2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.fishres.2014.08.021
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Model selection between traditional and popular methods for standardizing catch rates of target species: A case study of Japanese Spanish mackerel in the gillnet fishery

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
26
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
2
26
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The high variability and complex population structure increase the difficulty of stock management. Combined with the improvement in catch per unit effort (CPUE) standardization [30], a more reliable conclusion on population fluctuation could be drawn. Further investigations are also required, especially the origin of spawning components, to develop effective management policy.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The high variability and complex population structure increase the difficulty of stock management. Combined with the improvement in catch per unit effort (CPUE) standardization [30], a more reliable conclusion on population fluctuation could be drawn. Further investigations are also required, especially the origin of spawning components, to develop effective management policy.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The variable with significant region/SL interaction was excluded from subsequent analysis, while the remaining variables that correlated significantly with FL were standardized using their respective common within-group slope [30], followed by the expression:…”
Section: Otolith Shape and Statistical Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among the three modelling methods, RFs provided the best predictability and stable predictions over years but had a lower R 2 compared to ANNs. Actually, the relative predictive capacity of ANNs and RFs varied greatly among studies with respect to different objectives and circumstances of their applications [ 35 , 43 , 64 ]. For instance, some studies suggested that RFs had advantages over ANNs in relation to avoiding overfitting [ 65 ] and simple adjustment to parameters [ 35 ], whereas ANNs could be adaptively trained to solve more complex ecological relationships [ 25 , 27 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Actually, the relative predictive capacity of ANNs and RFs varied greatly among studies with respect to different objectives and circumstances of their applications [ 35 , 43 , 64 ]. For instance, some studies suggested that RFs had advantages over ANNs in relation to avoiding overfitting [ 65 ] and simple adjustment to parameters [ 35 ], whereas ANNs could be adaptively trained to solve more complex ecological relationships [ 25 , 27 ]. For modelling response curves, the simple patterns provided by GAM appeared to be more reasonable, whereas the complex relationships identified by ML methods did not necessarily mean they were unrealistic, because species-environment responses often tend to be complex, even after accounting for interactions between variables [ 21 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation