<p>1. Maximum body length (<InlineEquation ID="IEq1"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\({L}_{max}\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <msub> <mi>L</mi> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="italic">max</mi> </mrow> </msub> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>) is a key trait for describing an animal species’ biological characteristics, ecology, and vulnerability to exploitation. This is particularly true for fish species, and <InlineEquation ID="IEq2"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\({L}_{max}\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <msub> <mi>L</mi> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="italic">max</mi> </mrow> </msub> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> is widely used in fisheries and is a key parameter in population assessments. Yet <InlineEquation ID="IEq3"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\({L}_{max}\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <msub> <mi>L</mi> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="italic">max</mi> </mrow> </msub> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> estimation is strongly contingent on sampling intensity, and uncertainty is rarely quantified or propagated in downstream applications. 2. We apply and develop two complementary estimators of <InlineEquation ID="IEq4"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\({L}_{max}\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <msub> <mi>L</mi> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="italic">max</mi> </mrow> </msub> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> and its uncertainty using observations of the largest individuals recorded across multiple samples of approximately similar size. First, using Extreme Value Theory (EVT), a method widely used in insurance and finance, we use the Generalised Extreme Value distribution to model the probability of an extreme event, i.e., the observation of a certain individual body length. Second, we propose a new method, an Exact Finite Sample (EFS) approach, which estimates the most likely parameters of the underlying body‐size distribution that gives rise to the observed sample maxima. We use Bayesian inference for both methods to estimate the expected maximum individual body length for a given sampling effort (e.g., the expected maximum from 20 comparable samples) with credible intervals. 3. Sensitivity analyses show that both EVT and EFS recover unbiased <InlineEquation ID="IEq5"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\({L}_{max}\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <msub> <mi>L</mi> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="italic">max</mi> </mrow> </msub> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> when samples arise from approximately truncated-normal population length-frequency distributions. For heavier right-tailed length-frequency distributions, both methods tend to underestimate <InlineEquation ID="IEq6"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\({L}_{max}\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <msub> <mi>L</mi> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="italic">max</mi> </mrow> </msub> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>(5–15%), with EVT yielding wider uncertainty but less sensitivity to distribution misspecification. For animal, and especially fish, ecology and management applications, we recommend reporting a “20-sample maximum <InlineEquation ID="IEq7"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\({L}_{max}\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <msub> <mi>L</mi> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="italic">max</mi> </mrow> </msub> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation>”, defined as the 95th percentile of the probability density function of the maximum lengths, as a practical benchmark that is comparable across studies and explicitly conditions on sampling effort. As a case-study, we use 14 fishing competition records for Australasian snapper (<i>Chrysophrys auratus</i>) and estimate its 20-sample <InlineEquation ID="IEq8"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\({L}_{max}\)</EquationSource> <EquationSource Format="MATHML"><math> <msub> <mi>L</mi> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="italic">max</mi> </mrow> </msub> </math></EquationSource> </InlineEquation> as 139&#xa0;cm (127–151&#xa0;cm, 80% credible interval) using EVT, and 126&#xa0;cm (121–133&#xa0;cm, 80% credible interval) using EFS.</p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Beyond the single biggest fish: robust inference of species maximum length (Lmax) from sample maxima

  • Freddie Heather,
  • Stephan Munch,
  • Asta Audzijonyte

摘要

1. Maximum body length ( \({L}_{max}\) L max ) is a key trait for describing an animal species’ biological characteristics, ecology, and vulnerability to exploitation. This is particularly true for fish species, and \({L}_{max}\) L max is widely used in fisheries and is a key parameter in population assessments. Yet \({L}_{max}\) L max estimation is strongly contingent on sampling intensity, and uncertainty is rarely quantified or propagated in downstream applications. 2. We apply and develop two complementary estimators of \({L}_{max}\) L max and its uncertainty using observations of the largest individuals recorded across multiple samples of approximately similar size. First, using Extreme Value Theory (EVT), a method widely used in insurance and finance, we use the Generalised Extreme Value distribution to model the probability of an extreme event, i.e., the observation of a certain individual body length. Second, we propose a new method, an Exact Finite Sample (EFS) approach, which estimates the most likely parameters of the underlying body‐size distribution that gives rise to the observed sample maxima. We use Bayesian inference for both methods to estimate the expected maximum individual body length for a given sampling effort (e.g., the expected maximum from 20 comparable samples) with credible intervals. 3. Sensitivity analyses show that both EVT and EFS recover unbiased \({L}_{max}\) L max when samples arise from approximately truncated-normal population length-frequency distributions. For heavier right-tailed length-frequency distributions, both methods tend to underestimate \({L}_{max}\) L max (5–15%), with EVT yielding wider uncertainty but less sensitivity to distribution misspecification. For animal, and especially fish, ecology and management applications, we recommend reporting a “20-sample maximum \({L}_{max}\) L max ”, defined as the 95th percentile of the probability density function of the maximum lengths, as a practical benchmark that is comparable across studies and explicitly conditions on sampling effort. As a case-study, we use 14 fishing competition records for Australasian snapper (Chrysophrys auratus) and estimate its 20-sample \({L}_{max}\) L max as 139 cm (127–151 cm, 80% credible interval) using EVT, and 126 cm (121–133 cm, 80% credible interval) using EFS.