Aquaculture and Fisheries 5 (2020) 122–130

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aquaculture and Fisheries

journal homepage: http://www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/
aquaculture-and-fisheries

Original research article

An evaluation of the effects of sample size on estimating length composition

of catches from tuna longline fisheries using computer simulations
Jiaqi Wanga,b, Luoliang Xub, Bai Lib, Siquan Tiana,c,d,∗, Yong Chenb
a
College of Marine Sciences, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai, 201306, China
b
School of Marine Sciences, University of Maine, Orono, ME, 04469, USA
c
National Distant-water Fisheries Engineering Research Center, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai, 201306, China
d
Key Laboratory of Sustainable Exploitation of Oceanic Fisheries Resources, Ministry of Education, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai, 201306, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Length composition analysis can provide insights into the dynamics of a fish population. Accurate quantification
Length composition of the size structure of a population is critical to understand the status of a fishery and how the population
Sample size responds to environmental stressors. A scientific observer program is a reliable way to provide such accurate
Onboard observer information. However, 100% observer coverage is usually impossible for most fisheries because of logistic and
Accuracy and precision
financial constraints. Thus, there is a need to evaluate observer program performance, identify suitable sample
WCPO and computer simulation
sizes, and optimize the allocation of observation efforts. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effects of
sample size on the quality of length composition data and identify an optimal coverage rate and observation
ratio to improve the observation efficiency using an onboard observer data set from China's tuna longline fishery
in the western and central Pacific Ocean. We found that the required sample size varies with fish species, indices
used to describe length composition, the acceptable accuracy of the estimates, and the allocation methods of
sampling effort. Ignoring other information requirements, 1000 individuals would be sufficient for most species
to reliably quantify length compositions, and a smaller sample size could generate reliable estimates of mean
length. A coverage rate of 20% would be sufficient for most species, but a lower coverage rate (5% or 10%) could
also be effective to meet with the accuracy and precision requirement in estimating length compositions. A non-
random effort allocation among fishing baskets within a set could cause the length composition to be over-
estimated or underestimated for some species. The differences in effective sample sizes among species should be
included in the consideration for a rational allocation of observation effort among species when there are dif-
ferent species management priorities.

1. Introduction
Length composition analysis is a common practice in fish stock as-
sessment and can provide insights into the dynamics of a fish popula-
tion (Vokoun, Rabeni, & Stanovick, 2001). The combination of length
data with abundance or catch per unit effort and key life-history
parameters can provide key information on year-class strength, growth,
or mortality (Miranda, 2007). Thus, accurate quantification of the size
structure of a population, which can only be achieved by developing
effective monitoring programs, is critical to understand the status of a
fishery and how the population may respond to environmental stressors
and management (Adams, Crumby, Greeley, Ryon, & Schilling, 1992;
Schaefer, 1957). It is important to develop a sampling program and
estimate what kind of sample size is sufficient to build a reliable length-
frequency estimate.
Statistic resampling of simulated and empirical data sets have been
used to estimate the suitable sample sizes for estimating length com-
position (Miranda, 2007; Vokoun et al., 2001). The required sample size
for describing length composition tends to be related to life history
processes such as growth, mortality, and movement, and is affected by
estimation methods. Commonly used methods include length-frequency
distributions (LFD), mean length (ML), proportional stock density or
length interval of LFD (Miranda, 2007; Schultz, Mayfield, & Whitlock,
2016; Vokoun et al., 2001). For small fishes (i.e., those with maximum
length ≤30 cm), 300–400 individuals are often an appropriate sample
size for describing LFD, and smaller sample sizes may be suitable for
smaller fishes. Many large (i.e., maximum length > 1 m) pelagic fishes
are highly migratory species with wider spatial distribution. Small
samples for them often fail to capture the true length composition of the
whole population or of the total catches within a limited spatio-

∗
Corresponding author. Shanghai Ocean University, 999 Huchenghuan Road, Shanghai, 201306, China.
E-mail address: sqtian@shou.edu.cn (S. Tian).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaf.2019.09.001
Received 17 May 2019; Received in revised form 15 September 2019; Accepted 18 September 2019
Available online 10 October 2019
2468-550X/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Shanghai Ocean University. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).
J. Wang, et al. Aquaculture and Fisheries 5 (2020) 122–130

Table 1
Classify of the species selected in the study.
Family Genus Common names Scientific name Species codes Body shape

Scombridae Thunnus Bigeye tuna Thunnus obesus BET Fusiform

Yellowfin tuna Thunnus albacares YFT Fusiform
Albacore Thunnus alalunga ALB Fusiform
Katsuwonus Skipjack Katsuwonus pelamis SKJ Fusiform
Acanthocybium Wahoo Acanthocybium solandri WAH Elongated
Gempylidae Lepidocybium Escolar Lepidocybium flavobrunneum LEC Fusiform
Alepisauridae Alepisaurus Longnose lancetfish Alepisaurus ferox ALX Elongated
Carcharhinidae Prionace Blue shark Prionace glauca BSH Fusiform
Carcharhinus Silky shark Carcharhinus falciformis FAL Fusiform

Fig. 1. Map showing the research area and the observed sets of tuna longline fishery in the WCPO in 2016.

Fig. 2. Flowchart of the simulation study summarizing the simulation framework for the evaluation.

123
J. Wang, et al.
Table 2
Summary of the items used in the simulation.
Items Definition
Indices Mean length (ML);
Length frequency distributions (LFD).
Length interval 1, 2, 5 and 10 (cm)
Measure for evaluating Mean square difference (MSD);
performance Relative estimates error (REE);
Relative bias (RB).
Sample size Number of individuals (from 50 to 5000);
Coverage rate (from 0.03 to 0.99);
Observation ratio for each sets (0.6, 0.7, 0.8,
0.9, 1 or random number)
Sampling design SRS: simple random sampling.
temporal range (Schultz et al., 2016).
For tuna regional fisheries management organizations (tRFMOs),
length composition data are critical information required in stock as-
sessment and management (WCPFC, 2007; Williams, 2018). The length
composition of catches for both target and non-target species could be
estimated in various monitoring programs such as port sampling, on-
board observer programs and/or logbooks. It is generally accepted that
the most accurate, reliable and representative way to get the informa-
tion is through onboard observer programs (Gilman, Weijerman, &
Suuronen, 2017; Kennelly, 1999). Regional Observer Programs (ROPs)
of Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) play an
important role in ensuring the integrity of the fisheries management
system, and one of their main responsibility is to describe the char-
acteristics of the catch (Lawson, 2006). All the five tRFMOs now have
ROPs. But in most cases, the required coverage rate (CR) is not above
5% and the extent of coverage was defined differently as a percentage
of catch, fishing days, sets or trips (Anderson et al., 2013). At a cov-
erage of 5% or less, bycatch estimates are likely to remain highly im-
precise for low occurrence species, although it may be still better than
no coverage at all (Gilman, Passfield, & Nakamura, 2012).
In most regional observer programs, only one observer can be al-
located to a vessel because of the financial and logistic limits. Most of
the times, not all hooks of each set selected by an observer can be re-
corded because of hard work and sea conditions, thus observation ratio
(OR), which is the percentage of the hooks observed in a set, is often
less than 100%. To some extent, the observer has the ability to record
the occurrence of all the catches.
One of the most important tasks for observers is to record the size
compositions of catches for target species like bigeye tuna (Thunnus
obseus, BET), yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares, YFT) or Albacore
(Thunnus alalunga, ALB). Information about the sample size required to
adequately estimate length distributions is often vague (Miranda,
1993). Sampling more individuals than necessary is inefficient and adds
undue handling stress, particularly for an observer working along on a
tuna longline fishing vessel. The objective of this study is to evaluate
impacts of sample sizes on the accuracy of size composition for catches
in tuna longline fisheries in western and central Pacific Ocean (WCPO)
to found the relationships between the accuracy and precision of the
estimates and the sample size. We developed a computer simulation
method to evaluate how sample size (the number of individuals being
measured, CR or OR) could affect the quantitative estimation of the
length distribution. This study can provide an important reference for
sampling design in regional observer programs with a limited coverage
rate.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Fishery observer data
Data were collected by observers aboard tuna LL vessel target on
BET or ALB during 15 trips and 1335 sets in WCPO in 2016. In
124
Aquaculture and Fisheries 5 (2020) 122–130
Fig. 3. The distribution of the observation ratio. (The bar is the frequency
distribution of TRUE ORs, the dashed line in the middle is the mean value of
ORs, and other two dashed line are the range of ORs in the simulation).
accordance with CMM 2007–01 (WCPFC, 2007), the scientific ob-
servers were rigorously trained for collecting the fishery data of tunas
and other pelagic fish stocks, including size-frequency data of all pe-
lagic fishes and other marine animals. The data we used in this study
include set information (including position, date, target species, the
number of sets being observed and the OR for each set) and length data
by species. The allocation of observed sets varied among months or
target species. Nine fish species, including 3 target tuna species, 4 by-
catch fish species, and 2 key bycatch sharks with different body shapes
(fusiform and elongated) were selected for the analysis (Table 1)
(Fig. 1).
2.2. Simulation procedure
In order to determine the relationship between sample size and
accuracy and precision of estimated size composition, we developed a
simulation framework (Fig. 2). We started with estimating the indices
(LFD and ML) with original data as the true value, and then resampled
original data at a defined length interval and sample size 500 times
with replacement randomly. The estimates of indices with the resample
data and comparison indices were then calculated. At last, the perfor-
mance of different scenarios were compared (Fig. 2). For different
species, length-frequency distributions (LFD) (4 kinds of length in-
terval) and mean length (ML) were selected as indices. Mean square
difference (MSD), relative estimate error (REE) and relative bias (RB)
were used to measure the performance of each sampling scenario. We
defined the sample size as the number of individuals, CR or OR and
selected simple random sampling (SRS) as the sampling method. The
CR in the simulation was defined as a percentage of sets. Six types of OR
were selected for the simulation and each set was randomly selected
from a normal distribution with the mean and standard deviation from
the original observation ratio. Taking into account the actual situation,
the random OR was limited at a reasonable range (0.2 ≥ OR≥1)
(Table 2 and Fig. 3).
2.3. Measure for evaluating performance
Three indices were used to measure the performance of each sam-
pling scheme. MSD was used to quantify the performance of estimated
LFD (Vokoun et al., 2001),
J. Wang, et al. Aquaculture and Fisheries 5 (2020) 122–130

Fig. 4. Original length frequency distribution of 9 species with 5 cm length interval.

2 467 (FAL) to 20,800 (ALB). ALB had the largest CV among these 9
N fi − fˆi
⎛ ⎞
MSDj = ∑i = 1 ⎝ fi
⎠ N species and BSH had the largest ML. All of the LFDs were close to
normal distributions (Fig. 4).
where j is the selected CR, N is the number of length intervals, fi is the
original length frequency, and fˆ i is the sample length frequency of the
3.2. Resampling analysis
ith length interval. REE was used to quantify the accuracy and precision
of estimated mean length (Chen, 1996)
Overall, the mean MSD or REE decreased with sample sizes (the
N 2
∑i = 1 (Yiextimate − Y true ) / N number of individuals, CR or OR), and the estimated length composi-
REE = × 100% tion data became increasingly similar to the reference for all the species
Y true
with sample sizes. The required sample size for achieving the same level
We also calculated RB for the estimated mean as of accuracy and precision or the optimal sample size differed among
N species (Figs. 5 and 6).
∑i = 1 Yiextimate / N − Y true
RB = × 100%,
Y true
3.2.1. Effect of the number of individuals
where Yiextimate is the estimated mean in the ith simulated survey, Y true is We calculated the mean MSD values of LFD estimates for different
the true mean, N is the number of simulation runs. The REE reflects species with the same length intervals. The accuracy and precision of
both bias and variation in the estimation while the RB measures the the estimated LFD increased with length intervals, increasing from 1 to
estimation bias. A smaller REE or RB value suggests a better perfor- 10 cm. This was more obvious when the sample size was around 500
mance. RB indicates whether the sampling design tends to under- (Fig. 5a). This shows that LFD with larger length intervals was more
estimate or overestimate the population mean (Paloheimo et al., 1996). likely to approach to the true length distribution in the simulation when
only a small sample size was available because of constraints. The MSD
3. Results values of LFD with different length intervals had similar breakpoints
(around 1000) over which there was only little change in MSD with the
3.1. Observed data increased number of individuals in sampling (Fig. 5a). The mean values
of MSD and REE for different species were also calculated to find the
The number of individuals, means and CVs of length data (fork relationship between the performance indices and the sample size. For
length from upper jaw to fork) and LFDs with 5 cm length interval were most species, the breakpoints were also at around 1000 individuals
different among species as shown in Fig. 4. These results were con- except ALB. The relationship between MSD and the number of sampled
sidered to be true in this study. The number of individuals ranged from individuals for ALB was different compared with other species in this

125
J. Wang, et al.
Fig. 5. The performance (MSD, REE and RB) of the estimates of LFD and mean length with different sample size (number of individuals).
study (Fig. 5b). The breakpoint was larger than 1000 for ALB, implying
that more individuals should be measured to achieve the same level of
accuracy and/or precision (The upper two panels in Fig. 5). The per-
formance measured in MSD had the following ranking (from the best to
worst) for the 9 species: FAL, BSH, LEC, WAH, ALX, BET, SKJ, YFT, and
ALB. Three groups could be identified according to their performance:
the best performance group included five species (FAL, BSH, LEC, WAH
and ALX), followed by the median three-species group (BET, SKJ and
YFT), and ALB was the worst in performance (Fig. 5b).
The performance for estimating the mean value of length was re-
latively good because the largest value of REE was less than 4%
(Fig. 5c). The breakpoints were also at around 1000. The difference still
existed among species, although the difference in REE values among
species was not the same as that for MSD. For example, to achieve the
same value of REE, the smallest number of individuals was required for
ALB. The REE ranking of ML estimates for different species from small
to large was ALB, SKJ, WAH, YFT, BSH, BET, LEC, ALX, and FAL,
suggesting that the species with the lower CV of length composition
could perform better at the same level of sample sizes when the index
was ML. At a given level of accuracy, the required number of in-
dividuals for estimating ML might be smaller than that for estimating
LFD because of very low REE values. There was no positive or negative
trend of the RB values for all the species. The RB was smaller and had
more stable trends when the sample size was larger than 1000 (Fig. 5d).
126
Aquaculture and Fisheries 5 (2020) 122–130
3.2.2. Effect of the coverage rate and observation ratio
Based on the analysis above, only the length interval of 5 cm was
selected for the following analyses. Obviously, no matter what the
index is and the OR or the species was, the performance was all im-
proved with the CR although there were some differences among those
scenarios (Fig. 6). We calculated the mean performance indices (MSD
and REE) values for the estimates for different species with the same
observation ratio. As we know, a lower OR could lead to a higher value
of MSD or REE. However, to some extents the differences among ORs
were small when the OR was larger than 70% or a random one, which
means there is no need to have 100% OR (Fig. 6a and c). As the results
shown above, the REEs also had lower values. The performance ranking
for LFD was BET > LEC > YFT > ALX > BSH ≈ WAH > FAL >
SKJ > ALB and ALB > BET > YFT ≈ SKJ > WAH > LEC >
BSH ≈ ALX > FAL for ML of which both were different with the
ranking above (Fig. 6b and d).
All of the RB values were small (most of the bias was less than
0.5%). But the bias of ML for some species had a tendency to be positive
(BET, FAL, LEC, WSH, and YFT) or negative (WAH) when the OR was
less than 100% or randomly selected (Fig. 7). This indicates that the
estimated ML tended to be larger or smaller than the true values. After
further analysis, we found that if the deviations of the mean length for
the sets with fewer catches were significantly positive for a specific
species, this species tended to have positive biases, vice versa. There
was no tendency when that pattern was not significant (Figs. 7 and 8).
J. Wang, et al.
Fig. 6. The performance of the estimates of LFD (MSD) and mean length (REE) with different sample size (CR and OR). RAN means the OR was selected randomly
from the empirical distribution in Fig. 3.
4. Discussion
Ignoring other factors, the larger the sample size could be the more
representative the data are. We have to consider the constraints in
fisheries-dependent surveys. Thus, optimal sample sizes should be able
to balance the constraints. According to the analysis, we found that the
indices for describing size compositions, length interval, the char-
acteristics of species and acceptable accuracy and precision of the es-
timates are all potential factors that might affect the selection of op-
timal sample sizes. And also, observers may not be able to measure all
the catches that are caught because of other priorities, or because they
may not observe an entire haul if it continues beyond the end of a 12-h
day. If large tallied catches represent schools of a particular size group
of catches, failure to measure them may result in the under-estimation
of the ML and the LFD of that size group as shown (Francis, 2013).
Thus, the sampling methods could also be an important factor. Other
factors such as observer effects, inaccurate recording of data by ob-
servers, and inappropriate stratification may lead to bias in bycatch
estimates (Babcock, Pikitch, & Hudson, 2003). In this study, we focused
on the relationship between the accuracy and precision of the estimates
and the sample size. Thus, these observation processes were assumed to
be unbiased.
For a given sample size, the smaller length interval is less accurate
the estimates are (Vokoun et al., 2001). Although the difference was not
that large sometimes, length intervals should be considered in
127
Aquaculture and Fisheries 5 (2020) 122–130
determining the suitable sample size. Compared with previous studies
(Vokoun et al., 2001), for fishes of large sizes in this study, around 1000
individual fish could be appropriate to effectively estimate LFDs. For
estimating MLs, fewer individuals are required. Indices that require low
sample sizes may be suitable for monitoring population status. When
large changes in length are evident, additional sampling effort may be
allocated to more precisely define length status with more informative
estimators (Miranda, 2007). Thus, both LFDs and MLs can be an ef-
fective index to indicate the status of different species by considering
the limited observation effort and management priorities. But, for
species with high priority, more detailed information (like the spatio-
temporal structure of population) was necessary for reducing the un-
certainties in stock assessment and management (Guan, Cao, Chen, &
Cieri, 2013). For the purpose, more samples should be collected from
the whole fishery. The dataset from a well-designed sampling method
with a rational CR could largely meet the requirement (Gilman et al.,
2017). In this study, 20% of CR seems to be an optimal sample size as
shown in other similar studies (Allen et al., 2002; Conquest, Burr,
Donnelly, Chavarria, & Gallucci, 1996); but with a defined accuracy
and precision, the required CR could be less than 10% or 5% for some
species.
A non-random sample could be biased in representing the sampled
populations (Cochran, 1977). In theory, the observer should be ran-
domly allocated to fishing vessels in the fishery. Previous studies
showed that the observation efficiency could be improved by using an
J. Wang, et al. Aquaculture and Fisheries 5 (2020) 122–130

Fig. 7. The relationship between RB of the estimates of ML and CR.

appropriate stratification scheme (Allen et al., 2002; Cotter, Course, measured by an observer for such species. Information such as trophic
Buckland, & Garrod, 2002; Faunce, 2015; Miller, Skalski, & Ianelli, level, sex and maturity are also needed to be recorded for the eco-
2006). Also, the process to decide which catches should be measured system-based management.
must be unbiased if not all catches of each set could be measured. In
practice, however, both of these two processes are unlikely random.
5. Conclusion
The allocation of observer is largely based on the ability and opportu-
nity of a vessel to accept an observer. If only a few catches (include both
We argue that the allocation of observation efforts among baskets,
target and non-target species) were caught on one set, the observer
sets, and species should be carefully evaluated. In the process of de-
tended to measure all the catches because of small workloads. Thus, the
termining measurement priorities of species or indices, the suitability of
possibility of being measured for all the sampled individuals would not
sample size also should be considered. For example, not each individual
be the same. Small catch per set could lead to a higher possibility of
of a given species that have high catches (e.g., the number of fish in-
being measured for the individuals on that set. If we randomly choose a
dividuals captured is larger than 1000) are needed to be measured but
certain percentage of baskets in one set, there could be no bias. In our
the individuals that are expected to be measured should be sampled
simulation, the process of considering the OR was close to the reality
randomly, the OR should be larger than 70%, and the required CR is no
because we randomly selected the individuals which should be mea-
more than 10% for most species if it is acceptable for the MSD values
sured from all catches in one set. Statistically, less catch means a higher
less than 5 or REE values less than 5%.
possibility of being selected. Thus, if most of the individuals in the sets
Because of limited data, we may not find the factors causing the
which had a few catches belonged to the large or small size group, the
difference in the optimal sample size for estimating LFD among species.
ML or the frequency of that group would be overestimated or under-
We did not analyze sample sizes essential to capture the information
estimated (Figs. 7 and 8).
about the spatio-temporal change in length composition and optimal
In WCPFC, a number of shark species were designated as “key shark
sampling design. The optimal sample size should be carefully evaluated
species” to support informed management decisions, ensure sound data
and determined. This study provides a good reference for the effective
reporting, and support members' obligations to other conventions and
improvement of the observation efficiency to acquire reliable in-
agreements (Tremblay-Boyer et al., 2016; WCPFC, 2010). BSH and FAL
formation about the fishery.
are on the initial list. As the key sharks, the catch and effort information
and relevant research efforts are required for those species. In our by-
catch data, BSH and FAL were the two most common sharks, but the Acknowledgments
individuals were both less than 1000. Based on the analysis above, we
don't expect any reduction in the number of individuals required to be The work was supported by the scientific observer program of the
distant-water fishery of the Agriculture Ministry of China (08–25). We

128
J. Wang, et al.
Fig. 8. Comparisons of the mean deviation of ML for different species among sets with different number of catches.
thank the National Data Centre for Distant-water Fisheries of China for
providing the observer data (2006). We also thank the observers, the
captains, and the crew who contributed to the collection of data. Libin
Dai and many other colleagues have contributed to the discussion, for
which we appreciate. The paper is written while the senior author
studied in Dr. Chen's Lab at the University of Maine.
References
Adams, S. M., Crumby, W. D., Greeley, M. S., Ryon, M. G., & Schilling, E. M. (1992).
Relationships between physiological and fish population responses in a contaminated
stream. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry, 11(11), 1549–1557.
Allen, M., Kilpatrick, D., Armstrong, M., Briggs, R., Course, G., & Pérez, N. (2002).
Multistage cluster sampling design and optimal sample sizes for estimation of fish
discards from commercial trawlers. Fisheries Research, 55(1–3), 11–24.
Anderson, O. R., & Small, C. J. (2013). Review of tuna Regional Fisheries Management
Organisations longline scientific observer programmes. Collective Voloumes of
Scientific Papers ICCAT, 69(5), 2220–2232.
Babcock, E., Pikitch, E., & Hudson, C. (2003). How much observer coverage is enough to
adequately estimate bycatch. Pew Institute of Ocean Science.
Chen, Y. (1996). A Monte Carlo study on impacts of the size of subsample catch on es-
timation of fish stock parameters. Fisheries Research, 26(3–4), 207–223.
Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Conquest, L., Burr, R., Donnelly, R., Chavarria, J., & Gallucci, V. (1996). Sampling
methods for stock assessment for small-scale fisheries in developing countries. Stock
assessment quantitative methods and applications for small-scale fisheries (pp. 179–225).
Florida: Lewis Publ.
Cotter, A., Course, G., Buckland, S., & Garrod, C. (2002). A PPS sample survey of English
fishing vessels to estimate discarding and retention of North Sea cod, haddock, and
whiting. Fisheries Research, 55(1–3), 25–35.
Faunce, C. H. (2015). An initial analysis of alternative sample designs for the deployment
of observers in Alaska. Retrieved from https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/
noaa/5171.
Francis, M. (2013). Commercial catch composition of highly migratory elasmobranchs.
New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report, 68, 79.
129
Aquaculture and Fisheries 5 (2020) 122–130
Gilman, E., Passfield, K., & Nakamura, K. (2012). Performance assessment of bycatch and
discards governance by regional fisheries management organizations. IUCN.
Gilman, E., Weijerman, M., & Suuronen, P. (2017). Ecological data from observer pro-
grammes underpin ecosystem-based fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine
Science, 74(6), 1481–1495.
Guan, W., Cao, J., Chen, Y., & Cieri, M. (2013). Impacts of population and fishery spatial
structures on fishery stock assessment. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences, 70(8), 1178–1189.
Kennelly, S. J. (1999, Febraury). The role of fisheries monitoring programmes in iden-
tifying and reducing problematic bycatches. Paper presented at the proceedings of the
FAO symposium of the international conference on integrated fisheries monitoring.
Lawson, T. (2006, August). Scientific aspects of observer programmes for tuna fisheries in
the western and central Pacific Ocean. Paper presented at the scientific committee second
regular session of the western and central pacific fisheries commission (Manila, Philippi
(nes).
Miller, T. J., Skalski, J. R., & Ianelli, J. N. (2006). Optimizing a stratified sampling design
when faced with multiple objectives. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64(1), 97–109.
Miranda, L. E. (1993). Management briefs: Sample sizes for estimating and comparing
proportion‐based indices. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 13(2),
383–386.
Miranda, L. E. (2007). Approximate sample sizes required to estimate length distribu-
tions. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 136(2), 409–415.
Paloheimo, J., & Chen, Y. (1996). Estimating fish mortalities and cohort sizes. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 53(7), 1572–1579.
Schaefer, M. B. (1957). Some considerations of population dynamics and economics in
relation to the management of the commercial marine fisheries. Journal of the
Fisheries Board of Canada, 14(5), 669–681.
Schultz, L. D., Mayfield, M. P., & Whitlock, S. L. (2016). Sample sizes needed to describe
length-frequency of small-bodied fishes: An example using larval pacific lamprey.
Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management, 7(2), 315–322.
Tremblay-Boyer, L., & Brouwer, S. (2016). Review of available information on non-key shark
species including mobulids and fisheries interactions. Twelfth regular session of the scien-
tific committee to the western central pacific fisheries commission. (Bali, Indonesia).
Vokoun, J., Rabeni, C., & Stanovick, J. (2001). Sample‐size requirements for evaluating
population size structure. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 21(3),
660–665.
WCPFC (2007, December). Conservation and management measure for the regional ob-
server programme. Paper presented at the 4th regular session of the western and central
J. Wang, et al. Aquaculture and Fisheries 5 (2020) 122–130

pacific fisheries commission. Guam, USA: Tumon.
WCPFC (2010, August). Summary report, commission for the conservation and man-
agement of highly migratory fish stocks in the western and central pacic ocean. Paper
presented at the scientic committee 6th regular session. Tonga: Nuku-alofa.
Williams, P. (2018, August). Scientific data available to the western and central pacific
fisheries commission. Paper presented at the scientific committee 14th regular session, busan,
Republic of Korea.

130