Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 16, pp 15894–15904 | Cite as

Evaluation of management procedures for a length-frequency data-limited fishery

  • Richard Kindong
  • Jiangfeng Zhu
  • Feng Wu
  • Libing Dai
  • Xiaojie DaiEmail author
  • Siquan Tian
  • Yong Chen
  • Meng Xia
Research Article


Management procedures (MPs) based on data-limited methods (DLMs) recently developed to give management advices for data-limited stocks worldwide are scarce or yet to be implemented on freshwater species. In this study, case studies (CSs) were developed using length-frequency data (LFD) of common carp species harvested from Dianshan Lake to estimate life-history parameters from existing methods. These CSs were later used to examine their influences when tested with various MPs under scenarios when operating models (OMs) were subjected to observation and estimation uncertainties. The results after management strategy evaluation (MSE) was run for various defined OMs showed that three MPs emerged best for providing managing advice. For high yield to be maintained during short-term periods, MinlenLopt1 suggested the smallest length at full retention (sLFR) to be 42.11 cm; while Slotlim and matlenlim2 suggested that to maintain biomass and stable spawning biomass (SBMSY) and also avoid overfishing from occurring in this fishery, sLFR should be 56.1 cm. Values given by these MPs allowed the removal of species that spawned at least once. Also, life-history parameters derived from CS4 presented the best results, being more reliable in presenting better inputs for effective management of the said fishery.


Data-limited methods Management procedure Management strategy evaluation Cyprinus carpio Length-frequency data Stock assessment 



We thank all the individuals, including staffs and students of the College of Marine Sciences, Shanghai Ocean University who assisted with data preparation and for supporting this study. The authors are also grateful to the developers of TropFishR and DLMtool for their splendid work and technical support. We would also like to thank the handling editor and the two anonymous reviewers for their suggestions and comments that helped to improve this paper.

Funding information

This study was funded by the Shanghai Municipal Council.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Balon EK (2006) The oldest domesticated fishes, and the consequences of an epigenetic dichotomy in fish culture. Aqua 11:47–86Google Scholar
  2. Beddington JR, Kirkwood GP (2005) The estimation of potential yield and stock status using life-history parameters. Philos Trans R Soc B 360:163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beverton RJ, Holt SJ (1957) On the dynamics of exploited fish populations, vol 19. Chapman and Hall, London, Ministry of Agriculture, UK, p 533Google Scholar
  4. Bunnefeld N, Hoshino E, Milner-Gulland EJ (2017) Management strategy evaluation: a powerful tool for conservation? Trends Ecol Evol 26(441):447Google Scholar
  5. Butterworth DS, Punt AE (1999) Experiences in the evaluation and implementation of management procedures. ICES J Mar Sci 56:985–998. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carruthers TR, Punt AE, Walters CJ, MacCall A, McAllister MK, Dick EJ, Cope J (2014) Evaluating methods for setting catch limits in data-limited fisheries. Fish Res 153:48–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carruthers TR, Kell LT, Butterworth DD, Maunder MN, Geromont HF, Walters C, McAllister MK, Hillary R, Levontin P, Kitakado T, Davies CR (2016) Performance review of simple management procedures. ICES J Mar Sci 73(2):464–482. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carruthers TR, Hordyk AR (2018a) DLMtool: data-limited methods toolkit v5.2.2. URL Accessed Sept 2018
  9. Carruthers TR, Hordyk AR (2018b) The data-limited methods toolkit (DLMtool): an R package for informing management of data-limited populations. Methods Ecol Evol 9:2388–2395. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Casal CMV (2006) Global documentation of fish introductions: the growing crisis and recommendations for action. Biol Invasions 8:3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cope JM, Punt AE (2009) Length-based reference points for data-limited situations: applications and restrictions. Mar Coast Fish 1:169–186. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Costello C, Ovando D, Hilborn R, Gaines SD, Deschenes O, Lester SE (2012) Status and solutions for the world’s unassessed fisheries. Science 338:517–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Costello C et al. (2016) Global fishery futures under contrasting management regimes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America: in review.Google Scholar
  14. Chrysafi A, Kuparinen A (2016) Assessing abundance of populations with limited data: lessons learned from data-poor fisheries stock assessment. Environ Rev 24(1):25 38–25 38. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Edwards CT (2015) Review of data-poor assessment methods for New Zealand fisheries. Ministry for Primary Industries, WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  16. Froese R, Branch TA, Proelss A, Quaas M, Sainsbury K, Zimmermann C (2011) Generic harvest control rules for European fisheries. Fish Fish 12(3):340–351. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Froese R, Pauly D (2018) Accessed 06 Oct 2018
  18. Gulland JA, Rosenberg AA (1992) A review of length-based approaches to assessing fish stocks (no. 321–325). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  19. Harford WJ, Harford SR, Isely SJJ, Smith MW (2016) Technical description of operating models in data-limited methods toolkit (DLMtool). SEDAR49-AW-10. SEDAR, North Charleston 33 ppGoogle Scholar
  20. Hilborn R, Ovando D (2014) Reflections on the success of traditional fisheries management. ICES J Mar Sci 71(5):1040–1046.
  21. Hoenig JM (1983) Empirical use of longevity data toestimate mortality rates. Fish Bull 81:898–903Google Scholar
  22. Hordyk A, Ono K, Sainsbury K, Loneragan N, Prince J (2015) Some explorations of the life history ratios to describe length composition, spawning-per-recruit, and the spawning potential ratio. ICES J Mar Sci 72(1):204–216. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hordyk A, Newman D, Carruthers T, Suatoni L (2017) Applying management strategy evaluation to California fisheries: case studies and recommendations. Data Limited Methods Toolkit. Available: content/uploads/2017/07/Applying MSE-to-CA-Fisheries-Case-Studies Recommendations.pdf. Accessed 06 Oct 2018.
  24. ICES (2012) ICES implementation of advice for data-limited stocks in 2012 in its 2012 advice. ICES CM 2012/ACOM 68Google Scholar
  25. Jenning S, Dulvy N (2009) Beverton and Holt’s insights into life history theory: influence, application and future use. In: Payne A, Cotter J, Potter T (eds) Advances in fisheries science 50 years on from Beverton and Holt. Blackwell Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Kindong R, Gao CX, Dai XJ, Tian SQ Feng W (2018) Population dynamic parameters for Cyprinus carpio in Dianshan Lake. Thalassas 34:279–288. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mildenberger TK, Taylor MH, Wolff M (2017) TropFishR: an R package for fisheries analysis with length-frequency data. Methods Ecol Evol 8(11):1520–1527. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miller T (2015) Blueline Tilefish Working Group report. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Accessed 22 Oct 2018
  29. Newman D, Carruthers T, MacCall A, Porch C, Suatoni L (2014) Improving the science and management of data-limited fisheries: an evaluation of current methods and recommended approaches. Natural Resources Defense Council, NRDC Report R, New York CityGoogle Scholar
  30. Pauly D (1980) On the interrelationships between natural mortality, growth parameters, and mean environmental temperature in fish stocks. ICES J Mar Sci 39(2):175–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pauly D, Morgan GR (eds) (1987) Length-based methods in fisheries research. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Metro Manila, Philippines and Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, SafatGoogle Scholar
  32. Punt AE, Butterworth DS, de Moor C, De Oliveira JAA, Haddon M (2016) Management strategy evaluation: best practices. Fish Fish 17:303–334. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Quinn TJ, Deriso RB (1999) Quantitative fish dynamics. Oxford University Press, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Rudd MB, Thorson JT (2018) Accounting for variable recruitment and fishing mortality in length-based stock assessments for data-limited fisheries. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 75(7):1019–1035. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sagarese SR, Adyan BR, Shannon LCC, Nancie JC, Meaghan DB, Molly HS, Harford WJ, Kevin JC, Vivian MM (2018) Working towards a framework for stock evaluations in data-limited fisheries. N Am J Fish Manag 38:507–537. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) (2016) SEDAR-49—stock assessment report for Gulf of Mexico data-limited species. Accessed 22 Oct 2018
  37. Sun M, Zhang CL, Chen Y, Xu BD, Xue Y, Ren YP (2018) Assessing the sensitivity of data-limited methods (DLMs) to the estimation of life-history parameters from length–frequency data. Can J Fish Aquat Sci: 1–10
  38. Tarkan AS, Ekmekçi FG, Vilizzi L, Copp GH (2014) Risk screening of non-native freshwater fishes at the frontier between Asia and Europe: first application in Turkey of the Fish Invasiveness Screening Kit (FISK). J Appl Ichthyol 30(2):392–398. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Taylor MH, Mildenberger TK (2017) Extending electronic length frequency analysis in R. Fish Manag Ecol 24(4):330–338. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Then AY, Hoenig JM, Hall NG, Hewitt DA (2015) Evaluating the predictive performance of empirical estimators of natural mortality rate using information on over 200 fish species. ICES J Mar Sci 72(1):1–6. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vilizzi L, Guler EF, Tarkan AS, Zachary JJ (2014) Growth of common carp Cyprinus carpio in Anatolia (Turkey), with a comparison to native and invasive areas worldwide. Ecol Freshw Fish 24:165–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vilizzi L, Tarkan AS, Copp GH (2015) Experimental evidence from causal criteria analysis for the effects of common carp Cyprinus carpio on freshwater ecosystems: a global perspective. Rev Fish Sci Aquac 23:253–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vilizzi L (2018) Age determination in common carp Cyprinus carpio: history, relative utility of ageing structures, precision and accuracy. Rev Fish Biol Fish 28:461–484. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. von Bertalanffy L (1938) A quantitative theory of organic growth (inquiries on growth laws. II) [online]. Hum Biol 10(2):181–213 Available from Google Scholar
  45. Walsh JC, Minto C, Jardim E, Anderson SC, Jensen OP, Afflerbach J, Dickey-Collas M, Kleisner KM, Longo C, Osio GC, Selig ER, Thorson JT, Rudd MB, Papacostas KJ, Kittinger JN, Rosenberg AA, Cooper AB (2018) Trade-offs for data-limited fisheries when using harvest strategies based on catch-only models. Fish Fish 00:1–17. Google Scholar
  46. Walters CJ, Martell SJ (2004) Fisheries ecology and management. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  47. Wiedenmann J (2015) Application of data-poor harvest control rules to Atlantic mackerel. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Accessed 22 Oct 2018
  48. Yang ML, Jiang WS, Wang WY, Pan XF, Kong DP, Han FH, Chen XY, Yang JX (2016) Fish assemblages and diversity in three tributaries of the Irrawaddy River in China: changes, threats, and conservation perspectives. Knowl Manag Aquat Ecosyst 417:9CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Marine SciencesShanghai Ocean UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.School of Marine SciencesUniversity of MaineOronoUSA

Personalised recommendations