Quesnel Exploitation Analysis 2021

The suggested citation for this analytic appendix is:

Dalgarno, S. & Thorley, J.L. (2022) Quesnel Exploitation Analysis 2021. A Poisson Consulting Analysis Appendix. URL: https://www.poissonconsulting.ca/f/978976227.

Background

Quesnel Lake supports a recreational fishery for Rainbow Trout. To provide information on the natural and fishing mortality, Rainbow Trout were caught by angling and tagged with acoustic transmitters and/or a $100 and $10 reward tag.

Data Preparation

The outing, receiver deployment, detection, fish capture and recapture information were provided by the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and added to a SQLite database.

The data were prepared for analysis using R version 4.2.1 (R Core Team 2021).

Receivers were assumed to have a detection range of 500 m. Detections were aggregated daily, where for each transmitter the receiver with the most number of detections was chosen. In the case of a tie, the receiver with the greatest coverage area was chosen. Only individuals with a fork length (FL) \(\geq\) 450 mm, an acoustic tag life \(\geq\) 365 days (if acoustically tagged) and a $100 and $10 reward tags were included in the survival analysis.

Statistical Analysis

Model parameters were estimated using Bayesian methods. The estimates were produced using JAGS (Plummer 2003) and STAN (Carpenter et al. 2017). For additional information on Bayesian estimation the reader is referred to McElreath (2016).

Unless stated otherwise, the Bayesian analyses used weakly informative normal and half-normal or uninformative beta prior distributions (Gelman, Simpson, and Betancourt 2017). The posterior distributions were estimated from 1500 Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) samples thinned from the second halves of 3 chains (Kery and Schaub 2011, 38–40). Model convergence was confirmed by ensuring that the potential scale reduction factor \(\hat{R} \leq 1.05\) (Kery and Schaub 2011, 40) and the effective sample size (Brooks et al. 2011) \(\textrm{ESS} \geq 150\) for each of the monitored parameters (Kery and Schaub 2011, 61).

The parameters are summarised in terms of the point estimate, lower and upper 95% credible limits (CLs) and the surprisal s-value (Greenland 2019). The estimate is the median (50th percentile) of the MCMC samples while the 95% CLs are the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles. The s-value can be considered a test of directionality. More specifically it indicates how surprising (in bits) it would be to discover that the true value of the parameter is in the opposite direction to the estimate. An s-value of 4.3 bits, which is equivalent to a p-value (Kery and Schaub 2011; Greenland and Poole 2013) of 0.05, indicates that the surprise would be equivalent to throwing 4.3 heads in a row. The condition that non-essential explanatory variables have s-values \(\geq\) 4.3 bits provides a useful model selection heuristic (Kery and Schaub 2011).

The results are displayed graphically by plotting the modeled relationships between particular variables and the response(s) with the remaining variables held constant. In general, continuous and discrete fixed variables are held constant at their mean and first level values, respectively, while random variables are held constant at their typical values (expected values of the underlying hyperdistributions) (Kery and Schaub 2011, 77–82). When informative the influence of particular variables is expressed in terms of the effect size (i.e., percent or n-fold change in the response variable) with 95% credible intervals (CIs, Bradford, Korman, and Higgins 2005).

The analyses were implemented using R version 4.2.1 (R Core Team 2020) and the mbr family of packages.

Model Descriptions

Condition

The expected weight of fish of a given length were estimated from the data using a mass-length model (He et al. 2008).

More specifically the model was based on the allometric relationship

\[ W = \alpha L^{\beta}\]

where \(W\) is the weight (mass), \(\alpha\) is the coefficent, \(\beta\) is the exponent and \(L\) is the length.

To improve chain mixing the relation was log-transformed, i.e.,

\[ \log(W) = \log(\alpha) + \beta \cdot \log(L)\]

Key assumptions of the condition model include:

  • \(\alpha\) can vary randomly by year.
  • The residual variation in weight is log-normally distributed.

Growth

The expected length of fish at a given age were estimated from broodstock data collected in the Horsefly River from 2015-2021 using a Von Bertalanffy growth curve model (von Bertalanffy 1938).

\[ L = L_\infty \cdot (1 - \exp(-k \cdot (A - t_0) ))\]

where \(A\) is the scale age in years and \(t_0\) is the extrapolated age at zero length.

Key assumptions of the growth model include:

  • The residual variation in length is normally distributed.

Survival

The natural mortality and recapture probability were estimated using a Bayesian individual state-space survival model (Thorley and Andrusak 2017) with three month intervals. The survival model incorporated natural and handling mortality, acoustic detections, inter-section movement, T-bar tag loss, spawning, recapture and reporting.

T-bar tag loss was estimated from the number of tags reported from recaught double-tagged individuals (Fabrizio et al. 1999).

Fork length at spawning was calculated from the measured length at capture (\(L_{i,fi}\)) plus the length increment expected under a Von Bertalanffy Growth Curve (Walters & Martell, 2004) \[L_{i,t} = L_{i,fi} + (L_{∞} − L_{i,fi} )(1 − e^{(−0.25 \cdot k(t −fi))})\] where the 0.25 in the exponent adjusts for the fact that there are four time periods per year. Parameters k and LInf were estimated from the growth model.

A fish was considered to have spawned in a given year if one of the following conditions were met: detected within a spawning river during the spawning period with a detection hiatus of at least 7 days; or detected within a spawning gate during the spawning period with a detection hiatus of at least 14 days. Cutoff values for minimum hiatus periods were determined by inspecting the distribution of in-lake hiatus periods for fish detected in spawning rivers and the distribution of all hiatus periods for suspected spawners within the spawning period.

In addition to assumptions 1 to 2 and 4 to 10, in Thorley and Andrusak (2017), the model also assumes that:

  • The effect of handling mortality is restricted to the first three month period after initial capture.
  • The natural mortality varies by season, year and spawning.
  • The spawning probability varies by year and fork length.
  • The probability of tag loss is independent between tags on a fish.
  • The probability of detection depends on whether a fish is alive or has died near or far from a receiver
  • All recaptured fish have their tags removed.
  • Reporting of recaptured fish with one or more T-bar tags is likely greater than 90%.

Yield-Per-Recruit

The optimal recapture rate (to maximize number of individuals caught) was calculated using a yield-per-recruit approach (Bison, O’Brien, and Martell 2003). Key assumptions include:

  • The population is at equilibrium.
  • All captured individuals < 500 mm are retained.
  • All captured individuals \(\geq\) 500 mm are released.
  • Handling mortality is 10%.
  • The life-history parameters are fixed.
  • There are no Allee effects.
  • There are no limitations on prey species.

The optimal yield was also calculated with no slot limit.

Model Templates

Growth

.model {
  bLInf ~ dnorm(900, 200^-2) T(0, )
  bK ~ dnorm(0.2, 1^-2) T(0, )
  bT0 ~ dnorm(0, 2^-1)

  sLength ~ dnorm(0, 100^-2) T(0, )
  for (i in 1:length(Length)) {
    eLength[i] <- bLInf * (1 - exp(-bK * (Age[i] - bT0))) 
    Length[i] ~ dnorm(eLength[i], sLength^-2) T(0, )
  }

Block 1. Growth model description.

Condition

  data {
    int nannual;
    int nObs;

    vector[nObs] length;
    vector[nObs] weight;
    int annual[nObs];
  }

  parameters {
    real bWeight;
    real bLength;
    real<lower=0> sWeightAnnual;

    vector[nannual] bWeightAnnual;
    real<lower=0> sWeight;
  }

  model {

    vector[nObs] eWeight;

    bWeight ~ normal(-11, 2);
    bLength ~ normal(3, 1);

    sWeightAnnual ~ normal(0, 1);

    for (i in 1:nannual) {
        bWeightAnnual[i] ~ normal(0, sWeightAnnual);
    }

    sWeight ~ normal(0, 1);
    for(i in 1:nObs) {
      eWeight[i] = exp(bWeight + bLength * log(length[i]) + bWeightAnnual[annual[i]]);
      weight[i] ~ lognormal(log(eWeight[i]), sWeight);
    }
  }

Block 2. Condition model description.

Survival

.model{
  bMortality ~ dnorm(-3, 3^-2)
  bMortalitySpawning ~ dnorm(0, 2^-2)
  bSpawning ~ dnorm(0, 2^-2)
  bSpawningLength ~ dnorm(0, 2^-2)
  bTagLoss ~ dbeta(101, 1001)

  bDetectedAlive ~ dbeta(1, 1)
  bDieNear ~ dbeta(1, 1)
  bDetectedDeadNear ~ dbeta(10, 1)
  bDetectedDeadFar ~ dbeta(1, 10)
  bMoved ~ dbeta(1, 1)
  bRecaptured ~ dbeta(1, 1)
  bReported ~ dbeta(10, 1)
  sSpawningAnnual ~ dexp(1)
  for (i in 1:nAnnual) {
    bSpawningAnnual[i] ~ dnorm(0, sSpawningAnnual^-2)
  }
  bMortalitySeason[1] <- 0
  for (i in 2:nSeason) {
    bMortalitySeason[i] ~ dnorm(0, 2^-2)
  }
  sMortalityAnnual ~ dexp(1)
  for (i in 1:nAnnual) {
    bMortalityAnnual[i] ~ dnorm(0, sMortalityAnnual^-2)
  }

  for (i in 1:nCapture){
    eDetectedAlive[i] <- bDetectedAlive
    eDieNear[i] ~ dbern(bDieNear)
    eDetectedDeadNear[i] <- bDetectedDeadNear
    eDetectedDeadFar[i] <- bDetectedDeadFar
    eDetectedDead[i] <- eDieNear[i] * eDetectedDeadNear[i] + (1 - eDieNear[i]) * eDetectedDeadFar[i]
    
    logit(eMortality[i,PeriodCapture[i]]) <- bMortality + bMortalitySeason[Season[i,PeriodCapture[i]]] + bMortalityAnnual[Annual[i,PeriodCapture[i]]] 
    
    eTagLoss[i,PeriodCapture[i]] <- bTagLoss
    eMoved[i,PeriodCapture[i]] <- bMoved 
    eRecaptured[i,PeriodCapture[i]] <- bRecaptured
    eReported[i,PeriodCapture[i]] <- bReported

    InLake[i,PeriodCapture[i]] <- 1
    Alive[i,PeriodCapture[i]] ~ dbern(1-eMortality[i,PeriodCapture[i]])
    TBarTag100[i,PeriodCapture[i]] ~ dbern(1-eTagLoss[i,PeriodCapture[i]])
    TBarTag10[i,PeriodCapture[i]] ~ dbern(1-eTagLoss[i,PeriodCapture[i]])
    
    eDetected[i,PeriodCapture[i]] <- Alive[i,PeriodCapture[i]] * eDetectedAlive[i] + (1-Alive[i,PeriodCapture[i]]) * eDetectedDead[i]
    Detected[i,PeriodCapture[i]] ~ dbern(Monitored[i,PeriodCapture[i]] * eDetected[i,PeriodCapture[i]])
    Moved[i,PeriodCapture[i]] ~ dbern(Alive[i,PeriodCapture[i]] * Detected[i,PeriodCapture[i]] * eMoved[i,PeriodCapture[i]])

    Recaptured[i,PeriodCapture[i]] ~ dbern(Alive[i,PeriodCapture[i]] * eRecaptured[i,PeriodCapture[i]])
    Reported[i,PeriodCapture[i]] ~ dbern(Recaptured[i,PeriodCapture[i]] * eReported[i,PeriodCapture[i]] * step(TBarTag100[i,PeriodCapture[i]] + TBarTag10[i,PeriodCapture[i]] - 1))

  for(j in (PeriodCapture[i]+1):nPeriod) {
    logit(eSpawning[i,j]) <- bSpawning + bSpawningLength * Length[i,j] + bSpawningAnnual[Annual[i,j]] 
    Spawned[i,j] ~ dbern(Alive[i,j-1] * Monitored[i,j] * SpawningPeriod[i,j] * eSpawning[i,j])
    
    logit(eMortality[i,j]) <- bMortality + bMortalitySpawning * Spawned[i,j] + bMortalitySeason[Season[i,j]] + bMortalityAnnual[Annual[i,j]] 
    eDetected[i,j] <- Alive[i,j] * eDetectedAlive[i] + (1-Alive[i,j]) * eDetectedDead[i]

    eTagLoss[i,j] <- bTagLoss
    eMoved[i,j] <- bMoved 
    eRecaptured[i,j] <- bRecaptured
    eReported[i,j] <- bReported

    InLake[i,j] ~ dbern(InLake[i,j-1] * (1 - Recaptured[i,j-1]))
    Alive[i,j] ~ dbern(Alive[i,j-1] * (1 - Recaptured[i,j-1]) * (1-eMortality[i,j]))
    TBarTag100[i,j] ~ dbern(TBarTag100[i,j-1] * (1-Recaptured[i,j-1]) * (1-eTagLoss[i,j]))
    TBarTag10[i,j] ~ dbern(TBarTag10[i,j-1] * (1-Recaptured[i,j-1]) * (1-eTagLoss[i,j]))
    
    Detected[i,j] ~ dbern(InLake[i,j] * Monitored[i,j] * eDetected[i,j])
    Moved[i,j] ~ dbern(Alive[i,j] * Detected[i,j] * eMoved[i,j])
    
    Recaptured[i,j] ~ dbern(Alive[i,j] * eRecaptured[i,j])
    Reported[i,j] ~ dbern(Recaptured[i,j] * eReported[i,j] * step(TBarTag100[i,j] + TBarTag10[i,j] - 1))
  }
  }

Block 3. Survival model description.

Results

Tables

Growth

Table 1. Model coefficients.

term estimate sd zscore lower upper pvalue
bK 0.2295451 0.0680279 3.4539894 0.1230586 0.3897374 0.0006662
bLInf 889.4638952 72.6192558 12.4511860 798.2282422 1078.9269369 0.0006662
bT0 0.3421945 0.8634450 0.3097905 -1.5199278 1.7933157 0.7161892
sLength 57.4970288 3.1067395 18.5711849 51.9442684 64.1285862 0.0006662

Table 2. Model summary.

n K nchains niters nthin ess rhat converged
179 4 3 500 100 153 1.014 TRUE

Condition

Table 3. Parameter descriptions.

Parameter Description
annual[i] Year ith fish was captured as a factor
bWeight Intercept of log(eWeight)
bWeightAnnual[i] Effect of ith annual on bWeight
bWeightLength Intercept of effect of log(length) on bWeight
eWeight[i] Expected weight of ith fish
length[i] Fork length of ith fish
sWeight Log standard deviation of residual variation in log(Weight)
sWeightAnnual Log standard deviation of bWeightAnnual
weight[i] Recorded weight of ith fish

Table 4. Model coefficients.

term estimate sd zscore lower upper pvalue
bLength 2.9987995 0.0316225 94.846043 2.9380074 3.0625907 0.0006662
bWeight -11.3498512 0.2042258 -55.579201 -11.7654447 -10.9474587 0.0006662
sWeight 0.1431402 0.0030844 46.449721 0.1375974 0.1497259 0.0006662
sWeightAnnual 0.0768943 0.0271453 3.028439 0.0456621 0.1515867 0.0006662

Table 5. Model summary.

n K nchains niters nthin ess rhat converged
1056 4 3 500 10 1138 1.002 TRUE

Survival

Table 6. Parameter descriptions.

Parameter Description
bDetectedAlive Seasonal probability of detection if in-lake
bDetectedDeadFar Seasonal probability of detection if in-lake and dead far from a receiver
bDetectedDeadNear Seasonal probability of detection if in-lake and dead near a receiver
bDieNear Lifetime probability of dying near versus far from a receiver
bMortality Log odds seasonal probability of dying of natural causes
bMortalityAnnual Effect of ith Year on bMortality
bMortalitySeason Effect of ith Season on bMortality
bMortalitySpawning Effect of spawning on bMortality
bMoved Seasonal probability of being detected moving between sections if alive
bRecaptured Seasonal probability of being recaptured if alive
bRelease Probability of being released if recaptured and untagged
bReported Probability of being reported if recaptured with one or more T-bar tags
bSpawning Seasonal probability of spawning if in spawning period.
bSpawningAnnual Effect of ith Year on bSpawning
bSpawningLength Effect of Fork Length on bSpawning
bTagLoss Seasonal probability of loss for a single T-bar tag
sMortalityAnnual Standard deviation of residual variation in bMortalityAnnual
sSpawningAnnual Standard deviation of residual variation in bSpawningAnnual

Table 7. Model coefficients.

term estimate sd zscore lower upper pvalue
bDetectedAlive 0.9641062 0.0036303 265.561897 0.9565662 0.9706165 0.0006662
bDetectedDeadFar 0.0165180 0.0032184 5.156941 0.0106466 0.0234644 0.0006662
bDetectedDeadNear 0.6977680 0.0234935 29.660188 0.6496680 0.7399145 0.0006662
bDieNear 0.1765838 0.0209512 8.450340 0.1385571 0.2192742 0.0006662
bMortality -2.5037877 0.1926015 -13.067100 -2.9048225 -2.1638165 0.0006662
bMortalitySeason[2] -0.5052270 0.2441138 -2.048420 -0.9700982 -0.0201799 0.0433045
bMortalitySeason[3] 0.7992381 0.1910335 4.227951 0.4460471 1.1990131 0.0006662
bMortalitySeason[4] 0.5781563 0.2005353 2.892682 0.1986316 0.9752009 0.0033311
bMortalitySpawning 1.7795906 0.1958139 9.062977 1.3805817 2.1626955 0.0006662
bMoved 0.8262282 0.0078011 105.874826 0.8101659 0.8406585 0.0006662
bRecaptured 0.0211410 0.0023934 8.893420 0.0169482 0.0261738 0.0006662
bReported 0.9920432 0.0115708 85.423615 0.9576959 0.9997300 0.0006662
bSpawning -0.7754943 0.1901161 -4.094442 -1.1568083 -0.4123476 0.0019987
bSpawningLength 1.3364276 0.1406634 9.521426 1.0776886 1.6304789 0.0006662
bTagLoss 0.0575715 0.0057642 10.043427 0.0471327 0.0695807 0.0006662
sMortalityAnnual 0.2117021 0.1465518 1.627167 0.0294504 0.5948119 0.0006662
sSpawningAnnual 0.3393802 0.2160980 1.713510 0.0483291 0.9083506 0.0006662

Table 8. Model summary.

n K nchains niters nthin ess rhat converged
23870 17 3 500 100 106 1.044 FALSE

Yield-per-Recruit

Slot Limit

Table 9. Rainbow Trout yield-per-recruit calculations including the capture probability (pi), exploitation rate (u), and average age, length and weight of fish harvested.

Type pi u Yield Age Length Weight Effort
actual 0.0819200 0.0819200 0.0882968 4.135190 49.00099 1435.637 0.8112219
optimal 0.5354855 0.5354855 0.3191909 3.593554 44.55992 1095.597 7.2775134

Table 10. Rainbow Trout yield-per-recruit model parameters.

Parameter Value Description Source
tmax 30.000 The maximum age (yr). Professional Judgement
k 0.230 The VB growth coefficient (yr-1). Current Study
Linf 88.946 The VB mean maximum length (cm). Current Study
t0 0.342 The (theoretical) age at zero length (yr). Current Study
k2 0.150 The VB growth coefficient after length L2 (yr-1). Default
Linf2 100.000 The VB mean maximum length after length L2 (cm). Default
L2 1000.000 The length (or age if negative) at which growth switches from the
first to second phase (cm or yr). Default
Wb 3.000 The weight (as a function of length) scaling exponent. Default
Ls 65.000 The length (or age if negative) at which 50 % mature (cm or yr). Professional Judgement
Sp 100.000 The maturity (as a function of length) power. Default
es 0.500 The annual probability of a mature fish spawning. Professional Judgement
Sm 0.428 The spawning mortality probability. Current Study
fb 1.000 The fecundity (as a function of weight) scaling exponent. Default
tR 1.000 The age from which survival is density-independent (yr). Default
BH 1.000 Recruitment follows a Beverton-Holt (1) or Ricker (0) relationship. Default
Rk 12.500 The lifetime spawners per spawner at low density (or the egg to tR survival if between 0 and 1). (thorley_duncan_2018?)
n 0.351 The annual interval natural mortality rate from age tR. Current Study
nL 0.200 The annual interval natural mortality rate from length Ln. Default
Ln 1000.000 The length (or age if negative) at which the natural mortality
rate switches from n to nL (cm or yr). Constant Mortality
Lv 30.000 The length (or age if negative) at which 50 % vulnerable to harvest
(cm or yr). Professional Judgement
Vp 20.000 The vulnerability to harvest (as a function of length) power. Professional Judgement
Llo 0.000 The lower harvest slot length (cm). Default
Lup 50.000 The upper harvest slot length (cm). Fishery Regulation
Nc 0.000 The slot limits non-compliance probability. Default
pi 0.082 The annual capture probability. Current Study
rho 0.000 The release probability. Default
Hm 0.100 The hooking mortality probability. Professional Judgement
Rmax 1.000 The number of recruits at the carrying capacity (ind). Default
Wa 0.010 The (extrapolated) weight of a 1 cm individual (g). Default
fa 1.000 The (theoretical) fecundity of a 1 g female (eggs). Default
q 0.100 The catchability (annual probability of capture) for a unit of
effort. Default
RPR 1.000 The relative proportion of recruits that are of the ecotype. Default

Figures

Captures

figures/capture/CaptureHistogram.png

Figure 1. Rainbow Trout captures by fork length, year, and tag type.

Sections

figures/sections/SectionMap.png

Figure 2. Quesnel Lake sections. Color code is used to identify sections throughout analysis.

Coverage

figures/coverage/ReceiverSpatialCoverage.png

Figure 3. Receiver coverage of section area by date.

Detections

figures/detection/DetectionOverview.png

Figure 4. Date of detections for each acoustically tagged Rainbow Trout. Grey segments indicate estimated tag life from capture date. Detections have been aggregated daily.

Spawners

figures/spawn/SpawnerDetections.png

Figure 5. Date of detections of Rainbow Trout spawners by year. Colour indicates whether fish was detected in a spawning river, at a spawning gate or at a receiver not associated with a spawning area. Spawning period (March 15th to May 15th) is shown by solid black vertical lines. A fish was deemed to be spawning in a given year if it satisfied one of the following criteria: 1. Detected within a spawning river during the spawning period and a detection hiatus period of at least 7 days; 2. Detected within a spawning gate during the spawning period and a detection hiatus period of at least 14 days. Detections have been aggregated daily.

figures/spawn/SpawnerHiatus.png

Figure 6. Longest detection hiatus during the spawning window (April to June) for potential spawners. Spawning gates are receivers at or near the mouth of a spawning river. Spawning rivers include Horsefly River and Mitchell River. Dotted vertical line is 21 days.

Growth

figures/growth/growth.png

Figure 7. Estimated Rainbow Trout length by age (with 95% CIs).

Condition

figures/condition/year.png

Figure 8. The percent change in the body weight of a 500 mm Rainbow Trout relative to a typical year, by year (with 95% CRIs).

Survival

figures/survival/annual.png

Figure 9. The estimated annual interval probabilities (with 95% CIs).

figures/survival/MortalityAnnual.png

Figure 10. The estimated annual effect on natural mortality (with 95% CRIs).

figures/survival/MortalitySeason.png

Figure 11. The estimated seasonal effect on natural mortality (with 95% CRIs).

figures/survival/SpawningLength.png

Figure 12. The estimated effect of fork length on spawning probability (with 95% CRIs).

figures/survival/SpawningYear.png

Figure 13. The estimated annual effect on spawning probability for a fish of typical fork length (with 95% CRIs).

Yield-per-Recruit

Slot Limit

figures/yield/slot/length_age.png

Figure 14. Calculated length by age.

figures/yield/slot/weight_length.png

Figure 15. Calculated weight by length.

figures/yield/slot/spawning_length.png

Figure 16. Calculated probability of spawning by length.

figures/yield/slot/vulnerability_length.png

Figure 17. Calculated vulnerability to capture by length.

figures/yield/slot/survivorship_length.png

Figure 18. Calculated natural survivorship by length.

figures/yield/slot/stock_recruit.png

Figure 19. Calculated yield as percent of total unfished biomass by annual interval exploitation rate.

No Slot Limit

figures/yield/noslot/stock_recruit.png

Figure 20. Calculated yield as percent of total unfished biomass by annual interval exploitation rate.

Acknowledgements

The organisations and individuals whose contributions have made this analysis report possible include:

  • Quesnel Lake anglers for reporting their catches
  • Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation (HCTF)
    • and the anglers, hunters, trappers and guides who contribute to the Trust
  • Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations
    • Lee Williston
    • Mike Ramsay
    • Greg Andrusak
  • Reel Adventures
    • Kerry Reed
  • Vicky Lipinski

References

Bison, Robert, David O’Brien, and Steven J. D. Martell. 2003. “An Analysis of Sustainable Fishing Options for Adams Lake Bull Trout Using Life History and Telemetry Data.” Kamloops, B.C.: BC Ministry of Water Land; Air Protection.
Bradford, Michael J, Josh Korman, and Paul S Higgins. 2005. “Using Confidence Intervals to Estimate the Response of Salmon Populations (Oncorhynchus Spp.) to Experimental Habitat Alterations.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62 (12): 2716–26. https://doi.org/10.1139/f05-179.
Brooks, Steve, Andrew Gelman, Galin L. Jones, and Xiao-Li Meng, eds. 2011. Handbook for Markov Chain Monte Carlo. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis.
Carpenter, Bob, Andrew Gelman, Matthew D. Hoffman, Daniel Lee, Ben Goodrich, Michael Betancourt, Marcus Brubaker, Jiqiang Guo, Peter Li, and Allen Riddell. 2017. Stan : A Probabilistic Programming Language.” Journal of Statistical Software 76 (1). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v076.i01.
Fabrizio, Mary C., James D. Nichols, James E. Hines, Bruce L. Swanson, and Stephen T. Schram. 1999. “Modeling Data from Double-Tagging Experiments to Estimate Heterogeneous Rates of Tag Shedding in Lake Trout (Salvelinus Namaycush).” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56 (8): 1409–19. http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/f99-069.
Gelman, Andrew, Daniel Simpson, and Michael Betancourt. 2017. “The Prior Can Often Only Be Understood in the Context of the Likelihood.” Entropy 19 (10): 555. https://doi.org/10.3390/e19100555.
Greenland, Sander. 2019. “Valid p -Values Behave Exactly as They Should: Some Misleading Criticisms of p -Values and Their Resolution With s -Values.” The American Statistician 73 (sup1): 106–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2018.1529625.
Greenland, Sander, and Charles Poole. 2013. “Living with p Values: Resurrecting a Bayesian Perspective on Frequentist Statistics.” Epidemiology 24 (1): 62–68. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e3182785741.
He, Ji X., James R. Bence, James E. Johnson, David F. Clapp, and Mark P. Ebener. 2008. “Modeling Variation in Mass-Length Relations and Condition Indices of Lake Trout and Chinook Salmon in Lake Huron: A Hierarchical Bayesian Approach.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137 (3): 801–17. https://doi.org/10.1577/T07-012.1.
Kery, Marc, and Michael Schaub. 2011. Bayesian Population Analysis Using WinBUGS : A Hierarchical Perspective. Boston: Academic Press. http://www.vogelwarte.ch/bpa.html.
McElreath, Richard. 2016. Statistical Rethinking: A Bayesian Course with Examples in R and Stan. Chapman & Hall/CRC Texts in Statistical Science Series 122. Boca Raton: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group.
Plummer, Martyn. 2003. JAGS: A Program for Analysis of Bayesian Graphical Models Using Gibbs Sampling.” In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Distributed Statistical Computing (DSC 2003), edited by Kurt Hornik, Friedrich Leisch, and Achim Zeileis. Vienna, Austria.
R Core Team. 2020. “R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.” Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
———. 2021. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
Thorley, Joseph L., and Greg F. Andrusak. 2017. “The Fishing and Natural Mortality of Large, Piscivorous Bull Trout and Rainbow Trout in Kootenay Lake, British Columbia (2008–2013).” PeerJ 5 (January): e2874. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2874.
von Bertalanffy, L. 1938. “A Quantitative Theory of Organic Growth (Inquiries on Growth Laws Ii).” Human Biology 10: 181–213.