Data sources: Biological

[melissamonk-NOAA]

List of possible data sources to inform biology

1. Otoliths and lengths

• a. Recent CDFW
• b. NMFS Cooperative research
• c. CCFRP
• d. Abrams thesis
• e. Commercial
• f. WCGBTS
• g. IPHC FISS survey

2. Length only

• a. Miller and Gotshall 1965
• b. Miller and Geibel
• c. Wade vanBuskirk lengths
• d. Recreational (See recreational data)
• e. CDFW ROV
• f. Diana Baetschers dissertation data of quillback YOY lengths
• g. Triennial

3. Weight

• a. Commercial
• b. Recreational - Weights available for about half the entries
• c. WCGBTS

4. Maturity

• a. NMFS SWFSC 2024 collection
• b. PacFIN has agency maturity code. Need to confirm these are or are not suitable

6. Fecundity

• a. NMFS SWFSC 2024 collection
• b. Dick et al. 2017 estimates - 3.93e-07*L^3.7 in millions of eggs where L is length in cm

[brianlangseth-NOAA]

Historical data should be the same as that used in the 2021 assessment

[melissamonk-NOAA]

Check that DWV and MRFSS lengths aren't double counted

[brianlangseth-NOAA]

Im going to move this to an issue. #19

[brianlangseth-NOAA]

In a CDFW report Agenda I.4.b Supplemental CDFW Report 1at the September 2024 council meeting, CDFW outlined the number of otoliths available though a couple of sampling programs.

Of note, the FISS column reflects the IPHC Fishery Independent Setline Survey, which is likely a dataset we should look at

[brianlangseth-NOAA]

There is a huge fish in recfin that also has a not unrealistic (for its size) weight. Heard any stories of this thing (sampled in 2012)? Seeing as this would be an all time record for length (and four all time records for weight, which are in kg), I do not plan to keep this length, nor these weights (not that we use them).

[brianlangseth-NOAA]

Melissa and I discussed and these 4 seem reasonable to remove. Also agreed the two other long fish without weights be removed

[brianlangseth-NOAA]

@melissamonk-NOAA and @JuliaCoates, MRFSS data has two different length measurements for fish: fork length (LNGTH) and total length (T_LEN). Per the discussion at pfmc-assessments/california-data#2, LGNTH was measured >= 1993, and then T_LEN was measured <= 1993. Thus we have two different measured values

As you can see in the above figure there is a set of 1997-1998 data where LNGTH wasn't measured (black dots = LNGTH with many decimals). My guess is that this might be Deb's data and is something I plan to look into.

We also need to deal with the fork length / total length issue. For quillback rockfish this should not be an issue because theoretically, the two measurements should be the same. However, it is clear there is a difference between fork and total length, and this difference is larger the bigger the fish is. Most of the time total length is greater than fork length but not always.

Since total length was used in the earliest years, IF total and fork were the actually the same as we would expect, the conversion being applied in the MRFSS data would generally make fish smaller in the earliest years. As there is no way to know for sure how the measurement was taken, my suggestion is that we move forward with fork length (which is what was done in the last assessment). We can discuss this next time we meet to confirm we are in agreement.

[brianlangseth-NOAA]

From Echeverria and Lenarz 1984, the length conversions are:

TL = -8.696 + 1.034 * FL
FL = 9.075 + 0.965 * TL

These are for lengths in mm

[brianlangseth-NOAA]

Information on IPHC FISS survey from @JuliaCoates:

The survey’s southern extent is SF Bay. Total numbers of quillback caught COASTWIDE

'

but among CALIFORNIA locations, the survey only extended into California in 2013, 2014, and 2017. No quillback were caught in California in 2013, 22 in 2014, and 5 in 2017. CDFW has the data for the 5 fish in 2017. Looking into getting the data in 2014.

[brianlangseth-NOAA]

Compilation of the length data started in commit b0f988f