• norsk
    • English
  • English 
    • norsk
    • English
  • Login
View Item 
  •   Home
  • Havforskningsinstituttet
  • Published in cooperation with others
  • ICES CM documents authored by IMR scientists (1949-2011)
  • View Item
  •   Home
  • Havforskningsinstituttet
  • Published in cooperation with others
  • ICES CM documents authored by IMR scientists (1949-2011)
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Validating three methods for making probability statements in fisheries forecasts.

Patterson, K. R.; Cook, R. M.; Darby, Chris; Gavaris, S.; Mesnil, Benoit; Punt, A. E.; Restrepo, V. R.; Skagen, Dankert W.; Stefánsson, Gunnar; Smith, M.
Working paper
Thumbnail
View/Open
V0600.pdf (342.7Kb)
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/11250/100459
Date
2000
Metadata
Show full item record
Collections
  • ICES CM documents authored by IMR scientists (1949-2011) [3139]
Abstract
We report on a test of three methods that have been used by ICES in making probability statements about

fisheries forecasts to management agencies (XSA/WGMTERM, ICA/ICP, and a stochastic projection

method that was first applied to North Sea herring). The principle of the test is to calculate many stock

assessments and forecasts using historic data, and to compare probability statements about some quantities

(forecast biomass, relative biomass, catch etc.) with the latest and presumably more reliable estimates. For

most ICES and NAFO stocks where a sufficiently long time-series exists, we calculate retrospective (8 year

before present) assessments and then calculate medium term forecasts 5 years forwards. By comparing the

frequencies of expected and actual outcomes, we conclude that some methods can be used to make

reasonably reliable probability statements about relative biomass (e.g. biomass relative to biomass at some

time in the past), but that for most other quantities and most methods the accuracy of probability estimates

is very poor. In general, the methods tended to underestimate uncertainty and there was a relatively large

proportion of "unexpected" outcomes in the forecasts.
Publisher
ICES
Series
ICES CM documents
2000V:06

Contact Us | Send Feedback

Privacy policy
DSpace software copyright © 2002-2019  DuraSpace

Service from  Unit
 

 

Browse

ArchiveCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsDocument TypesJournalsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsDocument TypesJournals

My Account

Login

Statistics

View Usage Statistics

Contact Us | Send Feedback

Privacy policy
DSpace software copyright © 2002-2019  DuraSpace

Service from  Unit