UPDATED STANDARDIZED CATCH RATES OF BLUEFIN TUNA (THUNNUS THYNNUS) FROM THE TRAP FISHERY IN TUNISIA

Similar documents
GLM Example: One-Way Analysis of Covariance

Subject-specific observed profiles of change from baseline vs week trt=10000u

Problem Points Score USE YOUR TIME WISELY USE CLOSEST DF AVAILABLE IN TABLE SHOW YOUR WORK TO RECEIVE PARTIAL CREDIT

S.J. Johnston, D.S. Butterworth and D. van Zyl

Chapter 27. Inferences for Regression. Remembering Regression. An Example: Body Fat and Waist Size. Remembering Regression (cont.)

Replicated Latin Square and Crossover Designs

Latin Square Design. Design of Experiments - Montgomery Section 4-2

Linear mixed models and when implied assumptions not appropriate

I. Model. Q29a. I love the options at my fingertips today, watching videos on my phone, texting, and streaming films. Main Effect X1: Gender

Block Block Block

PROC GLM AND PROC MIXED CODES FOR TREND ANALYSES FOR ROW-COLUMN DESIGNED EXPERIMENTS

More About Regression

Bootstrap Methods in Regression Questions Have you had a chance to try any of this? Any of the review questions?

Moving on from MSTAT. March The University of Reading Statistical Services Centre Biometrics Advisory and Support Service to DFID

DV: Liking Cartoon Comedy

RCBD with Sampling Pooling Experimental and Sampling Error

Resampling Statistics. Conventional Statistics. Resampling Statistics

TWO-FACTOR ANOVA Kim Neuendorf 4/9/18 COM 631/731 I. MODEL

RANDOMIZED COMPLETE BLOCK DESIGN (RCBD) Probably the most used and useful of the experimental designs.

MANOVA/MANCOVA Paul and Kaila

Statistical Consulting Topics. RCBD with a covariate

Mixed Models Lecture Notes By Dr. Hanford page 151 More Statistics& SAS Tutorial at Type 3 Tests of Fixed Effects

1'-tq/? BU-- _-M August 2000 Technical Report Series of the Department of Biometrics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853

Sociology 7704: Regression Models for Categorical Data Instructor: Natasha Sarkisian

Predicting the Importance of Current Papers

Regression Model for Politeness Estimation Trained on Examples

Mixed Effects Models Yan Wang, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Wallingford, CT

Modelling Intervention Effects in Clustered Randomized Pretest/Posttest Studies. Ed Stanek

K-Pop Idol Industry Minhyung Lee

Feedback: Part A - Basics

SECTION I. THE MODEL. Discriminant Analysis Presentation~ REVISION Marcy Saxton and Jenn Stoneking DF1 DF2 DF3

Algebra I Module 2 Lessons 1 19

8 Nonparametric test. Question 1: Are (expected) value of x and y the same?

MANOVA COM 631/731 Spring 2017 M. DANIELS. From Jeffres & Neuendorf (2015) Film and TV Usage National Survey

K ABC Mplus CFA Model. Syntax file (kabc-mplus.inp) Data file (kabc-mplus.dat)

Exercises. ASReml Tutorial: B4 Bivariate Analysis p. 55

Discriminant Analysis. DFs

A STATISTICAL VIEW ON THE EXPRESSIVE TIMING OF PIANO ROLLED CHORDS

in the Howard County Public School System and Rocketship Education

1. Model. Discriminant Analysis COM 631. Spring Devin Kelly. Dataset: Film and TV Usage National Survey 2015 (Jeffres & Neuendorf) Q23a. Q23b.

Analysis of Packet Loss for Compressed Video: Does Burst-Length Matter?

CONCLUSION The annual increase for optical scanner cost may be due partly to inflation and partly to special demands by the State.

1. MORTALITY AT ADVANCED AGES IN SPAIN MARIA DELS ÀNGELS FELIPE CHECA 1 COL LEGI D ACTUARIS DE CATALUNYA

GENOTYPE AND ENVIRONMENTAL DIFFERENCES IN FIBRE DIAMETER PROFILE CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH STAPLE STRENGTH IN MERINO SHEEP

Relationships Between Quantitative Variables

Best Pat-Tricks on Model Diagnostics What are they? Why use them? What good do they do?

Draft last edited May 13, 2013 by Belinda Robertson

Relationships. Between Quantitative Variables. Chapter 5. Copyright 2006 Brooks/Cole, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc.

Laplace Transform: basic properties; functions of a complex variable; poles diagrams; s-shift law.

THE FAIR MARKET VALUE

Analysis of local and global timing and pitch change in ordinary

Detecting Medicaid Data Anomalies Using Data Mining Techniques Shenjun Zhu, Qiling Shi, Aran Canes, AdvanceMed Corporation, Nashville, TN

Mixed models in R using the lme4 package Part 2: Longitudinal data, modeling interactions

Chapter 21. Margin of Error. Intervals. Asymmetric Boxes Interpretation Examples. Chapter 21. Margin of Error

AP Music Theory 1999 Scoring Guidelines

Math Final Exam Practice Test December 2, 2013

Note: Please use the actual date you accessed this material in your citation.

Math 8 Assignment Log. Finish Discussion on Course Outline. Activity Section 2.1 Congruent Figures Due Date: In-Class: Directions for Section 2.

Visible Vibrations (originally Chladni Patterns) - Adding Memory Buttons. Joshua Gutwill. August 2002

7+($1$/<6,62)(6&2575(48,5(0(176)257$1.9(66(/6,135,1&(:,//,$06281'

War On Radio: The Pacific & European Theatres READ ONLINE

INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS KEYSTONE JOURNAL OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH (KJUR)

Manuscript Preparation Instructions 1/26/2004 Assessment and Management of New and Developed Fisheries in

Blueline, Linefree, Accuracy Ratio, & Moving Absolute Mean Ratio Charts

Manuscript Preparation Instructions. Proceedings of the Symposium on Spatial Processes and Management of Fish Populations

Display Dilemma. Display Dilemma. 1 of 12. Copyright 2008, Exemplars, Inc. All rights reserved.

GUIDELINES FOR THE PREPARATION OF A GRADUATE THESIS. Master of Science Program. (Updated March 2018)

Analysis of Film Revenues: Saturated and Limited Films Megan Gold

Objective Video Quality Assessment of Direct Recording and Datavideo HDR-40 Recording System

Senior Math Studies Lesson Planning Date Lesson Events

RGA13, 12/10/17 Ultra High Resolution 20mm Quadrupole with Dual Zone operation

Estimating. Proportions with Confidence. Chapter 10. Copyright 2006 Brooks/Cole, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc.

Open Access Determinants and the Effect on Article Performance

Math Chapters 1 and 2 review

Rounding Foldable Download or Read Online ebook rounding foldable in PDF Format From The Best User Guide Database

INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS

Modeling memory for melodies

Time Domain Simulations

Perceptual dimensions of short audio clips and corresponding timbre features

MAT Practice (solutions) 1. Find an algebraic formula for a linear function that passes through the points ( 3, 7) and (6, 1).

COMP Test on Psychology 320 Check on Mastery of Prerequisites

Learning Musicianship for Automatic Accompaniment

Identifying the Importance of Types of Music Information among Music Students

Chapter 5. Describing Distributions Numerically. Finding the Center: The Median. Spread: Home on the Range. Finding the Center: The Median (cont.

LCD and Plasma display technologies are promising solutions for large-format

Pearson BTEC Nationals in Music Technology New for applications

Code-aided Frame Synchronization

Technical Appendices to: Is Having More Channels Really Better? A Model of Competition Among Commercial Television Broadcasters

1 Lesson 11: Antiderivatives of Elementary Functions

Research Article. ISSN (Print) *Corresponding author Shireen Fathima

Reconstruction of Ca 2+ dynamics from low frame rate Ca 2+ imaging data CS229 final project. Submitted by: Limor Bursztyn

To Link this Article: Vol. 7, No.1, January 2018, Pg. 1-11

DOES MOVIE SOUNDTRACK MATTER? THE ROLE OF SOUNDTRACK IN PREDICTING MOVIE REVENUE

Guide for Writing the Honor Thesis Format Specifications

INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS

Processes for the Intersection

Discipline of Economics, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

The First Hundred Instant Sight Words. Words 1-25 Words Words Words

Mixed Linear Models. Case studies on speech rate modulations in spontaneous speech. LSA Summer Institute 2009, UC Berkeley

ECG Denoising Using Singular Value Decomposition

Transcription:

SCRS/2004/083 Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 58(2): 596-605 (2005) UPDATED STANDARDIZED CATCH RATES OF BLUEFIN TUNA (THUNNUS THYNNUS) FROM THE TRAP FISHERY IN TUNISIA A. Hattour 1, J.M. de la Serna 2 and J.M a Ortiz de Urbina 2 SUMMARY A General Linear Modelling (GLM) approach to analysis of variance was used to examine bluefin tuna catch rates from the Tunisian trap fishery at the Mediterranean Sea. Preliminary standardized catch rates for bluefin tuna were adopted for the period 1975-2000. RÉSUMÉ Des techniques de modèle linéaire généralisé (GLM) ont été utilisées pour analyser les taux de capture du thon rouge en provenance des pêcheries de madragues tunisiennes opérant en Méditerranée. Des taux de capture standardisés préliminaires pour le thon rouge ont été adoptés pour la période 1975-2000. RESUMEN Se utilizó un modelo lineal generalizado (GLM) para analizar la varianza con el fin de examinar las tasas de captura de atún rojo procedente de la pesquería de almadrabas de Túnez en el mar Mediterráneo. Se adoptaron las tasas de captura estandarizadas preliminares de atún rojo para el periodo 1975-2000. KEYWORDS Catch/effort, Least squares method, Abundance, Trap fishing 1 Institut National des Sciences et Technologie de la Mer (INSTM) E-mail: abdallah.hattour@instm.rnrt.tn 2 Instituo Espanol de Oceanografia. Centre Oceanografico de Malaga (Fuengirola). Spain. 596

1. Introduction In Tunisia, tuna fishing by traps has been practiced nearly since the beginning of times. It was introduced by the Phoenicians; the Arabs of the 7 th century neglected it for a long time. From the 19 th century this gear has experimented a rebirth. In fact we can situate around 1820 the first exploitations of Tunisian tuna fishing boats in Sidi Daoud, Cap Zebib and Monastir. Then, for a century and a half it became a purely Italian industry and until finally, trap-nets were granted to different concessionaires. In the beginning of the century, the number of operational tuna fishing boats was ten, not counting three other trap-nets granted in 1906 to Ras Salakta, at the outside of Menzel Temime and in the north of Mahdia, which did not seem to be exploited. These trap-nets were: Cap Zebib, in the east of Bizerte, Sidi Daoud, Ras El Ahmar, El Haouaria, Ras El Mihr, Ras Marsa, Monastir, Conigliera, Kuriat, Borj Khédija (not far from La Chebba). Until 1999, two trap-nets were exploited by l'office National des Pêches (ONP; National Fishery Office); that of Sidi Daoud and that of Monastir (Kuriat island). Today, two trap-nets at Sidi Daoud and Ras Lahmar, both in the Tunisian gulf are esploited by private enterprises. The Conception of trap-nets has been widely detailed in Project FAO- COPEMED 1999 final report. These gears are based upon an ancestral principle: capturing the fish going to the Western Mediterranean to spawn in waters with a specific temperature and salinity. In their trajectory, tuna must cross the Sicily Channel, generally near the Tunisian Coast. Fishers knew that the tuna appeared from the third decade of May in Sidi Daoud and in the beginning of June in Monastir until the beginning of July. In the last years, variations in the dates of appearance of these animals have been observed. As a matter of fact, this observation was perfectly verified in the thirties and not so much during the seventies. In the eighties, the appearance of bluefin tuna stopped in the middle of June. In the present, bluefin tuna are fished from the beginning of April until the end of May. This study was performed with the financial aid of the Project FAO- COPEMED and coordinated by the Instituto Español de Oceanografía. Centro Oceanográfico de Málaga. 2. Material and methods Data were obtained from the Tunisian trap at Sidi Daoud in the Mediterranean Sea. Information on catches in number of individuals and weight, size composition, effort (days of bunt set between consecutive net lifting operations ormatanzas), and trap characteristics was collected from 1975 through 2000. A General Linear Modeling (GLM) approach to analysis of variance was used to examine logged catch rates (catch in number of individuals and weight per day of bunt set between consecutive net lifting operations) for differences among the effects of year and month (Gavaris 1980, 1988). Annual abundance indices were obtained from marginal means (least squares mean estimates), adjusted for the GLM statistically significant terms. 3. Results and discussion For catch rates in number of fish, a preliminary analysis resulted in factor Month not being statistically significant (Table 1) as in previous analysis (Hattour et al. 2001). The final model, which included only Year, class level information and F-test are given in Table 2. As regards catch rates in weight (Table 3), both factors, Year and Month were statistically significant at the 5% level. R 2 was about 33.5%. The distributions of standardized residuals for both models (Figure 1) does not appear to be far from expected under Normal error assumption. Standardized annual indices of abundance in number of fish and weight are shown in Table 4. Standardized CPUE with 95 % upper and lower confidence limits are shown in Figure 1. 597

Literature cited FAO- COPEMED Project Tuna 1999. Final Report. Gavaris, S. 1980. Use of a multiplicative model to estimate catch rate and effort from commercial data. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37; pp 2272-2275. Gavaris, S. 1988. Abundance indices from commercial fishing. Collected papers on stock assessment methods. CAFSAC Res. Doc. 88/61. 167 p. Hattour, A., J.M. Ortiz de Urbina, J.M. de la Serna. 2001. Preliminary standardized catch rates for bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) from the trap fishery in Tunisia. ICCAT SCRS/01/126. 598

Table 1. GLM results for bluefin tuna catch rates in number of fish from the Tunisian trap in the Mediterranean Sea. Mediterranean Tunisian TRAP BFT. Dependent: Number of Fish The GLM Procedure Class Level Information Class Levels Values Year 26 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Month 2 5 6 Number of observations 414 Dependent Variable: Lcpuen Lcpuen Sum of Source DF Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F Model 49 87.3642485 1.7829438 3.83 <.0001 Error 364 169.6408576 0.4660463 Corrected Total 413 257.0051062 R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE Lcpuen Mean 0.339932 82.22180 0.682676 0.830286 Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F Year 25 70.67624790 2.82704992 6.07 <.0001 Month 1 0.96217433 0.96217433 2.06 0.1516 Year*Month 23 15.72582629 0.68373158 1.47 0.0778 Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F Year 25 57.22736743 2.28909470 4.91 <.0001 Month 1 0.72201938 0.72201938 1.55 0.2140 Year*Month 23 15.72582629 0.68373158 1.47 0.0778 599

Table 2. GLM results for bluefin tuna catch rates in number of fish from the Tunisian trap in the Mediterranean Sea (Final model). Mediterranean Tunisian TRAP BFT. Dependent: Number of Fish The GLM Procedure Class Level Information Class Levels Values Year 26 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Month 2 5 6 Number of observations 414 Dependent Variable: Lcpuen Lcpuen Sum of Source DF Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F Model 25 70.6762479 2.8270499 5.89 <.0001 Error 388 186.3288583 0.4802290 Corrected Total 413 257.0051062 R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE Lcpuen Mean 0.274999 83.46350 0.692986 0.830286 Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F Year 25 70.67624790 2.82704992 5.89 <.0001 Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F Year 25 70.67624790 2.82704992 5.89 <.0001 Standard Parameter Estimate Error t Value Pr > t Intercept -0.152584617 B 0.20894301-0.73 0.4657 Year 1975 0.627480904 B 0.26254979 2.39 0.0173 Year 1976 0.572914716 B 0.26254979 2.18 0.0297 Year 1977 0.847774003 B 0.26521043 3.20 0.0015 Year 1978 1.084770275 B 0.27142494 4.00 <.0001 600

Table 2. (Cont.) Year 1979 1.299950242 B 0.26521043 4.90 <.0001 Year 1980 0.535278077 B 0.31147386 1.72 0.0865 Year 1981 1.121830863 B 0.26815285 4.18 <.0001 Year 1982 1.070965753 B 0.24787788 4.32 <.0001 Year 1983 1.042963084 B 0.25073162 4.16 <.0001 Year 1984 0.485767707 B 0.26254979 1.85 0.0650 Year 1985 1.238978110 B 0.26521043 4.67 <.0001 Year 1986 1.286017058 B 0.26013196 4.94 <.0001 Year 1987 0.926601017 B 0.26521043 3.49 0.0005 Year 1988 1.443167033 B 0.26013196 5.55 <.0001 Year 1989 1.564654747 B 0.24787788 6.31 <.0001 Year 1990 1.414183807 B 0.26013196 5.44 <.0001 Year 1991 1.341012055 B 0.25792486 5.20 <.0001 Year 1992 0.988757061 B 0.27921185 3.54 0.0004 Year 1993 0.347196452 B 0.33505422 1.04 0.3007 Year 1994 1.504906107 B 0.30278719 4.97 <.0001 Year 1995 0.538648119 B 0.30278719 1.78 0.0760 Year 1996 0.633404544 B 0.28926850 2.19 0.0291 Year 1997-0.068520119 B 0.35170350-0.19 0.8456 Year 1998 0.546711088 B 0.40461641 1.35 0.1774 Year 1999 0.181919758 B 0.31147386 0.58 0.5595 Year 2000 0.000000000 B... NOTE: The X'X matrix has been found to be singular, and a generalized inverse was used to solve the normal equations. Terms whose estimates are followed by the letter 'B' are not uniquely estimable. 601

Table 3. GLM results for bluefin tuna catch rates in weight from the Tunisian trap in the Mediterranean Sea. Mediterranean Tunisian TRAP BFT. Dependent: Weight of fish The GLM Procedure Class Level Information Class Levels Values Year 26 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Month 2 5 6 Number of observations 414 Dependent Variable: Lcpuew Lcpuew Sum of Source DF Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F Model 26 452.362970 17.398576 7.49 <.0001 Error 387 898.916531 2.322782 Corrected Total 413 1351.279501 R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE Lcpuew Mean 0.334766 22.61930 1.524067 6.737908 Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F Year 25 435.2732582 17.4109303 7.50 <.0001 Month 1 17.0897122 17.0897122 7.36 0.0070 Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F Year 25 452.3000873 18.0920035 7.79 <.0001 Month 1 17.0897122 17.0897122 7.36 0.0070 Standard Parameter Estimate Error t Value Pr > t Intercept 3.896233954 B 0.48390420 8.05 <.0001 Year 1975 1.817135764 B 0.58094013 3.13 0.0019 Year 1976 1.974173714 B 0.58004064 3.40 0.0007 Year 1977 2.137890201 B 0.58467175 3.66 0.0003 Year 1978 3.072162684 B 0.60895611 5.04 <.0001 602

Table 3. (cont.) Year 1979 3.544257467 B 0.59270385 5.98 <.0001 Year 1980 1.631995798 B 0.68536759 2.38 0.0177 Year 1981 2.975668985 B 0.59426238 5.01 <.0001 Year 1982 2.725341572 B 0.54833340 4.97 <.0001 Year 1983 2.796428935 B 0.55325268 5.05 <.0001 Year 1984 1.579771032 B 0.58094013 2.72 0.0068 Year 1985 2.998978204 B 0.58538588 5.12 <.0001 Year 1986 3.648828251 B 0.58105623 6.28 <.0001 Year 1987 2.729351917 B 0.58624568 4.66 <.0001 Year 1988 3.804935751 B 0.57837209 6.58 <.0001 Year 1989 4.162235113 B 0.54714215 7.61 <.0001 Year 1990 3.571763921 B 0.57218724 6.24 <.0001 Year 1991 3.087708975 B 0.56868821 5.43 <.0001 Year 1992 2.429067380 B 0.61566847 3.95 <.0001 Year 1993 1.488608283 B 0.74417958 2.00 0.0462 Year 1994 3.088686575 B 0.66591475 4.64 <.0001 Year 1995 0.790084912 B 0.66591475 1.19 0.2362 Year 1996 1.101218366 B 0.63630720 1.73 0.0843 Year 1997-0.258478232 B 0.77359679-0.33 0.7385 Year 1998 0.990633038 B 0.88999293 1.11 0.2664 Year 1999 0.305018799 B 0.68518527 0.45 0.6565 Year 2000 0.000000000 B... Month 5 0.452514005 B 0.16682796 2.71 0.0070 Month 6 0.000000000 B... NOTE: The X'X matrix has been found to be singular, and a generalized inverse was used to solve the normal equations. Terms whose estimates are followed by the letter 'B' are not uniquely estimable. 603

Table 4. Standardized CPUE series in number of fish (upper) and weight (lower) for the Tunisian BFT Trap fishery in the Mediterranean Sea. Least Sqr. Std. LN CPUE Lower Upper Year Mean Error (number) CI 95% CI 95% 1975 0,4749 0,1590 0,4875 0,18 0,80 1976 0,4203 0,1590 0,4330 0,12 0,74 1977 0,6952 0,1633 0,7085 0,39 1,03 1978 0,9322 0,1732 0,9472 0,61 1,29 1979 1,1474 0,1633 1,1607 0,84 1,48 1980 0,3827 0,2310 0,4094-0,04 0,86 1981 0,9692 0,1681 0,9834 0,65 1,31 1982 0,9184 0,1334 0,9273 0,67 1,19 1983 0,8904 0,1386 0,9000 0,63 1,17 1984 0,3332 0,1590 0,3458 0,03 0,66 1985 1,0864 0,1633 1,0997 0,78 1,42 1986 1,1334 0,1550 1,1454 0,84 1,45 1987 0,7740 0,1633 0,7873 0,47 1,11 1988 1,2906 0,1550 1,3026 1,00 1,61 1989 1,4121 0,1334 1,4210 1,16 1,68 1990 1,2616 0,1550 1,2736 0,97 1,58 1991 1,1884 0,1512 1,1999 0,90 1,50 1992 0,8362 0,1852 0,8533 0,49 1,22 1993 0,1946 0,2619 0,2289-0,28 0,74 1994 1,3523 0,2191 1,3763 0,95 1,81 1995 0,3861 0,2191 0,4101-0,02 0,84 1996 0,4808 0,2000 0,5008 0,11 0,89 1997-0,2211 0,2829-0,1811-0,74 0,37 1998 0,3941 0,3465 0,4542-0,22 1,13 1999 0,0293 0,2310 0,0560-0,40 0,51 2000-0,1526 0,2089-0,1308-0,54 0,28 Least Sqr. Std. LN CPUE Lower Upper Year Mean Error (weight) CI 95% CI 95% 1975 5,9396 0,3497 6,0007 5,32 6,69 1976 6,0967 0,3499 6,1579 5,47 6,84 1977 6,2604 0,3603 6,3253 5,62 7,03 1978 7,1947 0,3846 7,2687 6,51 8,02 1979 7,6667 0,3611 7,7319 7,02 8,44 1980 5,7545 0,5101 5,8846 4,88 6,88 1981 7,0982 0,3697 7,1665 6,44 7,89 1982 6,8478 0,2935 6,8909 6,32 7,47 1983 6,9189 0,3057 6,9656 6,37 7,56 1984 5,7023 0,3497 5,7634 5,08 6,45 1985 7,1215 0,3597 7,1862 6,48 7,89 1986 7,7713 0,3424 7,8299 7,16 8,50 1987 6,8518 0,3593 6,9163 6,21 7,62 1988 7,9274 0,3412 7,9856 7,32 8,65 1989 8,2847 0,2941 8,3279 7,75 8,90 1990 7,6942 0,3458 7,7540 7,08 8,43 1991 7,2102 0,3337 7,2659 6,61 7,92 1992 6,5516 0,4080 6,6348 5,84 7,43 1993 5,6111 0,5771 5,7776 4,65 6,91 604

1994 7,2112 0,4866 7,3296 6,38 8,28 1995 4,9126 0,4866 5,0310 4,08 5,98 1996 5,2237 0,4435 5,3220 4,45 6,19 1997 3,8640 0,6247 4,0591 2,83 5,28 1998 5,1131 0,7666 5,4069 3,90 6,91 1999 4,4275 0,5148 4,5600 3,55 5,57 2000 4,1225 0,4646 4,2304 3,32 5,14 Figure 1. Standardized residuals for GLM fits (left panel for model with catch rates in number of fish and right panel for catch rates in weight). 605