Closed michellesculley closed 8 months ago
I believe it would be useful to cross-check this idea.
We want to be able to use the estimated parameters of the Beverton-Holt stock-recruitment relationship. The SR curve produces numbers of age-0 recruits on July 1st of year Y based on spawning biomass in year Y and the recruitment deviation.
R(Y,0) = f( SB(Y), Recdev )
The value of predicted numbers at age-1 in year Y+1 (N) would be the same as the predicted recruitment (R) at age-0 in year Y if adjusted by one-half of the total annual mortality rate (Z) experienced at age-0 as
N(Y+1, 1) = R(Y, 0) * exp(-Z0/2)
If the fishing mortality rate on age-(1/4) and age-(2/4) fish is zero, then
N(Y+1, 1) = R(Y, 0) * exp(-M0/2)
should hold, given age-0 natural mortality rate M0. The question is how much mortality occurs due to fishery removals at age-0 (Q1 and Q2)? If F0 is very small then there will not be much difference between recruitment at age-0 adjusted for M0 on Jan 1st year Y+1 and the numbers at age-1 on Jan-1st of year Y+1, N(Y+1,1)
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 9:49 AM Michelle Sculley @.***> wrote:
Just thinking about how we need to adjust the recruitment of age 0 fish to account for the fact that they are born in July of the previous year, could we just use the number of age-1 fish in Jan of the following year? In SS3 all fish turn 1 at the start of the next calendar year which would make all the age one fish in Jan actually 6 months old. @fecor21 https://github.com/fecor21 can correct me if I'm wrong, but in that case, we should be able to use those age-1 fish as the recruitment from the previous year and we won't have to correct for the half-year of mortality.
To clarify, I'm suggesting that we could use the numbers at age 1 in Jan-1 1990 for the recruitment that occurred in July 1989. What do you think @JonBrodziak https://github.com/JonBrodziak? Those values can be easily pulled using the SS_to_agepro function we walked through yesterday.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/PIFSCstockassessments/2024-WCNPO-MLS-Rebuilding/issues/5, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACVXIZW4OJD7GI6TXM2MYUDYHDPNNAVCNFSM6AAAAABABXTKHKVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGAYTSMZZGE2DOOI . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
-- Jon Brodziak, Ph.D. NOAA Inouye Regional Center Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 1845 Wasp Boulevard, Building 176, NMFS/PIFSC/FRMD Mail Room 2247 Honolulu, Hawaii 96818 USA PIFSC Stock Asessment Program https://pifscstockassessments.github.io/ Phone: 808-725-5617 Email: @.***
“Wherever my travels may lead, paradise is where I am.” ~ Voltaire
The views expressed in this message are my own and do not necessarily reflect any position of NOAA.
In SS3 there is no Fishing mortality in Q1 and Q2 on age zero fish as there are no age-0 fish in the population, the model estimates an F for those quarters but they are all less than 0.8E-6, so essentially zero. All the age-0 fish born in Q3 then become the age 1 fish in Q1 of the following year, reduced by M/2 and F on age-0 fish in Q3 and Q4. The F on age-0 fish estimated from SS is also relatively small, between 0.02 and 0.8E-4 for all years/quarters in the model. I believe if you were to adjust the age-0 fish by just M/2 and compare it to the output of age-1 fish in the year following the recruitment, they should be almost identical, likely within rounding errors.
I agree.
And the question below was intended to refer to Q1 and Q2 of an age-0 fish's lifetime.
"The question is how much mortality occurs due to fishery removals at age-0 (Q1 and Q2)?"
The intended question was for the age-(1/4 year) in quarter 3 when they are one quarter of a year old, and for age-(2/4 year) fish in quarter 4 when they are two quarters of a year old. I denoted the ages of age-(1/4) fish by Q1 and age-(2/4) fish by Q2.
If the fishing mortality rate on age-(1/4) and age-(2/4) fish is nearly zero in quarters 3 and 4, then effectively one can say that the number of age-1 fish in year Y+1 is
N(Y+1, 1) = R(Y, 0) * exp(-M0/2)
which is what you point out in your reply.
Apologies for the confusing notation.
It would be informative to make the comparison as this would support adjusting the BH stock-recruitment model parameters to represent age-1 recruits.
Thanks, Jon
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 2:01 PM Michelle Sculley @.***> wrote:
In SS3 there is no Fishing mortality in Q1 and Q2 on age zero fish as there are no age-0 fish in the population, the model estimates an F for those quarters but they are all less than 0.8E-6, so essentially zero. All the age-0 fish born in Q3 then become the age 1 fish in Q1 of the following year, reduced by M/2 and F on age-0 fish in Q3 and Q4. The F on age-0 fish estimated from SS is also relatively small, between 0.02 and 0.8E-4 for all years/quarters in the model. I believe if you were to adjust the age-0 fish by just M/2 and compare it to the output of age-1 fish in the year following the recruitment, they should be almost identical, likely within rounding errors.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/PIFSCstockassessments/2024-WCNPO-MLS-Rebuilding/issues/5#issuecomment-1834942322, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACVXIZTSK57756PYOVPGEILYHEM6DAVCNFSM6AAAAABABXTKHKVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTQMZUHE2DEMZSGI . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: <PIFSCstockassessments/2024-WCNPO-MLS-Rebuilding/issues/5/1834942322@ github.com>
-- Jon Brodziak, Ph.D. NOAA Inouye Regional Center Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 1845 Wasp Boulevard, Building 176, NMFS/PIFSC/FRMD Mail Room 2247 Honolulu, Hawaii 96818 USA PIFSC Stock Asessment Program https://pifscstockassessments.github.io/ Phone: 808-725-5617 Email: @.***
“Wherever my travels may lead, paradise is where I am.” ~ Voltaire
The views expressed in this message are my own and do not necessarily reflect any position of NOAA.
The age-0.5 adjustment has been added to the Build_Input_File code for recruitment models 2, 3, 5, and 14. It will be straightforward to add the adjustment for any other recruitment models that may be applied for MLS projections.
Just thinking about how we need to adjust the recruitment of age 0 fish to account for the fact that they are born in July of the previous year, could we just use the number of age-1 fish in Jan of the following year? In SS3 all fish turn 1 at the start of the next calendar year which would make all the age one fish in Jan actually 6 months old. @fecor21 can correct me if I'm wrong, but in that case, we should be able to use those age-1 fish as the recruitment from the previous year and we won't have to correct for the half-year of mortality.
To clarify, I'm suggesting that we could use the numbers at age 1 in Jan-1 1990 for the recruitment that occurred in July 1989. What do you think @JonBrodziak? Those values can be easily pulled using the SS_to_agepro function we walked through yesterday.