squid yield
along Karnataka coast using the TB model to derive MSY and MSE. They also studied the
relationship between spawning stock and recruitment of squids to assess the productivity
of the population in terms of recruitment. They found that Ricker’s stock recruitment
curve could adequately explain the variation in recruitment with respect to spawning stock
biomass (SSB).
Most of these studies indicated that cephalopods were either under exploited (e.g. S.
pharaonis and S. aculeata along east coast) or optimally exploited (Table 7). While Mohamed
(1996) and Mohamed and Rao (1997) found squid stock along Karnataka coast to be
marginally over exploited.
Since trawl is the principal gear used for exploitation, and since the cod-end mesh used by
these trawls are much below the notified mesh sizes, a large number of juveniles or young
ones are caught. Thus there is need for curtailing this exploitation. It is quite clear that
regulation of cod-end meshes by the state fisheries departments has not been effective. An
alternate measure would be to regulate the trade in such a manner that young or juvenile
cephalopods are not traded or exported. Prescription of a minimum legal size (MLS) as a trade
barrier is an accepted practice in such instances. The MLS and corresponding weights for 3
species of commercial cephalopods was determined as shown in Table 5 and recommended
to the MPEDA (Mohamed et al. 2009) and the same is also prescribed by the Government
of Kerala notification G.O.(P) No. 40/15/F&PD dated 24th July 2015.
Table 5. Recommended minimum legal sizes and weights for the 3 major commercial
cephalopods exploited in India
Species MLS(Mantle Length) Corresponding Total
Live Weight
U. (P) duvaucelii 80 mm 25 g
Sepia pharaonis 115 mm 150g
A. neglectus 45 mm 15 g
At present, the proportion of juveniles commercially exploited for U.(P) duvaucelii is 5.3%;
S. pharaonis, 8.7% and A. neglectus, 5.9%. If the juveniles are permitted to grow to Lmean by
implementing the MLS, the estimated economic gain is to the tune of Rs. 426 crores per
annum. Mohamed et al. (2009) showed that harvest weights can be improved by up to 34
times and would result in higher incomes to trawl fishers.
Cephalopods are not a targeted fishery along the Indian coast (excepting seasonally along
the SW coast) and therefore, it is difficult to set management targets and many of the
models applied would have little relevance. Yet, Rosenberg et al (1990) suggests that the
most effective means of managing cephalopod fisheries is by regulating fishing effort, which
will reduce the risk of recruitment overfishing. The present ban on trawl fishing during the
monsoon as variously practised by different maritime states is in effect a means of regulation
of fishing effort and should be continued.
A policy guidance document on Fish Aggregating Devices (FAD) based cuttlefish fishery is
prepared highlighting the negative impacts on the spawning stocks leading to recruitment
overfishing in Karnataka (Sasikumar et al. 2015). They found that the average annual loss in
cuttlefish eggs is very high (estimated as 927 million /Rs. 1130 crores). The annual Spawning
stock Biomass (SSB) is reduced to one fifth of the mean value.
Utilization and Marketing
There is very little internal market demand for cephalopods and consequently almost all the
catch is exported. While the export quantity peaked in 1995 the annual average is about
24%. However, the value of cephalopods in total marine exports has remained at 15%
from 1992 onwards without much variation. In 2003 the value of cephalopods exported
amounted to more than Rs 800 crores. Category-wise, squid products are the maximum in
all years followed by cuttlefish products. The products include dried, frozen whole, filleted,
tentacles, rings, roe, wings, IQF and bones and ink. Octopus products exported are meagre,
but from 1994 onwards there is rising trend in its exports. The main markets for export of
Indian cephalopods are Europe, Japan and China.
The emergence of cephalopods as an important marine fishery resource of the country

with almost cent percent export potential warrants careful monitoring and appropriate
management particularly because we are exploiting above the revalidated potential yield of
101,000 tonnes. Several gaps exist in our knowledge of these valuable resources, especially
on the life histories of our species. For example, we still have not resolved the question of
semelparity of most of our species. At present we know that most of the species lay their
eggs in the shallow inshore waters. These grounds are subjected to sedimentation due to
man-made causes such as dumping of sludge. This might degrade the benthic conditions
with a negative impact on cephalopod egg laying and consequently on the recruitment.
Oceanic Squids
The purpleback flying squid Sthenoteuthis oualaniensis (Lesson, 1830) is distributed in the
tropical and sub-tropical areas of the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The Arabian Sea is considered
as one of the richest regions for these oceanic squids in the Indian Ocean. These squids are
pelagic animals living in the open ocean, usually absent over the continental shelves (<200
m), and first appear over continental slopes at depths above 250-300 m. The species has
been called as the master of the Arabian Sea due to its high abundance, large size, short
life-span, fast growth and near monopoly of the higher trophic niche. The estimated squid
stock in the Arabian Sea varies in the range 0.9-1.6 million t. In recent years, the species
has been found to occur in hook and line and gillnet catches in Cochin (Mohamed et al.,
2006) and Veraval (Moorthy et al., 2009) and Mohamed et al. (2006) has worked out its
population characteristics as L∞ = 49.1 cm; K = 0.83 yr-1 and t0 = -0.06 yr. Total biomass
and the annual fishable biomass (MSY) of this species is estimated (Mohamed et al. 2014).
It is established that purse seining and gillnetting with light attraction from converted
commercial fishing boats are the most efficient gears for exploiting oceanic squids in the
Arabian Sea (Mohamed et al. 2014). A major programme is currently underway to exploit
this resource using squid jigging.
Gastropod Fishery
The exploitation of gastropods in India is age-old for both as food and as curios. The famous
money cowries used as currency and the religious sentiments attached to the sacred chank
are well known. The gastropod biodiversity in Indian waters is very large (see Table 6) and
no systematic effort has been made to document this qualitatively and quantitatively, apart
from few works. Considering the intense exploitation of these shelled animals in certain
areas of the country as a raw material for the shell-craft industry, a number (24) of these
ornamental molluscs have been declared as endangered and are protected under the Indian
Wildlife Protection Act.
Table 6. List of commercially exploited gastropods from Indian waters
Umbonium vestiarium
Turbo intercostalis
Cypraea moneta
Cypraea arabica
Chank Fishery
Chanks (Turbinella pyrum) are fished mainly for the shell and an organised fishery of
considerable magnitude exists along the southeast coast of India. They are also collected
at a few other places along the Indian coast.
Major chank resources occur in the Gulf of Mannar, particularly along the Ramanathapuram
– Tirunelveli coast. Other areas are Tanjavur, South Arcot and Chingelpet in Tamil Nadu,
Trivandrum coast in Kerala, the Gulf of Kutch in Gujarat and the Andamans. Nayar and
Mahadevan (1973, 1974) dealt in detail the chank fisheries while Alagarswami and Meiyappan
(1989) gave a general review. Appukuttan et al. (1980) described the long line fishing for
chanks in Kerala and Pota and Patel (1988) reported on the Gulf of Kutch chank fisheries.
Unlike pearl oysters, the chanks are regularly fished with few exceptions.
Whelk Fishery
The whelks come under the order Neogastropoda and family Buccinidae. They are mostly
carnivorous and scavengers. The meat is edible and the shell is used in the shell craft
industries. In India, two species namely, Babylonia spirata, and B. zeylanica are landed as
by-catch, mostly in the bottom trawls. The former species is more abundant and most of
the production is exported. Except for some fishery data in the by-catch of shrimp trawls,
no information seems to be available on B. zeylanica.
Till early 1990s, Babylonia spp. were incidentally caught, mainly in shrimp trawls, and were
not considered as of much fishery value. In July 1993, their meat was exported to Japan
for the first time (Philip and Appukuttan, 1995). Since then the by-catch landed by shrimp
trawlers, particularly off Kollam, is being sorted and the whelks collected. Total whelk meat
export amounted to an average 247 tonnes valued at Rs. 528 lakhs during 1999-2003 period.
The meat of B. spirata fetches US $ 6.9/kg and the operculum US $ 17/kg (Shanmugaraj
and Ayyakkannu, 1997).
Philip and Appukuttan (1997) described on the heavy landings of Babylonia spp. off Kollam.
During January-May 1996 as the whelk price shot up to Rs.35-70/kg from an earlier price of
Rs.20-30/kg coupled with relatively poor shrimp landings, the shrimp trawl owners modified
the net by adding 20-28 kg of lead rings to the trawl nets and increased the cod end filament
thickness to 1.5 mm. As a result, the trawl net operated much closer to the bottom and
the thick cod end filament helped to withstand the weight of shells. This was reflected in
higher by-catch and the whelk catch was estimated at 390 t in May 1996, compared to an
average monthly catch of <50 t during the preceding four months. B. spirata formed 60%
of whelk catch and the length ranged from 19-51 mm (average length 33.7 mm and average
weight 12.7 g). B. zeylanica accounted for 40% of the production and the length ranged
from 21-67 mm (average length 48.1 mm and average weight 17.87 g). The value of the
whelks fished in May 1996 was estimated at Rs.1.75 crores. It was observed that 390 t of
whelk would yield 3.9 t of operculum valued at Rs.15.5 lakhs (Philip and Appukuttan, 1997).
The population characteristics of B. spirata and B. zeylanica have been studied by Anjana
(2007). The estimates (Table 7) indicate that both B. spirata and B. zeylanica are overfished
at Kollam following the E0.1 management strategy.
Table 7. Population parameters of whelk fishery at Kollam, Kerala (from Anjana, 2008)
Parameters B. spirata B. zeylanica
L∞ (mm) 68.7 76.0
K (y-1) 1.08 1.15
Z (y-1) 6.05 5.02
M (y-1) 1.61 1.65
F (y-1) 4.4 3.6
E 0.73 0.71
Emax 0.73 0.77
E0.1 0.66 0.72
Spawning stock biomass (t) 92.9 267.7
Standing stock biomass (t) 216.2 404.1
Recruitment numbers 84,565 92,782
Since 1995, the fishermen began to exploit Babylonia spp. off Pondicherry in 5-25 m depth
with slightly modified ring net, normally used for crab fishing. The average daily catch
for ring net/catamaran unit varied from 14 kg in March 1996 to 42 kg in February 1996
(Chidambaram, 1997). Ayyakkanuu (1994) reported that at Annappanpettai landing centre

along the Porto Novo coast, fishing for B. spirata was carried by special traps with dried
octopus or eel as bait and operated from catamarans in 5-20 m depth. Fishing is throughout
the year except during October-December. There are 7 mechanised and 6 non-mechanised
catamaran trap units and the former unit carries 60-70 traps and the latter 25-40 traps.
During March-August 1993, the production of B. spirata was estimated at 211 t. Boiled meat
from 211 t of the whelk was estimated at 54 t (Rs.40/kg) and operculum 11 t (Rs.400/kg).
At Tuticorin, both the whelk species occur in 100-150 m depth at a distance of 50-60 km
from the coast. During January-February the whelk catch was 1.5 t/trawler/month and in July
it was 1.7 t/trawler/month. In other months the whelk catches were poor (Selvarani, 2001).
Along southern Karnataka whelk (B. spirata) fishing is practiced using traps normally used
for crabs and ladyfish (Sasikumar et al. 2006). Annual yields are around 175 t and maximum
abundance is seen in January-February and November. The major market for Indian whelk
(as chilled whelk, shell-on) is Hong Kong (90%) followed by Thailand, UAE and Maldives.
Fishery for ornamental gastropods
There are several economically important species of gastropods which are regularly collected
for meat / and or shell. They come under many families, extensively used in shell craft
industry and are popularly called as ornamental gastropods. Many of them live in coral
reef habitat in regions such as the Gulf of Kutch, Gulf of Mannar, Palk Bay, Andaman and
Nicobar Islands and the Lakshadweep group of Islands.
Philip and Appukuttan (1995) reported on the occurrence of 29 species of gastropods in the
by-catch of shrimp trawls, operated off Kollam. In addition to Babylonia spp. and chank,
important ornamental gastropods landed are Tibia curta (wing shell), Bursa spinosa (purse
shell), Turritella attenuata (screw shell), Rapana bulbosa (purple shell) and Conus glans (cone
shell). They accounted for 80% of total gastropod landings.
The Ramanathapuram coast in Tamil Nadu is famous for the production of several ornamental
gastropods and 12 small scale shell-craft industries exist at Rameswaram and Keelakarai.
Natarajan et al. (1988) reported that species of the following genera are collected and
used by the industry: Oliva, Cypraea, Natica, Cerithidea, Cymatium, Lambis, Xancus, Pyrena,
Umbonium, Littorina, Tibia, Strombus, Conus, Murex, Babylonia, Fusinus, Cymbium, Faciolaria,
Cassis, Bursa, Phalium, Tonna and Thais. Among these, 1,75,000 Lambis spp. are fished
annually and each shell fetches Rs.1-3 for the fishermen. The methods of collection include
hand-picking, skin diving, hand dredging and as by-catch from different fishing gears. On
an average 4,00,000 shells, which also include those brought from the Andamans are used
by the shell-craft industry. The shells are placed in bleaching powder solution for 24 h
in cement tanks, followed by immersion in caustic soda solution for one hour. They are
polished by keeping them in 5% Hydrochloric acid for 10 seconds to 4 minutes, depending
on size, thickness and colour. The ornamental products made out of these shells include
table lamps, lamp shades, necklaces, ear-drops, beads, hair pins, sculptures of Gods and
Goddesses, agarbathi stands, bangles, flower vases, and shell screens for doors and window
curtains. There are about 70 shell craft selling shops at Rameswaram and the annual turn
over is about Rs.10 lakhs (Natarajan et al., 1988).
In the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, in addition to the use of topshell, green snail and
chank, species of Cypraea, Strombus, Lambis, Conus and Thais are regularly used in shell
craft industry (Appukuttan and Ramadoss, 2000). Appukuttan et al. (1989a) reported on
the ornamental gastropods of the Lakshadweep. The cowries Cypraea caputserpentis, C.
moneta and C. tigris are important and are exploited at a sustenance level by hand-picking
during low tides. Other methods adopted are by diving and by collecting from the coconut
leaves, placed in the lagoon water for a few days on which C. moneta congregate. The
estimated production in numbers of C. moneta was 5-7 lakhs per year priced at Rs.25-30/
kg and C. caputserpentis 2-3 lakhs/year valued at Rs.30-35/100 cowries. Other ornamental
gastropods collected include Cypraea rufa, C. arabica, Conus leopardus, C. litteratus, Cassis
cornuata and the spider conchs, Lambis truncata and L. chiragra.
From the Kakinada Bay, Rao and Somayajulu (1996) estimated the average annual production
of Cerithidia sp. at 990 t, Telescopium sp. 221 t, Umbonium sp. 292 t, Thais sp. 79 t and
Hemifusus sp. 35 t. Some of these gastropods are also used in lime preparation.
Alagarswami and Meiyappan (1989) estimated the production of ornamental gastropods

from the country at 600 t/year. Since then substantial increase in production is discernible.
During 1991-2003, on an average 271 t/year of sea shells (average value Rs.7.20 crores)
were exported from the country (MPEDA).
In a notification dated July 21, 2001 the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government
of India has included 44 gastropod species in Schedule I of the Wild Life Protection Act,
1972. The species include 11 under the genus Cypraea, 6 each under the genera Conus
and Lambis, 3 under Murex, 2 each under Harpulina, Strombus and Mitra and one species
each under 12 different genera. A vast majority of them are ornamental gastropods and
are protected by the Act.
An estimated production of ornamental gastropods at Kollam during 2016 was 1676 tonnes
forming 99% of entire Kerala’s catch. Babylonia spirata and B. zeylanica are the dominant
species in the catch forming 97.8%. Exports take place from mainly Rameswaram, Tuticorin
and Chennai and a large number of species such as Busycon, Haliotis, Cypraea and Mitrella are
imported for processing and re-export. The major regularly landed ornamental gastropods
at Tuticorin by bottom set gill nets are Turbinella pyrum and Chicoreus ramosus. Apart from
the stray number of other ornamental gastropods such as Murex spp, Lambis lambis, Babilona
spp, Cypraea sp etc are also landed by the bottom set gill nets primarily set for lobster and
crabs. Fossilised Turbinella pyrum is also exploited regularly from Kalavasal at Tuticorin. These
fossilised T. pyrum is mostly exported to Kolkata (CMFRI, 2017-unpublished).
Future of Molluscan Exploitation
The following are areas of concern with regard to exploitation of molluscs in India:
 Exploitation of cephalopods above the potential yield estimate and localized

over-exploitation of stocks
 Oceanic cephalopod potential to the tune of 20-50,000 t which are yet to be exploited
 Grossly under-reported catches of bivalves and gastropods
 No major studies in the country on bivalve and gastropod biology and no information
on the magnitude and economics of the shell-craft industry
 Conservation and stock rebuilding strategies with respect to endangered molluscs are
not in place
In the light of this, it is important to determine the science, management and institutional
requirements needed to obtain the tremendous potential value from molluscan resources to
the country and to make a path for sustaining molluscan fisheries and rebuilding protected
species stocks to realize their long-term potential.
Suggested Reading
Alagarswami, K. and K.A. Narasimham (1973). Clam, cockle and oyster resources of the seas around India.
Proc. Symp. Living Resources of the Seas around India. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute,
Cochin. 648-658
Alagarswami, K. and M.M. Meiyappan (1989). Prospects and problems of management and development
of the marine molluscan resources (other than cephalopods) in India. Bull. Cent. Mar. Fish. Res. Inst.
44(1):250-261.
Appukuttan, K.K. (1980). Culture of brown mussel Perna indica at Vizhinjam. Mar. Fish. Infor. Serv. T&E. Ser.
16: 11-13.
Appukuttan, K.K. and K. Ramadoss (2000) Edible and ornamental gastropod resources. In : Marine Fisheries
Research and Management. V.N.Pillai and N.G.Menon (Editors), Central Marine Fisheries Research
Institute, Cochin: 525 – 535.
Appukuttan, K.K., A. Chellam, K. Ramadoss, A.C.C. Victor and M.M. Meiyappan (1989) Molluscan resources.
Bull. Cent. Mar. Fish. Res. Inst. 43: 77-92.
Asokan, P.K and V.S.Kakati (1991). Embryonic development and hatching of Loligo duvauceli Orbigny
(Loliginidae, Cephalopoda) in the laboratory. Indian J. Fish. 38(4): 201-206.
Ayyakkannu, K. (1994). Fishery status of Babylonia spirata at Porto Novo, southeast coast of India. Phuket
Mar. Biol. Cent. Spec. Publ. 13: 53-56.
Chidambaram, L. (1997). A note on whelk (Babylonia spp.) fishery in Pondicherry. Mar. Fish. Infor. Serv.
T&E Ser. 147: 15.
Devaraj, M. and V. Ravichandran (1988). Dynamics of Indian chank fisheries. Bull. Cent. Mar. Fish. Res. Inst.
42(1): 100-105.
Joseph, M.M. and S. Joseph (1985). Age and growth of the oyster Crassostrea madrasensis (Preston) in Mulki
estuary, West coast of India. Indian J. Mar. Sci., 14(4): 184-186.
Kasim, H.M (1985). Population dynamics of the squid Loligo duvauceli in Saurashtra waters. J. Mar. Biol. Ass.
India 17(1&2): 103-112.
Kasim, H.M. (1988). Commercial fish trawling over pearl and chank beds in the Gulf of Mannar – A new
dimension to problems in shell fisheries. Bull. Cent. Mar. Fish. Res. Inst. 42(1): 94-99.
Kohn. A.J. (1997). Molluscs and man in tropics. Phuket Marine Biological Center Special Publication. 17(1):
157-163.
Kore, B.A. and M.C. Joshi (1975). Food of the squid Loligo duvauceli . Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. 81B(1): 20-28.
Kripa, V and Mathew Joseph (1993). Clam fishery of North Vembanad Lake. Mar. Fish. Infor. Serv., T & E
Ser., No. 119: 12-16.
Kripa, V. and K.Y.M. Salih (1999). Oyster resources of Ashtamudi Lake, south west coast of India. Proc. the
Fourth Indian Fisheries Forum. 367-369
Kripa, V. and M. Joseph (1994). Octopus landings at Cochin Fisheries Harbour. Mar.Fish.Infor.Ser. T & E
Ser. 126: 7-9.
Kripa, V and K.K. Appukuttan. (2003). Marine Bivalves. In: M.M. Joseph and A.A. Jayaprakash (Eds). Status of
Exploited Marine Fishery Resources of India. Cent. Mar. Fish. Rs. Inst. Cochin, India. 211-220.
Lipton, A.P., P.Thillairajan, M. Bose, R. Ramalingam and K. Jayabalan (1996). Large scale exploitation of
sacred chank Xancus pyrum using modified trawl net along Rameswaram Coast, Tamil Nadu. Mar.
Fish. Infor. Serv. T&E Ser. 143: 17-19.
Meiyappan, M and M. Srinath, (1989). Growth and mortality of the Indian squid (Loligo duvauceli) off
Cochin, India. In S.C.Venema and N.P.VanZalinge, eds., Contributions to tropical fish stock assessment
in India. FAO, Rome, 157 pp.
Meiyappan, M,M; M.Srinath; K.P.Nair; K.S.Rao; R. Sarvesan; G.S.Rao; K.S. Mohamed; K.Vidyasagar; K.S.
Sundaram; A.P. Lipton; P. Natarajan; G. Radhakrishnan; K.A.Narasimham; K.Balan; V. Kripa and T.V.
Sathianandan, (1993). Stock assessment of the Indian squid Loligo duvauceli Orbigny. Indian J. Fish.,
40(1&2): 74-84.
Meiyappan, M,M and K.S. Mohamed. (2003). Cephalopods. In: M.M. Joseph and A.A. Jayaprakash (Eds).
Status of Exploited Marine Fishery Resources of India. Cent. Mar. Fish. Rs. Inst. Cochin, India. 221-227.
Mohamed, K.S and D. Nagaraja, (1997). Cephalopod fisheries of Karnataka State - An Overview. Fishing
Chimes, 16(11): 33-35.
Mohamed, K.S. and G.S.Rao (1997). Seasonal growth, stock-recruitment relationship and predictive yield
of the Indian squid Loligo duvauceli exploited off Karnataka coast. Indian J. Fish. 44(4): 319-329.
Mohamed, K.S., (1993). Spawning congregations of the Indian squid Loligo duvauceli (Cephalopoda :
Loliginidae) in the Arabian sea off Mangalore and Malpe. Indian J. Mar. Sci., 22: 172-175.
Mohamed, K.S., (1996). Estimates of growth, mortality and stock of the the Indian squid Loligo duvauceli
Orbigny, exploited off Mangalore, southwest coast of India. Bull. Mar. Sci., 58(2): 393-403.
Mohamed, K S (2006) Molluscan Fisheries. In: Handbook of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Ayyappan, S,(ed.)
Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, pp. 116-134.
Mohamed, K.S., M. Joseph, P. S. Alloycious, G. Sasikumar, P. Laxmilatha, P. K. Asokan, V. Kripa, V. Venkatesan,
S. Thomas, S. Sundaram and G. S. Rao (2009). Quantitative and qualitative assessment of exploitation
of juvenile cephalopods from the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal and determination of minimum legal
sizes. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. India, 51 (1): 98 – 106.
Nair K.P; M. Srinath, M.M. Meiyappan, K.S. Rao; R. Sarvesan, K. Vidyasagar, K.S. Sundaram G. S.Rao, A.P.
Lipton, P. Natarajan, G. Radhakrishnan, K. S. Mohamed, K.A.
Nair,K.P; M.M.Meiyappan; P.S.Kuriakose; R.Sarvesan; A.P. Lipton; K.S.Mohamed; P.K.Asokan; M.Joseph and
D.Nagaraja (1992a). Biology of squids caught by squid jigging. Bull. Fish. Surv. India 23: 27-42.
Nair,K.P; M.M.Meiyappan; G.S.Rao; K.S.Mohamed; K.Vidyasagar; K.S.Sundaram and A.P.Lipton (1992b).
Present status of the exploitation of fish and shellfish resources: Squid and Cuttlefish. Bull. Cent. Mar.
Fish. Res. Inst. 45: 226-241.
Narasimham, K. Balan, V. Kripa And T.V. Satyanandan. (1993). Stock assessment of the pharaoh cuttlefish
Sepia pharaonis. Indian J. Fish. 40 (1,2): 85-94.
Narasimham, K.A., V. Kripa and K. Balan (1993). Molluscan shellfish resources of India An overview. Indian
J. Fish. 40(1&2): 112-124.
Narasimham, K.A. (2005). Molluscan fisheries of India. BR Publications, New Delhi, 348p.
Natarajan, P., K. Ramadoss, D. Sivalingam and P. Thillairajan (1988). Ornamental shell industry of
Ramanathapuram coast. Bull. Cent. Mar. Fish. Res. Inst. 42(1): 106-110.
Nayar, K.N. and S. Mahadevan (1974). Chank fisheries and industrial uses of chanks. In: Commercial Molluscs
of India (R.V. Nair and K.S. Rao, Eds.) Bull. Cent. Mar. Fish. Res. Inst. 25: 122-140.
Oommen, V.P (1977). Studies on the food, feeding and fishery of certain cephalopods from the west coast
of India. Bull. Dep. Mar. Sci. Univ. Cochin 8: 73-152.
Pauly, D., (1985). Population dynamics of short-lived species with special emphasis on squids. NAFO Sci.
Counc. Stud., 9: 143-154.
Philip, M.B. and K.K. Appukuttan (1995). A check-list of gastropods landed at Sakthikulangara-Neendakara
area. Mar. Fish. Infor. Serv. T&E Ser. 138: 9-10.
Philip,K.P and D.M. Ali (1989). Population dynamics and stock assessment of the cuttlefish Sepia pharaonis
in Wadge Bank. Fish. Surv. India. Spec. Publ. 2: 66-75.
Pierce G.J; R.P. Boyle; L.C. Hastie and M.B. Santos (1994). Diets of squid Loligo forbesi and Loligo vulgaris
in NE Atlantic. Fish. Res. 21: 149-163.
Pierce, G.J and A. Guerra, 1994. Stock assessment methods used for cephalopod fisheries. Fish. Res., 21:
255-285.
Pillai, P.K.M. and P. Devadoss (1974). On the occurrence of sacred chank, Xancus pyrum (Linnaeus) off Porto
Novo. Indian J. Fish. 21(1): 279-281.
Pota, K.A. and M.I. Patel (1988b), Exploitation and marketing of chanks from the Gulf of Kutch. Bull. Cent.
Mar. Fish. Res. Inst. 42(2): 445-450.
Poutiers, J.M. (1998). Bivalves and gastropods. In K.E. Carpenter and V.H. Niem (Eds.). The Living Resources
of the Western Central Pacific. Vol.I., p.686. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN, Rome.
Ramdoss, K. (2003). Gastropods. In: M.M. Joseph and A.A. Jayaprakash (Eds). Status of Exploited Marine
Fishery Resources of India. Cent. Mar. Fish. Rs. Inst. Cochin, India. 203-210.
Rahaman, A.A. (1967). Gonad and hepatic indices of the Indian cephalopods Sepioteuthis arctipinnis and
Sepia aculeata. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. 67B (3): 104-113.
Rao, G.S. (1988). Biology of inshore squid Loligo duvauceli Orbigny with a note on its fishery off Mangalore.
Indian J. Fish., 35(3): 121-130.
Rao, G.S. and K.R. Somayajulu. (1996). Resource characteristics of exploited bivalves and gastropods of
Kakinada Bay with a note on stock assessment. Mar. Fish. Infor. Serv. T&E Ser. 144: 13-19.
Rao, G.S., P.S. Kuriakose, N. Ramachandran, M.M. Meiyappan, G.P.K. Achary, D. Nagaraja and H.S. Shivanna
(1989). Atlas of clam resources of Karnataka. CMFRI Spec. Publ., 46: 55p.
Rao, K.S. (1974). Edible bivalves: mussels and oysters. In: Commercial Molluscs of India. Bull. Cent. Mar.
Fish. Res. Inst., 25: 4-39.
Rao, K.S., P.V. Sreenivasan, P. Muthiah, R. Sreenivasan, P. Natarajan, M.E. Rajapandian, C.T. Rajan, R. Thangavelu,
D. Sundararajan and P. Poovannan, (1996). Distribution and exploitation of oyster resources along the
southeast and southwest coasts of India. Mar. Fish. Infor. Serv., T&E Ser., No.145: 1-16
Rao, K.S; M. Srinath, M.M. Meiyappan, K.P. Nair, R. Sarvesan, G. S. Rao, P. Natarajan, K.Vidyasagar, K.S.
Sundaram, A.P. Lipton, G. Radhakrishnan, K.A. Narasimham, K. S. Mohamed, K. Balan, V. Kripa and T.V.
Satyanandan. (1993). Stock assessment of the needle cuttlefish Sepia aculeatas. Indian J. Fish. 40
(1,2): 95-103.
Rao, K.V (1954).Biology and fishery of the Palk Bay squid Sepioteuthis artctipinnis Gould. Indian J. Fish.., 1:
37- 66.
Rathjen, W. F (1991). Cephalopod capture methods: an overview. Bull. Mar. Sci., 49: 494-505.
Rosenberg, A.A; G.P. Kirkwood; J.A. Crombie and J.R. Beddington., 1990. The assessment of stocks of annual
squid species. Fish. Res., 8: 335-350.
Sarvesan, R (1969) Some observations on parental care in Octopus dolfusi (Robson) J. Mar. Biol. Ass. India
11(1&2): 203-205.
Sasikumar, G., P. Rohit, N. Ramachandran, D. Nagaraja and G. Sampathkumar. (2006). Emerging small scale
trap fishery for whelk, (Babylonia spirata) in Malpe, Southern Karnataka. Mar. Fish. Infor. Serv., T&E
Ser., No.188: 14-17.
Selvarani, J. (2001). Whelk processing industry at Thirespuram-Tuticorin. Mar. Fish. Infor. Serv. T&E Ser.167:
11-12.
Shanmugaraj, T. and K. Ayyakkannu. (1997). Culture of Babylonia spirata (L) (Neogastropoda: Buccinidae),
Phuket Marine Biological Center Special Publication. 17(1): 225-228.
Silas, E.G, K.S. Rao, R. Sarvesan, K.P. Nair and M.M. Meiyappan (1982). The exploited squid and cuttlefish
resources of India: A review. Mar. Fish. Infor. Ser. T & E Ser. 34: 1-16.
Silas,E.G (1985). Cephalopod fisheries of India - An introduction to the subject with methodologies adopted
for the study. In: (E.G.Silas Ed) Cephalopod bionomics, fisheries and resources of the EEZ of India. Bull.
Cent. Mar. Fish. Res. Inst.. 37: 1-4.
Silas,E.G; K.S. Rao; R. Sarvesan; K.P. Nair; K. Vidyasagar; M.M.Meiyappan; Y.A. Sastry and B.N. Rao (1985).
Some aspects of the biology of squids. In: (E.G.Silas Ed) Cephalopod bionomics, fisheries and resources
of the EEZ of India. Bull. Cent. Mar. Fish. Res. Inst.. 37: 38-48.
Silas,E.G; M.M.Meiyappan; R. Sarvesan; K.P. Nair; M. Srinath and K.S. Rao (1985). Stock assessment: Squids
and cuttlefishes at selected centres. In: (E.G.Silas Ed) Cephalopod bionomics, fisheries and resources
of the EEZ of India. Bull. Cent. Mar. Fish. Res. Inst.. 37: 71-79.
Silas,E.G; R. Sarvesan; K.P. Nair; Y.A. Sastry; P.V. Sreenivasan; M.M.Meiyappan; K. Vidyasagar; K.S. Rao and
B.N. Rao (1985). Some aspects of the biology of cuttlefishes. In: (E.G.Silas Ed) Cephalopod bionomics,
fisheries and resources of the EEZ of India. Bull. Cent. Mar. Fish. Res. Inst.. 37: 49-70.
Sreenivasan, P.V. (1988). Chank fishery of Porto Novo coast. Bull. Cent. Mar. Fish. Res. Inst. 42(1):84-88.
Unnithan.K.A. (1982). Observations on the biology of cuttlefish Sepiella inermis at Mandapam. Indian J.
Fish. 29(1&2): 101-111.
Venkatesan, V. (2008). Grading of sacred chanks along Ramanathapuram coast. Mar. Fish. Infor. Serv., T&E
Ser., No.195: 20-21.
Mohamed K.S., G. Sasikumar,K.P.S. Koya, V. Venkatesan, V.Kripa, P.K.Asokan, N.Ragesh, K.K.Sajikumar, R.
Remya, M.Joseph, P.S. Alloycious, M.K.,Venu,J., Varghese, K.K., Asha, M.V., Baiju and N. Unnikrishnan
(2014). Final report of the NAIP CN -2 scheme –Utilization strategy for oceanic squids (Cephalopoda)
in Arabian Sea: A value chain approach, CMFRI. 103 p.
Sasikumar, G., K.S. Mohamed, P. Rohit and G. Sampathkumar (2015). Policy Guidance on cuttlefish fishery
using Fish Aggregating Devices. CMFRI Mar. Fish. Policy Ser.1, 56 p.
CMFRI, (2017) (unpublished). Annual Report 2016-17. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin.
Statistical Methods
STATISTICAL METHODS
7
Somy Kuriakose
Statistics plays a central role in research, planning

and decision-making in almost all natural and
social sciences. It is the Science of collecting,
organizing, analyzing, interpreting and presenting
data. It deals with all aspects of this, including not
only the collection, analysis and interpretation of
such data, but also the planning of the collection
of data, in terms of the design of surveys and
experiments. Two types of statistical methods are
used in analysing data: descriptive statistics and
inferential statistics. Inferential statistics makes
inferences and predictions about a population based
on a sample of data taken from the population in
question. Descriptive statistics uses the data to
provide descriptions of the population, either through
numerical calculations or graphs or tables. Descriptive
statistics therefore enables us to present the data
in a more meaningful way, which allows simpler
interpretation of the data.
Measures of central tendency
Description of a variable usually begins with the
specification of its single most representative value,
often called the measure of central tendency. The best
way to reduce a set of data and still retain part of the
information is to summarize the set with a single value.
Statistical Methods
A measure of central tendency is a single value that attempts to describe a set of data by
identifying the central position within that set of data. Measures of central tendency are
sometimes called measures of central location or summary statistics. Measures of central
tendency are measures of the location of the middle or the center of a distribution. There
are several measures for this statistic.
Measures of central tendency
Arithmetic mean
The arithmetic mean of a set of values is the quantity commonly called the mean or the
average. For a data set, the mean is the sum of the values divided by the number of values.
The mean of a set of numbers x1, x2, ...,xn is typically denoted by x pronounced “x bar”.
Arithmetic Mean from a grouped data

i) Discrete frequency distribution
Data arising from organising n observed values into a smaller number of disjoint groups of
values, and counting the frequency of each group; often presented as a frequency table. In
this case the values of the variable are multiplied by their respective frequencies and this
total is then divided by the total number of frequencies.
where x1, x2, … xn are values of the variable x and f1,f2,…fn are their corresponding frequencies.
ii) Continuous frequency distribution
We take mid values of each class as representative of that class, multiply this mid values
by their corresponding frequencies, total these products and divide by the total number
of items. If x1,x2…..xn represent the mid values of classes and f1, f2,…fn the frequencies, then
Page 2,
Statistical Methods
The mean is valid only for interval data or ratio data. Since it uses the values of all of the data
points in the population or sample, the mean is influenced by outliers that may be at the
Page 3
extremes of the data set. The mean uses all the observations and each observation affects the
mean. Even though the mean is sensitive to extreme values (i.e., extremely large or small data
can cause the mean to be pulled
toward the extreme data) it is still Merits
the most widely used measure •It is rigidly defined.

of location. This is due to the •It is easy to calculate and simple to Demerits
follow.
fact that the mean has valuable •It is based on all the observations.
•The arithmetic mean is highly affected
mathematical properties that •Itofisdata. determined for almost every kind
by extreme values.
make it convenient for use with •It is finite and not indefinite. •It is not an approprite average for
highly skewed distributions.
•It is readily put to algebraic treatment.
inferential statistics analysis. •It is least affected by fluctuations of •It cannot be computed accurately if any
sampling. item is missing.
For example, the sum of the •It is easy to calculate
deviations of the numbers in
a set of data from the mean is
zero, and the sum of the squared deviations of the numbers in a set of data from the mean
Page 4
is minimum value. The merits and demerits of arithmetic mean is given in the infographic.
Median
Median is the value in the middle of the data set, when the data points are arranged from
smallest to largest. If there are an odd number of data points, then just arrange them in
ascending or descending order and take the middle value. If there is an even number of
data points, you will need to take the average of the two middle values. Hence median is
determined by sorting the data set from lowest to highest values and taking the data point
in the middle of the sequence. There is an equal number of points above and below the
median.
Calculation of median in a grouped data
i) Discrete series
In this case also, data should be arranged in ascending or descending order of magnitude
and find out the cumulative frequencies. Now find out the value of (n+1/2)th item. It can
be found by first locating the cumulative frequency which is equal to (n+1/2) and then
determine the value corresponding to it. This will be the value of median.
ii) Continuous series
For computing the value of the median in a continuous series, first determine the particular
class in which the value of the median lies. Use N/2 as the rank of Median where N= total
frequency. Hence it is N/2 which will divide the area of the curve into two parts.
Statistical Methods
The following formula is used for determining the exact value of the median.
where N= Σ fi = Total frequency, l- the lower limit of the median class, m -cumulative
frequency up to the median class, f- frequency of the median class and c- class width.
The median can be determined for

Merits
ordinal data as well as interval and •Median is rigidly defined.
•It is simple to understand and easy to
ratio data. Unlike the mean, the calculate. Demerits
•Median is not affected by extreme
median is not influenced by outliers observations.
•Arrangement of data according to
•Median can be computed even for
magnitude is necessary.
open-end classes.
at the extremes of the data set. •Median can sometimes be located by
•Median is not based on all
observations:
inspection.
Generally, the median provides a •Median value is real value and is a
•For an ungrouped data, if the number
of observation is even, median cannot
better representative value of the series
be determined exactly.
better measure of location than the compared to arithmetic mean.
•Median can be obtained graphically.
•Median is not suitable for further
mathematical treatment.
•Median is only the average to be used
mean when there are some extremely while dealing with qualitative
•For a small size sample, median is
affected by fluctuation of sampling.
characteristics such as intelligence,
large or small observations (i.e., when beauty etc.
the data are skewed to the right or Page 5
to the left). For this reason, the median often is used when there are a few extreme values
that could greatly influence the mean and distort what might be considered
Demerits typical. Note
•Mode is an uncertain and vague
that if the median is less than the mean, the Merits
data set is skewed to the right.
measure of the If thetendency.
central median is
•Unlike mean, mode is not capable of
•Compared mean, mode is less affected
greater than the mean, the data set is skewed tovalues
by marginal theinleft. Median •It
the series does not have important
further algebraic treatment.
is difficult to identify the modal
•Mode can be located graphically, with value, when frequencies of all items are
mathematical properties for use in futurethecalculations.
help of histogram. identical.
•The calculation of mode does not •It ignores extreme marginal
require knowledge of all the items and frequencies and is not a representative
Mode frequencies of a distribution. value of all the items in a series.
Mode is the most common value or most frequently occurring value in the data set. For
finding the mode, just look at the data, count how many of each value you have, and select
the data point that shows up the most frequently. If no value occurs more than once, then
there is no mode. If two values occur as frequently as each other and more frequently than
any other, then there are two modes. In the same way, there could also be more than two
modes.
open-end classes.
•Median is not based on all
•Median can sometimes be located by
observations:
inspection.
•For an ungrouped data, if the number
•Median value is real value and is a
of observation is even, median cannot
better representative value of the series
be determined exactly.
compared to arithmetic mean.
•Median is not suitable for further
•Median can be obtained graphically.
Statistical Methods •Median is only the average to be used
•For a small size sample, median is
while dealing with qualitative
affected by fluctuation of sampling.
characteristics such as intelligence,
beauty etc.
Page 5
Mode is very simple measure of central tendency.
Merits Because of its simplicity, it is a very popular
measure of the central tendency. •Median is rigidly defined.
Demerits
The mode can be very useful for •It is simple to understand and easy to Demerits
•Mode is an uncertain and vague
calculate. measure of the central tendency.
dealing with categorical data. The •Median is not affected by extreme
Merits
•Unlike mean, mode is not capable of
•Compared mean, mode is less affected further algebraic treatment.
mode also can be used with ordinal, observations.
by marginal values in the series
•Arrangement of data accor
•It is difficult to identify the modal
•Median
•Mode can be can be graphically,
located computed with even for
value, when frequencies of all items are
interval, and ratio data. However, in •The
the help of histogram. identical. magnitude is necessary.
open-end
calculationclasses.
of mode does not •It ignores extreme marginal
require knowledge of all the items and •Median is not based on all
interval and ratio scales, the data •Median can sometimes be located frequenciesbyand is not a representative
frequencies of a distribution. value of all the items in observations:
a series.
inspection.
may be spread thinly with no data •Median value is real value and is a •For an ungrouped data, if t
of observation is even, med
points having the same value. In better representative value of the series be determined exactly.
compared to arithmetic mean.
such cases, the mode may not exist or•Median
may notcan be bevery meaningful. The merits •Median and demerits is not suitable for f
obtained graphically.
of mode is given in the infographic. •Median is only the average to be used •For a small size sample, me
while dealing with qualitative
affected by fluctuation of s
Weighted Mean characteristics such as intelligence,
beauty etc.
When two or more means are combined to develop an aggregate mean, the influence of
each mean must be weighted by thePage
number
5 of cases in its subgroup.
Geometric Mean (GM) Demerits

The geometric mean is an average that is useful for sets of positive numbers •Modethat
is anare
uncertain and va
interpreted according to their product and Merits
not their sum (as is the case with the arithmetic
measure of the central tend
mean) e.g. rates of growth. •Unlike mean, mode is not ca
•Compared mean, mode is less affected further algebraic treatment
by marginal values in the series •It is difficult to identify the
•Mode can be located graphically, with value, when frequencies of
the help of histogram. identical.
Harmonic Mean (HM) •The calculation of mode does not •It ignores extreme marginal
require knowledge of all the items and frequencies and is not a rep
frequencies
The harmonic mean is an average which is usefuloffor
a distribution.
sets of numbers which are defined
value in items in a se
of all the
relation to some unit, for example speed (distance per unit of time).
Statistical Methods
Relationship between AM, GM, and HM

AM, GM, and HM satisfy these inequalities:
AM > GM > HM
Equality holds only when all the elements of the given sample are equal.
The mean (often called the average) is most common measure of central tendency, but there
are others, such as, the median and the mode. The mean, median and mode are all valid
measures of central tendency but, under different conditions, some measures of central
tendency become more appropriate to use than others.
Measures of Dispersion
Measure of variation describes how spread out or scattered a set of data. It is also known as
measures of dispersion or measures of spread. Measures of variation determine the range
of the distribution, relative to the measures of central tendency. Measures of average such
as the mean and median represent the typical value for a dataset. Within the dataset the
actual values usually differ from one another and from the average value itself. The extent to
which the mean and median are good representatives of the values in the original dataset
depends upon the variability or dispersion in the original data. Where the measures of central
tendency are specific data points, measures of variation are lengths between various points
within the distribution. It provide us with a summary of how much the points in our data set
vary, e.g. how spread out they are or how volatile they are. Measures of variation together
with measures of central tendency are important for identifying key features of a sample
to better understand the population from which the sample comes from. Datasets are said
to have high dispersion when they contain values considerably higher and lower than the
mean value. The most common measures of variation are Range, Quartile déviation or semi
Interquartile Range, Mean deviation, Variance, Standard deviation and Coefficient of Variation
Range
The range is the distance between the lowest data point and the highest data point. In other
words, it is difference between the highest value and the lowest value.
Range = Highest value–lowest value
The range is the simplest measure of variation to find. Since the range only uses the largest
and smallest values, it is greatly affected by extreme values, that is - it is not resistant to
change.
The range is simple to compute and is useful when you wish to evaluate the whole of a
dataset. It is useful for showing the spread within a dataset and for comparing the spread
between similar datasets.
Statistical Methods
Since the range is based solely on the two most extreme values within the dataset, if one
of these is either exceptionally high or low (sometimes referred to as outlier) it will result
in a range that is not typical of the variability within the dataset. The range does not really
indicate how the scores are concentrated along the distribution. The range only involves the
smallest and largest numbers, and is affected by extreme data values or outliers. In order
to reduce the problems caused by outliers in a dataset, the inter-quartile range is often
calculated instead of the range.
Quartile Deviation or Semi Inter-quartile Range
The inter-quartile range is a measure that indicates the extent to which the central 50%
of values within the dataset are dispersed. If the sample is ranked in ascending order of
magnitude two values of x may be found, the first of which is exceeded by 75% of the sample,
the second by 25%; their difference is the interquartile range. It is based upon, and related
to, the median. In the same way that the median divides a dataset into two halves, it can be
further divided into quarters by identifying the upper and lower quartiles. The lower quartile,
Q1 is found one quarter of the way along a dataset when the values have been arranged
in order of magnitude; the upper quartile Q3 is found three quarters along the dataset.
Therefore, the upper quartile lies half way between the median and the highest value in
the dataset whilst the lower quartile lies halfway between the median and the lowest value
in the dataset. Between Q1 and Q3 there is half the total number of items. Q3-Q1 affords
a convenient and often a good indicator of the absolute variability. Usually one half of the
Q3-Q1 is used and given the name semi-interquartile range or quartile deviation.

The relative measure of quartile deviation is known as the coefficient of Q.D.

The larger the semi – interquartile range, the larger the spread of the central half of the
data. Thus the semi –interquartile rang provides a measure of spread. Thus it indicate how
closely the data are clustered around the median.
Statistical Methods
Mean Deviation
Mean deviation is the average of the absolute values of the deviation scores; that is, mean
deviation is the average distance between the mean and the data points. It is calculated as
Closely related to the measure of mean deviation is the measure of variance.

Variance
The variance is the most commonly accepted measure of variation. It represents the average
of the squared deviations about the mean. Variance also indicates a relationship between
the mean of a distribution and the data points; it is determined by averaging the sum of the
squared deviations. Squaring the differences instead of taking the absolute values allows
for greater flexibility in calculating further algebraic manipulations of the data. It is the
average of the squared deviations between the individual scores and the mean. The larger
the variance the more variability there is among the scores. When comparing two samples
with the same unit of measurement (age), the variances are comparable even though the
sample sizes may be different. Generally, however, smaller samples have greater variability
among the scores than larger samples.
The average deviation from the mean is:

Ave. Dev =
Σ (x - µ)
−−−−−−−
N
The problem is that this summation is always zero. So, the average deviation will always be
zero. That is why the average deviation is never used. So, to keep it from being zero, the
deviation from the mean is squared and called the “squared deviation from the mean”. This
“average squared deviation from the mean” is called the variance. The formula for variance
depends on whether you are working with a population or sample:
The formula for the variance in a population is where σ2 = Σ
(X - µ)2 where µ is the mean
and N is the number of scores. −−−−−−−
N

When the variance is computed in a sample, the statistic σ

(X - M)2
2 = _____________ Σ
Ν−1
where M is the mean of the sample and gives an unbiased estimate of σ2.
Statistical Methods
Standard Deviation
Standard deviation is the most familiar, important and widely used measure of variation. It
is a significant measure for making comparison of variability between two or more sets of
data in terms of their distance from the mean.
The standard deviation is the square root of the variance. It is denoted by σ and is computed
as
The standard deviation has proven to be an extremely useful measure of spread in part
because it is mathematically tractable. Many formulas in inferential statistics use the standard
deviation. It possess the majority of the properties which are desirable in a measure of
dispersion and is based on all observations. Because of these merits SD should always be
used as the measure of dispersion unless there is some definite reason for selecting any
other measure of dispersion.
Coefficient of Variation
The coefficient of variation is the ratio of the sample standard deviation to the sample mean.
It is calculated as
σ
Coefficient of variation (C.V.) = ---- *100
x
It expresses the standard deviation as a percentage of the mean, so it can be used to compare
the variability of two or more distributions even when the observations are expressed in
different units of measurement. The coefficient of variation is a dimensionless number. So
when comparing between data sets with different units or widely different means, one should
use the coefficient of variation for comparison instead of the standard deviation.A standard
application of the Coefficient of Variation is to characterize the variability of geographic
variables over space or time. Coefficient of Variation is particularly applied to characterize
the interannual variability of climate variables or biophysical variables. When coefficient of
variable is lesser in the data, it is said to be more consistent or have less variability. On the
other hand, the series having higher coefficient of variable has higher degree of variability
or lesser consistency. When the mean value is close to zero, the coefficient of variation will
approach infinity and is hence sensitive to small changes in the mean. Unlike the standard
deviation, it cannot be used to construct confidence intervals for the mean.
Statistical Methods
Correlation
Correlation is a statistical technique that can show whether and how strongly pairs of
variables are related. The correlation analysis enables us to have an idea about the degree
& direction of the relationship between the two variables under study. It is used to assess
the possible linear association between two variables. If there is any relation between
two variables i.e. when one variable changes the other also changes in the same or in the
opposite direction, we say that the two variables are correlated. Thus correlation is the study
of existence, magnitude and direction of the relation between two or more variables. The
measure of correlation called the correlation coefficient. If the ratio of change between
two variables is uniform, then the correlation is said to be linear. If the amount of change
in one variable does not bear a constant ratio to the amount of change in the other variable,
then the correlation is said to be non-linear or curvilinear. The nature of the graph gives us
the idea of the linear type of correlation between two variables. If the graph is in a straight
line, the correlation is called a “linear correlation” and if the graph is not in a straight line,
the correlation is non-linear or curvi-linear.
Positive and Negative Correlation
If two variables change in the same direction i.e., if one increases the other also increases,
or if one decreases, the other also decreases), then this is called a positive correlation. If
two variables change in the opposite direction i.e., if one increases, the other decreases and
vice versa), then the correlation is called a negative correlation. Through the coefficient of
correlation, we can measure the degree or extent of the correlation between two variables.
On the basis of the coefficient of correlation we can also determine whether the correlation
is positive or negative and also its degree or extent.
If two variables changes in the same direction and in the same proportion, the correlation
between the two is perfect positive. According to Karl Pearson the coefficient of correlation
in this case is +1. On the other hand if the variables change in the opposite direction and in
the same proportion, the correlation is perfect negative and its coefficient of correlation
is -1. In practice we rarely come across these types of correlations.
If two variables exhibit no relations between them or change in variable does not lead to a
change in the other variable, then we can say that there is no correlation between the two
variables. In such a case the coefficient of correlation is 0.
Methods of Determining Correlation
The following are the most commonly used methods of determining correlation.
(1) Scatter Plot
(2) Karl Pearson’s coefficient of correlation
Statistical Methods
Scatter Plot (Scatter diagram or dot diagram)

The scatter diagram may be described as the diagram which helps us to visualize the
relationship between two phenomena. This is the simplest method for finding out whether
there is any relationship present between two variables. In this method the values of the two
variables are plotted on a graph paper. One is taken along the x-axis and the other along
the y-axis. By plotting the data, we get points on the graph which are generally scattered
and hence the name ‘Scatter Plot’. The manner in which these points are scattered, suggest
the degree and the direction of correlation. The grater the scatter of the points on the chart,
the lesser is the relationship between the two variables. The more closely the points come
to a straight line, the higher the degree of relationship. The degree of correlation is denoted
by ‘ r ’ and its direction is given by the signs positive and negative. Scatter diagrams will
generally show one of five possible correlations between the variables:
 Strong Positive Correlation :The value of Y clearly increases as the value of X increases.
 Strong Negative Correlation: The value of Y clearly decreases as the value of X increases.
 Weak Positive Correlation : The value of Y increases slightly as the value of X increases.
 Weak Negative Correlation: The value of Y decreases slightly as the value of X increases.
 No Correlation: There is no demonstrated connection between the two variables.

Though this method is simple and provide a rough idea about the existence and the degree
of correlation, it is not reliable. As it is not a mathematical method, it cannot measure the
degree of correlation.
Statistical Methods
Karl Pearson’s coefficient of correlation

The most widely-used type of correlation coefficient is Pearson r, also called linear or product-
moment correlation. It gives the numerical expression for the measure of correlation. The
value of ‘ r ’ gives the magnitude of correlation and sign denotes its direction. It is defined as
ΣXY
r = −−−−−−−
nσ σ
x y
Where X = (Xi - X), Y = (Yi - Y), σx = s.d.of X, σy= s.d.of Y, and n is the number of pairs of
observations
Properties of Correlation coefficient
 The value of correlation does not depend on the specific measurement units used;
for example, the correlation between height and weight will be identical regardless of
whether inches and pounds, or centimeters and kilograms are used as measurement
units.
 The value of correlation coefficient lies between -1 and +1, -1 means perfect negative
linear correlation and +1 means perfect positive linear correlation.
 The correlation coefficient r only measures the strength of a linear relationship. There
are other kinds of relationships besides linear.
 If the two variables are independent, then the value of the correlation coefficient is
zero. If the value of the correlation coefficient is zero, it does not mean that there is
no correlation, but there may be non-linear correlation.
 The value of r does not change if the independent (x) and dependent (y) variables are
interchanged.
 The correlation coefficient r does not change if the scale on either variable is changed.
You may multiply, divide, add, or subtract a value to/from all the x-values or y-values
without changing the value of r.
 The correlation coefficient r has a Student’s t distribution.
Assumptions to use the Pearson product-moment correlation
 The measures are approximately normally distributed
 The variance of the two measures is similar (homoscedasticity)
 The relationship is linear
 The sample represents the population
 The variables are measured on a interval or ratio scale
Statistical Methods
Testing the Significance of the Correlation Coefficient

The correlation coefficient, r, tells us about the strength and direction of the linear relationship
between x and y. However, the reliability of the linear model also depends on how many
observed data points are in the sample. We need to look at both the value of the correlation
coefficient r and the sample size n, together.
We perform a hypothesis test of the ”significance of the correlation coefficient” to decide
whether the linear relationship in the sample data is strong enough to use to model the
relationship in the population.
The sample data are used to compute r, the correlation coefficient for the sample. If we
had data for the entire population, we could find the population correlation coefficient. But
because we have only have sample data, we cannot calculate the population correlation
coefficient. The sample correlation coefficient, r, is our estimate of the unknown population
correlation coefficient.
The hypothesis test lets us decide whether the value of the population correlation
coefficient σ is “close to zero” or “significantly different from zero”. We decide this based
on the sample correlation coefficient r and the sample size n.
The correlation coefficient r has a t distribution with n-2 degrees of freedom. The test
statistic used is
If the test concludes that the correlation coefficient is significantly different from zero, we say
that the correlation coefficient is significant and there exists a linear relationship between
the two variables. If the test concludes that the correlation coefficient is not significantly
different from zero (it is close to zero), we say that correlation coefficient is not significant
and there is insufficient evidence to conclude that there is a significant linear relationship
between the two variables.
Regression Analysis
Regression analysis is a statistical tool used for the investigation of relationships between
variables. It is the study of linear, additive relationships between variables Correlation gives
us a measure of the magnitude and direction between variables. It is a technique used for
predicting the unknown value of a variable from the known value of another variable. When
there is only one independent variable then the relationship is expressed by a straight line.
This procedure is called simple linear regression or bivariate regression. More precisely, if
X and Y are two related variables, then linear regression analysis helps us to predict the
Statistical Methods
value of Y for a given value of X. Multiple regression is an extension of bivariate regression

in which several independent variables are combined to predict the dependent variable.
In multiple regression analysis, the value of Y is predicted for given values of X1, X2, …, Xk.
This technique is used for forecasting, time series modelling and finding the causal effect
relationship between the variables.
Dependent and Independent Variables
By simple linear regression, we mean models with just one independent and one dependent
variable. The variable whose value is to be predicted is known as the dependent variable and
the one whose known value is used for prediction is known as the independent variable.
Similarly for Multiple Regression the variable whose value is to be predicted is known as
the dependent variable and the ones whose known values are used for prediction are
known independent variables.
The Regression Model
The line of regression of Y on X is given by Y = a + bX where a and b are unknown constants
known as intercept and slope of the equation. This is used to predict the unknown value of
variable Y when value of variable X is known.
The Simple Linear Regression model is
Y = a + bX
The Regression Coefficient is the constant ‘b’ in the regression equation that tells about
the change in the value of dependent variable X corresponding to the unit change in the
independent variable Y and can be represented as:
σx
b = r −−
σy

Where r is the correlation coefficient σx, is the standard deviation of x, σy is the standard
deviation of y
In general, the multiple regression equation of Y on X1, X2, …, Xk is given by:
Y = b0 + b1 X1 + b2 X2 + …………………… + bk Xk
Here b 0 is the intercept and b 1, b 2, b 3, …, b k are analogous to the slope in linear
regression equation and are also called regression coefficients. They can be interpreted as
the change in the value of dependent variable (Y) corresponding to unit change in the value
of independent variable Xi.
Statistical Methods
Fitting of regression line

In scatter plot, we have seen that if the variables are highly correlated then the points (dots)
lie in a narrow strip. If the strip is nearly straight, we can draw a straight line, such that all
points are close to it from both sides. Such a line can be taken as an ideal representation of
variation. This line is called the line of best fit if it minimizes the distances of all data points
from it and also called as the line of regression. Now prediction is easy because all we need
to do is to extend the line and read the value. Thus to obtain a line of regression, we need
to have a line of best fit.
The problem of choosing the best straight line then comes down to finding the best values
of a and b. By ’best’ we mean the values of a and b that produce a line closest to all n
observations. This means that we
find the line that minimizes the
distances of each observation to
the line. Choose the values of a
and b that give the line such that
the sum of squared deviations
from the line is minimized.
This method of estimation of
parameters is called least square
method. The best line is called the regression line, and the equation describing it is called
the regression equation. The deviations from the line are also called residuals.
R2 - coefficient of determination
Once a line of regression has been constructed, one can check how good it is (in terms of
predictive ability) by examining the coefficient of determination (R2), which is defined as the
proportion of variance of the dependent variable that can be explained by the independent
variables. The coefficient of determination is a measure of how well the regression equation
y = a + bX performs as a predictor of y. Its value represents the percentage of variation that
can be explained by the regression equation. R2 always lies between 0 and 1. Higher values
of this are generally taken to indicate a better model. A value of 1 means every point on
the regression line fits the data; a value of 0.5 means only half of the variation is explained
by the regression. The coefficient of determination is also commonly used to show how
accurately a regression model can predict future outcomes.
Sampling techniques for fisheries data collection
SAMPLING TECHNIQUES FOR

FISHERIES DATA COLLECTION
8
V. Geethalekshmi
Extension, Information and Statistics Division
ICAR-Central Institute of Fisheries Technology
Introduction
Intuitive application of the principles of sampling in science has been taking place for a long
time. However, it was not called sampling but inductive reasoning. Many scientific results are
based on observations in just a few experiments. Apparently, it was possible to generalize these
experimental results. Although inductive reasoning has been commonly applied both in
everyday life and in science for a long time, sampling as a well-defined statistical method is fairly
young. Its history started just more than a century ago, in the year 1895.
Anders Kiaer, the founder and first director of Statistics Norway, was the founder and advocate
of the survey method that is now widely applied in official statistics and social research. With the
first publication of his ideas in 1895 he started the process that ended in the development of
modern survey sampling theory and methods.
The classical theory of survey sampling was more or less completed in 1952. Horvitz and
Thompson (1952) developed a general theory for constructing unbiased estimates. Whatever
the selection probabilities are, as long as they are known and positive, it is always possible to
construct a useful estimate. Horvitz and Thompson completed the classical theory, and the
random sampling approach was almost unanimously accepted. Most of the classical books
about sampling were also published by then (Cochran, 1953; Deming, 1950, Hansen, Hurwitz
and Madow 1953, Yates 1949).
The primary objective of a sample survey is to estimate the characteristic(s) under study using a
representative sample, which is a subset drawn from population that accurately reflects the
members of the entire population. A representative sample should be an unbiased indication of
what the population is like. The representative sample is drawn using a sampling method which
is a scientific and objective procedure of selecting units from a population and provides a
sample that is expected to be representative of the population as a whole.Even though the

sample is representative of the population, and data is reliable, the sample can never reproduce
the result a population will give. Therefore, an error gets introduced due to sampling. The
discrepancy between the sample estimate and the population value that would be obtained by
enumerating all the units in the population in the same manner in which the sample is
enumerated are termed as sampling error.
Some situations arise where a probability sampling is not possible. For example, in case of a
survey where the respondents are to face unpleasant questions, to ensure sufficient number of
responses, volunteers are selected. Also in cases where convenience is the priority units are
selected accordingly. Such a sample is called purposive sample.
Sampling Design
Let a finite population U consists of N units labelled {1,2,….N}. A sample s* from U is an ordered
sequence of n units from U which may be represented as s*={i1, i2,…..in}. Here i1, i2,…..in represent
the labels of ‘n’ units drawn from U and ‘n’ is the sample size. There may be many such sets of
samples of size ‘n’ which can be drawn from the population. Also, while drawing the units from
the population, we can perform the selection with or without replacement. For example while
drawing five cards from a pack of 52 playing cards, we can select the first card, again place it in
pack, and draw the second card and so on. Here there is a chance that same card gets selected
again. This type of sampling is called with replacement sampling.
Sampling in which the units are selected without replacing them back or where the units once
got selected doesnot have a chance of getting selected in the subsequent selections is called
sampling without replacement.
Let S* ={s*} i.e. the set of all possible samples from population U. Let p(s*) denote the
probability of drawing the sample s* from S* and let p(s*)≥ 0 so that ∑�∗ ∈� ∗ �(� ∗ ) = 1. Let �
denote the probability that ith unit is included in a sample. Then using the addition law of
probability, �� = P(one of the samples containing the ith unit is selected)=∑�∈�∗ �(� ∗ ) where the
summation is taken over all the samples containing the ith unit. Assume that �� 0� � = 1�� . �.
An ordered sampling design is defined as the collection S*={s*} together with the probability
measure P*={p(s*)} defined on S* such that p(s*)≥ 0 and ∑�∗ ∈� ∗ �(� ∗ ) = 1 and is denoted by
�(� ∗ )� �∗ )
Probability Sampling
Any procedure of selecting a sample s* with probability p(s*) for all s*∈ S* is called a probability
sampling procedure and a sample selected through such a procedure is called a probability
sample.When the probability of selecting a unit from a population is equal for all units in the
population then p(s*)= (1/total number of possible samples). When all the units in the
population have the equal chance of getting selected in a sample we call the procedure as equal
probability sampling.
Suppose there are 5 aqua farms in a village and the annual fish production is to be studied on
the basis of a sample of size 2. Let aqua farm units be numbered as {1,2,3,4,5}. Then the possible
samples of size 2 without replacement is as follows :
s1* ={1,2}, ��∗ ={1,3}, ��∗ = {1,4}, ��∗ ={1,5}, ��∗ ={2,3},��∗ ={2,4}, ��∗ = {2,5}, ��∗ = {3,4}, ��∗ ={3,5}, ��
∗
={4,5}
Also we have p(��∗ )=1/10, i=1,2,…5 which is equal for all the samples listed.
Equal probability sampling procedure is called simple random sampling. Simple random
sampling or srs in short form, can be performed with or without replacement.A method of
sampling such that every one of the � C� possible samples of size n from N has the same
�
probability namely �C of being selected is called simple random sampling without
�
replacement.In the above mentioned example, probability of selecting a sample si*, from the
above set of samples is same, in case of simple random samplingwithout replacement i.e.
p(si*)=1/10, i=1,2,…10
Let Y denote the characteristic under study. In the above example it is the fish production.
�
Denote Yi the value of the characteristic associated with unit Ui,i=1,2,….N.Further let �� = ∑�
��
be the mean per unit of the population. This term is generally referred to as the population
mean. Using a sample we have to estimate this term and the estimator is commonly known as
�
the estimator of the population mean and denoted as ��. Similarly � � = ∑� � �
�� ) is ��
called the population variance which always associated with the population mean which also has
to be estimated along with the population mean. It gives a measure of precision of our estimate.
The estimator of the population variance is called as the sampling variance is generally
represented as s2.
Let yi, i=1,2,3,….n be the values of the characteristic under study Y from the sample of size n
�
selected from the population. Then the sample mean and variance is given by �� = ∑�� and
�
�
�� = ∑�� )� are unbiased estimators of the population mean and variance
��
respectively.
Probability Proportional to Size Sampling
In the previous section, we discussed the selection of sample from a population by assigning
equal probability to the units to be included in the sample. In certain practical situations, some
units have to given more weightage because of their contribution to the characteristic under
study. For example, we want to estimate the total fish production based on a day’s landing.
There will be fishing boats which have gone for single day fishing, some of them for 2-5 days
and a few boats might have landed fish after fishing for a week. The quantity of catch may also
vary based on the number of fishing days. Therefore, more weightage should be given for the
fishing vessels whose fishing duration is more compared to boats which go for single day
fishing. Likewise, suppose the aquafarms discussed in the previous example are of varying sizes
and because of this variation their fish production also varies. Probability proportional to size
sampling or pps sampling as it is called is a sampling procedure where the sampling units are
assigned probabilities for selection based on size criteria.
Suppose there are 5 aqua farms in a village and the annual fish production is to be studied on
the basis of a sample of size 2. Let aqua farm units be numbered as {1,2,3,4,5}.Let us assume that
depending on their size the following probabilities can be assigned to the individual units of the
5 aquafarms : p1=0.2,p2=0.1,p3=0.2,p4=0.4,p5=0.1. Note that ∑ �� =1.Here, if the scheme is
without replacement for the following set of possible samples,
s1* ={1,2}, ��∗ ={1,3}, ��∗ = {1,4}, ��∗ ={1,5}, ��∗ ={2,3},��∗ ={2,4},��∗ {2,5}, ��∗ = {3,4}, ��∗ ={3,5}, ��
∗
={4,5},
the probability is calculated as follows :
p(��∗ � � �� =0.02; p(��∗ � � �� =0.04; p(��∗ � � �� =0.08; p(��∗ � � �� =0.05; p(��∗ � � �� =0.02;
p(��∗ � � �� =0.04;p(��∗ � � �� =0.01 p(��∗ � � �� =0.08;p(��∗ � � �� =0.02; p(��
∗
� � �� =0.04.
Given a sampling procedure D(S*,P*) a straightforward procedure for selecting a probability

sample is given below :
(i) Identify all possible samples s*, say, M in number and denote the serial number from
1 to M.So here we have s1* ={1,2}, ��∗ ={1,3}, ��∗ = {1,4}, ��∗ ={1,5}, ��∗ ={2,3},��∗ ={2,4},��∗
{2,5}, ��∗ = {3,4}, ��∗ ={3,5}, ��
∗
={4,5}, if the scheme is without replacement and
M=10.
(ii) Form successive cumulative totals�� =∑�� ∗ �� Choose a random
number R such that 0� � � ��and select the sample ��∗ with serial number i if
�� . Now T1=0.02, T2=0.06; T3=0.14; T4=0.19; T5=0.21; T6=0.30; T7 =0.31;
T8=0.39; T9=0.41; T10=0.45.
Suppose R=0.43. Then sample number 10 will be selected which is {4,5}. When the number of all
possible samples are manageable and can be written down easily as in the above example of
aquafarms, then it is possible to select a sample from the population using probability
proportional to size sampling using the above procedure. In general, the procedure for selecting
a sample with varying probability is given below.
Let Xi denote an integer which is proportional to size of the ith unit i=1,2,….,N. Form the
successive cumulative totals X1, X1+X2,…. ∑�� and draw a random number R not exceeding
∑�� using either the table of random numbers or the random number generator function in
excel. If ∑� �� ∑� �� , the ith unit is selected. The procedure is repeated till ‘n’ units get
selected.
Let Yi, i=1,2,…,N denote the value of the characteristic under study Y for the ith unit of the
population. Let Pi be the probability of selecting the ithunit in the population. Obviously,
∑� �
�� = 1. We shall now consider the problem of estimating the population mean � based on
the sample of n units with replacement. If the sample of size n is selected using a probability
��
proportional to size sampling method, then denote�� = , i=1,2,…N. An estimator of
��
� � � �
population mean is�̅ = ∑�� . The variance of �̅ is given by �� (�̅) = � where� �� = ∑��(�� −
� � ��
��
��̅)� . It is proven that both �̅ and are unbiased estimators of the population mean and
�
variance.
Stratified Sampling
This type of sampling mechanism is frequently used in sample surveys where we need estimate
the population parameter for a population which can be divided as groups or strata. For
example a market researcher has to conduct a consumer preference study for a convenience
product from fish which is planned to capture the super markets. Then his population will
consist of households from an urban area and from varying levels of income groups. In order to
have an reasonable representation from all sections of the population, the households should
be divided into low, middle, high income groups or strata. Then a suitable sample from each
group can be drawn using either simple random sampling or any procedure and the
parameter(consumer preference) studied.
Another example is in agriculture where total yield of a crop is to be estimated from a state.
Stratification of the farms will be done districtwise and the total crop production from each
district can be estimated.The groups into which the population is divided is called strata and
whole procedure of drawing samples from each stratum is known as stratified random
sampling.When simple random sampling is used to select samples from each stratum, then the
procedure is called a stratified random sample. We shall assume that the population of size N is
divided into L strata and that sampling within each stratum is simple random sampling without
replacement. Further for the hth stratum h=1,2,…L the following notations apply :
Nh the number of units
nh the sample size

��
�� = , sampling fraction
��
Yhi is value of the characteristic under study Y for the ith unit, I =1,2,….,Nh
��
Wh=
�
Let Yh denote the total of Y-values for units belonging to stratum h. Then the mean of stratum h
�
is given by �� = ∑�
�� .
�
��
Lety hi denote the value of the characteristic under study Y pertaining to the i th unit in the sample
� ��
from hth stratum. The mean of sample from hthstratum is given by �� = ∑�� .
��
� ��
�� = ∑�� (�� )� , the mean square based on Nh units
(�� )
�
�� = ∑��
�
(�� )� , the sample mean square based on nhunits
(�� )
Unbiased estimator of the population mean �� is given as
�� = � ��
��
Here it is assumed that the sampling is carried out independently in each stratum. The variance
of the stratified sampling estimator �� is given by
�
(�� ) ��
�(�� ) = � ��
��
��
(�� ) ��

An unbiased estimator of the variance of ��
�( ∑��
��
expression for variance of the stratified sampling estimator shows that the precision of the
estimator is based on the nh i.e. the stratum sample sizes. Once we decide to conduct any survey
for estimating characteristic under study pertaining to a population we will be given a cost
within which the survey should be conducted. Therefore we have the liberty only to decide the
sample size within cost limit. But the precision will be more if the variance is less or in other
words, when the sample size is more. Practically, when we desire that the sample size should be
increased, cost of coverage will also increase. Since the sample size n is fixed in advance, the
problem at hand usually is the allocation of sample sizes nh within each stratum.
Optimum allocation : The guiding principle is that decide nh in such a manner to estimate
population mean �� with desired precision for a minimum cost or with a maximum precision for a
given cost. The allocation of the sample in accordance with this principle is called the optimum
allocation.Suppose ch denotes the cost of the survey in stratum h. Then total cost of survey can
be represented as
�
� = � ��
��
Then the variance of the estimator �� is minimum for given cost C0 or the cost of the survey is
��
minimum for a given variance V0 when nh is proportional to . Therefore in optimum
��
��
allocation the sample sizes are allotted to stratum according to the formula �� = .
��
Neyman allocation: When ch is sample for all the strata, then the sample sizes are allotted to
��
stratum according to the following formula �� = and this type of allocation is called the
√��
Neyman allocation. 1/√�� is called the constant of proportionality.
Proportional allocation: When nh is proportional to Wh then the sample size can be allocated
��
according to the formula �� = where 1/√�� is called the constant of proportionality.
√��
Cluster Sampling
Before applying any sampling procedure, the population is divided into finite number of distinct
identifiable units called the sampling units or elements. Groups of elements can be called
clusters. In some practical situations it is more convenient to sample clusters from a population
than selecting the individual sampling units. In crop estimation surveys, when the total yield of a
crop is to be determined, the sampling frame or list of farms may not be readily available from
all the villages. But the list of villages will be available. Here, cluster sampling can be employed
by considering the villages as cluster of farms.
When the sampling unit is a cluster then the sampling is called cluster sampling. In cluster
sampling all the elements in the selected cluster will be enumerated. A necessary condition for
employing a cluster sampling procedure is that every element or smallest unit in the population
will correspond to one and only one unit of the cluster so that the total number of sampling
units in the frame will cover all the units of population under study with no omission or
duplication.
When the entire area containing the population under study is subdivided into area segments,
and each element of a population is associated with one and only one area segment then the
procedure is called area sampling.It is not necessary that all the elements associated with an
area segment be located physically within its boundaries. For example in case of aquaculture,
different ponds belonging to the same farm household or farmer will not necessary be in the
same location or adjacent. Such a segment is called a open segment.
Let the population consist of N clusters of M elements each. Using simple random sampling
without replacement n clusters are selected from the N clusters. We use the following notations :
Yij denotes the value of the characteristic under study for the jth element of the ith cluster;
j=1,2,….M; i=1,2,…..N.
�
�� = ∑� th
�� , denote the mean per element of i cluster
�
�
�� = ∑� �
�� , the mean of cluster means
�
�
�� = ∑� �
�� ∑�� , the population mean.
��
�
Then an unbiased estimator of the population mean is given by �� = ∑�� , which is actually
�
mean of cluster means based on the sample observations from the selected n clusters.
�
The mean square between elements in the ith cluster is �� = ∑� � �
��(�� − �� ) . ��
�
The mean square between cluster means is given as �� = ∑� � � �
��(�� − � ) .
��
� �
The variance of the estimator �� is V(��)=� − � �� .
� �
� �
An unbiased estimator of V(��) is given by �� (��) = � − � �� where is the sample mean square
� �
between the cluster means.For example, in order to estimate the fish production from aqua
farms of a particular district, clusters of aquafarms can be formed and a sample of few clusters
selected and completely enumerated.
Systematic Sampling
A method of sampling in which only the first unit is selected at random and the rest being
selected automatically according to a pre-determined pattern is called systematic
sampling.Examples where this kind of sampling is often employed is forest survey. To estimate
the number of trees or timber in a forest where the units are innumerable systematic sampling is
used. Another example is application in mangrove forestation where the parameter of interest to
find out the density.
Assume that the population consists of N units serially numbered from 1,2,…N. Assume further
that N is expressible as a product of two integers k and n, so that N=kn. Draw a random number
less than or equal to k, say i, and select the unit with the corresponding serial number and every
k-th unit in the population thereafter.The sample will contains the units with serial numbers, i,
i+k, i+2k,….i+(n-1)k.
Selection of every kth time interval to observe fishing crafts for estimation of fish production is
an example where systematic sampling can be used. The advantages of systematic sampling is it
involves low cost and is simple to follow.
Systematic sampling resembles stratified sample in the sense that one unit is selected from each
stratum containing k consecutive units. However this resemblance is only casual. In stratified
sampling the unit to be drawn from each stratum is randomly selected and in systematic
sampling the position of the unit is predetermined relative to the first units selected.Unless the
units in each stratum are arranged at random, systematic sampling can never be equivalent to
stratified random sampling.Systematic sampling strictly resembles cluster sampling. A systematic
sample is equivalent to one cluster of elements selected from k clusters of n units each, . Since
the first number less than or equal to k is chosen at random, each one of the k clusters get an
equal chance of getting drawn as a sample.
Let Yij denote the value of the characteristic under study for the jth unit of the ith cluster bearing
the serial number i+(j-1)k, i=1,2…,k, j=1,2,….,n. Further let
� � � � �
�� = ∑�� , �� = ∑�� , �� = ∑�� ∑�� = ∑�� = ∑��
� � � � �
�
The sample mean �� = �� = ∑�� is an unbiased estimator of �� with variance given by
�
�
V(�� ) = ∑�� )�
�
Sub-sampling or Two-stage Sampling
In the cluster sampling, all the units of the selected clusters are measured completely. If the
units within the same cluster give more or less the same value, then it is less costlier to observe
a sample of units from it. A common practice is to select first the clusters which are called the
first stage or primary units. Units which are chosen from the cluster are called second stage
units. This is known as two-stage sampling or sub-sampling. An application of two-stage
sampling in fisheries is for estimation of marine fish landings from the country. Here selected
landing centres are the first stage units and the second stage units are the selected boats
landing at these centres for recording the data on fish catch. When the number of stages is
more than two from which a sample is selected, then it is called multi-stage sampling.
Consider two-stage sampling when the first-stage units are of equal size and simple random
sampling without replacement is employed at each stage. Let the population consist of N first
�
stage units with M second stage units in each of the first stage unit. Let ��. = ∑�
�� be the �
mean of observations in the ith first stage unit.
�
The population mean is given by �� = ��.. = ∑� �
�� ∑�� , and the estimate of the population
��
�
mean is given by �� = ∑�� where �� is the mean of the ‘m’ secondary units selected from the
�
ith first stage unit.
The estimate of the variance of the sample mean �� is given by

� � � � � ∑� � � �� )
��
Var(�� ) = � − � . �� + � − � �̅�
�
, where �� = �
, �̅� = ∑�� , where
� � � � � ��
∑�
�� − �
�� )
�� =
�−�
Sukhatme et. al. (1997) gives the estimation procedure for estimating population mean when the
first stage units are unequal.
Estimation of Marine Fish Landings
India has a coastline of about 8129 km and there are about 3000 marine fishing villages and
about 1400 landing centres along the coastline. Fishing boats arrive at numerous locations all
along the coastline during day and at times during night also for landing the fish catch. Central
Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin has standardized the methodology for estimation
fish landings from marine sources for the entire nation.The sampling design adopted by CMFRI
to estimate resource-wise/region-wise landings is based on stratified multi-stage random
sampling technique and the details are given in chapter 9.
Estimation of inland fish production in India and practical issues
Inland fisheries enjoys prime of place in Indian economy. It provides employment and livelihood
for fishers who solely depend on it. In inland fishery sector, the data collection on various
important parameters such as the catch, size of fleet, level of employment, per capita yield etc. is
an enormous task owing to the sporadic spatial and temporal distribution of the resources.
Attempts are being made by Central Inland Fisheries Research Institute to collect data using
communication devices like mobile from the fishermen operating in remote centres. Unlike
marine sector, inland fisheries cannot claim a satisfactory status with regard to data collection.
India has vast potential inland resource scattered through out the country. However, their
concepts and definitions vary from one region to another region. So the data collected from
these resources are sometimes neither comparable nor compliable at central Level. There is a
strong need for uniform concepts, definition, collection and compilation of methodology for this
sector.
The Central Inland Fisheries Research Institute, Barrackpore, made an attempt to estimate the
area and catch from ponds in the district of Hoogly, West Bengal during 1962-63 but it did not
lead to accomplishment of the task at hand. In 1973-75, the NSSO conducted a survey covering
three districts, one each in West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradeshwith the aim of
obtaining estimate of catch both from impounded water and riverine resources by enquiry. The
estimates worked out were not satisfactory, particularly from riverine resources.
In another pilot survey conducted by IASRI, New Delhi and CIFRI, Barrackpore in one district of
West Bengal during 1978-81, the data were collected both by enquiry and by physical
observation. The main objectives of the survey were (1) to evolve suitable sampling
methodology for estimation of (a) inland water resources, (b) total catch for inland fisheries and
(2) to study the prevailing practices of pisciculture. The study covered only ponds in the district
of 24-Parganas in West Bengal. The catch estimate of other important resources like estuaries,
rivers, brackish water impoundments, beels could not be attempted due to limited manpower. In
spite of all these attempts, there is no scientifically designed and accepted method for collection
and estimation of all types of inland fishery resources.
However, the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of
India, Plan, entrusted the development of uniform concepts, definitions and terminologies for
various inland fishery resources and a suitable and standardized methodology for collection and
estimation of inland fishery resources and catch to Central Inland Fisheries Research Institute,
Barrackpore in collaboration with the states. The methodologies have been developed and
tested in various states during 8th and 9th Plans. The states have been provided training and
guidance for estimation of catch from various inland resources during 10th Plan and since then
the estimation of inland fish catch is continuing.
Sampling and Non-sampling Errors
The errors involved in the collection, processing and analysis of data can be broadly classified as
Sampling and Non-sampling errors.
(i) Sampling errors : Sampling errors have their origin in sampling and arise due to the fact
that only a part of the population (i.e. sample) has been used to estimate the population
parameters and draw inferences about the population, As such the sampling errors are
absent in a complete enumeration survey. The reasons of such errors may be due to faulty
selection of sample, substitution of observation for the sampling unit which could not be
covered during the survey, faulty demarcation of the sampling unit and constant error due
to improper choice of the statistics for estimating the population parameters.
(ii) Non-sampling errors: These errors mainly arise at the stages of observation, ascertainment
and processing of the data and are thus present in both complete enumeration survey and
the sample survey. Thus the data obtained from the complete census though free from the
sampling errors, would still be subject to non-sampling errors whereas data obtained in a
sample survey would be subject to both sampling and non-sampling errors. Non-sampling
errors may occur due to
o Faulty planning or definitions: After stating the objectives of the survey, definitions
about the characteristics for which data to be collected should be specified. Here the
non-sampling errors may occur due to data specification being inadequate and
inconsistent with the objectives of the survey. At times error may be due to the
location of the units and actual measurement of the characteristic, errors in recording
or may be due to a ill-designed questionnaire.
o Response error : When the respondent misunderstood a particular question and

furnish improper information. At times, the respondent deliberately gives wrong
information when the questions are sensitive. Questions based on ‘recall’ memory of
the respondent will sometimes lead to improper or incomplete information.
o Non-response bias:Non-response bias occurs when the full information is not got
from all the sampling units. In the event of respondent not at home or even after
repeated calls the respondent is not able to furnish the information fully such a bias
occurs.
o Errors in coverage:If the objectives of the survey is not precisely stated then some
units which are not to be covered will be enumerated under the survey and certain
units will be excluded from the survey which are relevant and are to be covered
under the survey.
o Compiling errors:Various operations such as data processing such as editing and
coding of the responses, tabulation and summarizing the orginal observations made
in the survey are a potential source of error. Compilation errors are subject to control
though verification, consistency check, etc.
o Publication errors: The errors committed during presentation and printing of

tabulated results are basically due to two sources. The first refers to the mechanics of
publication – the proofing error and the like. The other, which is of more serious
nature lies in the failure of the survey organization to point out the limitations of the
statistics.
Sampling methodology employed by CMFRI for estimation of marine fish landings in India
SAMPLING METHODOLOGY EMPLOYED BY CMFRI

FOR MONITORING THE FISHERY AND ESTIMATION
OF MARINE FISH LANDINGS IN INDIA
K. G. Mini
ICAR-Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute 9
Fisheries sector plays a key role in Indian economy. The sector supports livelihood, nutritional
security, and subsistence to large number of people as well as foreign exchange earnings.
India’s coast line stretches about 8129 km. There are 1355 landing centres scattered along
the coastline of the main land as per the records from National Marine Fisheries Data Centre
at Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI). Marine fish landings take place
almost all along the coast line throughout the day and sometimes during night. Under
these circumstances, collection of statistics by complete enumeration would involve a very
large number of enumerators and a huge amount of money apart from the time involved
in collection of data. Therefore, a possible solution for quantifying marine fish landings is
adoption of a suitable sampling technique. As, monitoring and assessment of the exploited
marine fishery resources of India is one of the important mandates of the CMFRI, institute
made attempts to evolve the scientific methods for collection of data on catch and effort,
since its inception in 1947. Pilot surveys were conducted along the coastline of India and
different sampling designs were tested.
CMFRI introduced collection of
marine fish statistics through a
stratified sampling design along
the west coast of India in the
year 1959 and extended to other
states over the years. Keeping in
pace with the changing marine
fisheries scenario, the sampling design has been modified over the periods. Presently, CMFRI
estimate marine fish landings based on a multi-stage stratified random sampling technique,
stratification is done over space and time. Each maritime state is divided into suitable,
non-overlapping zones on the basis of fishing intensity and geographical considerations
(Fig. 1). The number of landing centres varies from zone to zone.
Reprinted from the CMFRI, FRAD. 2014. Training Manual on Fish Stock Assessment and Management, p.150.
Over space, each zone is regarded as a stratum and over time, a calendar month is considered
as a stratum. Consequently, a zone and a calendar month constitute a space-time stratum.
Suppose, in a zone, if there are 5 landing centres and 30 fishing days in the month; then
5 x 30 = 150 landing centre days, combination of centre and day constitute the primary
stage units (PSU). The fishing craft that land on a landing centre day forms the second stage
units (SSU). Furthermore, the fish landings vary considerably among the landing centres in
a multi-centre zone, mainly in different seasons and hence a zone is further stratified into
substrata viz., major, minor and very minor. The centres in which either mechanised crafts
or 100 or more non-mechanised/motorised crafts are operating are considered as major
centres. Likewise, other strata are defined based on the number and type of fishing crafts
operating.
Further, a month is divided into three groups each with ten days. A day is selected at random
from the first five days of a month and 5 successive days are selected automatically. Three
clusters of two successive days are made from the above selected days. To illustrate the
selection of landing centres and days, let us consider a fishing zone in a month. Initially,
select a date at random from the first five days, let it be 3. Then from the first 10 day group,
three clusters of 2 days (3,4) (5,6) and (7,8) can be formed. From the second group of 10
days, the clusters are systematically selected with an interval of 10 days. The clusters of days
formed are (13,14) (15,16) and (17,18). Similar selection can be done for the next group
of ten days. Accordingly, 9 clusters of two days can be formed in a month. Afterwards, 9
centres are selected with replacement from the total number of landing centres in a zone and
allotted to the 9 cluster days as explained before. Thus, a combination of a landing centre
and a day (landing centre day) forms the Primary Stage Units. A landing centre day has been
divided into 3 periods as given in the infographic. That means a landing centre day is 24
hour duration which starts at noon of the first day and ends at noon of the following day.
The marine fish landings data collection is done by the technical staff of CMFRI. Usually,
one staff is identified to collect data from each zone. Data collection starts from period 1
on each selected landing centre day.
The staff will be present throughout
the periods 1 and 2 at the centres.
The data on landings during period
3 (night landings) is usually collected
from the landing centre by enquiry
on the following day morning.
The observations on the 3 periods
contribute the data for one landing centre day (24hrs). So, in a 10 day period, data from 3
centre-days are sampled and thus in a month 9 landing centre days are sampled.
After reaching the landing centre, if the landed number of crafts is large, it may not be
practical to record the catches of all crafts landed during an observation period. In that
situation, sampling of crafts become essential. When the total number of crafts landed
is 15 or less, the total landings from all the crafts are enumerated for catch composition
and other particulars. When the total number of crafts exceeds 15, the following procedure
is followed to sample the number of crafts.
The catches are normally removed in baskets of standard volume from the crafts. The weight
of fish contained in these baskets being known, the total weight of the fish in each
boat under observation has been obtained. The procedures of selection of the landing
centre days and the crafts landed on the selected day for single centre zones are the same
as in the case of a stratum in a multi-centre zone. From the landings of the observed fishing
units, the landings for all the units landed during the observation period are estimated.
By adding the quantities landed during the two 6- hour’s periods and during the night
(12-hours) the quantity landed for a day (24-hours) at a centre that is the landings for each
centre day included in the sample is estimated. From these, the monthly zonal landings
are obtained. From the zonal estimates, district-wise, state-wise and all India landings are
arrived. The corresponding sampling errors are also estimated. The estimation procedure
is detailed in Srinath et.al. (2005).
Administration of the Survey
The survey staff is given 10-12 weeks training course immediately after recruitment and
is posted to the survey centres. Each survey centre each centre is provided with literature
connected with the identification of fish, a reference collection of local fish species,
crustaceans and molluscs, field notebooks and registers. The programme of work for the
following month is carefully designed by the staff of Fishery Resources Assessment Division
at the CMFRI headquarters. Generally one field staff is allotted to each zone to collect the
fish landings data. At the end of every month, the survey staff receives the programme
of work for the next month by post, that includes the names of landing centres to be
observed and details such as dates and time for observations at each landing centre.
The field staff are instructed to send the data collected during every month to reach
the Institute’s headquarters at least by the end of first week of the subsequent month.
Surprise inspections are carried out by the supervisory staff of the Institute and the
enumerators are inspected while at work in the field and their field notebooks and diaries
are scrutinised. The estimated zonal landings are always compared with the previous year’s
survey figures, and if any variation which cannot be explained is observed, the technique
of interpenetrating sub-samples is adopted to detect observational errors. Zonal workshops
are held periodically to review the progress of work and update the sampling frame and to
impart refresher courses to the field staff. Non-response occurs when the regular field staff
is not available to observe the centre-day included in the sample. Usually, arrangements
are made at the Headquarters/Research/Regional Centre to minimise the non-response.
In the existing sampling methodology, the interest is to estimate gear-wise, species-wise
landings for the state in a month, fishing effort according to different types of fishing crafts
and also in terms of man hours. The analysis is carried out at CMFRI headquarters. Before the
data is processed for analysis it will be ensured that the data collection is made as per the
approved schedule, by checking the appropriate proforma. The responsibilities and functions
of staff at the headquarters are data coding, estimation and database management. The
data analysis is computerised and estimates are made using the software developed by
the Fishery Resources Assessment Division of the Institute. The processed data are again
counter- checked for errors. When discrepancies are detected, the estimation procedure is
scrutinised in detail.
Suggested Reading
M. Srinath, Somy Kuriakose and K.G. Mini, 2005. Methodology for the Estimation of Marine Fish Landings
in India, CMFRI Special Publication No. 86, p.57
*Present address: Consultant, World Bank Ocean Partnership Project, Bay of Bengal Programme – Intergovernmental
Organisation, Chennai 600 018
Concept and objectives of stock assessment
CONCEPT AND OBJECTIVES OF STOCK ASSESSMENT
10
E. Vivekanandan*
Former Principal Scientist
Introduction
Among all the exploited natural animal resources, fisheries resources are the largest. The
magnitude, dynamics and resilience of fish stock pose great challenge to their assessment as
well as management. The fishery resources are unique at least on three factors (Vivekanandan,
2005). (i) Many species have wide spatial distribution. (ii) Several species show wide temporal
variations in abundance. (iii) Since the resources cannot be seen visually, gaining an insight
into the structure and function of the resources is a challenge. It is reported that 667 marine
species are fished (Sathianandan et al., 2013) by 194,490 boats (DAHDF and CMFRI, 2012)
along the Indian coast, showing the dynamism of fisheries. To exploit these resources, to
manage and develop the fisheries, and to conserve the fish stocks, it is essential to have
accurate information on these stocks such as how much or how many are present in the
sea, what is their reproductive capacity, their growth potential, etc.
The success of fisheries depends critically on the state of the fish stocks. The fish stocks
are controlled by several natural factors such as weather, physical, chemical and biological
oceanographic conditions and predator-prey relationships. They are also affected by man’s
activities, and primarily, to an increasing extent, by fishing. The assessment of a fish stock must
consider all the relevant factors, especially the direct impact of a fishery on a single species.
Those concerned with making policy decisions about fisheries must take into account, the
state of fish stocks and the effect of the proposed decisions on these stocks. The science of
stock assessment provides scope for extending advice on these aspects.
Stock assessment is the process of collecting, analyzing and reporting fish population
information to determine changes in the abundance of fishery stocks in response to
fishing and, to the extent possible, predict future trends of stock abundance (Sparre and
Venema, 1992). For instance, if the stock assessment studies indicate decline in fish stocks,
fishing regulatory measures such as closed fishing seasons, no fishing zones, restrictions
on the expansion of fishing fleet or total amount of catch that could be taken, may be
contemplated. The stock assessment work would also calculate the amount of increase in
the catch, the time required to increase the catch, and the possibility of sustaining the catch
if any of the measures mentioned above is implemented. Likewise, if the stock suffers from
growth overfishing (exploitation of large quantities of juveniles), mesh size regulation can
be suggested. The study can determine that if the juveniles are not caught (by increasing
the mesh size), and allowed to grow in the sea, the juveniles would grow to a better size,
which may result in, say, 20% increase in total catch.
Objectives of Stock Assessment
Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) and Maximum Economic Yield (MEY)
Fisheries resources, although renewable, are exhaustible. The objective of fish stock
assessment is to predict changes
in the size of stock and the size of
yields as functions of both fishery
dependant (fishing effort etc) as well
as fishery independent factors, so
that optimum levels of effort and
yield could be determined. Figure 1
illustrates the increase in yield with
increase in fishing effort up to a
certain level, after which, the renewal
of stock (reproduction + growth) does
not compensate the loss of biomass
due to fishing, and hence, further increase in fishing effort leads to decline in yield.
Stock assessment pursues short-term as well as long-term objectives. Assessments for
the short-term objectives depend to a large extent on the current state of the stock and
suggest what is likely to happen to it in the near future, say, next year or the year after.
Those pursuing long–term objectives (such as estimating the Maximum Sustainable Yield,
the MSY), on the other hand, depend little on the present state of the stock, but much on
recruitment and growth. While long-term objectives seek to formulate strategies for long-
term management of fisheries, the short–term objectives relate to the tactics required for
the implementation of the strategies of which they are concerned, for example, with the
effort required in the immediate future.
The MSY is a useful tool for describing the fish stocks in relation to exploitation. It explains
the fact that more fishing does not necessarily mean more fish and that fishing beyond a
certain point, overfishing can mean less fish. The fishing effort, which in the long term gives
the highest yield, is indicated as FMSY.
The MSY is defined as the largest average catch, which can continuously be taken from a stock.
The MSY estimate has the important objectives of (i) maximizing the catch, (ii) ensuring that
the maximized catch can be sustained, and (iii) interpreting the catch as an approximate
measure of the well being of a fishery. The role of MSY for advocating management
measures is as follows: In simple cases, if the abundance of a stock is above the MSY, the
stock is considered as underexploited and fishing can be increased; if below, the stock is
overexploited and fishing should be restricted; and if the stock abundance is equal to the
MSY, the fishing is considered as well maintained.
One criticism of the MSY concept is that the actual yield in a particular year can be subject
to considerable variations due to non-fishery causes such as environmental factors. It is
often felt that in the complex
modern fisheries situation, MSY
is not an adequate tool either
to understand the resource or
as an index of management
success. In recent years, economic
and social considerations are
receiving increasing attention. The
economic considerations can be
seen by converting the curve of
Fig. 1 in to relationship between
the cost of fishing and the value
of the catch (Fig. 2). If economic return is considered as the measure of success, fishing at
the point of Maximum Economic Yield (MEY) would be the appropriate objective. However,
the MEY also ignores several factors such as the environmental parameters, fishermen
empowerment etc. A consensus is now emerging that a single objective of management
(MSY or MEY) should not be applied in all situations regardless of changes in the status of
the natural resources and in the society’s needs.
The Unit Stock
For gaining proper understanding of the dynamics of the exploited fisheries resources,
information on the fundamental units of such resources, called the unit stocks, is essential.
The stock is a term applied in a special way in fisheries management. It is a subset of a species
characterized by the same growth and mortality parameters, and inhabiting a particular
geographical area. The members of a stock share a common gene pool, and hence, belong
to a particular race within a species. A biological fish stock is a group of fish of the same
species that live in the same geographic area and mix enough to breed with each other when
mature. A management stock may refer to a biological stock, or a multispecies complex
that is managed as a single unit.
There are distinctions between the fisheries concept of a stock and the biological concepts
of a population (Table 1). Capture fisheries research is usually concerned with the stock of
fish exploited by a particular fishery, rather than with an individual fish or with the total
population of a species. For instance, the Indian mackerel, Rastrelliger kanagurta is exploited
along the east and west coasts of India; but the biological characteristics like growth,
reproduction, mortalities etc of the different stocks of these species differ greatly from one
area to another. The stocks, therefore, should be treated and investigated separately for
fisheries management purposes.
Table 1. Differences in the concept between a population and a stock (FAO, 1978)
Population Stock
i. Basically a biological concept i. Basically a fisheries concept for

management purpose
ii. Breeding unit of a species ii. Basic fish sampling unit
iii. Each member shares a common iii. Basic fish sampling unit (stock) has
spawning ground production characteristics
(like K,Z,F,M etc) as any
other individual of the stock
iv. In a species’ geographic range, iv. If geographic clusters of a species

these individuals have rapid gene differ in the above characteristics,
flow among all members of the group more than one stock is set up for
management purpose
v. Larvae develop in the same v. Stock may be a portion of a population

geographic area or include more than one population
vi. Mixing between populations very rare
Ideally, a unit stock is a self-contained and self-perpetuating group, with no mixing from
outside. There are well-defined geographical limits of spawning and gene exchange within
stocks of the non-migratory or short distance migratory species unlike the highly migratory
species. Therefore, it is much easier to identify the stocks of such non-migratory species
than those of the species undertaking long distance feeding and spawning migrations like
the tunas.
Russell was one of the first to express the factors in the year 1931, which affect the size of
a fish stock by the following formula:
S2 = S1 + (R + G) – (C + M)
where S1 = size of the stock at the beginning of the year; S2 = size of the stock at the end
of the year; R = recruitment; G = growth; C = catch; and M = death due to natural causes.
If the stock is to be in equilibrium (S2 = S1), then R + G = C + M or C = R + G – M. This is a
very simple way of considering the factors that govern stock size. During the last 70 years,
fishery biologists have devised methods to estimate the parameters in the equation.
Data Requirements for Stock Assessment
Stock assessments require three primary categories of information: catch, abundance, and
biology. To ensure the highest quality stock assessments, the data used must be accurate
and timely.
(i) Catch Data (The amount of fish removed from a stock by fishing):
A national network of fishery monitoring programs should continuously collect catch data
for stock assessment. Sources of catch data include:
 Commercial catch monitoring: Often conducted in partnership with state agencies and
research institutions, monitoring catch gives an accurate measure of commercial landings
and provides biological samples for determining length, sex, maturity and age of fish.
 Logbooks: Records from commercial fishermen of their location, gear, and catch.
 Observers: Biologists observe fishing operations on a certain proportion of fishing
vessels and collect data on the amount of catch and discards
(ii) Abundance Data (A measure, or relative index of the number or weight of fish in the
stock):
Data ideally come from a statistically-designed, fishery-independent survey (systematic
sampling carried out by research or contracted commercial fishing vessels separately from
commercial fishing operations) that samples fish at hundreds of locations throughout
the stock’s range. Most surveys are conducted annually and collect data on all ecosystem
components.
(iii) Biology Data (Provides information on fish growth rates and natural mortality):
Biological data includes information on fish size, age, reproductive rates, and movement.
Annual growth rings in fish ear bones (otoliths) are read by biologists in laboratories. The
samples may be collected during fishery-independent surveys or be obtained from observers
and other fishery sampling programs. Academic programs and cooperative research with
the fishing industry are other important sources of biological data.
Complexities in Stock Assessment of Tropical Fishes

The dynamics of the tropical fish stocks are more complex than those of the temperate
stocks (Pauly, 1983). Nevertheless, the methods of fish stock assessment available today
are basically those designed for the temperate stocks. Perhaps the most conspicuous
difference in stock assessment between the tropical and temperate fishes is in the nature of
the basic input data, rather than in the models, as explained here: (i) As age determination
is difficult in tropical fishes, length frequencies have to be converted into age frequencies.
There are several techniques now available for the conversion of length groups into age
groups. (ii) Unlike in the temperate fishes, prolonged spawning makes it extremely difficult
to assign seasonality to spawning patterns in tropical fishes. Hence, identification of different
cohorts and tracing the length frequency progression of each cohort of tropical fishes has
to be carried out under conditions of high subjectivity. The recruitment patterns are also
not properly understood at present. (iii) Tropical fishes are characterized by faster growth
and shorter life span unlike the temperate fishes. It is more realistic and appropriate to
estimate the population parameters of tropical fishes for shorter time units of age, say, one
month, and then raise the values to annual basis. (iv) Another complexity of the tropics is
that they support multispecies fisheries where a large number of species are caught in the
same ground in some important gears like the bottom trawl in almost every haul. Hence,
the interspecies relationship and natural mortality under tropical conditions must be very
different from those under temperate conditions. As the stock assessment models are
tailored to suit the biological characteristics of temperate fisheries, it becomes very difficult
to apply them to tropical fisheries. These models are very sensitive to seasonal patterns of
recruitment, catchability and mortality. Therefore, appropriate adjustments or modifications
in the existing models to suit tropical fisheries are necessary.
Limitations
All the stock assessment and prediction models contain uncertainties in the estimates of
specific parameters. This is particularly true for length-based assessment methods, which
are mostly applied on tropical species. The length-based assessments depend critically on
the estimation of the highly sensitive and variable growth parameters. In a length-based
VPA, overestimating the K will mean that the time required to grow through a length
interval will be underestimated. This implies that the fishing mortality for that interval will
be overestimated. In turn, the exploitation rate, which is an input for later analysis, will be
overestimated.
Most of the studies on stock assessment suffer from one or other deficiency relating to the
estimation of population parameters. A few typical cases are: (i) Estimation of growth and
mortality parameters based on samples of larger pelagics collected from selective gears like
the large mesh gillnets, which exploit mostly larger fishes. (ii) Growth and mortality estimates
of shoaling smaller pelagic such as the oil sardine and the Indian mackerel sampled from the
purseseines. The smaller pelagics tend to form schools of fish of same size. (iii) Estimating the
stocks of migratory fishes like the tunas without considering the characteristics of the cohorts
and the stocks in the fishing areas from where the samples were collected. It is possible that
the samples represented different cohorts and also different stocks. Systematic aerial surveys
are conducted regularly in some countries for assessing the stocks of migratory pelagic fishes.
(iv) Often, there is bias in the selection of the length frequency modes. (v) Collection of data
from an array of gears without properly standardizing the effort. (vi) Selecting inappropriate
methods especially for the estimation of the total mortality coefficient. Results obtained
from discrepant analyses would lead to distorted conclusions on the status of the stocks.
When working with mathematical models, it is essential that the fisheries scientists check
whether the basic assumptions of the models are fulfilled.
Fisheries assessments are highly sophisticated scientific exercises calling for a variety of skills,
a sound knowledge on the biology of the system and a good understanding of the fishing
operations and the industry. Fisheries scientists often face the problem of lack of information,
or even if information is available, it is either inadequate or could not be processed in time.
This is because the stock assessment studies have to rely on the quantity and quality of the
data and knowledge, which depend to a large extent on the cooperation provided by the
fishing industry. In India, the cooperation from the fishing industry in providing the basic
data on catch and effort is zero or minimum.
Further, the resource system itself varies with time in such a way that the basic scientific
conclusions of today may have to be modified, often radically, within a short time in the
future. For data analysis one has to wait. By the time the catch and biological data become
available and put to analysis, the assessments get outdated by several years. The importance
of such delays cannot be underestimated, considering the need for timely assessments to
understand the status and resilience of the tropical multispecies fish stocks in withstanding
overfishing over a good deal of time because of their characteristic multiple spawning
frequency and fast growth. Most of the fast growing and short lived tropical fishes, penaeid
prawns and cephalopods have high potential increase rates, vis-a-vis rapid decline rates
within a short duration. Furthermore, the interactions between the trophic levels are too
great that one could not expect consistence in the stocks and in the stock estimates over the
time-scale. The existing single species stock assessment models are often found inadequate
to accommodate the resilience of tropical stocks.
Moreover, any change in the exploitation pattern of commercial fisheries like the introduction
of a new gear or a change in the mesh size may considerably alter the assessment
estimates. Change of fishing areas from time to time is another major causative factor for
the tentativeness and inaccuracy of the estimates. With the induction of more large vessels
and the consequent extension of fishing to deeper grounds all over the coastline, this factor
has assumed greater importance in stock assessment.
Stock assessment models provide estimates of the optimum yield, usually taking into
consideration only the biological factors. These models consider that the environment is
invariable, which is not true. In addition to the environmental factors, the economic factors,
such as the escalation of operational cost and fluctuations in the value of the catch, also play
an important role in arriving at appropriate management decisions. It is necessary that each
of these considerations and their alternatives are investigated and addressed thoroughly.
Discards and Their Effects on Stock Assessment
An important factor that could not be ignored in stock estimates based on fish landings is
the discard. Discards are fish thrown back into the sea because they are too small, of little
market value or unmarketable. The problem of discards arises mainly because of mobile
gears like the trawl, which catch everything accessible to it on the bottom in front of its
sweep, and there is no space in the fish hold of the vessel to accommodate the entire catch.
In general, discards are not recorded. The discard factor has assumed alarming proportions
in recent years with every fishing cruise lasting for 7 days and more. These trawlers discard
almost the entire tiny fishes caught, especially during the early part of the cruise. Ignoring
the discard leads to the underestimation of the catch as well as the number recruited to the
fishery. The exact quantity and nature of discards could be observed only onboard the fishing
vessels. The discards comprise of large number of species, ranging from the gastropods
and the echinoderms to the juveniles of economically important fishes, the crustaceans
and cephalopods. Considerable effort has been made in many countries to account for the
effects of discards on stock assessment by adjusting the data on the reported landings and
their age composition. It is apprehended that the exploitation of small fishes may affect the
food balance in the ecosystem.
Other Indicators of Stock Status
If fish stock assessments and predictions fail, the ways by which the stocks respond to
exploitation provide an opportunity to gain an understanding of the status of the fishery.
Changes in catch per unit effort, mean length in the catch, length at first maturity and other
biological characteristics are the responses of fish stocks to exploitation. For instance, as the
intensity of fishing increases, there is a progressive decrease in the abundance of the stock,
the mean length of the fish in the catch and the length at first maturity. By continuously
monitoring these changes, a clue, though of limited value, could be gained on the effects of
fishing pressure on the stock. There are many responses, such as drastic fluctuations in the
catch, which do not provide specific answers. The factors mentioned in Table 2, though not
exhaustive, reflect the response of stocks to fishing pressure or to environmental changes.

Reasons for responses for drastic fluctuations in catches, for example, do not provide specific
answers.
Table 2. Indicators of decline in fishery resources and the causes
Nature of decline Indicators Causes
Decrease in catch Decrease in catch rate Environment, fishing competition

Change in species composition Environment, changes in gear &
area of fishing,market preference etc.
Decrease in recruitment Sudden increase in mean age/length High vulnerability to fishing

Spawners exploitation Target fishing
F = M or F>M Reduction in mean age/length Environment, fishing pressure

exploitation of juveniles
Deviations from normal Changes in spawning pattern Environment, biological

pattern Changes in length at first maturity Environment, biological
Changes in fecundity Environment, biological
Changes in size composition Fishing, market preference
Summary
 Due to their incredible collective abundance in the ocean, fishes are typically managed
by species; species are further divided into stocks and populations.
 A fish species is divided into stocks for management purposes.
 A fish species is divided into populations to reflect actual differences in geographic
range or biological characteristics.
 An evaluation of the stock-recruitment relationship (the relationship between the number
of adult fish in a stock and the number of new fish entering the stock) allows scientists to
estimate the carrying capacity and surplus production of a stock. This information forms
the basis of management decisions designed to maximize the output and sustainability
of a fishery.
The most common use of the results of stock assessment is to provide advice to the fisheries
administrators about the development and management of the fisheries. In spite of the
limitations and uncertainties in stock estimates, it is highly desirable that advice is suggested
on the basis of stock estimates, even if the advice tends to be approximate. This would in
no way diminish the value of the advice. A reasonable professional estimate of future trends
appears acceptable than lack of any information.
Suggested Reading
DAHDF and CMFRI. 2012. Marine Fisheries Census 2010. India – Part 1. Department of Animal Husbandry,
Dairying & Fisheries and Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, 98 pp.
FAO. 1978. Some scientific problems of multispecies fisheries. FAO Fish. Tech. Paper, 181: 42 pp.
Pauly, D. 1983. Some simple methods for the assessment of tropical fish stocks. FAO Fish. Tech. Paper, 234:
52 pp.
Sathianandan, T. V., Mohamed, K. S., Somy Kuriakose, Mini, K. G., George, G. and Augustine, S. K. 2013.
Diversity in fished taxa along the Indian coast during 2012. Marine Fisheries Information Service T&E
Ser., 216: 3-4.
Sparre, P. and S. C. Venema. 1992. Introduction to tropical fish stock assessment. FAO Fish. Tech. Paper,
306/1: 376 pp.
Vivekanandan, E. 2005. Stock assessment of tropical marine fishes. Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
New Delhi, 115 p.
Importance of fish stock assessment to fisheries management
IMPORTANCE OF FISH STOCK ASSESSMENT TO

FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
E. Vivekanandan*
ICAR-Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute 11
Introduction
Fisheries tend to collapse because of fleet over-capacity, leading to harvesting the stocks
of fish beyond their ability to recover. Fishery collapses have been very common, creating
economic, social and ecological problems of great complexity. One of the major aims of
fisheries management is to avoid fleet overcapacity by directly controlling the fishing effort
(input control) or by setting limits to the total catch per season/year and its biological
characteristics (output control).
On the other hand, fish stocks may also be under-utilized because of fleet under-capacity.
This is particularly the case when fleets are artisanal, in initial stages of development, or with
poor infrastructure facilities. When fish stocks are under-utilized because of fleet under-
capacity there is loss of economic diversification, revenue, employment and food security.
In this situation, the prices of sea food are usually higher because domestic supply may
not meet the demand.
Due to the reasons mentioned above, fisheries management must strike a balance between
over-exploitation and under-exploitation (Restrepo et al., 1992). The risk of over-exploitation
is the risk of management inaction, letting fishermen take too many fish from the sea
thereby negatively impacting the sustainability of the stock and the fishing industry. The
risk of under-exploitation is the risk of excessive management interference, setting too
many obstacles to the fishermen to take fish. The fishery manager has to strike a balance
by directly controlling the fishing capacity (input control) and/or by setting restrictions on
the catch (output control).
From the point of view of managers, fisheries are successful if they provide the maximum
quantities of sea food in an ecologically and economically sustainable manner for indefinite
periods of time. This definition of fisheries management success embodies the notion that it
is necessary to avoid both kinds of risks, the risks of over- and under-utilization of fish stocks.
The key factor in the success of striking this balance is the application of fisheries management
based on scientific advice coming from results of stock assessment models (Hilborn and
Ovando, 2014; Melnychuk et al., 2017). This insight is widely acknowledged around the world
and has crystallized as legislation in fisheries. All these legislations explicitly state that fisheries
management must be based on science. The Magnusson-Stevens Act of the United States
of America is even more definite, stating that all stocks exploited by commercial fisheries
must be subject to stock assessment.
In the words of Gulland (1983), one of the most experienced stock assessment in the world,
“All those concerned with making policy decisions about fisheries must take into account, to
a greater or lesser extent, the condition of fish stocks and the effect on these stocks of the
actions being contemplated”.
Definition of Fisheries Management
Fisheries management has been defined as “The integrated process of information gathering,
analysis, planning, consultation, decision-making, allocation of resources and formulation
and implementation, with enforcement as necessary, of regulations or rules which govern
fisheries activities in order to ensure the continued productivity of the resources and the
accomplishment of other fisheries objectives” (Cochrane, 2002).
The Technical Guidelines on Fisheries Management (FAO, 1997) describe a management
plan as “a formal or informal arrangement between a fisheries management authority and
interested parties which identifies the partners in the fishery and their respective roles, details
the agreed objectives for the fishery and specifies the management rules and regulations
which apply to it and provides other details about the fishery which are relevant to the task
of the management authority.” It is a process of considering the following components to
make decisions and implement actions to achieve goals:
 Biological considerations
 Ecological and Environmental considerations
 Technological considerations
 Social and Cultural considerations
 Economic considerations
 Considerations imposed by other parties.
Other parties would include, for example, tourism, conservation, oil and gas exploration
and exploitation, offshore mining and shipping, aquaculture and mariculture, and coastal
zone development for business or industry. All these can impose significant constraints on
fishing activities and may be impacted by fishing activities. The fisheries manager therefore
needs to be aware of such activities and of real or potential impacts in both directions.
A modern fisheries manager is required to be familiar not only with the national legislation
governing fisheries, but also with international legislations and voluntary instruments dealing
directly with or impinging on fisheries. There has been a proliferation of such instruments
in recent decades. This process shows the highly complex nature of management, and the
need for considering the above-mentioned six different but interconnected and perhaps
equally important elements for developing a management framework.
Principles of Fisheries Management
Arising from the considerations discussed above, a number of key principles can be identified
which may serve to focus attention on effective fisheries management:
1. Fish resources are a common property resource
2. Sustainability is paramount and ecological impacts must be considered
3. Decisions must be made on best available information but absence of, or any uncertainty
in, information should not be used as a reason for delaying or failing to make a decision.
4. A harvest level for each fishery should be determined.
6. The total harvest across all sectors should not exceed the allowable harvest level.
7. If this occurs, steps consistent with the impacts of each sector should be taken to reduce
the removal.
8. Management decisions should aim to achieve the optimal benefit to the community
and take account of economic, social, cultural and environmental factors.
In keeping with the integrated nature of fisheries ecosystems, these principles cannot be
considered in isolation in considering how best to manage fisheries: their implications and
consequences overlap, complement and confound each other which is what makes fisheries
management so demanding and challenging.
Different Types of Management
Wider examination of fisheries management framework currently existing in different
countries shows that the following three approaches are being adopted:
(i) Rights-based approach
(ii) Ecosystem approach
(iii) Precautionary approach
(i) Rights-based approach

In well managed fisheries, Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) or Maximum Economic
Yield (MEY) or yield-per Recruit (Y/R) is used as biological reference points (BRPs) to
derive thresholds and targets to arrive at sound fisheries management decisions (FAO,
2006). Spawning-recruitment relationship (S-R) is used as a key element for formulating
fisheries management advice. A few other empirical reference points such as long-term
mean size at capture also can be used as BRPs. By using the MSY approach and BRPs,
countries like the USA, Canada, New Zealand, and a few countries in the Europe are
following advanced rights-based management approach to limit the catch equal to
or within the total allowable catch by following catch quotas. In these countries, Total
Allowable Catch (TAC) is set with reference to maintaining the biomass at or above a
level that can produce maximum sustainable yield (MSY).
(ii) Ecosystem approach
In the last ten years, it has been recognized that effective fisheries management could
be achieved by following ecosystem approach, in which multiple regulatory measures
and management actions could be applied in full consideration of aquatic species,
the ecosystems in which they live and the developmental systems that degrade the
ecosystems.
Applying an ecosystem approach to fisheries management (EAFM) is considered the
preferred option and the best practice for long-term sustainability of fisheries and the
services that fisheries ecosystems provide to the society.
(iii) Precautionary approach
Although MSY is an appropriate basis for reference points, there are limitations of
applying MSY approach in fisheries management in the absence of key BRPs like the
S-R. However, non-availability of a whole range of scientific information should not deter
taking management decisions. In this situation, precautionary approach should be the
backbone of fisheries management. The UN Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and
Highly Migratory Stocks (UN 1995) first articulated the principle for fisheries under the
following definition:
“The absence of scientific data shall not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take
conservation and management measures”.
The precautionary approach requires, inter alia, maintenance of a flexible, resilient fishery
system including the fish stock, the associated species, the fleet and the management
agency regulating it. The precautionary approach emphasizes that, greater the information
gaps and the amount of uncertainty, the management measures should be more cautious
to avoid risks.
Whatever is the approach, stakeholder engagement in various levels of fisheries management

and co-management systems are becoming popular in many parts of the world and
demonstrating considerable levels of success. In its simplest form, co-management can be
described as fisheries management where roles and responsibilities are shared between the
government and resource users (Pomeroy, 1994).
Breadth of Stock Assessment
Stock assessment is sometimes viewed as a rather narrow biological discipline that might
be summarized as “the interpretation of commercial catch to estimate potential yields”.
However, stock assessment is much more than this. First and foremost, stock assessment
involves understanding the dynamics of fisheries. This recognizes that fisheries are dynamic
entities that will respond over time to management regulations, and to extrinsic factors.
Modern stock assessment is not just the task of making static predictions about sustainable
yields. It should also involve making predictions about how policies should be structured in
order to deal with the unpredictable changes that will inevitably occur.
Fisheries are also much more than fish catch. Fishermen are an important component of
fisheries, and stock assessment must take into account how fishermen will respond, and
also make predictions about things important to fishermen such as catch per unit effort.
Processing and marketing are also very important components of the fishery system.
Importance of Stock Assessment to Fisheries Management

Scientists strive to increase the types and amounts of data collected from fisheries
and research projects in order to improve the accuracy of stock assessments. Fisheries
managers then consider results of the stock
assessment when taking management
action, which in turn may affect stock
abundance or productivity (Fig. 1). If a stock
is overfished, actions need to be taken to
reduce fishing pressure. This allows the
stock to rebuild to an acceptable level and
promotes a healthy fishery in the future.
On the other hand, if a stock is healthy,
managers take steps to ensure the stock is
harvested at a level allowing for long-term
sustainability. Because stock assessments
are directly linked to management actions,
it is important to understand appropriate
uses of data, different options for analyses, and how to apply assessment results.
The results of stock assessments serve as the basis for long-term and short-term fishery
management decisions. First, the assessment provides the basis for status determinations,
which entails the following:
(1) Determining whether underfishing or overfishing is occurring and determine the
level that would produce maximum sustainable yield; and
(2) Comparison of current reproductive potential (usually measured as spawning
biomass) to a limit level (usually set to approximately half the level that would
produce maximum sustainable yield) as a measure of stock depletion and a trigger
for development of a rebuilding plan.
Second, assessments provide forecasts of the expected future catch and stock abundance
associated with proposed harvest policies. Thus they provide scientific information for
implementation of the harvest policy that will produce optimum yield from the fishery.
Finally, the time series of abundance, mortality, and productivity produced by single-species
stock assessments provide input to ecosystem food web models.
Changing Role of Assessment in Fisheries Management
Commercial fisheries usually develop initially through a dynamic process that involves several
distinct stages. A generalized diagram of these stages is shown in Figure 2.
(i) First, there is discovery of a valuable stock. This is the predevelopment of the fishery.
(ii) Second, there is a period of rapid growth of fishing effort.
(iii) Next, the fishery reaches full development, where yields are near or perhaps a little
above a long-term sustainable level.
(iv) The rapid development results in fish stock reduction and more fishermen compete
for the remaining fish.
(v) The fishery often then enters an overexploitation stage, which is followed by a
collapse. The stock may or may not recover on its own during this period.
On a longer time scale, technological innovations may result in increased fishing success
and attraction of more fishing pressure and hence a repetition of stages four and five of
development, unless fishing effort is carefully managed through each technological transition.
The extent to which the collapse is severe, or the fishery does not collapse at all will depend
on the price of the fish product, the delays in investment, the extent to which fishing success
declines as abundance declines, and whether regulatory agencies act to reduce effort or
catch before a collapse occurs.
Fisheries management should consider quantification of these different phases of fisheries
for taking decisions. (i) The most important management as well as assessment question is,
what level of fishing pressure should be permitted at an initial stage of fisheries development.
On a sustainable basis, is the stock likely to support 10 boats or 100 or 1000? In the
early development phase, an order of
magnitude of assessment, even if it is a
rough estimate, will be of considerable
value. This will permit precise estimates
of assessment later in the development.
(ii) A key role of stock assessment during
fisheries development is to provide
regular updating and feedback of
population parameters and estimated
potential into the decision making
process. Systematic and regular
assessments will provide good early
warnings of overfishing and help avoid overcapitalisation. A simple method of assessment
as the fishery develops is to monitor the relationship between the fishing effort and catch
and plot a graph as shown in Figure 2. As the catch reaches the top of the curve and starts
to drop, it shows that the MSY has been reached and it is time to reduce the fishing effort.
(iii) When the fish stocks are overexploited, the key role of stock assessment is to quantify
the choices as precisely as possible. How to rebuild the stocks? Should it be through
reducing fishing effort, if so how much? How long it will take for the fisheries to rebuild?
In this situation, it is important to predict how the stocks will respond to new management
initiatives. A classic role of stock assessment would be to provide, based on available
information, reasonable prediction about such circumstances.
Uncertainty in Stock Estimates Affects Fisheries Management Decisions
Through stock assessments, scientists aim to determine parameters such as stock size and
fishing mortality rate. In reality, the estimates are not precise and they are the most “likely”
values. In fact, a wide range of values may exist. In order to make sense of the range of
possible values, assessment models produce an estimate of the uncertainty about these
values. Often, uncertainty is simply a range within which the true value may lie. That range
is called a confidence interval or confidence bound. The wider the confidence interval, the
more uncertainty exists about where the true value lies. For example, a stock assessment
might determine that the current year’s biomass equals 100,000 tonnes with a 95 percent
confidence interval of 80,000-120,000 metric tonnes.
Uncertainty often exists in the information being input into a stock assessment model. What
is the true natural mortality rate? Are catches fully accounted for or some might be missing?
Are there errors in the way a fish’s age or weight is estimated based on its length? Are fish
migrating into or out of the stock?
Other uncertainties arise from the choice of stock assessment model. No model can fit the
data perfectly because no model can possibly capture the true complexity of the system.
Is there a relationship between stock size and recruitment? Does a fish’s vulnerability to
the fishing gear change each year? Does natural mortality vary from year to year? The goal
is to capture the general trends as accurately as possible. Some statistical or estimation
uncertainty is inevitable.
Estimating uncertainty allows decision makers to know how accurate the point values may
be, and allows them to choose their actions appropriately. For stocks with greater uncertainty,
the true status of the stock will not be clear. A stock with greater uncertainty cannot be
managed like the one with lesser uncertainty. This is because it is more likely that the stock
with greater uncertainty is already close to or even below its biomass threshold. Formally
incorporating this uncertainty to predict the results of management actions is called risk
assessment.
As with stock assessments, the goal of risk assessment is not to provide a single solution to
stock management, but rather to provide decision makers with the information necessary
to effectively compare various choices. Such risk assessments are often included within a
stock assessment to predict a stock’s response to different levels of fishing pressure. While
a stock assessment cannot remove or incorporate all uncertainty, it should explain how
uncertainty is incorporated and why it may be ignored. It should also test the sensitivity of
the model to any assumptions that were made.
Stock assessments are merely tools. They cannot produce concrete decisions about how to
manage a stock. They cannot tell a decision maker which management options are right and
which are wrong. Rather, the stock assessment is designed to give managers and decision
makers information about the current status of a stock relative to its biological reference
points. It provides them with information about how the stock might respond to future
management actions. Choosing between management options is ultimately the role of the
manager. Ideally, a careful and complete stock assessment will provide the manager with
the necessary information to manage the stock successfully into the future.
Summary
The choice of fisheries management is not whether to do stock assessment, but how best to
do it. Stock assessment involves understanding and making predictions about the response
of fisheries systems to management actions. Stock assessment helps managers to make
choices in the dynamic fisheries systems in the fact of uncertainty (Hilborn and Walters, 1992).
The role of stock assessment is not to make the best guess on MSY, but rather help design a
fisheries management system to understand the dynamics and respond to the variabilities.
Suggested Reading
Cochrane, K. L. 2002. A fishery’s manager’s guidebook. Management measures and their application. FAO
Technical Paper 424, FAO, Rome.
FAO. 1997. Fisheries Management. Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, 4: 82 p.
FAO. 2006. Stock assessment for fishery management. FAO, Rome, 260 pp.
Hilborn, R. and Ovando, D. 2014. Reflections on the success of traditional fisheries management. ICES
Journal of Marine Science 71: 1040-1046.
Hilborn, R. and C. J. Walters. 1992. Quantitative fisheries stock assessment: Choice, Dynamics and Uncertainty.
Springer Science, 563 pp.
Melnychuk, M. C., Peterson, E., Elliot, M., Hilborn, R. 2017. Fisheries management impacts on target species
status. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114: 178-183.
Pomeroy, R. S. 1994. Community management and common property of coastal fisheries in Asia and the
Pacific: Concepts, methods and experiences. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 45, 189 pp.
Restrepo, V. R., Hoenig, J. M., Powers, J. E., Baird, J. W., Turner, S. C. 1992. A simple simulation approach to
risk and cost analysis, with applications to swordfish and cod fisheries. Fishery Bulletin 90: 736-748.
Stock assessment models and methods
STOCK ASSESSMENT MODELS AND METHODS
12
M. Srinath
Introduction
Fish stocks have an important role in providing cheap protein food, income and employment
to millions of people in the world. Judicious management and exploitation of the renewable
fish resources is important for sustained production over years. Over fishing leads to
disappearance of the renewable fish stocks. Assessment of fish stocks is the first step to
determine the level of exploitation necessary for arriving at maximum sustainable yields from
the fish resources. Assessment of stocks and study of impact of present level of exploitation
on exploited stocks are necessary for maintenance of stocks at maximum sustainable level.
Many mathematical and statistical models have been developed and used for fish stock
assessment studies. The unique features of fish stocks are, they do not come under visual
horizon for direct evaluation of stock sizes, their distribution over space, time and species
varies at higher dimension and fish stocks are affected by fishery dependent factors such as
effort exerted, size at first capture and fishery independent factors like salinity, temperature,
water current etc. The models to study fish stocks should consider the three aspects namely,
size of the stock, level of exploitation and effect of fishery independent factors. Multi species
and multi gear situation adds to the problem of assessing the fish stock. Stock assessment
models satisfying some of these requirements have been developed and successfully used
for management of the fishery.
The fish stock assessment models can be categorized as deterministic models and stochastic
models. Deterministic models form the major category which is further divided into two
class as Macro-analytical models and Micro-analytical models. Stochastic models incorporate
random elements into the stock assessment models and deterministic models do not
allow chance fluctuations in its construction. Macro-analytical models are used for rough
approximation of the existing status of the stocks and these models are simple, require only
catch and effort data for different years/time and analysis is straight forward.
Macro-analytical models
Other names for macro-analytical model are synthetic model and global models. Here the
overall net effect of all the factors that control the biomass is considered simultaneously.
In macro-analytical models the change in biomass is expressed as
B 1 – B0 = R + G – D
where B0 and B1 are the initial and final biomass in a year, R is the recruitment, G is the growth
and D is the mortality. The relationship of change in biomass (B1-B0) with the biomass B,
instantaneous rate of fishing mortality F and the yield Y are considered. Different models
under this category are
Swept Area Method: In this method the biomass is estimated based on the area swept
by experimental trawling and the total area inhibited by the stock taking into consideration
the quantity caught and the escapement factor.
Biomass Approach: In biomass approach the biomass and MSY are calculated using
instantaneous rate of fishing (F), natural mortality rate (M) and intrinsic rate of increase of
population (r).
Surplus Production Model: This is under the assumption that when a stock is exploited
the change in its biomass depends on its intrinsic rates of natural growth and the catch.
1. Schaefer model: When a stock is exploited its biomass decreases and Scheafer used a
linear representation for the relationship (biomass function) and obtained the famous
logistic growth curve. He thus obtained MSY and corresponding effort by equating the
derivative of the equation to zero.
2. Exponential model: Here the functional relationship is taken as non-linear (exponential)
relationship.
3. Pella and Tomlinson model: This is a generalization of the surplus production model by
proposing a general functional relationship for the biomass function.
Successive Removal Methods: These models are under the assumption that the change
in stocks is only due to catch removals and during fishing no other change takes place in
the stocks.
1. Leslie method: Assuming catch per unit of effort as an index of the stock abundance
he took catch per unit effort as proportional to the stock size.
2. De Lury method: This is a slight modification of Leslie method. By assuming that the
fraction of stock removed by a unit of effort is very small he obtained an approximation
for stock size.
3. Ricker method:
Capture-Recapture Methods: In capture-recapture methods the method of estimation

of stock is based on probability distribution of the situation especially the hypergeometric
probability distribution for single release of marked ones. Also, there are methods covering
multiple release and recapture for both closed and open sytems.
1. Hypergeometric model: This is based on the conditional probability distribution of
recovery of m2 marked ones in n2 number of fish caught with a total of n1 fish marked
and released.
2. Bailey-inverse sampling method: In this method the sampling of animals is continued
till a prefixed number of marked fish are recaptured. The probability distribution of the
particular situation is then used to estimate the stock size.
3. The generalized hypergeometric method: In this case the joint distribution of a set of
random variables are derived and based on the structure of the model the stock size is
estimated.
4. Inverse Schnabel census: This is an extension of the inverse sampling procedure
combining the generalized hypergeometric method.
Relative Response Model: This model depends on successive cathes to predict the
maximum catch that the fishery can sustain under the assumptions that, stocks existing in
a particular area are exploited by various types of gears that are not species specific, the
fishing is increased over a period of time till the optimum level is achieved and when the
effort is increased the catch also increase till a maximum level is reached.
Quick Estimates: In the absence of earlier history, when the fishery is in progress, it is
desirable to have quick estimates based on known statistics.
1. Comparison method: On the basis of yield gradients based on catch or primary
productivity of known areas, production in other areas having similar characteristics
can be estimated.
2. Indicator method: If an indicator or potential yield that is easily and quickly measurable
is available then that indicator can be profitably used for assessing yield.
3. Productivity approach: Knowledge on production at successive trphic levels is required
in this approach. Due to the complexity of the trophic relationships the results vary
widely.
Micro-Analytical Models
Micro-analytical models otherwise known as dynamic pool models take into account
recruitment, mortality, age, growth and all other factors affecting stock. These models are
based on the assumptions that the stock under study is in a steady state (recruitment, growth
and mortality are constant) and the yield is directly related to the recruitment. Under this
assumptions yield-per-recruitment (Y/R) will be and index of stock. Different models under
this category are
1. Beverton and Holt model
2. Jones method
3. Ricker model: He proposed a simple method with no assumptions on the form of
growth. The average biomass is obtained first from the successive biomass estimates
and substituted it in the yield equation to obtain the final equation for the yield.
4. Cohort analysis: In cohort analysis estimates of stock sizes for different age/size classes
are made recursively starting from the terminal class back words to finally end at the
initial size assuming a constant fraction for the terminal class exploitation rate. Also,
the instantaneous rates of fishing and natural mortalities are assume to be known for
this exercise.
5. Thompson and Bell model
Computational options for marine fisheries research and management
COMPUTATIONAL OPTIONS FOR MARINE

FISHERIES RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT
13
J. Jayasankar
Fisheries Resource Assessment Division
Introduction
Marine fisheries research and management including its core domains like stock assessment
and resource simulation and forecasting has of late been driven by the explosion in the
computational power and designing and development of tailor-made software. Though the
activities on the computational front have peaked in the last five years or so, the seeds were
sown way back in eighties with the introduction of personal computing. Here it is relevant to
record that digitization of fisheries related information and datasets were much older than
these software developments. Although it is nearly impossible to prepare an exhaustive list
of software and routines which are presently in use by researchers and planners in Marine
Fisheries Management, it is possible to categorise the computational options on a perspective
note. This paper would attempt doing that.
Generic grouping of computational tools
For enhancing objectivity, the software options under focus can be grouped into the following
four categories:
(i) Custom made software for specific fishery related issues
(ii) General purpose software routines which are of high relevance to fisheries research
(iii) Software and digital options for information and data processing in fisheries
research and
(iv) Miscellaneous options
Custom Made Software
This group is the most important and diversified one amongst all computations tools
available. These include very specific tools like Electronic Length Frequency Analysis (ELEFAN)
and the routines of similar nature used in quantitative fish stock assessment which have
later been enshrined in the FAO- ICLARM Stock Assessment Tools (FiSAT).
FiSAT
A beautiful introduction to the thought process that preceded the creation of this software
has been given in Pauly and Sparre (1991). The software was the major first such effort
in the field of fish stock assessment that brought the various possibilities arising out of
established conceptualisations that could throw light on the quantification of the growth
and reproductive performance of an average fish of a species and stock under one roof
with a common data initialization. The spreadsheet based data feeding was fully focused
upon and the tools were further grouped under a bouquet titled ASSESS wherein VBGF type
growth, LCC based mortality, spawning stock- recruitment to yield per recruit to Thompson
and Bell models could be applied on suitable datasets which can be fed in half a dozen
formats. The major standout feature of this software is the ease of performance of modal
progression analysis to separate out the cohorts from a mixed bag of length-weight data
using the linearized differentiation of normal densities. This process again has been simplifies
almost to the spreadsheet level with added advantage of letting the researcher to select
and omit the possible candidate data points.
The arrangement of options and tools under the software is best depicted by the tree chart
(partially reproduced here) by Pauly and Sparre (1991).
This probably is the most deployed software for any fish population dynamic analytics
and till date serves as the benchmark for other new age software. The ease of use of this
software partially stems from the non-stochastic approach to the analysis and thereby
ensuring replication of results on even datasets. This deterministic approach is the one
which has lead to myriad of more comprehensive and broad based analytical framework
for the data sampled.
Marine Resources Assessment Group (MRAG) Initiative Under Fishery Management
Science Programme (FMSP)
LFDA Version 5.0
The Length Frequency Distribution Analysis (LFDA) package is a PC-based computer package
for estimating growth parameters and mortality rates from fish length frequency distributions.
Version 5.0 of LFDA includes methods for estimating the parameters of both non-seasonal
and seasonal versions of the von Bertalanffy growth curve. It includes three methods for
estimating growth parameters. These are Shepherd’s Length Composition Analysis (SLCA)
method, the projection matrix (PROJMAT) method, and a version of the Elefan method. A
facility is provided that allows conversion of length frequencies to age frequencies using
the estimated growth curves. In addition to methods for estimating growth parameters,
the package also includes three methods for estimating the total mortality rate Z, given
estimates of the von Bertalanffy parameters. A function allowing simulation of length
frequency data under a variety of assumptions is also included. As with previous versions of
LFDA, the package includes a comprehensive context-sensitive Help system and a detailed
example analysis. The download file also includes the graphics server programme required
to plot the data.
CEDA Version 3.0
The Catch Effort Data Analysis package (CEDA) is a PC-based software package for analysing
catch, effort and abundance index data. Version 3.0 allows calculation of estimates of current
and unexploited stock sizes, catchability and associated population dynamics parameters.
Both depletion and several types of stock production (biomass dynamic) models can be
fitted, using one of three different assumptions about the distribution of residuals. Both
point estimates and bootstrap confidence intervals for the estimated parameters can be
calculated. CEDA also includes the facility to do projections of stock size into the future
under various scenarios of catch or effort levels, so that different management strategies
can be investigated. Output is presented both graphically and textually, and can be printed
or saved to disk for further use. As with previous versions of CEDA, the package includes a
comprehensive context-sensitive Help system and a detailed example analysis. The download
file also includes the graphics server programme required to plot the data.
Yield Version 1.0

Yield Version 1.0 is a program for calculating fishery yields and stock biomasses, on an
absolute or per-recruit basis, and for calculating biological reference points associated with
these. On starting the program, users are asked to enter values of biological parameters
(e.g. growth, mortality, age at maturity and stock-recruitment relationship) and fishery
parameters (e.g. length at first capture, fishing season). For each parameter, either a single
value can be entered, or a probability distribution can be specified to allow for uncertainty.
When calculating yields and yields per recruit, the program takes explicit account of specified
parameter uncertainties, presenting results in terms of histograms. Transient projection and
reference point calculations can also be made, once the extent of stochastic recruitment
variability has been specified. As with CEDA and LFDA, the package includes a comprehensive
context-sensitive Help system and a detailed example analysis. The download file also
includes the graphics server programme required to plot the data.
ParFish Version 2.0
Participatory Fisheries Stock Assessment (ParFish) Software is a PC-based software package
that uses Bayesian Statistics and Decision Theory to assess the state of a fishery stock and
estimate limit and target control levels. The software supports the overall approach which is
described in the accompanying ParFish Guidelines. The guidelines provide an overview of all
six steps in the approach including: i) understanding the context; ii) engaging stakeholders;
iii) undertaking the stock assessment; iv) interpreting the results and giving feedback; v)
initiating management planning and vi) evaluating the process. The ParFish software is
currently based on the logistical biomass growth model and requires information on four
parameters: Current Biomass, Unexploited Biomass, Catchabilty and Growth rate. Interview
data from fishers are used to construct ‘priors’ for the model parameters which can be
combined with other available information to provide best estimates. This information is
then used, together with preference data from fishermen, to calculate the current stock
level and the control levels that will provide the most preferred catch rates for fishers. The
programme takes explicit account of uncertainty in the data, presenting results as probability
density functions (with accompanying mean, median, mode and confidence intervals). The
Software is accompanied by a manual which gives step-by-step guidance on inputting data
and running the analysis. There area also additional reference sheets which assist with the
interviews and other data collection methods.
RAPFISH- A Rapid Analysis Tool for Fishery Sustainability
This is an unique but important software tool, which could be tagged under research as well
as management of fisheries, wherein Multi Dimensional Scaling, a multivariate statistical
dimension reduction tool, has been put to use to rank fisheries simultaneously on biological,
technological, economic, ethical and sociological fronts by ranking different fisheries under
various contributory aspects falling under these five dimensions. Visual Basic for Applications
(VBA) codes have been developed which would guide through the data entered through
Excel spreadsheet to the development of report on the status of sustainability of the fisheries
under focus and their combined unidirectional ranking. The framework of the software has
been described by Patricia, K and Tony J. Pitcher (2004) as follows:
The original rationale for developing for Rapfish was toevaluate sustainability, and examples
from that modality are largely used in this document. Fisheries scientists grade fisheries
according to a large set of ‘attributes’. Attributes are grouped in ecological, economic,
social, technological, and ethical categories, or ‘evaluation fields’, so that ‘sustainability’
can be considered from various points of view. The Rapfish technique is flexible such that
other modalities of status may be used, such conformity with a set of specified objectives
or compliance with a code of conduct . Rapfish applies a statistical ordination technique
called Multi-Dimensional Scaling (MDS) to reduce the NxM matrix of fisheries statistics
for N fisheries and M attributes into a N x 2 dimensional space which has similar distance
properties as the N x M statistics. In this 2D attribute space, one dimension (x-axis) is the
score representing the status (degree of sustainability) from ‘bad’ to ‘good’, and the other
dimension (y-axis) represents other factors, unrelated to sustainability (or whatever status
is being scored), which distinguish fisheries. The MDS routine ALSCAL in the statistical
package SPSS was used in the development and testing of the Rapfish technique. SPSS
batch programming facilities software were written (Kavanagh 1999) to automate the
Rapfish procedure, including routines for attribute leveraging and Monte Carlo error analysis.
Problems with this software were inflexibility and awkwardness in re-configuring parameters
due to limitations in the SPSS command language.
This report describes a more portable and easy-to-use Rapfish software implementation,
implemented in Microsoft Excel and its programming language, Visual Basic for Applications
(VBA). Excel is a popular and low-cost application and the majority of fisheries scientists are
familiar and comfortable using it for statistical data analysis. The original ALSCAL FORTRAN
code for multi-dimensional scaling has been re-written and built as a dynamic link library
routine (DLL) called from an Excel/VBA program. This Excel/VBA/FORTRAN implementation
of Rapfish is portable (users need only Excel and not SPSS), is easy to programme for various
repeat analyses such as leveraging and Monte Carlo, and has a handy graphical user interface
to control processing and visualize results.
The Rapfish software architecture can be diagrammatically explained as follows:
General purpose software routines which are of high relevance to fisheries research.
Under this category fall the analysis environments like R, WinBUGS, GAMS etc. which have
many customization options of very direct and high utility value in the area of fisheries
management. Of these the open source R software stands out in dishing out half a dozen
routines referred to as libraries which have been.
TropFishR
The TropFishR package uniquely adds further data-limited method capacity (Table 1) by
including traditional and updated versions of the Electronical LEngth Fre- quency ANalysis
(ELEFAN) method, used in growth parameter estimation, with new optimisation techniques
(Tay- lor & Mildenberger 2017), Millar’s nonlinear selectivity models (Millar & Holst 1997),
and a complete set of methods for fisheries analysis with LFQ data. This compilation allows
a stock assessment routine to derive reference levels (e.g. FMSY, F0 1) by means of yield per
recruit modelling, which may be based on a single year of LFQ data. Until now the preferred
software for single species stock assessment with length-frequency data has been the
windows-based programme FiSAT II (Gayanilo, Sparre & Pauly 1996) due to its user-friendly,
click-based interface. The software is, however, limited in its ability to import data and
perform automated analyses. The TropFishR package aims to remedy these shortcomings by
allowing further expansion and flexibility. Although wider in scope, the main methods follow
those outlined in the FAO manual ‘Introduction to tropical fish stock assessment’ (Sparre
& Venema 1998). Many of the same examples and datasets featured therein are included
in the package (Table 1) and documented in accompanying help files, which facilitates use
in training and teaching. Finally, output from various functions can be passed to plotting
functions, allowing for export as publication-quality figures.
For historical reasons, and the link to the above-mentioned book by Sparre & Venema (1998),
the package’s name reflects the fact that the methods have often been applied to tropical
fisheries, although they are equally applicable to other regions with data-poor stocks for
which LFQ data is available. Typically, the workflow of a data-poor stock assessment with
LFQ data would include: (i) estimation of biological stock characteristics (growth and natural
mortality), (ii) fisheries performance aspects (exploitation rate and selectivity), and (iii)
stock size and status. The order of the methods is important as they build upon each other
in a sequential way. If some or all of the vital parameters for stock assessment are already
known, the user may skip the data-poor approaches for their assessment and can directly
proceed with yield modelling applications.
CatDyn: Fishery Stock Assessment by Generalised Depletion Models
As a recourse to viewing the stock dynamics through catch rather than the population,
which is of course used as an index for the latter, routines have been developed to assess,
model and predict stock health using Generalised Depletion models. The entire gamut of
parametrisation, modelling and forecasting has been made handy by the R library CatDyn. As
per the introduction given by the author(s) of CatDyn, the library is capable of the following:
Based on fishery Catch Dynamics instead of fish Population Dynamics (hence CatDyn) and
using high-frequency or medium-frequency catch in biomass or numbers, fishing nominal
effort, and mean fish body weight by time step, from one or two fishing fleets, estimate stock
abundance, natural mortality rate, and fishing operational parameters. It includes methods
for data organization, plotting standard exploratory and analytical plots, predictions, for 77
types of models of increasing complexity, and 56 likelihood models for the data.
The concept of depletion modelling is set into motion using the following parametrization.
The process equations in the Catch Dynamics Models in this package are of the form
where C is catch in numbers, t, i are time step indicators, j is perturbation index

(j=1,2,...,100), k is a scaling constant, E is nominal fishing effort, an observed predictor of
catch, a is a parameter of effort synergy or saturability, N is abundance, a latent predictor

of catch, b is a parameter of hyperstability or hyperdepletion, and M is natural mortality
rate per time step. The second summand of the expanded latent predictor is a discount
applied to the earlier catches in order to avoid an M-biased estimate of initial abundance.
Perturbations to depletion represent fish migrations into the fishing grounds or expansions
of the fishing grounds by the fleet(s) resulting in point pulses of abundance. In transit models
(limited to one fleet) there are also emigration events happening at specific time steps for
each perturbation. In 2 fleet cases the fleets contribute complementary information about
stock abundance, and thus operate additively; any interaction between the fleets is latent
and affects the estimated values of fleet dependent parameters, such as k, a, and b.
The observation model can take any of the following forms: a Poisson counts process or
a negative binomial counts process for catch recorded in numbers, an additive random
normal term added to the continuous catch (in weight) predicted by the process (normal and
adjusted profile normal), a multiplicative exponential term acting on the process-predicted
catch such as the logarithm of this multiplier distributes normally (lognormal and adjusted
profile lognormal), and Gamma (shape and scale parameterization).
The library CatDyn takes care of almost all the parameterisation issues and dishes out the
type of output which would magnify the status of fisheries as seen from the macro dynamic
level in such a way to aid the policy makers.
Other R Libraries
There are a few more libraries in R viz. FSA, Fishery Libraries in R (FLR), fishMod etc. which
have specific routines or functions that could be applied under one type of assessment
protocol. Amongst these FLR seems to be a multifaceted effort wherein almost all aspects
of fishery including bycatches, discards as well as economics of fishery are being simulated/
analysed. Most of these libraries have explicit or derived leads to the arriving at of crucial
Biological Reference Points (BRP), like MSY, F0.1 etc. which would help the fishery manager
to take a call on the precautionary or knife edge type calls on effort moderation so that
the stock health is saved.
Software and Digital Options for Information and Data Processing in Fisheries Research
This third type of software are basically data driven and hence could be basically front-ends
of huge data repositories. Let us have a look at a few of them:
FAO’s FishStatJ
The FishStatJ application provides users with access to a variety of fishery statistical datasets.
Any data having yearly time series and coded dimensions can potentially be stored and
processed by FishStatJ. The system consists of a main application module and workspaces
which include the datasets and can be loaded by the user.FishStatJ is a Java-based desktop
application. This is quite helpful in getting data on global capture fisheries and aquaculture
fish production on aggregated and disaggregated at various levels of granularity.
R language- Rfishbase
This is a library provided interface to various types of customised data tapping from the
repositories of fish biology related information on the lines of Fishbase. Despite functioning
as the programmatic interface to Fishbase <http://www.fishbase.org>, re-written based on
an accompanying ‘RESTful’ API. Access tables describing over 30,000 species of fish, their
biology, ecology, morphology, and more. This package also supports experimental access
to <http://www.sealifebase.org> data, which contains nearly 200,000 species records for all
types of aquatic life not covered by ‘FishBase.’
R language- rfisheries
This yet another database interface in R which gives updated landings of various countries.
It is a programmatic interface to ‘openfisheries.org’. This package is part of the ‘rOpenSci’
suite (http://ropensci.org).
Apart from these there are many more open access digital repositories like ICOADS, APDRC,
SeaWIFS (NOAA), which dish out various bio- geo- chemical and oceanographic datasets
on spatio-temporal tagging base which are of high relevance in climate based modelling
of Fishery dynamics.
Miscellaneous
Apart from these types of end to end solution providing software or coding platforms, there
are quite a few general purpose routines which have immense use in the field of analysing
fishery information. A few of them are listed below:
(i) WinBUGS: A Windows based Bayesian analysis tool using Gibbs Sampler
which supports Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithms is a great tool,
wherein fishery growth models can be analysed with additional information on
the trends observed in the estimated trajectories of important parameters like
virgin biomass, carrying capacity, intrinsic rate of growth, which were otherwise
considered as constant unique valued functionals in frequentist concept.
(ii) Generalised Algebraic Modelling System (GAMS) / Data Envelopment Analysis
(DEA) for performing optimisation of bioeconomic models on the lines
of constraint shored minimisation/ maximisation goal followed in Linear
Programming.
(iii) Routines and libraries which could carry out Automatic Differentiation Model
Building (ADMB), which by far has been recorded as the most suited one for
complicated fishery optimisation issues using which crucial pre- BRP parameters
could be estimated with more precision.
(iv) There are quite a few comprehensive packages which could analyse marine
communities on multivariate biotic and abiotic variables over a series of sampling
points, thereby comparing the diversity gradient and the spacio-temporal
innuendos thereof. The most prominent one is Plymouth Routines in Multivariate
Ecological Research (PRIMER), Clark and Warwick (2001).
(v) Other advancements like the analysis of slope of size spectra, which has a very high
level of application in assessing marine ecosystem especially under the realms of
the average trophic levels is another addition to the analysis tools basket. Size
spectrum models have emerged from 40 years of basic research on how body
size determines individual physiology and structures marine communities. They
are based on commonly accepted assumptions and have a low parameter set,
making them easy to deploy for strategic ecosystem-oriented impact assessment
of fisheries. They are rooted on the fundamental principle of food encounter
and the bioenergetics budget of individuals. Within the general framework,
three model types have emerged that differ in their degree of complexity: the
food-web, the trait-based, and the community models. The implementations of
size spectrum models on these lines flag important variations concerning the
functional response, whether growth is food-dependent or fixed, and the density
dependence imposed on the system.
(vi) Another booming area of research armoured by computational power is Stock
Synthesis. Stock Synthesis (SS) provides a statistical framework for calibration of
a population dynamics model using a diversity of fishery and survey data. It is
designed to accommodate both age and size structure in the population and with
multiple stock sub-areas. Selectivity can be cast as age specific only, size-specific
in the observations only, or size-specific with the ability to capture the major
effect of size-specific survivorship. The overall model contains subcomponents
which simulate the population dynamics of the stock and fisheries, derive the
expected values for the various observed data, and quantify the magnitude of
difference between observed and expected data. Some SS features include
ageing error, growth estimation, spawner-recruitment relationship, movement
between areas. SS is most flexible in its ability to utilize a wide diversity of age,
size, and aggregate data from fisheries and surveys. The ADMB C++ software
in which SS is written searches for the set of parameter values that maximize
the goodness-of-fit, then calculates the variance of these parameters using
inverse Hessian and MCMC methods. A management layer is also included in

the model allowing uncertainty in estimated parameters to be propagated to
the management quantities, thus facilitating a description of the risk of various
possible management scenarios, including forecasts of possible annual catch
limits. The structure of Stock Synthesis allows for building of simple to complex
models depending upon the data available.
Conclusion
The options thrown up by the giant strides made by computational advance are immense
in recent times and so are the opportunities and new challenges posed by unravelling the
more and more complicated facets of intricate dynamics of oceanic flora and fauna. Though
any one software or method can be singled out as THE SOLUTION, the adoption of more
than one for same set of data would give an idea about the sensitivity/ robustness of the
inferences, thereby making forecasting a more reassuring assignment.
Suggested Reading
Beddington, J. 2005. Capacity building in the use of FMSP stock assessment tools and management
guidelines. DFID Fisheries Management Science Programme, Final Technical Report, project R8468.
MRAG Ltd. 73 pp.
Beddington, J., 2005. Capacity building in the use of FMSP stock assessment tools and management
guidelines. DFID Fisheries Management Science Programme, Final Technical Report, project R8468.
MRAG Ltd. 73 pp.
Clarke, K.R., Warwick, R.M. 2001. Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and
interpretation, 2nd edition. PRIMER-E, Plymouth, 172pp.
Hindson, J., Hoggarth, D.D., Krishna, M., Mees, C.C., and O’neill, C., 2005. How to Manage a Fishery - A
Simple Guide to Writing a Fishery Management Plan. Centre for Environmental Education, Ahmedabad,
Gujarat, India. 86 pp.
Hoggarth, D.D., Abeyasekera, S., Arthur, R.I., Beddington, J.R., Burn, R.W., Halls, A.S., Kirkwood, G.P., Mcallister,
M., Medley, P., Mees, C.C., Parkes, G.B., Pilling, G.M., Wakeford, R.C., Welcomme, R.L. 2006. Stock
assessment for fishery management: A framework guide to the stock assessment tools of the Fisheries
Management Science Programme (FMSP) FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 487. Rome, FAO. 261 pp.
[Includes a CD-ROM].
Hoggarth, D.D., Mees, C.C., O’neill, C., Hindson, J., and Krishna, M. 2005. A Guide to Fisheries Stock Assessment
using the FMSP Tools. Centre for Environmental Education, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. 96 pp.
Kavanagh, P. and Pitcher, T.J., 2004. Implementing microsoft excel software for rapfish:a technique for the
rapid appraisal of fisheries status . Fisheries Centre Research Reports Vol 12 (2): 75 p.
Mildenberger, Tobias, K., Taylor, M.H. and Wolff, M., 2016. “TropFishR: An R package for fisheries
analysis with length-frequency data.” Methods in Ecology and Evolution. https://doi.org/10.6084/
m9.figshare.4212975.v1.
Pauly, D and Sparre, P., 1991. A Note on the Development of a new software package, the FAO-ICLARM
Stock Assessment Tools, Fishbyte 9(1): 47-49
Sparre, P., and Venema, S.C., 1998. “Introduction to Tropical Fish Stock Assessment.” FAO Technical Paper.
Diversity An
andintroduction
exploitationto
status
R programming
of Crustacean Fishery Resources in India
AN INTRODUCTION TO R PROGRAMMING
14
J. Jayasankar, T. V. Ambrose and R. Manjeesh
Introduction
R language is the GNU arm of S language, which has taken the computational world by storm in the
last decade. Starting as a compendium of statistical tools, this language has grown up into a canopy
lording over a research analysis environment thereby subsuming many hitherto complicated
manoeuvres onto the realms of syntactical simplicity. As this an exponentially expanding field of
development with ever exploding information downpour, it would be a near impossible task to frame
it onto a short simple foundational discourse. However in the subsequent sections we would try to
view the potential and the extent of practicality we would unravel the hidden features of the software
through a GUI envelop also apart from the regular console and syntax based one. To get its power
more understandable we would visualize its forays into the field of analytics using medium scale
examples from marine fisheries data.
R is “GNU S” — A language and environment for data manipulation, calculation and graphical
display.
 R is similar to the award-winning S system, which was developed at Bell Laboratories by John
Chambers et al.
 a suite of operators for calculations on arrays, in particular matrices,
 a large, coherent, integrated collection of intermediate tools for interactive data analysis,
 graphical facilities for data analysis and display either directly at the computer or on
hardcopy
 a well developed programming language which includes conditionals, loops, user defined
recursive functions and input and output facilities.
The core of R is an interpreted computer language.
 It allows branching and looping as well as modular programming using functions.
 Most of the user-visible functions in R are written in R, calling upon a smaller set of internal
primitives.
An introduction to R programming
It is possible for the user to interface to procedures written in C, C++ or FORTRAN languages for
efficiency, and also to write additional primitives
R, S and S-plus- a brief time line

 S: an interactive environment for data analysis developed at Bell Laboratories since 1976
o 1988 - S2: RA Becker, JM Chambers, A Wilks
o 1992 - S3: JM Chambers, TJ Hastie
o 1998 - S4: JM Chambers
 Exclusively licensed by AT&T/Lucent to Insightful Corporation, Seattle WA. Product name: “S-
plus”.
 Implementation languages C, Fortran.
 See:http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/departments/sia/S/history.html
 R: initially written by Ross Ihaka and Robert Gentleman at Dep. of Statistics of U of Auckland,
New Zealand during 1990s.
 Since 1997: international “R-core” team of ca. 15 people with access to common CVS archive.
What R does and does not
o data handling and storage: numeric, o is not a database, but connects to

textual DBMSs
o matrix algebra o has no graphical user interfaces, but
connects to Java, TclTk
o hash tables and regular expressions
o language interpreter can be very slow,
o high-level data analytic and statistical
but allows to call own C/C++ code
functions
o no spreadsheet view of data, but
o classes (Object Oriented “OO”)
connects to Excel/MsOffice
o graphics
o no professional / commercial support
o programming language: loops,
branching, subroutines
R and statistics
 Packaging: a crucial infrastructure to efficiently produce, load and keep consistent software
libraries from (many) different sources / authors, which are updated at a best possible refresh
rate
 Statistics: most packages deal with statistics and data analysis and there are many conduit
and value addition libraries which augment the statistical inference
o State of the art: many statistical researchers provide their methods as R packages
Statistical Analysis
Data Analysis and Presentation happen to be the core strength of R software environment and the
ease with which this is performed makes the environment as the ultimate winner. Faster
computational routines and amenability of access and modification to interim steps and results
makes the programming environment a winner.
 The R distribution contains functionality for large number of statistical procedures.
o linear and generalized linear models
o nonlinear regression models
o time series analysis
o classical parametric and nonparametric tests
o clustering
o smoothing
 R also has a large set of functions which provide a flexible graphical environment for creating
various kinds of data presentations.
References
 For R,
o The basic reference is The New S Language: A Programming Environment for Data
Analysis and Graphics by Richard A. Becker, John M. Chambers and Allan R. Wilks (the
“Blue Book”) .
o The new features of the 1991 release of S (S version 3) are covered in Statistical
Models in S edited by John M. Chambers and Trevor J. Hastie (the “White Book”).
o Classical and modern statistical techniques have been implemented.
 Some of these are built into the base R environment.
 Many are supplied as packages. There are about 8 packages supplied with R
(called “standard” packages) and many more are available through the cran
family of Internet sites (via http://cran.r-project.org).
 All the R functions have been documented in the form of help pages in an “output
independent” form which can be used to create versions for HTML, LATEX, text etc.
– The document “An Introduction to R” provides a more user-friendly starting point.
– An “R Language Definition” ma
anual
– More specialized manuals

m on data
d import/e
export and exxtending R.
R installa
ations
Getting Started
S
To install R on your MAC

M or PC the
e starting point has to be
ehttp://www.rr-project.org//.
Dependin
ng on the choice
c of operating
o sysstem the in
nstaller/ zip file with ch
hecksum ma
ay be
download
ded and veriffied.
An effort to download R for Windows would have the fo

ollowing sequ eractions with the
uence of inte
portal, wh ots are given below:
hose snapsho
It’s always a good idea to download all the files.
MDI is when the windows will be contained within one large window.
This is similar to how Excel is setup. SDI is a single document interface where every item will get its
own window. This is similar to how SPSS is set up where it has separate data editor, viewer, and
syntax windows. Once you choose which your prefer click next.Choosing either html or plain text and
clicking is the next step.The installation may take awhile
To install packages on Windows, clicking on packages and install packages will be the next step.
Scrolling down to country nearest and choosing a "mirror" that is close is the next step
Scrolling down list until the requisite package is the next step, keeping in mind that R lists things in
alphabetical order and by uppercase than lowercase. Once a package is clicked to load, R will install
not only the package but all of the packages needed to run the package, including the
dependencies.
To actually use the package, one has to go back to the package tab and click on load package.
Using Help Command
?solve translates on to giving details of help information about “solve” function whilst help.search or
?? allows searching for help in various ways
Rcommander – A graphical interaction “skin” for R
R provides a powerful and comprehensive system for analysing data and when used in conjunction
with the R-commander (a graphical user interface, commonly known as Rcmdr) it also provides one
that is easy and intuitive to use. Basically, R provides the engine that carries out the analyses and
Rcmdr provides a convenient way for users to input commands. The Rcmdr program enables analysts
to access a selection of commonly-used R commands using a simple interface that should be familiar
to most computer users. It also serves the important role of helping users to implement R commands
and develop their knowledge and expertise in using the command line --- an important skill for
those wishing to exploit the full power of the program.(http://www.rcommander.com/)
a) Loading R Commander
– Packages -> Install Packages -> Cran Mirror Selection -> Rcmdr
b) Opening R Commander
Open R -> Packages -> Load Packages -> Rcmdr
c) Loading Data
Data->Load data
d) Active Data selection
Data ->Active data set -> Select active data set
e) Menu driven File edit options
Script will save it as an R file .R and Output will save it as a text file. .txt
f) Summary of the data

Statistics -> Summaries
Numerical Summaries – can also provide mean, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis etc..
g) Mean, Standard Deviation, Skewness, Kurtosis
h) Contingency Tables
i) Correlations in R Commander
Correlation analysis can be done with R as follows.
Correlation is a bivariate analysis that measures the strengths of association between two variables
and the direction of the relationship. In terms of the strength of relationship, the value of the
correlation coefficient varies between +1 and -1. When the value of the correlation coefficient lies
around ± 1, then it is said to be a perfect degree of association between the two variables. As the
correlation coefficient value goes towards 0, the relationship between the two variables will be
weaker. the
t direction
n of the relattionship is sim
mply the + (indicating
( a positive rela
ationship bettween
the variab
bles) or - (ind
dicating a neg
gative relatio
onship betwe
een the variab
bles) sign of the
t correlatio
on.
Usually, in statistics, we measure four type

es of correllations: Pearrson Correla
ation,Kendall rank
correlatio
on, Spearman
n correlation,, and the Poiint-Biserial co
orrelation. The
T software below allow
ws you
to very ea
asily conductt a correlation
n.
j) pendent T-T
Indep Test
The indep
pendent t-test, also referred to as an independent-samples t-ttest, indepen
ndent measures t-
npaired t-testt, is used to determine whether
test or un w the mean
m of a dependent variiable (e.g., we
eight,
anxiety le
evel, salary, re
eaction time, etc.) is the same
s in two unrelated,
u ind
dependent groups
g (e.g., males
m
es, employed vs unemp
vs female ployed, unde
er 21 year olds
o vs thosse 21 years and older, etc.).
Specificallly, you use an
a independe
ent t-test to determine whether
w the mean differe
ence between
n two
groups is statistically significantly
s different to zero.
z
Statistics->Independent T Test
Statistics->Independent T Test
k) One Way ANOVA

k) One Way ANOVA
ANOVA(Analysis of Variance) is a statistical technique that assesses potential differences in a scale-

ANOVA(Analysis of Variance) is a statistical technique that assesses potential differences in a scale-
level dependent variable by a nominal-level variable having 2 or more categories. For example, an
level dependent variable by a nominal-level variable having 2 or more categories. For example, an
ANOVA can examine potential differences in IQ scores by Country (US vs. Canada vs. Italy vs. Spain).
ANOVA can examine potential differences in IQ scores by Country (US vs. Canada vs. Italy vs. Spain).
The ANOVA, developed by Ronald Fisher in 1918, extends the t and the z test which have
The ANOVA, developed by Ronald Fisher in 1918, extends the t and the z test which have
the problem of only allowing the nominal level variable to have just two categories. This test is also
the problem of only allowing the nominal level variable to have just two categories. This test is also
called the Fisher analysis of variance.ANOVAs are used in three ways: one –way Anova, two-way
called the Fisher analysis of variance.ANOVAs are used in three ways: one –way Anova, two-way
ANOVA, and N-way Multivariate ANOVA.
ANOVA, and N-way Multivariate ANOVA.
One-Way ANOVA
One-Way ANOVA
A one-way ANOVA refers to the number of independent variables--not the number of categories in
A one-way ANOVA refers to the number of independent variables--not the number of categories in
each variables. A one-way ANOVA has just one independent variable. For example, difference in IQ
each variables. A one-way ANOVA has just one independent variable. For example, difference in IQ
can be assessed by Country, and County can have 2, 20, or more different Countries in that variable.
can be assessed by Country, and County can have 2, 20, or more different Countries in that variable.
The software below allows you to easily conduct an ANOVA.
The software below allows you to easily conduct an ANOVA.
Statistics->One Way ANOVA
l) Factor Analysis
Factor analysis is a technique that is used to reduce a large number of variables into fewer numbers
of factors. This technique extracts maximum common variance from all variables and puts them into
a common score. As an index of all variables, we can use this score for further analysis. Factor
analysis is part of general linear model(GLM) and this method also assumes several assumptions:
there is linear relationship, there is no multicollinearity, it includes relevant variables into analysis,
and there is true correlation between variables and factors. Several methods are available, but
principle component analysis is used most commonly.
Types of factoring:
There are different types of methods used to extract the factor from the data set:
1.Principal component analysis: This is the most common method used by researchers. PCA starts
extracting the maximum variance and puts them into the first factor. After that, it removes that
variance explained by the first factors and then starts extracting maximum variance for the second
factor. This process goes to the last factor.
2. Common factor analysis: The second most preferred method by researchers, it extracts the
common variance and puts them into factors. This method does not include the unique variance of
all variables. This method is used in SEM.
3. Image factoring: This method is based on correlation matrix. OLS Regression method is used to
predict the factor in image factoring.
4. Maximum likelihood method: This method also works on correlation metric but it uses
maximum likelihood method to factor.
5. Other methods of factor analysis: Alfa factoring outweighs least squares. Weight square is
another regression based method which is used for factoring.
Result are shown as follows
J) Graphs
Graphs->Scatter plot
Graphs->Box plot
Chapter4:-R Basics
R is object base
Types of objects (scalar, vector, matrices and arrays Assignment of objects)
Building a data frame
Operation Symbols
Symbol Meaning
+ Addition
- Subtraction
* Multiplication
/ Division
Modulo (estimates remainder in a

%%
division)
^ Exponential
R as a Calculator
1550+2000
## [1] 3550
or various calculations in the same row
2+3; 5*9; 6-6
## [1] 5
## [1] 45
## [1] 0
AsMathematics
1+1
## [1] 2
2+2*7
## [1] 16
(2+2)*7
## [1] 28
AsVariables
x<-2
x
## [1] 2
y<-3
y
## [1] 3
5->z
(x*y)+z
## [1] 11
Numbers in R: NAN and NA
NAN (not a number) NA (missing value) -Basic handling of missing values
Missing values are noise to statistical estimations. We are going to learn a basic command for
handling missing values.
x<-c(1,2,3,4,5,6,NA)
mean(x)
## [1] NA
mean(x,na.rm=TRUE)
## [1] 3.5
Objects in R
Objects in R obtain values by assignment.

This is achieved by the gets arrow, <-, and not the equal sign, =.
Objects can be of different kinds.
Built in Functions
R has many built in functions that compute different statistical procedures.
Functions in R are followed by ( ). Inside the parenthesis we write the object (vector, matrix, array,
dataframe) to which we want to apply the function.
# Create a sequence of numbers from 32 to 44.

print(seq(32,44))
## [1] 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
# Find mean of numbers from 25 to 82.

print(mean(25:82))
## [1] 53.5
# Find sum of numbers frm 41 to 68.
print(sum(41:68))
## [1] 1526
Vectors
Vectors are variables with one or more values of the same type. A variable with a single value is
known as scalar. In R a scalar is a vector of length 1. There are at least three ways to create vectors in
R: (a) sequence, (b) concatenation function, and (c) scan function.
Create two vectors of different lengths.
vector1 <-c(5,9,3)
vector2 <-c(10,11,12,13,14,15)
vector1
## [1] 5 9 3
vector2
## [1] 10 11 12 13 14 15
Arrays
Arrays are numeric objects with dimension attributes. The difference between a matrix and an array is
that arrays have more than two dimensions.
# Take the above vectors as input to the array.

result <-array(c(vector1,vector2),dim =c(3,3,2))
print(result)
## , , 1
##
## [,1] [,2] [,3]
## [1,] 5 10 13
## [2,] 9 11 14
## [3,] 3 12 15
##
## , , 2
##
## [,1] [,2] [,3]
## [1,] 5 10 13
## [2,] 9 11 14
## [3,] 3 12 15
Matrices
A matrix is a two dimensional array. The command colnames
# Elements are arranged sequentially by row.

M <-matrix(c(3:14), nrow =4, byrow =TRUE)
print(M)
## [,1] [,2] [,3]

## [1,] 3 4 5
## [2,] 6 7 8
## [3,] 9 10 11
## [4,] 12 13 14
String Characters
In R, string variables are defined by double quotation marks.
letters<-c("a","b","c")
letters
## [1] "a" "b" "c"
Subscripts and Indices
Select only one or some of the elements in a vector, a matrix or an array. We can do this by using
subscripts in square brackets [ ].
In matrices or dataframes the first subscript refers to the row and the second to the column.
Dataframe
Researchers work mostly with dataframes . With previous knowledge you can built dataframes in R
Also, import dataframes into R.
# Create the data frame.

emp.data <-data.frame(
emp_id =c (1:5),
emp_name =c("Rick","Dan","Michelle","Ryan","Gary"),
salary =c(623.3,515.2,611.0,729.0,843.25),
start_date =as.Date(c("2012-01-01", "2013-09-23", "2014-11-15", "2014-05-11",

"2015-03-27")),
stringsAsFactors =FALSE
)
# Print the data frame.

print(emp.data)
## emp_id emp_name salary start_date

## 1 1 Rick 623.30 2012-01-01
## 2 2 Dan 515.20 2013-09-23
## 3 3 Michelle 611.00 2014-11-15
## 4 4 Ryan 729.00 2014-05-11
## 5 5 Gary 843.25 2015-03-27
A journey wading through the amazing summarizing and analytical capabilities of R- a case
study.
Let the presumed data pertain to landings and standardized effort of a maritime state estimated by
ICAR-CMFRIduring the interregnum 1997 to 2013
Calling file in R
klm<-read.csv("C:/Users/cmfri/Desktop/cpue_spcode_kldata.csv",header=TRUE)
To know header portion of the data set
head(klm)
## year month species raised nomeff stdcpue

## 1 1997 1 40 20595.35 122.0811 3.634042
## 2 1997 2 40 24201.10 114.3719 4.532246
## 3 1997 3 40 23497.64 255.0315 3.926130
## 4 1997 4 40 50176.75 154.7663 6.762821
## 5 1997 5 40 137626.24 314.6413 13.805531
## 6 1997 6 40 38149.38 649.1328 16.071358
To check the last few rows of the dataset
tail(klm)
## year month species raised nomeff stdcpue

## 245815 2013 7 4580 0 0.000000 0.000000
## 245816 2013 8 4580 1674 2.059835 1.667304
## 245817 2013 9 4580 0 0.000000 0.000000
## 245818 2013 10 4580 0 0.000000 0.000000
## 245819 2013 11 4580 0 0.000000 0.000000
## 245820 2013 12 4580 0 0.000000 0.000000
to know the observations in the data

length(klm)
## [1] 6
to know the structure of the dataframe

str(klm)
## 'data.frame': 245820 obs. of 6 variables:
## $ year : int 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 ...
## $ month : int 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ...
## $ species: int 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 ...
## $ raised : num 20595 24201 23498 50177 137626 ...
## $ nomeff : num 122 114 255 155 315 ...
## $ stdcpue: num 3.63 4.53 3.93 6.76 13.81 ...
Descriptive statistics analysis

summary(klm)
## year month species raised
## Min. :1997 Min. : 1.00 Min. : 0 Min. : 0
## 1st Qu.:2001 1st Qu.: 3.75 1st Qu.: 867 1st Qu.: 0
## Median :2005 Median : 6.50 Median :1513 Median : 0
## Mean :2005 Mean : 6.50 Mean :2201 Mean : 42699
## 3rd Qu.:2009 3rd Qu.: 9.25 3rd Qu.:4016 3rd Qu.: 0
## Max. :2013 Max. :12.00 Max. :9999 Max. :71536031
## NA's :30
## nomeff stdcpue
## Min. : 0.0 Min. : 0.000
## 1st Qu.: 0.0 1st Qu.: 0.000
## Median : 0.0 Median : 0.000
## Mean : 154.2 Mean : 7.112
## 3rd Qu.: 0.0 3rd Qu.: 0.000
## Max. :119100.1 Max. :5600.000
##
If further enhanced list of summary statistics information about the data like third and fourth order
moments, then the describe function of psych or summary function would come in handy.
library(psych)
describe(klm[,3:6])
## vars n mean sd median trimmed mad min

## species 1 245820 2201.15 1951.83 1513 1941.16 1257.24 0
## raised 2 245790 42699.02 719150.48 0 62.52 0.00 0
## nomeff 3 245820 154.25 1543.66 0 0.16 0.00 0
## stdcpue 4 245820 7.11 52.38 0 0.11 0.00 0
## max range skew kurtosis se
## species 9999.0 9999.0 1.40 1.91 3.94
## raised 71536030.7 71536030.7 44.70 2681.18 1450.57
## nomeff 119100.1 119100.1 22.83 770.70 3.11

## stdcpue 5600.0 5600.0 21.65 971.06 0.11
If one wants to study monthly catch grouped information so that an idea about issues like which
month (used as a group) would have etched up maximum landings/ catch, then simple literally
rooted commands like describeBy (psych) or aggregate would come in handy.
library(psych)
describeBy(klm$raised,klm$month)
##
## Descriptive statistics by group
## group: 1
## vars n mean sd median trimmed mad min max range
## X1 1 20485 41379.48 784622.6 0 146.65 0 0 51193526 51193526
## skew kurtosis se
## X1 46.55 2497.42 5482.05
## --------------------------------------------------------
## group: 2
## X1 1 20485 32904.06 535506.3 0 113.45 0 0 45468199 45468199
## skew kurtosis se
## X1 49.62 3259.68 3741.51
## --------------------------------------------------------
## group: 3
## X1 1 20485 39087.37 569052.1 0 162.51 0 0 31762665 31762665
## skew kurtosis se
## X1 38.4 1796.15 3975.89
## --------------------------------------------------------
## group: 4
## X1 1 20471 33795.18 477389 0 64.13 0 0 31931384 31931384
## skew kurtosis se
## X1 42.59 2353.01 3336.59
## --------------------------------------------------------
## group: 5
## X1 1 20485 37566.67 469275.5 0 96.2 0 0 30492626 30492626
## skew kurtosis se
## X1 33.18 1478.99 3278.76
## --------------------------------------------------------
## group: 6

## X1 1 20485 34552.2 655525.6 0 30.67 0 0 65432961 65432961
## skew kurtosis se
## X1 61.23 5239.89 4580.07
## --------------------------------------------------------
## group: 7
## X1 1 20485 32621.2 643003.1 0 0 0 0 49428947 49428947
## skew kurtosis se
## X1 42.19 2362.03 4492.57
## --------------------------------------------------------
## group: 8
## X1 1 20484 57397.86 713381.8 0 31.03 0 0 38795185 38795185
## skew kurtosis se
## X1 26.21 920.16 4984.42
## --------------------------------------------------------
## group: 9
## X1 1 20485 55833.65 901880.9 0 34.3 0 0 71536031 71536031
## skew kurtosis se
## X1 41.11 2415.63 6301.32
## --------------------------------------------------------
## group: 10
## X1 1 20484 57071.88 915432.9 0 89.05 0 0 55973676 55973676
## skew kurtosis se
## X1 34.05 1453.38 6396.16
## --------------------------------------------------------
## group: 11
## X1 1 20485 51210.52 915220 0 133.56 0 0 49127745 49127745
## skew kurtosis se
## X1 36.33 1488.92 6394.51
## --------------------------------------------------------
## group: 12
## X1 1 20471 38960.92 830555.4 0 134.37 0 0 66844967 66844967
## skew kurtosis se
## X1 56 3639.25 5804.96
Selecting subsets of data:

#to know the whole species entries
t<-klm$species
length(t)
## [1] 245820
# to know the june species entries

d<-klm$species[klm$month=="6"]
length(d)
## [1] 20485
to exclude some data
#exclude june catch and know the entries

e<-klm$species[klm$month!="6"]
length(e)
## [1] 225335
correlation of the data
# correlation between catch and effort for the whole period

attach(klm)
cor.test(raised,nomeff,method="pearson")
##
## Pearson's product-moment correlation
##
## data: raised and nomeff
## t = 434.94, df = 245790, p-value < 2.2e-16
## alternative hypothesis: true correlation is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## 0.6572472 0.6617152
## sample estimates:
## cor
## 0.659487
##multiple correlation
##Here we select the oilsardine catch. raised nomeff stdcpue

The oil sardine species code as 362 raised 1.0000000 0.45713639 0.61135090
##we pick all the years monthly oil sardine nomeff 0.4571364 1.00000000 0.06860281
sp362<-klm[(klm$species=="362"),] stdcpue 0.6113509 0.06860281 1.00000000
cordat<-sp362[,4:6]
cor(cordat)
Linear regression & ANOVA

fit <-lm(raised~year +month +nomeff, data=sp362)
# show results
summary(fit)
##
## Call:
## lm(formula = raised ~ year + month + nomeff, data = sp362)
##
## Residuals:
## Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
## -24406856 -5945766 -838374 4725596 40857882
##
## Coefficients:
## Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
## (Intercept) -2.148e+09 2.787e+08 -7.706 5.93e-13 ***
## year 1.072e+06 1.389e+05 7.716 5.59e-13 ***
## month 7.997e+05 1.969e+05 4.062 6.97e-05 ***
## nomeff 3.997e+02 4.493e+01 8.897 3.44e-16 ***
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
##
## Residual standard error: 9689000 on 200 degrees of freedom
## Multiple R-squared: 0.4275, Adjusted R-squared: 0.4189
## F-statistic: 49.78 on 3 and 200 DF, p-value: < 2.2e-16
# model coefficients
coefficients(fit)
## (Intercept) year month nomeff

## -2.147604e+09 1.072090e+06 7.997178e+05 3.997276e+02
# CIs for model parameters

confint(fit, level=0.95)
## 2.5 % 97.5 %
## (Intercept) -2.697162e+09 -1.598046e+09
## year 7.980987e+05 1.346082e+06
## month 4.115344e+05 1.187901e+06
## nomeff 3.111348e+02 4.883205e+02
# predicted values
fitted(fit)
## 10609 10610 10611 10612 10613 10614

## -3789651.96 -75345.54 15111313.36 13412874.31 17168949.26 120681.70
## 10615 10616 10617 10618 10619 10620
## 11475956.42 2176177.37 4491241.24 20281254.70 10248865.43 6278101.08
## 10621 10622 10623 10624 10625 10626
## -1848628.97 -945019.58 10648970.16 18599757.89 1915100.95 4945529.10
## 10627 10628 10629 10630 10631 10632
## 1844457.32 4524979.63 8480021.57 27270345.64 26410785.24 7449598.25
## 10633 10634 10635 10636 10637 10638
## 8195286.59 18056830.84 12504031.29 4797286.88 690139.61 7333241.94
## 10639 10640 10641 10642 10643 10644
## 9086615.20 12777192.22 16114211.77 21825496.12 23957847.88 30125417.82
## 10645 10646 10647 10648 10649 10650
## 16794955.21 8159428.15 18423291.70 38539644.49 22526843.37 15428828.71
## 10651 10652 10653 10654 10655 10656
## 19942372.43 8463199.11 16820433.97 16852255.88 19772511.73 16832240.83
## 10657 10658 10659 10660 10661 10662
## 6812947.52 2187489.33 3280344.12 24388104.43 18000977.41 15107404.98
## 10663 10664 10665 10666 10667 10668
## 11071325.90 8804492.99 11659447.99 15882452.30 13614255.15 14360781.30
## 10669 10670 10671 10672 10673 10674
## 4963345.25 3874425.71 8638896.83 15820079.63 9947652.94 10608928.30
## 10675 10676 10677 10678 10679 10680
## 11831223.68 10715678.08 18370843.69 18033007.59 24787443.71 20792659.27
## 10681 10682 10683 10684 10685 10686
## 10734553.89 14786524.50 23586068.72 15174415.81 14696669.45 21641645.35
## 10687 10688 10689 10690 10691 10692
## 16169395.71 12954237.15 18327299.72 26652093.45 23775360.33 20813243.93
## 10693 10694 10695 10696 10697 10698
## 21399224.55 14748593.10 17040545.01 16656182.65 24538822.27 12033993.05
## 10699 10700 10701 10702 10703 10704
## 19365173.86 13378906.14 16135355.04 20944717.11 22152925.25 23350707.08
## 10705 10706 10707 10708 10709 10710
## 12137727.49 12362516.34 15647882.15 17728272.88 25610912.49 11483182.33
## 10711 10712 10713 10714 10715 10716
## 16228410.19 14066458.06 21735642.49 16489766.28 22863440.68 25217568.20
## 10717 10718 10719 10720 10721 10722
## 14835803.84 16495146.39 22063158.91 16594990.87 22768308.44 15220954.75
## 10723 10724 10725 10726 10727 10728
## 17405975.76 16749989.07 21071396.44 26135139.19 34594122.49 25311911.45
## 10729 10730 10731 10732 10733 10734
## 16213850.04 18560659.25 20910497.95 17148441.29 23064011.08 11548843.47

## 10735 10736 10737 10738 10739 10740
## 19107866.87 25146512.87 23611984.56 42060769.69 32661334.03 33443082.46
## 10741 10742 10743 10744 10745 10746
## 26843089.98 15219653.93 27987085.90 25288610.68 27765987.37 14731658.59
## 10747 10748 10749 10750 10751 10752
## 17559758.01 21155741.90 25500961.51 24405053.32 39326020.64 25050900.94
## 10753 10754 10755 10756 10757 10758
## 19830935.26 14206507.84 14964046.91 16055186.14 17867665.14 13526068.97
## 10759 10760 10761 10762 10763 10764
## 17068671.46 25656764.37 20949202.17 25406915.94 27419616.94 18691846.63
## 10765 10766 10767 10768 10769 10770
## 19797610.39 12647096.61 14383437.39 14983527.60 19213873.26 20770627.04
## 10771 10772 10773 10774 10775 10776
## 16985410.38 15938248.25 21060373.50 34082753.83 40548912.21 30156164.56
## 10777 10778 10779 10780 10781 10782
## 29631248.55 19454957.10 19789660.52 20025809.52 21633117.75 17439149.02
## 10783 10784 10785 10786 10787 10788
## 20005697.35 24040773.06 21080888.19 26283510.76 26352521.83 31706623.55
## 10789 10790 10791 10792 10793 10794
## 24439494.21 27241932.83 22930440.38 23641969.90 27794243.34 19988084.70
## 10795 10796 10797 10798 10799 10800
## 21491465.81 25726079.40 30678149.02 31537346.13 36756187.66 34532571.26
## 10801 10802 10803 10804 10805 10806
## 26224188.37 24391818.16 20675677.20 23963221.50 20784503.22 18502261.85
## 10807 10808 10809 10810 10811 10812
## 19268540.54 18341131.67 23102919.88 26747332.20 27817053.16 27904369.27
# residuals
residuals(fit)
## 10609 10610 10611 10612 10613

## 5952459.84 12255563.09 -3371411.14 -4445741.27 -8889076.47
## 10614 10615 10616 10617 10618
## 986134.71 -5748266.48 -336390.21 2807133.26 1645172.74
## 10619 10620 10621 10622 10623
## -3629105.70 -4577842.81 3072907.21 3243308.73 -5672890.07
## 10624 10625 10626 10627 10628
## -15696727.40 289232.12 2042122.32 1117366.99 2926082.40
## 10629 10630 10631 10632 10633
## 5230228.43 -20382271.56 -5264124.44 -5075967.51 1491577.71
## 10634 10635 10636 10637 10638
## -9837151.49 -6712232.19 -764792.30 -437886.38 2231690.27
## 10639 10640 10641 10642 10643
## -1443831.23 -2440345.04 14926587.99 -6794617.92 2635516.43

## 10644 10645 10646 10647 10648
## -17311907.92 -5709093.26 4952910.28 -6048902.56 -6642668.40
## 10649 10650 10651 10652 10653
## -9406029.73 11491464.13 29486574.30 2963737.40 3482526.36
## 10654 10655 10656 10657 10658
## 764926.90 5721591.58 -8014761.85 -334238.52 5160023.79
## 10659 10660 10661 10662 10663
## 3802703.26 -10108379.25 -2107670.27 -3238790.51 6520269.00
## 10664 10665 10666 10667 10668
## 6117951.47 3707721.08 4118584.97 744008.66 -2535146.08
## 10669 10670 10671 10672 10673
## 5587891.61 247621.47 -2882708.00 800991.54 -911955.00
## 10674 10675 10676 10677 10678
## -655352.63 5390336.84 4162722.58 18880213.59 11462880.43
## 10679 10680 10681 10682 10683
## 24340300.82 -5444209.40 6331098.26 2063500.35 8101582.03
## 10684 10685 10686 10687 10688
## -1076762.56 -1485004.62 1129099.86 -3023048.68 1233356.51
## 10689 10690 10691 10692 10693
## 4825705.45 29321582.28 12866219.97 -8588656.22 -3474768.56
## 10694 10695 10696 10697 10698
## -3342387.93 -1561293.84 -7985942.92 -13492569.39 -6264977.56
## 10699 10700 10701 10702 10703
## 7369859.10 -2554169.18 8312707.30 10394757.30 7502086.94
## 10704 10705 10706 10707 10708
## 8077227.47 -2014108.57 -95116.07 16114782.51 -9058033.14
## 10709 10710 10711 10712 10713
## -14564659.61 -2664396.26 -4418287.27 -1765118.25 8881219.38
## 10714 10715 10716 10717 10718
## -5440633.74 4224442.28 19111300.40 6924490.79 3747711.16
## 10719 10720 10721 10722 10723
## -9990097.04 -6651295.63 -5039648.82 -6308.56 2483670.82
## 10724 10725 10726 10727 10728
## -5713224.42 -2679256.50 6910723.16 -3562131.49 -9394292.44
## 10729 10730 10731 10732 10733
## 12292491.48 4692225.99 -9441901.08 -2161564.02 -5911665.98
## 10734 10735 10736 10737 10738
## -4985852.10 7434834.02 -6325219.34 -9242339.89 2630232.74
## 10739 10740 10741 10742 10743
## 2220095.43 -24406855.54 19131720.29 -3262974.07 -10889120.28
## 10744 10745 10746 10747 10748
## -10903121.99 -17763414.88 -6822302.77 -6103458.03 4173221.59
## 10749 10750 10751 10752 10753
## 1798780.05 -2210622.30 -11946665.58 -13681047.30 -2168599.28

## 10754 10755 10756 10757 10758
## -6048066.31 -2150199.30 -13368549.99 -13612130.58 -5616599.80
## 10759 10760 10761 10762 10763
## -8493152.82 13138420.47 5906816.91 -5632275.23 -14413805.47
## 10764 10765 10766 10767 10768
## -11756970.84 13432590.65 -4590320.74 11802983.94 -11719864.10
## 10769 10770 10771 10772 10773
## -5872175.91 -6074743.34 -1524686.00 -11526464.03 588741.05
## 10774 10775 10776 10777 10778
## -6270584.46 3002161.46 17526668.12 21562277.07 4623242.69
## 10779 10780 10781 10782 10783
## -574423.50 -461153.44 8859508.60 -6850722.29 20410.18
## 10784 10785 10786 10787 10788
## 1833438.73 -6721423.87 -120768.46 6155767.42 16332840.98
## 10789 10790 10791 10792 10793
## 11567778.03 -5252033.21 7628370.24 -14204807.69 -8731475.08
## 10794 10795 10796 10797 10798
## -3574565.94 3934677.40 -701966.67 40857881.71 3374642.37
## 10799 10800 10801 10802 10803
## 6228081.96 32312395.41 18534222.08 21076380.64 -3225724.08
## 10804 10805 10806 10807 10808
## 7968162.75 -5060877.16 -8144023.17 -9024300.07 -16068197.43
## 10809 10810 10811 10812
## -15246302.20 -2792914.14 -5883562.15 -13014993.94
# anova table
anova(fit)
## Analysis of Variance Table

##
## Response: raised
## Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)
## year 1 4.6080e+15 4.6080e+15 49.083 3.663e-11 ***
## month 1 1.9813e+15 1.9813e+15 21.104 7.689e-06 ***
## nomeff 1 7.4316e+15 7.4316e+15 79.159 3.445e-16 ***
## Residuals 200 1.8776e+16 9.3882e+13
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
# covariance matrix for model parameters

vcov(fit)

## (Intercept) 7.767104e+16 -3.872335e+13 28849322448.9 -1.085409e+09
## year -3.872335e+13 1.930661e+10 -132736938.4 5.147853e+05

## month 2.884932e+10 -1.327369e+08 38753042588.4 -5.204691e+05
## nomeff -1.085409e+09 5.147853e+05 -520469.1 2.018502e+03
# regression diagnostics
influence(fit)
## $hat
## 10609 10610 10611 10612 10613 10614
## 0.042348953 0.032174152 0.030947216 0.024014063 0.027363125 0.031587019
## 10615 10616 10617 10618 10619 10620
## 0.018101845 0.031744185 0.029944584 0.028749417 0.028915850 0.042004060
## 10621 10622 10623 10624 10625 10626
## 0.036951680 0.032836278 0.020628210 0.029105061 0.025090117 0.020127986
## 10627 10628 10629 10630 10631 10632
## 0.028928511 0.025311220 0.021317185 0.041136744 0.038894083 0.038442958
## 10633 10634 10635 10636 10637 10638
## 0.024751425 0.032951924 0.018613317 0.018864207 0.027982400 0.015391058
## 10639 10640 10641 10642 10643 10644
## 0.014401572 0.013346093 0.015061997 0.022355644 0.027879390 0.046154691
## 10645 10646 10647 10648 10649 10650
## 0.031627027 0.018558780 0.023833019 0.112821017 0.025427226 0.010871644
## 10651 10652 10653 10654 10655 10656
## 0.014936315 0.016434376 0.012730547 0.015052097 0.018993675 0.022811653
## 10657 10658 10659 10660 10661 10662
## 0.021590355 0.025598024 0.021891454 0.030677847 0.012303026 0.008431467
## 10663 10664 10665 10666 10667 10668
## 0.010270283 0.015731396 0.014200211 0.013621161 0.019758522 0.024082289
## 10669 10670 10671 10672 10673 10674
## 0.023275260 0.022651222 0.013566370 0.010244787 0.009973309 0.009427607
## 10675 10676 10677 10678 10679 10680
## 0.009064497 0.012642349 0.009371723 0.011822949 0.018824179 0.019203515
## 10681 10682 10683 10684 10685 10686
## 0.018230843 0.014847325 0.025124352 0.008429436 0.006662158 0.010162920
## 10687 10688 10689 10690 10691 10692
## 0.005886809 0.009761653 0.008305723 0.017501582 0.015513961 0.018205378
## 10693 10694 10695 10696 10697 10698
## 0.028403775 0.013710461 0.011213122 0.007992116 0.015776039 0.008437031
## 10699 10700 10701 10702 10703 10704
## 0.005524255 0.009895498 0.009330121 0.010167001 0.013503398 0.017684780

## 10705 10706 10707 10708 10709 10710
## 0.017555766 0.013732230 0.009968803 0.007831239 0.015806655 0.010548861
## 10711 10712 10713 10714 10715 10716
## 0.005897979 0.010109522 0.007643304 0.013336595 0.013258812 0.017830567
## 10717 10718 10719 10720 10721 10722
## 0.017580339 0.013641063 0.014828321 0.007707093 0.009130653 0.007002906
## 10723 10724 10725 10726 10727 10728
## 0.005964200 0.008107635 0.007712046 0.011939769 0.030339564 0.017690478
## 10729 10730 10731 10732 10733 10734
## 0.018267899 0.014779064 0.012677183 0.008396088 0.008933566 0.015077042
## 10735 10736 10737 10738 10739 10740
## 0.006182481 0.008291578 0.008441482 0.057347133 0.023330100 0.027175075
## 10741 10742 10743 10744 10745 10746
## 0.034145133 0.015598509 0.024922266 0.014620930 0.015971049 0.011818535
## 10747 10748 10749 10750 10751 10752
## 0.009166620 0.007953467 0.009838765 0.011779321 0.041442536 0.019370448
## 10753 10754 10755 10756 10757 10758
## 0.021496796 0.018615226 0.015482224 0.012810535 0.010316345 0.017445774
## 10759 10760 10761 10762 10763 10764
## 0.012517804 0.009671274 0.012428820 0.013209037 0.016669564 0.030352449
## 10765 10766 10767 10768 10769 10770
## 0.022778573 0.024013621 0.019359402 0.017364762 0.011868764 0.010639665
## 10771 10772 10773 10774 10775 10776
## 0.016097657 0.020932289 0.015185078 0.023064462 0.042076891 0.022982715
## 10777 10778 10779 10780 10781 10782
## 0.039314848 0.020642852 0.017495861 0.015307288 0.013370033 0.017670901
## 10783 10784 10785 10786 10787 10788
## 0.015229820 0.013478258 0.018677831 0.017442482 0.021062576 0.025585033
## 10789 10790 10791 10792 10793 10794
## 0.029795969 0.028346084 0.020069570 0.017557692 0.017992944 0.017991668
## 10795 10796 10797 10798 10799 10800
## 0.017279735 0.015915981 0.018925877 0.021355814 0.030908716 0.029985740
## 10801 10802 10803 10804 10805 10806
## 0.033882901 0.027040425 0.023711906 0.020546316 0.021026489 0.024976776
## 10807 10808 10809 10810 10811 10812
## 0.025242356 0.030110086 0.024279989 0.023872198 0.027053249 0.031774203
##
## $coefficients
## 10609 2.217824e+07 -1.095925e+04 -1.325088e+04 -3.148198546
## 10610 4.411931e+07 -2.183848e+04 -2.228032e+04 -4.498752468
## 10611 -1.067489e+07 5.318300e+03 5.379473e+03 -1.436946526
## 10612 -1.430707e+07 7.125744e+03 5.005198e+03 -1.244058740
## 10613 -2.792623e+07 1.393898e+04 6.644383e+03 -3.898604484
## 10614 3.637567e+06 -1.803856e+03 -6.792737e+01 -0.548821439
## 10615 -1.912700e+07 9.531031e+03 -1.168978e+03 -0.136134257
## 10616 -1.236679e+06 6.142401e+02 -2.614444e+02 0.182574103
## 10617 1.017484e+07 -5.060185e+03 3.311361e+03 -1.300911103
## 10618 5.221933e+06 -2.616049e+03 2.285340e+03 0.594874799
## 10619 -1.269309e+07 6.332354e+03 -7.146199e+03 0.885644012
## 10620 -1.689093e+07 8.416379e+03 -1.142621e+04 2.385068449
## 10621 9.988869e+06 -4.931698e+03 -6.845283e+03 -1.449495213
## 10622 1.048887e+07 -5.182988e+03 -5.814728e+03 -1.523215775
## 10623 -1.631084e+07 8.103095e+03 8.519957e+03 -0.699865368
## 10624 -4.218674e+07 2.105372e+04 1.871018e+04 -8.082331986
## 10625 9.242638e+05 -4.579190e+02 -1.489350e+02 -0.132336511
## 10626 6.358893e+06 -3.155937e+03 -2.504379e+02 -0.691128004
## 10627 3.641035e+06 -1.805648e+03 3.989493e+02 -0.629386219
## 10628 9.337116e+06 -4.637748e+03 2.201757e+03 -1.355018464
## 10629 1.613545e+07 -8.032158e+03 5.891577e+03 -1.534779365
## 10630 -5.312552e+07 2.673259e+04 -2.690472e+04 -14.346919347
## 10631 -1.395324e+07 7.020519e+03 -9.319379e+03 -3.177538009
## 10632 -1.646696e+07 8.204834e+03 -1.260786e+04 2.577627287
## 10633 3.760187e+06 -1.861128e+03 -3.473579e+03 0.051669502
## 10634 -2.234622e+07 1.112837e+04 2.018246e+04 -5.245393316
## 10635 -1.628359e+07 8.088006e+03 1.014416e+04 -1.151932610
## 10636 -2.047850e+06 1.013844e+03 7.423967e+02 0.229688220
## 10637 -1.247581e+06 6.168874e+02 2.124380e+02 0.254137855
## 10638 5.894615e+06 -2.925287e+03 -3.169306e+02 -0.578830806
## 10639 -3.769840e+06 1.873573e+03 -3.804838e+02 0.307087073
## 10640 -6.158875e+06 3.068716e+03 -1.564194e+03 0.147604594
## 10641 3.662943e+07 -1.829673e+04 1.530656e+04 1.079832230
## 10642 -1.581303e+07 7.932421e+03 -9.414976e+03 -2.292732097
## 10643 6.064794e+06 -3.048607e+03 4.741647e+03 1.073663875
## 10644 -3.778883e+07 1.909829e+04 -3.788386e+04 -12.327285258
## 10645 -1.077920e+07 5.352968e+03 1.401354e+04 -2.618544383

## 10646 1.060570e+07 -5.242426e+03 -9.252015e+03 -0.347635974
## 10647 -1.132823e+07 5.641363e+03 9.615886e+03 -2.693177220
## 10648 -9.507136e+06 4.843114e+03 1.053421e+04 -10.992044696
## 10649 -1.695109e+07 8.482417e+03 7.344435e+03 -5.387675286
## 10650 2.306200e+07 -1.148565e+04 -2.772593e+03 1.485708039
## 10651 5.621407e+07 -2.811061e+04 3.670604e+03 9.641509106
## 10652 6.729828e+06 -3.341545e+03 2.126468e+03 -1.036254290
## 10653 7.108220e+06 -3.551032e+03 3.575657e+03 0.201266255
## 10654 1.582467e+06 -7.910911e+02 1.116079e+03 0.007929597
## 10655 1.152837e+07 -5.779663e+03 1.061769e+04 0.692447633
## 10656 -1.710168e+07 8.560121e+03 -1.874231e+04 0.721627113
## 10657 -5.929103e+05 2.917234e+02 7.601162e+02 0.049510964
## 10658 1.002366e+07 -4.923779e+03 -9.198676e+03 -2.342143138
## 10659 7.327219e+06 -3.604714e+03 -5.164301e+03 -1.679766149
## 10660 -1.353175e+07 6.778596e+03 1.248477e+04 -6.827556929
## 10661 -3.213203e+06 1.600485e+03 1.461190e+03 -0.560386836
## 10662 -5.268267e+06 2.619912e+03 7.210039e+02 -0.190793353
## 10663 1.154913e+07 -5.730482e+03 1.707015e+03 -1.365261647
## 10664 1.144985e+07 -5.676987e+03 4.440678e+03 -2.347823170
## 10665 6.705866e+06 -3.334416e+03 4.132369e+03 -1.025737232
## 10666 7.032453e+06 -3.511565e+03 6.112911e+03 -0.393054841
## 10667 1.345926e+06 -6.713397e+02 1.456790e+03 -0.200903934
## 10668 -4.611241e+06 2.303236e+03 -6.060086e+03 0.709429363
## 10669 8.053249e+06 -3.938302e+03 -1.250602e+04 -1.696860825
## 10670 3.705611e+05 -1.813324e+02 -4.426178e+02 -0.102288769
## 10671 -3.939973e+06 1.936750e+03 4.059715e+03 0.572834588
## 10672 9.419679e+05 -4.666418e+02 -8.618175e+02 0.114659646
## 10673 -1.250211e+06 6.167518e+02 5.154677e+02 0.205175878
## 10674 -9.007893e+05 4.451602e+02 9.586014e+01 0.155957310
## 10675 7.341548e+06 -3.636302e+03 1.425342e+03 -1.188810295
## 10676 5.924946e+06 -2.935061e+03 2.957010e+03 -1.379088741
## 10677 2.301099e+07 -1.150280e+04 1.942244e+04 0.687768760
## 10678 1.439071e+07 -7.198515e+03 1.679264e+04 -0.355463468
## 10679 2.651039e+07 -1.340312e+04 4.410324e+04 7.047794792
## 10680 -6.703334e+06 3.371961e+03 -1.252879e+04 -0.114757586
## 10681 5.541159e+06 -2.697350e+03 -1.452595e+04 -0.247387790
## 10682 1.603446e+06 -7.856451e+02 -3.948057e+03 0.274442552
## 10683 4.441413e+06 -2.216849e+03 -1.315567e+04 4.618659090

## 10684 -8.700043e+05 4.284249e+02 1.132074e+03 -0.059475986
## 10685 -1.253417e+06 6.181170e+02 9.149269e+02 0.029129447
## 10686 7.539905e+05 -3.770922e+02 -3.244721e+02 0.348491682
## 10687 -2.562626e+06 1.271214e+03 -6.547688e+02 0.113695338
## 10688 1.194618e+06 -5.910220e+02 8.516612e+02 -0.322441202
## 10689 4.025099e+06 -2.010676e+03 5.027373e+03 -0.089717606
## 10690 1.819959e+07 -9.292996e+03 4.003722e+04 11.363767502
## 10691 9.363500e+06 -4.747078e+03 2.359376e+04 2.319518098
## 10692 -7.222097e+06 3.641319e+03 -1.986024e+04 0.265940573
## 10693 -6.056861e+05 2.898511e+02 8.536768e+03 -1.727667047
## 10694 -1.305227e+06 6.257896e+02 6.340178e+03 -0.260270335
## 10695 -5.404923e+05 2.614907e+02 2.335034e+03 -0.239252458
## 10696 -3.033790e+06 1.475310e+03 8.449588e+03 -0.662450304
## 10697 -2.362064e+06 1.199732e+03 1.007671e+04 -6.274776280
## 10698 -3.521929e+06 1.715006e+03 8.703304e+02 1.664513748
## 10699 2.733217e+06 -1.358053e+03 1.366920e+03 0.610078755
## 10700 -1.458547e+06 7.165223e+02 -1.783467e+03 0.743524545
## 10701 4.271917e+06 -2.117273e+03 9.037041e+03 -1.581853695
## 10702 4.131753e+06 -2.087052e+03 1.506093e+04 0.226903260
## 10703 2.904535e+06 -1.479497e+03 1.400255e+04 0.289243941
## 10704 3.048377e+06 -1.566427e+03 1.848898e+04 0.443212896
## 10705 -1.143376e+05 3.516276e+01 4.602683e+03 0.137875177
## 10706 -7.011967e+03 2.551064e+00 1.759407e+02 0.010002868
## 10707 1.826903e+04 1.014222e+02 -2.353720e+04 0.397682389
## 10708 3.251151e+05 -2.043634e+02 9.595275e+03 -0.801320482
## 10709 3.554089e+06 -1.748180e+03 1.089865e+04 -6.854712077
## 10710 -5.167254e+05 2.371035e+02 3.141253e+02 0.929696189
## 10711 -3.470363e+05 1.570767e+02 -1.072941e+03 0.615906683
## 10712 -2.925253e+05 1.379845e+02 -1.239762e+03 0.541044957
## 10713 -3.072306e+05 1.381465e+02 9.063973e+03 0.541680208
## 10714 -7.765932e+05 3.799752e+02 -8.323130e+03 1.489904557
## 10715 -8.593698e+04 2.628041e+01 7.898327e+03 0.103047003
## 10716 -1.259419e+06 5.068377e+02 4.351076e+04 1.987339499
## 10717 -2.845605e+06 1.485801e+03 -1.599330e+04 0.181059556
## 10718 -1.627264e+06 8.403740e+02 -7.098327e+03 0.252218086
## 10719 5.738343e+06 -2.891791e+03 1.542928e+04 -3.217688027
## 10720 2.575890e+06 -1.325706e+03 6.849368e+03 0.170024856
## 10721 2.743464e+06 -1.373642e+03 3.476782e+03 -1.312834809

## 10722 1.891144e+03 -9.794033e-01 9.849642e-01 0.001247668
## 10723 -8.431059e+05 4.291345e+02 5.959896e+02 -0.318369889
## 10724 1.699317e+06 -8.661153e+02 -3.867812e+03 1.216859700
## 10725 1.070784e+06 -5.326297e+02 -2.795782e+03 0.073939846
## 10726 -3.634180e+06 1.778932e+03 9.715614e+03 1.373827064
## 10727 2.721464e+06 -1.315127e+03 -6.229100e+03 -2.214626452
## 10728 4.293151e+06 -2.087533e+03 -2.150113e+04 -0.526242586
## 10729 -1.033050e+07 5.266972e+03 -2.848234e+04 0.596359927
## 10730 -4.140989e+06 2.097702e+03 -8.969896e+03 0.596746653
## 10731 8.740758e+06 -4.401930e+03 1.426929e+04 -1.942572590
## 10732 1.704127e+06 -8.639063e+02 2.214883e+03 0.104151101
## 10733 5.543927e+06 -2.774150e+03 4.021768e+03 -1.323301838
## 10734 2.900244e+06 -1.491977e+03 4.589080e+02 2.258154884
## 10735 -5.746351e+06 2.887983e+03 1.708556e+03 -0.658799504
## 10736 5.863621e+06 -2.911538e+03 -3.625998e+03 -1.200248796
## 10737 7.936993e+06 -3.943310e+03 -9.448384e+03 -0.532097381
## 10738 -3.799404e+06 1.852009e+03 3.297152e+03 2.792589403
## 10739 -2.424007e+06 1.187533e+03 3.945937e+03 1.015428594
## 10740 2.673316e+07 -1.306522e+04 -5.391394e+04 -11.044007437
## 10741 -2.998799e+07 1.500246e+04 -4.771143e+04 11.234460799
## 10742 3.826148e+06 -1.940949e+03 6.044669e+03 0.353303805
## 10743 1.675273e+07 -8.356773e+03 1.760887e+04 -5.936400688
## 10744 1.547598e+07 -7.733429e+03 1.234295e+04 -3.738592715
## 10745 2.611850e+07 -1.300653e+04 1.310536e+04 -7.628145733
## 10746 7.224511e+06 -3.654449e+03 8.377321e+02 2.258058551
## 10747 6.805481e+06 -3.423328e+03 -1.621965e+03 1.376820132
## 10748 -4.986467e+06 2.493240e+03 2.680961e+03 -0.330865273
## 10749 -2.339139e+06 1.162491e+03 1.818326e+03 0.193486833
## 10750 2.757010e+06 -1.370125e+03 -3.221227e+03 0.002231249
## 10751 2.044704e+07 -1.003019e+04 -2.065058e+04 -9.384825508
## 10752 1.680124e+07 -8.323089e+03 -3.179199e+04 0.884179476
## 10753 3.751150e+06 -1.888552e+03 5.092878e+03 -0.305438599
## 10754 9.283990e+06 -4.699767e+03 1.106898e+04 1.314300194
## 10755 3.286791e+06 -1.661185e+03 3.019905e+03 0.482833713
## 10756 2.048982e+07 -1.033521e+04 1.318982e+04 2.856629756
## 10757 2.120923e+07 -1.066864e+04 7.912063e+03 2.228364085
## 10758 7.963005e+06 -4.022772e+03 5.211376e+02 2.538605474
## 10759 1.266087e+07 -6.364137e+03 -2.438977e+03 2.598379782

## 10760 -2.251378e+07 1.121529e+04 7.805354e+03 1.476114842
## 10761 -9.195523e+06 4.595975e+03 6.444720e+03 -1.139421617
## 10762 9.377180e+06 -4.664159e+03 -8.216497e+03 -0.004043853
## 10763 2.459176e+07 -1.220144e+04 -2.690524e+04 -0.885468388
## 10764 1.699698e+07 -8.491030e+03 -2.886275e+04 5.548338501
## 10765 -2.849576e+07 1.433161e+04 -3.139603e+04 1.152496207
## 10766 8.667243e+06 -4.384161e+03 8.282529e+03 1.642954860
## 10767 -2.250246e+07 1.135701e+04 -1.638369e+04 -3.664811034
## 10768 2.222611e+07 -1.120462e+04 1.127902e+04 3.825802265
## 10769 1.166217e+07 -5.854050e+03 3.449565e+03 0.842605075
## 10770 1.218204e+07 -6.103551e+03 1.094079e+03 0.654610620
## 10771 2.868529e+06 -1.440760e+03 -4.620766e+02 0.555959114
## 10772 2.116036e+07 -1.063087e+04 -8.671706e+03 5.458520491
## 10773 -1.149062e+06 5.744290e+02 6.512743e+02 -0.141506136
## 10774 1.460430e+07 -7.234601e+03 -8.553998e+03 -2.664872208
## 10775 -7.643539e+06 3.771626e+03 5.224049e+03 2.239007014
## 10776 -3.793829e+07 1.880890e+04 4.009159e+04 1.916947871
## 10777 -6.147477e+07 3.071463e+04 -5.402415e+04 12.582237726
## 10778 -1.142963e+07 5.742630e+03 -8.695424e+03 -0.166766045
## 10779 1.407505e+06 -7.066625e+02 8.318138e+02 0.038518304
## 10780 1.119671e+06 -5.617728e+02 4.693291e+02 0.047646704
## 10781 -2.167545e+07 1.085816e+04 -5.392837e+03 -0.573298309
## 10782 1.582477e+07 -7.945378e+03 8.266039e+02 2.357102011
## 10783 -4.808225e+04 2.408581e+01 5.590822e+00 -0.005150303
## 10784 -4.484881e+06 2.239632e+03 1.185089e+03 -0.148714333
## 10785 1.578188e+07 -7.891115e+03 -7.552015e+03 1.971122788
## 10786 2.988220e+05 -1.488566e+02 -1.787522e+02 0.006945175
## 10787 -1.515295e+07 7.543606e+03 1.180438e+04 -0.637321651
## 10788 -4.259410e+07 2.113152e+04 3.732562e+04 2.314337478
## 10789 -3.541430e+07 1.774364e+04 -2.767970e+04 2.732233148
## 10790 1.636634e+07 -8.184845e+03 1.046740e+04 -1.790939131
## 10791 -2.241748e+07 1.123094e+04 -1.130989e+04 0.396006193
## 10792 4.159560e+07 -2.082176e+04 1.502035e+04 -0.586778663
## 10793 2.643894e+07 -1.320083e+04 5.980054e+03 -1.914906596
## 10794 9.916625e+06 -4.969398e+03 5.111495e+02 0.921178949
## 10795 -1.098800e+07 5.499053e+03 1.051415e+03 -0.883903995
## 10796 2.028247e+06 -1.012302e+03 -4.477825e+02 0.029640129
## 10797 -1.234049e+08 6.141495e+04 4.093550e+04 7.340044191

## 10798 -1.022276e+07 5.083079e+03 4.809996e+03 0.599668816
## 10799 -1.987209e+07 9.854067e+03 1.122356e+04 2.609591178
## 10800 -1.000787e+08 4.964740e+04 7.332152e+04 7.924476981
## 10801 -6.529009e+07 3.268233e+04 -4.475353e+04 5.236688538
## 10802 -7.206740e+07 3.609092e+04 -4.080151e+04 2.726204116
## 10803 1.055969e+07 -5.295507e+03 4.652551e+03 0.405043300
## 10804 -2.658305e+07 1.330478e+04 -8.378138e+03 0.046214950
## 10805 1.629572e+07 -8.165072e+03 2.904723e+03 1.105528974
## 10806 2.558239e+07 -1.282763e+04 8.884004e+02 3.217167593
## 10807 2.834348e+07 -1.420069e+04 -2.841140e+03 3.633854651
## 10808 4.988753e+07 -2.499597e+04 -1.231960e+04 8.133609667
## 10809 4.883875e+07 -2.440287e+04 -1.721099e+04 4.428098543
## 10810 9.177389e+06 -4.576010e+03 -4.219677e+03 0.388898756
## 10811 1.944169e+07 -9.685203e+03 -1.139177e+04 0.767636896
## 10812 4.293545e+07 -2.137868e+04 -3.100402e+04 2.295963898
##
## $sigma
## 10609 10610 10611 10612 10613 10614 10615 10616 10617
## 9704033 9673382 9710573 9708368 9692571 9713348 9704899 9713577 9711506
## 10618 10619 10620 10621 10622 10623 10624 10625 10626
## 9712887 9710099 9707947 9711071 9710794 9705104 9647742 9713585 9712507
## 10627 10628 10629 10630 10631 10632 10633 10634 10635
## 9713275 9711335 9706375 9600885 9706147 9706674 9713017 9687689 9701725
## 10636 10637 10638 10639 10640 10641 10642 10643 10644
## 9713453 9713556 9712299 9713060 9712046 9654918 9701385 9711759 9631991
## 10645 10646 10647 10648 10649 10650 10651 10652 10653
## 9704897 9707140 9703907 9700734 9690097 9679013 9482552 9711297 9710429
## 10654 10655 10656 10657 10658 10659 10660 10661 10662
## 9713454 9704972 9696589 9713578 9706537 9709783 9686303 9712444 9710871
## 10663 10664 10665 10666 10667 10668 10669 10670 10671
## 9702490 9703766 9710000 9709158 9713461 9711904 9705335 9713591 9711428
## 10672 10673 10674 10675 10676 10677 10678 10679 10680
## 9713440 9713390 9713495 9706020 9709067 9620081 9679152 9556146 9705788
## 10681 10682 10683 10684 10685 10686 10687 10688 10689
## 9703041 9712489 9696177 9713305 9713033 9713274 9711229 9713210 9707532
## 10690 10691 10692 10693 10694 10695 10696 10697 10698
## 9484558 9670016 9694154 9710393 9710677 9712970 9696964 9665645 9703363
## 10699 10700 10701 10702 10703 10704 10705 10706 10707

## 9699470 9711903 9695548 9685330 9698839 9696413 9712539 9713605 9645521
## 10708 10709 10710 10711 10712 10713 10714 10715 10716
## 9692194 9657695 9711752 9708527 9712793 9693026 9705844 9708928 9616936
## 10717 10718 10719 10720 10721 10722 10723 10724 10725
## 9700975 9709924 9687368 9702069 9706975 9713608 9712002 9705092 9711736
## 10726 10727 10728 10729 10730 10731 10732 10733 10734
## 9701097 9710222 9690341 9673713 9707825 9690224 9712389 9704482 9707077
## 10735 10736 10737 10738 10739 10740 10741 10742 10743
## 9699210 9703167 9691298 9711709 9712302 9553906 9615084 9710809 9682102
## 10744 10745 10746 10747 10748 10749 10750 10751 10752
## 9682351 9630307 9701417 9703878 9709066 9712762 9712328 9675017 9664111
## 10753 10754 10755 10756 10757 10758 10759 10760 10761
## 9712364 9703962 9712393 9666666 9665059 9705299 9694694 9668416 9704465
## 10762 10763 10764 10765 10766 10767 10768 10769 10770
## 9705289 9658802 9676664 9665730 9708021 9676792 9677383 9704577 9703955
## 10771 10772 10773 10774 10775 10776 10777 10778 10779
## 9712996 9678443 9713516 9703191 9711173 9631938 9587608 9707961 9713521
## 10780 10781 10782 10783 10784 10785 10786 10787 10788
## 9713552 9693008 9701242 9713607 9712726 9701692 9713604 9703590 9642534
## 10789 10790 10791 10792 10793 10794 10795 10796 10797
## 9677866 9706262 9698235 9660336 9693505 9710241 9709532 9713478 9263021
## 10798 10799 10800 10801 10802 10803 10804 10805 10806
## 9710597 9703249 9431081 9621196 9594785 9710850 9696826 9706838 9695996
## 10807 10808 10809 10810 10811 10812
## 9691973 9644505 9651788 9711540 9704400 9668249
##
## $wt.res
## 10609 10610 10611 10612 10613
## 5952459.84 12255563.09 -3371411.14 -4445741.27 -8889076.47
## 10614 10615 10616 10617 10618
## 986134.71 -5748266.48 -336390.21 2807133.26 1645172.74
## 10619 10620 10621 10622 10623
## -3629105.70 -4577842.81 3072907.21 3243308.73 -5672890.07
## 10624 10625 10626 10627 10628
## -15696727.40 289232.12 2042122.32 1117366.99 2926082.40
## 10629 10630 10631 10632 10633
## 5230228.43 -20382271.56 -5264124.44 -5075967.51 1491577.71
## 10634 10635 10636 10637 10638

## -9837151.49 -6712232.19 -764792.30 -437886.38 2231690.27
## 10639 10640 10641 10642 10643
## -1443831.23 -2440345.04 14926587.99 -6794617.92 2635516.43
## 10644 10645 10646 10647 10648
## -17311907.92 -5709093.26 4952910.28 -6048902.56 -6642668.40
## 10649 10650 10651 10652 10653
## -9406029.73 11491464.13 29486574.30 2963737.40 3482526.36
## 10654 10655 10656 10657 10658
## 764926.90 5721591.58 -8014761.85 -334238.52 5160023.79
## 10659 10660 10661 10662 10663
## 3802703.26 -10108379.25 -2107670.27 -3238790.51 6520269.00
## 10664 10665 10666 10667 10668
## 6117951.47 3707721.08 4118584.97 744008.66 -2535146.08
## 10669 10670 10671 10672 10673
## 5587891.61 247621.47 -2882708.00 800991.54 -911955.00
## 10674 10675 10676 10677 10678
## -655352.63 5390336.84 4162722.58 18880213.59 11462880.43
## 10679 10680 10681 10682 10683
## 24340300.82 -5444209.40 6331098.26 2063500.35 8101582.03
## 10684 10685 10686 10687 10688
## -1076762.56 -1485004.62 1129099.86 -3023048.68 1233356.51
## 10689 10690 10691 10692 10693
## 4825705.45 29321582.28 12866219.97 -8588656.22 -3474768.56
## 10694 10695 10696 10697 10698
## -3342387.93 -1561293.84 -7985942.92 -13492569.39 -6264977.56
## 10699 10700 10701 10702 10703
## 7369859.10 -2554169.18 8312707.30 10394757.30 7502086.94
## 10704 10705 10706 10707 10708
## 8077227.47 -2014108.57 -95116.07 16114782.51 -9058033.14
## 10709 10710 10711 10712 10713
## -14564659.61 -2664396.26 -4418287.27 -1765118.25 8881219.38
## 10714 10715 10716 10717 10718
## -5440633.74 4224442.28 19111300.40 6924490.79 3747711.16
## 10719 10720 10721 10722 10723
## -9990097.04 -6651295.63 -5039648.82 -6308.56 2483670.82
## 10724 10725 10726 10727 10728
## -5713224.42 -2679256.50 6910723.16 -3562131.49 -9394292.44
## 10729 10730 10731 10732 10733

## 12292491.48 4692225.99 -9441901.08 -2161564.02 -5911665.98
## 10734 10735 10736 10737 10738
## -4985852.10 7434834.02 -6325219.34 -9242339.89 2630232.74
## 10739 10740 10741 10742 10743
## 2220095.43 -24406855.54 19131720.29 -3262974.07 -10889120.28
## 10744 10745 10746 10747 10748
## -10903121.99 -17763414.88 -6822302.77 -6103458.03 4173221.59
## 10749 10750 10751 10752 10753
## 1798780.05 -2210622.30 -11946665.58 -13681047.30 -2168599.28
## 10754 10755 10756 10757 10758
## -6048066.31 -2150199.30 -13368549.99 -13612130.58 -5616599.80
## 10759 10760 10761 10762 10763
## -8493152.82 13138420.47 5906816.91 -5632275.23 -14413805.47
## 10764 10765 10766 10767 10768
## -11756970.84 13432590.65 -4590320.74 11802983.94 -11719864.10
## 10769 10770 10771 10772 10773
## -5872175.91 -6074743.34 -1524686.00 -11526464.03 588741.05
## 10774 10775 10776 10777 10778
## -6270584.46 3002161.46 17526668.12 21562277.07 4623242.69
## 10779 10780 10781 10782 10783
## -574423.50 -461153.44 8859508.60 -6850722.29 20410.18
## 10784 10785 10786 10787 10788
## 1833438.73 -6721423.87 -120768.46 6155767.42 16332840.98
## 10789 10790 10791 10792 10793
## 11567778.03 -5252033.21 7628370.24 -14204807.69 -8731475.08
## 10794 10795 10796 10797 10798
## -3574565.94 3934677.40 -701966.67 40857881.71 3374642.37
## 10799 10800 10801 10802 10803
## 6228081.96 32312395.41 18534222.08 21076380.64 -3225724.08
## 10804 10805 10806 10807 10808
## 7968162.75 -5060877.16 -8144023.17 -9024300.07 -16068197.43
## 10809 10810 10811 10812
## -15246302.20 -2792914.14 -5883562.15 -13014993.94
Chapter 5: Plots in R
##scatter plot
sp3621<-sp362[c(1:2,4)]
attach(sp3621)
## The following objects are masked from klm:

## month, raised, year
plot(year,raised,main="sardine catch[1997-2013]",xlab="year",ylab="catch(kg))
##Histogram
hist(raised,main="Histogram for
oilsardine catch[1997-2013]",
xlab="catch",
col="green",
breaks=5)
##Bar plot
barplot(raised, main="sardine catch
Distribution",
xlab="Number of years")
Boxplot in r
# Boxplot of catch vs month

boxplot(raised~month,data=sp3621,
main="Sardine catch ",
xlab="months",
ylab="catch(kg)",col=rainbow(length
(unique(month))))
to plot a correlation in r
##we select sardine correlations

cordat<-sp362[,4:6]
library(PerformanceAnalytics)
chart.Correlation(cordat,method=
"pearson"
Suggested Reading
Bryant, F. B. and Yarnold, P. R. 1995. Principal components analysis and exploratory and confirmatory
factor analysis. In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate analysis.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Crowley, M. J. 2007. The R Book.Chichester, New England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Dunteman, G. H. 1989. Principal components analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C. and Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory
factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272-299.
Fox, J. 2005. R commander: A basic-statistics user interface to R. Journal of Statistical Software. 14, (9),
1-42.
Gorsuch, R. L. 1983. Factor Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. and Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis with readings
(4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hatcher, L. 1994. A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural
equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
http://www.statisticssolutions.com.
Hutcheson, G. and Sofroniou, N. 1999. The multivariate social scientist: Introductory statistics using
generalized linear models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kim, J. -O. and Mueller, C. W. 1978a. Introduction to factor analysis: What it is and how to do it. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Kim, J. -O. and Mueller, C. W. 1978b. Factor Analysis: Statistical methods and practical issues. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Lawley, D. N. and Maxwell, A. E. 1962. Factor analysis as a statistical method. The Statistician, 12(3), 209-
229.
Leslie Rosales de Veliz ([email protected]),Shannon David ([email protected]),Danielle Mc Elhiney
([email protected]),Emily Price ([email protected]),Gordon Brooks([email protected])
Levine, M. S. 1977. Canonical analysis and factor comparison. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R., and Sullivan, J. J. 2003. Making sense of factor analysis: The use of factor analysis
for instrument development in health care research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Shapiro, S. E., Lasarev, M. R., and McCauley, L. 2002. Factor analysis of Gulf War illness: What does it add to
our understanding of possible health effects of deployment, American Journal of Epidemiology, 156,
578-585.
Teetor, P. 2011. 25 Recipes for Getting Started with R. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media Inc.
Teetor, P. 2011. R cookbook. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media Inc.
Velicer, W. F., Eaton, C. A. and Fava, J. L. 2000. Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A
review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components.
In R. D. Goffin& E. Helmes (Eds.), Problems and solutions in human assessment: Honoring Douglas
Jackson at seventy. Boston, MA: Kluwer.
Widaman, K. F. 1993. Common factor analysis versus principal component analysis: Differential bias in
representing model parameters, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28, 263-311.
Estimation of growth parameters
ESTIMATION OF GROWTH PARAMETERS
15
T. V. Sathianandan
Estimation of Growth Parameters
T. V. Sathianandan
Fishery Resources Assessment Division,
A growth curve is an empirical model of the evolution of a quantity over time. Some
growth curves for certain biological systems display periods of exponential growth. A
Gompertz curve, named after Benjamin Gompertz, is a sigmoid function. It is a type of
mathematical model, where growth is slowest at the start and end of a time period. In
biology, a growth model is a depiction of length or weight of animals as a function of
age. In the case of fish populations, the study of growth is to determine the body size as
a function of its age. The growth model developed by von Bertalanffy (1934) has been
found to be suitable for the observed growth of most of the fish species. This model
expresses length as a function of age of the animal.
Fish increases in length as they grow older but their growth rate which is the increment
in length per unit time decreases as
they grow old. When the rate of
growth is plotted against the length, in
most cases it will look almost like a
straight line with descending limb
(negative slope). This line will cut the
x-axis at a point where the rate of
growth is zero. This is the point
beyond which the fish will not grow
further and the length of the fish at
this point is known as the asymptotic
length denoted by L .
Example: Length-at-age for a portion of a sample of male Atlantic croakers (left) and
average length-at-age are given in the following table. The figures show plots of the
growth curve and growth rates.
To develoop the growth h model the above phenom

menon can be represented
d by means of
a differenttial equation
dl
 K ( L  l )
dt
This can be rewritten as
Growth curve with different curvature
dl 70.0
 K dt
L  l 60.0
K=2.0
The required growth 50.0

K=0.8
model is then obtained K=0.5
by integrating the above 40.0

Length
differential equation to 30.0
yield,
20.0
 log(L  l )  K t  C
10.0
where C is a constant to
be determined.
0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Age
Expressing this equation Growth curve with different curvature
for the length l we get, 70.0
K t
l  L  Ce 60.0
When t  0 the length l

K=2.0
K=0.8
50.0
also will be zero so that K=0.5
we get, 40.0
Length
0  L  C . 30.0
Hence C  L and we 20.0
get the equation as 10.0

K t
l  L (1  e ) 0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Age
But usually the length will be zero at a different point t  t 0 so that we get the solution
for the constant as
K t0
C  L e
Hence the general growth equation is obtained by substituting the above value for C
 K (t t0 )
as l  L (1  e )
Parameters of the model are K, L and t 0 . Here K is termed as the curvature, L is
known as the asymptotic length and t 0 is the age at birth.
The data commonly used for fish stock assessment is the length frequency data
collected periodically by sampling from commercial catches. The data so obtained will
consist of animals of different age group. The animals born on same day (single
spawning) is termed as a cohort and the animals of the same age will not have same
length rather it will vary with a mean and variance. If we make a histogram of their
length most of the animals will fall at the middle and it will have the well known bell
shape. The sample collected at a time will be a mixture of such bell shaped distributions
corresponding to different age groups. If we are able to trace the length distributions of
each cohort separately from its initial age up to its life span then we would be able to
work out its growth and growth model parameters. As the sample collected by us from
commercial catch will be a mixture of cohorts of different age groups the problem
reduces to resolution of individual components (known as normal distributions or
Gaussian components) from the mixture.
Resolution of Gaussian Components from Polymodal Distributions

The frequency distribution of length obtained from a sample of fish is usually skew and
polymodal. The modes corresponding to individual age groups are very useful in
separating the different Gaussian components of which it is assumed to be composed
off. Here the problem is to resolve a distribution into Gaussian components. Different
procedures are available for resolution of a mixture into Gaussian components. These
are probability paper method, parabola method and Bhattacharya’s method. Among this
the last method is most popular.
Probability Paper Method: Decomposition of polymodal frequency distributions using

probability paper method was introduced by Harding (1949) and later modified by
Cassie in 1950. This involves dissection of the distribution at points of inflexion of the
probit plot, followed by correction for over lap of components. In this method, the
cumulative percentages of the frequency distribution are first plotted against the mid
points of the classes on a probability graph paper and the point of inflexion are marked.
Cumulative percentages of these points are the keys for separation of the components
and each segment between them are due to separate distributions. Each of these
components is then extracted by adjusting the original cumulative percentages within in
segments so that the total is 100. These adjusted values if plotted on the same
probability paper will be linear. The means of each separated component are estimated
from the actual frequencies falling in the corresponding region.
Parabola Method:If the frequency distribution of random variable distributed as normal

has y as the frequency for a class with mid value x then we can express y as
x c / 2
yN  f ( x ) dx
xc / 2
where f(x)
f(x) is
is the
the probability distribution of a normal random random variable
variable with mean  ,
with mean
standard deviation  , c the class interval and N the total frequency. An approximation
for the relation is
( x )2 2
(N c e ) / 2
first. Then the number of regions y where the graph look like straight lines with–ve
2 
2
Nc (x  )
ln( y )  ln( )
2  2
2
The above equation is of the form which is a quadratic equation representing a
parabola. The axis of symmetry of the above parabola will be at x   . Hence, if we plot
the natural logarithm of the class frequencies against the mid values of the classes we
can represent the different peaks with different parabolas each corresponding to a
normal distribution whose mean is the point where the axis of symmetry intersects the
x-axis.
Bhattacharya’s Method:If y (x) denote the observed frequency of the class with x as its
mid value and h the class width, then
xh / 2 k
y   N i f ( x,  i ,  i ) dx
xh / 2 i 1
xh / 2
  N r f ( x ,  r ,  r ) dx
x h / 2
xh / 2  1 ( x  r ) 2
1 2
  Nr e 2 dx
x h / 2 2 
2 2 2
hN r h  r  ( h / 12) 2
ln( y )  ln( )  t
 r 2 2 2
24 2 r
by ignoring terms with higher orders in h and

( x  r )
t

2 h 2
t  2h( x   r   r and
2
2 2 4
 ln( y )   h ( r  h / 12 )  ( x   r  h / 2) /  r
That is, the graph of  ln( y ) against the mid value of the class will be linear. If denote
the x intercept and the angle the line makes with the –ve direction of the x-axis then the
mean and standard deviationof the Gaussian component corresponding to this region
where f(x) is the probability distribution of a normal random variable with mean ,
are estimated as a plot of  log y ( x )  log( y ( x  h))  log( y ( x )) against x is to be made

first. Then
Then the
thenumber
numberofof regions
regions where
where the the
graphgraph
look look like straight
like straight lines with–ve
lines with ve –ve
slope, indicate the number of components (under certain conditions). By connecting the
points in the regions fit straight lines for these regions. If r is the angle it makes with
th
the x axis and  r is the x intercept for the r region for r  1,  , k then the mean and
th
variance of the r component is estimated as
 r  ˆr  h / 2
ˆ r2  (dh Cotˆr / b)  h 2 / 12
where b and d denote the relative scales for x and  log y ( x ) respectively. The proportions
of the mixture can be estimated as
k
pˆ i  Nˆ i  Nˆ i
i1
where N̂ i is the total frequency of the i

th
class and it is estimated by
Nˆ r   y ( x )  pˆ r
Here, the summation being restricted to the region under consideration and
x  h / 2  ˆ i x  h / 2  ˆ i
pˆ ri  P ( )  P( )
ˆ i ˆ i
where P(x) is the distribution function of standard normal variate.

Once we have data on age and corresponding length obtained from the above
procedure we may use any one of the following methods as per the situation to
estimate the growth parameters.
Gulland and Holt Plot: For small values of t (need not be kept constant), the required
expression is
L (L  Lt )
 K L  K Lt where L  Lt  t  Lt and Lt  t t
t 2
L
By regressing on Lt (of the type y  a  b x )we can get estimates of the growth
t
parameters as
aˆ
Kˆ   bˆ and Lˆ  
bˆ
Example: The first two columns of the following table pertain to the age and
corresponding average length of animals of a cohort. The growth parameters can be
estimated by calculations in the remaining columns and a followed regression. The steps
followed are
1. Generate column dL as the increment
in length (difference of consecutive Age
L(t) dL dt dL/dt Lbar(t)
values of L(t) (t)
2. Generate column dt as the increment 1 25.7 10.3 1 10.3 30.85
in age (difference of consecutive 2 36.0 6.9 1 6.9 39.45
values of Age(t) 3 42.9 4.6 1 4.6 45.20
3. Compute values in column dL/dt as 4 47.5 3.2 1 3.2 49.10
the ratio of values in dL and dt) 5 50.7 2.1 1 2.1 51.75
4. Compute the mean length Lbar(t) as 6 52.8 1.4 1 1.4 53.50
the average of consecutive values of 7 54.2
L(t)
Now regress the values in column dL/dt Regression Statistics

with the values in Lbar(t). That is carryout Multiple R 0.999922
regression analysis with values in column R Square 0.999844
dL/dt as Y values and values in Lbar(t) as X Adjusted R Square 0.999804
values and obtain the regression
Standard Error 0.046844
coefficients a and b.
Observations 6
Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value

Intercept 22.36353 0.11182 199.9952 3.75E-09
Lbar(t) -0.39163 0.00245 -159.872 9.18E-09
The estimates of coefficients in the regression model obtained through the regression
analysis are a = 22.36353 and b = -0.39163 and the estimates of growth parameters are
aˆ 22.36356
Kˆ   bˆ = 0.39163 and Lˆ     57.1
bˆ  0.39163
Ford-Walford Plot: The growth equation can be brought into the form
 K t
Lt  t  a  b Lt where a  L (1  b) and b  e
When t is constant we can get estimates of a and b by regressing Lt  t on Lt and the

estimates of growth parameters can be obtained as
ln(bˆ) aˆ
Kˆ   and Lˆ  
t (1  bˆ)
Example: For the same set of data the column L(t+1) is made with the next value of L(t).
As per the Ford-Walford plot we regress the values in L(t+1) with values in L(t) and find
the regression coefficients a and b.
Age (t) L(t) L(t+1) Regression Statistics

1 25.7 36.0 Multiple R 0.999987
2 36.0 42.9 R Square 0.999974
3 42.9 47.5 Adjusted R Square 0.999968
4 47.5 50.7 Standard Error 0.039173
5 50.7 52.8 Observations 6
6 52.8 54.2
7 54.2

Intercept 18.7018 0.074708 250.3308 1.53E-09
L(t) 0.672493 0.001713 392.5672 2.53E-10
The estimates of coefficients in the regression model obtained through the regression
analysis are a = 18.7018 and b = 0.672493. Thus the estimates of growth parameters are
ln(bˆ) ln(0.672493) aˆ 18.7018
Kˆ     0.3968 and Lˆ    57.1
t 1 ˆ
(1  b ) (1  0.672493)
Method of Chapman and Gulland: When t is constant, using the growth equation we
can make the relation
 K t
Lt   t  Lt  c L  c Lt where c  1  e
Through a regression of ( Lt  t  Lt ) on Lt we can arrive at a regression relation of the

form y  a  b x and using the estimates of coefficients of this regression equation we
can estimate the growth parameters as
aˆ ln(1  b)
Lˆ   and Kˆ  
bˆ t
Example: For the given data first we generate a column with values L(t+1)-L(t) and
regress these values on L(t) to obtain the constants a and b in the linear regression
equation.
Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.999945
R Square 0.999891
Adjusted R Square 0.999863
Observations 6

Intercept 18.7018 0.074708 250.33083 1.528E-09
L(t) -0.32751 0.001713 -191.182 4.49E-09
The estimates of a and b from the regression analysis are a = 18.7018 and b = -0.32751.
The corresponding estimates of growth parameters are
aˆ 18.7018 ln(1  b)  ln(1  0.32751)

Lˆ      57.1 and Kˆ     0.3968
bˆ  0.32751 t 1
ELEFAN – Electronic Length Frequency Analysis

The first component ELEFAN-I in the system of ELEFAN is the program for estimation of
growth parameters from length frequency data. It was first developed in 1978 and it
consisted of (i) component for separation of samples into normally distributed
components (ii) estimation of growth parameters by generating the growth curve and
minimizing the sum of squared deviations from the means of the component
distributions. Later versions incorporated an algorithm which by passes the sample
separation step and fits the growth curve to peaks defined independently of any
assumed underlying distribution.
 Data pre-processing: ELEFAN-I uses a simple high-pass filter to identify peaks and
troughs in length frequency data. The high pass filter used is a running average over
5 classes which leads to the definition of peaks as those parts of the length
frequency distribution that are above the corresponding moving average and those
below the corresponding running average are the thoughs separating peaks.
 Steps involved in fitting of the growth curve in ELEFAN-I are
i. Calculate the maximum sum of points available in a set of length frequency
samples. These are points which can be accumulated by one singe growth curve.
It is termed as available sum of peaks (ASP).
ii. Trace through the set of length frequency tables sequentially arranged in time
for any arbitrary input of growth parameters L and K. A series of growth
curves starting from the base of each of the peaks are then projected forward
and backward in time to meet all other samples or the same sample again and
again.
iii. Accumulate points obtained by each growth curve when passing through the
troughs separating peaks.
iv. Select the curve which pass through most peaks and avoid most troughs and
accumulate the largest number of points called Explained Sum of Peaks (ESP).
v. Decrement or increment the values of L and K until the ratio ESP/ASP reaches
a maximum.
The growth model used in ELEFAN-I is the seasonally oscillating version of the
generalized von Bertalanffy Growth Function (VBGF) of the form
1
CKD
Lt  L [1  exp( KD(t  t 0 )  Sin(2 (t  t s ))] D
2
where
Lt is the predicted length at age t.
L is the asymptotic length
K is the growth constant – stress factor by Pauly 1981.
D is another growth constant – termed as surface factor by Pauly 1981
C is a factor that express the amplitude of the growth oscillations.
t 0 is the age at which the fish would have had zero length
t s sets the beginning of the sinusoidal growth oscillation with respect to t = 0
In ELEFAN-I the model is used with two of the original parameters replaced (i) t s with
winter point WP and (ii) t 0 is described as a factor used to adjust a growth curve to an
absolute age scale. Here a parameter “T0” is internally used to fulfil the role of t 0 . Winter
point WP designates the period of the year, expressed as a function of a year when
growth is slowest. In northern hemisphere WP is often found to be near 0.2 (February)
while for the southern hemisphere WP is often a value close to zero. The relation
between WP and t s is
‫ݐ‬௦ ൅ ͲǤͷ ൌ ܹܲ
When D = 1 and C = 0 the model will take the form of the normal VBGF used for
fisheries research. When 0 < C < 1 growth oscillates seasonally and when C > 1 growth
oscillates strongly.
Estimation of mortality
ESTIMATION OF MORTALITY
1
17
16
J. Jayasankar
Estima
ation of Mortalitty
J. Jayasan
nkar
Fish as a natural
n resourrce follows moost of the established beha avior expecte ed of ay simila
ar
animal. Thhe birth and ensuing recru uitment, grow wth, reproducction and dea ath, technically
referred to
o as mortalityy are well defined phases of any anima al’s life time and fishes are
no excepttions to this.. As is eviden nt from its lo ogic, fish populations inccrease in theiir
abundancce, popularly termed as biomass, by birth of animals or by grow wth apart fromm
occasionaal immigration o animals is mostly through death (mo
ns. The loss of ortality) which
could occcur due to ag geing, naturall mortality, or due to fishing, fishing mortality
m aparrt
from the predation infflicted by largger animals inn the sea. Hen nce mortality phenomenon
happens tot be the single most imp portant cause e of change in n abundance of fish in any
defined population
p or technically referred
r to ass stock. By its sheer impo ortance as the
leveling fo
orce in face of animals with
h varying deg grees of reprooduction, morrtality assume es
an importtant position in the study of
o dynamics or o fluctuations in the biom mass of a given
resource. Like its grow wth counterp parts mortalitty too has wellw laid conceptualization
coupled with
w clearly defined proc cedures of measurement
m or technically termed as a
estimationn. Thus the phhenomenon of o rate of losss of animals in a particularr population is i
a parametter to be estiimated with the
t sampled animals. The measuremen nts taken fromm
the samplled individuals help an asssessor to find out the composition of fissh available at a
various agges and such information collected over o a period w enable the
d of time will
observer to
t find out th he rates at which
w fish of a particular age
a die due to
t natural and d
unnatural causes.
The inevittability of the mortality ph
henomenon can be undersstood by the fact that for a
group of contemporarily hatched fish the num mber can only dwindle over time. The
contempo oraries or tho ose individuals who were hatched almo ost at the samme epoch are
technically
y termed as cohorts.
c The phenomenon
p of mortality applies
a to eacch such group
of cohortts and how they t decline in number through
t timee. To clearly delineate thiis
o decline in numbers it is essential to follow th
process of he fate of th he cohort. As
A
mentioned d earlier cohort is a batch of fish of all
a of approximately the same s age and
d
belongingg to the sam me stock. (Spparre and Ve enema 1998). All fish of a cohort are
assumed to t have the same
s age at given
g time so that they all attain the recruitment age
at the sam
me time. In the context of mortality
m onee is interested in the number of survivorrs
from a coohort as a function of age. As mortality is split into natural
n and fishing induced
d
ones, estimating the mortality en ntails the dettermination of o total morrtality (naturaal
mortality + fishing mortality) first and then splitting this into natural and fishing
mortalities as appropriate.
The progress of a cohort over time is displayed below in figure. In a cohort model it is
assumed that R individuals are recruited into the fishery at the age tr (denoting age at
recruitment). From this age fish are exposed to some degree of natural mortality ,M.
After certain time these fish are exposed to fishing at age tc (age at first capture)
denoted by F for fishing mortality. At some point tmax the older fish are not vulnerable
to fishing. This setup
assumes an all or none type
of selection popularly
referred to as knife edge
selection, whereby at tc
either none or all fish in an
age class are either
recruited or not or
vulnerable or not, and once
vulnerable all age classes
are vulnerable. (Sparre and
Venema 1992)
Dynamics of a Cohort
The dynamics of similarly aged fish of a stock are assumed to follow the model of
natural decay, whereby the reduction in numbers due to total mortality is an exponential
function of the number of cohorts at the beginning of the period. Notationally the rate
of change in numbers or number of losses or number of animals died in a small epoch is
given by the following equation
οேሺ௧ሻ
ൌ െܼ ‫ܰ כ‬ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ
ο௧
where the deltas indicate the change in numbers and a small interval of time, say one
day or week etc. Z is the coefficient of reduction or popularly known as rate of annual
instantaneous mortality usually scaled to account for one year. N(t) indicates the number
of individuals alive at time t, preferably converted to years. This total mortality is
supposed to be the arithmetic sum of natural mortality M and fishing mortality F.
Notational depiction is as follows.
Z=M + F
A gentle mathematical juggling would yield the number of individuals alive at time t
which follows the time of recruitment of the cohorts into the fishery at Tr could lead to
an equation
N(t)=N(Tr)*exp(-Z(t-Tr)). That is the number of individuals available at the present time
in years is a function of the difference between the time at recruitment and the present
time and d also the nuumber of live

individuals at the
e time o
of
recruitmeent. Of coursse this whole
hip assumes that the rate
relationsh
of insta antaneous mortality Z
remains constant
c oughout. As a
thro
corollary it can be said that highe
er
the valuee of Z the fasster would be
the decliine in numb bers and the
lower would be the ma aximum age.
ample let us look at a case
As an exa
where the e recruitment number
N(Tr) of a cohort is 1,00,000 Age of cohorrts Time Number of survivors
and to
otal instan
ntaneous (t years) interva
al in (N(Tr)**exp(-Z*(t-Tr)))
mortality Z = 1.5 per year. yearrs
Assuming ∆t as one da ay that is tr 0 100000
th
1/365 of a year then, the tr+ one dayy 0.002
274 99590
number of survivoors at tr+0.2 0.2
2 74082
different ttime intervals is given tr+0.3 0.3
3 63763
in the table. tr+0.4 0.4
4 54881
As it can be seen that the loss
tr+0.4+one day
d 0.402
274 54656
is very ssevere in the initial
tr+1.5 1.5
5 10540
phases as compared to the
last stage like 8 years whereby
w tr+3.0 3 1111
the cohorrts effectivelyy vanish. tr+5.0 5 55
The steep pness depend ds upon tr+8.0 8 1
the value of Z and it is i better
depicted iin the followin ng chart.
As is evident the declin ne is the stee
epest in the z=2.5
z case an owest in z=0.5
nd it is the slo
es indicate the
case. The X axis indicattes the time gap after Tr in years and the Y axis entrie
number of surviving an nimals.
After the animals obttain age of first capture e they are most
m vulnerabble to fishing g
mortality, whereas upto the age of recruitment the t decline inn numbers is mostly due to o
predation or disease ie
e natural morrtality. Assumiing that Z=F+ +M, the numb ber of cohortts
caught in a period from
m t1 to t2 in years
y is expre
essed as the fu
unction of tottal and fishing
g
mortality a
as follows.
C(t1,t2)=F/Z*
C [(N(t1)-N(t2)]
Wherein N(t1) and N(t2) are the animals available at time periods t1 and t2. Thiis
equation is of extreme
e importance in fish stock assessment and
a is famoussly referred as
a
Baranov’s equation orr Catch Equaation. The fraaction F/Z is also very im
mportant from m
assessment point of view and is popularly referred to as “Exploitation Rate”. At the same
period the number of animals dying due to natural causes is
D(t1,t2)= M/Z*[N(t1)-N(t2)]
The catch equation can be rewritten by involving the number of individuals at the
beginning ie t1 as follows:
C(t1,t2)= N(t1)*F/Z*(1-exp(-Z(t2-t1)))
One major assumption which is the soul of this entire conceptualization is the fact that
during the time interval (t1,t2) the situation at the ground is not fluctuating enough to
influence the mortality rates, F and M. But criticisms are always possible on the count
that natural mortality rates tend to differ with aging and younger fishes which are
possibly smaller in size are less prone to fishing mortality as compared to their older
counterparts.
Another conceptualization based on catch equation is the “Average number of survivors
during the time period (t1,t2)” which is given by
1 � � ��∗(��))
�(�1� ��) = �(�1) ∗
�
� ∗ (�� 1)
Estimation of Total Instantaneous Mortality (Z)

a) From Catch Rates
There are very many ways of estimating Z from the data collected from research fishery.
One such method is the method based on catch rates or Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE)
which is the ratio of total quantity of fish caught to the total number of units of gear
utilized to catch the same. When the fish are caught with the same gear whose
catchability coefficient (q) with respect to a particular resource is constant, the
proportion of surviving members of the cohorts at two time periods (t1,t2) is equal to
the ratio of the catch rates at the two time periods recorded by exploratory survey. That
is
�(��) ��(�1)
=
�(�1) ��(��)
A slight modification of the catch equation would lead to the following relationship
when the number of cohorts available at the time limits vizN(t1) and N(t2) are known.
1 �(�1)
�= ∗ log ( )
�� 1 �(��)
Using the previous two relationships it can be derived
1 ��(�1)
�= ∗ log ( )
�� 1 ��(��)
When the data available pertains to commercial fisheries, where the time series is on
quarterly or annual basis, the equation used could be similar to the one described
previously and the CPUE is calculated as the catch of cohort during the period (t1,t2)
divided by the effort during that period. The catch rate can then be expressed as the
product of average number of survivors in the period (t1,t2) and the catchability
coefficient of the gear.
b) Heincke’s method
Assuming that mortality rate (Z) is constant throughout the life of an individual, the
following equation holds based on certain algebraic norms.
� � −ln (∑� �
�� (�)� ∑�� (�)
which is called the Heincke’s equation. In plain words the mortality rate is the negative
value of the ratio between the number of surviving individuals from age 1 to those
surviving from age 0. Substituting CPUE’s at each year in the place of N(t)’s this equation
assuming that they are proportional the same reads as
��(1) + ��(2) + ��(3 �� )
� � −��
��(0) + ��(1) + ��(2) + ��(3 �� )
c) Robson- Chapman Method
Another estimate of Z is proposed by Robson and Chapman (Sparre&Venema, 1992)

and the formula is
�(1) + 2 ∗ �(2) + 3 ∗ �(3) + ⋯

� � −��
�(0) + 2�(2) + 3�(2) + 4(�3) + ⋯ − 1
d) Linearised Catch Curve Method
Ideally for estimating most of the parameters including the mortality rate, the type of
data required is the number of sampled and raised animals belonging to a cohort at
various age categories. However in fishery sampling age determination is a time and
manpower consuming exercise and invariably aging is done by using the length of the
animals sampled and their categories thereof. Here length is used as an alibi for age.
Further it is worth recalling that age and length are functionally linked through the Von
Bertalanffy Growth Function (VBGF). Using the inversion of the VBGF length can be
converted into age. The specific relationship is as follows:
� �
�(�)� � �� − ∗ ln (1 − )
� ��
where t(L) is the age at length L units (cm or mm) and t0, L∞ and K are the classical VBGF
parameters. Using this in the equation relating the logarithm of catch rate over a small
time interval and the mid –time interval which is as follows:
�(��) ��
ln � � � � � � ∗ (� � )
��
which in turn can be rewritten using the catch and length information as
�(�� ) ��
ln � � ��∗��
�� 2
Here the change in time
� ��
�� n �� ∗ ln ( )
� ��
Thus from this linear function, the total instantaneous rate of mortality can be estimated
as the negative slope. It can be noted that in the previous equations c is a term which is
made of constant terms or in other words by terms which are not involving either time
or length at different classes.
To put this linearised catch curve method into action, a plot of
�(�� ) ��
ln against� � �
��
has to be made. Only the stable range of t values which are in the fully exploited range
of the animal’s life and which also is not close to t∞ (age at maximum length of the
animal) must be included for the computation of the coefficients of regression. This
procedure is partially subjective which must be given due care.
Example
A worked out example of estimating total instantaneous mortality rate Z from length
frequency data is given below.
The case is that of Upeneusvittatus from Manila Bay, Philippines (quoted in Sparre and
Venema 1992) and the length intervals and catch numbers of the pseudo cohorts is
given below. The VBGF parameters are K=0.59 per year; L∞=23.1 cm; and t0=0
L1-L2 C(L1,L2) t(L1) ∆t t(L1+L2)/2 ln(C(L1,L2)/∆t)

6-7 3 0.51 0.102 0.56 3.381395
7-8 143 0.612 0.109 0.665 7.179252
8-9 271 0.721 0.116 0.778 7.756284
9-10 318 0.837 0.125 0.898 7.841493
10-11 416 0.961 0.135 1.027 8.033166
11-12 488 1.096 0.146 1.168 8.114464
12-13 614 1.242 0.16 1.32 8.252576
13-14 613 1.402 0.177 1.488 8.14997
14-15 493 1.579 0.197 1.675 7.825061
15-16 278 1.776 0.223 1.884 7.128205
16-17 93 2 0.257 2.123 5.891279
1
17-18 73 2.257 0.303 2.402 5.484482
1
18-19 7 2.56 0.37 2.735 2.940162
1
19-20 2 2.93 0.474 3.151 1.439695
2
20-21 2 3.404 0.66 3.702 1.108663
2
21-22 0 4.064 1.096 4.525 -
2
22-23 1 5.16 4.064 6.188 -1.40217
2
23-24 1 - - - -
To select tthe most app

propriate portion of the len
ngth intervals a plot of
�(�� ,�� ) ��
� �
ln against� � �
��
is made a and in the ab
bove case
it looks likke this:
As is eviddent from the scatter

the first 7 observationss and the
last two observationss do not
follow the e steady falll pattern
and hence e can be avo oided. So
only the points in th he mean
time rang ge 1.5 to 3.15 are
considered for estima ating the
regression ent case the estimated slo
n coefficients. In this prese ope is -4.194
433 and hence
the estima ated Z rate is 4.19.
e) The cum
mulated catch
h curve method
Another a approach to estimate Z frrom length frequency datta is the Cum mulated Catch
Curve metthod propoun nded by Jones and Van Zalange. The main difference
e here is in the
time range (t1,t2) t2 is assumed to be very large
e to be near ∞ and that would
w lead the
linearised catch curve equation
e to become
LnC(t, ∞)= e C(t, ∞) is called cumulate
=d- Z*t where ed catch curve equation. Then
T the Jone
es
and Van ZZalinge equation for length
h converted catch curve woould be
�
�ln�(�(�,, �� )) � � � ln�(�� )
�
After seleccting the appropriate portiion of the sca

atter between
ln��(�, �� )�and ln
n�(�� ).
Then from
m the slope the Z is estimated as slo ope * K. For the previouss example the
d catch curve approach is done
cumulated d as follow
ws:
L1-L2 C(L1,L2) C(L1,L∞) ln

n(C(L1,L∞)) ln(L∞-L1)
6-7 3 3816 8..246958 2.839078
7-8 143 3813 8..246172 2.778819
8-9 271 3670 8..207947 2.714695
9-10 318 3399 8..131237 2.646175
10-11 416 3081 8..033009 2.572612
11-12 488 2665 7..887959 2.493205
12-13 614 2177 7..685703 2.406945
13-14 613 1563 7..354362 2.312535
14-15 493 950 6..856462 2.208274
15-16 278 457 6..124683 2.091864
16-17 93 179 5..187386 1.960095
17-18 73 86 4..454347 1.808289
18-19 7 13 2..564949 1.629241
19-20 2 6 1..791759 1.410987
20-21 2 4 1..386294 1.131402
21-22 0 2 0..693147 0.741937
22-23 1 2 0..693147 0.09531
23-24 1 1 0 -2.30259
The plot b
based on the last two columns is shownn here. From the
t plot it can n be seen tha
at
the most appropriate range
r mating the slope is the x range from 1.41
to be used for estim
to 2.31 and the corrresponding
slope value is 6.51. Hence the
estimated
d Z rate = Slop
pe*K= 6.51*
0.59= 3.84
4.
f) Beverto
on and Holt’ss Z-equation
based o
on length data
a
Beverton and Holt (Sparre and

Venema 1992) have shown that
there existts a functiona
al relationship a the average length of fish
p between Z and f ‫ܮ‬ത which is
i
given by
௅ಮ ି௅ത
ܼൌ‫כܭ‬ തതതି௅
തതതതതᇲ
௅ି
where L’ is some leng gth for which h all fish of that length and longer are a under full
exploitatio he lower limitt of the class interval of len
on and it is th ngths from which
w point full
exploitatio
on is presume ed.
For examp ple if the VBG
GF parameterrs of a cohortt are K=0.45 per year and L∞ = 100 cm
m
and if it is assumed th m then the Z estimates forr the followin
hat L’=45 cm ng data are as
a
given beloow:
Length Mid N(196
60) N(1970) N(1980) N(1960)*Mid N(1970)*Mid N(1980)*Mid
d
Group Length Length Length Length
45-50 4
47.5 256 268 212 1
12160 12730 10070
50-55 5
52.5 237 226 161 1
12442.5 11865 8452.5
55-60 5
57.5 211 180 116 1
12132.5 10350 6670
60-65 6
62.5 187 141 79 1
11687.5 8812.5 4937.5
65-70 6
67.5 161 105 52 1
10867.5 7087.5 3510
70-75 7
72.5 138 76 31 1
10005 5510 2247.5
75-80 7
77.5 113 50 17 8
8757.5 3875 1317.5
80-85 8
82.5 87 30 8 7
7177.5 2475 660
85-90 8
87.5 62 15 3 5
5425 1312.5 262.5
90-95 9
92.5 36 6 1 3
3330 555 92.5
95-100 9
97.5 12 1 0 1
1170 97.5 0
S
Sum 1500 1098 680 9
95155 64670 38220
6
63.43667 58.898 56.20588
Where N(1960) indicattes numbers caught

c in year 1960 and so
o on. The mea
an length here
is a weigh
hted average of
o the lengthss detailed.
Based on these figures the Z values for various ye

ears are as follows:
��.��
�
Z(1960)=0.3
3∗ = 0.6 per year
y
��.��
��.��
�
Z(1970)=0.3 ∗ = 0.9 per year
y
��.��
��.��
Z(1980)=0.3
3∗ = 1.2 per year
y
��.��
g) Power-- Wetherall me
ethod
As a speciial application
n of the Beverrton- Holt’s Z- equation it can be expresssed that
�=a + b*LL’ where Z/K=

=-(1+b)/b and
d L∞=-a/b or alternatively
b=-K/(Z+K) and a=-b* L∞
ns that plottin
This mean � -L’ againnst L’ gives thhe estimates of a and b and from them
ng L m
the param
meters L∞ and Z can be estimated.
h) Pauly’s empirical equation for Natural Mortality Estimation
Pauly (Sparre and Venema 1992) made regression analysis to functionally link natural
mortality M with VBGF parameters and climatic parameters and the empirical formula
arrived by him is given below:
Rate of Natural Mortality per Year (M)= -0.0152-0.279*ln L∞+0.6543*lnK+0.463*lnT

where T is the average annual temperature at the surface in degrees centigrade.
The following table gives the estimates of natural mortality for various combinations of T
and VBGF parameters.
T=5°C T=25°C
L∞ K=0.1 0.5 1.0 2.0 0.1 0.5 1.0 2.0
10 0.24 0.7 1.1 1.7 0.51 1.5 2.3 3.6
80 0.14 0.38 0.6 1.0 0.29 0.8 1.3 2.0
200 0.10 0.30 0.47 0.7 0.22 0.6 1.0 1.6
Method of Computing
The above discussed methods of estimating rates of mortalities can be implemented
practically either by manual means (highly exhausting) or by using computer based
spread sheets or by software custom made for this purpose.
Suggested Reading
Sparre, P and Venema, S.C (1992) Introduction to Tropical Fish Stock Assessment. Part
1.Manual, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 306.1, Rev. 1., Rome.376 p.
Estimation of length weight relationship in fishes
ESTIMATION OF LENGTH WEIGHT

RELATIONSHIP IN FISHES
17
Somy Kuriakose
Organisms generally increase in size (length, weight) during development. The key factors
that influence the growth of fish are the quantity of food available, the number of fish utilizing
same food source, temperature, oxygen and other water quality factors besides the size, age
and sexual maturity of the fish. Every animal in its life exhibit growth both in length and in
weight and the relationship between these two has both applied and basic importance. The
length-weight relationship is one of the standard methods that yield authentic biological
information and is of great importance in fishery assessments. It establishes the mathematical
relationship between the two variables, length and weight, and helps in assessing the
variations from the expected weight for the known length groups. This is particularly useful
for computing the biomass of a sample of fish from the length-frequency of that sample. The
parameter estimates of the relationship for a population of fish can be compared to average
parameters for the region, parameter estimates from previous years, or parameter estimates
among groups of fish to identify the relative condition or robustness of the population.
Relationship between length and weight is required for
setting up yield equation and sometimes it may be useful
as a character to differentiate “small taxonomic units”. It
also helps in converting one variable into another. Of the
two, length is easier to measure and can be converted
into weight in which the catch is invariably expressed. The
length weight relationship also provides means for finding
out the “condition factor” and the seasonal changes in the
condition factor are useful to determine the biological
changes in the fish.
The relationship between weight (W) and length (L) in
fishes has the form:
W=aLb
In this equation, the parameters a and b, usually termed as length weight parameters
are to be estimated with the available length-weight data. Each species of fish will have a
specific length-weight relationships or specific length - weight parameters. It may also differ
between sexes and between stocks or those belonging to different geographical regions.
The parameter a is a scaling coefficient for the weight at length of the fish species. The
parameter b is a shape parameter for the body form of the fish species.
The length of a fish is often measured more accurately than the weight.
In theory, one might expect that the exponent b would have a value of roughly b = 3
because the volume of a 3-dimensional object is roughly proportional to the cube of length
for a regularly shaped solid. Length is one dimensional whereas weight which depends on
volume is three dimensional. Hence, there is thinking that weight of a fish is proportional
to cube of the length of the fish. That is, there exists cubic relationship between weight
and length of a fish. For an ideal fish which maintains the same shape b=3. Most species
of fish do change their shape as they grow and so a cube relationship between length and
weight would hardly be expected. It has also been found that while b may be different for
fish from different localities, of different sexes, or for larval, immature and mature fish, it is
often constant for fish similar in these respects. The length-weight relationship may thus
be a character for the differentiation of small taxonomic units, like any other morphometric
relationship. It may also change with metamorphosis or the onset of maturity.
In practice, fish that have thin elongated bodies will tend to have values of b that are less
than 3 while fish that have thicker bodies will tend to have values of b that are greater than
3. Thus this also help to determine whether somatic growth is isometric (b=3) or allometric.
Values of b smaller, equal and larger than 3 indicate isometry, negative allometry and positive
allometry respectively. When b>3, large specimens increase in height or width faster than
in length, either as the result of a change in body shape with size, or because the large
specimens in the sample are in better condition than the small ones. Conversely, when b<3,
either the large specimens have changed body shape, i.e., become more elongated, or the
small specimens were in better nutritional condition at the time of sampling.
Thus the growth of fish length and weight is not proportionate or the relationship between
length and weight is not linear. This means that when the length is increased the increase in
weight is not proportionate to it. It is rather non-linear type of relationship. The estimation
procedure for length – weight relationship is through linear regression. Since the above
model of length-weight relationship is not linear it has to be transformed into linear type
by applying logarithmic transformation.
If we take logarithm (natural logarithm with base e) the above model will become linear as
In (W) = In (a) + b In (L) or Y = A + b X
where ln(a) is the intercept and (b) the slope or regression coefficient.
The above relationship is now linear and we can use the ordinary linear regression method
for estimating the parameters of the relationship.
Data for fitting the length-weight relationship is collected randomly from the commercial
catches and should represent fishes of all sizes, smallest to the biggest, and there should
be enough samples for the analysis and estimation through regression. If our aim is to
examine difference in length weight relationship between different sexes then data should
be collected separately for males and females.
Regression Analysis for Estimation of Length Weight Parameters
We can use Microsoft Excel to do the analysis using the regression analysis tool.
Select Data from the Main Menu and Select Data Analysis
Select ‘Regression’ from the ‘Data Analysis’ dialog box and click OK.
The following example demonstrates the use of this tool for estimation of length weight
parameters.
Enter the data on length and weight of samples in two columns as shown in below. Generate
two columns as the logarithmic values of the length and weight by using the natural logarithm
function ‘ln’. The transformed data will be used for estimation of parameters. To run the
regression routine select Data from the main menu, and select Data Analysis. Again select
Regression from the dropdown menu.
You will be presented with the following dialog

box:
Specify the cells containing log transformed
weight data and label for “Input Y Range:”
(E21:E31). For “Input X Range:” specify the cells
containing log transformed length data and label
(D21:D31). Check the “Labels” box (since you
included data labels in your input ranges), select
the New Worksheet Ply under “Output options”
and click OK.
The output will be obtained in a new sheet as given below.
The output will give regression statistics, ANOVA and the estimates of coefficients. The
estimate of parameter ‘a’ is calculated from the value given against intercept and the
estimate of parameter ‘b’ is that given against Ln(length) coefficient (here it is the value
against ‘ln(Length)’ which is 2.826). The estimate of ‘a’ is calculated as the exponent of the
intercept value which can be obtained by using the ‘exp’ function. For example here the
intercept value is in cell B17 and to obtain the estimate of ‘a’ in a blank cell use the function
‘=exp(B17)’ and we get the value of a as 0.00607.
The goodness of fit of the regression model is indicated by the ‘R square’ value in the output.
It should be high for the relationship fitted to be good. In the example it is 0.96 indicating
a good fit. The maximum value of ‘R square’ is 1.0 and the minimum is zero.
Using the estimated values of the parameters and the original data we can calculate the
expected values of weight for the lengths in the sample data. This is done by substituting
the estimated values in the relationship W = a Lb and calculating the weights corresponding
to each length in the sample.
Statistical Test for b=3 (Isometric Relationship)

In statistical test of hypothesis this is testing for the null hypothesis H0 : b =3 against the
alternative hypothesis H1 : b≠3. The test criterion for this statistical test is a Student’s t
statistic with (n-2) degrees of freedom where n is the total number of observations.
Since this test criterion is for a linear regression, for the length-weight relationship situation
we should use the log transformed values for the X and Y variables. Therefore, X values are the
log transformed values of length and Y values are the log transformed values of the weights.
The test statistics for this is

This value has to be compared with the table value of t for n-2 d.f for making inferences
about the null hypothesis.
If the value of Student’s t is higher than the calculated value, we accept the null hypothesis
that b=3. In that case we infer that the length weight relationship is said to be isometric or
there is cubic relationship between length and weight.
The length-weight relationship in fishes can be affected by a number of factors including
season, habitat, gonad maturity, sex, diet, and stomach fullness, health and preservation
techniques, and differences in the length ranges of the specimen caught. The exact
relationship between length and weight differs among species of fish according to their
inherited body shape, and within a species according to the condition (robustness) of
individual fish. Condition sometimes reflects food availability and growth within the weeks
prior to sampling. But, condition is variable and dynamic. Individual fish within the same
sample vary considerably, and the average condition of each population varies seasonally
and yearly.
Thompson & Bell prediction model
THOMPSON & BELL PREDICTION MODEL
Shoba J. Kizhakkudan
18
Prediction or predictive models predict the effect of different levels of fishing effort on the
fish stocks in the future. Two prediction models that are widely applied are Thompson and
Bell (1934) model and the Yield per recruit model developed by Beverton and Holt (1957).
These models provide a direct link between fish stock assessment and fishery resource
management. The Thompson & Bell Model is a widely used prediction model in assessing
the optimum factor for increase or decrease of fishing effort to achieve maximum sustainable
and economic yield of a commercially exploited species. This model builds on the output of
age (as conceived in the original model) or length-based Virtual Population Analysis (VPA).
The equations used for the VPA and cohort analysis can be transformed to predict future
yields and biomass at different levels of fishing efforts; i.e., the knowledge of the past fishery
can be used to predict the future yields.
While predicting the impact of fishing intensity on yield and standing stock biomass of
an exploited species in a geographic area, the Thompson and Bell model can add a third
dimension – price – to the assessment profile through bioeconomic analysis, which can be
done if value of the catch is provided as an input. The input parameters required for this
model are
 L1, L2…Ln (length groups)
 K (annual growth coefficient – VBGF parameter)
 t0 (age at zero length – VBGF parameter)
 L∞ (asymptotic length – VBGF parameter)
 M (Natural mortality)
 Terminal F/Z (assumed to be 0.5)
 a (intercept of LWR)
 b (slope of LWR)
 Catch (in numbers) for each length group
 Yield and biomass output of Virtual Population Analysis
 Price
The output of the Thompson & Bell analysis are the predictions of catch in numbers, total
deaths in numbers, the mean biomass and yield for a combination of different F and M
values. The prediction made by length converted Thompson and Bell analysis is a prediction
of the average long-term catches assuming recruitment to remain constant. The impact
of changes in F on the yield, average biomass and value of the catch can be calculated to
arrive at the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) and Maximum Economic Yield (MEY). The
assumption in this method is that the stock remains in a steady state and all parameters,
including recruitment remain constant.
The FiSAT package contains the Thompson and Bell yield and stock prediction for single/
multispecies fisheries, and is perhaps the most widely used programme in India.
The LFSA package has two programmes, the TBYR and MIXFISH. The TBYR uses a special
version of the Thompson and Bell yield and stock prediction model for the single stock,
single fishery situation. The TBYR converts the stock estimates (in numbers) for length
groups derived through LCOHOR analysis into age group stock estimates. This programme
is better suited for long-lived species of 5 years or more since conversion of length groups
to age groups in short-lived species is not easily done. MIXFISH is a length-based Thompson
and Bell model with options for analysis of a mixed fishery. An advantage over the TBYR is
that there is no need for conversion of length groups to age groups, and therefore it can
be used for long-lived as well as short-lived species. Although designed for analysis of a
mixed fishery, the MIXFISH also contains the single species analysis options as well as an
option for mesh assessment. The output of MIXFISH indicates the total yield for various
combinations of effort and L50%.
Using the length-based Thompson & Bell model
Taking off from the output of length-based VPA, the steps involved in the Thompson &
Bell analysis are –
 The ith length class is
(Li – Li+1)
 Total mortality sequence is
Zi = M + xFi, , where x is the multiplier used to raise or reduce the fishing mortality
rates sequence, x = 1 for the current level of exploitation
 Population size of successive classes is
 Catch for each class is
 Average weight for each length class is
 Yield for each different length class is
 Value for each length class is
Using Excel for Thompson & Bell Analysis through Length-based Cohort Analysis
Vivekanandan (2002) discusses an example of the length-based Thompson and Bell analysis
by using the data on the goatfish Upeneus sulphureus off Chennai and the price of different
length groups of U. sulphureus in the landing center. In a later publication (Vivekanandan,
2005) uses the same example, but with more details on the method of analysis. The use of
excel for Thompson & Bell analysis using the same data set is shown here –
The sample data set is Length groups of goatfish U. sulphureus off Chennai during
2000. The input data for Thompson & Bell analysis will be the output from length-based
Virtual Population Analysis:
Length Fishing M factor Total Mean Number of Number Yield Mean
group mortality mortality body survivors caught (tonnes) biomass
(mm) weight (g) (000s) (000s) (tonnes)
50-59 0.6310 1.0498 1.5310 2.3 79073 4972 11.4 18.1
60-69 1.1775 1.0541 2.0775 3.7 67009 8218 30.4 25.8
70-79 1.4788 1.0592 2.3788 5.7 52510 8587 48.9 33.1
80-89 1.3861 1.0654 2.2861 8.3 38697 6476 53.8 38.8
90-99 1.2681 1.0729 2.1681 11.6 28016 4731 54.9 43.3
100-109 1.1779 1.0825 2.0779 15.6 19928 3477 54.2 46.0
110-119 1.0506 1.0950 1.9506 20.4 13794 2426 49.5 47.1
120-129 0.9217 1.1119 1.8217 26.2 9290 1648 43.2 46.8
130-139 0.7202 1.1361 1.6202 33.0 6032 992 32.7 45.5
140-149 0.6545 1.1737 1.5545 40.8 3801 684 27.9 42.6
150-159 0.3087 1.2404 1.2087 49.7 2176 245 12.2 39.4
160-169 0.2226 1.3911 1.1226 59.9 1217 136 8.1 36.6
170-179 0.2041 2.0884 1.1041 71.3 531 83 5.9 29.0
180-L∞ 0.9000 - 1.8000 84.2 82 41 3.5 3.8
Total 436.7 496.1
Step 1
Estimate Value of yield for each length class from per unit price data:
Length Fishing M factor Total Mean Number Number Yield Mean Value Value of
group mortality mortality body of caught (tonnes) biomass (Rs/kg) yield
(mm) weight survivors (000s) (tonnes) (000 Rs)
(g) (000s)
50-59 0.6310 1.0498 1.5310 2.3 79073 4972 11.4 18.1 5 57.0
60-69 1.1775 1.0541 2.0775 3.7 67009 8218 30.4 25.8 5 152.0
70-79 1.4788 1.0592 2.3788 5.7 52510 8587 48.9 33.1 5 244.7
80-89 1.3861 1.0654 2.2861 8.3 38697 6476 53.8 38.8 5 268.8
90-99 1.2681 1.0729 2.1681 11.6 28016 4731 54.9 43.3 5 274.4
100-109 1.1779 1.0825 2.0779 15.6 19928 3477 54.2 46.0 15 813.6
110-119 1.0506 1.0950 1.9506 20.4 13794 2426 49.5 47.1 15 742.4
120-129 0.9217 1.1119 1.8217 26.2 9290 1648 43.2 46.8 15 647.7
130-139 0.7202 1.1361 1.6202 33.0 6032 992 32.7 45.5 15 491.0
(g) (000s)
140-149 0.6545 1.1737 1.5545 40.8 3801 684 27.9 42.6 15 418.6
150-159 0.3087 1.2404 1.2087 49.7 2176 245 12.2 39.4 25 304.4
160-169 0.2226 1.3911 1.1226 59.9 1217 136 8.1 36.6 25 203.7
170-179 0.2041 2.0884 1.1041 71.3 531 83 5.9 29.0 25 147.9
180-L∞ 0.9000 - 1.8000 84.2 82 41 3.5 3.8 25 86.3
Total 436.7 496.1 4852.5
Step 2
Estimate the yield, biomass & value for varying Fishing mortality factors (F-factor). For
example, the output shown under Step 1 is for F-factor = 1. The output for F-factor = 0.5
(obtained by multiplying the fishing mortality of all length classes with 0.5) will be
(g) (000s)
50-59 0.3155 1.0498 1.2155 2.3 79073 2527 5.8 18.4 5 29.1
60-69 0.5888 1.0541 1.4888 3.7 69339 4390 16.2 27.6 5 81.2
70-79 0.7394 1.0592 1.6394 5.7 58238 4971 28.3 38.3 5 141.7
80-89 0.6931 1.0654 1.5931 8.3 47216 4129 34.3 49.4 5 171.4
90-99 0.6341 1.0729 1.5341 11.6 37725 3331 38.6 60.9 5 193.2
100-109 0.5890 1.0825 1.4890 15.6 29667 2711 42.3 71.8 15 634.4
110-119 0.5253 1.0950 1.4253 20.4 22813 2103 42.9 81.7 15 643.4
120-129 0.4608 1.1119 1.3608 26.2 17107 1592 41.7 90.5 15 625.6
130-139 0.3601 1.1361 1.2601 33.0 12407 1067 35.2 97.8 15 528.1
140-149 0.3272 1.1737 1.2272 40.8 8674 820 33.5 102.3 15 502.1
150-159 0.1544 1.2404 1.0544 49.7 5597 325 16.2 104.7 25 404.1
160-169 0.1113 1.3911 1.0113 59.9 3376 195 11.7 104.9 25 292.0
170-179 0.1021 2.0884 1.0021 71.3 1604 132 9.4 92.5 25 235.9
180-L∞ 0.4500 - 1.3500 84.2 304 101 8.5 19.0 25 213.6
Total 364.7 959.8 4695.6
Similarly, the output for F-facto r = 1.5 will be

(g) (000s)
50-59 0.9465 1.0498 1.8465 2.3 79073 7340 16.9 17.8 5 84.4
60-69 1.7663 1.0541 2.6663 3.7 64754 11549 42.7 24.2 5 213.7
70-79 2.2182 1.0592 3.1182 5.7 47321 11139 63.5 28.6 5 317.5
80-89 2.0792 1.0654 2.9792 8.3 31662 7619 63.2 30.4 5 316.2
90-99 1.9022 1.0729 2.8022 11.6 20745 5035 58.4 30.7 5 292.0
100-109 1.7669 1.0825 2.6669 15.6 13328 3337 52.1 29.5 15 780.8
110-119 1.5758 1.0950 2.4758 20.4 8291 2091 42.7 27.1 15 639.9
120-129 1.3825 1.1119 2.2825 26.2 5006 1273 33.3 24.1 15 500.1
130-139 1.0803 1.1361 1.9803 33.0 2905 686 22.7 21.0 15 339.8
140-149 0.9817 1.1737 1.8817 40.8 1646 424 17.3 17.6 15 259.4
150-159 0.4631 1.2404 1.3631 49.7 834 137 6.8 14.7 25 169.7
160-169 0.3339 1.3911 1.2339 59.9 432 70 4.2 12.6 25 105.0
170-179 0.3062 2.0884 1.2062 71.3 173 38 2.7 9.0 25 68.6
180-Loo 1.3500 - 2.2500 84.2 21 13 1.1 0.8 25 26.8
Total 427.6 288.0 4113.9
Step 3
Tabulate the predicted total yield, mean biomass and value obtained for a range of F-factors,
starting from F-factor = 0. The yield and value will show continuous increase and then a steady
decline, while the biomass will show a decline in quantity for increasing F-factors.
F factor Total yield Mean Value
(tonnes) biomass(t) (000 Rs)
0 0 0
0.25 245.2 1395.5 3400.9
0.50 364.7 959.8 4695.6
0.75 418.2 680.0 5001.5
1.00 436.7 496.1 4852.5
1.25 436.7 372.6 4513.2
1.50 427.6 288.0 4113.9
1.75 414.1 228.7 3717.8
2.00 399.2 186.3 3353.1
Step 4
The graph generated from the output data is given below. It can be observed that the yield
increases from 245.2 t at F-factor of 0.25 to 436.7 t at F = 1.00-1.25 but decreases to 399.2 t at
F = 2.00. The Maximum Sustainable
Yield, the MSY (436.7 t) is obtained
at the current fishing mortality
level (F factor = 1.0). The mean
biomass drastically decreases
from 1395.5 t at F-factor 0.25 to
496.1 t at F-factor 1.00 and further
to a mere 186.3 t at F-factor
2.00. The Maximum Sustainable
Economic Yield, MEY is obtained
at the F-factor 0.75 (Rs.50 lakhs). The interpretation of the results is that the present fishing
level provides the MSY and increase in fishing effort will decrease the yield and drastically
reduce the biomass. However, since the MEY is obtained at 75% of the present fishing effort,
it is advisable to reduce the fishing effort to that level to realise better revenue.
Suggested Reading
Pauly, D. 1993. Foreword p. 1-3. In: On the Dynamics of Exploited Fish Populations (R.J.H. Beverton and S.J.
Holt), Chapman & Hall, London.
Sathianandan, T.V., Mini, K.G. and Somy Kuriakose, 2014. Training manual on Fish Stock Assessment and
Management. ICAR-Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi.
Sparre, P. and Venema, C. 1992. Introduction to Tropical Fish Stock Assessment. FAO Fish Tech. Pap. 306,
376 pp.
Thompson, W.F. and Bell, H. 1934. Biological statistics of the Pacific halibut fishery. 2.Effect of changes in
intensity upon total yield, and yield per unit gear. Rep. Internat. Fish. Comm. 8, 48 pp.
Vivekanandan, E. 2002. Multispecies assessment of the demersal fish stocks along the southeast coast of
India. FAO RAP Publ. 27, 24-37.
Vivekanandan, E. 2005. Stock assessment of tropical marine fishes. Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
New Delhi.
Beverton and Holt’s yield per recruit model
BEVERTON AND HOLT’S YIELD PER

RECRUIT MODEL
19
Ganga U.
Pelagic Fisheries Division
Yield per Recruit (Y/R) is the expected life time yield per fish recruited into the stock at a
specified age. The Beverton and Holt’s Yield per Recruit model (1957), is a predictive model
that can be used by fishery managers to understand the biological / economical effect
of fishing on the stocks and helps them to take suitable measures to ensure sustainable
yields from the fishery. In the Beverton and Holt (1957) yield equation, the response of a
population to fishing mortality on a per-recruit basis depends on natural mortality (M),
fishing mortality (F),growth rate (K, from the von Bertalanffy growth equation) and the age
(tc) at first capture (depends on gear selectivity). A fishery manager will aim at arriving at a
combination of measures that will ensure that the fish stocks are exploited at such a level
that there is neither growth nor recruitment overfishing, and predictive models employing
the Y/R concept enable these decisions. Maximum yield from a cohort can be realised only
by exploiting it at an age or size (optimum age or length) at which the cohort’s biomass
reaches its maximum. Thus, ideally fishery managers should be implementing exploitation
strategies that do not harvest fish too early (by restricting catches of juvenile fishes) or too
late when most of them would die due to “senility” or similar reasons operated through
natural mortality.
The Yield per Recruit model of Beverton and Holt is in principle a “Steady State Model”
implying that the model is describing the state of the stock and yield in a situation when
the fishing pattern has remain unchanged for a sufficiently long period of time and all the
fishes alive have been exposed to it since they recruited. Hence this is based on certain
assumptions which are listed below
 Recruitment is constant, though not specified
 All fish in a cohort have hatched on the same day
 knife edge Recruitment (Tr, All fish from a

cohort recruit to the fishing ground at the
same time) and knife edge Selection (Ts) is
(Experiencing only natural mortality (M) upto
the time of recruitment it is suddenly exposed
to Fishing (F) mortality, which remain constant
in the entire life span of the cohort after it
enters the fishery)
 Complete mixing occurs within the stock
 length –weight relationship has exponent 3
Mathematical expression of the Beverton and
Holt’s Y/R model uses the total yield per recruit
for the entire life span of the cohort using the
equation
Y/R= F* exp [ -M* (Tc -Tr ) ] * W∞* [ 1/z – 3S/ (z+k)
+ 3S2/ (z+2K) – S3/ (z+ 3K)]
where S= exp [ - K* (Tc – t 0) ]
K and t0 = von Bertalanffy growth parameters
Tc = Age at first capture
Tr = Age at recruitment
W∞ = Asymptotic body weight
F = Fishing mortality
M = Natural mortality
Z = Total mortality (F+M)
Mortality which is divided as due to natural causes
(M) and fishing (F) is a continuous process in time
where the number of individuals is constantly reduced
from the initial number R (number of recruits). In the
Y/R model the yields are relative to recruitment and
it is possible to calculate Y/R by varying the input
parameters such as F (proportional to effort) and Tc
(function of gear selectivity) which are possible to be
controlled by a fishery resource manager.
The Y/R curve has a maximum point known as the ‘ Maximum Sustainable Yield’ which
in turn depends on the age at first
capture which in turn is influenced
by the mesh size of the gear or other
gear technology related factors. By
combining a range of values of TC and
F and assuming that other conditions
operating in the fisher y are not
changing, the long term sustainable
yield is arrived. Originally an age based
model, it can also be converted into
a length based one applying certain
principles, in fisheries where the data is mainly

of length frequencies of the catch of particular
species which has not been aged.
Y/R relationships are important in arriving at two

biological reference points (BRP) commonly used
by fishery managers such as Fmax (or F msy) and F
0.1
. The Fmax BRP being highly sensitive to changes
in growth, natural mortality and selectivity
parameters adopted, its use as a target reference
point is not encouraged. A more conservative
estimate of F 0.1 which is the fishing mortality rate
for which slope of the yield-per-recruit curve
is only 10% (rather than 0%) of its value at the
origin is preferred. In certain cases, Y/R curve
does not have a maximum and can lead to the
wrong conclusion that effort can be increased
indefinitely. In such cases, often common in
tropical fisheries, it is recommended to look into biomass/ recruit curves also along with
the Y/R curves.
In fisheries management, frequently there is need to understand how much the yield per
recruit will change in response to changes in fishing effort. In such situations, rather than the
absolute values of Y/R expressed as grams per recruit, Beverton and Holt (1966) developed
the Relative Yield per Recruit Model, denoted as (Y/R)’ which used the life history invariants
(dimensionless ratios). The (Y/R)’ can be calculated for given input values of M/K, L” and Lc
for values of E ranging from 0 to 1 and corresponding to F values of 0 to∞. This has been
used for assessing effect of mesh size regulations effectively.
Suggested Reading
Beverton R. J. H. and Holt, S. J. 1957. On the Dynamics of Exploited Fish Populations, Caldwell, NJ: Blackburn
Press, (reprint).
Heino et al., 2013. Can fisheries- induced evolution shift reference points for fisheries management. Review.
ICES Journal of Marine Science, 70(4): 707 – 721.
Jennings S. and Dulvy, N. K. 2008. Beverton & Holt’s insights into life history theory: influence, application
and future use. In : (ed A. Payne, J. Cotter and T. Potter) Advances in Fisheries Science. 50 years on from
Beverton and Holt. Blackwell Publishing, CEFAS
Myers, R. A. 2002. Recruitment: understanding density-dependence in fish populations. In: Handbook of
fish and fisheries (ed P. J. B. Hart and J.D. Reynolds), Vol. 1, pp. 123-148. Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Quinn, T. J. and Deriso, R. B. 1999. Quantitative fish dynamics. Oxford University Press, New York.
Sparre, P. and Venema, S. C. 1998. Introduction to tropical fish stock assessment. FAO Fisheries Technical
Paper 306/1.
Virtual population analysis
VIRTUAL POPULATION ANALYSIS
20
Vivekanand Bharti
Introduction
Virtual population analysis (VPA) is a modeling technique commonly used in fisheries science
for reconstructing the historical population structure of a fish stock using information on
the deaths of individuals in each time step. The time steps are typically annual (though not
necessarily) and the deaths are usually partitioned into mortality due to fishing and natural
mortality. VPA therefore looks at a population in an historic perspective. The advantage
of doing a VPA is that once the history is known it becomes easier to predict the future
catches, which is usually one of the most important tasks of fishery scientists. Virtual
population analysis calculates the number of fish alive in each cohort for each past year.
It is also called cohort analysis because each cohort is analysed separately. VPA relies on
a very simple relationship for each cohort. VPA or Cohort analysis was first developed as
age-based methods in temperate regions further developed as length-based methods for
tropical regions.
Virtual Population Analysis
Virtual population analysis is basically an analysis of the catches of commercial fisheries,
obtained through fishery statistics, combined with detailed information on the contribution
of each cohort to the catch, which is usually obtained through sampling programmes and
age readings. The word “virtual”, introduced by Fry is based on the analogy with the “virtual
image”, known from physics. A “virtual population” is not the real population, but it is the
only one that is seen. It is virtual in the sense that the population size is not observed or
measured directly but is inferred or back calculated to have been a certain size in the past. The
idea behind the method is to analyse that what can be seen, the catch, in order to calculate
the population that must have been in the water to produce this catch. The total landings
from a cohort in its lifetime is the first estimate of the numbers of recruits from that cohort.
The basic equation for VPA is
Number alive Number alive Catch of Natural mortality

at beginning = at beginning + this year + of this year
of this year of next year
VPA is based on three equations;
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
Where,
C (y, t, t+1) = number caught between age ‘t’ and age ‘t+1’ in ‘y’ year
N (y, t) = No. of survivors in the sea with ‘t’ age in starting of ‘y’ year
N (y+1, t+1) = No. of survivors in the sea with ‘t+1’ age in starting of ‘y+1’ year
F = Fishing mortality coefficient
M = Natural mortality coefficient
Calculation procedure
The calculation can be started from the bottom i. e. year of oldest age group for VPA
analysis (for example, if VPA analysis is carried out for the time period from 1978 to 1980,
the starting of VPA analysis can be begun from the year 1980) using equation-1.1. At first
step, the fishing mortality can be chosen on the basis of guess. Second step onward, fishing
mortality cannot be taken simply on the basis of guess, but it can be calculated with help of
equation-1.2 by some trial and error method. Once, fishing mortality has been estimated,
the number of fish in the sea for preceding year can be calculated by using equation-1.3.
Computer Programs
Mensil (1988) presents a package of microcomputer programs, ‘ANACO’ (ANAlysis of COhort)

which can perform the VPA calculations. ‘COMPLEAT ELEFAN’ package (Gayanilo, Soriano
and Pauly, 1988) and FiSAT contain also routines for VPA analysis.
Age-based Cohort Analysis (Pope’s Cohort Analysis)
As derived from the catch equation, the VPA implied the solution by some numerical
techniques (some trial and error method). This is a minor technical problem when one
has access to a computer. However, the

problem can be circumvented in an easy
way, so that VPA can also be carried out
on a pocket calculator. The version of
VPA suitable for pocket calculators is
the “cohort analysis” developed by Pope
(1972). Cohort analysis is conceptually
identical to VPA, but the calculation
technique is simpler. It is based on an
approximation, illustrated which shows
the number of survivors of a cohort during
one year. The catch is taken continuously
during the year, but in cohort analysis the
assumption is made that all fish are caught
on one single day. Consequently in the
first half year the fish suffer only natural
mortality so the number of survivors on 1 July becomes:
2.1.
Then, instantaneously, the catch is taken and the number of survivors becomes:
2.2.
This number of survivors then suffers further only natural mortality in the second half year
and finally the number of survivors at the end of the year is:
2.3.
For convenience of calculation this equation is rearranged as:
2.4.
Now from the N’s, fishing mortality can be obtained with the help of equation:
2.5.
Note that the F that caused computational problems in the VPA equation does not occur here.
Since catch may be considered for any time period i. e. t to t+Δt. Therefore, the general
equation for age-based cohort analysis can be express as:
2.6.
Virtual population analysis Virtual population analysis
Similarly, the general equation to obtain fishing mortality can be express as:
2.7.
Calculation procedure
The calculation of cohort analysis can be started similar to VPA analysis by assuming the
fishing mortality for the oldest age group. After first step, the number of survivors in the sea
in preceding year can be calculated for any time period by using the general equation for
age-based cohort analysis given above (equation-2.6). The fishing mortality during the year
can also be calculated by using above general equation of fishing mortality (equation-2.7).
Jones’ Length-Based Cohort Analysis
Keeping in view the difficulty in determination of ages for certain resources and also the fact
that it is rather difficult to obtain age-frequency data for most of the tropical fish, cohort
analysis described above is modified to make use of the length frequency data (length
composition data for the total fishery are available for one year or the average length
composition for a sequence of years). The name “length based cohort analysis” is somewhat
misleading, as we are not dealing with real cohorts in the present analysis. The real cohort is
replaced by a “pseudo-cohort” which is based on the assumption of a constant parameter
system. Thus, it is assumed that the picture presented by all length (or age) classes caught
during one year reflects that of a single cohort during its entire life span. Example for length-
based cohort analysis is length composition of total catch of hake (Merluccius merluccius):
Length group (cm) Number caught (‘000) Length group (cm) Number caught (‘000)
(L1-L2) C (L1, L2) (L1-L2) C (L1, L2)
6-12 1823 48-54 653

12-18 14463 54-60 322
18-24 25227 60-66 228
24-30 8134 60-72 181
30-36 3889 72-78 96
36-42 2959 78-84 16
42-48 1871 84-∞ 46
Here length group is converted into age intervals by the inverse Von Bertalanffy equation:
3.1.
3.2.
To convert the cohort analysis equation into a length-based version, only the term
Virtual population analysis Virtual population analysis
exp [(M* ∆t)/2] has to be changed. This is done by substituting Δ t with following equation:
3.3.
It is convenient to use a symbol instead of this complicated term, therefore we introduce

the symbols:
N (L1) = N [t (L1)] = the number of fish that attain length L1

= the number of fish that attain age t (L1)
(also called the number of survivors)
N (L2) = N (t (L1 + ∆t) = the number of fish that attain length L2
= the number of fish that attain age t (L2)
[= t (L1) + ∆t]
C (L1, L2) = C (t, t + ∆t) = the number of fish caught of lengths between L1 and L2
= the number of fish caught of ages between t (L1) and t (L2)
3.4.
Now equation can be rewritten using these length-based symbols, as:

3.5.
The equation for length-based cohort analysis for last group:
3.6.
The equation for calculation of fishing mortality in length-based cohort analysis can be
written as:
3.7.
Calculation Procedure
The calculation for length-based cohort analysis is similar to age based cohort analysis. It
can be started with last group with the help of equation-3.6. After first step, the number of
survivors in the sea in preceding year can be calculated by using equation-3.5. The fishing
mortality can also be calculated by using equation of fishing mortality given in equation-3.7.
Limitation
1. Natural mortality of cohort at age ‘t’ (M) is constant.
2. It deals with the population dynamics of single species, whereas natural fish populations
almost always interact among themselves and with others.
Suggested Reading
Gulland, J. A. 1983. Fish Stock Assessment: A manual of basic methods: Chichester, U.K. Wiley Interscience,
FAO/Wiley Series of Food and Agriculture Vol. 1, 223 pp.
Sparre, P. and Venema, S. C. 1992. Introduction to Tropical Fish Stock Assessment. Part I. Manual. FAO
Fisheries Technical paper, No. 306.1. Rev1. Rome. FAO. 376 pp.
Multispecies virtual population analysis
MULTISPECIES VIRTUAL POPULATION ANALYSIS
21
Vivekanand Bharti
Introduction
Fisheries are the major driver for the changing in properties of both fished and unfished
species, through direct and indirect effects. Direct effects can include reductions in population
abundance, age and size structure, biodiversity, community composition and habitat
destruction. Indirect effects, including incidental mortality, are transmitted through the
ecosystem by trophic interactions and competition, and may result in increased or decreased
abundance of prey or predator species, altering community composition. In recognition
of the complex, interconnected nature of marine ecosystems, ecosystem approaches have
been promoted as a way to improve fisheries assessment and management. There is a wide-
range of multi-species and ecosystem modelling approaches. They range from extended
single species models to multi-species minimum realistic models, food web models to
whole ecosystem models with age and spatial structure. All models have their strengths
and weaknesses: simplicity may entail missing key processes, whereas complexity requires
more data, time and resources.
Multispecies Virtual Population Analysis
Multispecies virtual population analysis (MSVPA) is an approach to quantifying predator–prey
interactions and estimating the rates of predation mortality for exploited fish populations.
This approach was developed within International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)
as a multispecies by extension of VPA or cohort analysis. MSVPA is a computation technique
by which, one can calculate the amount of fish there must have been in the sea to account
for the observed catches in fisheries and the observed stomach contents of predators.
MSVPA provides useful insight into the role of predator-prey interactions by quantifying
food consumption of major predators. Therefore, to perform MSVPA, detailed food-habit
information is required. Thus, MSVPA requires input data as the natural mortality (non-
predation), an estimate for fishing mortality in the last year (terminal F), abundance index
for all groups, suitability estimates, weight-at-age, predator ration estimates and diet data.
The basic approach was derived from the model of Andersen and Ursin (1977) and
subsequently described by Pope (1979), Helgason and Gislason (1979), and Gislason and
Helgason (1985). Finally, this approach was reviewed by Sparre (1991) and Magnusson (1995).
The main conclusions from applications to this system, summarized by Pope (1991), are that
the rates of natural mortality are higher than typically assumed and are annually variable. The
model is derived from the basic age-structured VPA approach with the addition of resolving
natural mortality (M) into two components i.e. predation (M2) and residual natural mortality
(M1), e.g. competition, disease, starvation and other natural causes. Predation mortality rates
are calculated using the model that consists two primary terms, one for the total biomass of
food consumed by the predator and other is suitability index that determines the predator’s
diet composition. In practice, the suitability coefficients can be calculated by incorporating
diet information for all predator and prey age classes for at least 1 year in MSVPA time-series.
Suitability coefficient measures the relative suitability of one species as prey for predators.
These parameters must be estimated inside the model and this estimation requires data on
the stomach contents of the predators in the model. MSVPA makes two key assumptions;
one is constant ration size (i.e. independent of time for each species-age combination),
hence fixed weights-at-age and other is prey selection which leads to a type II functional
feeding response. Thus, suitability coefficients are constant in time and independent of
prey abundance. In single species VPA, each cohort can be treated separately, the results
being independent of the results of the other cohorts. The usual procedure for VPA is to
work backwards in time, starting with the oldest age group and ending with the recruits.
But, this procedure would not work for MSVPA. All cohorts of all species have to be dealt
with simultaneously, as the value of the predation mortality depends on the abundances
of predators and prey. Thus, MSVPA works on a “by-year basis” rather than on a by-cohort
basis. MSVPA is a recursive algorithm and advantage of this model is the estimation the
annual consumption of prey by predators.
Natural Mortality (M)

M = M1 + M2
Where, M1 is the residual mortality and M2 is the predation mortality.
Predation Mortality Coefficient (M2)
Predation mortality coefficient can be calculated using the model that consists two primary
terms such as total biomass of food consumed by the predators and suitability coefficients
of predators. Therefore, Predation mortality coefficient has been estimated by following
formula:
M2p,a = Predation mortality of prey ‘p’ at age ‘a’

= Average abundance of predator ‘i’ at age ‘j’
Ri,j = Annual ration (total annual food consumption, kg) for the predator species
Sp,a,i,j = Suitability coefficient for each predator - prey combination
= Average abundance of prey ‘p’ at age ‘a’
Wp,a = Weight of the prey ‘p’ at age ‘a’
Here Numerator reflects the diet composition of the predator relative to the available food.
The denominator of equation represents the total suitable biomass available to the predator.
Computation of MSVPA
The computation of MSVPA is started by assuming that the suitability coefficients are known.
If the ‘N’ is known, then ‘M2’ can be calculated by using predation mortality coefficient
equation. Other hand, once the ‘M2’ is known; again ‘N’ can be calculated using single
species VPA techniques. However, ‘N’ is not known, this problem can only be solved using
iterative techniques.
Suitability Coefficient
The factor determining the availability of prey as food for predator is called a “(food)
suitability coefficient”. Suitability coefficient is the most important parameters estimated in
a MSVPA model. It reflects predator preferences, vulnerability, and availability of prey, which
is influenced by the spatial overlap of predators and prey. There are two assumptions for
calculation of suitability coefficient, it is independent with change time and also independent
with prey abundance i.e. type II predator-prey feeding response. The suitability coefficients
are estimated iteratively in the MSVPA model with the following equation by incorporating
diet information for all predator and prey at age classes.
Up,ja,i,j = Observed food composition in the predator’s stomach contents; a is the

age of prey p; and j is the age of predator i
= Average abundance of prey p at age a
Wp,a = Weight of the prey p at age a
Input data for MSVPA
The following are the input data for MSPVA:
1. Stomach content data
2. Annual predator ration (kg)
3. Residual mortality coefficient (M1)
4. Number of catch at age (C)
5. Terminal fishing mortality coefficient (Fterminal)
Outputdata for MSVPA
The following are the output for MSPVA:
1. Fishing mortality coefficient (F)
2. Stock numbers (N)
3. Suitability coefficient (S)
4. Predation mortality coefficient (M2)
Advantages
MSVPA uses data inputs (e.g. fishery catch-at-age) that are similar to those used in single
species fishery models. The model outputs of MSVPA are directly comparable with those of
single-species approaches. MSVPA can be use in fishery management plans. If parameters are
stable, MSVPA models can include trophic interactions in the development of management
advice.
Limitation
1. It concerns over the type II of functional feeding response
2. MSVPA models typically include only exploited species, and all other components of
the ecosystem (e.g. zooplankton, benthic secondary production, apex predators) are
either omitted from the model or are includedas fixed inputs of biomass
3. If parameters vary from year to year, trophic MSVPA models may have little value for
managers
Extended MSVPA
Extended MSVPA (MSVPA-X) is represented as an alternative to existing MSVPA approaches.
It is an improvement over previous approaches by increasing the flexibility to model seasonal
and interannual dynamics in the strength of prey – predator interactions. It includes an
alternative functional feeding response with the implementation of type III feeding response.
MSVPA-X uses index-tuned VPA methods for estimation of terminal fishing mortality (Ft). It
also incorporates a more complex expression of predator feeding and consumption rates
by more explicit formulation of prey size and type selection.
MSVPA assumes that food consumption is a constant proportion of body weight across
seasons and years. In reality, food consumption rates in fish can vary strongly, particularly
between seasons as a function of changing temperatures and metabolic demands. Therefore,
a modified functional relationship between food availability and predator consumption rates
is included in MSVPA-X. The total consumption for a predator ‘i’ age ‘a’ in year, ‘y’, season,‘s’
can be calculated by following equation:
Where,
SCias = Stomach contents weight relative to predator body weight in a season
Dias = Number of days in the season
wiays = Average weight at age for the predator species
Niays = Abundance of the predator age class
Eias = Evacuation rate (hr-1)
Evacuation rate (Eias) = αiaexp (βia.Temps)
Where,
Temps = Seasonal temperature (°C)
αa & βia = Parameters based upon laboratory feeding experiments

Again, stomach contents across years for predator
Where,
= Average stomach contents across years for predator i, age class a, in season ‘s’
SB = Average biomass available to the predator
Suitability in MSVPA-X
Suitability in MSVPA-X is calculated by defining selectivity equation rather than relying on

back-calculating suitability in iteration method as MSVPA. Predation is based on “density risk”
and “prey vulnerability”. Density risk reflects the relative encounter rate of the predators and
prey driven by spatial overlap. Prey vulnerability combined probabilities of attack, capture,
and ingestion. Therefore, suitability equation components are represented by the product
of spatial overlap, a type preference or electivity parameter, and size-selection parameter.
Suitability
Where,
Siajb = Suitability for a given prey species ‘ j’ and age class ‘b’ for predator species ‘I’
Oiaj = Spatial overlap index
Aiaj = Vulnerability
Biajb = Size selection
Spatial Overlap Index
Spatial overlap index (Oij) can be calculated by using following equation,
Where,
N. z is the abundance of each predator or prey in each of ‘m’ spatial cells. It ranges between
0 and 1. It represents horizontal overlap of the predator and prey.
Type Preferences
Type preference reflects selection for a particular species relative to all others based upon
ease of capture, energy content, or other factors that result in a preferred prey type. For
each prey type (or species), a preference rank is assigned for a given predator age class. If
a prey species is not consumed by that predator age class, then it is given a rank of zero. It
can be calculated by Proportionalized rank index (Aiaj);
where,
m = Number of prey species and riaj= Preference rank for each prey species
Size Selection
Size selection uses a flexible unimodal function (the incomplete beta integral) to describe
size selection. The function can be fitted to data on the length distribution of fish prey in
stomach data by maximum likelihood estimation. This assumes that the length distribution
of prey in the diet reflects selection rather than availability.
Program Implementation for MSVPA
The MSVPA is implemented as a MS Windows application written in Visual Basic 6.0. The
program includes interface screens for the entry and management of species data, model
inputs, and both graphical and data outputs. All data and outputs are stored and managed
within a relational database, created by the program termed a “project file”. The project
file is stored, where catch and other biological data for individual species are entered that
can be included within MSVPA executions. The project file also allows development and
storage of MSVPA-X runs.
Application of MSVPA
MSVPA has demonstrated that an increase in mesh size can result in lower long-term yields,
an effect opposite to what is predicted if species interactions are ignored. Such insights into
the dynamics of the system are useful and MSVPA may therefore have an important role
in fisheries management.
Suggested Reading
Garisson L. P., Link J. S., Kilduff D. P., Cieri M. D., Muffy B., Vaughan D. S., Sharov A., Mahmoudi B. and
Latour R. J., 2010. An expansion of the MSVPA approach for quantifying predator–prey interactions in
exploited fish communities. United States Government, Department of Commerce, National Marine
Fisheries Service, pp 856-869.
Garrison L. and Link J., 2004. An Expanded Multispecies Virtual Population Analysis Approach (MSVPA-X) to
Evaluate Predator-Prey Interactions in Exploited Fish Ecosystems. Users Manual and Model Description
Version 1.1 pp 1-90.
Gislason H. and Sparre P., 1987. Some theoretical aspects of the implementation of multispecies virtual
population analysis in ICES pp1-40.
Jurado-Molina J., Gatica, C., Arancibia, H., Neira, S. and Alarcon, R., 2016. A Multispecies Virtual Population
Analysis for the Souththern Chilean demersal fishery. Marine and coastal fisheries, 8:1 350-360.
Sparre P. and Venema S. C., 1992. Introduction to tropical fish stock assessment, Part-1 pp 153-171.
Sparre P., 1991. Introduction to multispecies virtual population analysis. ICES Mar. Sci. Symp., 193 12-21.
Diversity Macro
and exploitation
analytical status
modelsof Crustacean Fishery Resources in India
MACRO ANALYTICAL MODELS
22
Somy Kuriakose and Sobha Joe Kizhakkudan
Fishery Resources Assessment Division and Demersal Fisheries Division
Introduction
Production models form one of the two groups of models used in studying fish
population and assessing the state of the fish stocks. Unlike the analytical models,
they do not consider the events within a
population, and particularly ignore the
growth and mortality of the individuals
forming the population. These models view
population as one unit of biomass, with all
individuals having the same growth and
mortality rates. The surplus production
models deal with the entire stock, the entire
fishing effort and the total yield obtained
from the stock, without entering into any
details such as the growth and mortality
parameters or the effect of the mesh size on
the age of fish capture etc. Surplus
production models were introduced by
Graham (1935), but they are often referred
to as Schaefer-models.
Macro analytical models
The objective of the application of surplus production models is to determine the

optimum level of effort that is the effort that produces the maximum yield that
can be sustained without affecting the long-term productivity of the stock, or the
maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Surplus production models assume that
variation in population biomass results from increases due to growth and
reproduction (termed production), and decreases from natural and fishing
mortality.
Surplus production models use catch per unit effort as input. The data, which
represent a time series of years, are usually collected from commercial fishery. The
model is based on the assumption that the biomass of the fish in the sea is
proportional to the catch per unit effort. Surplus production models are
concerned with four basic quantities.
They are
 The population biomass B

 The catch
 The fishing effort
 The net natural rate of increase
The basic information used in surplus production models is catch-per-unit-effort

(CPUE) data and records of landed catches. In this approach, consistent with most
other stock assessment techniques, CPUE is regarded as an index of resource
biomass or resource abundance.
The problem is to estimate
 the constant of proportionality linking CPUE to resource biomass,

referred to as the catchability coefficient, and
 to estimate the resource carrying capacity and the scale of the surplus
production curve.
Since the surplus production and hence the resource biomass cannot increase
indefinitely (resource biomass is assumed to achieves a maximum level known as
the resource carrying capacity), surplus production is zero both at a resource

biomass level of zero (when there is no biomass then it cannot produce any
surplus production) and at a resource biomass level equal to the carrying capacity.
Somewhere between these two extreme resource biomass levels (zero and the
resource carrying capacity) the surplus production must reach a maximum value.
Most surplus production models assume that the relationship between surplus
production and resource biomass is bell shaped, that is it is fairly symmetrical with
a maximum about halfway between a resource biomass of zero and the carrying
capacity In practice surplus production curves are seldom symmetrical and there
are a variety of surplus production models which accommodate virtually all
possible asymmetrical relationships that may be required for different situations.
For example, in many finfish stocks the maximum is assumed to occur at a
biomass smaller than the halfway point, whereas for whale stocks it is assumed to
lie at a biomass larger than the halfway point.
The basic assumptions in Schafer’s model are
 The net natural rate of growth is a decreasing function of the biomass
 The relationship is linear
 We are dealing with a unit stock.
 The population reacts instantaneously to any change in effort.
 The population has no size or age structure. There is no growth or ageing

of individuals.
 Any loss is mortality
 No interaction with other species.
 No spatial and environmental variation.
 The stock is closed, no immigration and emigration.
The model can be applied for the fisheries which have undergone substantial
increase or decrease in fishing effort over a long time series.
All discrete surplus production models are of the form

All discrete surplus production models are of the form
Bt+1 = Bt + g (Bt) – Ct
Bt+1 = Bt + g (Bt) – Ct
where
where Bt the exploitable biomass at the start of the year t
Bt
g(Bt) the exploitable
biomass dynamicbiomass at the start
as a function of thebiomass
of current year t
g(Bt)
Ct biomass dynamic
catch during as atfunction of current biomass
the year
Ct catch during the year t
The three most common forms for the function g(B) are
The three most common forms for the function g(B) are
1. rB (1 – B/K) Schafer
1.
2. rB (1 –
rB {1 – (In
B/K)B)/(In K)} Schafer
Fox
2.
3. rB
r/p{1B{1
– (In B)/(In K)}
– (B/K)p} Fox
Pella Tomlinson
3. r/p B{1 – (B/K)p} Pella Tomlinson
where
where B is the current biomass
B
r is thestocks
the current biomass
intrinsic rate of increase in proportion to unit time.
rK the stocks
carrying intrinsic
capacity ratemaximum
or the of increase in proportion
population size to unit time.
pK carrying
the shapecapacity or the maximum population size
parameter
p the shape parameter
The Schafer form of the biomass dynamic function is equivalent to the Pella
The Schaferform
Tomlinson formwith
of p=1.
the biomass
The fox dynamic function
form is the limit ofis Pella
equivalent to the
Tomlinson Pella
form as
Tomlinson
p0 form with p=1. The fox form is the limit of Pella Tomlinson form as
p0
The Schaefer and Fox Models
The Schaefer and Fox Models
The Schaefer model expresses the yield per unit effort (Y/f) as a function of the
The
effortSchaefer
(f) in themodel expresses
simplest way as the yield per unit effort (Y/f) as a function of the
effort (f) in the simplest way as
Y/f = a + bf
Y/f = a + bf
In this model the catch per unit effort is considered as a linear function of effort
In
andthis
themodel
linear the catch perhas
relationship unit effort isslope
negative considered as a linear
and positive function
intercept. of effort
The catch per
and
unit the linear
effort (Y/f)relationship
decreases has
for negative slope
increasing and
effort (f);positive
but theintercept.
interceptThe
(a) catch
must per
be
unit effort
positive. (Y/f) decreases for increasing effort (f); but the intercept (a) must be
positive.
In this me
ethod,
 a2
The Maximum e Yield MSY
m Sustainable Y
4b
a
O
Optimum ort f MSY 
effo
2b
Yield for a given effort = af – bf2
Using tim a on catch and effort by a linear regrression of cattch per unit
me series data
effort (Yt / f t ) (CPUE)) on effort f t , we can esstimate the coefficients
c a and b and
calculate MSY using th
his estimatess.
In Fox model,
m an exp etween CPUE
ponential relationship be E and effort is
i assumed.
The mode
el is given by
y
Y (i ) Y (i )
 e c  d * f (i ) or ln  c  d * f (i )
f (i ) f (i )
1
This funcction will ha
ave maximum
m value for the yield when
w ft  and the
d
 1 c1
maximum
m value of yie
eld (MSY) is given
g by MS
SY  e
d
Using tim
me series data
a on catch an
nd effort thro
ough a linear regression of
o logarithm
of catch
h per unitt effort
ln(Yt / ft ) on effortt f t , we
can estim
mate the coe
efficients
c and d and calcula
ate MSY
ese estimates.
using the
Though the dels

mod of
Schaefer and Fox conform
c
the assumption th
hat Y/f
declines as effort in
ncreases,
the straight line of Schaefer model implies that Y/f reaches zero for certain f value
but the curved line in the Fox model implies that the Y/f never approaches zero,
even at very high levels of effort.
Because holistic models are much simpler than analytical models, the data
requirements are also less demanding. There is no need to determine cohorts and
therefore no need for age determination. This is one of the main reasons for the
relative popularity of surplus production models in tropical fish stock assessment.
Surplus production models can be applied when data are available on the yield
(by species) and of the effort expended over a certain number of years. This
method is simpler since it makes no assumptions about the size and/or age
composition of the catch or of the broader population. It is one of the simplest
ways to deal with multispecies/multifleet system by pooling the catch of all
species and the effort by all fleets. Application of the Schaefer model to the catch
of all species by all types of fleets would give an estimate of MSY for the area in
consideration. However, the problem of exploitation of the same stock by gear
with different efficiencies has to be addressed by standardising the fishing efforts
of all the gear that are engaged in the fishery.
Maximum economic yield and its importance in fisheries management
MAXIMUM ECONOMIC YIELD AND ITS

IMPORTANCE IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
23
R. Narayanakumar
Socio Economic Evaluation and Technology Transfer Division
Introduction
Fishery resources are renewable natural resource but are liable to become extinct (as
witnessed in many cases across the globe) if continuous and indiscriminate harvest is
adopted Here the size of the stock (population) depends on the biological, economic and
social considerations. Since fisheries resources are mostly coming under common property
resources, its management becomes a complex issue (due to which a comprehensive
management measure could not be exercised) and we have to resort to various management
intervention options to ensure sustainable harvest as well as to maintain inter and intra
generational equity. The management issue gains more significance in India wherein species
diversity is very high and so the diversity among the fishing communities involved in fishing
operations. “In an open access regime like fishery, negative externalities are many, which
implies that uncontrolled fishery will bound to end up in what is called tragedy of commons.’
(Grafton et.al, 2006).
There are many fishery management indicators, or reference points, which are estimated
based on the systematic landing data and stock assessment studies. These indicators form
the basis for formulation of various management measures in the country. Among such
reference points, maximum economic yield (MEY) is one. The concepts, estimation of MEY
and its significance in fishery management are dealt with in the following sections.
Sustainable Yield
Before actually proceeding to MEY, it will be better to have an understanding on the concepts
of sustainable yield for a better understanding.
Fisheries are classified under renewable natural resources. However such resources are
also liable to become extinct if the rate of harvest or exploitation is higher than the rate
of regeneration or reproduction. Here the size of the stock (population) depends on the
biological, economic and social considerations.
The sustainable yield in fishing commonly referred to as “Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY)
is a biological phenomenon. MSY
means that level of fish catch or
yield that can be harvested from a
given system in perpetuity without
affecting the stock of the system
(or the sea). In other words, a
catch level is said to be sustainable
whenever it equals the growth rate
of the population since it can be
maintained for ever. As long as the
population size remains constant,
the growth rate will remain constant
as well.
What is MEY?
Maximum economic yield is that yield level, which coincides with the level of harvest or
effort that maximized the sustainable net returns from fishing. A MEY harvest is desirable
because it is the catch level that enables society to do the best it can with what nature has
provided. (Grafton et al, 2006). Maximum Economic Yield (MEY) which includes the monetary
terms of the effort and returns in sustainable yield formulation.
In fisheries terms, maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is the largest average catch that can
be captured from a stock under existing environmental conditions. Relating to MSY, the
maximum economic yield (MEY) is the level of catch that provides the maximum net economic
benefits or profits to society.
MEY is a long-run equilibrium concept which refers to the level of output and the
corresponding level of effort that maximize the expected economic profits in a fishery. In
most cases, this scenario results in yields and effort levels that are less than at maximum
sustainable yield (MSY) and in stock biomass levels greater than at MSY (Mardie 2002,
Bromley,2009)
Earlier only biological aspects were considered in fisheries management. But they were
aimed at controlling fishing effort and they did not consider the economic or social aspects
of fishing methods. The net income from fishing and the subsequent use of income for the
livelihood of fishers is also of vital importance. Besides the cost and returns in fishing plays
a significant role as incentives for engaging in fishing as an occupation. This thought gave
way for the economics to be included in fisheries management.
Economists have long argued that a fishery that maximizes its economic potential
also usually will satisfy its
conservation objectives (Walters
1993; Mardie 2002). This scenario
is encapsulated in the concept
of maximum economic yield
(MEY), a long-run equilibrium
concept that refers to the level
of output and the corresponding
level of effort that maximize the
expected economic profits in a
fishery. In most cases, this scenario
results in yields and effort levels
that are less than at maximum
sustainable yield (MSY) and in stock biomass levels greater than at MSY (Mardie 2002,
Bromley,2009). Lower levels of fishing effort also generally result in fewer adverse
environmental impacts. Developed initially in the context of single-species fisheries
(Walters, 1993), MEY was extended to multispecies fisheries under the assumption
that the species are caught in fixed proportions. The optimal catch and biomass
for any single species in a multispecies fishery may be greater or less than at MSY (Bromley,
2009).
When the relationship between effort and money are measured, it was observed that when
stock is low, effort must be high.
 Total revenue (TR) = Price (P) × Catch (H)
 TC = Unit cost (c) × Effort
 Rent = TR – TC
The rent is maximized at the point E*.Please note that here,
 MEY is left of MSY
 Optimal harvest (H*) is less than the MSY harvest
 But rent is larger than at MSY
The point E* is that effort level at which the MEY occurs. At this point of effort only the
difference between the total revenue from fishing and total cost of fishing is the maximum.
This difference is also referred to as resource rent.
The marginal analysis can show that the MEY occurs at the point where MC =MR. It is
observed that for marginal unit of effort,
marginal rent is = 0 and average rent >1.
Dixon concludes that the “Goal of traditional
fisheries management: achieve MSY.
However the economists aim for MEY in
contrast to MSY. AT MEY, compared to MSY,
the fish catch is lower, fishing profit is higher,
fishing effort is lower and the fish stock is
higher. Thus the author concludes that MEY
is where more fish is conserved. (Dixon, 2005)
Steps in estimation of MEY
p = a -by……...........................................….(1)
Where,
p is the price per unit weight of fish
y is the annual yield
The average price per unit weight of fish
(p) is generally a monotonically decreasing
function of annual yield (y)
The profit is obtained as a difference
between total revenue (TR) and total cost (TC), i.e.,
Π = TR – TC = (p-c)y ………................…(2)
Where
‘c’ is the cost of harvesting one unit weight of fish. From this, a cost function will be fit from
the data collected
MEY = (a – c) / 2b ………………..........….(3)
fmey = [a +/- (a2 – 4 b MEY)]1/2 / 2b …(4)
where, a = intercept; b, c =regression coefficients
From fmey, the optimum fleet size is obtained by dividing ‘b’ by the average annual fishing
days. Based on this the excess capacity and thus the capital investment (over and above
the optimum fleet size) can be worked out
Factors Affecting MEY

While estimating the MEY, three assumptions have been made such as zero discount rate;
cost of fishing is a simple linear function of stock size; fishing costs rise proportionately
with effort
The cost of fishing is an important component that decides the MEY. Generally the cost of
fishing increases with a decrease in stock size at an increasing rate. This is the characteristics
of the fishing practice. Under such a situation, it will be desirable to have a catch and effort
level further to the left of the bionomic equilibrium
If the discount rate is very high or large, the MEY will correspond to a bionomic equilibrium
(Clark, 1990), because it will be profitable to harvest the stock today itself if the loss of
future net returns are very heavily discounted. Maximizing economic viability of fisheries
is compatible with economic sustainability of the fisheries.
Estimation of MEY becomes complicated due to biological interactions; apportioning of
the cost of fishing; value of target versus by catches and splitting the efforts and related
aspects; lack of complete biological data to calculate the stock-recruitment relationship;
inability to accurately measure the actual catch and effort of fishers and the current size of
the fish stock; price of fish and the precise cost of fishing. A fall in fish price or an increase
in cost of fishing will lead to lower harvest with a less fishing effort and a larger stock size
in order to maximize the economic profits (Grafton et.al. 2006)
Importance of MEY Fisheries Management

MEY is a good target reference point for fisheries management despite the assumptions
made. MEY ensures that the stock levels in many fisheries are larger than those associated
with the traditional MSY target. MEY also ensures that the major inputs like fuel and labour
are optimally utilized to maximize the profit. MEY helps to estimate the excess fishing
capacity in the sector, which provides one of the strong bases for recommending optimum
fleet size. If the resources are used beyond the MEY target, it will result in excess fishing
capacity, lower returns and thus lower profits. Hence it pays rich dividend to follow the MEY
as an important component for aiming at a sustainable fishery.
Conclusion
MEY acts an important link between the biological and economic implications of fisheries
management. Taking cue from tragedy of commons that unmanaged natural resources are
depleted completely and some sort of regulation measures are need to ensure sustainable
utilization. In case of fisheries the economics of fishing operations (cost and returns)
determine not only the profitability of the profession but also the driving force for remaining
in the sector. In this context, the MEY which incorporates the costs of fishing the revenue
earned into the sustainable yield models, provide an acceptable method for formulating
fishery management plants. As reported by a few studies, the biological reference point
(MSY) and the economic reference point (MEY) are always compliments to each other and
they should be employed in formulation of any fishery management policies in the country.
Suggested Reading
Bromley, D. W., 2009. Abdicating responsibility: The Deceits of Fisheries policy. Fisheries 34: 280–291.
Clarke, C.W., 1990. Mathematical bioeconomics: the Optimal Management of Renewable Resources, John
Wiley & Sons, New York.
Devaraj, M. and Smita, P. 1988. Economic performance of mechanised trawlers in the State of Kerala, India.
Fisheries Research, 6 (3): 271-286.
FAO Fishing Technology Service, 1996. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, No.1, Rome,
FAO, 26pp
Fox, W. W. Jr., 1970. “An Exponential Surplus-Yield Model for Optimizing Exploited Fish Populations”.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 99: 80-88.
Gordon, H. Scott, 1954. “The Economic Theory of a Common Property Resource”. Journal of Political
Economy, 62:124-142
Grafton, R. Q., James Kirekly, Toom Kompas and Dale Squires, 2006. Economics of Fisheries Management.
Ashgate Publishing Company, England, p.160
Hilborn R. W., 2007 Economics of overexploitation revisited. Science 318:1601
John A. D., 2005. Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. Caspian EVE 2005/UNDP and WBI
Kompas T., 2009. Comment on “Abdicating responsibility: The Deceits of Fisheries policy”. Fisheries 34:292–294.
Mardle S, et al., 2002. Objectives of fisheries management: Case studies from the UK, France, Spain and
Denmark. Mar Policy 26:415–428
Schaefer, M., 1957.”Some Considerations of Population Dynamics and Economics in relation to the
Management of the Commercial Marine Fisheries”. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada,14:
69-681.
Townsend, R. E., 1990. Entry restrictions in the Fishery: A Survey of the Evidence, Land Economics, 66:359-378
Walters C., 1993. Uncertainty, resource exploitation, and conservation: Lessons from history. Science 260:
17–36.
Wilen, J., 1979. Fishermen Behaviour and the Design of Efficient Fisheries Regulation Programmes. Journal
of Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 36: 855-858.
Worm B, et al., 2009. Rebuilding global fisheries. Science 325:578–585.
Gear selectivity
GEAR SELECTIVITY
24
T. V. Sathianandan
Most of the fishing gears are selective for certain length range of fish thus excluding very
small and very big fish. This property of fishing gears is termed as gear selectivity. Thompson
and Ben-Yami (1984) considered selectivity as the capacity of any method of gear type to
capture certain fractions or sections of the fish population whether grouped by species,
age, size or behaviour and to exclude others. Gear selectivity needs to be considered
when we go for estimation of size composition of fish. The ultimate aim of studies on size
selection is to suggest suitable mesh sizes to catch fish of either economically optimum
size or an optimum size for the judicial exploitation of the stock. It is an important tool for
fisheries managers for regulating the minimum mesh sizes of fishing fleet by determining
the minimum sizes of the target species in certain fisheries. Mesh sizes are regulated to
conserve the spawning stock and to increase the long term sustainable yield. Estimation of
total mortality and prediction of future yield using prediction models etc. will be affected
by selectivity of gears.
It is well known that the complete length/age ranges of fish and shell fish are not under full
exploitation. Trawl gears are selective for larger sizes of length while gillnets are selective
for an intermediate length range; the smaller ones escape through the mesh and very large
ones are not gilled. This property of fishing gear is called gear selectivity with regard to size
selection. According to Lagler (1968), the selectivity of a gear may be defined by a curve
giving for each size of fish the proportion of the total population of that size which is caught
and retained by a unit operation of the gear. This leads to the definition of selectivity as the
proportionality constant in the equation for catch per unit operation of a gear for fish of
length j by mesh size i given by
Gear selectivity
Selectivity of trawl gears

The fine meshed end of the net where the catch is collected is known as codent. The mesh
size of the codent determines the gear selectivity of trawl gear. By covering the codent
with a larger bag with very fine meshes we can determine the amount and sizes of fish
that escapes through the codent meshes. Selectivity of the gear can then be determined
by comparing the sizes of the fish in the codent with those of the fish in the cover. This
experimental method is known as “covered codent method”.
Using data from such experiments on numbers in codent and numbers in cover for different
length classes a logistic curve given in the following form is fitted after working out the
fraction retained.
Here yi is the proportion of fish retained in the codent for the length class and xi is the
mid-length of the class. The parameters a and b are obtained through a regression analysis
using the expression
Lengths corresponding to 25%, 50% and 75% retention are then obtained using the estimated
values of a and b as
The length range from L25% to L50% which is symmetrical about L50% is called as the selection
range. As the probability that a fish will escape through a mesh depends on its shape and in
particular on its body depth compared to the mesh size it is assumed that the body depth
at which 50% of the fish are retained is proportional to the mesh size. That is
D50%= A (mesh size)
where A is a constant. As body depth is proportional to body length it implies that similar
expression holds for length of the fish also.
L50%= SF (mesh size)
The constant SF is known as the selection factor.
Gear selectivity
Example:
The following data is from an experiment that deals with threadfin breams (Nemipterus
japonicus) that are caught with a trawl net with codent mesh size 4 cm and a cover of much
small meshes.
Sl-obs ln(1/Sl-1) Mid Sl-est
Length Number in Number in Total fraction (y) length fraction
Interval Codent Cover Number retained (x) retained
9-10 0 1 1 0.000
10-11 1 6 7 0.143 1.792 10.5 0.129
11-12 2 7 9 0.222 1.253 11.5 0.232
12-13 2 4 6 0.333 0.693 12.5 0.383
13-14 7 5 12 0.583 -0.336 13.5 0.559
14-15 30 13 43 0.698 -0.836 14.5 0.722
15-16 61 8 69 0.884 -2.031 15.5 0.842
16-17 27 3 30 0.900 -2.197 16.5 0.916
17-18 7 0 7 1.000 17.5 0.957
18-19 4 1 5 0.800 18.5 0.979
Regression analysis done with x on y gave the following results

Summary Output
Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.991298
R Square 0.982672
Adjusted R Square 0.979206
Observations 7
ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 14.37835 14.37835 283.5482 1.35E-05
Residual 5 0.253543 0.050709
Total 6 14.63189
Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95%
Intercept 9.436398 0.580778 16.24786 1.61E-05 7.94346
X Variable 1 -0.7166 0.042556 -16.8389 1.35E-05 -0.82599
Gear selectivity
The gear selection ogive for trawl net with 4cm codent mesh size is given below.
Estimates of parameters of the logistic curve are a = 9.436398 and b = -0.7166. The lengths
at which the fish are retained 25%, 50% and 75% are calculated as
L25% 11.6352
L50% 13.1683
L75% 14.7014
L50% = SF (mesh size)

13.1683 = SF X 4
SF = 3.292
That is selection factor for the trawl net used with mesh size 4 is 3.292. These are useful for
prediction of the effects of changes of mesh size using the Thompson and Bell method.
Diversity Exploratory
and exploitation
survey
status
for biomass
of Crustacean
estimation
Fishery Resources in India
EXPLORATORY SURVEY FOR BIOMASS ESTIMATION
25
T. V. Sathianandan, Grinson George and Somy Kuriakose
Introduction
Bottom trawl surveys are widely used for monitoring demersal stocks when a simple index
of abundance is required for scientific and related work. From unfished stocks (or stocks for
which no or few data on the fishery are available), preferably the unexploited stocks, biomass
and annual yield estimates may also be derived by undertaking bottom trawl surveys. The
estimation of total biomass from the catch per unit of effort (or unit area) using a trawl survey,
however, involves several crucial assumptions, leaving such estimates rather imprecise. But
we can resort to this method when we require an immediate input to be generated and the
methodology is less time consuming and easy to carry out.
Various studies have reported that the mean catch (either in weight or in numbers) per unit of
effort or per unit of area is an index of the stock abundance (i.e. assumed to be proportional
to the abundance). This simple index may be converted into an absolute measure of biomass
using the so-called “swept area method” which is followed universally in all trawl survey
methods. This method falls under the so-called holistic methods of assessing fish stock
abundance.
Various theories were propounded as we trace back the research related to trawl survey stock
assessment and the prominent among them are that of the Gulland (1975), Saville (1977),
Troadec (1980), Doubleday (1980) and Grosslein and Laurec (1982). These reviews also give
guidelines for conduct of trawl surveys (planning, design, data collection, data recording,
analysis and reporting), and the steps followed can be referred in Butler et al. (1986), ICOD
(1991) and Strømme (1992).For more detailed descriptions of these subjects the reader is
Exploratory survey for biomass estimation
referred to, among others, Alverson and Pereyra (1969), Alverson (1971), Mackett (1973),
FAO/UNDP (1975), Gulland (1975), Saville (1977), Flowers (1978), Doubleday (1981), Grosslein
and Laurec (1982) and Fogarty (1985).
Structure of a Bottom Trawl

The bottom trawl (Fig. 1) is a conical bag netwith a wide opening mouth fitted with weights
(sinkers) on the ground-rope and floats on the head-rope. When the vessel is under taking
a trawl operation, the net is kept open by two otter boards (wooden or iron structures)
which are towed the help of warps attached forward in their centre so they tend to diverge.
The towing is done with the mechanical power of an engine in the vessel. The two otter
boards are connected to the net by bridles. These may be up to 200 m long and sweep the
sea bed over a wide area depending upon the size of the gear used in the operation. They
frighten the fish towards the advancing net (a behavioral advantage utilized by the trawl
operators) and so increase its effectiveness. The shape, size and mesh of the trawl gear used
varies depending on the variety of fish targeted and on the type of the trawling ground. The
ground-rope may be fitted
with roller gear (bobbins) so
that the trawl can be used on
stony bottom (rough bottoms)
without being damaged. The
tail end of the gear from which
the captured fish are removed
is called the “codend”. This
is where most of the size
selection takes place. In most
cases a relatively small mesh
size is required in the codend, in order to obtain a representative sample for the entire size
range of the species under investigation.
Exploratory Survey for Biomass Estimation
Estimates of biomass and annual yield can be derived from bottom trawl surveys, especially
for monitoring demersal fish stocks. But the estimation of total biomass from this based on
catch per unit effort estimates involves some crucial assumptions. The mean catch per unit
area is an index of the stock abundance. This is on the assumption that it is proportional to
the abundance. Using swept area method this index of stock abundance can be converted
into an absolute measure of biomass.
The objectives of bottom trawl survey are:
 Estimation of the total biomass and catch rates.
 Estimation of biomass of selected species.

 Collection of biological data such as length frequency data for estimation of growth
and mortality parameters.
 Collection of environmental data.
The bottom trawl is a conical net bag with wide mouth fitted with weights on the ground
rope and floats on the head rope. The net is kept open by tow otter boards which are wooden
or iron structures towed by the warps attached forward of their centre so that they tend to
diverge. These may be very long and sweep the sea bed over a wide area. They frighten the
fish towards the advancing net and increases its effectiveness. The shape of the net varies
depending on the kinds of fish targeted and the types of bottom. The ground rope is fitted
with roller gear so that the trawl can be used on stony bottom without any damage. The
tail end of the gear from which the captured fish are removed is called the codend where
most of the size selection takes place. In order to obtain a representative sample of all the
size ranges of the species the mesh size should be relatively small at the codend.
For estimation of stock sizes a completely randomized design or a stratified random

sampling design is preferred and in most cases stratified sampling design is preferred.
Strata are constructed in accordance with the density distribution of the fish so that areas
with high/ medium/low densities are separated. For stratification some prior information is
required which is obtained in a first survey following simple random sampling design and
the variability obtained is used for stratification. The distribution of hauls within strata should
be random taking into account the practical difficulties. The number of hauls possible in a
given period can be calculated as:
Number of hauls per day = T / (t2+t3+t4)
where T is the number of hours available per day, t2 is the duration of one haul, t3 is the time
used for shooting and hauling the trawl and t4 is the average time taken to cover distance
between stations. It is important to standardize the length of the haul throughout the survey,
since the catchability of species and sizes often depends on the duration of haul. Following
are the important points to be remembered while recording data from a trawl survey:
 The objective of the survey determines the data items to be recorded, e.g. biomass
estimation, length frequency analysis, mortality estimation.
 Data items include specification of gear, haul duration, position at start and end of haul,
wire length, wing spread, bottom type, depth, etc.
 Catch record should include total weight, species composition, length frequencies for
selected species.
 Data should be well organized to facilitate processing.
 There should be a log summarizing the whole cruise.
 There should be fishing log that provides information on vessel’s position, time of start,
end of haul gear rigging, etc. Summary information on catch should also be recorded in
the fishing log.
 Detailed information on catch in terms of length, weight, sex, maturity stage, etc. for each
specimen should be recorded along with length frequency distributions.
Swept Area Method
From Fig. 13.5.1, Trawl sweeps a well defined path, the area of which is the length of the
path times the width of the trawl which D = v x t is called the swept area. It is estimated as:
a = D x h x X2
Where, ‘v’ is the velocity of the trawl over the ground when trawling, ‘h’ is the length of
the head-rope, ‘t’ is the time spent for trawling and X2 is the fraction of the head-rope
length, ‘h’, which is equal to the width of the path swept by the trawl and the wing spread is
h x X2. Different values of X2 in use are 0.4 to 0.6 for Southeast Asian bottom trawls, 0.5 as
a compromise suggested by Pauly and 0.6 in the Caribbean suggested by Klima. Catch per
unit area estimated by dividing the catch by the swept area is used for the estimation of
biomass. When exact positions of the start and end of the haul are available, the distance
covered in nautical miles is estimated as:
where Lat1, Lat2 are the latitude at start and end of haul in degrees, Lon1,Lon2 are longitude
at start and end of the haul in degrees. When the velocity of the vessel and its course
together with direction and speed of the current are available, then the distance covered
per hour is calculated as:
where VS is the velocity of the vessel in knots (nautical miles per hour), CS is the velocity of
current in knots, dirV is the course of vessel in degrees and dirC is the direction of current
in degrees.
If cw is the catch in weight of a haul and ‘t’ the time spent in hauling (in hours), the cw/t
is the catch in weight per hour. If ‘a’ is the swept area then a/t is the swept area per hour.
Then the catch per unit of area is obtained as:
If X1 is the fraction of the biomass in the effective path swept by trawl, which is actually
retained in the gear and cw / a is the mean catch per unit area of all hauls, then an estimate
of the average biomass per unit area is:
Let Anm2 be the total area under investigation, then the estimate of total biomass for this
area is obtained as:
An example of biomass estimate from commercial trawl data off Saurashtra coast in western
India is given here. A trawler (overall length: 17.5 m) conducted fishery survey during 1985-
1989. During the 5-year period, the survey was conducted in eighty-eight 10’ squares
o o o o
between the latitude zones 20 N and 70 E (off Veraval) and 23 N 68 E (off Jakhau) at depth
range of 12 to 70 m. The area of each 10’ square in the survey area was considered as 326.6
km2.
The total area considered (A) for the survey was estimated as (326.6 * 88) 28,740.8 km2.
The area swept (a) by the gear during one hour of trawling was calculated considering the
trawling speed (v) as 2.5 knots/h (= 4.3 km/h), the headrope length (h) of the trawlnet as
24 m, and X2 as 0.5. The area swept was calculated as 0.052 km2/h for the entire period of
the survey.
The biomass was calculated by pooling the catch from each 10’ square during the 5-year
period. The total catch was 205.2 t and the CPUE was 43.9 kg/h.
Biomass = (43.9 * 28740.8)/(0.052 * 0.5) = 48528 t
Density = Biomass/Area considered
= 48528 / 28740.8 = 1.688 t/km2.
Precision of the estimate of biomass in the swept area method can be achieved by increasing
the number of hauls. Another way of increasing precision is to apply stratified sampling by
considering depth and bottom type. Suitable stratification may improve precision for the
same number of hauls.
However, estimation of biomass and density from the CPUE involves several crucial
assumptions, such as (i) the CPUE is proportional to the biomass abundance, and (ii) the
proportion of detainment in gear, etc. It has been observed that for some stocks, the
observed CPUE is only related to stock size, and in such cases, there may be no CPUE
data that are satisfactory. For example, the CPUE from purseseine fisheries for shoaling
pelagics may lead to erroneous estimates. For pelagic trawling, avoidance can be very great.
Moreover, survey by any gear provides an estimate of only the target stocks of that gear
and not the totalbiomass of the considered area. Due to this reason, the biomass is usually
underestimated by the swept area method. This method has its main application to gears
hauling non-selectively along the seabed.
For a meaningful estimate, surveys have to be conducted for several weeks every year, for
which the estimation cost could be high.
Suggested Reading
Alverson, D.L. and Pereyra,W.T., 1969. Demersal fish explorations in the northeastern Pacific Ocean - An
evaluation of exploratory fishing methods and analytical approaches to stock size and yield forecasts.
J.Fish.Res.Board Can., 26:1985-2001
Alverson, D.L. (ed.), 1971. Manual of methods for fisheries resource survey and appraisal. Part 1. Survey
and charting of fisheries resources. FAO Fish.Tech.Pap., (102):80 p.
Butler, M.J.A., C. Le Blanc, J.A. Belbin and J.L. MacNeill, 1986. Marine resource mapping: an introductory
manual. FAO Fish.Tech.Pap., (274):256 p.
Doubleday, W.G. (ed.), 1981. Manual on groundfish surveys in the Northwest Atlantic. NAFO Sci.Counc.
Stud., (2):7-55
Doubleday, W.G., 1980. Survey methods for resource evaluation, pp. 65-71 In: Selected lectures from the
CIDA/FAO/CECAF seminar on fishery resource evaluation. Casablanca, Morocco, 6-24 March 1978. Rome,
FAO, Canada Funds-in-Trust, FAO/TF/INT 180© Suppl., 166 p.
FAO/UNDP, 1975. FAO regional fishery survey and development project, Doha (Qatar). Report of the Ad
hoc working group on survey technique and strategy. Rome, FAO, FI:DP/REM/71/278/1: 45 p.
Flowers, J.M., 1978. A data processing and basic analysis system for demersal fisheries surveys. Regional
fishery survey and development project. Rome, FAO, FI:DP/REM/71/278/4:151 p.
Fogarty, M.J., 1985. Statistical considerations in the design of trawl surveys. FAO Fish.Circ., (786):21 p.
Grosslein, M.D. and A. Laurec, 1982. Bottom trawl surveys design, operation and analysis. CECAF/ECAF Ser.,
(81/22):25 p. Issued also in French.
Gulland, J.A., 1975. Manual of methods for fisheries resources survey and appraisal. Part 5. Objectives and
basic methods. FAO Fish.Tech.Pap., (145):29 p.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/w5449e/w5449e0f.htm
ICOD (International Centre for Ocean Development), 1991. A guide to the management and operation of
marine research and survey vessels. Halifax, International Centre for Ocean Development: 18 sections,
1441 p.
Mackett, D.J., 1973. Manual of methods for fisheries resource survey and appraisal. Part 3. Standard methods
and techniques for demersal fisheries resource surveys. ,(124):39 p.
Saville, A. (ed.), 1977. Survey methods of appraising fisheries resources. FAO Fish.Tech.Pap., (171):76 p.
Strømme, T., 1992. NAN-SIS: Software for fishery survey data logging and analysis. User’s manual. FAO
Computerized Information Series (Fisheries), No. 4. Rome, FAO. 103 p.
Troadec, J.-P., 1980. Utilization of resource survey results in stock assessment. pp. 139-152 In: Selected
lectures from the CIDA/FAO/CECAF seminar on fishery resource evaluation. Casablanca, Morocco, 6-24
March 1978. Rome, FAO, Canada Funds-in-Trust, FAO/TF/INT 180© Suppl.
Age determination in fishes
AGE DETERMINATION IN FISHES
26
E. M. Abdussamad
Pelagic Fishery Resources Division
Fisheries management relies on the proper understanding the fish population dynamic.
It includes determining the biological parameters, including size at maturity, duration of
spawning season, mortality estimates, age and growth. Accurate information on age of
fish is an important pre-requisite for extracting precise information on growth, mortality,
recruitment and other fundamental population parameters of fishes for stock assessment.
The outcome of conventional age estimates using length frequency data depends upon the
sample quality, selectivity of the fishing gear etc. The stock assessment results may therefore
be affected and sometimes give results which is having no bearing on reality. The hard parts
of the fishes also grow with the fish and the growth process may left some inscription on
such parts and if that can be interpreted properly, will get precise idea on growth. These
inscriptions may result from either changes in the environment which the fish inhabits, or
food availability, or physiological states of the fish. However, free swimming fishes always
lives in ideal conditions and do not leave any environment related markings in their skeletal
structures. So interpretation of hard part inscriptions need utmost care.
Ageing Techniques
There are four approaches to age the fish.
i. Direct observation of fish in confinement or marking/tagging recapture technique
This is the oldest technique described initially by the fish culturists. Tagging and marking
experiments are conducted as the data collected are useful in estimating the population
size, mortality rates and migration. Tagging does not enable individual fish to be aged
unless the age of the fish at tagging is known. The method is very useful for fish living
in areas where the growth is continuous throughout the year. It is useful when large
numbers of fish recaptured at annual intervals are available. However, cultivated or
tagged fish seldom have the same growth rate as that of the wild or untagged fish.
Tagging or marking of fish usually involves considerable time and recapturing is not
assured.
ii. Injection (chemical marker) technique

Artificial time markers can be introduced into skeletal structures by injecting chemicals
into fish. The initial works were based on the use of lead acetate but this is toxic and
tetracycline is now commonly used. It has the advantage of being an antibiotic drug,
stable in solid form. Tetracycline is readily absorbed by vertebrate animals and deposited
in bony structures where calcification is taking place. In teleost fish, the tetracycline is
laid down as a narrow ring timing the point of injection. The areas in which tetracycline
is deposited in skeletal tissue appears fluoresce yellow under ultraviolet light, enabling
them to be detected easily. However this is not a popular technique.
iii. Analysis of length frequency data of fish
Length frequency data are used in various analytical, graphical and software assisted
techniques to estimate the age, growth and other population parameters. The common
methods employed are:
1. Petersen method
This is a single sample method and is very simple, fastest but most inaccurate
method of ageing fishes. This method can be used only with species which have a
restricted spawning season so that the fish bred in a single season can be identified
as a single mode in a polymodal length distribution. The mode with the lowest
value is identified as 0-year group fish. Subsequent modes will be 1-year group,
2-year group fish and so on.
The method can be very good
for young fish but becomes
increasingly less useful for
older fish as the growth rate
slows down and the modes
merge. In practice length-
frequency distributions of fish
caught over the shortest time
period possible are plotted;
the shorter the time period
the more precisely the modes will be defined. A regular sequence of such length
frequency distributions enables the progression of the modes to be followed.
2. Monthly modal progression analysis
Length frequency data collected at random from the commercial and experimental
fishing are used to estimate the age of the age and growth of the fish.
3. Scatter diagram technique of monthly modal length

By plotting the monthly modal values of the length frequency data of fish as a
scatter diagram, growth as well as the number of broods recruiting per year can
be estimated.
4. Bhattacharya method
This is a graphical method of splitting a composite distribution into separate normal
distributions, i.e. when several age groups or cohorts of fish are represented in the
same sample. (For details consult FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 306.1 ,Rev.)
5. Probability paper/plot method
This method aims to resolve the normally distributed components of a length
frequency distribution.
iv. Age determination using hard parts of fish
Fishes grow continuously, but growth rate varies over time and season and also
depending on the characteristics of the habitat they lives. Hard parts like bones, spine,
otoliths, scales etc. also increase in size with the fish. Hard part grows by deposition of
different minerals in a biological matrix. Any changes in growth rates may be reflected
as zones or bands in the hard parts. By tracking down these inscriptions age of the fishes
can be determined. During slow growth phase rings/bands will be laid close together,
whereas during fast growth phase they will be laid far apart.
Among skeletal structures, otoliths and scales are most widely used as they are easy to
collect and store. The opercular bones of the head, pectoral and pelvic girdles dorsal
spine etc. were also widely used.
Otoliths
There are three pairs of otoliths in teleost fishes. These are three-dimensional structures but
do not necessarily grow at the same rate equally in all dimensions. But there will be some
species specific pattern in otoliths, which consists of number of concentric shells with different
radii. Depending on the amount of organic material in each shell or zone, its appearance
will vary from extremely opaque to completely hyaline. For reading otoliths it is usually
preferable to identify and count the opaque zones, as characteristic growth patterns if any
will usually appear and also more visible in the opaque zones. Among the three, Sagittal
otoliths are generally used for age determination as they are the largest and easy to collect
and process. They are located in the sacculus of the inner ear.
Scales
Scales vary in shape depending on the fish and body shape. Scales at the shoulder of the fish
between the head and the dorsal fin is best suited for age determination. Scales are almost
two-dimensional structures. The anterior part is formed of a series of sclerites which should
extend in a regular pattern from the centre of the scale. The structural discontinuities used
for age determination result from irregularities in the pattern of the sclerites; they may be
slightly distorted or they may be slightly closely spaced than the majority of the sclerites;
usually the discontinuities are narrow and they are usually called ‘rings’.
Scales are thin structures they need no preparation before viewing; the scales should be
cleaned before they are stored. For reading, the slide with mounted scales is placed on the
stage of a low-power microscope. The magnification used depends upon the size of the
scale; in general, the lowest possible magnification is the best because it enables the whole
scale pattern to be seen.
Growth parameters estimated from the age-length data developed from hard part imaging
and will be used in the conventional length based stock assessment for precision.
Truss network analysis
TRUSS NETWORK ANALYSIS
27
T. V. Sathianandan and K. G. Mini
Classification problems exists in numerical taxonomy in biology and many other branches of
Science. The interest here is to classify objects into one of many existing classes and is based
on measurements taken on a set of characteristics (called variables ). Hence classification is
a multivariate problem which can be divided into two broad categories.
 We have multiple measurements data from a number of individuals belonging to known
groups. Also we have data collected on individuals whose group membership is not
known and is to be determined using the measurements made on them. This problem
in statistical terminology comes under Discriminant Analysis.
 Another type is the case when the groups are them selves unknown and a primary
purpose of the analysis is to find groups so that those belonging to same group are
similar than those belonging to different groups. This in statistics come under the
heading of cluster analysis or pattern recognition.
Cluster Analysis:
This involves the search through multivariate data for observations that are similar enough
to each other to be usefully identified as part of a common cluster. Clusters consist of
observations that are close together and that the clusters themselves are separated. If each
observation is associated with only one cluster, then the clusters form a partition of the
data. Finding the partition into clusters is not always easy. There are numerous methods
for clustering. Some methods of making clusters starts with models like mixture models of
clusters. Examples of application of cluster analysis are studying genetic diversity within and
between populations of and endangered fish species, clustering species of bees into higher-
level taxonomic groups, developing clusters of patients based on physiological variables,
constructing a speaker-independent word recognition system etc. Numerical methods of
clustering with out any model can be into three major types; hierarchical, partitioning and
over lapping.
Principal Component Analysis

In principal component analysis we have a sample of observations taken on a set of
variables and the objective is to find linear combinations of the variables so that the first
linear combination accounts for maximum possible variation in the data, the second linear
combination accounts for the next highest possible variation and so on. By this we get another
set of transformed variables which are linear combinations of the original variables and they
new set will have the property that by considering few of them we will be able to explain
a major portion of the variability in the population. The approach in principal component
analysis is to reduce dimensions by calculating the eigen values and eigen vectors of the
covariance or correlation matrix and project the data orthogonally into the space spanned
by the eigen vectors belonging to the largest eigen values. These projections are interesting
due to the following reasons
 If projection is an aggregate of several clusters, then these can become individually
visible only if the separation between clusters is larger than the internal scatter of
the clusters. Thus, if there are only a few clusters, the leading principal axes will
tend to pick projections with good separations.
 It tend to act as a variation reducing technique relegating most of the random noise
to the trailing components and collecting the systematic structure into the leading
ones.
Suppose that we have measurements on k variables x1 , x 2 , , x k made on n individuals.
Then we have n x k matrix of data and we can work out means for these variables which
we can treat as a mean vector of length k. Also we can compute the variance covariance
matrix S matrix using this data set. This matrix will be then used to compute the k principal
components, say zi = a1i x1 + a 2i x 2 ++ a ki x k for i = 1,2, , k and the amount of variation
explained by each of them will be available as λ 1 , λ 2 , , λ k where λ 1 ≥ λ 2 ≥ ≥ λ k .
Truss Network Analysis
In systematics the interest is often in quantifying differences in form among different species
or conspecific populations. When
these are studied using conventional
measurements (shown below) the
amount of information available
for analysis are repetitious and lack
variation in oblique directions.
There are several biases and weaknesses
inherent in traditional character set used to study stock differences in systematics.
 They tend to be in one direction only (longitudinal) lacking information of depth

and breadth.
 Coverage is highly uneven both by region and orientation.
 Some landmarks like tip of the snout and posterior end of vertebral column are
used repeatedly.
 Many landmarks are external rather than anatomical and their placement may not
be homologous placement may not be homologous from form to form.
 Many measurements extends over much of the body.
 When measurements are taken on soft bodied organisms, the amount of distortion
due to preservation can not be
easily estimated.
The most ideal measurements which
overcomes these problems is as in the
picture C.
Truss is a geometric protocol for character
selection which largely overcomes the
disadvantages of conventional data sets
and it leads to certain style of analysis.
In truss system, homologous landmarks on the boundary of the form are divided into
two tiers and paired. The distance
measures connect these landmarks
into an over determinate truss network
which is a series of quadrilaterals
each having internal diagonals. Each
quadrilateral shares one side with each
succeeding and preceding quadrilaterals
(see figure).
The following are the properties of a truss network measurements.
 It enforces systematic coverage across the form
 It exhaustively and redundantly archives the form
 The degree of measurement error in data can be measured and corrected
 Forms may be standardized to one or more common reference sizes by representing
measured distances on some composite measure of body size and reconstructing
the form using the distance values predicted at some standard body size.
 Principal components can be given geometrical interpretations. Component scores

are measures of configuration while loadings are descriptors of shape change.
 Composite mapped forms are suitable for biorthogonal analysis of shape differences
between forms.
In the analysis of multivariate data collected through truss network measurements the
concept is that size and shape are the two factors which account for the association
among the distance measures. Size is not considered as a single variable but as a factor
which is obtained as a linear combination of
the distance measures. Shape is considered as
the geometry of the organism after information
about position, scale and orientation has been
removed. The shape discriminator should be
independent of size, for it to be free from
the effect of growth. Principal component
(PC) analysis which does not require any prior
information about groups is used in the analysis
of truss data. A logarithmic transformation
is first applied to the measurements before
performing the PC analysis to reduce variance
due to size variation and also because according to an allometric model diverse distance
measures relate log linearly in a homogeneous population. The first component factor of
the PC analysis is then interpreted as size component (which is not fully free from shape) and
subsequent component factors are designated as shape variable ( not fully free from size ).
Then a plot of the first principal component scores against the second principal component
scores will more of less show clustering for different groups. The percentage of variation
explained by this two factors also should be considered before making conclusions.
Suggested Reading
Anon. 1989. Discriminant Analysis and Clustering. Stat. Sci., 4(1):34-69.

Huber, P.J.(1985). Projection Pursuit. The Annals of Statistics, 13(2):435-475.
Humphries, J.M. et. al. 1981. Multivariate Discrimination by shape in relation to size. Syst. Zool., 30:291-308.
Morrison, D.F. 1990. Multivariate Statistical Methods. McGraw-Hill, New York. Strauss, R.E. and Bookstein.
1982. The truss: body form reconstruction in morphometrics. Syst. Zool., 31:113-135.
Diversity Trophic
and exploitation
levels andstatus
methods
of Crustacean
for stomach
Fishery
content
Resources
analysisinofIndia
fishes
TROPHIC LEVELS AND METHODS FOR STOMACH

CONTENT ANALYSIS OF FISHES
P. U. Zacharia
Demersal Fisheries Division, CMFRI, Kochi
28
Investigattion of food and feeding
g of fishes has
h traditiona
ally been an
n important field
f of activ
vity in
fisheries biology, but it is one in which
w there are great diffficulties in correlating th
he results witth the
research made in the
e other field
ds (FAO, 197
74). Investiga
ations of the
e food of th
he fish canno
ot be
considere
ed in isolatio
on but have to be discusssed in relattion to the whole
w e environment, of
marine
which the
e fish constitu
ute single ele
ements.
Food Cha
ains and Tro
ophic Levels
The production of org

ganic substan
nces (food) by
b photosynthesis is a pro
ocess involvin
ng transform
mation
of light energy
e into potential
p chemical energy
y. The transfe
er of this foo
od energy fro
om the prod
ducers
through a series of co
onsumers is called
c a food chain, each organism thrrough which it is passed being
b
a link in the chain.
Three diffferent food chains

c may be recognized
d.
1 2 3
•The carrnivore chain, •The parasite cha

ain, •The saprophyte chain,
where the
t energy is here the energ
wh gy is where the e
energy is
passed from smallerr to passed from larger to passed from
m dead
larger organisms
o maller organism
sm ms organic matter to
micro-organism in
most cases
In reality food may be passed thrrough parts of

o all three chains
c before
e it is finally decomposed
d into
inorganicc nutrients by e end of every food chain. In other words,
y the bacteria and fungi found at the w
the specie
es population within a co
ommunity or ecosystem form many fo
ood chains which intercon
nnect,
anastomo
ose or cross each
e other in
n a complex pattern,
p which is usually referred
r to ass the food web.
Organism
ms which belo
ong to the sa
ame link of the
t food cha
ain as counte
ed from the producer
p leve
el are
said to belong
b to th
he same trophic level. Thus
T the plants constitutte the first trophic level, the
herbivore
es the second eding on herrbivores the third trophicc level. Secondary
d, and the carnivores fee
Trophic levels and methods for stomach content analysis of fishes
carnivores feeding on third level carnivores belong to the fourth trophic level and so forth. However,
there is a very definite limit to the number of possible links in a food chain, and consequently also to
the number of trophic levels in any ecosystem. The reason for this is that only about 10 percent of
the available energy is assimilated in passing from one trophic level to the next. At the top of the
food chain there are usually only one or two major predators. The number of species in each trophic
layer increases with approach to the first layer, giving rise to what is called a pyramid of numbers. For
the major predators introduction of small amounts of pollutants into the first trophic layer can have
fatal consequences because it is eventually concentrated in them.
Gross Production and Net Production
Only a very small portion of the light energy absorbed by green plants that is transformed into food
energy (gross production) because most of it is dispersed as heat. Furthermore, some of the
synthesized gross production is used by the plants in their own respiratory processes, leaving a still
smaller amount of potential energy (the net production) available for transfer to the next trophic
level.
The Loss of Energy
True production of organic matter takes place only in the chlorophyll-possessing plants and certain
synthetic bacteria, and this has been referred to as the primary production. Copepods and
euphausids, convert plant material into protein that can be assimilated by the animals which eat
them but which themselves could not exist on plant material. In reality, of course, they only
assimilate and store energy derived from the primary producers. They are called secondary
producers, a term which of course fits animals at higher trophic levels just as well because they too -
although indirectly - utilize the primary production of the plants. The loss of energy is generally
referred to as the respiratory loss because the organisms utilize the food energy by oxidizing it.
Because of the respiratory losses the food chains cannot be very long and the number of trophic
levels in natural communities is therefore seldom more than four or five and often only three. It also
means that the total amount of food available decreases with increasing trophic level. For this
reason, the largest animals are found feeding on either plants or other animals which are in a low
trophic level as, for example, whales on krill and elephants on plants.
Studying Food and Feeding of Fishes
The study of the feeding habits of fish and other animals based upon analysis of stomach content
has become a standard practice (Hyslop 1980). Stomach content analysis provides important insight
into fish feeding patterns and quantitative assessment of food habits is an important aspect of
fisheries management. Lagler (1949) pointed out that the gut contents only indicate what the fish
would feed on. Accurate description of fish diets and feeding habits also provides the basis for
understanding trophic interactions in aquatic food webs. Diets of fishes represent an integration of
many important ecological components that included behavior, condition, habitat use, energy intake
and inter/intra specific interactions. A food habit study might be conducted to determine the most
frequently consumed prey or to determine the relative importance of different food types to fish
nutrition and to quantify the consumption rate of individual prey types. Each of these questions
requires information on fish diets and necessitates different approaches in how one collects and
analyzes data. Here, we outline qualitative and quantitative techniques used to describe food habits
and feeding patterns of fishes. For a better understanding of diet data and for accurate
interpretation of fish feeding patterns, time of day, sampling location, prey availability and even the
type of collecting gear used need to be considered before initiating a diet study or analyzing existing
diet data.
Stomach contents can be collected either from the live or fresh died fish. Regardless of the method,
investigators should ensure that the removal technique effectively samples all items in the gut. Other
wise data will be skewed toward items that are more easily displaced from the stomach. Alternatively,
live fish can be sacrificed and stomach contents removed for analysis. If fish are to be sacrificed, they
should be preserved immediately either by freezing or by fixing in formalin. Stomach contents will
continue to digest, rendering rapid preservation of the fish or removed contents necessary to
prevent loss of resolution. As in most fish groups feeding behavior of juveniles and adults vary
distinctly attention should be taken to encounter more samples which will include all size groups of
the particular fish. The specimens either from live or preserved should be measured to its total length
to the nearest 1mm and weight to the nearest 0.1 g. Cut open the fish and record the sex and
maturity stage of the fish. Remove the stomach and preserve them in 5% neutralized formalin for
further analysis. For the analysis, a longitudinal cut must be made across the stomach and the
contents are transferred into a petri dish. The contents then keep for five minutes to remove excess
formalin and then examine under binocular microscope. Identify the gut content up to the genus
and if possible up to species level depending up on the state of digestion. Various taxa digest at
different rates. As such, all recently consumed taxa may be present in the foregut but only resistant
items remain in the hindgut. To avoid bias when both easily digested prey and resistant prey are
present, only the immediate foregut (e.g., stomach) should be sampled.
Prey items in fish stomachs are often not intact. Hard parts such as otoliths, scales, cleithra or
backbones have diagnostic, species specific characteristics useful for identifying prey. Alternatively,
partially digested prey may be identified using unique biochemical methods such as allozyme
electrophoresis, or immunoassays. An important fact assessed by the examination of the stomach is
the state or the intensity of feeding. This is judged by the degree of distension of the stomach or by
the quantity of food that is contained in it. The distension of the stomach is judged and classified as
‘gorged or distended’, ‘full’, ‘3/4full’, ‘1/2full’ etc by eye estimation.
Fish diets can be measured in a variety of ways. Methods of gut contents analysis are broadly
divisible into two, viz., qualitative and quantitative. The qualitative analysis consists of a complete
identification of the organisms in the gut contents. Only with extensive experience and with the aid
of good references it is possible to identify them from digested, broken and finely comminuted
materials. Quantitative methods of analysis are three types, viz., numerical, gravimetric and
volumetric. All these types of analysis are widely employed by different workers. The following
outline of methods is based mainly on the reviews by Hynes (1950), Pillay (1952), Windell(1968),
Hyslop (1980) and Chipps et al (2002 ).
1. Numerical Methods
The numerical methods are based on the counts of constituent items in the gut contents. The
numerical methods have been adapted in different ways to assess the relative importance of food
items and these can be classified under four distinct heads, viz., a) Occurrence, b) Dominance, c)
Number and d) Point (Numerical) methods.
a) Frequency of Occurrence: Stomach contents are examined and the individual food organisms
sorted and identified. The number of stomachs in which each item occurs is recorded and
expressed as a percentage of the total number of stomachs examined.
Ji
Frequency of Occurrence, = O i = , where, J i is number of fish containing prey i and P is the
P
number of fish with food in their stomach.
This method demonstrates what organisms are being fed upon, but it gives no information on
quantities or numbers and does not take in to consideration the accumulation of food organisms
resistant to digestion. For instance, three organisms in a stomach, say, prawn, rotifers and
diatoms, present in the ratio of 1:200:2000 would all be treated by this method as 1:1:1 with
reference to the stomach in question. This method holds good even when there is differential
distribution of various food organisms in the water for the same reason that it is not biased by
size or numbers of organism comprising the food. Many have used this method as an indicator of
inter-specific competition while some utilized this method to illustrate the seasonal changes in
diet composition.
b) Number Method: The number of individual of each food type in each stomach is counted and
expressed as a percentage of the total number of food items in the sample studied, or as a
percentage of the gut contents of each specimen examined, from which the total percentage
composition is estimated.
Ni
Percent by number, N i = Q
, where, N i is the number of food category i
N
i1
i
This method has been employed successfully by several workers in studies on the food of
plankton feeding fishes where the items can be counted with ease. In the basic number method,
no allowance is made for the differences in size of food items. So in the studies on the food of
fishes other than plankton feeders, the number method has very limited use. The counting of
comminuted plant matter in the stomach of fish is impracticable and will not yield correct
evaluations. So also in the analysis of the gut contents of a carnivore which may consist of only
one large sized fish and a couple of small larvae, the counting are of little value computations.
These are summed to give totals for each kind of food item in the whole sample, and then a
grand total of all items. The quotient of these gives the percentage representation, by number, of
each type of food item.
c) Dominance Method: Essentially the dominance method is a partial improvement of the

occurrence method, viz., the lack of consideration of the quantities of the food items present in
the stomach, sought to be remedied. The stomach contents comprising the main bulk of the food
materials present, is determined and the number of fish in which each such dominant food
material is present is expressed as a percentage of the total number of fishes examined. The
percentage composition of the dominant food materials can also be expressed by this method as
in the occurrence method.
Though in an analysis of dominance the bulk of the food material is taken in to account, it can
yield only a very rough picture of the dietary of a fish. Moreover, items which are less dominant
due to environmental reasons may escape notice. Though this defect can also be remedied to a
certain extent by the examination of large samples spread over a long period of time, a system of
assay that takes in to account the relative importance of food constituents will obviously be more
suitable in gut content analysis.
d) Points (Numerical) Method: The points method is an improvement on the numerical method
where consideration is given to the bulk of the food items. The simple form of points method is
the one in which the counts are computed falling a certain organisms as the unit. In a more
modified form, the food items are classified as ‘very common’, ‘common’, ‘frequent’, ‘rare’, etc.,
based on rough counts and judgments by the eye. In this arbitrary classification the size of the
individual organisms is also given due consideration. The contents of all stomachs are then
tabulated and as a further approximation, different categories are allotted a certain number of
points and the summations of the points for each food item are reduced to percentages to show
the percentage composition of the diet. This method is essentially a numerical one; the volume
being only a secondary consideration and it is only in the counts that a certain amount of
accuracy can be claimed.
2. Volumetric Methods
Many workers consider the volume as a more satisfactory method for quantitative analysis of gut
contents. As Hynes (1950) pointed out, volume forms a very suitable means of assessment, this is
especially so in the case of herbivorous and mud feeding fishes where the numerical methods
“become meaningless as well as inaccurate”. Even in cases where the numerical methods are suitable,
volume has been considered as an essential factor to be reckoned with, and in all improved
numerical methods the volume of the food items is taken in to consideration in some way or other.
The chief methods that are employed in assessing the volume of food items in the gut contents of
fishes are:
a) Eye estimation Method: This is probably the simples and easiest means of determining the
volume of food constituents. In this method the contents of each sample is considered as unity,
the various items being expressed in terms of percentage by volume as estimated by inspection.
This method of analysis is subjective in nature and the investigators personal bias is likely to
influence the results very greatly. This defect can be minimized to a great extent by the
examination of large samples conducted over a long period.
b) Points (Volumetric) Method: This method is a variation of the eye estimation method. Here
instead of directly assessing the volume by sight as in the previous method, each food item in the
stomach is allotted a certain number of points based on its volume. Certain workers have taken
into account both the size of the fish and the fullness of the stomach in the allotment of points.
The diet component with highest volume was given 16 points. Every other component was
awarded 16, 8, 4, 2, 1 and 0 points depending on the volume relative to the component with the
highest volume. Percentage volumes within each subsample were calculated as:
Number of points allocated to component a

= X 100
Total points allocated to sub sample
where,  is the percentage volume of the prey component a
This method is quite useful for analyzing omnivorous and herbivores where measuring volumes of
microscopic organisms such as diatoms and filamentous algae are very difficult.
c) Displacement Method: The displacement method is probably the most accurate one for
assessing the volume. The volume of each food item is measured by displacement in a graduated
container such as a cylinder with the smallest possible diameter for accuracy. This method is
eminently suited in the estimation of the food of carnivorous fishes. But the differential rate of
digestion of the food items may sometimes affect he accuracy of the observations. However, if
the collections are made when the fish are on feed, this defect can be easily overcome. A
knowledge of the volumes of the different size groups of the food items ay be of great help in
estimating the volume of the whole item form the semi digested fragments
3. Gravimetric Method
The gravimetric method consists of the estimation of the weight of each of the food items, which is
usually expressed as percentages of the weight of the total gut contents as in other quantitative
methods.
Wi
Percent by weight, Wi = ,
Q
i 1
Wi
Where, Wi is the weight of the prey i
Generally the wet weigh of the food after removing superfluous water buy pressing it dry between
filter papers is taken for this purpose. Dry weight estimation is more time consuming and is usually
Summer School
employed on Advanced
where Methods
accurate for Fish Stock
determinations ofAssessment and Fisheries
calorific intake The limitation of weight283
Management
is required. as a
criterion of analysis has already been referred in the consideration of the method of assessing the
condition of feed. Besides these, the accurate weighing of small quantities of food matter is
Where, Wi is the weight of the prey i
Generally the wet weigh of the food after removing superfluous water buy pressing it dry between
filter papers is taken for this purpose. Dry weight estimation is more time consuming and is usually
employed where accurate determinations of calorific intake is required. The limitation of weight as a
criterion of analysis has already been referred in the consideration of the method of assessing the
condition of feed. Besides these, the accurate weighing of small quantities of food matter is
extremely difficult and impracticable in studies of large collections. This method is, therefore
generally employed only in conjunction with other methods to demonstrate seasonal variations in
the intensity of feeding.
Table: Example of results obtained using different methods of estimation of stomach contents for
two numbers of Lactariuslactarius (l.l)
L. lactarius 1 (Ll1). 1. Stolephorusbataviensis, 9 cm long, weight 5 g, volume 7 ml, 6 Acetes each 3.0cm
long, weight 300mg vol. 2ml, 1 Bregmaceros ,4cm, 1 g, vol. 1 ml.
L. lactarius2 (Ll2). 1. Stolephoursbataviensis, 7 cm long, weight 3 g, volume 4 ml, 4 Acetes 2.5 cm long,
weight 250 mg, vol.1 ml.
Fish Total of which

Food Method %
Ll1 Ll2 % expressed
S. bataviensis 1 1 2 40
Acetes Occurrence 1 1 2 40 All food
Bregmaceros 1 0 1 20 occurrences
S. bataviensis 1 1 2 15.4
All food
Acetes Numerical 6 4 10 76.9
organisms
Bregmaceros 1 0 1 7.7
Acetes Dominance 1 1 2 100 All fish
Bregmaceros 1 0 1 50
Fish Total of which
Food Method %
LL1 LL2 % expressed
Total food
Acetes Total Volume 2 1 3 20
volume
Acetes % volume 20 20 20 20 Food volume
Bregmaceros 10 0 5 5
Total weight of
Acetes Gravimetric 1.8 1 2.8 23.7
food
Food Analysis Indices
A. Simple Indices
1) Index of Fullness: This is measured as the ratio of food weight to body weight as an index of
fullness, which is very widely employed. (The ratio of corresponding volume can also be used.)
This index can be applied to the food in the stomach, or to that in the whole digestive tract. It is
usually expressed as parts per 10,000 (%00, or parts per decimile); that is:
weight of the stomch contents x 10,000
Fullness index =
weight of fish
2) Index of Selection or Forage Ratio: Most fishes have a scale of preference for the organisms in
their environment, so that some are consumed in large numbers, others moderately, some not al
all. A quantitative index of such differences called as the forage ratio. A study of the quantities of
different organisms available to the fish is made, and also of the various items in their stomachs;
then;
s
Selection index = forage ratio =
b
where, s = percentage representation by weight, of a food organism in the stomach and b =
percentage representation of the same organism in the environment. The lower limit for this
index is 0; its upper limit is indefinitely large.
3) Index of Electivity: Ivlev (1961) proposed a somewhat different quantitative measure of selection
which has been widely used as mean of comparing the feeding habits of fishes and other aquatic
organisms with the availability of potential food resources in natural habitats. The relationship is
defined as
s-b
Electivity index = E =
sb
The index has a possible range of -1 to +1, with negative values indicating avoidance or
inaccessibility of the prey item, zero indicating random selection form the environment, and
positive values indicating active selection.
B. Compound Indices
In an attempt to consolidate the desirable properties of individual diet measures (e.g., Ni, Wi. Foi),
compound indices were developed that combine two or more measures into a single index. The
belief is that compound indices capture more information than do single component measures
(Chippset al 2002).
1) Index of Preponderance: (Natarajan and Jhingran, 1961)
This index gives a summary picture of frequency of occurrence as well as bulk of various food
items. It provides a definite and measurable basis of grading the various food elements. The bulk
of food items can be evaluated by 1) Numerical 2) volumetric and 3) Gravimetric methods. As the
numerical method is not suited to the index with the frequency of occurrence it magnifies the
importance of smaller organisms which may appear in enormous numbers. Therefore either
volumetric or gravimetric are best to assess the food items quantitatively. If we Vi and Oi are the
volume and occurrence index of food item i. then,
� ��
Index of preponderance I i =∑ � ��
��
Example: The ‘Index of Preponderance’ of food items of Catlacatla (Ham.) is given in the table 2
with rankings in brackets.
Table 2 : Index of Preponderance (Natarajan and Jhingran, 1961) of adult Catlacatla
Food items Percentage of Percentage Vi Oi V i Oi

 100
Occurrence of V O i i
( Oi ) volume ( Vi )
Crustaceans 24.5 57.1 1398.95 64.50 (1)
Algae 27.3 24.0 655.20 30.06 (2)
Plants 6.4 8.2 52.48 2.41 (3)
Rotifers 10.8 2.4 25.92 1.19 (4)
Insects 3.6 6.0 21.60 0.99 (5)
Protozoa 0.6 0.3 0.18 0.01 (8)
Molluscs …. …. …… …...
Polyzoa …. …. …… . .…
Detritus 10.0 1.3 13.00 0.60 (6)
Sand and 16.8 0.7 11.76 0.54 (7)
mud
 100 100 2179.09 100
According to the index crustaceans and algae constitute 1 and 2 ranks in Catla catla. While third,
fourth and fifth places are held by plants, rotifers and insects. In grading the food elements
accidental and incidental inclusions like sand, mud, etc., may be left out of consideration.
2) Index of Relative Importance (IRI):- Leo Pinkas et al (1971)
This index is an integration of measurement of number, volume and frequency of occurrence to

assist in evaluating the relationship of the various food items found in the stomach. It is calculated
by summing the numerical and volumetric percentages values and multiplying with frequency of
occurrence percentage value.;
Index of relative importance, IRIi = (% N i +% Vi ) % Oi ,
where, N i , Vi and Oi represent percentages of number, volume and frequency of occurrence

prey i respectively.
Example: Index of Relative Importance of pelagic preflexion summer flounder,

Paralichthysdentatus larvae (Grover, 1998) with ranking in brackets
Prey % Ni % Vi % Oi (% N i +% Vi ) % O i %IRI
Tintinnids 28.7 3.3 37.6 1203.2 19.3 (3)

Copepod 20.0 10.2 41.2 1244.24 20.0 (2)
nauplii 16.0 61.4 30.0 2322 37.3 (1)
Copepodites 0.6 4.9 2.0 11 0.2 (8)
Calanoids 0.6 2.0 2.4 6.24 0.1 (9)
Cyclopoids 16.0 1.2 34.8 598.56 9.6 (5)
Copepod eggs 12.1 14.8 28.0 753.2 12.1 (4)
Bivalve larvae 3.7 0.9 11.6 53.36 0.9 (6)
Invertebrate 2.3 1.3 9.2 33.12 0.5 (7)
eggs
Other
In pelagic preflexion summer (Paralichthy dentatus) larvae, copepodites composed the bulk of the
diet (61.4% Vol, 37.3 % IRI) and formed the most important prey. Copepod nauplii, the second most
important prey, composed 20.0% (N and IRI). Tintinnids, despite being the most abundantly ingested
prey (28.7% N); ranked third in importance at 19.3% (IRI). Bivalve larvae and copepod eggs were the
only other prey that accounted for >1% of the diet, and together they composed 21.7% (IRI).
Suggested Reading
Chipps S. R. and E. J. Garvey 2002. Assessment of Food Habits and Feeding Patterns, USGS South
Dakota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
Sciences, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007.
FAO, 1974. Manual of Fisheries Science Part 2 - Methods of Resource Investigation and their
Application. Fish.Tech paper 115.p.255.
Grover, J. J. 1998. Feeding habits of pelagic summer flounder, Paralichthysdentatus, larvae in oceanic
and estuarine habitats. Fish.Bull, 90 (2): 248-257.
Hynes, H. B. N. 1950. The food of the freshwater sticklebacks (Gastrosteusaculeatus) and

Pygosteuspungitius) with a review of methods used in studies of the food of fishes. J. Anim. Ecol.,
19: 36-58.
Hyslop, E. J. 1980. Stomach contents analysis: a review of methods and their application. J.Fish. Biol,
17:411-429.
Ivlev, V. S. 1961. Experimental ecology of the feeding of fishes. Yale University Press, New Haven,
Conn.
Lagler, K. F. 1949. Studies in freshwater biology, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Natarajan, A. V. and A. C. Jhingran. 1961. ‘Index of preponderance’-a method of grading the food
elements in the stomach analysis of fishes. Indian J. Fish, 8: 54-59.
Pillay, T. V. R. 1952. A critique of the methods of study of food of fishes. J. zool. Soc. India., 4: 1885-
200.
Pinkas, L., M. S. Olipahnt, and I. L. K. Iverson 1971. Food habits of albacore, bluefin tuna, and bonito
in Californian waters. Calif. Dep.Fish Game, Fish. Bull, 152: 1-105.
Seaburg, K. G. 1957. A stomach sampler for live fish. Progre. Fish. Cult. 19: 137- 144
Shchoener, T. W. 1970. Non synchronous spatial over lapof lizards in patchy habitats. Ecol, 51:
408-418.
Strauss, R. E. 1979. Reliability estimates for Ivlev’s electivity index, the forage ratio, and a proposed
linear index of food selection. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 108:344-352.
Windell, J. T. 1968. Food analysis and rate of digestion. In. W. E. Ricker (editor), methods of
assessment of fish production in fresh waters, 2nd ed., P. 215-226. IBP (Int. Biol. Programme).
Handb.3.
Role of environmental variables on spawning and recruitment of small pegalics in an upwelling system
ROLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES ON

SPAWNING AND RECRUITMENT OF SMALL
PELAGICS IN AN UPWELLING SYSTEM :
THE INDIAN OIL SARDINE - A CASE STUDY
29
V. Kripa
Fishery Environment Management Division
Introduction
The marine ecosystem is dynamic and the variations several abiotic and biotic factors directly
and indirectly affect the fish stocks and their population structure. Spawning and recruitment
success is to a large extent linked to these environmental variations. It is well known that
resources occupy a particular habitat because of their preference to the environmental
variables prevalent there and also due the availability of food. We have large shoal forming
small pelagic fishes like the sardines and anchovies and the deep water large pelagic and
demersals occupying the marine ecosystem from the upper pelagic zone to the benthic
realms. Fishing is one of the major activities directly impacting the fish stocks and fishery
records show several cases of overfishing leading to stock collapses. Definitely, fishery
management tools have supported revival of several of these stocks but have failed to do
so in few others. Almost equally important in inducing the biological changes that control
maturation, spawning and recruitment are the some ocean atmospheric processes which
change inter-annually in the tropics.
Globally, small pelagics serve as important forage species and support several higher
tropic level fisheries. They also support coastal livelihoods and form an important source
of low cost and high quality protein to several villagers. In addition to this, they serve as
raw material to several post-harvest processing units which prepare canned, smoked and
dried products regularly.
One common factor among most of these fishes is their ability to increase in biomass to
very high levels and then suddenly decline and collapse. They revive slowly taking to 2 to
more than 6 to 8 years depending upon the reason and the intensity of overfishing. All
these changes in biomass, like the sudden increase and the low levels are mainly controlled
by environmental factors. A recent study on the decline in sardine fishery along the Kerala
coast revealed the role played by several abiotic and biotic ecological parameters which
determine the recruitment success. The importance of environmental variables on recruitment
success is detailed below through the recent investigations on sardine fishery.
Sardine Fishery of Kerala

The Indian oil sardine is a small shoal forming pelagic fish which is caught mainly by
seines. Historic records describing the fish and fisheries of Kerala indicate that in the year
1320 Odoric has commented that
there were plenty of fishes in coastal
waters in Kerala, and this is presumed
to be a one of the earliest reference
to sardines. Apart from being used
as food, sardines were used for oil
extraction which was exported from
Cochin port. Historic records show that
sardine fishery has collapsed several
till during the last two centuries and
Day (1865) has observed the ill effects
of unrestricted in diminished catches
in later years. He also thought that oil sardine “occasionally forsake their haunts for several
consecutive seasons, returning again in enormous quantities”
The sardine catch in 2012 was 3.9 lakh tonnes which was the highest during the last two
centuries and then the decline started. The catch declined by 46 % in 2013 (catch 2.1 lakh
tonnes), then by 61% in 2014 (catch-1.6 lakh tonnes ) and by 82% in 2015 reaching 68431
tonnes (Fig. 1). Within a span of 5 years, the state witnessed the highest catch and lowest
catch. During the period 1960 to 2015, the sardine stock has reached the collapsed status
only once (1994.)
Most often, before a fishery collapse, over fishing of the stocks leading to imbalance in the
population structure and biomass has been known to occur. As per an estimate of CMFRI
based on 2005 to 2007 data the MSY of sardine along Kerala coast, is 2.3 lakhs tonnes. So
during the period 2011 and 2012, the stock was fished above the MSY by harvesting nearly
2.5 lakh tonnes.
Excessive harvest of juveniles: About 16,040 tonnes of juveniles (less than 10cm) forming 4%
of the total catch were harvested in 2012 and about 4802 tonnes in 2013. This would have
affected the spawning biomass of 2013, 2014 and 2015. (16,040 tonnes of less than 10cm
sardine would have contributed to a biomass of 5,61,400 tonnes at 30% mortality in the
subsequent years . Similarly if the 4802 tonnes of juveniles were allowed to grow, it would
have supported a spawning population of 1,68,070 tonnes of sardine)
The Indian oil sardine is known to move to inshore waters for spawning in large shoals.
This is the time when the sardines have been fished in large quantities. After spawning, the
young ones grow rapidly in the near-shore area (Fig 2). The environmental variations affect
all the biological processes.
Role of Fishery dependent factors in reducing fish stocks

Usually age structure in a fish population is balanced. However, due to intense fishing pressure,
either due to growth overfishing or
due to recruitment overfishing, the
fish stocks can be affected and in such
instances they become vulnerable to
adverse environmental conditions.
Less than one year old sardines have
always formed a major component of
sardine population. However, during
the period Oct 2012 to Feb 2013 about
1,17,823 tonnes of 10 to 14 cm size
sardines were harvested. The large
scale removal of this group also would
have affected the potential spawning
population of 2013 and 2014. Thus
the population of sardine was affected. So by the beginning of 2013, the sardine stock off
Kerala was severely affected-low biomass and less number of potential spawners. What
followed after that was adverse environmental conditions, though not continuous, affected
spawning and recruitment.
Environmental factors controlling sardine maturation and spawning
Upwelling and monsoon are two major ocean –atmospheric processes which are known
to influence sardine maturation and spawning (Fig 3). They are known to mature by April
–May and spawn from end of May to August/September. Recruitment is usually from July/
August onwards.
Upwelling and Recruitment
Upwelling is a process in which deep,
cold water rises toward the surface.
Upwelling occurs when winds push
surface water away from the shore
and are replaced by cold, nutrient-rich
water that wells up from below (Fig 4).
Deep ocean water is more nutrient-rich than surface water as nutrients, dead and decaying
plankton and other fish carcasses sink to the bottom. During upwelling these are brought
back to the surface and these fertile systems support blooming of diatoms and zooplankton.
This rich food supports growth and maturation of several fishes.
Upwelling is most common along

the west coast of continents (eastern
sides of ocean basins). In the Northern
Hemisphere, upwelling occurs along
west coasts (e.g., coasts of California,
Northwest Africa, India) when winds
blow from the north (causing Ekman
transport of surface water away from
the shore). Along the Indian west
coast, upwelling is strong along Kerala
coast and is known to occur in varying
intensities.
Upwelling and Fish Maturation
As mentioned earlier, upwelling
triggers blooming of diatoms and these provide food for the maturing fishes like sardine.
Along Kerala coast upwelling sets in by May -June and this suddenly increases the Gonado-
Somatic Index of sardine making them ready for spawning. When there is poor upwelling,
the major factors supporting gonad development like blooming of diatoms and lowering
of ambient temperature does not happen and this can lead to poor maturation or delayed
maturation. In 2015, upwelling was poor and maturation was affected.
Upwelling and Dissolved Oxygen
Upwelling can also bring in low oxygen water which can lead to hypoxic conditions.
Sometimes along Kerala coast, low oxygen in upwelled waters can be seen in the sardine
habitat during August –September. If the dissolved oxygen levels are below one ml /l then
this has been found to affect recruitment and the fishery. In the sardine habitat along Kerala
coast, the influx of upwelled waters with low oxygen (0.7 to 0.8 mg per litre) was found in
the main sardine habitat during August 2013 .Low mixing of waters can cause stratification
and along with hypoxic conditions cause stress to the early life stages.
Upwelling and Jellyfishes
Jellyfishes are known to bloom and survive in adverse conditions. When upwelling creates
low very oxygen conditions jellyfishes are not affected. Hence they also proliferate in the
coastal waters. These can increase the biotic pressures on the larval and juvenile stages
through predation.
Timing of Upwelling
If upwelling occurs very early and if the intensity is high with low oxygen waters in the
habitat, this can prevent the spawners from entering the coastal waters for spawning. In
such cases, spawning may be delayed.
Monsoon-Rainfall and Recruitment

When maturation is largely influenced by upwelling, the onset and intensity of southwest
monsoon has a good influence on sardine spawning and recruitment. Though there is no
direct affect, the changes triggered by monsoon especially the blooming of plankton in
near-shore waters supports early larval development. The high levels of phosphate, nitrate
and silicate in the river runoff triggers and supports blooming of diatoms. These support
the large shoals of early life stages of sardine. Similarly, there will be negative impacts when
the riven runoff is high and there is no proper mixing. This can lead to stratification and
adversely affect recruitment.
In 2013 there was good maturation in sardines during pre-monsoon period, but the spawning
and recruitment processes were affected by the above normal rainfall during June and July.
The rainfall during June and July of 2013 was 60 and 14% more than the normal.
The sardines were exposed to “stress” due to salinity stratification i.e extremely low salinity
due to excessive river runoff in the surface waters and higher saline waters in the bottom.
Deficit Monsoon
In 2014 there was good maturation in sardines during pre-monsoon. However, since the
monsoon was deficient during June/July it delayed the spawning period. A successful
spawning as in normal years was not observed in spite of good maturation. Sporadic
spawning was observed from April to Sep/Oct (7 months). Though spawning was observed
during third week of June it was not complete.
Excess Rainfall During Late Monsoon
In 2014, monsoon was excess by 74% and 22% during August and September than the
normal. This resulted in low saline waters and salinity stratification which affected recruitment.
Ocean Atmospheric Processes
El Niño
El Niño is the warm phase of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (commonly called ENSO) and
is associated with a band of warm ocean water that develops in the central and east-central
equatorial Pacific . ENSO refers to the cycle of warm and cold temperatures, as measured
by sea surface temperature, SST, of the tropical central and eastern Pacific Ocean. El Niño
is accompanied by high air pressure in the western Pacific and low air pressure in the
eastern Pacific. The cool phase of ENSO is called “La Niña” with SST in the eastern Pacific
below average and air pressures high in the El Nino affects the global climate and disrupts
normal weather patterns, which as a result can lead to intense storms in some places and
droughts in others. At least 26 El Niño events since 1900 have been identified, with the
1982-83, 1997–98 and 2014–16 events among the strongest on records. ENSO is the most
important coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon to cause global climate variability on
inter-annual time scales.
Multivariate ENSO Index

The multivariate ENSO index, abbreviated as MEI, is a method used to characterize the intensity
of an El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) event. Given that ENSO arises from a complex
interaction of a variety of climate systems, MEI is regarded as the most comprehensive
index for monitoring ENSO since it combines analysis of multiple meteorological and
oceanographic components such as sea-level pressure (P), zonal (U) and meridional (V)
components of the surface wind, sea surface temperature (S), surface air temperature (A),
and total cloudiness fraction of the sky (C).
Impacts on Ecosystems and Fisheries
In Peru, the warm water and low food availability that accompany El Nino have led to decline
in anchovies that make up the largest fishery on Earth. Global total capture fishery production
in 2014 was 93.4 million tonnes, of which 81.5 million tonnes from marine waters and 11.9
million tonnes from inland waters. (FAO, 2016). For the first time since 1998, anchoveta was
not the top-ranked species in terms of catch as it fell below Alaska Pollock.
In 2015, it was observed that upwelling was low and the sardine habitat changed considerably.
There was no good maturation and spawning during 2015, consequently poor recruitment.
Though maturation was observed during May/June, it was not as healthy as in previous
years. Globally, 2015 has been considered as a warm year with high temperature and low
food. The average seawater temperature in sardine habitat was 29.8o C during 2015, which
is nearly 1.1 deg C higher than the average observed (28.6 o C) for the last 5 years. Positive
SSTA exceeding 0.6oC dominated in the tropical Indian Ocean. There was a substantial
warming in the tropical Indian Ocean, partially due to influences of the 2015 El Nino. The
mean SST in the tropical Indian Ocean was reported to increase by 0.13-0.2oC in 2015.
Phytoplankton density was also low during April/May 2015 compared to the high during
2012. This low food availability in the habitat was found to affect maturation which resulted
in poor recruitment.
Combined Effects of Overfishing and Environmental Stress
Thus the cumulative effect of overfishing above MSY in 2011 and 2012 including the
exploitation of nearly 16,040 tonnes of juveniles in 2012 affected the sardine population/
biomass. This was followed by poor recruitment in 2013 and 2014 due to environmental
stress due to salinity stratification (due to excessive rains in late monsoon) and hypoxic
condition (due to upwelling) in inshore sardine habitats.
Low food availability and comparatively higher temperature due to poor upwelling led to poor
maturation and subsequent recruitment success. In 2015, these changes were compounded
mainly by global ocean –atmospheric process like El nino. The various factors affecting
maturation, spawning and recruitment of oil sardine is given in Table 1.
Table. 1 Factors affecting maturation, spawning and recruitment in oil sardine
Parameter Maturation Spawning Recruitment Level of impact
Upwelling in April/May Favourable Very strong
Good diatom bloom Very strong
Monsoon on-start -May Mildly strong
Monsoon normal Very strong
Delayed monsoon Unfavourable Mildly strong
Excess rainfall (floods) Mildly strong
Low oxygen in inshore waters Unfavourable Unfavourable Very strong
Noctiluca /Jellyfish bloom Mildly strong
Policy Support for Protecting Sardine Stock for Revival

Sardine fishery has collapsed during last century also. To revive the stocks, Government of
Madras introduced restricted legislation in Malabar and South Kananra Districts in 1943;
then extended to another two years from 1945 to prohibit use of the following nets for
immature sardine all throughout the year. Landing of immature oil sardine below 15 cm
not exceeding a total weight of one Maund (28 maund =1 ton) was also prohibited. The
legislation lapsed in 1947 due practical difficulties encountered in enforcement such as (1)
lack of preventive staff all over the coast (2) lack of legislation in adjacent states
The drastic decline after 2012 affected the fishing industry very badly, especially the tradi-
tional fishermen and those fishers who had invested heavily on fishing. In a move to protect
the resource, the Department restricted fishing of juveniles of fishes based on scientific
advisory by CMFRI and the Minimum Legal Size (MLS) was introduced for 14 species. For
sardine the MLS was 10 cm.
In almost all major sardine and anchovy fisheries, when the fishery is showing a downward
trend, the scientists and administrators join together and introduce Total Allowable Catch
or close the fishery for a specific period. The stocks are influenced both by overfishing and
by extreme events.
Diversity New
and exploitation
methods of fish
status
stock
of Crustacean
assessmentFishery Resources in India
NEW METHODS OF FISH STOCK ASSESSMENT
T. V. Sathianandan
New
New Methods
Methods of
of fish
fish stock
stock assessment
assessment
30
1.1. 1.
Multispecies
Multispecies Surplus
MultispeciesSurplusproduction
Surplusproductionmodel
Productionmodel::
Model
This is a multivariate version of single species surplus production model. Here, the
This
Thisisisaamultivariate
multivariateversion
versionofofsingle
singlespecies
speciessurplus
surplusproduction
productionmodel.
model. Here,
Here,the
the
annual
annual surplus
surplus production
production (ASP)
(ASP) isis calculated
calculated for
for each
each stock
stock
annual surplus production (ASP) is calculated for each stock as: as:
as:
ASP
ASPj,tj,t==BBj,t+1
j,t+1−−BBj,tj,t++δδj jCCj,tj,t
where
where
whereBBj,tj,t
Bis isisthe
j,t
theestimated
the estimated “adult”
estimated biomass
biomassofof
“adult”biomass
“adult” ofstock
stock
stock j jat
j at atthe
thethebeginning
beginning
beginning of of
ofyear
year t, Ct,
year CCj,tj,tthe
t,the
j,t
the
catch
catch
catch of stock
of stock
of stock j
j during during
j during year
year
year t, t, and
andt,δand δ is a stock-specific
is a δstock-specific
j j is a stock-specific correction
correction
correction factor
factor
factor that that accounts
that accounts
accounts for growth for
for
j
growth
growth and
and mortality
mortality that
that would
would have
have taken
taken place
place between
between the
and mortality that would have taken place between the time the catch was taken and thethe time
time the
the catch
catch was
was
taken
taken and
andthe thebeginning
beginningof ofyear
yeartt++1.1.Assuming
Assumingan anadditive
additiveerror
errorstructure
structureforforannual
annual
beginning of year t+1. Assuming an additive error structure for annual surplus production, the
surplus production, the estimating equations take the
surplus production, the estimating equations take the form of a multiple linear form of a multiple linear
estimating equations take the form of a multiple linear regression for the Graham-Schaefer
regression
regressionfor forthetheGraham-Schaefer
Graham-Schaefermodel modelandandaanon-linear
non-linearregression
regressionfor forthe
thePella-
Pella-
model and
Tomlinson a non-linear
model (Quinn regression
and Deriso, for1999):
the Pella-Tomlinson model (Quinn and Deriso, 1999):
Tomlinson model (Quinn and Deriso, 1999):
ASPt t  BBt t  BBt t 2 t t

2
Graham-Schaefer :: : ASP
Graham-Schaefer
Graham-Schaefer
ASPt t  BBt t  BBt tv t t

v
Pella-Tomlinson
Pella-Tomlinson:: :
Pella-Tomlinson ASP
where
whereα,
α,β,
β,and
andννare
aremodel
modelparameters
parametersand
andεεt tare
aremodel
modelresiduals
residualsthat
thatare
areassumed
assumedtoto
where α, β, and ν are model parameters and εt are model residuals that are assumed to be
be
benormally
normallydistributed.
distributed.
normally distributed.
2.2. MultiSpecies Virtual Population Analysis (MSVPA) model ::
2. MultiSpecies
MultispeciesVirtual
VirtualPopulation
PopulationAnalysis
Analysis(MSVPA)
(MSVPA)model
Model
Multispeciesvirtual
Multispecies
Multispecies virtual population
virtual population
populationanalysis is anisis
analysis
analysis extension
an of the VPA
an extension
extension ofmodel
of the for
the VPA
VPAsimultaneous
model
model for
for
analysis
simultaneousof data for
simultaneousanalysis more
analysisof than
ofdata one
datafor species
formore
morethan that
thanone incorporates
onespecies
speciesthat the predator
thatincorporates stomach
incorporatesthe content
thepredator
predator
stomach
stomachcontent
contentdata
datainto
intothe
thevirtual
virtualpopulation
populationmodel.model.In InMSPVA
MSPVAthrough
throughaarecursive
recursive
algorithm
algorithm the
the fishing
fishing mortality
mortality atat different
different age,age, recruitment,
recruitment, stockstock size,
size, suitability
suitability
coefficients
coefficientsand
andpredation
predationmortality
mortalityare
arecalculated
calculatedbased
basedon oncatch-at-age
catch-at-agedata, data,predator
predator
ration
ration and
and predator
predator diet
diet information.
information. MSVPA
MSVPA allowsallows the
the estimation
estimation of of vital
vital population
population
rates used in the management of fishery resources. An additional advantage of the
New methods of fish stock assessment
data into the virtual population model. In MSPVA through a recursive algorithm the fishing
mortality at different age, recruitment, stock size, suitability coefficients and predation
mortality are calculated based on catch-at-age data, predator ration and predator diet
information. MSVPA allows the estimation of vital population rates used in the management
of fishery resources. An additional advantage of the model is the estimation of the predation
mortalities produced by predators on preys species and the annual consumption of prey
by predators. The MSVPA input data includes the catch-at-age data, percent of maturity-
at-age, weight-at-age, terminal fishing mortalities, predator stomach content data and
residual mortalities.
3. Dynamic Multispecies Models
These models consider the functional relationships among individual species in a fished
system. They build upon single-species theory to understand the dynamics of multispecies
fisheries. These models account for interactions among selected species (often exploited
fish species) but do not address the ecosystem as a whole. Dynamic multispecies models
consider predator–prey interactions and evaluate the interactions between a subset of the
species in the ecosystem. They do not model competitive interactions explicitly, but often
include constraints such as conservation of total system biomass, or constant input of food
from outside the model, which result in changes in abundance of one species indirectly
affecting the abundance of species with which it shares prey. Eg: virtual population analysis
(VPA) models allowing for cannibalism, multispecies VPA (MSVPA) and statistical assessment
models (SAM; single-species with predation).
4. OSMOSE Model
OSMOSE is a multispecies/single species model for fish species. The model assumes
predation based on spatial co-occurrence and size and represents fish grouped into school
characterized by their size, weight, age, taxonomy and geographical location. The processes
considered in the fish life cycle are growth, explicit predation, natural and starvation
mortalities, reproduction, migration and a fishing mortality distinct for each species. OSMOSE
has been first applied to the Benguela upwelling ecosystem for which 12 fish species have
been specified, from small pelagic fish to large demersal species The model needs basic
parameters that are often available for a wide range of species. On output, a variety of
size-based and species-based ecological indicators can be simulated and converted to in

situ survey and catch data at the species level and community level. The model can be
calibrated to observe biomass dynamics.
5. Atlantis
Atlantis is an ecosystem model that considers all the components of marine ecosystems
namely biophysical, economic and social. It is a deterministic biogeochemical ecosystem
model with its overall structure based around the Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE)
approach. There are sub-models (or module) for each of the major steps in the adaptive
management cycle. deterministic biophysical sub-model is at the core of the model,
coarsely spatially-resolved in three dimensions, which tracks nutrient flows through the
main biological groups in the system. The primary ecological processes considered in the
model are consumption, production, waste production, migration, predation, recruitment,
habitat dependency, and mortality. The trophic resolution is typically at the functional group
level. The physical environment is represented via a set of polygons matched to the major
geographical and bioregional features of the simulated marine system and biological model
components are replicated in each depth layer of each of these polygons.
Atlantis also includes a detailed exploitation sub-model. This model is focused on the
dynamics of fishing fleets and also deals with the impact of pollution, coastal development,
environmental (e.g. climate) change. It allows for multiple fleets, each with its own
characteristics of gear selectivity, habitat association, targeting, effort allocation and
management structures. It includes explicit handling of economics, compliance decisions,
exploratory fishing and other complicated real world concerns.
The sampling and assessment sub-model in Atlantis is designed to generate sector dependent
and independent data with realistic levels of uncertainty measurements. These simulated
data are based on the outputs from the biophysical and exploitation sub-models, using with
a user-specified monitoring scheme. The data are then fed into the same assessment models
used in the real world, and the output of these is input to a management sub-model. This
last sub-model is a set of decision rules and management actions, which can be drawn from
an extensive list of fishery management instruments such as gear restrictions, days at sea,
quotas, spatial and temporal zoning, discarding restrictions, size limits, bycatch mitigation,
and biomass reference points.
6. Size Spectrum Model
Charles Elton introduced the “pyramid of numbers” in the late 1920s, but this remarkable
insight into body-size dependent patterns in natural communities lay fallow until the theory
of the biomass size spectrum was introduced by aquatic ecologists in the mid-1960s. They
noticed that the summed biomass concentration of individual aquatic organisms was roughly
constant across equal logarithmic intervals of body size from bacteria to the largest predators.
These observations formed the basis for a theory of aquatic ecosystems, based on the body
size of individual organisms, that revealed new insights into constraints on the structure
of biological communities. Size spectrum is the distribution of biomass/abundance as a
function of individual mass or size. The shape of this function resembles a power function
and biomass size spectrums are represented using power functions. Spatial and temporal
variability in the community structure can be observed in the shape of biomass size spectra.
7. Stock Synthesis
In the history of fish stock assessment two different approaches dominated. One using
time series of an indicator of stock abundance (standardized catch rate as a proxy for stock
abundance) along with time series of fish catch (Schaefer, 1954). These models provide
inference about current and target fish stock abundance and the maximum sustainable yield.
The second approach depend on a time series of detailed fish catch-at-age data in order to
reconstruct the virtual abundance of each annual cohort that had been fished (Pope, 1972
– Virtual Population Analysis, VPA). In the last two decades there has been development of
a third approach known as Integrated Analysis (IA) that takes a more inclusive approach to
modeling fish population dynamics utilizing a wide range of available data. Stock Synthesis
(SS), implementation of IA, began during the early 1980s. Synthesis is a term used for
development of a new product that is more than an blend of its dissimilar parts. In fish stock
assessments, different kinds of data can provide complementary information about the fish
stock, but one source may not be sufficient in itself to provide a complete picture of the
stock’s abundance and the impact of fishing on the stock. Stock Synthesis inherently blends
the population estimation paradigm of VPA with the population productivity paradigm of
biomass dynamics models. The observations that can be included in SS are CPUE, effort,
survey abundance, discards, length, age, weight composition data and tag-recapture data. It
has capability to use time series of environmental and ecosystem factors to influence the
poplation dynamics and observation processes over time. Three stages of SS assessment
approach are – initial development from northern anchovies (basic concept), re-development
as a generalized model for the west coast groundfish and development of the computer
code in ADMB (Automatic Differentiation Model Builder).
A concept for estimation of secondary and tertiary biomass from primary production
A CONCEPT FOR ESTIMATION OF SECONDARY

AND TERTIARY BIOMASS FROM PRIMARY
PRODUCTION
31
Grinson George, J. Jayasankar, Phiros Shah and Shalin S.
Global Biogeochemical Cycle

Fixation of inorganic carbon to organic carbon in the ocean is driven purely by phytoplankton.
Phytoplankton carbon fixation plays an important role in maintaining the quasi steady state
level of atmospheric CO2. Relative contribution of marine primary productivity to global
photosynthetic production is between 10 and 50%. Magnitude ranges from 20 to 55 Gt of
C/ year (Ryther 1969, Smith et al., 1983, Walsh 1984 and Martin 1992). Ocean-atmospheric
coupled climate models predict changes in the ocean circulation and hypothesize that
changes in the ocean circulation will stimulate phytoplankton biomass production in the
nutrient depleted areas in the open ocean (Roemmich & Wunch 1985). The effect on
atmospheric CO2 is uncertain because the relationship between the enhanced primary
production and air sea exchange of CO2 is not understood. The challenge is to study the
magnitude and variability of Primary productivity, its time scales and changes in atmospheric
forcing and upscale it into secondary and tertiary productivity.
Relevance to Northern Indian Ocean (NIO)
The Northern Indian Ocean (NIO) comprises
a unique variety of biogeochemical provinces,
including eutrophic, oligotrophic, upwelling,
and oxygen-depleted zones, all within an area
of relatively small geographic extent (Figure 1).
Seasonally reversing winds observed in the area
influence seasonal fluctuation in plankton richness,
which is the resultant of enhanced nutrient supply
through the process of coastal upwelling and winter
cooling (Prasanna Kumar et al., 2000; de Souza
et al., 1996). Enhanced nutrient supply increases
primary production in an alarming rate. Both secondary and tertiary production linked with
primary production are found to enhance during these periods (Madhupratap et al., 2004).
This factor reflects the pronounced semi-annual reversals in regional winds (the seasonal
monsoons) that make this region a focus for intense study. Unlike, the seasonal cycle which
have a definite periodicity, episodic events such as tropical cyclone which occurs without
any periodicity also provides high nutrient supply for primary production, as a consequence
of which production increases (Piontkovski and Al-Hashmi, 2014).
Estimation and integration of PP
Integrated in-situ column primary production (PP) will be estimated and PP will computed
at biome level using in-situ and satellite (SRS) remote sensing data by adopting suitable
mixed layer PP model. Later SRS methods will be applied for computing primary productivity
to integrate at biome level.
Chlorophyll is an important indicator of the quality of aquatic ecosystems that is amenable
to in situ and space borne measurement. This property can be retrieved from ocean colour
data after removal of the atmospheric signal from the detected radiance. Phytoplankton
blooms (indicated by rapid increase in chlorophyll concentration) and spurts in primary
productivity are important for maintaining the marine organisms at higher tropic levels, but
when associated with eutrophication and harmful algal blooms, as noticed in the coastal
waters of India, such events are directly linked (negatively) to the quality of water. Another
important measure of water quality in the coastal environment is the suspended sediment
load. Together with chlorophyll concentration they determine in water light penetration, and
light available for photosynthesis. Optical instruments such as spectral radiometers are able
to monitor changes in chlorophyll and suspended sediment load in real time. Furthermore,
such measurements can form the basis of local algorithms for application in remote sensing,
allowing the results to be extrapolated to the entire study area through remote sensing. Optical
methods for monitoring water quality and productivity have been established in other marine
environments, for example in the USA. In India, a start in this direction has been established
and operationalized by the SATCORE programme of ESSO-INCOIS.
Marine resources, especially fishery resources, have a strikingly important place of prominence
in the biodiversity map of the earth. Their dynamics have very important influence; both
direct as well as derived, on the wealth, health and eco-balance of many a maritime nation.
Indian context to the aforementioned issue can never be overstated with a prominent
chunk of future requirement of socio-economic and nutritional sustenance is centered in
the marine sector. Towards establishing a scientifically deduced relationship between the
marine environment and the resource availability on a realistic basis, there is a need for a
focused application of established easy to surveil oceanic, geophysical and physicochemical
parameters and their direct or latent influence upon the planktons which happen to be the
self-replenishing source of food and nutrition for the fishery resources spread in our EEZ.
The spatio-temporal fluctuations of the plankton richness which can be remotely sensed
have long been established as a major factor in predicting resource richness in general and
congregation and catchable availability in particular. Taking cue from these established
models, paradigms can be designed to predict the resource availability from the easy to
observe parameters after a thorough validation of the prediction scenarios juxtaposed with
the estimated catch attributable to various fishing grounds. The change in the pattern of
fishing, period of absence and the composition of fish caught per haul, when analyzed for a
range of geo-spatial expanses would help refining and augmenting the existing paradigms
resulting in a comprehensive prediction algorithm. Further such models would come in
handy in the assessment of marine resource potentials and there periodic revalidation on a
homogenous platform with a proper measure of confidence interval. ICAR-CMFRI has come
up with a flag ship programme named Chlorophyll based Remote Sensing assisted Indian
Fisheries Forecasting System which is operationalizing the primary productivity to biomass
model and under the auspice of the Jawaharlal Nehru Science Fellowship, Govt. of India,
Prof, Trevor Platt, FRS is coordinating along with Dr. Shubha Sathyendranath, the network
on primary production for in-situ measurements and modelling the primary production in
Indian EEZ.
Nutrient-Phytoplankton-Zooplankton-Detritus Model
Since the mid-20th century, several modelling studies on primary productivity have been
carried out over the global ocean. Historically, through the advancement of supercomputing
facility this studies have been evolved from simple zero dimensional statistical model to
higher order coupled bio-physical model. The compartments of the simple first generation
statistical models are expressed by a single differential equation describing the dependence
of rate of change of phytoplankton with photosynthesis, respiration and grazing. The
functionality of these models are greatly dependent on how efficiently it represents the mixed
layer dynamics and its interactions with the euphotic zone. Now a days coupled bio-physical
models are come in place and it advances the accuracy and resolution of predicted results.
The efficiency of these models have significant contribution from mixed layer dynamics and
it incorporates causes from horizontal and vertical advection as well. Most of these models
includes phytoplankton, zooplankton, nutrients, detritus and chlorophyll as state variables.
A simple structure of these biological models comprising the sources and sinks of
phytoplankton growth rate are represented by the following equation.
= γP – Gzoo – MP – £ (sdet +P) P - W
Where ( ) represents the rate of change of phytoplankton, γp -phytoplankton growth rate
as a source, Gzoo – grazing by zooplankton, MP – mortality of phytoplankton, £ (sdet +P) P
represents accumulation of phytoplankton

with small detritus and converted in to large
detritus and W represents vertical sinking of
phytoplankton. Here, first term in the right
hand side acts as a source and other four
terms indicates sinks of phytoplankton
Fig. 3. Annual average of Mixed Layer Depth (MLD) in meter and annual average of Chlorophyll -a
(CHL) concentration in mg/m3over the north Indian Ocean. Oceanic provinces of shallow MLD have
characterized by high chlorophyll-a concentration.
A simple exercise to estimate biomass from primary productivity for

conceptualizing the idea
Indian scenario on potential fish estimates
Authors Estimated 10 Extrapolated Remarks
productivity fish production
Riley, 1945 Rabinowitch 1945 375 kg C/km2 annually 15.5 million tonnes 8 times higher than
= 3.75 tonnes/ha (Indian Ocean) terrestrial productivity
Steeman Nielsen & Jensen, 1967 40% for respiration 2 million tonnes Average annual
from net productivity (Indian Ocean) production of
averages globally hydrosphere similar to
1.2-1.5*106 tons terrestrial productivity
Steeman Nielsen & Jensen, 1967
Eutrophic area 0.2-0.3% of fixed High level of efforts in
productivity high carbon as fish removed coastal waters with
annually active fishery
Rhyther, 1959 Seasonal maxima also 3 million tonnes Sea twice as productive
addressed (Indian Ocean) as land
Schaefer, 1965 1.9*106 tons of organic 200*106 tonnes for world Fish production 0.03% of
carbon for all seas as oceans 40 million potential
average tonnes (Indian Ocean)
Raghuprasad et al., 1969 Compilation of all the 100 million tonnes 0.4% of potential
above (world oceans) 20 harvested
million tonnes
(Indian Ocean)
(All the estimates were based on primary production – Organic carbon biomass generated by the producers)
Calculation of potential estimates of fishery from primary productivity estimates for Indian Ocean
basin scale (Raghu Prasad, 1969)
Average annual productivity of : 3*109 tonnes of Carbon = 0.35 g C/m2
Indian Ocean (Anton Brunn survey)
Respiration requirement : 40% of organic production
Average net production : 0.24 gC/m2/ day (Western Indian Ocean)

29.19 gC/m2/ day (Eestern Indian Ocean)
Area : 29*106 km2 (Western Indian Ocean)

22*106 km2 (Eastern Indian Ocean)
Net production of carbon : 2.3*109 (Western Indian Ocean)

1.6*109 (Eastern Indian Ocean)
Total fish yield (0.03% of net : 12.6 million tonnes

production) In 1967 the production was 2.1 million tonnes.
A six fold increase in catch is possible as per the
potential estimated
Estimates based on ecological efficiency

 Estimates of potential yield on annual basis is calculated and the potential biomass at
the safest level (@10% ecological efficiency level)
 23 million tons of fish from Western Indian Ocean and
 15 million tons from Eastern Indian Ocean
 Total of 38 million tons possible from the entire Indian Ocean
Estimation of potential fish yield from zooplankton biomass
Zooplankton biomass estimated for Western Indian Ocean = 3.25*108 tonnes

Zooplankton biomass estimated for eastern Indian Ocean = 1.94*108 tonnes
At 10% ecological efficiency level
Theoretical estimate from carbon production for Western

Indian Ocean = 2.3*109 tonnes
Theoretical estimate from carbon production for eastern
Indian Ocean = 1.6*109 tonnes
Potential fish biomass estimated for Western Indian Ocean = 18 million tonnes
Potential fish biomass estimated for eastern Indian Ocean = 11 million tonnes
Total fish biomass estimated for Indian Ocean = 29 million tonnes
Revised estimates by different authors for Indian EEZ (million tonnes)

Mathew et al., 1989 7.46
Desai et al., 1990 3.66
Moiseev, 1971 3.59
Gulland, 1971 6.55
Prasad, 1970 5.06
Prasad & Nair, 1973 4.60
Quazim, 1976 7.36
Nair & Gopinathan, 1985 5.50
Suggested Reading
Desai, B. N., Bhargava, R. M. S. and Sarupria, J. S., 1990. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci., 30, 635–639.
Fennel, K., J. Wilkin, J. Levin, J. Moisan, J. O’Reilly, and Haidvogel, D. 2006. Nitrogen cycling in the Middle
Atlantic Bight: Results from a three-dimensional model and implications for the North Atlantic nitrogen
budget, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 20, GB3007, doi: 10.1029/2005GB002456.
Gulland, J. A. 1971. The Fish Resources of the Ocean, Fishing News (Books) Ltd, West Byfleet, Survey,
England, p. 255.
Madhupratap, M., Nair, K.N.V., Venugopal, P., Gauns, M., Haridas, P., Gopalakrishnan, T.C., Nair, K.K.C. 2004.
Arabian Sea oceanography and fisheries, in: Large marine ecosystems: Exploration and exploitation
for sustainable development and conservation on fish stocks, ed. by: Somvanshi, V.S., Fishery Survey
of India, 482-491p, http://drs.nio.org/drs/handle/2264/1124.
Martin J. H. 1992. Iron as a limiting factor in oceanic productivity. In: Primary Productivity and Biogeochemical
Cycles in the Sea Falkowski P and Woodhead A (eds) Plenum Press, New York, 137.
Mathew, K J., Naomi, T S., Geetha Antony., Vincent, D., Anilkumar, R and Solomon, K. 1990. Proc. First.
Workshop Scient. Resul. FORV Sagar Sampada, 5 – 7 June, 1989; 59 – 69.
Moiseev, P. A. 1971. in the Living Resources of the World Oceans. Programme for Scientific Translation,
Jerusalem, p. 334.
Piontkovskia S.A. and K.A. Al-Hashmia, 2014. Atmospheric cyclones and seasonal cycles of biological
productivity of the ocean. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 71, No. 1, 27–40, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2014.880997.
Prasad, R. R., Banerji, S. K. and Nair, P. V. R., 1970. A quantitative assessment of the potential fishery resources
of Indian Ocean and adjoining seas. Indian J. Anim. Sci., 1970, Vol, 6, 122–137.
Prasanna Kumar S, M Madhupratap, M. Dileep Kumar, M Gauns, P M Muraleedharan, V V S SSarma and S
N De Souza., 2000: Physical control of primary productivity on a seasonal scale in central and eastern
Arabian Sea. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. (Earth Planet. Sci.), 109, No. 4, December 2000, pp. 433-441.
Qazim, S Z., 1977: Biological productivity of the Indian Ocean. Indian J. Anim. Sci., 6, 122 -137.
Rabinowicch, E. I., 1945: Photosynthesis and related processes. Vol. I. Interscience Publishers Inc., New
York, 599 pp.
Raghu Prasad R., 1969: Zooplankton biomass in the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal with a discussion
of the fisheries of the regions. Proc. Nat. Sci. India, 35 B: 399 -437.
Raghu Prasad, R and Nair, P.V.R., 1973: India and the Indian Ocean fisheries. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. India, 15, 1.
Roemmich, D., and C. Wunsch., 1985: Two trans Atlantic sections: Meridional circulation and heat flux in
the subtropical North Atlantic Ocean. Deep-Sea Res., 32, 619–664.
Ryther, J. H., 1969: Photosynthesis and fish production in the sea, Science, 166: 72-80.
Ryther, J. H., 1959: Potential productivity of the sea. Science, 130: 602-608.
S. N. de Sousa, M. Dileep Kumar, S. Sardessai, V. V. S. S. Sarma and P.V. Shirodkar., 1996: Seasonal variability
in oxygen and nutrients in the central and eastern Arabian Sea, CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL, 71, NO. 11,
847- 851.
Schaefer, M.B., 1965: The potential harvest from the sea. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc., 94(2): 123-128.
Smith, V. H., 1983: Light And Nutrient Dependence Of Photosynthesis By Algae, Journal of Phycology, 19
(3), 306-313, doi: 10.1111/j.0022-3646.1983.00306.x
Steemann Nielsen, E. and Jensen, E. A., 1967: Primary Oceanic production. Galathea Repts., 1, Copenhagen,
49-136.
Walsh J. J., 1984: The role of the ocean biota in accelerated ecological cycles: a temporal view. Bioscience,
34, 499-507.
Genetic stock characterization of fish using molecular markers
GENETIC STOCK CHARACTERIZATION OF FISH

USING MOLECULAR MARKERS
32
A. Gopalakrishnan
Director
Introduction
Accurate Identification of genetic resources is necessary for detecting new species and
varieties for products of commercial value. Fish, as a group, apart from their economic value
from a biodiversity viewpoint, have the highest species diversity among all vertebrate taxa.
They exhibit enormous diversity in size, shape, biology and in the habitats they occupy.
In terms of habitat diversity, fishes live in almost all conceivable aquatic habitats, ranging
from Antarctic waters to desert springs. Of the 62,305 species of vertebrates recognized
world over, 34,090 (nearly 52%) are valid fish species; a great majority of them (97 %) are
bony fishes and the remaining (3 %) are cartilaginous (sharks and rays) and jawless fishes
(lampreys and hagfishes). Further, on an average, 300 new fish species are described each
year, and global surveys indicate that there could well be at least 5,000 species more to be
discovered.
Loss of biodiversity is one of the greatest challenges facing modern society. This environmental
crisis is increasingly evidenced by the loss or deterioration of genetic resources and habitats,
as well as recent attempts to highlight and address the issue at the highest international
levels. Appropriate conservation efforts for protection of the natural biological wealth
warrant right attention for their sustainable utilization and for posterity. Public concern
for biodiversity conservation has risen in the last 50 years and led to national and inter-
national policies, legislation, and actions to conserve biodiversity, notably the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD). To conserve and sustainably utilize the bioresources of the country
and for maintaining sovereignty over them, several nations enacted the Biological Diversity
Act (BDA). This encompasses guide-lines to address a wide range of issues related to the
utilization of bioresources and information within the country as well as by other countries.
Management of Fish Genetic Resources

The objective of management (documentation + conservation + sustainable utilization) of
species and their habitats is to maintain the genetic identity and integrity of the species
in their natural habitat as well as a genetically sustainable fishery. Hence, documentation
of genetic variation and diversity is of vital significance to evolve conservation strategies
with long-term impact. Genetic resources can be viewed as genetic differences at three
hierarchical levels of organization, viz., species, populations and individuals. At the highest
level, species consist of ‘populations’ or ‘genetic stocks’ that are reproductively isolated
from populations of other species. Each species harbours a unique set of genetic material
and therefore, conservation, may aim at a specific species, which requires sound knowledge
about its biology, biogeography and within species (inter-populational) level genetic diversity.
At the population level of organization, the identification of discrete genetic breeding units
(usually called a ‘stock’ in fisheries biology; this is roughly equivalent to a ‘population’ or
‘genetic stock’ to a geneticist) has been a major theme in fisheries research. The definition
of a stock can vary, as the motivations of fishery managers may be influenced by political,
economic or biological mandates. Finally, the largest store of genetic variability in most
species exists as genetic differences among individuals within a population. Hence, the
goal of pre-serving genetic variability in a population coincides with the goal of maintaining
large ecologically sound natural populations. A fundamental need is to define distinct entities
that range from individuals to species to ecosystems and beyond.
Population/Genetic Stock Identification (GSI)
Assessment of genetic variability is important for the management of wild genetic resources
of fish. Most species are composed of populations, also called genetic stocks, between which
limited gene flow occurs. These populations maintain their genetic makeup or characteristics
distinct from other populations of the same species because of genetic variation within the
species. This differentiation depends upon forces such as migration, mutation, selection,
and genetic drift, which act on the species/population during its evolution. If such units are
overfished, it is unlikely that population sizes will recover because of migration, and hence
a collapse of the fishery may occur. Therefore, with the loss of a genetic stock, a species
also loses the animals that are adapted to a particular habitat through evolution. Moreover,
interbreeding of non-native fish stocks/species with a different make up tends to reduce
the genetic variation that naturally exists between genetic stocks. In other words, different
natural genetic identities available for a species in different habitats are lost.
A fundamental problem for fisheries management is the identification of populations/
stock of a species and this idea has been brought together with the definition of stock for
management. The term stock has been used in various management contexts with little or
no genetic content. Several approaches have been advocated to solve this problem.
 Ihssen et al. (1981) defines a stock as ‘an intra-specific group of randomly mating
individuals with temporal or spatial integrity’.
 Larkin (1972) defined a stock as ‘a population of organisms which share a common gene
pool, is sufficiently discrete to warrant consideration as a self-perpetuating system which
can be managed’.
 In fishery management, a unit of stock is normally regarded as a group of fish exploited
in a specific area or by a specific method.
If fishery managers are to include genetic considerations in their decisions, they will need
information on the biological differences between discrete local groups of a species and they
will need to understand the genetic and ecological processes that influence discreteness.
Thus, the implementation of management strategies based on molecular genetic data can
have indirect benefits for population biodiversity, as the main objective of such management
plans is to avoid population crashes, which in turn benefits the maintenance of population
genetic diversity.
Molecular Genetic Markers: The primary objective of the genetic stock identification (GSI)
in fish is to assess the distribution and pattern of genetic variability at intra-as well as inter-
specific population levels. The first priority for such research is identification of appropriate
molecular genetic markers to assess genetic diversity. Fish stock identification was initially
based solely upon morphological and meristic differences. Because these characters can be
influenced by the environment, their variations may not have a genetic basis, and hence do
not necessarily provide information on genetic and evolutionary relationships. In the 1950s,
dissatisfaction with performance of phenotypic methods for stock identification encouraged
early exploration of genetic markers. The markers developed have spurred development of
statistical algorithms and revolutionized the analytical power necessary to explore genetic
diversity among populations. Methods that take advantage of naturally occurring genetic
markers have attracted a good deal of attention because application of physical tags is
very labour intensive, and biological markers, such as scale patterns, can vary dramatically
from year to year. The first GSI methods using soluble proteins and gene products such
as allozymes (enzymes at cellular level) for estimating the contributions of two or more
salmon stocks to a mixed harvest were developed in the late 1970s. Since then, the rapidly
expanding availability of highly variable genetic markers and refinements in statistical
analyses have considerably increased the ability to analyze the stock structure of different
fish species; but this has also led to the genetic ‘marker wars’ among fish geneticists during
the past several decades. For many years, allozymes were the universal workhorse genetic
makers, and they made many valuable contributions to basic and applied conservation
and management. Around 1980, the first applications of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)
analysis to natural populations were published, and gradually, it replaced allozymes and
provided answers to key management questions regarding stock structure. The development
of DNA amplification using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique has opened
up possibility of examining genetic changes in populations over the past 100-years or
more even using archive material. In PCR reaction, a DNA sequence can be amplified many
thousand folds to provide sufficient product for restriction analysis or direct sequencing.
Once appropriate primers are available, large number of individuals can be assayed quickly
thus facilitating large population screening for variability. Portions of the mtDNA such as, the
ATPase 6 and 8 and hypervariable trans-membrane segments of cytochrome b (Cytb) that
evolve exceptionally rapidly have been used for high-resolution analysis of genetic stock
structure in fish. Although mtDNA has indeed provided a wealth of new insights, it is not a
solution and has some limitations with respect to fishery management (e.g., it is maternally
inherited, so provides information only about female migration or gene flow, and it is only
a single marker and hence has much less power than a full suite of nuclear markers).
In the 1990s, microsatellites (Short Tandem Repeats— STRs or Simple Sequence
Repeats—SSRs) muscled aside mtDNA and these highly variable co-dominant markers
have provided greatly increased power and opened up exciting new opportunities (e.g.
parentage analysis and individual assignments) that were generally not feasible with
allozymes or mtDNA. Microsatellites are repeated DNA sequences having a unit length
of 2-6 base pairs tandemly repeated minimum 6 times usually; maximum several times at
each locus. They are found in all prokaryote and eukaryote genomes investigated to date.
Individual alleles at a locus differ in the number of tandem repeats of the unit sequence
owing to gain or loss of one or more repeats and they as such can be differentiated by
electrophoresis according to their size.
There are four types of microsatellites
1. Perfect: Perfect tandem repeat sequences.
2. Imperfect: Tandem repeat sequences with intervening sequences.
3. Compound: More than one kind of repeats, adjacent ones.
4. Complex: More than one kind of repeats, with intermediary sequences.
Based on the number of base pairs in a repeat unit, microsatellites can be again classified
into mono (e.g. C or A), di (e.g. CA), tri (e.g. CCA), tetra (e.g. GATA), penta (e.g. CGATA)
and hexa (e.g. ATGGCA) repeat unit microsatellites. Microsatellites that are used in stock
identification studies typically contain di- (AC)n, tri-(ACC)n, or tetra-nucleotide (GATA)n
repeats. The most common ones are dinucleotide repeats. Tetra-nucleotide microsatellites
are gradually replacing dinucleotide loci as the preferred genetic marker for stock analysis.
Microsatellite loci are abundant in all eukaryote genomes and it has been estimated that
there are from 103 to 105 microsatellite loci dispersed at 7 to 1010 base pair (bp) intervals
or one locus at every 100-300 kilobase pair (kbp) intervals in the eukaryotic genome. Fish
genomes may contain more microsatellite loci than most other invertebrate and vertebrate
taxa. Mapping studies suggest more or less even distributions of microsatellites throughout
genomes, although they are somewhat rarer within coding sequences.
Several features of STR render them invaluable for examining fish population structure.
Microsatellites are codominant in nature and inherited in Mendelian fashion, revealing
polymorphic amplification products from all individuals in a population. They contain
information, which are directly related to the effective number of alleles at each locus. PCR
for microsatellites can be automated for identifying simple sequences repeat polymorphism.
Small amount of samples of blood or alcohol preserved tissue is adequate for analyzing
them. Because they are highly variable in nature, abundant variants are ensured for
characterization of populations. However, sample size in excess of 50 may be required
to represent the genotype frequencies. The microsatellites are non-coding and therefore
variations are independent of natural selection. These properties make microsatellites ideal
genetic markers for defining population genetic diversity and distance measures. Because
most STR loci are unlinked and inherited independently, the greater the number of loci
screened, the greater the likelihood of selecting loci that reveal significant allelic frequency
differences among populations and more statistical power is gained in quantifying the extent
of genetic differentiation among populations. Additionally, analysis of a larger number of
loci may provide a more accurate picture of the evolutionary history of the genetic stocks.
Analysis of microsatellite polymorphisms is a PCR-based approach in which oligonucleotide
primers are designed based on unique single-copy sequences flanking the microsatellite
repeats. DNA extracted from tissue samples are subjected to PCR reactions. PCR primer pairs
are selected such that PCR products are of small molecular size (usually <350bp), providing
relative ease in amplification from low-quality DNAs and also allowing for distinguishing
small differences in the molecular size of alleles among individuals by using polyacrylamide-
gel electrophoresis or automated DNA sequencers. Ideally, each individual shows a single
(homozygote) or two-band (heterozygote) DNA pattern, with one band inherited from each
parent. Polymorphic alleles at a locus are usually characterized by their molecular sizes. For
dinucleotide repeats, these will differ by two base units. Based on the STR allele frequency
data, powerful statistical tests are employed to arrive at a decision whether the genetic
stocks of a species are significantly different from one another.
However, the field now seems poised to shift towards another type of marker, single-
nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Like allozymes, SNPs are generally diallelic, so each
marker has less power than a single microsatellite locus. They occur in vast numbers
throughout the genome; therefore, eventually large overall increases in power are possible.
Furthermore, once developed, SNPs can be assayed more reliably and cheaply than
microsatellites, which could be a considerable advantage in large-scale fishery management
applications. However, development of sufficient numbers of SNP markers will be neither
easy nor cheap, and analytical issues such as minimizing ascertainment bias remain to be
resolved. Despite growing competition from new genotyping and sequencing techniques and
latest class of markers, the use of the versatile and cost-effective microsatellites continues
to increase, boosted by successive technical advances. Next-generation sequencing (NGS)
technologies and the rise of commercial services allow the identification of large numbers of
microsatellite loci at reduced cost in non-model species. As a result, more stringent selection
of loci is possible, thereby further enhancing multiplex quality and efficiency. Numerous
examples also exist where microsatellite analysis is used for fish population analysis and
management of Pacific salmon (Fisheries and Oceans Canada website: http://www.pac.dfo-
mpo.gc.ca/science/facilities-installations/pbs-sbp/mgl-lgm/proj/ index eng. htm online.) and
also for cod where microsatellites have even been used as evidence in a court cases against
a fishermen claiming a false origin of his catch. Use of 20-25 polymorphic microsatellite
loci (preferably tetra-nucleotide repeats) and 70–100 individuals from each population
has become the standard and scientifically accepted protocol for population genetic
analysis of fish along with information on biology and morphometry (TRUSS) data.
Sequence information of mitochondrial complete ATPase 6/8 and Cytb genes of at
least 20 individuals per population are also often generated along with this.
Genetic Stock Structure in fish:
Distinct population structure has been observed in many fish species across the world
indicating that propagation-assisted restoration programmes must be stock-specific to
replenish declining populations. Generally, between populations of marine and freshwater
species, marked differences exist in the level of genetic differentiation and genetic diversity,
with marine species generally exhibiting lower levels of inter-population differentiation and
greater genetic diversity. This is mainly due to the higher effective population sizes and/or
higher inter-population migration rates in marine environments compared with freshwater.
In addition, marine fishes and invertebrates are generally broadcast spawners and hence
have large potential for movement between areas by larval drift in currents. In addition,
adults of many species are capable of making long distance migrations. Early genetic
studies of commercially important marine fishes using allozymes and proteins indicated
that they generally had moderate levels of gene diversity and little population subdivision,
often covering over several hundred kilometers. However, unexpected fine-scale population
sub-structuring and deep genetic lineages have been observed in recent studies with high-
resolution markers in many fishes which calls for further in-depth integrated approaches
of molecular genetics with life-history traits. This will prove whether the variability is due to
isolation or adaptations to particular marine habitats or as a result of non-genetic factors

such as large reproductive variation among families. Regular monitoring of populations is
also essential to enable a distinction between normal population-size fluctuations and those
severe enough to warrant conservation measures.
The greatest genetic threats in the marine ecosystem are the extinction of genetically
unique subpopulations and loss of genetic diversity primarily through overfishing and
climate change. Illegal unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing also contributes to this
condition, and thus poses a severe threat to marine ecosystems. Controlling for compliance
and enforcing fishing regulations is hampered by difficulties in identifying the geographical
origin of fish and fish products, at point of landing and further down the food supply chain.
Presently, there are no validated genetic methods for identifying the geographical origin
of marine fish and investigate commercial fraud. ‘FishPop-Trace’(https://fishpoptrace.jrc.
ec.europa.eu/web/fishpop trace/) is an international project, funded by the European Union
(EU) framework programme (FP7), aiming to generate forensically validated reference panels
of SNP markers for geographical origin assignment in four commercially important fish
species, cod (Gadus morhua), hake (Merluccius merluccius), herring (Clupea harengus) and
common sole (Solea solea). SNP markers are selected these are subsequently genotyped
across populations to provide high resolution data to analyze genetic variation. These markers
are validated to be used as tags for traceability and enforcement applications leading to a
reduction in IUU fishing and conservation of remaining marine resources.
For a successful stocking programme such as sea ranching of endangered seahorse or sacred
chank, genetic structure of the original wild population must be determined before any new
fish are released into the waters. This information can be used to develop hatchery guidelines
for breeding fish for stocking purposes. By ensuring that the stocked population is having
the same genetic make-up as the wild population, re-integration of the stocked fish will
likely be more successful and deviations from the original genetic structure will be minimal.
Integrating Population Genetics Data into Marine Fisheries Management
Maintaining the maximum level of genetic variations in fish stocks is vital for the preservation
of genetic resources. Therefore, excessive loss of genetic variability should be avoided for
sustainable management of resources. Application of molecular marker techniques to a
number of species has shown that these methods can provide information on genetic stock
structure that can be of direct management relevance. However, such information has not
always been incorporated into fishery management and policy decisions in several countries.
The complex problem requires agreement among scientists, governmental organizations
and policy makers to define and implement policies on the sustainable management of
these natural resources. Numerous factors (as mentioned below) have contributed to the
imperfect integration of genetic data into management of aquatic species.
The fish stock assessment teams generally include quantitative fishery biologists and
statisticians. In appropriate situations, the teams should be expanded to include geneticists as
well as field biologists. It is always better that fish geneticists fully understand the complexities
of the management process so that genetic information can be packaged in the most effective
manner, and importance of GSI can be portrayed effectively for the policy makers. Also the
managers involved in monitoring of fishery resources should acknowledge that GSI can
provide valuable management information. Scientists, managers and policymakers could
work together more effectively to foster productive dialogue to link statutory definitions
and management or conservation goals.
It is difficult to develop an ideal sampling design for a genetic study without understanding
the details of the life history of the target species and physical processes in the aquatic
ecosystem. Genetic data can be integrated with other types of biological and oceanographical
information. The sampling design of genetic studies does not always match the geographical
regions to which management controls are applied. This can rarely result in discrepancy
between biological and genetic management units. Implementing GSI over a broad
geographical area requires extensive efforts to collect baseline data for populations from
different coasts and to standardize laboratory procedures so that comparable data can
be obtained by different laboratories. This requires funds, broad collaboration among
laboratories and a willingness to share unpublished data.
Most fish geneticists are unfortunately, not exposed to the techniques of statistical model
and decision analysis that form the basis for modern stock assessment science. Equally,
managers and assessment biologists similarly would benefit from a greater literacy regarding
the genetic principles that can profoundly affect the aquatic living resources for which they
share stewardship responsibility. Therefore, it might be necessary to develop brief integrated
training courses to equip geneticists and managers to work on assessment teams.
The purpose of stock assessment in fisheries is to provide timely and appropriate scientific
advice on fisheries management for sustained production. Though there are few multi-
species models, the assessments are almost mostly conducted for single species, whereas
in reality, stocks are influenced by multi-species interactions. In addition, gears mostly
harvest many species at a time, leading to difficulty in implementation of the management
measures derived from single species stock assessment. Due to the lack of adequate and
efficient models for multi-species interactions, stock assessments will generally continue to be
based on single species models. Although the main approach in population genetic studies
of natural populations still involves collecting individuals from two or more geographical
locations and considering them as putative populations, landscape genetics/seascape
genetics—the study of spatial genetic patterns in continuously distributed species—is rapidly
evolving and the methods are beginning to be applied especially to marine species as well.
These studies are expected to provide important insights into biological processes leading to
effective multi-species stock assessment and management of marine ecosystems. However,
considerable dialogue between geneticists, stock assessment scientists and managers, as
well as creative thinking on both sides are required to develop effective ways to integrate
these insights into fisheries management.
In conclusion, fish genetic stock diversity conservation requires preservation of as much
variation as possible at all taxonomic levels and concerted efforts by integrating capture,
culture fisheries and environmental programmes using latest technological innovations. The
genetic tools will provide innovative means in the future and are an assuring approach for
food security of the world and in reducing the fishing pressure on natural resources. Genetic
data need to be integrated with other types of biological and oceanographical information
for understanding the details of the life history of the target species and physical processes
in the marine ecosystem. Although better monitoring of biodiversity, better assessment of
risk and a more strategic approach to conserving biodiversity are all essential components
to successful risk management, an equally important need is the open dialogue among
geneticists, quantitative fishery biologists, statisticians, conservationists and planners that
would help sustainable management of stocks of the world’s amazingly rich assemblage
of fishes.
Suggested Reading
Ayyappan S., Jena J. K. and Gopalakrishnan A., 2014. Molecular Tools for Sustainable Management of Aquatic
Germplasm Resources of India. Agricultural Research 3(1): 1-21.
Ihssen P.E., Booke H.E., Casselman J.M., McGlade J.M., Payne N.R., Utter F.M., 1981. Stock identification:
materials and methods. Can J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 38:1838–1855.
Larkin P.A., 1972. The stock concept and management of Pacific salmon. In: Simon R.C., Larkin P. A. (Eds) The
stock concept in Pacific salmon, H.R. MacMillan Lectures in fisheries. University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, p 231.
Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding-based estimation of marine stocks
ENVIRONMENTAL DNA (eDNA)

METABARCODING - BASED ESTIMATION OF
MARINE STOCKS
33
P. Jayasankar
Marine Biotechnology Division
Abstract
Information on species composition and biomass/abundance of exploited species in coastal
fisheries is vital in management of resources. One of the most important mandates of the
leading institution is judicious management of coastal and deep sea fishery resources.
Traditional methods of identifying species and estimating biomass/abundance have inherent
drawbacks which could be ameliorated by DNA marker based approach. Environmental DNA
(eDNA) can be obtained from the skin, mucous, gamates, faeces, blood and other cells that
are constantly being shed into the immediate environment by the organism. Analysis of
this eDNA can give us information on the organisms, their abundance and biomass. Recent
advances in next generation sequencing enable simultaneous sequencing of DNA from
whole communities known as metabarcoding. Studies carried out in aquaria, large lakes,
rivers and marine environment consistently suggest that eDNA metabarcoding outperforms
traditional survey methods in terms of non-invasive sampling, sensitivity and cost incurred.
Introduction
Traditional marine fish stock assessment is largely carried out using visual surveys, trawls,
seines and tissue biopsies, while they serve as critical sources of data, these monitoring
methods are expensive, time consuming, invasive, environmentally destructive and highly
prone to misidentification. Use of more efficient, sensitive, non-invasive and cost effective
methods is desirable for assessment of the ecosystem as well as in improving baseline
ecological data about marine ecosystems. In aquatic environments the eDNA can persist
for a day and up to 21 days depending on the environmental conditions. Analysis of this
eDNA can give us information on the organisms, their abundance and biomass. Recent
advances in next generation sequencing enable simultaneous sequencing of DNA from
whole communities known as metabarcoding. There is now increased interest in using eDNA
to supplement existing survey methods.
Since 2012 there has been a plethora of studies on eDNA metabarcoding as applied in
biodiversity conservation, fish community identification, fisheries management, invasive
species, as well as in fish biomass/abundance estimations. eDNA approach became popular
because of its non-invasive nature, relatively economy and better results. Thomsen et al (2012)
have used eDNA for detection of marine fauna. Pilliod et al (2013) have described eDNA
applications in amphibians and fish. The tool has found wide applications in both marine
and freshwater environments (Ferguson and Moyer 2014). Miya et al (2015) have developed
MiFish primers, which were used to detect more than 230 subtropical species. Largest fish
on earth, whale shark was detected from eDNA in water samples (Sigsgaard et al., 2016).
Jiang and Yang (2017) have used Scientometric methods have been used to quantitatively
assess the current global research status in the eDNA field based on SCI-EXPANDED and
Social Sciences Citation Index databases during the period 1992–2016. eDNA can also be
used for estimating fish biomass/abundance, and in marine census (Takahara et al., 2012;
Kelly et al., 2014; Klymus et al., 2015; Doi et al., 2015; Thomsen et al., 2016; Yamamoto et
al., 2016; Roussel and Bernatchez, 2016).
A total 25 research papers related to eDNA metabarcoding/metagenomics by Indian authors
have been cited. They are predominantly pertaining to the study of microbial biodiversity
from food, soil and deep sea sediments (Jiang and Yang, 2017 for review). Not a single
publication related to such study in fish has been cited.
Gap in Knowledge
Metabarcoding is constrained by factors like PCR efficiency, primer tags and sequencing
efficacy. Another limitation is lack of comprehensively cured reference databases for
certain metazoans for assigning taxon to the OTUS. Future studies are needed to improve
sampling strategies (selection of season, sampling location within habitat, etc.) and to
understand the relationship between sequence reads and species density. Still there are
gaps in knowledge about the dynamic mechanisms relating to shedding of tissue into the
environment, metabolism related processes which could also affect quantity of DNA released
by an organism into the water. Dynamics of eDNA under field conditions, such as patterns
of release, degradation, and diffusion should be taken into consideration to get a better
estimate of fish distribution and biomass/abundance based on eDNA.
Technical Approaches
Methodology includes seawater filtration, quantitative real-time PCR, Library preparation,
Next Gen Sequencing (NGS) and statistical analysis. Copy number of DNA could be
quantitatively interpreted in terms of fish abundance. High throughput sequencing data
analysis using the state-of-the art tools could throw light on family level abundance in
general and species level abundance of fish in particular.
Expected Utility of Research

Research on eDNA can generated eDNA signatures of exploited pelagic and demersal
fish species from Indian coastal fisheries, which would facilitate for accurate estimation
of biomass/abundance of fish. Further, India-specific eDNA-linked database on exploited
marine species from coastal fisheries could be generated.
Development of individual based models in marine fisheries research
DEVELOPMENT OF INDIVIDUAL BASED MODELS

IN MARINE FISHERIES RESEARCH
34
J. Jayasankar, Tarun Joseph and Shruthy Abraham
Setting
Fish population dynamics describe how a stock or a combination of them changes over
time as a function of growth, recruitment, mortality, immigration and emigration (Quinn &
Deriso, 1999). It is the basis for understanding fish populations and associated fisheries and
is the central component of any effort to assess the population dynamics so as to provide
quantitative advice for fishery management (Hilborn & Walters, 1992).
Modern fisheries stock assessment models are evolving towards increasing complexity
(Maunder & Punt, 2013), with capabilities to assimilate a diverse suite of data and incorporate
spatial structure (Cadrin & Secor, 2009) and the influence of environmental factors. As the
number of such efforts increase, the behavior and performance of these complex models
need to be tested to assure a scientific basis for fishery management. These efforts to test
the plethora of models have resulted in extensive simulation studies have been conducted
to examine the robustness of the models and incorporate various process and measurement
errors, including data quality and quantity (Chen et al., 2003), mis-specifications of life history
parameters (Deroba & Schueller, 2013; Punt, 2003), fishery characteristics (Cope & Punt,
2011), and violations of model assumptions (Guan, Cao, Chen, & Cieri, 2013).
Amongst these approaches one stream was oriented towards focussing on the habitat and
ecosystem wherein the entire blend of biological dynamics are seen in action and models
were built to suit them, leading to the ecosystem based models. Several approaches have
been developed at the ecosystem level, motivated by the observation of some recurrent
patterns of marine ecosystems, suggesting that interactions within the ecosystem are
important structuring factors (Dickie and Kerr, 1982). For example, a widespread observation
is the stability of the production of many marine ecosystems compared to that of individual
species (e.g. Sutcliffe et al., 1977; May et al., 1979; Murawski et al., 1991). The maximum
sustainable yield (MSY) is extended to a set of exploited species that are considered to
form a single stock (Brown et al., 1976; FAO, 1978): the equilibrium production of the
multispecies assemblage would then be a parabolic function of fishing effort and the MSY
would correspond to the exploitation of half the virgin biomass of the whole assemblage.
More recently, Polovina (1984) and Christensen and Pauly (1992) developed the ecosystem
model ECOPATH, which is widely used among fisheries scientists. In this model, species are
aggregated into functional groups, which are related by fluxes of matter. Forming the basis
of the model are two equations of mass conservation, describing the production and the
consumption at equilibrium for each group of species.
This leads to the most important aspect of modelling, testing the sensitivity of assessment
models for mis-specifications requires an operating model to predict population dynamics
with known or assumed population parameters. However, most operating models are
formulated identically to the population dynamic component built into the assessment
model (Cope & Punt, 2011; Deroba & Schueller, 2013; Guan et al., 2013; Punt, 2003), which
implicitly assumes that the dynamic processes of the population are fully understood. To
avoid this problem and test the assessment rigorously, an alternatively structured operating
model is necessary to simulate the population dynamics.
Individual-based models (IBM), which consider each individual of a population as an

independent entity, have been widely used in ecology (Grimm & Railsback, 2005). The events
(e.g., birth, death and predation) that occur within the simulation are at an individual rather
than population level and the overall population dynamics that emerged is the sum of the
individual interactions and behaviours.
The majority of individual-based models in fisheries science are developed to investigating

fish behavior and fleet dynamics. They have been used to simulate the behavior of individual
fish or fishermen with rules that determine their movement (Tyler & Rose, 1994; Wilson &
Yan, 2009). Spatial heterogeneities in individuals and/or their environment have been added
to develop spatially explicit individual-based models (Werner, Quinlan, Lough, & Lynch,
2001). However, only a few of these models have been developed for simulating fishery
population dynamics. Kanaiwa, Chen, and Wilson (2008) developed an individual-based
lobster simulator to simulate seasonal, sex-specific population dynamics for the American
lobsters to evaluate the assessment model for that species. Further, the models that have
been developed are either species-specific or focused on one particular aspect of fish life
history (Kanaiwa et al., 2008).
A typical IBM framework

Although many leads can be followed to formulate a framework under which IBMs could
be modelled, the ringside view of the process can best be obtained from a simple depiction
of an algorithm, one such being given below (Cao et al, 2016).
The above figure depicts the steps and sequences alongside the checks and balances which
create the sequences in a cogent way. Now the different life stages like, natural death,
fishery mortality, growth , enhancement of age and stage, spawning and recruitment could
have there own sub-conceptualisations of being either deterministic or probabilistic and
under either whichever established process presumed., thereby leading to a combination
of options in the programming and software sense. A typical look at the possibilities could
result in the following steps;
Stage Model definition
Initial condition Equilibrium; with an assumed period to attain that
Stock spatial structure Multiple stocks each with unique biological identities
Stock recruitment relationship Specified functional relationship between spawning stock and its
recruitment rate; Beverton- Holt, Ricker etc. or even incorporation of
environmental parameters like SST
Recruitment Can be directly put or could be derived from the S/R relationship with
random fluctuation added; must be adjusted as per the intra annual
pattern expressed by the resource(s) modelled
Natural mortality Could be randomness added to the base value defined based on
length or age
Fishing mortality Classic method of merging catchability, effort and selectivity; random
threshold could be used to simulate fishing mortality
Growth VBGF based depiction
Life stage Number of stages and the mean size at each stage could be the core
with random normal deviations completing simulated values
Survey Modelled similar to Fishing mortality
Observational error A lognormal based error term added to the catch figure aggregated
over time, length and area
Multi-species Parallel replication of these steps for as many resources as planned to

be simulated/ studied
A broad-based IBM
Another more holistic variant of this type of IBM could be one including much more
broader habitat based components like availability of lower trophic level (LTL) biomass
and the higher level foragers and their predators. The availability of food and the growth
stage combination clearly heralding the status of larval mortality and the resultant niche
based competitions between resources could also be included through IBM thereby scaling
up to simulate regional ecosystems. One such
comprehensive model is “Object oriented
Simulator of Marine ecosystem Exploitation
(OSMOSE)” (Shin and Cury, 2001, 2004). Herein
the criterion for the selection of prey by a
predator was considered to be firmly based
on body sizes with opportunism applied at
individual level with a localization principle
based on the vicinity coming into picture. A
cohort or super individual was made as pivot
and the bio-phological dynamics applied on
that and replicated to the tune existing in the
area and focus. Four model classes, which
represent particular ecological entities, are
used: the class “system”, the class “species”,
the class “age class”, and the class “fish group”
(Shin and Cury 2001). From each class, which is
characterized by attributes and functions (e.g.,
growth, predation), a number of objects are
created that are part of the simulated system.
The architecture of OSMOSE is hierarchical,
because a fish group belongs to an age class,
which in turn belongs to a species. This structure
enables the investigation of some key variables
at different levels of aggregation, in particular
the size spectrum of fish assemblages.
The process of implementation of OSMOSE
can best explained using the flow-chart given
below:
As can be seen from the above figure, the
dynamics associated with growth, mortality,
reproduction (spawning) etc. could be modelled using the conceptualisation described in the
previous case. But the new broad-based habitat and trophism based components need some
elaboration. The parameterization of the components is presented in the following table;
Stage/ Component Model Definition

Foraging This is to be planned in such a way that the movement
probabilities to the nearest spatial cell is highest and
the availability of suitable prey/ LTL leading to feeding
/ starvation otherwise; It is a function of biomass and
vicinity
Predation This is functioned based on the spatio temporal co-
occurrence of prey- predator and the size of both; The
prey- predator size ratio was subjected to a literature
(Fishbase) based threshold and the subsequent dynamics
planned thereafter.
Starvation mortality This is depicted as a function of density dependent issue
dependent on intra specific competition and is built upon
predation efficiency as defined by Beverton and Holt
(1957)
With these cardinal principles in place OSMOSE is rolled out to simulate regions under study
but with two very important safeguards, first being the localised calibration and the second
the sensitivity analysis. These are computationally intensive procedures leading to thousands
of trial runs with various combinations of input parameters including crucial ones like larval
mortality and plankton availability, whose sensitivity have been historically be recorded as
delicate and hence crucial. Once validated with a decent strip of time step these calibrated
tweaked models can be put to great use in estimating, simulating and forecasting marine
fishery resources.
Conclusion
Though IBMs offer a very robust modelling crucible for complex marine ecosystems, their
success rate is severely dependent on the local tuning and sensitivity testing. Further as these
are trophic level flow based, proper input on the LTL front using feeder models like Nutrient
Phytoplankton Zooplankton Detritus(NPZD)- Regional Ocean Modeling systems(ROMs)
may have to be coupled with the OSMOSE runs for more efficient forecast/ simulation. As
such for systems where good coverage on the crucial biogeochemical and productivity
parameters coupled with regular sample surveys on resource biology is undertaken these
type of IBMs could turn out to be real boon.
Suggested Reading
Alonzo, S.H., T. Ish, M., Key, A.D., MacCall, M., Mangel, 2008. The importance of incorporating protogynous

sex change into stock assessments. Bulletin of Marine Science, 83 (1), pp. 163-179.
ASMFC, 2009. Assessment report for Gulf of Maine northern shrimp – 2009, ASMFC Fishery Management
Report, 68 p.
ASMFC, 2012. Assessment report for Gulf of Maine northern shrimp -2012, ASMFC Fishery Management
Report, 81p.
Cadrin, S.X., Secor, D.H., 2009. Accounting for spatial population structure in stock assessment: Past,
present and future, R.J. Beamish, B.J. Rothschild (Eds.). The future of fishery science in North
America, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 405-426.
Cao, J., Guan, W., Truesdell, S., Chen, Y., Tian. S., 2016. An individual-based probabilistic model for simulating
ûsheries population dynamics J. Aquaculture and Fisheries, 1(1): 34-40.
Chen, Y., L. Chen, L., Stergiou, K. 2003. Quantity of fisheries data and uncertainty in stock assessment,
Aquatic Science, 65, pp. 92-98.
Chen, Y., Hunter, M., Vadas, R., Beal, B., 2003. Developing a growth-transition matrix for the stock assessment
of the green sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis) off Maine, Fishery Bulletin, 101 (4), pp. 737-
744.
Cope, J.M., Punt, A.E., 2011. Reconciling stock assessment and management scales under conditions of
spatially varying catch histories, Fisheries Research, 107, pp. 22-38.
Deroba, J.J., Schueller, A.M., 2013. Performance of stock assessments with misspecified age-and time-varying
natural mortality, Fisheries Research, 146, pp. 27-40.
Francis, R.I.C.C., 1992. Use of risk analysis to assess fishery management strategies: A case study using
orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) on the Chatham Rise, New Zealand, Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 49, pp. 922-930.
Grimm, V., Railsback, S.F., 2005. Individual-based modeling and ecology, Princeton university press.
Guan, W.J., Cao, J., Chen, Y., Cieri, M., 2013. Impacts of population and fishery spatial structures on fishery
stock assessment, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 70 (8) , pp. 1178-1189.
Hilborn, R., Walters, C., 1992. Quantitative fisheries stock assessment: Choice, dynamics, and uncertainty,
Chapman and Hall, N.Y.
Kanaiwa, M., Chen, Y., Wilson, C., 2008. Evaluating a seasonal, sex-specific size-structured stock assessment
model for the American lobster, Homarus americanus, Marine and Freshwater Research, 59 (1), pp. 41-
56.
Kanwit, J.K., Libby, D.A., 2009. Seasonal movements of atlantic herring (Clupea harengus): Results from a
four year tagging study conducted in the Gulf of Maine and Southern New England, Journal of the
Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science, 40, pp. 29-39.
Legault, C.M., Restrepo, V.R.,1998, A flexible forward age-structured assessment program 49, Collect. Vol.
Sci. Pap. ICCAT, pp. 246-253.
Maunder, M.N., Punt, A.E., 2013. A review of integrated analysis in fisheries stock assessment, Fisheries
Research, 142 (2013), pp. 61-74.
Overholtz, W.J., Jacobson, L.D., Melvin, G.D., Cieri, M., Power, M., Libby, D. et al. 2004. Stock assessment of
the Gulf of Maine - Georges Bank atlantic herring complex 2003, Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Reference Document 04-06 Available from: http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd0406/
crd0406.pdf
Punt, A.E., 2003. The performance of a size-structured stock assessment method in the face of spatial
heterogeneity in growth, Fisheries Research, 65 (1) , pp. 391-409.
Quinn, T.J., Deriso, R.B., 1999. Quantitative fish dynamics, Qxford University Press, New York.
Reid, R.N., et. al., 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Atlantic Herring, Clupea harengus, Life
History and Habitat Characteristics, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-126, Available from:
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/tm126/.
Reid, R.N., Cargnelli, L.M., Griesbach, S.J., Packer, D.B., Johnson, D.L., Zetlin, C.A., et al. Essential fish habitat
source document: Atlantic herring, Clupea harengus, life history and habitat characteristics, NOAA
Tech. Memo. NMFS-NE-126.
Richards, R., Fogarty, M.J., Mountain, D.G., Taylor, M.H. 2012. Climate change and northern shrimp recruitment
variability in the Gulf of Maine, Marine Ecology Progress Series, 464 , pp. 167-178.
Scheffer, M., Baveco, J.M., DeAngelis, D.L., Rose, K.A., Van Nes, E.H.,1995. Super-individuals a simple solution
for modelling large populations on an individual basis, Ecological modelling, 80 (2), pp. 161-170.
Shepherd, G.,Cieri, M., Powers, M., Overholtz, W., 2009. Transboundary resources assessment Committee:
Gulf of Maine/Georges Bank atlantic herring stock assessment update, Reference Document 2009/04,
NOAA Fisheries, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts.
Shin, Y.J., and Cury, P. 2001. Exploring fish community dynamics through size-dependent trophic interactions
using a spatialized individual-based model. Aquat. Living Resour. 14: 65–80.
Shin, Y.J. and Cury, P. 2004. Using an individual-based model of fish assemblages to study the response
of size spectra to changes in fishing Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2004, 61(3):
414-431, https://doi.org/10.1139/f03-154.
Tyler, J.A., Rose, K.A., 1994. Individual variability and spatial heterogeneity in fish population models, Reviews
in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 4, pp. 91-123.
Werner, F.E., Quinlan, J.A., Lough, R.G., Lynch, D.R., 2001. Spatially-explicit individual based modeling of
marine populations: A review of the advances in the 1990s. Sarsia, 86 (6), pp. 411-421.
Wilson, J.A., Yan, L., 2009. Self-organizing economic activity with costly information, Proceedings of the
11th annual conference companion on genetic and evolutionary computation conference.
Trophic modelling of marine ecosystems and ecosystem based fisheries management
TROPHIC MODELLING OF MARINE ECOSYSTEMS

AND ECOSYSTEM BASED FISHERIES
MANAGEMENT
K. Sunilkumar Mohamed
Molluscan Fisheries Division
35
Introduction
Fish populations are an integral part of marine ecosystems. Historically, fish population
dynamics have been studied as single species, for example as mackerel, shrimp or sardine,
and almost always in isolation from the system in which they exist. In recent years, however,
there has been growing awareness that traditional approaches to managing fisheries are
incomplete and partially unsuccessful. Sustainable use of living marine resources must
consider both the impacts of the ecosystem on the living marine resources, and the impacts
of fishery on the ecosystem. This holistic approach to fisheries management has been termed
as ‘ecosystem based fisheries management’. The Principles of Ecosystem-Based Fisheries
Management are: 1. Maintaining the natural structure and function of ecosystems, including
the biodiversity and productivity of natural systems and identified important species, is the
focus for management. 2. Human use and values of ecosystems are central to establishing
objectives for use and management of natural resources. 3. Ecosystems are dynamic; their
attributes and boundaries are constantly changing and consequently, interactions with human
uses also are dynamic. 4. Natural resources are best managed within a management system
that is based on a shared vision and a set of objectives developed amongst stakeholders.
5. Successful management is adaptive and based on scientific knowledge, continual learning
and embedded monitoring processes.
A lot of attention has recently been directed at assessing the impacts of fisheries on whole
marine ecosystems (ICES, 1998, 2000; Frid et al., 1999b; Hall, 1999a, b). This has in part been
driven by the need to ensure conservation of biological diversity and sustainable use of
the biosphere, key provisions of the convention agreed at the UN Rio summit (Tasker et al.,
2000). The utilization of sound ecological models as a tool in the exploration and evaluation
of ecosystem health and state has been encouraged and endorsed by the leading bodies in
ecosystem-based fisheries research and management (NRC, 1999; ICES, 2000). The potential
of the available dynamic ecosystem models to make measurable and meaningful predictions
about the effects of fishing on ecosystems has not however been fully assessed.
Ecological Factors
Harvesting alters ecosystem structure in ways that are only beginning to be understood. It is
argued that long-term heavy commercial harvesting is likely to shift the ecosystem to high-
turnover species with low trophic levels (Pitcher and Pauly, 1998). The biological mechanism
underlying species shifts is that the relatively large, long-lived fishes which have low mortality
rates are more strongly affected by a given fishing mortality rate than are smaller fishes which
are part of the same community. A second shift-inducing biological mechanism is habitat
degradation caused by various fishing gears especially bottom trawls. Here, the effect is
through destruction of bottom structure, depriving benthic fishes of habitats and prey.
Thirdly, the above and the fishery-induced reduction of predatory pressure by benthic fish,
may then lead to an increase of small pelagic fish and squids, which becomes available for
exploitation. This may mask the decline in catches of the demersal groups. In the Gulf of
Thailand, in Hong Kong Bay and other areas of the South China Sea, extremely heavy trawl
pressure has resulted in a shift from valuable demersal table fish such as croakers, groupers
and snappers to a fishery dominated by small pelagics used for animal feed and invertebrates
such as jellyfish and squids.
These mechanisms almost often lead, through a positive feedback loop, to a fourth biological
mechanism: harvesting small pelagic fish species at lower trophic levels reduces the availability
of food for higher trophic levels, which then decline further, releasing more prey for capture
by a fishery that finds its targets even lower down the food web, a process now occurring
throughout the world (Pitcher and Pauly, 1998). Some examples of such documented species
shifts in exploited multispecies fish communities are shown in table.
Table 1. Examples of documented shifts towards smaller, high-turnover species in exploited
multispecies communities (modified from Pitcher and Pauly, 1998)
Fishing grounds/ Stocks (period) Documented species shift
Gulf of Thailand Overall biomass reduced by 90%; residual biomass
Demersal stocks (1960-1980) dominated by trash fish
Philippine shelf Gradual replacement of sardine-like fishes by anchovies
Small pelagics (1950-1980)
Carigara Bay, Philippines Fish replaced by jellyfish, now an export item

All fish (1970-1990)
North Sea Halibut and small sharks extinct; cod and haddock
threatened; demersal omnivores and small pelagics
favoured
Humboldt Current, Chile Large hake depleted, small pelagics favoured

North Pacific First marine mammal depletions, followed by huge trawl
fisheries: Pollock favoured
South China Sea, Hong Kong Croakers and groupers almost extinct; small pelagics bulk
of fishery
It has also been observed that fishes evolve or change their life histories in response to
selective fishing mortality, for e.g., halving of the size of mature Chinook salmon. In this
semelparous species early maturity means less time at risk of being caught and therefore,
higher fitness. This species has been intensively managed for over 80 years using the best
that single species quantitative science can offer, and yet Chinook salmon are on decline.
Socio-Economic Factors
One of the main socio-economic mechanisms, which contribute to species shift, is increasing
prices, both for traditional high-value species and for trash species. Such price increases are
effective in masking the economic consequences of fishing at lower trophic levels.
Single Species Assessments
The tools developed for single species population dynamics are an essential part of any
new methodology. Detailed information on growth, mortality and recruitment schedules
and their associated errors and uncertainties are essential for the implementation of the
ecosystem approach advocated in the Rio summit. When considering the management
of single components of the ecosystem, such as the target fish stocks, it is possible to set
target and limit reference points for particular measurable properties of the species. For
example, the implementation of precautionary fisheries management in the North Atlantic
has progressed through the setting of reference points for various measures of the status of
the exploited species, e.g. the spawning
stock biomass (SSB). two types of
reference point are considered - a limit
reference point and a target reference
point (Fig.1).
Management measures are aimed at
achieving the target reference point in
the medium term and ensuring that the
limit reference point is never exceeded.
In theory, it should be possible to apply
reference points to any or all taxa in the
ecosystem. ICES (2000) have contended
that even if this was practical for a
significant number of taxa, it may not
ensure adequate protection of all the
ecosystem components at risk. There
is a need, therefore, to develop reference points for system level emergent properties as a
measure of ecosystem health (Hall, 1999a; Gislason et al., 2000).
Ecosystem Modelling
There are many recent developments in building of trophic models of aquatic ecosystems.
Such modelling can now be performed more rapidly and rigorously than ever before,
providing a basis for viable and practical simulation models that have real predictive
power (Christensen and Pauly, 1993; Walters et al., 1997). This was made possible by the
development of ECOPATH (Polovina, 1984; Christensen and Pauly, 1992), for construction of
mass-balance models of ecosystems, based mainly on diet composition, food consumption
rates, biomass and mortality estimates. Such ecosystem models can describe the biomass
flows between the different elements of the exploited ecosystems, and can provide answers
to ‘what if’ questions regarding the likely outcome of alternate fishing policies. The ECOPATH
suite of software has now been modified (Walters et al., 1997, 2000) to include ECOSIM
(simulation module) and ECOSPACE (spatial module). These new routine have not only
increased the quantitative power of the approach, but have also allowed qualitatively new
questions to be asked. Ecopath applications to ecosystems, ranging from low latitude areas
to the tropics, and from ponds, rivers, and lakes to estuaries, coral reefs, shelves, and the
open sea, but all using the same metrics, allowed identification of several general features
of aquatic ecosystems.
Multivariate comparisons demonstrated the basic soundness of E. P. Odum’s (1969) theory
of eco-system maturation (Christensen, 1995b), including a confirmation of his detailed
predictions regarding ecosystems near carrying capacity (Christensen and Pauly, 1998).
Conversely, this theory can now be used to predict the effect of fisheries on ecosystems,
which tend to reduce their maturity, as illustrated by the comparison of Ecopath models
for the Eastern Bering Sea in the 1950s and early 1990s (Trites et al., 1999a, b), and to guide
ecosystem rebuilding strategies implied in ‘‘Back to the Future’’ approaches (Pitcher, 1998;
Pitcher et al., 2000).
The importance (relative to fishing) of predation by fish and marine mammals within marine
ecosystems as suggested by complex models in a few areas (North Sea – Andersen and
Ursin, 1977; North Pacific – Laevastu and Favorite, 1977) was confirmed globally by Ecopath
models (Christensen, 1996; Trites et al., 1997).
Identification of trophic levels as functional entities rather than as concepts for sorting
species (Lindeman, 1942; Rigler, 1975) implied the use of non-integer values (computed as
1+ the mean trophic level of the preys, as proposed by Odum and Heald, (1975) that express
degree of omnivory (Christensen and Pauly, 1992a), i.e., the extent to which feeding occurs
at different trophic levels (Pimm, 1982). Also, trophic level estimated from analyses of stable
isotopes of nitrogen has been shown to correlate well with estimates from Ecopath models
(Kline and Pauly, 1998). Estimates of transfer efficiencies between trophic levels (Christensen
and Pauly, 1993b; Pauly and Christensen, 1995), previously a matter of conjecture usually
pertaining to single-species populations or even to studies of a few individual animals
(Slobodkin, 1972), differed radically from earlier guesses by ecosystem types (Ryther, 1969)
used for inferences on the potential yields of fisheries (Pauly, 1996), even though the mean
was unsurprising (about 10%; Morowitz, 1991).
Performance Measures
It is generally agreed that reductions in single species fishing mortality levels is perhaps the
most significant step one could take towards ensuring the persistence of marine ecosystems
(Hall and Mainprize, 2004). It is also clear that ecosystem based fisheries management is still
in its formative years, although substantial developments have been seen in some countries
and regions. Among these, North America, Antarctica, Europe, Australia and New Zealand
are the most notable.
Table 2. The six principles for an ecosystem based fisheries management approach (adapted
from Inter-agency Marine Fisheries Working Group, 2002)
Principle Description
Ecosystem identification The ecosystem that fisheries will be managed within

need to be defined on the basis of the main physical,
biological and human dependency relationships
Clear objectives Objectives for fisheries management shall have regard

to local and national needs, and management should
be decentralized to the maximum extent possible
Long term benefits Ecosystem based management should aim for long term
benefits – management should look to restore stocks
to levels that are capable of delivering optimal yields
over the long term; and achieving such yields should
not compromise other marine species and habitats.
Management should also aim to support biological
biodiversity
Incentives aligned with and ecosystem Incentives should be realigned to support aims of the
based approach ecosystem based approach – incentives and financial
support needs to be redirected from fisheries that
aim at increasing fishing efficiency to those that make
concerted efforts to those that promote the restoration
of fish stocks to optimal yield levels and which support
responsible fishing practices in sensitive marine areas.
Easily assessed information and alternate Information necessary to implement the ecosystem
management options based approach should be made available to all. Where
information is insufficient, adaptive management and
the precautionary approach should be followed. If
the outcome falls short of what was intended the
management decisions should be suitably altered –
proactive management
Unfortunately, despite the legislative imperative and clearly articulated principles (Table
2), arriving at an operational framework for an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries
management is fraught with difficulties. This difficulty is due, not only to the inherent
challenge in establishing and quantifying the effects of fishing at an ecosystem level, but
also due to the social and political dimensions associated with harvesting fisheries at an
environmentally sustainable level.
An Overview of Ecopath & Ecosim
The Ecopath software is a simple approach for analyzing trophic interactions in fisheries
resources systems (Christensen and Pauly 1992a,b, 1995). Ecopath is based on the earlier work
of Polovina (1984), and is being widely applied to aquatic systems (Christensen and Pauly 1993,
Pauly and Christensen 1995). It is a mass-balance approach that describes an ecosystem at
steady-state for a given period. Further development of this steady-state model has resulted
in a dynamic ecosystem model called Ecosim that is capable of simulating ecosystem changes
over time (Walters et al., 1997). Ecopath and Ecosim represent all of the major components of
the ecosystem, and their feeding interactions, but are relatively simple. These kinds of models
readily lend themselves to answering simple, ecosystem wide questions about the dynamics and
the response of the ecosystem to anthropogenic changes. Thus, they can help design policies
aimed at implementing ecosystem management principles, and can provide insights into the
changes that have occurred in ecosystems over time. Ecopath models rely on the truism that:
This applies for any producer (e.g., a given fish population) and time (e.g., a year or season).
Groups are linked through predators consuming prey, where:
The implication of these two relationships is that the system or model is mass balanced (i.e.,
biomass is ‘conserved’, or accounted for in the ecosystem). This principle of mass conservation
provides a rigorous framework – formalized through a system of linear equations – through
which the biomass and trophic fluxes among different consumer groups within an ecosystem
can be estimated (Christensen and Pauly 1995). Constructing an Ecopath model emphasizes
ecological relationships rather than mathematical equations. All that is required are the types
of data that are routinely collected by fisheries scientists and marine biologists. The model can
incorporate and standardize large amounts of scattered information – information that might
have otherwise languished in scattered journals, reports and filing cabinets (Christensen and
Pauly 1995).
loss to
biomass + fisheries + mortality due + other + = Production
adjacent
accumulation catch to predation mortality
systems
Ecopath is essentially a large spreadsheet that is simultaneously keeping track of all the
species and all the feeding interactions occurring within the ecosystem. It describes the
ecosystem at one point in time. Ecosim, which is based on the Ecopath equation, simulates
non-
production + assimilated + respiration = Consumption
food
how a change in one or more components might affect the ecosystem over time.
Ecopath and Ecosim have been widely applied in recent years. More than 80 Ecopath
systems have so far been published world-wide. They span a diversity of systems including
upwelling, shelves, lakes and ponds, rivers, open oceans and even terrestrial farming systems
(see Christensen and Pauly 1992a,b, 1995; Walters et al. 1997; and the Ecopath home page
at http://www.ecopath.org )
Principles of the Ecopath Model
The core routine of Ecopath is derived from the Ecopath program of Polovina (1984), and
since modified to make superfluous its original assumption of steady state. Ecopath no
longer assumes steady state but instead bases the parameterization on an assumption of
mass balance over an arbitrary period, usually a year. In its present implementation Ecopath
parameterizes models based on two master equations, one to describe the production term
and one for the energy balance for each group.
The first Ecopath equation describes how the production term for each group (i) can be
split in components. This is implemented with the equation,
Production = catches + predation mortality + biomass accumulation + net migration +
other mortality;
or, more formally,
Pi = Yi + Bi. M2i + Ei + BAi + Pi. (1-EEi) Eq. 1
where Pi is the total production rate of (i), Yi is the total fishery catch rate of (i), M2i is the
total predation rate for group (i), Bi the biomass of the group, Ei the net migration
rate (emigration - immigration), BA i is the biomass accumulation rate for (i), while M0i
= Pi · (1-EEi) is the .other mortality. rate for (i).
This formulation incorporates most of the production (or mortality) components in common
use, perhaps with the exception of gonadal products. Gonadal products however nearly
always end up being eaten by other groups, and can be included in either predation or
other mortality.
Eq. 1 can be re-expressed as

n
Bi . (P/B)i . EEi - Σ Bj . (Q/B)j. DCji - Yi - Ei - BAi = 0 Eq. 2
j=1
where: P/Bi is the production/biomass ratio, Q/Bi is the consumption / biomass ratio,
and DCj i , is the fraction of prey (i) in the average diet of predator ( j).
Of the terms in Eq. 2 the production rate, Pi, is calculated as the product of Bi, the
biomass of (i) and Pi/Bi, the production/biomass
ratio for group (i). The Pi/Bi rate under most conditions
corresponds to the total mortality rate, Z, see Allen (1971),
commonly estimated as part of fishery stock assessments.
The other mortality is a catch-all term including all
mortality not elsewhere included, e.g., mortality due to
diseases or old age, and is internally computed from,
M0i = Pi . (1 - EEi)
where EEi is called the ecotrophic efficiency of (i), and
can be described as the proportion of the production that is utilized in the system. The
production term describing predation mortality, M2, serves to link predators and prey as,
n
M2i . = Σ Qj . DCji Eq. 3

j=1
where the summation is over all (n) predator groups ( j) feeding on group (i), Qj
is the total consumption rate for group ( j), and DCji is the fraction of predator ( j) diet
contributed by prey (i). Qj is calculated as the product of Bj, the biomass of group ( j) and
Qj/Bj, the consumption/biomass ratio for group ( j).
An important implication of the equation above is that information about predator
consumption rates and diets concerning a given prey can be used to estimate the predation
mortality term for the group, or, alternatively, that if the predation mortality for a given
prey is known the equation can be used to estimate the consumption rates for one or more
predators instead.
For parameterization, Ecopath sets up a system with (at
least in principle) as many linear equations as there are
groups in a system, and it solves the set for one of the
parameters for each group depicted in the infographic.
While the other three parameters along with parameters given in the infographic must be
entered for all groups. It was indicated above that Ecopath does not rely on solving a full
set of linear equations, i.e., there may be less equations than there are groups in the system.
This is due to a number of algorithms included in the parameterization routine that will try
to estimate iteratively as many missing parameters as possible before setting up the set of
linear equations.
ECOSIM – Dynamic mass-balance approach for Ecosystem Simulation
By converting the linear equations of Ecopath models to differential equations, Ecosim

provides a dynamic mass-balance approach, suitable for simulation (Walters et. al. 1997).
Constructing a dynamic model from equation (1) there are three changes viz; (a) replace the
left side with a rate of change of biomass; (b) for primary producers, provide a functional
relationship to predict changes in (P/Bi) with biomass Bi (representing competition for light,
nutrients and space); and (c) replace the static pool-pool consumption rates with functional
relationships predicting how consumption will change with changes in biomass of Bi and Bj.
The basics of ECOSIM consist of biomass dynamics expressed through a series of coupled
differential equations. The equations are derived from the ECOPATH master equation (Eq.1),
and take the form
dBi / dt = gi Σ Cji - Σ Cji + Ii - (Mi + Fi + ei)Bi Eq. 4

j j
where dBi/dt represents the growth rate during the time interval dt of group (i) in terms of
its biomass, Bi, gi is the net growth efficiency (production/consumption ratio), Mi the non-
predation (other) natural mortality rate, Fi is fishing mortality rate, ei is emigration rate, Ii
is immigration rate, (and ei·Bi-Ii is the net migration rate). The two summations estimates
consumption rates, the first expressing the total consumption by group (i), and the second
the predation by all predators on the same group (i). The consumption rates, Cji, are
calculated based on the foraging arena concept, where Bi.s are divided into vulnerable and
invulnerable components (Walters et al. 1997), and it is the transfer rate (vij) between these
two components that determines if control is top-down (i.e., Lotka-Volterra), bottom-up
(i.e., donor-driven), or of an intermediate type. The set of differential equations is solved in
Ecosim using (by default) an Adams-Basforth integration routine or (if selected) a Runge-
Kutta 4th order routine.
Using previously constructed Ecopath models, Ecosim calculates corresponding changes in
biomass of each component when the fishing mortality of any particular group is altered.
These dynamic simulations are plotted as coloured biomass curves. The scale differs for each
curve. By altering the rate of flow between vulnerable and non-vulnerable prey different
functional relationships for predators and prey can be considered. These can range from
pure donor control, where the prey availability governs interactions, to top-down control
where predation pressure dominates. Using equilibrium simulations, where equilibrium
biomass is plotted over a range of F values, Ecosim provides the facility to predict the
potential equilibrium yield for the fished group.
Trophic Modelling Studies in India
Trophic modelling studies in Indian aquatic ecosystems are few. The first preliminary attempt
was made in small ecosystem in Veli Lake near Thiruvanathapuram. Subsequently another
preliminary attempt was made to model the southwest coast ecosystem using already
existing data and many assumptions (Vivekanadan et al. 2003). The first major targeted
attempt to study was that of the model for the Arabian Sea off Karnataka (Mohamed et al.
2008; Mohamed and Zacharia, 2009). This Ecopath model had a pedigree index of 0.521
(scale from 0 for data that is not rooted in local data up to a value of 1 for data that are
fully rooted in local data). The Karnataka model encompassed an area of 27,000 km2 (from
the shore to the edge of the continental shelf) and had 24 functional ecological groups
(species assemblages) of which 23 were living groups and one dead group (detritus).
Ecological groups ranged from apex predators like marine mammals, sharks and tunas to
micro zooplankton and phytoplankton.
A comparison of ecosystem parameters from other parts of the world is given in table
below (modified from Trites et al., 1999) above. The total throughput for the Arabian Sea
ecosystem of Karnataka ranks third after Peru and Monterey bay and is double that of
Bering Sea and Venezuela upwelling ecosystem. The gross efficiency of the fishery (catch/
PP) value obtained for Karnataka is close to that of the Peruvian ecosystem, which is also an
upwelling ecosystem, harvesting fishes low in the food chain. The omnivory index is quite
high comparatively for the Karnataka ecosystem indicating the complex feeding interactions
in the ecosystem. The estimated ascendancy values for the Arabian Sea ecosystem of
Karnataka indicate that it has not reached its full development capacity, unlike the Yacutan
and Monterey bay ecosystems. The recycling capacity of the ecosystem throughput as
indicated by the cycling index shows that recycling in Arabian Sea ecosystem of Karnataka
is only moderate as compared to ecosystems like Brunei and Bering Sea.
Ecosystems Through Catch PP/B B/T Net syst. Omnivory Ascen- Cycling Path
put /PP prod. Index dency Index length
Yacutan 2362 0.0029 27.4 0.036 370 0.134 44.0 2.8 2.84
N. Gulf of Mexico 1790 0.0002 7.0 0.015 19 0.195 39.1 2.1 3.03
Venezuela (upwell.) 5309 0.0016 27.0 0.023 831 0.135 39.9 2.2 4.05
Brunei, SE Asia 1816 0.0008 28.6 0.018 300 0.201 29.4 16.3 2.80
Peru 70 (upwell.) 18800 0.0017 87.5 0.012 14709 0.169 38.1 8.7 3.63
Monterey 17513 0.0012 1.2 0.012 2208 0.324 66.2 4.4 3.63
Alaska Gyre 5946 38.1 0.015 407 0.103 42.3 2.03
British Columbia Shelf 1237 21.1 0.180 4106 0.140 40.1 2.03
Bering Sea 50’s 6535 0.0002 5.9 0.050 -115 0.183 32.5 13.2 3.47
Bering Sea 80’s 5692 0.0021 4.9 0.050 -356 0.157 30.9 11.1 3.51
Karnataka Arabian Sea 11522 0.0016 29.9 0.012 904 0.299 33.0 6.03 2.81
Suggested Reading
Christensen, V. 1995b. Ecosystem maturity - towards quantification. Ecol. Modelling 77: 3-32.
Christensen, V. 1996. Managing fisheries involving predator and prey species. Reviews in Fish Biology and
Fisheries, 6:417-442.
Christensen, V. and D. Pauly, (eds.) 1993. Trophic models of aquatic ecosystems. ICLARM Conference
Proceedings No. 26. ICLARM Manila, Philippines, 390p.
Christensen, V. and D. Pauly. 1992a. ECOPATH II - a software for balancing steady-state ecosystem models
and calculating network characteristics. Ecol. Modelling 61:169-185.
Christensen, V. and D. Pauly. 1992b. A guide to the ECOPATH II program (version 2.1). ICLARM Software 6, 72 p.
Christensen, V. and D. Pauly. 1993. Flow characteristics of aquatic ecosystems, p. 338-352. In V. Christensen
and D. Pauly (eds.) Trophic models of aquatic ecosystems. ICLARM Conference Proceedings No. 26.
Christensen, V. and D. Pauly. 1995. Fish production, catches and the carrying capacity of the world oceans.
Naga, The ICLARM Quarterly 18(3):34-40.
Christensen, V. and Pauly, D. 1998. Changes in models of aquatic ecosystems approaching carrying capacity.
Ecological Applications, 8(1), (Suppl): 104-109.
Christiansen, V., C. J. Walters, and D. Pauly, 2000. ECOPATH with ECOSIM: A User’s Guide, October 2000,
Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada and International Center for Living
Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM), Penang, Malaysia. 125p.
Finn, J. T., 1976. Measures of ecosystem structure and function derived from analysis of flows. J. Theor. Biol.
56: 363-380.
Frid CLJ, Hansson S, Ragnarsson SA, Rijnsdorp A, and SA. Steingrimsson. 1999b. Changing levels of predation
on benthos as a result of exploitation of fish populations. Ambio 28: 578 -582.
Hall, S. J. 1999a. The effects of fishing on marine ecosystem and communities. Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Hall, S.J. 1999b. Managing fisheries within ecosystems: can the role of reference points be expanded?
Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 9. 579-583.
Hall, S. J. and B. Mainprize. 2004. Towards ecosystem-based fisheries management Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Fish and Fisheries, 5, 1-20.
Hannon, B. and C. Joiris. 1989. A seasonal analysis of the southern North Sea ecosystem. Ecology 70(6):1916-
1934.
Hannon, B., 1973. The structure of ecosystems. J. Theor. Biol. 41:535-546.
Hurlbert, S. H. 1978. The measurement of niche overlap and some relatives. Ecology 59:67-77.
ICES. 1998. Report of the Working Group on the Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activities ICES, Copenhagen,
ICES CM 1998/ACFM/ACME: 01 Ref.: E, 263pp.
ICES 2000. Ecosystem effects of fishing. In: ICES Marine Science Symposia. 210. ICES Journal of Marine
Science 57, 791.
Ivlev, V. S. 1961. Experimental ecology of the feeding of fishes (Transl. by D. Scott). Yale University Press,
New Haven, 302 p.
Kavanagh, P. 2002. Automated Mass Balance Procedure for ECOPATH Ecosystem Models User’s Guide.
Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia. 28p.
Kline, T. C. Jr, and D. Pauly. 1998. Cross-validation of trophic level estimates from a mass-balance model of
Prince William Sound using 15N/14N data. In Fishery Stock Assessment models, pp.693-702. Ed. by
T.J. Quinn II, F. Funk. J. Heifetz, J. N. Ianelli, J. E. Powers, J. F. Schweigert, P. J. Sullivan, and C.I. Zhang.
Alaska Sea Grant, Fairbanks
Laevastu, T., and F. Favorite. 1977. Preliminary report on the dynamical marine ecosystem model (DYNUMES)
for Eastern Bering Sea. Manuscript Report, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest and Alaska
Fisheries Center, Seattle.
Leontief, W.W., 1951. The structure of the U. S. economy, 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, New York.
Lindeman, R. L. 1942. The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology. Ecology 23: 399-418.
Loman, J. 1986. Use of overlap indices as competition coefficients: tests with field data. Ecol. Modelling,
34:231-243.
Majkowski, J. 1982. Usefulness and applicability of sensitivity analysis in a multispecies approach to fisheries
management, p. 149-165. In D. Pauly and G.I. Murphy (eds.) Theory and management of tropical
fisheries. ICLARM Conf. Proc. 9. 141p.
Manickchand-Heileman, S., F. Arreguin-Sanchez, A Lara-Dominguez and L. A. Soto. 1998. Energy flow and
network analysis of Terminos Lagoon, SW Gulf of Mexico. J. Fish. Biol. 58: 179-197.
Mendoza, J. J. 1993. A preliminary biomass budget for the northeastern Venezuela shelf ecosystem, p.
285-297. In: V. Christensen and D. Pauly (eds) Trophic models of aquatic ecosystems. ICLARM Conf.
Proc. 26, 390p.
Mohamed K. S., Zacharia P. U., Muthiah C., Abdurahiman K. P. & Naik T. H., (2008) A trophic model of the
Arabian Sea ecosystem off Karnataka and simulation of fishery yields for its multigear marine fisheries,
Bull. Cent. Mar. Fish. Res. Inst. 51: 140p.
Mohamed, K. S. and P. U. Zacharia. (2009). Prediction and modelling of marine fishery yields from the
Arabian Sea off Karnataka using Ecosim. Indian J. Mar. Sci. 38 (1): 69-76.
Nee, S. 1990. Community construction. Trends Ecol. Evol. 5(10):337-339.
NRC 1999. Sustaining marine fisheries. National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington,
D. C. 164pp
Odum, E. P. 1969. The strategy of ecosystem development. Science 104:262-270.
Odum, W. E. and E. J. Heald. 1975. The detritus-based food web of an estuarine mangrove community, p.
265-286. In L. E. Cronin (ed.) Estuarine research, Vol. 1. Academic Press, New York.
Pauly, D. 1996. One hundred million tonnes of fish, and fisheries research. Fisheries Research, 25(1): 25-38.
Pauly, D. and V. Christensen. 1995. Primary production required to sustain global fisheries. Nature 374:
255-257.
Pauly, D., M. Soriano-Bartz and M. L. Palomares. 1993. Improved construction, parametrization and
interpretation of steady-state ecosystem models. p. 1-13, In V. Christensen and D. Pauly (eds.) Trophic
models of aquatic ecosystems. ICLARM Conference Proceedings No. 26.
Pauly, D., V. Christensen and V. Sambilay. 1990. Some features of fish food consumption estimates used by
ecosystem modellers. ICES Counc. Meet. 1990/G:17, 8 p.
Pianka, E. R. 1973. The structure of lizard communities. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 4: 53-74.
Pimm, S. L. 1982. Food webs. Population and Community Biology Series. Chapman and Hall, London. 219pp.
Pinkas, L., M. S. Oliphant and I. L. K. Iverson. 1971. Food habits of albacore, bluefin tuna and bonito in
California waters. Calif. Fish Game 152: 1-105.
Pitcher, T. J. 1998. Back to the future: a novel methodology and policy goal in fisheries. In Back to the future:
Reconstructing the Strait of Georgia Ecosystem, pp. 4-7. Ed. by D.Pauly, T.J. Pitcher, and D. Preikshot.
Fisheries Center Research Reports, 6(5).
Pitcher, T. J., Courtney, A., Watson. R. and D. Pauly. 1998. Assessment of Hong Kong’s inshore fishery resources.
Fisheries Centre Reports, Vancouver. 6(1), 149pp
Pitcher, T. J., Watson, R., Haggan, N., Guenette, S. Kennish, R., and Sumaila, R. 2000. Marine Reserves and
the Restoration of Fisheries and Marien Ecosystems in the South China Sea. Proc. Mote Symposium on
Marine Protected Areas, Sarasota Springs, Florida. November 1998. Bulletin of Marine Scienes, 66(3):
Polovina, J. J. 1984a. Model of a coral reef ecosystems I. The ECOPATH model and its application to French
Frigate Shoals. Coral Reefs 3(1):1-11.
Polovina, J. J. 1984b. An overview of the ECOPATH model. Fishbyte 2(2):5-7.
Qasim, S. Z., 1972. The dynamics of food and feeding habits of some marine fishes. Indian J. Fish., 19 (1&
2): 11-28.
Rigler, F. H. 1975. The concept of energy flows and nutrient flows between trophic levels. In Unifying
Concepts in Ecology, pp.15-26. Ed. by W. H. van Dobben, and R. H. Lowe-McConnel. Dr. W. Junk B. V.
Publishers, The Hague.
Ryther, J. 1969. Photosynthesis and fish production in the sea. Science, 166: 72-76.
Slobotkin, L. B. 1972. Growth and Regulation of Animal Populations. Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, New
York. 184pp.
Sukumaran, K. K., V. D. Deshmukh, G. S. Rao, K. Alagaraja and T. V. Sathianandan 1993. Stock assessment of
the penaeid prawn Metapenaeus monoceros Fabricius along the Indian coast. Indian J. Fish. 40: 20-34.
Tasker M. L., P. A. Knapman and D. Laffoley .2000.Effects of fishing on non-target species and habitats:
identifying key nature conservation issues. In: Effects of Fishing on Non-target Species and Habitats,
Kaiser M. J., de Groot S. J. (eds). Blackwell Scientific Publishers: Oxford; 281 -289.
Trites, A. W., Christensen, V. & D. Pauly. 1997. Competition between fisheries and marine mammals for prey
and primary production in the Pacific Ocean. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science 22, 173–187.
Trites, A. W., Livingston, P. A., Vasconcellos, M. C., Mackinson, S., Springer, A., and D. Pauly.1999a. Ecosystem
consideration and the limitations of Ecosim models in fisheries management: insights from the Bering
Sea. In Ecosystem Approaches for Fisheries Management, pp. 609-618. Ed. by S. Keller. University of
Alaska Sea Grant, Fairbanks.
Trites, A. W., P. A. Livingston, S. Mackinson, M. C. Vasconcellos, A. M. Springer and D. Pauly. 1999b. Ecosystem
change and the decline of marine mammals in the eastern Bering Sea: testing the ecosystem shift and
commercial whaling hypothesis. Fisheries Centre Research Reports. Vol 7: 98p.
Ulanowicz, R. E. 1986. Growth and development: ecosystem phenomenology. Springer Verlag, New York.
203p.
Ulanowicz, R. E. 1995. The part-whole relation in ecosystems. p. 549-560. In B.C. Patten and S.E. Jørgensen
(eds.) Complex ecology. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Ulanowicz, R. E. and C. J. Puccia. 1990. Mixed trophic impacts in ecosystems. Coenoses 5:7-16.
Ulanowicz, R. E. and J. S. Norden. 1990. Symmetrical overhead in flow and networks. Int. J. Systems Sci.
21(2): 429-437.
Vitousek, P. M., P. R. Ehrlich, A. H. Ehrlich, and P. A. Matson. 1986. Human appropriation of the products of
photosynthesis. BioScience, 36:368-373.
Walters, C. J., V. Christensen and D. Pauly. 1997. Structuring dynamic models of exploited ecosystems from
trophic mass-balance assessments. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 7, 139-172.
Walters, C. 2000. Impacts of dispersal, ecological interactions, and fishing effort dynamics on efficacy of
marine protected areas: how large should protected areas be? Proc. Mote Symposium on Marine
Protected Areas, Sarasota Springs, Florida, November 1998. Bulletin of Marine Science 66 (3):
Wulff, F. and Ulanowicz, R. E., 1989. A comparative anatomy of the Baltic Sea and Chesapeake Bay ecosystems,
p. 232-256. In F. Wulff, J.G. Field and K. H. Mann (eds.) Network analysis in marine ecology - methods
and applications. Coastal and Estuarine Studies, Vol. 32. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Technical measures in fisheries management
TECHNICAL MEASURES IN FISHERIES

MANAGEMENT
36
T. V. Sathianandan and K. Sunilkumar Mohamed
Fishery Resources Assessment Division & Molluscan Fisheries Division
Restrictions on size of fish that are caught are used as one of a number of measures
considered for the sustainable management of fish stocks all over the world. The simple
logic behind this conservation
principle is to provide chance to
the younger ones to grow, mature
and reproduce at least once and
contribute to the population before
they are taken away in the catch. In
many countries, there are legally
implemented size (or length) limits
for different species in the catch in
the fishery including recreational
fishing. Such size limits are arrived
based on scientific research
about the species especially its
reproductive features. Though in
most cases size restrictions are
for the minimum size, there are
restrictions on maximum size in
some species were larger individuals
contribute more to the population growth (example: Asian seabass younger ones are males
and become females and spawn when they grow larger).
In aquaculture the ultimate aim is to produce as many fish as possible in the shortest possible
time which could be achieved through increased growth rate. an increased growth rate most
probably will be accompanied by a subsequent decrease in age and size at sexual maturity.
Since it is not economical to rear the species beyond sexual maturity, size at maturity is
important for aquaculture also.
Information on size and reproductive behaviour of the species are necessary for a
management regime to ensure that sufficient number of juveniles reach maturity and
contribute to the growth of the population. An individual in a population is said to be fit
when it survives to sexual maturity and contribute to the gene pool of the population and
collectively, those surviving individuals determine the survival of the population. Thus it is
very important to study about the reproductive biology of the fish for better understanding
and management of an exploited ecosystem. As the reproductive behaviour vary highly
from species to species
Some of the key measurements used for size regulation in fish include size at first maturity
or size at which 50% of fish are mature (L50) and minimum size at maturity or size of the
smallest mature fish. Proper estimation of these size measurements is very useful for fish
stock management. Different methods have been proposed to estimate L50 and other
measures of maturity size. According to a very useful study, each individual fish should be
identified as reproductive or non reproductive. Although diverse methods are available for
assessment of L50, most of the researchers apply some kind of logistic functions.
Thus restrictions on size of the animals that are caught is extensively used as one of the
different means necessary for conservation of fish stocks. Accurate estimates of female
age or length at maturity are thus critical for conservation of exploited fishery resources.
Information on age and length at maturity based on histological evaluation of maturity
status is therefore needed for different species. Fishery biologists prefer to conceive size at
first maturity as the average size at which 50% of the individuals are mature. Size at 50%
maturity (L50%) is commonly evaluated for wild populations as a biological reference point.
To estimate (L50%), a sample of organisms known to have just reached sexual maturity could
be made available and their arithmetic mean size can be used as an estimator. One accepted
method of estimating the size at first maturity is by sampling the mature animals from the
population following a suitable sampling design. But the sample needed to obtain such a
design based estimator (Sampling Design) for wild populations might be too expensive and
would involve time-consuming histological procedures. With this conception, the estimator
is usually not based on a sampling design but on a statistical model of the relation between
body size and the number of individuals that are mature from a total number at each of
many size intervals.
The most preferred model is the Logistic regression model to fit sigmoid curves to the
proportion mature by length. The mathematical expression for a logistic regression model is
Here p(x) is the probability that a fish is mature in a given length x. The parameters in the
model b0 and b1 determine the shape and location of the sigmoid curve. Once estimates
of the parameters of the model are available we can workout the length corresponding to
any required proportion (size of the animal for which a given percentage of the animals will
be mature) using the expression (except for 0 and 100%)
where b̂0 and b̂1 are the estimates of the parameters in the logistic regression model.
Logistic regression model parameters can be estimated by adopting different statistical
procedures. One method is through regression analysis after linearising the model by log
transformation as shown below where p is the proportion mature having length x in the
observed data.
The above method create estimation problems when the observed data have samples with
proportions 0, 0.5 and 1.0 as the left hand side of the above equation become indeterminate
or not defined for these cases. Some authors have suggested some adjustments in the
observed data to handle this situation. A well accepted method is to use the statistically
popular method of maximum likely hood which requires specific statistical softwares. Another
alternative is to use Bayesian estimation for the logistic regression model which is explained
here using the OpenBUGS computer software.
Bayesian methods are widely used in fisheries for stock assessment to obtain posterior
probability densities of parameters of interest. Two important advantages of Bayesian
inference are i) it provides estimates of posterior probability densities of unknown parameters
of the model rather than the usual point estimates (ii) prior knowledge about the model
parameters can be incorporated into the estimation process.
OpenBUGS is an open source version of WinBUGS, a statistical software for Bayesian analysis
using Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC), which is downloadable from www.openbugs.net.
It is the windows version of the original DOS version BUGS (Bayesian inference Using Gibbs
Sampling) software developed by MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, and Imperial College
School of Medicine, London in 1989.
Practical Example
The source of data used for demonstration of Bayesian estimation using OpenBUGS is from
the following publication accessed on line:
INFORMATION REPORTS NUMBER 2009-04, “Length and age at maturity of female yelloweye
rockfish (Sebastes rubberimus) and cabezon (Scorpaenichthys marmoratus) from Oregon
waters based on histological evaluation of maturity” by Robert W. Hannah, Matthew T. O.
Blume and Josie E. Thompson, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Marine Resources
Program, 2040 Southeast Marine Science Drive, Newport, Oregon 97365, U.S.A
Number of female yelloweye rockfish sampled, number and proportion mature, by length (cm)
Length Observed Number Proportion Length Observed Number
Number Matured Number Matured Proportion
31 1 0 0.00 51 3 3 1.00
32 4 0 0.00 52 5 5 1.00
33 2 0 0.00 53 5 5 1.00
34 3 0 0.00 54 2 2 1.00
35 2 0 0.00 55 0 0
36 4 2 0.50 56 1 1 1.00
37 5 2 0.40 57 4 4 1.00
38 4 1 0.25 58 2 2 1.00
39 4 2 0.50 59 0 0
40 5 2 0.40 60 3 3 1.00
41 7 6 0.86 61 2 2 1.00
42 7 6 0.86 62 1 1 1.00
43 6 6 1.00 63 0 0
44 8 7 0.88 64 1 1 1.00
45 5 5 1.00 65 2 2 1.00
46 19 19 1.00 66 0 0
47 9 8 0.89 67 1 1 1.00
48 9 9 1.00 68 1 1 1.00
49 7 6 0.86 69 0 0
50 3 3 1.00 70 1 1 1.00
OpenBUGS code for the logistic model

Download the OpenBUGS software (Version 3.0.3 or higher) from the website
“http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/bugs” and install it on a computer system. Start the software
and proceed with the following steps.
1. Open a new OpenBUGS page by choosing ‘New’ from the File Menu and copy the given
code into the blank page (the portion from ‘model’ to the last line starting with ‘list’.
2. Replace the input sample data portion (do not disturb the structure) with the original
data where the x portion is for the lengths of samples, n portion is for the number of
samples of each length observed and r is the numbers that are mature corresponding
to each sample.
3. From the Model menu open
the specification tool
4. Double click on the word
“model” in the open page
containing the code to select
it and click on the check model
button in the specification tool
box. At the bottom left corner
of the open page “model is
syntactically correct” message
should appear.
5. Double click on the word ‘list’
in the data portion of the open
page to select it and click on
the load data button in the
specification tool box. At the
bottom left corner of the open
page “data loaded” message
should appear.
6. Click on the compile button in
the specification tool box. At
the bottom left corner of the
open page “model compiled”
message should appear.
7. Double click on the word ‘list’ in the initialization portion of the open page (last line)
and click on the load inits button in the specification tool box. At the bottom left corner
of the open page “model is initialized” message should appear.
8. Now close the specification tool box.
9. Open the sample monitor tool box from the inference menu. Type the parameter names
(b0, b1,b0.star,rhat) one at a time in the box against node and press the set button.
Repeat it with other parameter names and close the sample monitor tool box once
finished.
10. Open the update tool box from model menu. Replace the number in the update box with
your choice number of updates (say, 100000 or more for good results) and click on the
update button. The MCMC algorithm starts and the number of updates completed will
be displayed in the iteration box. Close the update tool box one the iteration/updating
is complete.
11. Open the sample monitor tool box from the inference menu again. Select the parameter
name by clicking on the down arrow against the node (* for all set parameters) and click
on the respective buttons to get information about the MCMC results. The important
items are
Name on the Button Purpose
History Graphical display of iteration history

Density Graphical display of the probability density
Stat Summary of statistics estimated
Here, for each parameter, the estimation history
and posterior probability density plot should
be examined before accepting the estimates
displayed when ‘stat’ button is pressed. The
history plot should be oscillating steadily in an
acceptable range and the density plot should
be smooth. For the sample data, the history
plots, posterior probability density plots and
summary statistics for the two parameters in
the model obtained with 5,00,000 updations,
omitting the initial 1,00,000 are given below.
The Bayesian estimates of the parameters of
the logistic regression model for the sample
data are and bˆ1 = 0.4595 and

the plot of the observed proportions and the
fitted sigmoid curve are given below. From the
fitted model, the estimates of L25, L50 and L75
(lengths corresponding to 25%, 50% and 75%
are mature) for the species are 36.4cm, 38.8cm
and 41.2cm respectively.
Responsible fisheries - a prelude to the concept, context and praxis
RESPONSIBLE FISHERIES - A PRELUDE TO

THE CONCEPT, CONTEXT AND PRAXIS
37
Ramachandran C., Vipinkumar V. P. and Shinoj Parappurathu
The concept of Responsible Fisheries is synonymous with the FAO Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries (CCRF). CCRF is an international instrument for fisheries management
which was developed and released by Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) functioning
under the United Nations on 31 OCTOBER 1995 after a series of international deliberations that
began in 1992. More than 160 countries, including India are signatories to this international
instrument which is considered as a landmark document symbolizing the international
consensus achieved on the necessity for providing guidelines to ensure sustainable utilization
of fisheries resources of the world. The most salient feature of this global instrument is its
voluntary nature. The Code is often referred to as the Bible of Fisheries Management.
Why the Code ?
The term “Responsible Fisheries’ may evoke a doubt whether we have been irresponsible in
the way we have been developing or managing our fisheries resources. In fact such a doubt
is the stepping stone to understand the concept of Responsible Fisheries.
In common parlance the term “responsibility” is immediately read with the notions of rights
or ownership. We tend to have a better sense of responsibility to things we own. Thus, we
feel responsible in taking care of our properties or assets like land or house or vehicle.
The lesser the sense of our ownership lesser will be our sense of responsibility. Thus we
feel less responsible for the affairs of our ecosystem or political system because we deem
them as owned by all. A property belonging to everyone tends to be no body’s property
though nobody is excluded from its utilization. This is an important point because in the
case of fisheries what we are talking about is a Common Property. Or more correctly an
Open access resource. An important question here is “Who actually owns the fish or who
actually owns the sea? The de jure owner of the fisheries is the State or the government.
But by all practical sense the fish, once caught by the fisher, becomes his or her property. If
so, what about his or her sense of responsibility to ensure its conservation? It may sound a
bit puzzling. That is why the Code makes it very clear in the very first article which is given
under the general principles of the Code.

“States and users of living aquatic resources should conserve aquatic eco systems. The right
to fish carries with it the obligation to do so in a responsible manner so as to ensure effective
conservation and management of the living aquatic resources. “(Article 6.1).
What is in principle a property of every one, becomes the property of none in practice. This is
the most fundamental challenge in scientific fisheries management. There is a notion that if a
sense of ownership is assured, the likelihood of it being taken care of in a responsible manner
is more. There are people who argue that it is a misplaced notion. The above-mentioned
article of the Code, in fact, is a preemptive answer to this common misunderstanding.
It is for the same reason that, of the more than 230 clauses in the Code classified under 12
articles, a large number vest the responsibility with the State. This, in a way also, helps to
clear the doubts regarding the real meaning of implementing the Code.
Another doubt could be on the real meaning of the voluntary nature of the Code. Being
a voluntary instrument the question could be, “Is it something like a “barking dog that
seldom bites”? The code answers this question in its fundamental philosophy called the
Precautionary Approach, which is enshrined in Article 7.5.1.
“The absence of adequate scientific information should not be used as a reason for postponing
or failing to take conservation and management measures.”
In simple words what it means is “Better safe than sorry”. It also has a deeper meaning
which implies that when a person is given the license or permission or right to fish, what
is being transferred is part of the stewardship obligation of the State. One needs to clearly
understand this because, when individuals operate in a common property with the sole
objective of making profitable livelihoods, the sustainable utilization of such a resource
becomes an impossible task in the absence of mutually respected and endorsed regulations.
The precautionary principle is further elaborated under the Foundations of the Code below.
Being a global guideline there is much practical sense for keeping it as a voluntary
instrument too. Each nation can contextualize the code in sync with its own local realities
and requirements at the same time respecting the globally agreed principles and norms.
However there are scholars who argue for making the CCRF as a binding instrument given
the sorry state of fisheries governance in most parts of the world.
Foundations of the Code
That the sustainability of marine capture fisheries at the current level of harvesting is at
stake is no longer a moot point. It is being realized that fisheries anywhere in the world is
more a socioeconomic process with biological constraints than anything else. The open
access nature of the resource coupled with unregulated penetration of advanced, but not
necessarily eco-friendly, harvesting technologies (a phenomenon called technological creep)
has enacted a virtual “tragedy of the commons” in our seas. Making the issue still more
complex, especially in the context of the Millennium Development Goals, is the rampant
poverty existing among our fisher folk though the capture fisheries makes significant foreign
exchange contribution in our country. The plateauing of the resource as revealed by recent
trends in landings doesn’t augur well for the ecologic and economic sustainability of the
marine fisheries sector.
If there are no technological magical bullets for the current impasse what is the way out?
This is precisely the question the FAO code is trying to answer. “The right to fish carries along
with it an obligation to do it responsibly” is the cardinal principle of the code. This principle
is built on the foundation of what is known as a Precautionary Approach. Precautionary
approach, which originally was proposed as Principle 15 of Agenda 21 the Rio Earth Summit
meeting in 1992, enunciates that
“where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall
not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental
degradation”.
While in simple terms the precautionary approach means “better safe than sorry”, it clearly
recognizes that changes in fisheries systems are only slowly reversible, difficult to control, not
well understood, and subject to changing environment and human values. As Restrepo et al
define in fisheries, the precautionary approach is about applying judicious and responsible
fisheries management practices, based on sound scientific research and analysis, proactively
(to avoid or reverse overexploitation) rather than reactively (once all doubt has been removed
and the resource is severely overexploited), to ensure the sustainability of fishery resources
and associated ecosystems for the benefit of future as well as current generations”.
It involves the application of prudent foresight. It is about applying judicious and responsible
fisheries management practices, based on sound scientific research and analysis proactively
rather than reactively to ensure the sustainability of fishery resources and associated
ecosystems for the benefit of future as well as current generations.
Taking account of the uncertainties in fisheries systems and the need to take action on
incomplete knowledge, it requires, inter alia:
a. consideration of the needs of future generations and avoidance of changes that are
not potentially reversible;
b. prior identification of undesirable outcomes and of measures that will avoid them or
correct them promptly;
c. that any necessary corrective measures are initiated without delay, and that they should
achieve their purpose promptly, on a timescale not exceeding two or three decades;
d. that where the likely impact of resource use is uncertain, priority should be given to
conserving the productive capacity of the resource;
e. that harvesting and processing capacity should be commensurate with estimated
sustainable levels of resource, and that increases in capacity should be further contained
when resource productivity is highly uncertain;
f. all fishing activities must have prior management authorization and be subject to
periodic review;
g. an established legal and institutional framework for fishery management, within which
management plans that implement the above points are instituted for each fishery, and
h. appropriate placement of the burden of proof by adhering to the requirements above.
The reversal of burden of proof means that those hoping to exploit our marine resources
must demonstrate that no ecologically significant long-term damage will result due to their
action. Or in other words human actions are assumed to be harmful unless proven otherwise.
Contents of the Code
The code provides a necessary framework for national and international efforts to ensure
sustainable exploitation of aquatic living resources in harmony with the environment. It is
achieved through 12 articles covering areas like
a) Nature and scope of the code (article 1)
b) Objectives of the code (article 2),
c) Relationship with other international instruments (article 3),
d) Implementation, monitoring and updating (article 4),
e) Special requirements of developing countries (article 5),
f) General principles (article 6),
g) Fisheries management (article 7),
h) Fishing operations (article 8),
i) Aquaculture development (article 9),
j) Integration of fisheries into coastal area management (article 10),
k) Post-harvest practices and trade (article 11), and
l) Fisheries research (article 12).
(The full text of the FAO CCRF (hereafter referred to as the Code) translated into Malayalam
was published by CMFRI in 2002 under an agreement with the FAO (Ramachandran, 2002).
Thus, Malayalam became the second language, after Tamil, to have a translated version of
the most important international fisheries management instrument. You can access it at
www.cmfri.org.in. The pdf of the English full text is supplied with the Winter school CD rom).
Characteristics of the Code

As we have seen, the most salient feature of the code is that it is voluntary in nature.
Unlike other international agreements like UN Agreement to Promote Compliance with
International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing vessels on the High Seas
or the Straddling Stock Agreement, 1995, it is not legally binding and violation of the code
cannot be challenged in a court of law.
It would be tempting to castigate it as an Achilles’ heel and thus the futility of the code. But
it should be remembered, “open access imbroglios’’ cannot be resolved through attempts
that fail to recognize altruistic spirit of the human actors. In a situation where “you and your
enemy belong to the same eco-system”, solutions must be found in managing relationships
of the actors that make or move the ecosystem. It doesn’t mean that the code is impractical
or ineffective. What it demands is to construe responsible fisheries management as a political
process rather than a technical process. This insight is a significant contribution of social
scientists studying natural resource management. (Wilson et al 2006)
A fundamental objective of the Code is “to serve as an instrument of reference to help
states to establish or to improve the legal and institutional framework required for the
exercise of responsible fisheries and in the formulation and implementation of appropriate
measures.” The policies of the state for managing the fisheries resources should be based
on the provisions of the code.
If world fisheries are to be sustainable in the long term, structural adjustment within the
fisheries sector is required. Although policy decisions in this regard must be made by
national governments, effective implementation of the code requires the participation
and cooperation of a wide range of stakeholders, including fishers, processors, NGOs and
consumers. Implementation of the code is primarily the responsibility of states. The code
will require regional and sectoral implementation in order to address the particular needs
of fisheries in different regions or sub-sectors.
Relevance of the Code in our context

Before analyzing the relevance of the code in our context it is necessary to have an inkling
of the historical context in which the code was developed.
The code was unanimously adopted on 31 October 1995 after lengthy deliberations and
negotiations spanning about four years. One of the major triggers for the idea behind the
code is the international concern over the serious decline noted in the global catch of marine
fish. The iconic cod fish of the Canadian waters collapsed in 1992. The famous Science
magazine at that time wrote in its editorial that “Fisheries is five per cent protein and 95%
politics”. It was realized that the command and control regime of fisheries management
banking mainly on scientific advice has come of age. Fisheries management was perceived
more as fisher management or managing the behavior of human beings rather than that
of the fish. No effective management was possible without the active participation of
stakeholders. It was this realization that led to the concept of responsible fisheries. It is worth
noting that the global production of marine fish after reaching a peak of 86.4 million tons
in 1996 from a mere 20 million tons of the 1950s started stagnating or even plummeting
down to 79.7 million ton in 2012.
The Lessons of the Code

In order to better understand the lessons we can garner from the code which is an
international instrument a comparative key word analysis of the Code with the instrument
we currently have namely the Marine Fisheries Regulation Acts of the maritime states in
India. (Kerala MFRA is considered for the analysis here). Also given is the famous Magnuson
–Stevenson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act 1976, 2007 of USA for a comparative
understanding.
Table 1. A comparative Key word analysis of three instruments
Key word FAO CCRF 1995 KMFRA 1980 MS Act 2007
Sustainability 5 0 8
Over fishing 0 0 45
Conservation 70 1 >200
Management 10 0 >200
Food security 4 0 0
Gender 0 0 0
Regulation 19 37 152
Research 46 0 64
Penalties 0 0 22
Mesh size 1 2 0
Over capacity 0 0 0
MSY 1 0 5
Fisherman 15 0 43
Justice 0 0 6
Discard 9 0 18
By catch 1 0 68
Participation 4 0 32
Fisheries development 0 0 1
Poverty 1 0 2
Conflicts 3 0 3
Rights 33 0 0
Safety 11 0 26
Ecosystem 27 0 13
Code of conduct NA 0 0
The table reveals certain interesting things. The greater importance given to Resource
Conservation both by the CCRF and the MS Act compared to KMFRA is indicative of the
nature of exploitation in our waters. Remember that the KMFRA was developed in 1980.
Today the situation has definitely changed given the declining trends we have witnessed in
recent times. Another key word to take note of is MSY. Maximum Sustainable Yield is the
most fundamental creed of fisheries stock assessment science. MS act of USA has given
much more importance to MSY indicating the extent to which scientific stock assessment has
influenced the fisheries management regime in that country. FAO CCRF has mentioned MSY
only once (Article 7.2). It indicates the lesser global applicability of MSY as a management
reference point. All the three instruments give importance to fisheries regulations. CCRF
obviously does not deal with penalties. But what is relevant here for us is the fact that out
of the 24 keywords used in this analysis only three keywords appear in KMFRA. They are
conservation, regulation and mesh size. (What are your impressions over this finding?). The
absence of these key words in our Act indicates that there is a need for reforming it taking
into cognizance the new ecologic and economic realities emerging in our fisheries sector.
Another interesting thing is the fact that the MS Act of USA is silent about the FAO CCRF.
But, in an international study published in Nature 2009, which assessed the extent to which
the FAO CCRF is being complied by different nations USA got second rank. Out of the 53
countries where the assessment was made India got 27 th position. The lesson we have to
draw from this study is the importance accorded by Nation States in adopting problem -based
management measures in ensuring sustainable utilization of their marine fisheries resources
and the kind of policy significance these countries bestow to the importance of sustainable
fisheries in the economy of those nations. It is worth noting that all of the 10 highly ranked
countries belong to temperate regions of the world. The issues like overfishing are more
visible in these countries and hence there is no wonder that these countries are ahead of
other nations in adopting conservation oriented- fisheries management and regulations in
their waters. In this context a question may creep in our minds. Should we also follow these
nations where overfishing has become a reality? Can we continue our business as usual
attitude in the absence of fisheries collapses or severe decline in our resources? It indeed
is a challenging poser.
It is here that the science of fisheries management and the knowledge base we have
accumulated so far regarding the status of our marine resources become relevant.
There are only two fundamental questions in fisheries management anywhere in the world.
i) “How much fish we can safely catch?”
ii) “How much is the fish available?”
These questions are very simple. But answers are not so simple to come. That is precisely
the reason why Precautionary approach has become the driving philosophy of the global
thinking over sustainable or responsible fisheries. We should not fail to see the intellectual
humility enshrined in this approach. It is the deep ecological insight that in the face of the
excruciating uncertainty and ignorance attached to our fisheries management knowledge
base we need to respect the self rejuvenating capacity of the ecosystem. This realization is
the basic idea behind new approaches like Ecosystem based Fisheries Management. And of
course this demands new approaches in fisheries research and governance.
What is the Problem?
The most important problem a fishery faces is what is known as Over Fishing. It takes place
over time as the fishing is intensified. It is the stage where a stock of fish loses its capacity
to keep on providing the Maximum Sustainable Yield. It is at this stage that the fishery is at
the verge of an almost irredeemable loss, economically and biologically. MSY as a logic is
easy to understand. But as a quantitative reference point, MSY is a methodological challenge
especially in our multispecies tropical water scenario. This is still considered as the Holy
Grail in fisheries stock assessment science. Remember, this should not be construed as a
weakness of the scientist. It is the epistemological challenge the fisheries scientists all over
the world share, lament and endeavour to overcome.
MSY is like a Laxman Rekha. The most frightening aspect about this Laxman Rekha is that we
need to cross it to realize that we have trespassed it. Hence we can build our defense against
the specter of overfishing only on the basis of a stronger understanding and contextual
analysis of its symptoms.
Will our waters also witness collapses like that of the Canadian Cod? That such a tragedy has
not happened so far is not a guarantee that it will not happen here. But we have a better
sense of optimism thanks to the resilience of our marine ecosystem which is mainly due to
the rich bio diversity. However, we need to be concerned if recent events like pelagic fatigue
in Kerala are of any indication. The decline experienced by our fishers vouch for a serious
rethinking on our laid back attitude. Our fishers also share the veracity of different ways in
which symptoms of overfishing are being manifested. They are:
a) severe decline or total absence in those fish which used to be abundant,
b) decline in the size range of major species ,
c) excessive catch of juveniles,
d) increase in fishing time and distance,
e) frequent fluctuations in the total catch, and
f) changes in species composition.
Our Tool Box

There are five types of remedies for the disease called “over fishing”.
1. Based on the total catch of the fish ( yield or Output)
2. Based on fishing effort or input
3. Based on time or season ( temporal)
4. Based on space or depth ( spatial)
5. Based on technical things
A typical example of the first type of remedies is the Quota system of fisheries management
which is common in countries like EU, USA. This demands the assistance from a very precise
stock assessment science. These measures which are similar to rationing of the catch,
can be considered as the last ditch effort feasible in areas of lower species diversity that
makes determination of MSY much less cumbersome. The second type of measures aims
rationalizing the fleet size. Licensing based on an optimum fleet size is an example here. The
next type of measures based on time and space is well known to us through the Monsoon
Trawl Ban. Other examples are Marine sanctuaries, and no- fishing zones. Technical measures
include Mesh size regulations, and Minimum legal size.
For an overview of the status of the tool box (interpreted in a slightly different mode) in our
context given in the form of a table , see the annexure. The table is taken from a forthcoming
publication (Shinoj and Ramachandran 2017).
As long as a fishery remains a common property resource, a regulated fishery is more
profitable than an unregulated fishery in the long run. Our fishers have started accepting
this truism. But they are helpless to avoid competitive fishing due to two main reasons.
One is the increase in fuel cost. And the other is the high demand for fish which has led to
a situation where you are economically rewarded whatever be the catch. So fishers tend to
do indiscriminate fishing. This has resulted in an illusion of super abundance which again
drives more fishing effort. This is leading to a very dangerous situation. There are fishers (like
Mr Jossy Palliparambil, Munambam Kerala) who characterize this ugly scenario as a phase
of “Foolish Fishing”. It is high time each fisher take more care in analyzing the fluctuations
observed in the economics of their operations.
Challenges in the praxis

Sustainable Management of resources is no different from fisheries development. They are
no longer considered as dichotomous. There will be no fisheries development if there is
not enough fish in the sea. There won’t be enough fish in the sea, if human beings, both as
harvesters and consumers, do not act in a precautionary manner which is nothing but to
nurture a feeling of “better safe today than sorry tomorrow”. It means to understand clearly
the limits to which nature can be tapped. The requirements of both the present generation
and future generation are to be given equal importance. It is also about respecting the
co-evolutionary culture of a fisheries-resource dependent community. Thus Responsible
Fisheries management takes place at the dynamic interface between the behavior of man
and that of fish. So the knowledge base for responsible fisheries ought to be a convergence
of different disciplines like fisheries biology, socio-politics, ecology, economics, engineering,
law and communication. The aim of fisheries management is to ensure optimum utilization
of a common pool resource without jeopardising the inherent regenerative ability of the
resource leading to livelihood security of the dependent community.
Much has been said about rights-based fisheries, fisheries co-management and ecosystem-
based fisheries management with fisheries managers, policy-makers, scientist and researchers
racking their brains about the meaning of each of these fisheries management approaches.
In trying to find definitions and formulating “how-to” guidelines and handbooks on
such fisheries management approaches, their essential ingredient often is overlooked,
namely dialogue. Whether talking of co-management and partnerships between fisheries
stakeholders or of the adaptive nature of ecosystem-based fisheries management the
fundamental nature of any fisheries management effort is the communication process
among its various protagonists. Neither a partnership between fishing communities, fisheries
managers, researchers and other stakeholders, nor the merging of the development goals of
human well-being with that of ecological well-being through an ecosystem-based fisheries
management approach would be possible without free-flowing information among the
various partners in the management process.
These communication processes can take many different forms and can be designed
according to a diversity of purposes: (1) to meet specific fisheries management objectives,
needs and aspirations for the fisheries sector; and 2) to generate new information about local
fisheries systems through participatory (eg. catch-reporting) mechanisms. The experiences
from these activities should encourage fisheries managers, scientists, and fishing communities
to actively seek such dialogue and information exchange as a basis for improving fisheries
management on an ecosystem approach.
The efforts to engender a scientifically- informed fisheries management or governance
regime are always challenged by the inherent uncertainty that characterizes the epistemology
of fisheries science. The complexity of an otherwise resilient tropical marine ecosystem adds
fuel to the fire. And on the Human dimension we have a plethora of challenges despite
promising perspectives from Hardin to Ostrom.
It is here that we need to fully appreciate the multitude of challenges we face in a

precautionary and participatory framework. We have the instruments /tool box. But the
credo of responsible fisheries is yet to become part of the community ethos. What could be
the reasons and how we can overcome the barriers? As a concerned stakeholder each one
of us has a responsibility to be part of a collective process to not only decipher the answers
but also translate them into pragmatic ameliorative strategies.
The Code and CMFRI Initiatives
Our fisheries have undergone tremendous changes during the past six decades. Before the
advent of modernization, (motorization, mechanization, refrigeration, export orientation
and transportation) the access to sea was limited to a few skillful and adventurous people
who were by birth fishers. The community could afford to have self regulations oriented
towards resource conservation which were arrived through the ecological experience of the
community over generations. These concerns were institutionalized too. An example of such
an institution still, surprisingly, surviving in Kerala is the Kadakkody of the Malabar Coast
(Ramachandran, 2006). The self regulations and community regulations which were rooted
in the traditional wisdom have given way to technological skills. These skills, unleashed
by what we generally refer to as an era modernization, most often take a dehumanized
manifestation thus weakening the hold of the community. This is where the crucial role of
the State comes into play in the management as well as development of the fishery. This is
better known as fisheries governance.
Fisheries governance is dependent on the particular stage of economic development and
local ecological status of the fishery resources. This varies with each country. It is because of
this contextual nature that the Code has been made as a voluntary tool. Each government is
free to make its own rules, regulations and strategies based on the guidelines and principles
elaborated in the Code. Thus article 4.3 says “FAO through its competent bodies, may revise
the code, taking into account developments in fisheries as well as reports to COFI on the
implementation of the Code. (But in recent times an argument against this position has
also emerged).
It is in this context that the actions and initiatives being taken by CMFRI, mainly through an
NATP funded research project titled “Designing and validation of communication strategies
for responsible fisheries –a co-learning approach” become relevant. A Responsible Fisheries
Extension Module (RFEM), which consists of 13 tools including a Malayalam translation of
the code, animation films in all maritime languages etc. developed have been widely used
to create awareness among the fisherfolk. A state-wide campaign on Responsible Fisheries
was launched and the RFEM was released for further scaling up by the respective State
Fisheries Departments. These mass communication tools have the potential to reach almost 85
% of the fisher folk and other stakeholders in the country. It is reasonable to conclude that CMFRI
has made a pioneering initiative in the cause of popularization of the concept of Responsible
Fisheries in India (Ramachandran, 2004)
Though the voluntary nature of the code has been necessary in garnering the all-nation
agreement when it was drafted in the early 1990s, our attitudes to the oceans have changed
since then (Pitcher et al., 2009). There is now widespread scientific consensus on the ecological
impacts of continued over-fishing and the threats to seafood security and broad agreement
on policy issues such as curtailing illegal catches and minimizing the impacts of fishing on
marine ecosystems. The basic requirement for adoption of Ecosystem Approach is a dynamic
knowledge base on stock assessment. The stock assessment knowledge base generated and
continuously maintained by CMFRI is a unique achievement among the developing tropical
context countries. But the utility of this Knowledge base in translating into management praxis
is less appreciated. There still exists a communication divide between the research system and
the fisheries management system in the country.
Though the communication tools and strategies already developed by the institute have been
useful in creating awareness on the need for sustainable /responsible fisheries there is a need
to develop and scale up specific communication interventions to sensitize the stakeholders in
making a transition towards ecosystem based approaches that ensure responsible management
of our waters. Fisheries management is fisher management and participatory approaches
informed/initiated by a proactive research system taking place in a democratic and decentralized
civil society space is globally accepted as the key to Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management. The
future is decided by the capacity we build today amongst the different stakeholders responsible
for sustainably utilizing the marine fisheries resources of our country. It is with this objective
that we are continuing the efforts in this line through innovative research projects in Capacity
Development for compliance to Ecosystem Based Responsible Fisheries Management in India
through Co-Learning and Multi-disciplinary action research under the leadership of Extension
scientists in CMFRI.
Pathways before us
Taking into consideration the inherent epistemological limitations of the Fisheries science, it
is essential to make a transition towards more participatory efforts fisheries governance and
research. There cannot be any management without measurement. What our fishers lack is
the big picture on the status of our fisheries resources. The science has the tools to draw this
picture. But its precision depends on the accuracy of the data on landings. We badly need a
National Marine Fisheries Data Acquisition Plan. The active and informed participation of fishers
in providing the catch data needs to be encouraged through proper incentive mechanisms.
Engendering a scientifically informed fisheries management governance system is the

need of the hour. As recent events like the Kochi Initiative (Ramachandran and Mohamed
2015) is of any indication, formation of multi stakeholder platforms of responsible fisheries
co-governance is not an impossible task in our context. The response of the State in
facilitating this transition is essential. With the landmark promulgation of insisting Minimum
Legal Size for 55 species of fish by the Government of Kerala (GoK,2017) done based on
the recommendation of CMFRI ( Mohamed et al 2014), the State of Kerala has shown an
instance of proactive engagement with responsible fisheries governance which is worthy
of emulation by other maritime states. It is ,however, worth remembering that regulatory
measures like MLS would become impotent in the absence of strong arm efforts to eliminate
( or at least rationalize) external drivers like demand for the juveniles either for reduction or
consumption. As scholars of regulatory politics argue, legislative coercion though necessary
cannot be open to tendencies for inefficient rent seeking in a public good.
Annexure
Table 2. Capture fisheries regulatory framework in maritime states of India
Maritime Access Temporal Spatial Input/ Output/ Legislation/s
State controls controls controls effort-based catch- in force
based
Gujarat Registration Seasonal Artisanal: Square mesh of The Gujarat
and licensing fishing up to 9 km; minimum 40 mm Fisheries Act,
of fishing ban (Jun Mechanized: size at cod end 2003.
vessels. 1 – July 31, beyond need to be used
61 days) 9 km. for trawl net; Gillnet
with mesh size less
than 150 mm cannot
be operated.
Maharashtra Registration Seasonal Mechanized Use of purse-seine Maharashtra
and licensing fishing (trawl net) : gears by Marine
of fishing (Jun 1 – beyond 5-10 mechanized vessels Fisheries
vessels. July 31, fathom depth at specified Regulation
61 days); in specified coastal zones Act, 1981
Mechanized areas; prohibited within (Amended
vessels with Mechanized territorial waters. - in 2015)
trawl net (any type with
prohibited more than 6
between cylinder
6 pm and engines):
6 am. beyond
22 km.

based
Goa, Registration Seasonal Artisanal: up Mesh-size limits of - The Goa,
Daman & and licensing fishing ban to 5 km; 20 mm for prawn Daman and
Diu of fishing (Jun 1 – Mechanized: and 24 mm for Diu Marine
vessels. July 31, beyond 5 km. fish. Fishing
61 days) Regulation Act,
1982
(Amended
in 1989)
Karnataka Registration Seasonal Artisanal: Ban of cuttle fish - The Karnataka

and licensing fishing ban up to 6 km fishery using FADs. Marine Fishing
of fishing (Jun 1 to or up to 4 Regulation
vessels. July 31-61 fathoms Act, 1986.
days) (whichever
is farther);
Deep sea
vessels (up
to 50 feet
length):
beyond 6 km
Deep sea
vessels (>50
feet length):
beyond 22 km.
Kerala Registration Seasonal Artisanal: Mesh-size Minimum The Kerala

and licensing fishing ban 32-40 m regulations: code legal size Marine Fishing
of fishing (Jun 15- depth in the end minimum for 14 fish Regulation Act,
vessels. July 31, first zone2 mesh size of bottom and shell- 1980
47 days) 1 and 16-20 m trawl net-35 mm; fish (Amended
depth in the ring seine and species in 2013).
second zone; driftnet minimum notified
Mechanized mesh size – 20mm. to control
vessels (< 25 juvenile
GRT): 40-70 m fishing.
depth in the
first zone and
20-40 m
depth in the
second zone;
Mechanized

based
(> 25 GRT):
beyond 70 m
depth in first
and beyond
40 m depth in
second zone.
Tamil Nadu Registration Seasonal Artisanal: up No fishing gear of - Tamil Nadu

and licensing fishing ban to 5 km. 100 mm mesh from Marine Fishing
of fishing April 15 to Mechanized: knot to knot in Regulation
vessels. June 14, beyond 5 km; respect of net other Act, 1983
61 days) Fishing within than trawl net to (Amended in
100 m below be used; Pair trawling 1995; 2000;
a river mouth and purse seining 2011; 2016).
is prohibited; are prohibited.
The number
of mechanized
fishing vessels
permitted in
any specified
area subject
to restrictions.
Andhra Registration Seasonal Artisanal: A minimum 15 mm - The Andhra

Pradesh and licensing fishing ban up to 10 km; limit for mesh-size Pradesh
of fishing (April 15 Mechanized for any gear; Shrimp Marine Fishing
vessels. to June 14, (< 15 m OAL): trawlers not allowed (Regulation)
61 days) 10-23 km; without turtle- Act, 1995
Mechanized exclusion device (Amended in
(< 15 m OAL): (TED). 2005).
beyond 23 km.
Odisha Registration Seasonal Artisanal: The Orissa

and licensing fishing ban up to 5 km; Marine Fishing
of fishing (April 15 Mechanized Regulation
vessels. to June 14, (<15 OAL): Act, 1981
61 days) 5-10; (Amended
Mechanized in 2006).
(>15 OAL):
beyond 10 km.

based
West Bengal Registration Seasonal Artisanal & Mesh size - The West
and licensing fishing ban mechanized regulations for Bengal
of fishing (April 15 crafts with specific gears: Marine
vessels. to June 14, < 30 HP minimum 25 mm Fisheries
61 days) engine: up to for gillnet/shore Regulation
18 km; seine/drag net; Act, 1993.
Mechanized 37 mm for bag
crafts with net/dol net; Trawl
>30 HP net of standard
engine: mesh-size fitted
beyond 18 km. with TED to be used.
Andaman Registration Seasonal Artisanal & Trawl nets of standard - The Andaman
& Nicobar and licensing fishing ban mechanized mesh size fitted with and Nicobar
islands of fishing (April 15 – crafts with TED alone are Islands Marine
vessels. June 14, <30 HP engine: permitted; Gillnets, Fisheries
61 days) up to 6 nm; shore seines and Regulation
Mechanized dragnets with mesh Act, 2003
crafts with >30 sizes above 25 mm (Amended in
HP engine: only are permitted. 2011).
beyond 6 nm.
Lakshadweep Registration Seasonal Use of purse seine, - Lakshadweep

and licensing fishing ban ring seine, pelagic, Marine Fishing
of fishing Seasonal mid water and Regulation
vessels. fishing ban bottom trawl of Act, 2000.
(Jun 1- July less than 20 mm
31, 61 days) mesh size, use
of drift gill net of
less than 50 mm
mesh size and
shore seine of
less than 20 mm
mesh size are
prohibited in
specified areas.
1
While all other maritime states and UTs agreed to extending the ban to 61 days in conformity with the directive of the
Union Government issued in May, 2015, Kerala continues to stick on to its earlier ban period for 47 days.
2
The area from shore up to 32m depth in the sea along the coast from Kollencode in the south to Paravoor (Pozhikkara),
a length of 78 km, is called the First Zone; The area up to 16 m depth in the sea along the coast line from Paravoor in
the south to Manjeswar in the north for a length of 512 km is called the Second Zone.
Suggested Reading
FAO. 1995. Code of conduct for responsible fisheries. FAO Rome Government of Kerala 2017. Kerala gazette
extraordinary GO(P) No 11/2017/F&PD dated 17 May 2017
Mohamed K. S. et al, 2014. Minimum Legal Size (MLS) of capture to avoid growth overfishing of commercially
exploited fish and shellfish species of Kerala Mar.Fish.Infor.T&E Ser (220):3-7
Pitcher, T. et al. 2009. Not honouring the Code, Nature 457:658-9
Ramachandran C. 2002. Utharavadithvapara Matsyabandhana Perumaata Chattom. CMFRI & FAO.
Ramachandran C. 2004. Teaching Not to Fi(ni)sh: A constructivist perspective on reinventing a responsible
marine fisheries extension system. CMFRI, Kochi.
Ramachandran C. and Sathiadhas R. 2006. Marine resource conservation and management through a
traditional community based institution – case of Kadakkody in Malabar coast J. of Mar. Biol. Ass.
India. 48 (1): 76-82.
Ramachandran C and Sunilkumar Mohamed. 2015. Responsible fisheries- Kerala fishers open new path in
Co-Governance. Economic & Political Weekly. L No 35:16-18.
Restrepo, P. M. Mace, and F. M. Serchuk, The precautionary approach: a new paradigm or business as usual?
In: Our living in Oceans. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO 41 (1999) 61–70.
Shinoj P. and Ramachandran 2017. Taming the Fishing Blues: On reforming the marine fishery regulatory
regime in India EPW (forthcoming)
Wilson et al. 2006 Introduction: the knowledge base as process In Motos and Wilson (ed) The knowledge
base for fisheries management. Elsevier
Community-based fisheries management
HARNESSING CO-MANAGEMENT FOR

ADDRESSING SOCIOLOGICAL ISSUES AND
REINVIGORATING FISHERY MANAGEMENT
REGIME IN THE INDIAN CONTEXT
38
V. P. Vipinkumar, Ramachandran C., Shyam S. Salim,
Ann Mary Jephi and Athira P. V.
Introduction
Does the fishery management regime in the Indian context require a reinvigoration? This
is one of the queries which often becomes conspicuous, while speaking the present fishery
management system prevailing in a developing country like India. Though the answer for
the question is ‘yes’, it can also be a debatable issue highlighting both affirmative and
negative sides of fishery management in the strict literal sense. Rather than exploring the
intricacies of the meaning of ‘re-invigoration’ with a surgical postmortem approach, this
paper is a simple and subtle effort on addressing the sociological issues by harnessing
the paradigm of co-management ultimately for augmenting the fishery management
perspective in the Indian context. It is a truth that, in the scenario of Indian Fisheries
Management regime, the ‘questions’ are very tough and timid, but answers are so simple
and known to everyone, though the impediment is the practical implementation part. The
open access regime prevailing in the harvesting of marine fishery resources in our country
warrants stronger emphasis on invoking technological innovations as well as management
paradigms that reconcile livelihood issues with concerns on resource conservation. It is
a truth that, innovations do not emerge in a socio-political vacuum. Of course, it is the
extent of partnership between the research and the client system that decides the fate of
any technology in terms of its adoption or rejection. Quite rational utilization of common
property resources for sustainable development without endangering the environment is
possible through community participation. For more than 6 million fishers and fish farmers,
fisheries are a source of livelihood in India. Fisheries sector has recorded faster growth as
compared to the agricultural sector in all the decades and is contributing in a significant way
to the economic growth of the nation. The vast Exclusive Economic Zone of 2.02 million sq.
km of ocean under the possession of India is more than two third of its land area. Marine
fishing has been considered a primary livelihood option since time immemorial, for the
occupants of the coastal belts of the country. The marine fishery resources of India include
a coastline of 8129 km with numerous creeks and saline water areas, an Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ) of 2.02 million km2 which are suitable for capture as well as culture fisheries.
The total marine fish landings from the mainland of India during the year 2015 were estimated
as 3.40 million tonnes registering a 5.3% decline compared to 3.59 million tonnes in 2014
(CMFRI, 2016). About 3 million people are employed in the primary, secondary and tertiary
sector of marine fisheries which provides livelihood security to about 18 to 20 million people
(Sathiadhas, 2007). Fisheries development is a state subject in India, but, centre promotes
fisheries development through state level programme planning and implementation units.
The development plans for the fisheries sector have been aiming at fish production and
promoting export. Though India is blessed with vast and varied fishery resources with great
potential in both coastal and inland areas, fisheries production is showing a depleting
trend which is adversely affecting the livelihood of fishers and making a large population
vulnerable. Being the open access resource, stock assessment and irreplenishable nature of
abundance in stock, conflicts of various types become the part and parcel of the fisheries
system in the country. For addressing the livelihood issue, government introduced regulatory
mechanisms such as gear selectivity, seasonal area closures and regulations that control the
fishing effort and catching. This is the ‘top down government driven management approach’
through legislation. However, government managed models of management have proved
to be unsuccessful as indicated by poor compliance of action and regulations resulting in
crisis and adverse effects on the livelihood of fishers.
It is a truth that, the task of managing fisheries is very complex; however, new strategies like
Community-Based Fisheries Management (CBFM) which take a more regional and integrated
management approach, can be more productive than past centralized management
methods. CBFM achieves such productivity by combining scientific research with community
involvement and Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK) to create monitoring programs specific
to local areas. What does CBFM do? Actually, CBFM moves the focus of ocean resource
management to individual areas/fishing communities, rather than managing fisheries on a

coast wide scale. Currently fisheries are managed in many areas by a centralized or blanket
method administered by a top-down approach from external managers. This approach has
little involvement of the local people that are mostly affected by the managed resource. By
empowering local interests, as in CBFM, local relationships may be accentuated that, large
scale management strategies might not include. These older management methods also
predominantly focus on “single species modeling” while newer forms of management, such
as CBFM, incorporate much more of an ecosystem based management approach. CBFM
proposes that resource users (fisherman) and resource communities (coastal communities),
should have the primary role in deciding how the resources of that community/area are
managed. “Fishermen and coastal communities, being the most dependent on coastal
and marine resources, should have a large role in deciding how these resources should be
managed. This idea fits within an emerging understanding that management decisions of
all sorts are often best made at the most local level possible.” (Graham, et al, 2001)
While CBFM focuses on giving primary responsibility to the local community, it is important
to note that CBFM cannot take place in every scenario. It takes willingness, cooperation,
involvement, and flexibility from community members to work together for the collective
good. It is important that all stakeholders consider their decisions as they apply to the whole
community and the health of the coastal resources. This collective responsibility for the long
term well-being of the natural resources depends on a type of responsible self-governance,
dictated not by the achievement of maximum profits or harvest, but instead by promoting
a stewardship and conservation ethic. CBFM seeks the conservation and preservation of
ecosystem health, combined with the sustainable use of these local resources as seen fit
by the community members.
Points of Focus for CBFM
CBFM is a uniquely applied and flexible management strategy specific for every situation. It
depends on open, ongoing communication within the whole community. It utilizes the large
knowledge base of fishermen who already have most of the tools for good local monitoring
and research. It also requires patience, working toward long term rather than short term
goals. It removes the competitive spirit out of the fisheries and focuses the community on
working for sustainability.
In the meantime, there are a couple of Complications also in CBFM.There are many hurdles
to address when implementing new management approaches such as community based
fisheries management. Procedures that are necessary for legitimacy and credit among
the scientific community and higher management, can pose a barrier for fisherman who
lack the quantitative “hard data” about their observations. This has limited the amount of
information that fisherman feel they can bring to the table, because fishermen’s knowledge
is largely qualitative. Many factors dictate the feasibility and productivity involved in
integrating CBFM into specific communities. Some factors include: size of the population
in that community, societal values, socioeconomic relations, scale of the fishing being done
(industrial vs. inshore or artisanal fisheries), large economic incentives, different management
techniques required for highly mobile species, limited funding for CBFM organizations, and
governmental willingness in allowing more control to come from communities. All of these
factors and many more can affect whether an idea for CBFM even gets off the ground. These
complications often can bring about competitions and even conflicts. Let’s have quick look
into different types of fisheries conflicts.
Capture Fisheries Sector Conflicts: (Marine & Inland Fisheries)
With regard to conflicts in capture fisheries sector, there are marine and inland fisheries
sectors to be considered. In marine sector, each country has their jurisdiction up to200Nm
towards sea.In India concept of Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) enacted during 1997. In
dealing with management, protection and proper utilisation of living marine resources
several conflicts has been raised.
Conflicts between India and Neighbouring Countries: Certain examples
 Primarily arises from fishermen’s violations of national jurisdiction while in the pursuit
of fish. Fishermen are lacking navigational devices which can forewarn fisherman from
trespassing their jurisdiction.
 Political problem between India-Pakistan and Tamil problem causing tensions between
India-Sri Lanka.
 Fishermen in Okha in Gujarat accidentally trespassing Indian jurisdiction being caught by

Pak navy patrols.
 Fishermen in Rameshwaram in T.N. being caught by Sri Lankan navy.
 Conflicts over marine fisheries India and Bangladesh are rather rare.
Conflicts Between States: Some examples
Conflicts occur mainly between southwestern states and southeastern states. (Goa,Tamil
Nadu,Karnataka,Kerala.) It essentially is because of differential fishing ban period during
monsoon. There is no demarked boundary between states in the marine region. (Each state
has their jurisdiction up to 12nm towards sea)
Conflicts Between Fishermen Using Two Levels of Technology
 Large scale industrial fishing vessel and small scale fishing vessel.
 Inshore and deep sea fishing vessel.
 Trawlers and Purse-seiners.
Today there seems to be change in the direction of conflicts.
Regional Conflicts Between Fishermen
 Between fishermen from one state to the other.
 Between fishermen from one harbour to the other.
Conflicts Between Fishermen and Industries: Example: Mangalore coast is conspicuously

noted for conflicts of fisherfolk with industries.
Inland Fisheries: accounted the conflicts in reservoir fisheries and riverine fisheries.
Culture Fisheries Sector (Aquaculture)
Social Conflicts and Aquaculture

 Growth of carp culture has led to the conversion of paddy fields to fish ponds.
 Affected poor people who depend on their staple food(cereal).
 Government of A.P. imposed a tax on water use for aquaculture.
 Shrimp farmer and village people.
 Effect of dykes.
 Effect of ponds around creeks.
 Salinisation problem
Conflicts Between the Shrimp Farmers and Fishermen
The shrimp farms do not provide access to the beach for traditional fishermen who have
to reach the sea from the village.
A Typology of Fishery Conflicts
In most fisheries, there appears to be little space available to increase long-term sustainable
fishery benefits simply by increasing production. The fishery policy tools are generally
limited to
1) Increasing the efficiency of harvesting and of management
2) Making allocation (distributing) decisions, particularly determining who has the privilege
of access to the fish available for capture.
Despite superficial appearances of chaos, the wide range of fishery conflicts (of both the
efficiency and allocation varieties) can be organized into a relatively small number of
categories, under for inter-related headings.
(1) Fishery Jurisdiction: Involving fundamental conflicts over the who ‘owns’ the fishery, who
controls, access to it, has is the optimal form of fishery management, and what should
be the role played by governments in the fishery system.
(2) Management mechanisms: concerning relatively short-term issues arising in the

development and implementation of fishery management plans, typically involving
fishers/ governments in the fishery system.
(3) Internal allocation: involving conflictsarising within the specific fishery system, between
different user groups and rear types, as well as between fishers, processors and other
players.
(4) External allocation: incorporating the wide range of conflicts arising between internal
fishery players and outsiders, including foreign fleets, aquaculturists, non-fish industries
(such as tourism and forestry) and indeed the public at large.
Conflicting Fishery Paradigms
While the above typology categorizes fishery conflicts, the real roots of the conflicts in the
underlying systematic differences in priorities pursued by the various fisheries players are to
be given prime consideration. For example, everyone wants their fishery to be efficient, but
the real meaning of this pleasant-sounding goal depends entirely on the desired objectives
which in turn vary widely with the philosophy and ideology of the fishery players.
The conflicts and wars related to the rights over the use ofland and water have been
Theimportant
conflictssociological
and warsissuesthroughout
related to the recorded
rights over the Although
history. use ofland and
many of water have been
us areprobably more
aware ofsociological
important wars foughtissuesthroughout
over religiousfreedom, political
recorded ideologies
history. and many
Although social of
issues, conflictsover
us areprobably
fishing rights and resources are just as common, if lessreported. Since the Exclusive Economic Zones
more
(EEZ)aware of wars fought
wereestablished over religiousfreedom,
in the 1970s, political
disputes have become ideologies
morefrequent and violent
and more social than
issues,
ever
conflictsover
before. Due fishing rights and of
to theestablishment resources aretojust
EEZs, access the as common,
world’s oceans ifhasbeen
lessreported.
radically Since the
reorganized
and the access rights of foreignfishing vessels have been curtailed. Negotiations,
Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) wereestablished in the 1970s, disputes have become
internationalfisheries agreements (such as those between Europeanand African countries), and
morefrequent and more violent
recourse to aninternational than
tribunal ever
have before.succeeded
sometimes Due to theestablishment of EEZs, access
in resolving conflicts.
to the world’s oceans
Similarly, the hasbeen radicallyPhilippines
conflict between reorganizedand and theisaccess
China rights
essentially of to
due foreignfishing
over-access to
territorial waters.Thousands of Indonesian fishers have been incarcerated asa result of illegal fishing
vessels have been curtailed. Negotiations, internationalfisheries agreements (such as those
in Australian waters.While sovereignty issues are generally at the root of suchconflicts, they are also
between Europeanand
the manifestations African countries),
of competition foraccess to andfishrecourse
stocks, into an international
coastal waters as much tribunal have
as on thehigh
seas. In addition,
sometimes succeededthe in
useresolving
of flags of convenience servesto exacerbate the problem. The country
conflicts.
where a boat isregistered does not necessarily identify its country oforigin, and this loophole enables
Similarly, the conflict
fishing companies between
toflout Philippines
international fishing and Chinaconventions
and labor is essentially due to over-access to
withimpunity.
Reinvigoration of Fishery Management Regime with a Paradigm
territorial waters.Thousands of Indonesian fishers have been incarcerated shift in fisheries governance
asa result of illegal
In the Indian context, it would be vital for a reinvigoration of fishery management regime,
fishing
with in Australianshift
a paradigm waters.While sovereignty
in governance issues
of fisheries areenables
which generally at the root
resource usersof(communities
suchconflicts,and
they are also
fishers) and the manifestations
stakeholders’ of competition
participation at all levelsforaccess
as effectivetopartners
fish stocks,
in theinmanagement
coastal waters as
process.
Management
much regimes
as on thehigh as remedy
seas. cover the
In addition, Partnerships,
use of flags Co-operation, Leasingservesto
of convenience (Aquaculture) and Co-
exacerbate
management paradigms.
the problem. The country
Partnership where a boat isregistered
and Co-operations does not
through Fisheries necessarilyand
co-operatives identify
Self its country
Help Groups
oforigin, andinthis
mobilized loophole
marine enables
fisheries fishing
sector do playcompanies toflout
a vital role international
in sustainable fishingmanagement.
fisheries and labor
(Vipinkumar, 2012). Leasing essentially occurs with regard to aquaculture sector. Let’s have a look
conventions with impunity.
into the policy and programmes for aquaculture development in india.
The registration of open water body farms and government leasing determines the
appropriate areas for Mariculture activity, allocating the rights to use the resource and evaluation of
environmental impacts based on certain principles to be considered to frame the Mariculture policy.
(Mohamed and Kripa, 2010)
1. Common Property use conflicts: Policy guided by: Use of open water bodies for navigation
and fishing should not be hindered by Mariculture. Similarly, Mariculture activities in open
Reinvigoration of Fishery Management Regime with a

Paradigm shift in fisheries governance
In the Indian context, it would be vital for a reinvigoration of fishery management regime, with
a paradigm shift in governance of fisheries which enables resource users (communities and
fishers) and stakeholders’ participation at all levels as effective partners in the management
process. Management regimes as remedy cover Partnerships, Co-operation, Leasing
(Aquaculture) and Co-management paradigms.
Partnership and Co-operations through Fisheries co-operatives and Self Help Groups
mobilized in marine fisheries sector do play a vital role in sustainable fisheries management.
(Vipinkumar, 2012). Leasing essentially occurs with regard to aquaculture sector. Let’s have
a look into the policy and programmes for aquaculture development in India.
The registration of open water body farms and government leasing determines the
appropriate areas for Mariculture activity, allocating the rights to use the resource and
evaluation of environmental impacts based on certain principles to be considered to frame
the Mariculture policy. (Mohamed and Kripa, 2010)
1. Common Property use conflicts: Policy guided by: Use of open water bodies for navigation
and fishing should not be hindered by Mariculture. Similarly, Mariculture activities in open
water bodies should not cause disturbances to other users. Permitted Mariculture by the
state should be afforded complete protection of structure and stock kept in the open water
bodies.
2. Carrying capacity: Open water bodies have limits to biological productions and such
limits should be defined by the state in consultation with research institutions.
3. Environmental Protection: The polluter pays principle enacted by the CAAI should be
applicable to pen water bodies so as to minimise environmental impacts. Pre and Post EIA
(Environmental Impact Assessment) is mandatory.
4. Conservation: Aquatic ecosystems are very sensitive to changes caused by human
activities and hence all activities should take into consideration conservation of aquatic
biodiversity.
5. Zonation: Since Mariculture in open water bodies is diverse and region specific, states
have to draw-up zonation plans in GIS formats with the help of research institutions. Creation
of Mariculture parks would be of amble scope and are to be encouraged.
Co-management and Partnership Paradigms

In Asia pacific region, there are adequate success stories where the alternative models
have been able to take care of all the parameters of sustainability. One of such fisheries
management approaches, as an alternative to the top down government management

approach is ‘co-management’. This is a partnership arrangement in which the community of
local resource users (fishers), government and other stakeholders share the responsibility and
authority for the management of fisheries through consultations and negotiations as regards
to their roles, responsibilities and rights resulting in development of effective partnerships.
This ensures sustainability of the resources as well as improving the livelihood of fishers.
Harnessing Co-management for Addressing Sociological Issues in Fisheries

In simpler terms, Fisheries co-management is defined as an arrangement where responsibility
for resource management is shared between the government and user groups (Nielson et
al, 2004). It is considered to be one solution to the growing problems of fishery resource
over-exploitation. If the marine fishery management regime is both to be effective and
legitimate, introducing a co-management arrangement, which can be defined as a dynamic
partnership using the capacity and interest of user-groups complemented by the ability of
the fisheries administration to provide enabling legislation? Co-management is also a mean
to reorganizing the fisheries management system. Co-management is - from this perspective
- an institutional process of integrating and reallocating management responsibilities and
competence (legal power) among participants by sharing the costs deriving from fisheries
management with the users. Fisheries co-management is based on the following hypothesis.
The involvement and participation of user-groups create incentives for cooperation in order
to formulate and implement more efficient, equal and sustainable management schemes
which would benefit all parties.
Similarly, Co-management provides some sense of ownership to the fish resources, which
makes the user groups far more responsible for obtaining long-term sustainability of the fish
resources. It might also be more cost-efficient in terms of administration. Enforcement than
centralized systems, but administration costs may increase in a co-management system, as
the process may be rather time consuming, involving several interest groups.
Fisheries Co-management is often referred to as relations between fishermen and the
national administration including fisheries research institutions, mainly concerning regulation
methods, quota allocation and stock assessment. However, co-management can also be
perceived in relation to market activities, whereby relations between fishermen and buyers
come in focus. As market dynamics become more important to fishing activities, it can be
expected that coordination of market performance and fisheries management measures
will be increasingly important.
Co-management is a set of institutional and organizational arrangements (rights and
rules), which determine how the fisheries administration and user-groups cooperate. A co-
management arrangement is not a static legal structure of rights and rules, but a dynamic
process of creating new institutional structures. A co-management institution can therefore

be designed
arrangement as an
is not entirely
a static newstructure
legal institutionofor can be
rights based
and onbut
rules, already established
a dynamic institutional
process of creating new
structures. The latter might often be the case in fisheries, where
institutional structures. A co-management institution can therefore be designed as co-management institutions
an entirely new
usuallyorevolve
institution can be as based
incremental user-group
on already involvement
established in certain
institutional management
structures. tasks.
The latter might Theoften be
devolution of authority to manage the fisheries, away from the fisheries
the case in fisheries, where co-management institutions usually evolve as incremental user-groupadministration to
user-groups,
involvement may be
in certain one of the most
management difficult
tasks. tasks of co-management.
The devolution of authority toOn the one
manage hand,
the the away
fisheries,
fisheries administration may be reluctant to relinquish their authority, or
from the fisheries administration to user-groups, may be one of the most difficult tasks of co-portions of it, and
are often opposed
management. On the to decentralization.
one On theadministration
hand, the fisheries other hand, user-groups may neither
may be reluctant to have the their
relinquish
aspiration nor the capabilities to undertake enhanced fisheries management
authority, or portions of it, and are often opposed to decentralization. On the other hand, user- responsibilities.
groups may neither
The major haveof approaching
advantages the aspiration nor the
fisheries capabilities
management as atobottom-up
undertakeprocess
enhanced
versusfisheries
management responsibilities.
the traditional centralized top-down system may be a high degree of acceptability and
The major
compliance advantages
with regulation of approaching
measures, due tofisheries management
the participation as a bottom-up
of user-groups process versus
in the decision-
the traditional centralized top-down system may be a high degree of acceptability
making and implementation process. Once user groups are involved in the decision making and compliance
withandregulation measures,
implementation due tomanagement,
of fisheries the participation of user-groups
a spectrum in the decision-making
of co-management arrangements and
implementation process. Once user groups are involved in the decision making and implementation
can be identified. The figures illustrate the various types of institutional set-up for different
of fisheries management,
co-management a spectrum of co-management arrangements can be identified. The figures
arrangements.
illustrate the various types of institutional set-up for different co-management arrangements.
It can be observed in the instructive type that, there is only minimal exchange of information
It cangovernment
between be observedandin the instructive
users. This typetype that, there is only
of co-management minimal
regime exchange
is only of from
different information
between
centralized management in the sense that the mechanisms exist for dialogue with users, but from
government and users. This type of co-management regime is only different
centralized management in the sense that the mechanisms exist for dialogue with users, but the
the process itself tends to be government informing users on the decisions they plan to make.
process itself tends to be government informing users on the decisions they plan to make.
Co-management
Co-management can be an innovative
can change to the
be an innovative modern
change to fisheries management
the modern sheriesapproach
management
approach as it implies apower sharing arrangement between government and shing communities
to undertake shery management. However, the practical adaptation by governments of the co-
management
376 approach Summer
has most often
School on been
Advanced limited
Methods for Fishto involving
Stock Assessmentshing communities
and Fisheries Management in the
implementation process—an ‘instrumental co-management’ approach.
as it implies apower sharing arrangement between government and fishing communities to

undertake fishery management. However, the practical adaptation by governments of the
co-management approach has most often been limited to involving fishing communities
in the implementation process—an ‘instrumental co-management’ approach.
Here, the Socio-economic considerations are likely to play a more prominent role within
Here, the the
Here,
anempowering Socio-economic
Socio-economic
co-management considerations areare
considerations likely to to
likely
arrangement.Empowerment play a more
play
of a more
shing prominent
prominent
communities role
is within
arole within
mechanism
anempowering
toanempoweringco-management
give the people within the arrangement.Empowerment
shing communities a chance ofto shing communities
co-management arrangement.Empowerment of fishing communities is a to
inuence their own is a
futuremechanism
in order
to cope
give the people
with the to within
impact the globalization;
shing communities a chanceofto inuenceandtheircoastal
own future in order to
mechanism give from
the people withincompeting
the fishinguse freshwater
communities a chance environments;
to influence theirand
cope with
other the impact
sheries from
related globalization; competing use of freshwater and coastal environments; and
issues.
otherown futurerelated
sheries in order to cope with the impact from globalization; competing use of freshwater
issues.
and coastal environments; and other fisheries related issues.
The empowering co-management approach is a demanding concept, as it requires:

 A rethink
The empowering of the logic forapproach
co-management management and subsequently
is a demanding concept, a change in the knowledge base for
as it requires:
management.
 A rethink of the logic for management and subsequently a change in the knowledge base for
A major restructuring of the institutional and organisational arrangements supporting
 management.
 A management.
major restructuring of the institutional and organisational arrangements supporting
A substantial change in attitudes from both governments and shing communities towards
 management.
their role insuch
 A substantial changearrangements.
in attitudes from both governments and shing communities towards
The empowering co-management approach is a demanding concept, as it requires:
 A rethink of the logic for management and subsequently a change in the knowledge
base for management.
 A major restructuring of the institutional and organisational arrangements supporting

management.
 A substantial change in attitudes from both governments and fishing communities

towards their role insuch arrangements.
 Aspiration from fishing communities and government to proceed along this avenue.
 Capacity building at several levels both within government and fishing communities.
Co-management for Fisheries Conservation and Livelihood
 Competitive Fishing needs to be replaced by cooperative fishing to avoid depletion

and ultimate extinction of several varieties of our marine flora and fauna.
 Fishery resources are renewable but not inexhaustible.
 Cooperative fishing minimizes capital investment vis-à-vis cost of production,

sustainability of resources and maximizes the earnings and profit.
 Cooperative marketing enhances the efficiency of distribution channel and enhances

the earningsof real producers.
Common property: Management Issues
 Common property means, no one is having ownership: hence no –management
 The literature on property rights identifies different ideal analytical typesof property
rights regimes:
 State property: with sole government jurisdiction and centralized regulatory controls;
 Private property: with privatization of rights through the establishment of individual or

Company-held ownership.
Fisheries Co- management: Theoretical Framework
 Co- management is a new alternative management approach with a human face.
 Co-management is an effective process for the collective governance of common property
resources.
 Co-operative management or co-management of fisheries can be defined as a partnership

arrangement in which the community of local resource users (fishers), government, other
stakeholders (boat owners, fish traders, boat builders, business people, etc.) and external
agents (non-governmental organizations (NGOs), academic and research institutions)
share the responsibility and authority for the management of the fishery.
 The substance of sharing of responsibility and authority will be negotiated between

community members and government and be within the boundaries of government policy.
 The term ‘community’ can have several meanings. Community can be defined geographically
by political or resource boundaries or socially as a community of individuals with common

interests.
A community is not necessarily a village, and a village is not necessarily a community. Care
should also be taken not to assume that a community is a homogeneous unit, as there will
often be different interests in a community, based on gender, class, ethnic and economic
variations.
Co-management should be viewed not as a single strategy to solve all problems of fisheries
management, but rather as a process of resource management, maturing, adjusting and
adapting to changing conditions over time. A healthy co-management process will change
over time in response to changes in the level of trust, credibility, legitimacy and success of
the partners and the whole co-management arrangement.
 Co-management is also called participatory, joint, stakeholder, multi-party or collaborative
management.
 Co-management sharing and decentralization. It attempts to overcome the distrust,

corruption, involves aspects of democratization, social empowerment, power fragmentation
and inefficiency of existing fisheries management arrangements through collaboration.
 Partnerships, roles and responsibilities are pursued, strengthened and redefined at different
times in the co-management process, depending on the needs and opportunities.
 The process may include formal and or informal organizations of fishers and other
stakeholders.
 Fisheries co-management can be classified into five broad types according to the roles
government and fishers play (Sen and Nielsen, 1996).
(1) Instructive: There is only minimal exchange of information between government and
fishers. This type of co-management regime is only different from centralized management
in the sense that the mechanisms exist for dialogue with users, but the process itself tends
to be government informing fishers on the decisions they plan to make.
(2) Consultative: Mechanisms exist for government to consult with fishers but all decisions
are taken by government.
(3) Cooperative: This type of co-management is where government and fishers cooperate
together as equal partners in decision-making.
(4) Advisory: Fishers advise government of decisions to be taken and government endorses
these decisions.
(5) Informative: Government has delegated authority to make decisions to fisher groups
who are responsible for informing government of these decisions.
The equity and social justice in fisheries management is sought through co-management.
Equity and social justice are brought about through empowerment and active participation
in the planning and implementation of fisheries co-management. The mutuality of interests
and the sharing of responsibility among and between partners will help to narrow the
distance between resource managers and fishers, bringing about closer compatibility of
the objectives of management.
A Case Study of Co-management in Indian Context
There has been an interesting sharing of ideas in SAMUDRA Report on the experiences and
principles of co-management. All over the world, fisher communities are trying desperately to
safeguard their access to fish resources, while, at the same time, being driven to catch more
in order to keep afloat. The fishers of the Saurashtra coast of Gujarat, one of the foremost
fish-producing States of India, are no exception, as a result of the study undertaken on

“The Impact of Development on Human Population Dynamics and the Ecosystem” in three
locations of the west coast of India, with the help of a grant from the McArthur Foundation.
One of the study locations was the large fishing harbour town of Veraval in Gujarat. The
findings of the study were rather revealing, not only regarding the nature of the decline of
the overcapitalized trawl fishery, but also the poor environmental and social indicators in
a place that had a booming fishery for over 25 years through the 1980s and 1990s. In the
community feedback workshops held in 2005, people were also taken aback by the findings
of the study for a while and they were aware that their fishery was on the downswing, they
felt challenged to realize that a large number of the children of the community were not in
school, that there was a fall in the female sex ratio, and that there was a rise in the levels of
morbidity and demands for dowry at marriages. As a community that is basically business-
oriented and with a desire to simultaneously claim progress, they found themselves in a
prisoner’s dilemma. A challenge of seeking a way out by the project authorities made them
interact with them on a longer-term basis.
The fishery in the area is a trawl fishery along a 40-km coastline between the two fishing
harbours of Veraval and Mangrol, which account for a third of the fish catches of Gujarat.
There is also a vibrant hodi fishery of fiberglass-reinforced plastic (FRP) beach-landing craft,
interspersed with the trawlers. Authorities got intensively involved in the fishing harbour/
community of Mangrol as the community has traditionally been well organized. They were
also fortunate to get a local team that the local community agreed to host. In preparation
for the work, an intensive training programme was organized for the team. There were also
four representatives from Mangrol and Veraval, selected by the community, who participated
in the programme. They actually represented the trawl fishery.
Initiating Change
Project people did not initially mind this fact as it was this sector that they thought had to be
involved in initiating any change in resource management. The boatowners were intensely
involved in the training programme and, during the subsequent period, they turned out
to be the main agents of change in the community. Besides developing an analysis of the
fisheries crisis, they were most intrigued by the connections made to the fall in the female
sex ratio, the number of school-age dropouts, the high morbidity rates, and the extensive
pollution of water bodies, all in a context where the communities were well organized but
totally in the hands of men. The inputs on gender analysis and the patriarchal development
paradigm helped them to see the negative side of male-dominated communities, where
women have no voice, and, as a consequence, the issues of potable water, sanitation and
health receive no priority. In fact, the community organizations had seen to it that entry
into the trawl fishery was limited to members of the same caste. Yet just as these caste
organizations camouflaged disparities in the community, they were unable to manage
the manner in which investments were made in the fishery, which, in turn, aggravated the
growing disparities.
The fishery in the area has been kept afloat by, on the one hand, State subsidies on diesel
and, on the other, by the opening up of export markets and the development of surimi
plants. It is otherwise an extremely inefficiently run trawl fishery, which has also contributed
to the massive pollution in the harbours. But the government has gradually begun to be
less lenient on the diesel subsidies, certain export consignments have been rejected by
some importing countries, and the government has begun giving greater importance to
developing coastal resources other than fisheries. The fishing communities, therefore, needed
to get their act together and think differently about their fishery and its future if they did
continue to consider the fishery as a means of livelihood.
Strategies to tackle this problem were developed at the training programme, and a plan
was drawn up to set up a coastal area managing council in a year as well as push for co-
management of the fisheries. The first step was to develop a general awareness in the
community about the inter-relationships among the ocean, the land and the people so that
people understand how these affect one another. This was done at several levels through
all kinds of community programmes but the strategy in the first year was to:
 develop a forum for women where they could discuss and understand these issues and,
at the same time, create a collective to gradually represent their cause and themselves in
the community organization (samaj);
 create an awareness among the youth and children about the coast and oceans; and
 widen the understanding of the fishers themselves regarding coastal-area issues, and
relate these to their fisheries-management possibilities. For this, efforts were made to
also include the elected representatives of the municipality in discussions related to these
issues so that they would be taken into consideration in town planning.
The most interesting results were from an active group of women fish vendors who pressured
the municipality and the fisheries department for a better fish market, while another group
made a detailed study of the community’s problems relating to water, sanitation and
attendant infrastructure, which was presented to the members of the samaj. In both these
cases, the community’s men were very responsive and open to the idea that women could
also be part of the co-management process.
The discussions on co-management were done separately for the fishing sectors, the
community organizations and the women so that all of them could understand the issues
and felt free to raise doubts and make suggestions from the point of view of their own
sectors. It was clear that there were several areas of conflict.
After the discussions, all the representatives got together to discuss the possibility of a
larger plan and who would finally meet the government and scientists to make the proposed
presentation on co-management. Importantly, it was the first time that women and men
from various sectors, caste and religious groupings had got together to discuss coastal and
fisheries issues.
An Expert Consultation on Fisheries and Area Co-management was held in Ahmedabad,

the capital of Gujarat, supported by the Fish Code Programme of the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO), where the State’s entire fisheries department
was present, together with scientists from the Central Marine Fisheries Institute (CMFRI),
the Central Institute of Fisheries Technology (CIFT) and the Fisheries Survey of India (FSI),
as well as trader, processor and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the Marine
Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA).
The community leaders first presented their ideas on co-management, which included
both the need for fisheries management and coastal-area management, and articulated
why they thought that this was a viable option in their particular context. They requested
the government to create a framework of legislation for co-management, where both their
rights to the coastal resources and the responsibilities of the government and the various
stakeholders would be clearly defined. Subsequently, the experts responded, and a group
discussion followed on the action that could be taken.
An interesting and heated discussion between the trawl-boat owners, the scientists and the
government officials had even the women chipping in, but unfortunately the hodi owners
remained silent. The importance of this process has to do with the fact that co-management
was proposed by the community representatives from a shore-based fisheries perspective
and not a fishing perspective alone. This was possible because of the data available and
the focus on the fishery as a means of livelihood that has to be sustained. But this is not an
easy process and it still has to be operationalized. The bank on the tremendous amount of
goodwill shown by all the stakeholders, indicates that the stakes in actually managing the
fisheries are high.
Conflict Resolution Though Sui-generis Co-management:
A Case Study of Kadakkody in Kerala
Kadakkody: A linguistic aberration of the Malayalam word ‘Kadal-kodathy’ literally meaning

‘Sea Court’. It has legislative, executive and judiciary roles to play in the Araya and Dheevara
communities of Hindu fishermen belonging to Kasargod district of Kerala. Kadakkodies make
their presence felt strongly in four regions like Kasargod, Kizhoor, Kottikkulam and Bakkalam.
It plays as a community based fisheries management institution. Though functional only
in a few pockets of north Malabar coast of Kerala, these age old institutions are similar to
many ofthe Caste Panchayats prevalent in rural India. (Ramchandran, 2004).
Constitution of kadakkody: Each kadakkody is an adjunct to the temple of the fishermen

community in each village. Ruling deity in all these temples is Kurumba Bhagavathy who
is considered the most worshipped ‘mother goddess’ (Devi) among Hindu fisherfolk.
Each kadakkody has three distinct bodies (1) Sthanikan(the permanently authorized), (2)
kadavanmar/Sahayiees (temple messengers or assistant priest and they represent the police)
and (3) Temple committee.
Sthanikans are composed for 4 separate constitutional groups namely Karnavanmar (4

members) Achanmar (6 members), Kodakaran (1 member) and Anthithiriyan (2 members).
Karanavanmar are the high priests of the temple and they act as magistrates belonging to 4
illams such as chempillam, kachillam, karillam and ponnillam. Achanmar are six in number and
are basically oracles (velichapadan) at the temple and are assistant magistrates. Kadavanmar
are the messengers/ police. Temple committee is a democratically elected body. The factors
determining the legitimacy of kadakkody are divine authority, social embeddedness,
systematic procedures and behavioural norms, participatory and transparent process, quick
and fair judgements, functional diversity, shared sense of pride etc.
Typological differentiation of 2 forms of co-management: (Ramchandran, 2004)
Characteristics Sui-generis form of CBCRM Stateinduced/supported CBCRM
Self-Governance High Low
Basis of legitimacy Divine Legislative
Group of homogeneity High Medium
Compliance High Low
Social embeddedness High Low
Adaptability High Low
Ethos Cosmic Livelihood
Norms Uncodified Codified
Management agenda Inclusive Exclusive
Epistemological base Socially embedded Mostly officiated version
Ownership over means Exclusive Inclusive

of production
The best method of co-management is to follow the Code of conduct for responsible fisheries.
Let’s look into the issues pertaining to responsible fisheries management.
Govt. Regulations for Conservation
1. Regulation of fishing effort for exploiting the resources, particularly the shrimp resource
which is a single critical resource and centre of most of the controversies and conflicts
in the country
2. Restriction of number of fishing gears which exploit the juvenile phase in the backwaters,
estuaries and shallow inshore were through licensing
3. Mesh size regulation
4. Minimum legal length for capture and
5. Closed seasons and areas
Fishing Methods & Resource Conservation
1. Introduction and popularization of synthetic fishing gear materials
2. Introduction of trawling in mid 1950s
3. Improvement in efficiency and diversification of trawls, purse seines, gillnets and lines,
for mechanised sector,
4. Continuous improvement in size, endurance, installed engine power, winch capacities,

fish-hold, freshwater and fuel capacities of mechanised vessels to enable multi-day
fishing, since mid 1980s
5. Adoption of modern technologies such as eco sounder and GPS on a wider scale over
the last decade, enabling precision fishing
6. Motorization of traditional fishing craft in 1980s and expansion of fishing grounds of

traditional motorized fleet
7. Introduction of ring seine in commercial fishing in 1986
8. Introduction of mini trawling in mid-1987 and its subsequent proliferation
9. Introduction of ring seine with inboard engine and purse line haulers in 1999 and
continuous increase in numbers
Mesh Size Regulations
 A common measure for reducingthe catch of juveniles and small sized non-target species
in trawls and important step towards reducing the growth over fishing, rampant in Indian
fisheries.
 Though 35 mm has been prescribed for trawl cod-end and incorporated in the MFR of
Kerala, it has never been perfect.
 Mesh size for sardine/mackerel ring seines may be regulated at 22 mm or more in the
bunt and main body and maximum dimension of the gear may be limited to <600 m
hung length and <60 m hung depth, for all replacement constructions; length overall and
engine horse power for propulsion may be limited to 20m or less and 65 hp respectively,
for replacement constructions. Anchovy ring seine may be regulated at 12 mm & Engine
horse power for propulsion may be limited to 25hp.
Responsible Fishing Methods and Practices
 Guidelines associated with use and development of fishing gear and practices delineated
in the Code focus on (i) selective fishing gear and practices (ii) environment friendly
fishing gears (iii) energy conservation in harvesting and iv) enhancement of resource
(FAO 1995) The CCRF is purely voluntary. The best way to follow these codes will be
adoption of co-management.
 Specific pointers from CCRF, in responsible fishing and practices, adaptable to Kerala
include the following:
 Evolve regionalized consensus Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing, in close

participation with all stake holders (traditional, motorized and mechanised fishermen
organizations) fisheries research organizations and fisheries managers
 Take measures to control open access by strict enforcement of a system of licenses

(authorization to fish) in traditional motorized and mechanised sectors
 Develop ecosystem based fishery management regime, in collaboration with the union
Government and neighboring maritime states sharing the same fishery-related marine
eco system services
 Identify and delimit protected areas in marine and inland water ecosystems
 Periodically revalidate maximum sustainable yield of resources in the existing fishing

grounds and determine fishing units in each category for sustainable harvesting of
resources
 Take steps to remove excess capacity over a time schedule, with active stakeholder
participation.
 Explore possibilities for a rights based regulated access system based on a strong inclusive
cooperative movement of stakeholders with built-in transferable quota system and buy-
back or rotational right of entry schemes for capacity management and optimization
in the shelf fisheries, in collaboration with the Union Government and the neighboring
states with confluent ecosystems and shared fishing grounds.
 Conduct periodic audit of fishing craft and gear combinations, their economics of
operation and ecological impacts
 Standardize the capacities, dimensions and specifications of fishing units in each category,
particularly in the mechanised and motorised sectors
 Evolve a system for marking fishing vessels and fishing gear (both traditional &
mechanised)
 Maintain registry of all fishing vessels in waters under state jurisdiction with all essential
details
 Evolve regulations and promote use of life saving, firefighting and communication
equipment for safety of fishermen
 Evolve regulations for mandatory survey of mechanised fishing vessels
 Promote selective fishing gear and practices
 Optimum mesh size in trawl cod-ends
 Optimum hook size and shape for lines
 Square mesh windows in trawls
 Bycatch reduction devices in trawls
 Turtle excluder device in trawls
 Trawl designs with improved resource specificity
 Optimum mesh size for gill nets
 Optimum mesh size for purse seines
 Escape windows in fish and lobster traps
 Evolve an efficient Monitoring Control and Surveillance (MCS) system
 Promote effective use of Geographical Information System for fisheries management;

monitoring and control of fishing effort and energy use
 Evolve an promote a package of practices for energy conservation in fish harvesting
 Evolve a mandatory programme of training and certification for non-motorized,

motorized and mechanised fishermen in safe navigation responsible fishing, log keeping
and reporting
Perspectives and Reinvigorating Challenges Ahead
Observations and experiences of various co-management implementations have revealed

potentials and benefits of co-management, but also many unresolved sociological issues
and problems that need to be addressed. There is still a long way to for harnessing the
various co-management systems and examples of solutions to for addressing a varietal
range of sociological issues and problems for reinvigorating the fishery management regime
of a developing nation like India. Many of the problems and issues facing Fisheries can
only be solved on a provincial, national or even international level. The resource systems
on which fisheries rely are in most cases too large to be entirely within control of a few
communities, and Fisheries management institutions must therefore be able to address
problems of resource access and sharing on that level. The solution to this scale problem
may be representation within nested systems, but this raises a new set of problems relating
to mechanisms to ensure genuine representation and to avoid a new process of alienation
between communities and management is initiated. Reconciling local and global agendas:
International agreements on fisheries and environmental management are a special case
of incongruence between scales. Means must be developed by which the governments can
serve the double obligation of attending to international agreements while sharing power in
setting objectives for fisheries management with the communities. Identifying a knowledge
base for management, which is considered valid by stakeholders: The knowledge base for
fisheries management should relate to the objectives of management and be considered
valid by the stakeholders? A co-management system must develop mechanisms to reconcile
formal scientific knowledge and fishers’ knowledge about their resource system in a way that
maintains scientific validity and wide acceptance. There are no shortcuts and easy solutions
to this problem. One approach may be to identify indicators of the status of the resource
system that are both supported by science and reflects fishers’ observations. Developing
approaches to manage conflicts between resource users who have acquired exclusion rights
to a resource through the co-management process and those who are excluded: There is
a need to understand the mechanisms and actual reasons behind the alienation process
of the different user groups in order to manage these conflicts. Developing appropriate
approaches for empowering local communities to participate in the setting of management
objectives through institutional reform: This may require substantial change in the way that
management authorities function to provide fisheries management services and changes
in perceptions of stakeholders on the roles of fisheries management agencies. These issues
must be addressed in practicein practical experiments with co-management. It is however
important that, such experiments are documented and the experiences communicated
to others who may be in the process of establishing or developing co-management
arrangements. It is therefore imperative in the Indian context that, attempts to harness
co-management are associated with independent research to document and disseminate
the experiences for addressing sociological conflicts and emerging issues for an effective
reinvigoration of the fishery management regime.
Suggested Reading
Anthony, T.C. 1992. Fishery conflicts: A unified framework. Marine Policy. September 1992. pp 379-393.
CMFRI.2016. Annual Report, CMFRI-2015-16. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI), Kochi.
pp 11-12.
Dept of Animal husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries.2012. Guidelines for Fishing Operations in Indian Exclusive
Economic Zone. Compendium. pp 1-5.
Graham, J and Gaynor, T. 2001. The Sustenance of Life: A Pilot Research Exploring SL in CBCRM, Tambuyog
Development Centre and Coastal Resources Research Network, Dalhousie University.
Jesper, R. N., Poul, D., K. Kuperan, V., Mahfuzuddin, A., Mafaniso, H., Nik, M.A.R. .2004. Fisheries co-
management—an institutional innovation? Lessons from South East Asia and Southern Africa, Marine
Policy 28 (2004) 151–160.
Modayil, M.J, Sathiadhas, R and Gopakumar, G. 2008. Marine Farming: Country Analysis -India, In A.Lovatelli,
M.J.Phillips, J.R. Arthur and K.Yamamoto (eds.) FAO/NACA Regional Workshop on the Future of Mariculture:
a Regional Approach for Responsible Development in the Asia-Pacific Region, Guangzhou, China, 7-11
March 2006. FAO Fisheries Proceedings. No 11, Rome, FAO.2008. pp 145-171.
Nalini N, and Vijayan, A.J. 2007. Co-management: Getting Their Act Together, Protsahan, Thiruvananthapuram,
India Handbook of Fisheries Co-management from IDRC
Radhakrishnan, E.V. and Dineshbabu, A.P. 2011. Cage Culture- Mariculture Technology of the Millennium
in India. In Trainingmanual on Cage culture of marine finfish and shellfish,Karwar Research Centre of
CMFRI,p13-22.
Ramchandran, C. 2004. Teaching Not To F(in)ish!?: A Constructivist Perspective on Reinventing a Responsible
Marine Fisheries Extension System. Responsible fisheries Extension Series 6, Ventral marine Fisheries
Research Institute, Kochi -18)
Rao, G.S. 2011. Cage Culture -Mariculture Technology of the Millennium in India. In Training manual on
Cage culture of marine finfish and shellfish, Karwar Research Centre of CMFRI,p1-12.
Sathiadhas,R. 2007. Inter-Sectoral-Disparity, Increasing Poverty and Inequity among Coastal Fisherfolk in
India. In book of Abstracts of 8th Asian Fisheries Forum, Asian Fisheries Society, Philippines.
Sathiadhas, R. and Narayanakumar, R. and Aswathy, N (2011) Efficiency of domestic marine fish marketing
in India - a macro analysis. Indian Journal of Fisheries, 58 (4). pp. 125-131
Sen S, Nielsen, J.R.1996. Fisheries co-management: a comparative analysis. Marine Policy, 20(5):405–18
Vipinkumar, V.P.2004. Livelihood Analysis of Coastal Fisherfolk for Technological Empowerment: An Appraisal
in Kerala InProceedings of national Seminar on Indian Society of Extension Education, IARI, New Delhi.

Methods For Stock Assessment Management: Advanced

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Methods For Stock Assessment Management: Advanced

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Methods For Stock Assessment Management: Advanced

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lecture Note Series No.

Fishery Resources Assessment Division

ICAR funded Summer School on

Advanced Methods for

FISHERY RESOURCES ASSESSMENT DIVISION

1 Present status of ichthyofaunal diversity of Indian seas 1

2 Marine fish production in India - Present Status 23

3 Pelagic fin fishery resources of India 28

4 Diversity and exploitation status of demersal fishery 32

5 Diversity and exploitation status of crustacean fishery 47

6 Marine molluscan diversity in India – exploitation, 56

8 Sampling techniques for fisheries data collection 97

9 Sampling methodology employed by CMFRI for monitoring 109

10 Concept and objectives of stock assessment 113

11 Importance of fish stock assessment to fisheries management 123

12 Stock assessment models and methods 132

13 Computational options for marine fisheries research 136

14 An introduction to R programming 148

15 Estimation of growth parameters 195

16 Estimation of mortality 205

17 Estimation of length weight relationship in fishes 215

18 Thompson and Bell prediction model 221

19 Beverton and Holt’s yield per recruit model 228

20 Virtual population analysis 232

21 Multispecies virtual population analysis 238

22 Macro analytical models 246

23 Maximum economic yield and its importance in 252

24 Gear selectivity 258

25 Exploratory survey for biomass estimation 262

26 Age determination in fishes 270

27 Truss network analysis 274

29 Role of environmental variables on spawning and recruitment 289

30 New methods of fish stock assessment 296

31 A concept for estimation of secondary and tertiary biomass 301

32 Genetic stock characterization of fish using molecular markers 308

33 Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding-based estimation 317

34 Development of individual based models in marine 320

35 Trophic modelling of marine ecosystems and ecosystem 328

36 Technical measures in fisheries management 343

37 Responsible fisheries – A prelude to the concept, 350

38 Harnessing co-management for addressing sociological 367

PRESENT STATUS OF ICHTHYOFAUNAL

Basics of sample collection, preservation and species identification of finfish

Table 1. Species diversify of marine fishes of India

Marine and coastal diversity

Akhilesh, K. V., Bineesh, K. K. Gopalakrishnan, A. Jena, J. K. Basheer, V. S. and Pillai, N. G. K. 2014. Checklist

MARINE FISH PRODUCTION IN INDIA – PRESENT STATUS

Marine fisheries is an important source of food, nutrition, employment and income

PELAGIC FIN FISHERY RESOURCES OF INDIA

DIVERSITY AND EXPLOITATION STATUS OF DEMERSAL

Fisheries are an important source of income and means of livelihood in

When compared to the pelagic resources, proper exploitation of the demersal

Fig.1. Trends in the landings of demersal finfishes in India during 1980-2014

The landings of demersal finfishes

tonnes in 2012, and thereafter 70,000

The group wise composition of Mollusc

contributors are the perches (37%),

In India, there are

species are commercially