Global Status of Groundfish Stocks

Received: 25 January 2021 | Revised: 11 March 2021 | Accepted: 15 March 2021 DOI: 10.1111/faf.12560

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Global status of groundfish stocks

1School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA Abstract 2Marine Resource Assessment and We review the status of groundfish stocks using published scientific assessments for Management (MARAM) Group, Department 349 individual stocks constituting 90% of global groundfish catch. Overall, average of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, stock abundance is increasing and is currently above the level that would produce South Africa maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Fishing pressure for cod-like fishes (Gadiformes) 3Fisheries Resources Institute, Japan Fisheries Research and Education Agency, and flatfishes (Pleuronectiformes) was, for several decades, on average well above Nagasaki, Japan levels associated with MSY, but is now at or below the level expected to produce 4 National Marine Information and Research MSY. In contrast, fishing pressure for rockfishes (Scorpaeniformes) decreased from Centre (NatMIRC), Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR), Swakopmund, near MSY-related levels in the mid-1990s, and since the mid-2000s has remained on Namibia average at only one third of MSY-related levels. Regions with the most depressed 5Fisheries New Zealand, Ministry for groundfish stocks are the Northwest Atlantic and the Pacific coast of South America, Primary Industries, Wellington, New Zealand 6Marine and Freshwater Research Centre, while stocks from the Northeast and Eastern Central Pacific, Northeast Atlantic, Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology, Southeast Atlantic and Southwest Pacific tend to have greatest average abundance Galway, Ireland relative to MSY-based reference points. In the most recent year available for each 7Centro para el Estudio de Sistemas Marinos, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones stock, the catch was only 61% of MSY. Equilibrium yield curves indicate that 76% of Científicas y Técnicas, Chubut, Argentina global potential groundfish yield could be achieved using current estimates of fishing 8Departamento de Evaluación de Recursos, Instituto de Fomento Pesquero (IFOP), pressure. 15% of this is lost by excess fishing pressure, 67% results from lower than Valparaíso, Chile optimal fishing pressure on healthy stocks and 18% is lost from stocks currently over-

Correspondence fished but rebuilding. Thus, there is modest opportunity to increase catch of global Ray Hilborn, School of Aquatic and Fishery groundfish fisheries by reducing overfishing on some stocks, but more by increasing Sciences, Box 355020, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. harvest on others. However, there may be other reasons not to fully exploit these Email: [email protected] stocks.

Funding information KEYWORDS National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Grant/Award Number: abundance, cod, fisheries management, overfishing, pollock, sustainable fishing 1041570 and 1041678; David and Lucile Packard Foundation; Walton Family Foundation; Nature Conservancy; commercial fishing companies and trade associations; The Wildlife Conservation Society; National Science Foundation

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. © 2021 The Authors. Fish and Fisheries published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/faf | 1 Fish and Fisheries. 2021;00:1–18. 2 | HILBORN et al.

1 | INTRODUCTION

1 INTRODUCTION 1 Groundfish is an umbrella term generally applied to demersal fishes 2 MATERIALS AND METHODS 3 from temperate and northern latitudes. Regional fisheries man- 2.1 RAMLDB 3 agement councils of the United States, and national management agencies of Canada and Europe, commonly identify groundfish as a 2.2 FAO catch data 4 distinct group of fish in their research and management plans. 2.2.1 Trends in abundance and fishing 4 pressure The most abundant groundfish are from the taxonomic order 2.3 Estimation of stock status relative to 4 Gadiformes and include Atlantic pollocks (Pollachius virens and MSY or target reference points Pollachius pollachius), Pacific pollock (Gadus chalcogrammus), Pacific 2.4 Fisheries management 5 cod (Gadus microcephalus), Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), hakes (fam- 2.5 Lost yield 5 ily Merlucciidae) and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus). Other species generally considered groundfish are flatfishes of the order 3 RESULTS 5 Pleuronectiformes, and rockfishes and their relatives of the order 3.1 Trends in catch 5 Scorpaeniformes. While these orders of groundfishes share some 3.2 Mean trends in stock status 7 strong commonalities, there are also differences among them in life- 3.3 Individual stock status 9 history characteristics and in how they are fished. 3.4 Differences in regional trends 9 Groundfish are found almost exclusively in the temperate and 3.5 Lost yield 12 higher latitudes of both the Northern and Southern hemispheres 3.6 Management influences on stock status 13 and all continents, but stocks in the Northern hemisphere are typ- 4 DISCUSSION 14 ically much larger. Since 2000, groundfish landings reported to ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 16 FAO (FAO, 2020a) have averaged 10.5 million metric tons (mmt) CONFLICT OF INTEREST 16 and constituted about 12% of annual global landings of all marine DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 16 species. Of these groundfish landings, 85% comprise stocks of REFERENCES 16 the order Gadiformes. While similar numbers of stocks of the orders Pleuronectiformes and Scorpaeniformes are assessed, those stocks are on average smaller in their contribution to global food production. There have been a number of papers on the status and trends in Groundfish have featured prominently in discussions about European Atlantic fisheries (Cardinale et al., 2013; Cook et al., 1997; fisheries sustainability in recent decades. Declines of cod are per- Fernandes & Cook, 2013; Froese et al., 2018; Zimmermann & haps the best known examples of overfishing and stock depletion Werner, 2019) and Mediterranean fisheries (Fernandes et al., 2017; (Hutchings & Myers, 1994; Kurlansky, 2011; Myers et al., 1997b), Vasilakopoulos et al., 2014). Two papers have examined the status Almost all groundfish are managed by agencies that conduct fisher- of global tuna fisheries (Juan-Jorda et al., 2011; Maite et al., 2016), ies stock assessments to estimate trends in abundance and fishing and a third paper (Pons et al., 2017) explored the relationship pressure, so compared to most fish stocks worldwide, ground- between various management measures and stock abundance. fish stocks tend to be data-rich with relatively well-known status. Trends in the abundance and management of groundfish stocks off Despite their commercial importance and concerns around non- the West Coast of the United States. (Hilborn et al., 2012; Keller sustainable fishing, there has not yet been a comprehensive synthe- et al., 2012) and North America (Melnychuk et al., 2013) have also sis of the global status of groundfish stocks, nor their management been examined. Atlantic cod have been of particular interest both intensity. because of the dramatic declines seen in many of the stocks (Myers Many agencies report on the status of fish stocks. The Food and et al., 1996, 1997a) and the differential recovery of different stocks Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) publishes a (Hilborn & Litsinger, 2009; Rothschild, 2007; Sguotti et al., 2019). bi-annual estimate of the proportion of stocks that are overfished Recently, Hilborn et al., (2020) reviewed what is known from according to the criterion of whether biomass is less than or greater scientific stock assessments about the status and management of than 80% of the biomass that would produce maximum sustainable fisheries from different regions around the world and highlighted yield (BMSY) (FAO, 2020b). In the United States, the National Marine regional differences in management, showing that countries which Fisheries Service reports how many stocks are overfished (default managed their fish resources more intensively tended to have bet- threshold is 50% of BMSY) or subject to overfishing (U > UMSY, i.e. fish- ter stock status. Follow-up work evaluated the influence of individ- ing pressure is greater than the fishing pressure expected to gener- ual management attributes on changes in the time series of fishing ate MSY) (NMFS, 2019). ICES reports on the status of individual fish pressure and biomass, showing that rebuilding plans had particularly stocks in the Northeast Atlantic, including European Union, Norway, strong effects on reversing overfishing (Melnychuk et al., 2021). Iceland and Faroe Islands, and many other governments provide However, neither of these studies focused on specific types of spe- some summary of their fisheries status. cies or fisheries in their analyses. Given the differences in biology HILBORN et al. | 3 and the fisheries between tunas, groundfish, small pelagics and in- reference points based on maximum sustainable yield (MSY) or other vertebrates we might expect major differences in status and influ- targets. ences of management. Although only constituting 12% of global catch, groundfish have had outsized importance in the development of fisheries manage- 2 | MATERIALS AND METHODS ment measures and are particularly well studied. The prominence of groundfish in fisheries science and management may have resulted In this paper, we consider all available catch and stock status es- from their being the mainstay of many fishery-dependent communi- timates for populations of species from the orders Gadiformes, ties in the North Atlantic where much of current fisheries manage- Pleuronectiformes and Scorpaeniformes, with one exception. ment theory was developed. Because they are distributed primarily We excluded one gadid species, North Atlantic blue whiting in the waters of countries and regions that regularly undertake sci- (Micromesistius poutassou), which is a very large fishery but is used entific stock assessments, and because most stocks in these regions primarily for fishmeal and oil. are assessed, an analysis of groundfish stocks in well-studied regions essentially represents a global analysis of groundfish. There is an ongoing desire to increase food from the sea as evi- 2.1 | RAMLDB denced by the recent high-level report to a number of heads of state (Costello et al., 2020). Thus, as part of this analysis, we examine the The RAM Legacy Stock Assessment Database (RAMLDB; www. extent to which global groundfish production could be increased by ramlegacy.org) is a compilation of stock assessments that contain either reducing overfishing or more fully exploiting currently under- time series of stock abundance, catch, fishing pressure and recruit- exploited stocks. ment, as well as a range of biological and management parameters The purpose of this paper is to: (1) synthesize the results of (Ricard et al., 2012). Version 4.493 (RAM Legacy Stock Assessment stock assessments which quantify the current status and history Database, 2021) contains data for over 1,200 stocks, which together of groundfish stocks around the world; (2) compare stock status constitute almost 50% of fish catch reported to FAO (FAO, 2019). among groundfish orders of Gadiformes, Pleuronectiformes and The RAM Legacy Database includes coverage of 80% of the land- Scorpaeniformes and for different regions; (3) evaluate the poten- ings reported to FAO from North America, Europe, Peru, Chile, tial for sustained production or increases in production; and (4) un- Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Russia and South Africa derstand the relationship between the nature of the management and thus covers most of the major countries catching groundfish systems and the outcomes for the stocks with respect to biological (Figure 1).

Faroes Norway Canada Iceland Russia

EU Atl and Baltic United States EU Med and Black Japan

250 GGGGGGGGG GGGG GG GG GGG GG GGGG G GG G GG GG G GG 2 150 G 1 GG G GG GGG GGGG Namibia 0.5 Australia GGG Chile GGG G GGG GGGGGGG G South Africa 50 G Argentina

Number of stocks NZL GG

Average catch Covered in RAM 1950 1970 1990 2010 in RAMLDB version 4.493 2009−2015 millions t Not covered in RAM

FIGURE 1 Coverage by country or aggregated region of assessed groundfish stocks contained in RAMLDB. Circle area is proportional to the country or region's average annual catch of groundfish from 2009 to 2015 (orders Gadiformes, Pleuronectiformes and Scorpaeniformes) as reported to FAO. Dark blue shading represents the fraction of the country's groundfish catch covered by stocks in RAMLDB. Circles are plotted for the following regions instead of individual countries: the Mediterranean and Black Sea (European Union countries), Atlantic and Baltic waters (EU countries). Inset panel is number of groundfish stocks contained in RAMLDB with abundance data for each year. The total number of groundfish stocks in the dataset is 349 but only 237 have estimates of biomass and fishing pressure relative to MSY-based reference points 4 | HILBORN et al.

2.2 | FAO landings data ση. Observations consist of estimates for j = {1,…,m} stocks, which we assume follow the overall trend via Global landings data are reported by individual countries to FAO = + + ∼ 2 (FAO, 2019) and contain the country, FAO statistical area, scientific yj,t xt aj j,t, j,t N( j,t−1, ) (2) name or species group and landings in metric tons. The data base we used covers years 1950–2017. To link FAO landings data with bio- where yj,t is the observation for a given stock (e.g. ln(Bj,t/BMSY,j)), xt is logical stocks contained in RAMLDB, all species in the FAO database the mean index from Equation (1), aj is a fixed effect deviation from the a = 0 that were from Gadiformes, Pleuronectiformes or Scorpaeniformes overall trend for stock j (we constrain ∑ j such that xt represents were included except North Atlantic blue whiting. A few species the overall mean and not that of a baseline stock), εj,t is the measure- from other orders are often called groundfish, including Patagonian ment error assumed to follow an autoregressive (AR(1)) process with toothfish, orange roughy and monkfish, but these are not large fish- autoregressive coefficient φ and innovation standard deviation σε. eries and we have chosen to include for analysis in this paper only Equations (1) and (2) are the process and measurement equations of species in the three primary orders. the state-space model. Figure 1 shows the total tonnage of groundfish landings reported Assuming a random walk ensures strong autocorrelation in the to FAO by country, represented by the area of circles, showing the mean trend so that if the only stocks assessed in a year had typically greater overall abundance of stocks at temperate and northern higher or lower values than the stocks not assessed, the predicted latitudes. The shading of circles represents the proportion of the mean trend only slightly “chases” these values, and instead largely catch reported to FAO that is represented by stocks contained in propagates forward (or backward) from the mean in years of high RAMLDB. Many countries or regions have stock assessments cov- coverage. When coverage is high, meaning most stocks in the group ering nearly all of the groundfish landings, including the EU, Russia, had estimated values in that year, the state-space estimates con- USA, Iceland, Norway, Japan, New Zealand, Argentina, Chile, Faroe verge to the median values across stocks, and our conclusions about Islands, Namibia and South Africa. current status in the most recent years (of lower coverage) will be influenced by earlier years when coverage was greater. The mean trend is re-scaled to median values using a calculated scaling factor 2.2.1 | Trends in abundance and fishing pressure during years of >90% coverage. Our state-space analysis is related to methods of Zuur et al., (2003) Stock assessments from different government fisheries agencies and and Conn (2010) in extracting hierarchical trends from component se- for individual stocks do not cover the same ranges of years. Some go ries. Our method differs from dynamic factor analysis in Zuur (2003) back as far as 1950, but most assessments tend to begin between 1960 in that we do not standardize the series a priori but include a sum-to- and 1980, so years are unbalanced with respect to the number of stocks zero constraint on the stock effects such that the mean trend is out- covered. Reconstructing the average abundance or fishing pressure in put, and we allow for autocorrelated process errors. Autocorrelated any year must therefore account for these “ragged ends” of unequal data process errors are particularly important as stock coverage at the coverage. The inset panel in Figure 1 shows the number of groundfish beginning and ending years is often low. Differences from Conn in- stocks with abundance estimates available for each year. The data cov- clude autocorrelated within-stock process errors (a possibility noted erage is most complete between the late 1990s and 2012. After 2012, in Conn, 2010) and our year effects follow a random walk, whereas RAMLDB includes fewer and fewer stocks with assessments covering year effects in Conn (2010) are independent and therefore subject to those years. For some stocks, the most recent available assessments domination by remaining stocks in the ragged ends. are several years out of date; for other stocks, there is a lag between an In addition to unequal temporal coverage across stocks, geo- assessment's publication and it being entered into RAMLDB. graphic coverages of groundfish landings and abundance are not To estimate the trend in abundance or fishing pressure in years uniformly distributed worldwide. Because of the regional variation with low stock coverage, we used the state-space model approach in groundfish yield, some of our analyses below are stratified by used in Hilborn et al., (2020) to estimate the mean trends in abundance major FAO statistical area. Other analyses are stratified taxonom- and fishing pressure across stocks, treating time series of individual ically, by groundfish orders of Gadiformes, Pleuronectiformes and stocks as observations around the group mean, which is constrained Scorpaeniformes, to evaluate possible differences among these taxa. to follow a random walk. Groups consistent of FAO Major Fishing Areas in some analyses, and taxonomic order in other analyses. We assume that the group trend in an index follows a random 2.3 | Estimation of stock status relative to MSY or walk in time: target reference points

= + ∼ 2 xt xt−1 t, t N(0, ) (1) The most common way to assess the status of fish stocks is by com- paring time series of estimated biomass (B) and fishing pressure (U) where xt is the mean index at time t, ηt is a process deviation, as- to their respective biological reference points. Depending upon the sumed normally distributed with zero mean and standard deviation assessment biomass may be measured as spawning stock biomass HILBORN et al. | 5 or biomass of all fish above a certain age. Fishing pressure may be compare long-term yield at current fishing pressure or at current bio- measured as an instantaneous rate or a discrete rate. These reference mass. If a stock is fished at UMSY, its equilibrium yield is predicted to points are commonly based on quantities associated with MSY, that be MSY, and therefore, it has no lost potential yield. If we fish harder is BMSY and UMSY, or may also be based on other specified manage- than UMSY, we obtain less yield than we could if we fished at UMSY. ment targets which are often proxies for BMSY and UMSY. Following the Similarly, if we fish with a rate lower than UMSY we also forego po- example of Worm et al., (2009) and Hilborn et al., (2020) we preferen- tential yield that could have been caught. This amount “lost” for each tially used MSY-based reference points when available for calculating stock is the difference between what could be realized by fishing at ratios of B/BMSY and U/UMSY; these ratios represent current or histori- UMSY (with biomass equilibrating at BMSY, and annually landing MSY) cal stock status. If no MSY-based reference points were available, but and the expected equilibrium yield under current U. The magnitudes management targets were provided we used those. If no reference of lost yield and value increase the further away that U is from UMSY. points were available from the assessment agency as part of the pub- This is known as a yield curve and is simply a curve that rises from lished assessment, they were estimated post hoc by fitting surplus pro- 0 (with U/UMSY = 0) to 1 (achieving MSY) as U/UMSY increases from duction models to time-series data from assessments as described in 0 to 1, and then declines as U/UMSY increases beyond 1. Using such Hilborn et al., (2020). However, estimation of reference points was not equilibrium yield curves, for any stock we can calculate the fractions possible for 112 stocks (the estimates did not pass a series of filters of potential yield lost due to fishing pressure being either above UMSY designed to guard against poor estimates). Thus, from the 349 ground- or below UMSY, and the equilibrium yield obtained at the current U fish stocks in the database, only 237 have stock status estimated (Hilborn, 2018). The same basic rules apply for current biomass; yield relative to reference points. Groundfish stocks with reference points can be lost because biomass is below BMSY or because it is above BMSY. constitute over 94% of the total groundfish landings in RAMLDB, and We used the Pella–Tomlinson model (Pella & Tomlinson, 1969) as 81% of the total groundfish landings reported to FAO, thus most of the basis for the relationship between the current status of the stock the world's largest groundfish landings come from stocks for which we (using separate calculations for U/UMSY and B/BMSY) and the frac- have biomass and fishing pressure reference points, consistent with tion of potential yield that is obtained. The model's shape parameter Neubauer et al., (2018). The stocks without reference points tended to value was based on a global meta-analysis (Thorson et al., 2012). This be small stocks (median landings 2000–2010 was 1,500 MT). Table S1 produced a loss relationship nearly identical to the logistic growth lists all stocks included in our analysis and summarizes values of land- model (Hilborn, 2018). The total equilibrium yield predicted at the ings and the stock status relative to reference points. U/UMSY or at the B/BMSY in the final year of each stock assessment was summed across all stocks. This gives large stocks greater weight (as their potential MSY is higher). This approach ignores age/size 2.4 | Fisheries management structure and many other stock-specific details, but figure 3a of Hilborn et al., (2020) demonstrated that biomass and fishing pres- Melnychuk et al., (2021) collected data on 288 individual fish stocks sure on average explain changes in abundance and thus sustainable in the RAMLDB, determining in what year the following actions yield. This means that our method of estimating lost yield should were first implemented (1) stock assessment of current status, (2) produce, on average, reliable results. scientific surveys of stock abundance, (3) total landings limits for the stock, (4) a harvest control rule that specifies how the landings will be adjusted in relation to stock abundance and (5) individual vessel 3 | RESULTS quotas. These data were available for 109 of the groundfish stocks in our dataset and are assumed to be the key elements of modern 3.1 | Trends in landings single-stock fisheries management. For each stock and year, a management intensity index is constructed that is 0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 or Aggregate landings of major groundfish groups, and amount of land- 1.0 depending how many of the 5 actions are in place in any year. We ings from stocks assessed in each year in RAMLDB, are shown in can then compare the changes in abundance and fishing pressure in Figure 2. Worldwide groundfish catches are dominated by order relation to management intensity either globally, regionally or on a Gadiformes, represented by four of the six panels. Summed catches stock by stock basis. of pollocks and cods show declines between 1970 and 2000, with recent increases since 2010. Catches of hakes have been reasonably stable since 1980. Landings of other gadids peaked around 2000, de- 2.5 | Lost yield clined over the following decade, and then rebounded since 2010. Catches of flatfishes (Pleuronectiformes) have been largely stable A key question we wished to ask is how much yield are stocks provid- since 1970, while those of scorpionfishes (Scorpaeniformes), consist- ing, relative to potential long-term maximum yield? We explore this ing primarily of rockfishes (family Sebastidae) have decreased slightly in two ways. First, we simply compare current harvest to estimated since 1990. The coverage of these groundfish in RAMLDB is reason- MSY. The difference is an empirical estimate of lost yield if we could ably complete between 1990 and 2010 but poorest for the flat- manage that stock to produce MSY. An alternative approach is to fishes and scorpionfishes. The assessment coverage during earlier 6 | HILBORN et al.

7 Pollock Cod Hake

0 3.5 Other Gadids Pleuronectiformes Scorpaeniformes

Annual catch (mmt ) 3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

1950 1970 1990 2010 1950 1970 1990 2010 1950 1970 1990 2010

FIGURE 2 Trends in total global catch (as reported to FAO) of six major taxonomic groups of groundfish (filled area) and catch in RAMLDB (solid line) from the same groups. Assignments of individual groundfish stocks into these six groups are listed in Table S1 years before 1990 is lower for most of these groundfish groups The Southwest Atlantic landings are mainly from Argentine hake because some stock assessments do not include historical landings. stocks, the Southwest Pacific landings are primarily hoki (=blue Russian pollock assessments do not extend back into the 1980s, and grenadier) and Southern blue whiting stocks from New Zealand, and Argentine hakes are also limited in temporal coverage, which reduces the Southeast Atlantic landings are mainly from hake stocks from the aggregate catch of assessed stocks in RAMLDB relative to the Namibia and South Africa. aggregate catch for these groups in the FAO landings database. Separating trends in landings by FAO region (Figure 3), we see that groundfish catch is currently dominated by three regions: the 3.2 | Mean trends in stock status Northeast Atlantic, the Northwest Pacific and the Northeast Pacific. The Northwest Atlantic was also a significant producer until the col- Mean relative abundance trends across groundfish stocks from lapse of the Canadian and American cod stocks in the early 1990s. all FAO areas are shown in the top row of Figure 4 for years HILBORN et al. | 7

Northwest Pacific Northeast Pacific Northeast Atlantic 0123456 Northwest Atlantic Southeast Atlantic Southwest Atlantic Annual catch (mmt ) 0123 Southeast Pacific Southwest Pacific Eastern Central Pacific

gadids

0. 8 pleuronectids scorpaneids .6 0. 40 .2 0. 00

1950 1970 1990 2010 1950 1970 1990 2010 1950 1970 1990 2010

FIGURE 3 Trends in total global catch of groundfish by major FAO area, as reported to FAO. Assignments of individual groundfish stocks into these areas are listed in Table S1. Stacked areas are shown for orders Gadiformes (light grey), Pleuronectiformes (medium grey) and Scorpaeniformes (black)

1970–2018, separated by taxonomic order. These show an overall some assessments consider years before 1970, coverage was gen- pattern of decline to just below BMSY levels in the 1990s and 2000s, erally lower in earlier years (Figure 2), so only trends since 1970 and then a recent increase to above BMSY levels for all three orders are shown. By 1970, mean relative abundance of flatfishes was

(Figure 4). This pattern is clear in both the state-space model and on average already near BMSY levels, lower than the medians of median of assessed stocks. For flatfishes and scorpaenids, the me- included stocks in these years, again because the assessed stocks dians of assessed stocks in the last few years have been greater in those years tended to have higher B/BMSY values than they did than the mean trend estimates from the state-space model, in part in later years of higher coverage. While the exact timing differs because the assessed stocks in those years had higher than aver- slightly among the three orders of groundfish, the general pattern age B/BMSY, and in part because the mean trend follows a random of mean stock decline and later recovery is observed across these walk with constrained change from one year to the next. While taxonomic groups. 8 | HILBORN et al.

Distributions of Upper whisker Coverage: State-space model estimates: 75th percentile individual stocks: Geometric mean, 95% CL Median 25th percentile Lower whisker

FIGURE 4 Trends in groundfish global means of: (top row) relative abundance, B/BMSY; and (bottom row) relative fishing pressure, U/ UMSY from 1970 to 2018. Distributions and mean trends across stocks are shown separately by order. Estimates are generated from a state-space model (Hilborn et al., 2020) treating time series of individual stocks as observations. Shaded bands around mean denote 95% finite population-corrected confidence bounds (applicable to all years with <100% coverage). Boxplots with medians as red circles show distributions of individual stocks in each year, with shading reflecting the fraction of stocks with assessments covering that year. The horizontal line at 1.0 is the MSY value. Stocks are equally weighted

Average fishing pressure generally showed opposite trends to reduced for these stocks, even more sharply than for gadids and the abundance trends (bottom row of Figure 4). Mean fishing pres- pleuronectids. Since the mid-2000s, mean fishing pressure for scor- sure in 1970 was predicted to be about 0.5, 1 and 1.5 of UMSY for paenids has been well below half of UMSY. Overall, there appears to scorpaenids, gadids and pleuronectids, respectively. For flatfishes, be a general reduction in the variability of fishing pressure in recent similar to the difference between medians and state-space mean decades as more regions have enacted stricter fishing pressure. abundance in earlier years, the estimated mean trends in fishing pressure were greater than medians across included stocks in earlier years. By the 1990s, average fishing pressure for gadids and 3.3 | Individual stock status pleuronectids was high, around 1.5 UMSY, after which it was reduced, and has steadily declined to current levels near or slightly Stock status is commonly expressed visually in co-plots of rela- below UMSY on average. Even though mean fishing pressure for tive fishing pressure plotted against relative abundance, as shown scorpaenids was near UMSY in the 1990s, fishing pressure was also in Figure 5 for individual groundfish stocks in the last year of their HILBORN et al. | 9

FIGURE 5 Status of individual groundfish stocks in their most recent 3+ year of joint available estimates of 44 stocks 24 stocks relative fishing pressure (U/UMSY) and relative biomass (B/BMSY). Circles (A) Pollock E Bering Sea Gadiformes represent individual stocks, with shading (B) Pollock N Sea Okhotsk Pleuronectiformes (C) Cod Barents Sea Scorpaeniformes distinguishing taxonomic orders. Vertical (D) Pollock Navarinsky (E) Hake S Argentina Geometric mean (F) Pacific hake Pacific Coast Median and horizontal dotted lines represent (G) Cod Iceland (H) Cod North Sea traditional MSY-based targets of 1. The (I) Cod S Labrador / E Newfoundland (J) Deepwater cape hake S Africa solid isocline going from upper left to 2 (K) Hoki Chile lower right is the predicted equilibrium (L) Hoki S Argentina abundance for a given level of fishing pressure. Area of circles is proportional

to MSY of the stock, or if an estimate of MS Y H MSY was not available, to the average catch from 2000 to 2012. Open square U/ U represents the geometric mean and open diamond the median across stocks J C 1 E G 49 stocks 120 stocks

K B D

I L A F 0

0123+ B/BMSY

most recent assessment. The upper left quadrant is the area of most below BMSY on average for several decades (Figure 6) although the management concern; stocks have abundance currently below BMSY Northwest Pacific and Southwest Atlantic stocks are now close to and are being harvested at levels above UMSY. The one large stock BMSY on average. in this quadrant is North Sea cod (H). The once-large stock that Mean trends in U/UMSY (Figure 7) are equally diverse among re- stands out in the lower left quadrant is the Canadian S. Labrador E. gions. The Southeast Atlantic (South Africa and Namibia), Northeast Newfoundland cod stock (“Northern cod” I), for which fishing pres- Pacific (mainly Alaska) and Southwest Pacific (New Zealand) have sure has been reduced to around 25% of UMSY but biomass has not consistently had mean fishing pressure near or well below UMSY. yet recovered from severe depletion. The large pollock stocks in the Both North Atlantic regions, the Northwest Pacific and the Eastern North Pacific (A,B,D) are estimated to be at or above target abun- Central Pacific all had high average fishing pressure throughout the dance, with fishing pressure near or below MSY targets. Stock status 1970s and 1980s; the Northeast Atlantic at more than twice the is summarized in Table S1 for all groundfish populations. level expected to provide MSY. There was a sharp decline in harvest rate in the Northwest Atlantic in the early 1990s associated with the Canadian cod collapse and ensuing fishing moratoria on sev- 3.4 | Differences in regional trends eral groundfish stocks and substantial reductions in allowed days at sea in New England fisheries, whereas in the Northeast Atlantic There are strong regional differences in abundance trends of ground- fishing pressure declined more gradually since that time, and is cur- fish stocks (Figure 6). Pooling together the three taxonomic orders, rently at UMSY (Figure 7). Declines in mean U/UMSY of stocks in the stocks in the Northeast Atlantic (Europe), Northeast Pacific (mainly Northwest Pacific have been gradual in recent years, and fishing from Alaska), Southwest Pacific (mainly New Zealand) and Southeast pressure is now also at UMSY. More pronounced declines in mean U/

Atlantic (South Africa and Namibia) have been consistently above or UMSY have occurred more recently in the Southwest Atlantic where near BMSY on average, and in the last few years have shown increases all assessed stocks show fishing pressure below UMSY. Most esti- in biomass on average. The Northwest Atlantic (Canada and USA) mates for the Southwest Atlantic are only available since the late has shown slow recovery since the major declines in stock abun- 1980s or early 1990s. Later-developing fisheries in the Southeast dances during the 1980s and early 1990s. On average, groundfish Pacific (Chile) had low mean fishing pressure before 1990, but fish- stocks in the Northwest Pacific (Japan and Russia), Southeast Pacific ing pressure increased to well above UMSY around 2010 but now (Chile) and Southwest Atlantic (Argentina) have had abundances appear to be declining. The Eastern Central Pacific (US portion, off 10 | HILBORN et al.

Distributions of Upper whisker Coverage: State-space model estimates: 75th percentile individual stocks: Geometric mean, 95% CL Median 25th percentile Lower whisker

(n = 47) (n = 55) (n = 5)

(n = 4) (n = 14) (n = 74)

(n=19) (n = 8) (n = 4)

FIGURE 6 Trends in groundfish mean relative abundance, B/BMSY, by major FAO area. Shaded bands around mean denote 95% finite population-corrected confidence bounds (applicable to all years with <100% coverage). Boxplots with medians as red circles show distributions of individual stocks in each year, with shading reflecting the fraction of stocks with assessments covering that year. The horizontal line at 1.0 is the MSY value. Stocks are equally weighted

the coast of California) saw a major decline in U/UMSY beginning in the general (and expected) counter-clockwise pattern of rising U/ the late 1990s as a result of mandatory rebuilding requirements UMSY leading to declining B/BMSY, then as U/UMSY was lowered B/ for several depleted rockfish stocks (McQuaw & Hilborn, 2020; BMSY began to increase. The solid isocline in each panel shows the

Warlick et al., 2018) and continues to have the lowest fishing pres- boundary between when B/BMSY is expected to decrease based on sure among all regions. U/UMSY (at combinations up and right of the line) and where B/BMSY

The joint relationship of trends in mean U/UMSY and B/BMSY fur- is expected to increase (at combinations down and to the left of the ther shows that transitions in groundfish stock status over four de- line). All regions with the exception of the Northeast Atlantic are cades have strongly differed by region (Figure 8). All regions show roughly consistent with this. HILBORN et al. | 11

Distributions of Upper whisker Coverage: State-space model estimates: 75th percentile individual stocks: Geometric mean, 95% CL Median 25th percentile Lower whisker

(n = 46) (n = 56) (n = 5)

(n = 4) (n = 13) (n = 74)

(n=19) (n = 8) (n = 4)

FIGURE 7 Trends in groundfish mean fishing pressure, U/UMSY, by major FAO area. Shaded bands around mean denote 95% finite population-corrected confidence bounds (applicable to all years with <100% coverage). Boxplots with medians as red circles show distributions of individual stocks in each year, with shading reflecting the fraction of stocks with assessments covering that year. The horizontal line at 1.0 is the MSY value. Stocks are equally weighted

Mean trends in some regions (Southeast Atlantic, Northeast expected biomass increase. In the other two regions (Northeast Pacific, Southwest Pacific) have rarely been outside of the lower Atlantic and Northwest Pacific), mean trends have remained above right quadrant, with high abundance and low fishing pressure. In the isocline for most or all of the time series. In the Northeast the Northwest Pacific the mean trends has remained in the upper Atlantic, the classic counter-clockwise pattern is seen, but the left quadrant throughout the years covered by stock assessments, stocks started rebuilding at a higher fishing pressure and biomass where fishing pressure remains high despite average abundance than would be expected. being low, below BMSY. Seven of the nine regions have had mean Mediterranean groundfish stocks are all heavily fished (Colloca bivariate trends crossing the equilibrium biomass isocline, moving et al., 2013; Tsikliras et al., 2013; Vasilakopoulos et al., 2014), with from the region of expected biomass decrease to the region of U/UMSY estimates in stock assessments averaging well above 5. 12 | HILBORN et al.

Northwest Atlantic (n=47) Northeast Atlantic (n=56) Southwest Atlantic (n=5)

2.0

1970

1.5 1970

1.0 2017 2018 0.5 1985 2018

0.0 Southeast Atlantic (n=4) Northwest Pacific (n=14) Northeast Pacific (n=74)

2.0

1.5 1970 MSY 2013 1.0 1970 U/ U

0.5 2018 1970 0.0 Eastern Central Pacific (n=19) Southwest Pacific (n=8) Southeast Pacific (n=4)

2.0

1.5 2018

1.0 1970

0.5 1970 2015 2015 0.0 1970 0.00.5 1.01.5 2.0 0.00.5 1.01.5 2.0 0.00.5 1.01.5 2.0

B/BMSY

FIGURE 8 Bivariate mean trends in B/BMSY and U/UMSY by major FAO area. Values of geometric mean stock status are estimates from the state-space model, the same values as shown in the univariate trends in Figures 6 and 7. Shading transitions from earlier (light) to later (dark) years, with different year ranges among regions. Area of circles is proportional to the number of stocks with data available in that year; scaling is applied within each area not across areas. The solid isocline going from upper left to lower right is the predicted equilibrium abundance for each level of fishing pressure; for stocks above and to the right of this line, abundance is predicted to decrease whereas abundance is predicted to increase in the region below and to the left of the line

However, the assessments generally cover a very short period of 3.5 | Lost yield time, and reliable B/BMSY estimates are not available because most assessments only cover the period during which stocks were heavily The number of stocks and the summed MSY of stocks are listed by fished, not earlier years. State-space model fits for FAO area 37 did status categories of current relative biomass and current relative not converge for U/UMSY, so trends are not shown individually for fishing pressure (Table 1). For each stock, the magnitude of foregone this group of stocks from the Mediterranean (these stocks are still equilibrium yield was calculated and summed across stocks in each included in the worldwide trends shown in Figure 4). category (Table 1). For each stock, the foregone yield estimates were HILBORN et al. | 13

also multiplied by average ex-vessel price to estimate the magnitude 1).

< of foregone landed value across stocks. MSY While 32% of assessed groundfish stocks have unknown B/BMSY B/B and U/UMSY, these only constitute 9% of the potential MSY (using av- ) and biomass current erage catch as a surrogate for MSY when MSY is not included in the MSY assessment; Table 1). This supports observations across a wide range Unknown 1,364,264 Unknown 716,767 2,791,527 196,375 897,109 Sum of differences, MSY - catch (t) 850,154 4,538,789 4,538,789 2,261,384 U/U of species groups that larger (and more valuable) stocks receive more management attention and therefore are more likely to have esti-

) or lightly exploited ( mates of B/BMSY and U/UMSY available (Neubauer et al., 2018). The

MSY quantities of foregone yield by status category under the alternative B/B empirical measure of foregone yield (based on differences between Unknown 18% Unknown 4% 84% 11% 14% % of foregone yield equilibrium statusin category 2% 100% 100% 67% estimated MSY and current catch) are roughly proportional to the quantities of foregone yield from equilibrium yield curves in the same categories (Table 1).

Of the groundfish stocks that have estimates of B/BMSY or U/

UMSY, the majority (71% of stocks) are harvested at less than UMSY Unknown 17% Unknown 5% 56% 88% 67% Foregone Foregone yield equilibrium as % of MSY 3% 22% 40% 31% and have biomass greater than BMSY (61% of stocks); in terms of potential yield, these stocks represent 78% and 67% of the total MSY, respectively. Estimating total lost yield and value on the basis of fishing pressure, 2.9 million tons and 2.4 billion US$ of potential yield are

lost from not fishing at UMSY (Table 1). Of these quantities foregone, only 15% in tonnage is lost from fishing too hard; the loss in value is Unknown 539 Unknown 195 5,429 455 1,120 Foregone potential potential Foregone value equilibrium ($m) 184 2,355 6,733 1,167 roughly the same. If lost yield and value are instead estimated on the basis of biomass, again far more yield and value are foregone from

stocks at B > BMSY (84% of yield and 81% of value) than from stocks

at B < BMSY. Because fisheries agencies control the fishing pressure

1 are separated into status categories of under rebuilding < (1 and do not directly control biomass, we emphasize the estimated <

lost yield and value based on U/U . MSY MSY Unknown 538,522 Unknown 104,793 4,551,837 331,352 739,791 Foregone potential potential Foregone (t) yield equilibrium 99,661 2,936,403 5,391,289 1,961,737 The stocks that are in the lower left quadrant of the Kobe plot, U/U

with B/BMSY <1 and U/UMSY <1, deserve special attention. In general, these stocks have seen reduced U due to their poor status and we would expect U to rise once stocks rebuild to or above B . While 8% 3% 9% 9% MSY 61% 24% 17% 47% 22%

100% 100% these stocks only account for 18% of the total lost yield at equilib- % of total MSY in status category

rium based on U/UMSY, a much larger yield loss (2.5 times as large in weight) is estimated from the alternative empirical measure landings (Table 1). This is because the equilibrium method applies the current 7% 41% 14% 15% 32% 32% 12% 12% 34%

100% 100% U < UMSY to a predicted biomass that is higher than current B and % of stocks in status category higher than BMSY.

3.6 | Management influences on stock status 1,197,537 Sum of MSY (t) 2,891,765 3,202,279 1,197,537 13,348,401 13,348,401 2,327,407 8,146,744 376,332 1,112,355 6,244,846

Management intensity for the groundfish stocks, averaged across all stocks, increased steadily from near 0 in 1950 to 0.9 by 2016. 41 52 42 49 26 112 112 144 120 Number Number of stocks 349 349 As we saw in Figure 4 average abundance of groundfish declined up until the mid-1990s to early 2000s and then increased, while MSY

< 1 average fishing pressure increased up to the mid1990s and then B/B MSY declined. Figure 9 shows the year to year rate of change in av-

MSY erage biomass and average fishing pressure across all groundfish < 1 MSY < 1.5 MSY MSY stocks plotted against the global groundfish fisheries management MSY MSY < 1 & < 1 & B/B unknown < 0.5 unknown )

B/B intensity in the same year. Panel a shows that fishing pressure in- MSY MSY MSY Foregone yield estimates are based on the most recent year of assessment. Stocks with B/B MSY MSY MSY creased annually while management intensity was relatively low Total for B/B U/U Total for U/U U/U B/B 1 < U/U 0.5 < Statuscategory 1.5 < U/U 1 < B/B U/U B/B Note: ( TABLE 1 NumberTABLE of stocks, total potential MSY and foregone potential yield and landed value of groundfish stocks in different status categories of fishing pressure ( (up to levels of about 0.45, i.e. in early years). As management 14 | HILBORN et al.

intensity gradually increased further, average fishing pressure levels, maintaining F < FMSY and B > BMSY. Annex 2 of the United switched to decreasing annually. Panel b shows that average bio- Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (FAO, 1995) recommends that “the mass decreased during years of low management intensity (up to fishing mortality rate which generates maximum sustainable yield index values of about 0.5), again which occurred in earlier years. should be regarded as a minimum standard for limit reference points”. As management intensity increased in later years, average biomass In addition, the US National Research Council (NRC, 1998) advo- also increased. cated for an explicitly conservative approach and recommended that “a moderate level of exploitation might be a better goal for fisheries than full exploitation, because full exploitation tends to lead to over- 4 | DISCUSSION exploitation”. These and subsequent developments have led many fisheries management agencies and entities to opt to set biomass

Since 2000, total groundfish catch has fluctuated around 10 mmt targets that exceed BMSY and/or fishing mortality targets that treat and overall, the catch of groundfish appears to have stabilized FMSY as a limit. There are at least three reasons governments and across most major taxa. Analysis of lost yield (Table 1) suggests mangers may choose to forgo some potential yield. First, because that there is some potential to increase long-term yields; for some groundfish are often caught in mixed stock fisheries, it is not possi- stocks, this would involve decreasing fishing pressure (if U > UMSY ble to harvest each stock at its optimum rate and thus the theoretical currently), and for other stocks, this would involve fishing them yield cannot be obtained for all stocks. Second, when fishing pres- harder (if U < UMSY currently). This potential yield that could be sure is consistently lower than FMSY biomass will be higher and costs gained is roughly 22% of estimated maximum possible long-term of fishing lower as a result of greater harvesting efficiencies. Third, yield or 33% of current yield, so if maximum long-term yield is in- ecosystem considerations including explicit recognition of the needs deed an objective in global groundfish fisheries, a total catch of of other marine animals that forage on fish species, the presence 14 mmt could be obtainable with perfect management. Thus while of vulnerable species in assemblages of marine species, the effects much of the discussion of fisheries status and performance in the of fishing effort on bottom habitats in some fisheries, the need to popular media has tended to focus on the costs of overfishing, it maintain food webs and species diversity, and the need for resilience appears for global groundfish stocks that overfishing is not a major of both individual species and ecosystems are all arguments for resource of lost yield. ducing fishing pressure below the level that would maximize yield. There are a number of reasons why fisheries management agen- Thus the estimates in Table 1 are very much an aspirational goal cies may choose to manage more conservatively than MSY-based rather than an expectation of what would be achieved with better

(a) 1.10 MSY 1.05 U/ U 1.00 Change in 0.95 0.90

1.04 (b) MS Y 1.00 B/ B FIGURE 9 Relationship between mean stock-level management intensity index for groundfish stocks and mean 0.96 annual change in either relative fishing Change in pressure (a) or relative stock abundance (b). Data points represent individual years.

0.92 Solid line is lowess smoother and grey horizontal line at 1 shows the boundary 0.20.4 0.60.8 between increasing and decreasing mean Management Index values HILBORN et al. | 15

management, but they do suggest that excessive fishing pressure is assessments of UMSY are biased low (about 2/3 of the actual) be- not the major cause of lost potential yield. cause they ignore density-dependent somatic growth and natural

Regions that continue to have average fishing pressure above mortality. Alternatively, BMSY is not estimated in the assessments

UMSY (or have a considerable portion of individual stocks with of many ICES stocks, and the management target Btrigger is instead

U > UMSY) are the Northeast Atlantic, Southeast Pacific and used as a proxy by ICES (ICES, 2019) and in our analysis. Btrigger may

Northwest Pacific. Their current mean U/UMSY are all near 1, so as well be significantly below the biological BMSY and is indeed lower shown in Table 1, there is not much lost yield globally from this ex- on average than BMSY estimated post hoc from production models cess fishing pressure. Five regions have fishing pressure well below for the same stocks. Relative trends in abundance are not affected,

UMSY: Northeast Pacific (mainly Alaskan stocks), Southeast Atlantic but the status relative to true BMSY would be too optimistic. Overall (Southern African stocks), Southwest Pacific (mainly New Zealand our trends showing the decline and then rebuilding of Northeast stocks), Eastern Central Pacific (US stocks) and Northwest Atlantic Atlantic groundfish stocks are consistent with the pattern shown by (Canadian and US stocks). The first four of these regions should the- Zimmermann and Werner (2019) for all taxa, and our conclusion that oretically have some potential to increase long-term yields by fishing reduced fishing pressure was responsible for this biomass rebuilding harder, if given sufficient market demand, while for the Northwest is consistent with their conclusion. Atlantic, biomass of most stocks has still not recovered despite re- While we present results for regional status as a whole, there duced fishing pressure since the 1990s. The largest single potential are often large differences within a region, so that even when the for increased yield is from the Eastern Bering Sea pollock stock, for average stock status is above target biomass and fishing pressure which annual landings continue to be well below the scientific advice is below target, some stocks may be at low abundance or subject because of an overall regional cap on allowable multi-species catch to excess fishing pressure. Fernandes and Cook (2013) as well of 2 mmt (Witherell & Pautzke, 1997). Indeed there are several cases as Froese et al., (2018) highlighted the differences in stock status like this where adjusting harvest rates closer to UMSY may not be among regions in the EU, and similar differences are seen in US re- possible because the stocks are caught in mixed stock fisheries, and gions (Hilborn et al., 2020). The impact of excess fishing pressure catch limits for other species may limit the landings of primary target is accounted for in the lost yield analysis and is only a few hundred groundfish stocks (Crowder & Murawski, 1998; Hilborn et al., 2012; thousand tons for groundfish globally (Table 1). Nevertheless, losses Laurec et al., 1991; Melnychuk et al., 2013; Murawski, 1991; Ulrich from depleted stocks may still be important locally even if the overall et al., 2011). regional average status of stocks is healthy. Abundance trends showed clear correlation with changes in Groundfish management approaches have been diverse among fishing pressure: for most regions, as fishing pressure increased, regions (Melnychuk et al., 2021; Melnychuk et al., 2017). The majority stocks declined, and when fishing pressure was reduced, abun- of large groundfish stocks from Europe, New Zealand, Russia, South dance increased. Similar patterns have been observed for assessed Africa, Namibia and the United States are certified by the Marine stocks in other taxa (Hilborn et al., 2020; Walters et al., 2008). For Stewardship Council which indicates a high degree of management groundfish, the most striking anomalies are the Northwest and intensity and health of stocks. Groundfish fleets are primarily indus- Northeast Atlantic. In the Northwest Atlantic, stocks have not trial fisheries with fleet-wide quota or effort limits. In some regions, rebuilt to levels approaching their targets after fishing pressure these involve individual allocations among vessels, while in others was dramatically reduced around 1990. For some stocks, this has the fisheries remain largely competitive (Melnychuk et al., 2013; been the case despite being placed under formal rebuilding plans Melnychuk et al., 2021). Other attributes of groundfish management (Melnychuk et al., 2021). Some of the failures to rebuild are due to systems include harvest control rules, fishery-independent surveys changes in productivity that occurred in the late 1980s and 1990s and ratification of international agreements to reduce illegal fishing (Frank et al., 2005; Hilborn & Litsinger, 2009; Rothschild, 2007; and jointly manage transboundary stocks (Melnychuk et al., 2021). Shelton et al., 2006) which has meant that Canadian and US stocks These attributes can be seen as incremental, each contributing to have been much slower to recover despite low fishing pressure. strengthening overall management intensity, and thereby aiding in The change in productivity occurred at both low abundance (2J3KL meeting stock-level management objectives. cod) and at high abundance (4TVn cod, 4VsW cod, 3Ps cod) (Hilborn We saw in Figure 9 that higher management intensity has been & Litsinger, 2009). associated with increasing biomass and decreasing fishing pressure, In contrast, in the Northeast Atlantic, as others have shown, but we cannot assert this is necessarily a causal relationship. A major most stocks are rebuilding (Cardinale et al., 2013; Fernandes & focus of fisheries after WWII was on fisheries development, finding Cook, 2013; Froese et al., 2018; Zimmermann & Werner, 2019) and new stocks, developing fishing methods and overall expanding fish- European stocks have generally responded more quickly to changes ing pressure (Grainger & Garcia, 1996), thus it is not surprising that in fishing pressure. The Northeast Atlantic stock mean trend has fishing pressure was increasing. With the increasing concern about been increasing since 2000 despite the fact that fishing pressure overfishing in the 1990s, we saw management intensity continue appears to have been greater than UMSY (Figures 6 and 8). This sug- to increase, fishing pressure decline and stocks stop their decline gests that there may be a systematic bias with either BMSY or UMSY and start to rebuild. In addition to the fisheries management inten- underestimated. Sparholt et al., (2020) have suggested that ICES sity measures included in this analysis, the 1990s saw the advent of 16 | HILBORN et al. seafood certification and labelling schemes, and major expansion in ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS marine conservation efforts by environmental NGOs. All of these We thank the many contributors of stock assessment data to factors are interrelated, and thus, we cannot be certain that it was RAMLDB. Fisheries management data were collected under a the changes in fisheries management that led to the decline in fish- Science for Nature and People Partnership working group (“Fisheries ing pressure and increase in abundance, though they do support the Measures”) at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and results of formal time-series intervention analyses which used these Synthesis, which was funded by The Nature Conservancy and The same management intensity data (Melnychuk et al., 2021). Of course Wildlife Conservation Society. This research was initially supported harvest is not the only influence groundfish stocks—they are sub- by the National Science Foundation and NOAA through the CAMEO ject to environmental changes, which may intensify due to climate Program (grant numbers 1041570 and 1041678). Subsequent fund- change. Vert-pre et al., (2013) estimated that almost 70% of fish ing for this work has come from the Walton Family Foundation, the stocks are subject to periodic changes in productivity and Figure 1 David and Lucille Packard Foundation, commercial fishing compa- of that paper shows the analysis for Icelandic cod which showed a nies and trade associations. dramatic drop in productivity about 1990. Compared to the tuna and billfish, the other major group of CONFLICT OF INTEREST fishes that has been evaluated, groundfish show some striking dif- RH receives research funding from many groups that have interests ferences. The major tuna fisheries all had high biomass and low fish- in fisheries outcomes including environmental NGOs, foundations, ing pressure rates in the 1970s and saw increases in fishing pressure governments and fishing industry groups. and declining biomass with stocks stabilizing at or near BMSY in recent decades. In contrast, groundfish stocks in two regions (Norwest DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Atlantic, Northwest Pacific) were already fully harvested by 1950 Data used in this paper are available at in the following places: (1) or soon after (B near BMSY) and the Northeast Atlantic already had FAO landings data are available from the FAO web site (http://www. harvest rates well above UMSY. fao.org/fishe r y / s t a t i s t i c s / g l o b a l - c a p t u r e - p r o d u c t i o n / en) (2) the The data and analysis in this paper focus on the status and man- RAM Legacy Stock Assessment Database (www.ramlegacy.org, and agement of groundfish stocks. We do not explore ecosystem-wide https://zenodo.org/record/4458275) and (3) stock-level manage- impacts of fishing even though many marine ecosystems have been ment intensity index data are available at https://github.com/mcmel greatly impacted by fishing. Christensen et al., (2014) estimated that n y c h u k / M C M - N a t S u s t _ 2 0 2 0 - 1 2 - 0 5 . predatory fish have declined 60%–70% in global oceans and that lower trophic level fishes have more than doubled in abundance. ORCID Mazor et al. (2020) and Amoroso et al., (2018) have documented the Ray Hilborn https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2326-2305 global impact of bottom trawling on benthic biota, showing that the impact is highly variable by region and by benthic habitat structure. REFERENCES As mentioned previously, one reason many groundfish stocks may Amoroso, R. O., Pitcher, C. R., Rijnsdorp, A. D., McConnaughey, R. A., be not fully exploited is concern about the impact of fishing on other Parma, A. M., Suuronen, P., Eigaard, O. R., Bastardie, F., Hintzen, N. T., & Althaus, F. (2018). Bottom trawl fishing footprints on the world’s species and ecosystem structure. continental shelves. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Many groundfish stocks are among the best-studied and highly 115, E10275–E10282. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1802379115 targeted stocks worldwide of any fished taxa. While single-species Cardinale, M., Dörner, H., Abella, A., Andersen, J. L., Casey, J., Döring, R., management aiming to meet MSY-based management objectives has Kirkegaard, E., Motova, A., Anderson, J., & Simmonds, E. J. (2013). Rebuilding EU fish stocks and fisheries, a process under way? Marine generally been the dominant form of management in many regions, Policy, 39, 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.10.002 some jurisdictions opt to set reference points based on using MSY- Christensen, V., Coll, M., Piroddi, C., Steenbeek, J., Buszowski, J., & Pauly, related metrics as minimum standards or to maintain stocks at levels D. (2014). A century of fish biomass decline in the ocean. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 512, 155–166. https://doi.org/10.3354/ above BMSY either to account for potential assessment uncertainties, to add an element of precaution into fisheries management or to meps10946 Colloca, F., Cardinale, M., Maynou, F., Giannoulaki, M., Scarcella, G., Jenko, provide for other components of the ecosystem. Regardless of the K . , B e l l i d o , J . M . , & F i o r e n t i n o , F. ( 2 0 1 3 ) . R e b u i l d i n g M e d i t e r r a n e a n f i s h - target employed, mixed stock fisheries may involve constraints in eries: A new paradigm for ecological sustainability. Fish and Fisheries, achieving single-species objectives. Future work could evaluate the 14, 89–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2011.00453.x degree to which groundfish fishing fleets are able to target individ- Conn, P. B. (2010). Hierarchical analysis of multiple noisy abundance in- dices. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 67, 108–120. ual stocks while avoiding stocks that may be of greater conservation https://doi.org/10.1139/F09-175 concern and thus present bycatch restrictions. Certain gear types Cook, R., Sinclair, A., & Stefansson, G. (1997). Potential collapse or fishing patterns may be more selective in catching primary target of North Sea cod stocks. Nature, 385, 521–522. https://doi. species. Reducing the incidental catch of non-target or secondary- org/10.1038/385521a0 Costello, C., Cao, L., Gelcich, S., Cisneros-Mata, M. Á., Free, C. M., target species will allow for targeted groundfish stocks to be main- Froehlich, H. E., Golden, C. D., Ishimura, G., Maier, J., & Macadam- tained near their most productive levels, providing more fish on our Somer, I. (2020). The future of food from the Sea. Nature, 588(7836), plates. 9 5 – 100. https://doi.org/10.1038/s4158 6 - 0 2 0 - 2 6 1 6 - y HILBORN et al. | 17

Crowder, L. B., & Murawski, S. A. (1998). Fisheries bycatch: Implications Kurlansky, M. (2011). Cod: A biography of the fish that changed the world, for management. Fisheries, 23, 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548- Vintage Canada. 8446(1998)023<0008:FBIFM> 2.0.CO;2 Laurec, A., Biseau, A., & Charuau, A. (1991). Modelling technical interac- FAO. (1995). Agreement for the implementation of the provision of the tions. ICES Mar. Sci. Symp. United Nations convention on the Law of The Sea of 10 December 1982 Maite, P., Branch, T. A., Melnychuk, M. C., Jensen, O. P., Brodziak, J., relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks Fromentin, J.-M., Harley, S. J., Haynie, A. C., Kell, L. T., Maunder, M. and highly migratory species. https://www.un.org/Depts/los/conve N., Parma, A. M., Restrepo, V. R., Sharma, R., Ahrens, R., & Hilborn, R. ntion_agreements/texts/fish_stocks_agreement/CONF164_37. (2016). Effects of biological, economic and management factors on htm tuna and billfish stock status. Fish and Fisheries, 18, 1–21. FAO. (2019) Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics. Global aquaculture pro- Mazor, T., Pitcher, C. R., Rochester, W., Kaiser, M. J., Hiddink, J. G., duction 1950-2017 (FishstatJ). FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Jennings, S., Amoroso, R., McConnaughey, R. A., Rijnsdorp, A. D., Department [online]. Updated 2019 ed. Rome, http://www.fao.org/ Parma, A. M., Suuronen, P., Collie, J., Sciberras, M., Atkinson, L., fishery/stati stics/software/fishstatj/en Durholtz, D., Ellis, J. R., Bolam, S. G., Schratzberger, M., Couce, E., FAO. (2020a) FAO Landings Data. http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/ … Hilborn, R. (2021). Trawl fishing impacts on the status of seabed g l o b a l - c a p t u r e - p r o d u c t i o n / e n fauna in diverse regions of the globe. Fish and Fisheries, 22(1), 72–86. FAO (2020b). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12506 Sustainability in Action. Rome. McQuaw, K., & Hilborn, R. (2020). Why are catches in mixed fisheries well Fernandes, P. G., & Cook, R. M. (2013). Reversal of fish stock decline in below TAC? Marine Policy, 117, 103931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. the Northeast Atlantic. Current Biology, 23, 1432–1437. https://doi. marpol.2020.103931 org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.06.016 Melnychuk, M. C., Banobi, J. A., & Hilborn, R. (2013). Effects of manage- Fernandes, P. G., Ralph, G. M., Nieto, A., Criado, M. G., Vasilakopoulos, P., ment tactics on meeting conservation objectives for Western North Maravelias, C. D., Cook, R. M., Pollom, R. A., Kovačić, M., & Pollard, American groundfish fisheries. PLoS One, 8, e56684. https://doi. D. (2017). Coherent assessments of Europe’s marine fishes show re- org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056684 gional divergence and megafauna loss. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1, Melnychuk, M., Kurota, H., Mace, P. M., Pons, M., Minto, C., Osio, G. C., 1 – 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s4155 9 - 0 1 7 - 0 1 7 0 Jensen, O. P., de Moor, C. L., Parma, A. M., Little, L. R., Hively, D., Frank, K. T., Petrie, B., Choi, J. S., & Leggett, W. C. (2005). Trophic cas- Ashbrook, C. E., Baker, N., Amoroso, R. O., Branch, T. A., Anderson, C. cades in a formerly cod-dominated ecosystem. Science, 308, 1621– M., Szuwalski, C. S., Baum, J. K., McClanahan, T., … Hilborn, R. (2021). 1623. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1113075 Identifying management actions that promote sustainable fisheries. Froese, R., Winker, H., Coro, G., Demirel, N., Tsikliras, A. C., Nature Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1038/s4189 3 - 0 2 0 - 0 0 6 6 8 - 1 Dimarchopoulou, D., Scarcella, G., Quaas, M., & Matz-Lück, N. Melnychuk, M. C., Peterson, E., Elliott, M., & Hilborn, R. (2017). Fisheries (2018). Status and rebuilding of European fisheries. Marine Policy, 93, management impacts on target species status. Proceedings of the 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.04.018 National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114, 178– Grainger, R. J., & Garcia, S. M. (1996). Chronicles of marine fishery landings 183. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1609915114 (1950–1994): Trend analysis and fisheries potential, FAO Rome. Murawski, S. A. (1991). Can we manage our multispecies fish- Hilborn, R. (2018). Measuring fisheries performance using the eries? Fisheries, 16, 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1577/1548- “Goldilocks plot”. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 76, 45–49. https:// 8446(1991)016<0005:CWMOMF>2.0.CO;2 doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsy138 Myers, R., Hutchings, A., & Barrowman, N. (1997a). Why do fish Hilborn, R., Amoroso, R. O., Anderson, C. M., Baum, J. K., Branch, T. A., stocks Collapse? The example of cod in Atlantic Canada. Ecological Costello, C., de Moor, C. L., Faraj, A., Hively, D., Jensen, O. P., Kurota, Applications, 7, 91–106.10.1890/1051-0761(1997)007[0091:WDFSC H., Little, L. R., Mace, P., McClanahan, T., Melnychuk, M. C., Minto, C., T]2.0.CO;2 Osio, G. C., Parma, A. M., Pons, M., … Ye, Y. (2020). Effective fisheries Myers, R. A., Hutchings, J. A., & Barrowman, N. J. (1996). Hypotheses management instrumental in improving fish stock status. Proceedings for the decline of cod in the North Atlantic. Marine Ecology Progress of the National Academy of Sciences, 117, 2218–2224. https://doi. Series, 138, 293–308. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps138293 org/10.1073/pnas.1909726116 Myers, R. A., Hutchings, J. A., & Barrowman, N. J. (1997b). Why do fish Hilborn, R., & Litsinger, E. (2009). Cause of decline and potential for re- stocks collapse? The example of cod in Atlantic Canada. Ecological covery of atlantic cod populations. The Open Fish Science Journal, 2, Applications, 7, 91–106.10.1890/1051-0761(1997)007[0091:WDFSC 32–38. T]2.0.CO;2 Hilborn, R., Stewart, I. J., Branch, T. A., & Jensen, O. P. (2012). Defining Neubauer, P., Thorson, J. T., Melnychuk, M. C., Methot, R., & Blackhart, trade-offs among conservation, profitability, and food security in K. (2018). Drivers and rates of stock assessments in the United the California current bottom-trawl fishery. Conservation Biology, 26, States. PLoS One, 13, e0196483. https://doi.org/10.1371/journ 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01800.x al.pone.0196483 Hutchings, A., & Myers, R. (1994). What can be learned from the col- NMFS. (2019) Status of stocks 2018: Annual report to Congress on the lapse of a renewable resource? Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua, of Status of US Fisheries. Newfoundland and Labrador. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and NRC (1998). Sustaining Marine Fisheries. National Academy Press. Aquatic Sciences, 51, 2126–2146. Pella, J. J., & Tomlinson, P. K. (1969). A generalized stock production ICES (2019) ICES Advice basis. model. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission Bulletin, 13, 4 1 9 – 4 9 6 . Juan-Jorda, M. S., Mosqueira, I., Cooper, A. B., Freire, J., & Dulvy, N. K. Pons, M., Melnychuk, M. C., & Hilborn, R. (2017). Management effec- (2011). Global population trajectories of tunas and their relatives. tiveness of large pelagic fisheries in the high seas. Fish and Fisheries, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States 19(2), 260–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12253 of America, 108, 20650–20655. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.11077 RAM Legacy Stock Assessment Database (2021) V 4.493 mdl-fits. 43108 Ricard, D., Minto, C., Jensen, O. P., & Baum, J. K. (2012). Examining Keller, A. A., Wallace, J. R., Horness, B. H., Hamel, O. S., & Stewart, I. the knowledge base and status of commercially exploited J. (2012). Variations in eastern North Pacific demersal fish biomass marine species with the RAM Legacy Stock Assessment based on the US west coast groundfish bottom trawl survey (2003– Database. Fish and Fisheries, 13, 380–398. https://doi. 2010). Fishery Bulletin, 110(2), 205–222. org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2011.00435.x 18 | HILBORN et al.

Rothschild, B. (2007). Coherence of Atlantic cod stock dynamics in Walters, C. J., Hilborn, R., & Christensen, V. (2008). Surplus production the Nortwest Atlantic ocean. Transactions of the American Fisheries dynamics in declining and recovering fish populations. Canadian Society, 136, 858–874. Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 65, 2536–2551. https://doi. Sguotti, C., Otto, S. A., Frelat, R., Langbehn, T. J., Ryberg, M. P., org/10.1139/F08-170 Lindegren, M., Durant, J. M., Chr. Stenseth, N., & Möllmann, C. (2019). Warlick, A., Steiner, E., & Guldin, M. (2018). History of the West Coast Catastrophic dynamics limit Atlantic cod recovery. Proceedings groundfish trawl fishery Tracking socioeconomic characteristics of the Royal Society B, 286, 20182877. https://doi.org/10.1098/ across different management policies in a multispecies fishery. Marine rspb.2018.2877 Policy, 93, 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.03.014 Shelton, P. A., Sinclair, A. F., Chouinard, G. A., Mohn, R., & Duplisea, D. Witherell, D., & Pautzke, C. (1997). A brief history of bycatch manage- E. (2006). Fishing under low productivity conditions is further delay- ment measures for eastern Bering Sea groundfish fisheries. Marine ing recovery of Northwest Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). Canadian Fisheries Review, 59, 15–22. Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 63, 235–238. Worm, B., Hilborn, R., Baum, J. K., Branch, T. A., Collie, J. S., Costello, C., Sparholt, H., Bogstad, B., Christensen, V., Collie, J., van Gemert, R., Fogarty, M. J., Fulton, E. A., Hutchings, J. A., Jennings, S., Jensen, O. Hilborn, R., Horbowy, J., Howell, D., Melnychuk, M. C., & Pedersen, P., Lotze, H. K., Mace, P. M., McClanahan, T. R., Minto, C., Palumbi, S. A. (2020). Estimating Fmsy from an ensemble of data sources to S. R., Parma, A., Ricard, D., Rosenberg, A. A., … Zeller, D. (2009). account for density dependence in Northeast Atlantic fish stocks. Rebuilding global fisheries. Science, 325, 578–585. https://doi. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 78(1), 55–69. org/10.1126/science.1173146 Thorson, J. T., Cope, J. M., Branch, T. A., & Jensen, O. P. (2012). Spawning Zimmermann, F., & Werner, K. M. (2019). Improved management is biomass reference points for exploited marine fishes, incorporating the main driver behind recovery of Northeast Atlantic fish stocks. taxonomic and body size information. Canadian Journal of Fisheries Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 17, 93–99. https://doi. and Aquatic Sciences, 69, 1556–1568. https://doi.org/10.1139/f2012 org/10.1002/fee.2002 - 0 7 7 Zuur, A., Tuck, I., & Bailey, N. (2003). Dynamic factor analysis to estimate Tsikliras, A. C., Dinouli, A., & Tsalkou, E. (2013). Exploitation trends of the common trends in fisheries time series. Canadian Journal of Fisheries Mediterranean and Black Sea fisheries. Acta Adriatica, 54, 273–282. and Aquatic Sciences, 60, 542–552. https://doi.org/10.1139/f03-030 Ulrich, C., Reeves, S. A., Vermard, Y., Holmes, S. J., & Vanhee, W. (2011). Reconciling single-species TACs in the North Sea demersal fisheries using the Fcube mixed-fisheries advice framework. ICES Journal SUPPORTING INFORMATION of Marine Science, 68, 1535–1547. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/ Additional supporting information may be found online in the fsr060 Supporting Information section. Vasilakopoulos, P., Maravelias, C. D., & Tserpes, G. (2014). The alarm- ing decline of Mediterranean fish stocks. Current Biology, 24, 1643– 1648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.05.070 Vert-pre, K. A., Amoroso, R. O., Jensen, O. P., & Hilborn, R. (2013). How to cite this article: Hilborn R, Hively DJ, Loke NB, et al. Frequency and intensity of productivity regime shifts in marine Global status of groundfish stocks. Fish Fish. 2021;00:1–18. fish stocks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12560 United States of America, 110, 1779–1784. https://doi.org/10.1073/ p n a s . 1 2 1 4 8 7 9 1 1 0 stockid stocklong scientific n common n primary co primary FA Figure 2 ca order Current B/ Current U/Current ye No. years B/Bmsy so U/Umsy so Current bi MSY (MT) MSY source Mean catc Current caassessid ACADRED2 Acadian reSebastes fa Acadian re Canada 21 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 0.11 0 2009 32 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 27,600 3,000 MSY-MT 4,085 49 DFO-ACADRED2J3K-1960-2010-WATSON ACADRED3 Acadian reSebastes fa Acadian re Canada 21 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 2.4 0.05 2009 19 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 248,000 116,000 MSY-MT 44,176 9,000 DFO-ACADRED3LNO-UT12-1960-2010-WATSON ACADREDGAcadian reSebastes fa Acadian re USA 21 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.17 0.39 2014 102 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 1,018,097 10,466 MSY-MT 10,249 5,090 NEFSC-ACADREDGOMGB-1913-2014-SISIMP2016 ACADREDUAcadian reSebastes faAcadian re Canada 21 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 3.16 0.06 2009 40 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 147,000 131,000 MSY-MT 8,022 5,200 DFO-ACADREDUT3-1960-2010-WATSON ALPLAICBS Alaska plaicPleuronect Alaska plaicUSA 67 Pleuronect Pleuronect 1.94 0.42 2014 40 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 485,000 26,226 MSY-est-M 15,901 19,400 AFSC-ALPLAICBSAI-1975-2015-SISIMP2016 AMPL23K American pHippogloss American pCanada 21 Pleuronect Pleuronect 0.49 0.01 2011 34 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 29,000 3,862 MSY-est-M 2,279 17 DFO-AMPL23K-1960-2012-WATSON AMPL3LNOAmerican pHippogloss American pCanada 21 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 50,500 33,502 2,830 AMPL3M American pHippogloss American pSpain 21 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 1,890 1,204 - AMPL3Ps American pHippogloss American pCanada 21 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 3,009 103 AMPL4T American pHippogloss American p Canada 21 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 105,684 5,752 120 AMPL4VW American pHippogloss American p Canada 21 Pleuronect Pleuronect 0.7 0.05 2009 40 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 34,313 5,113 MSY-MT 5,632 250 DFO-AMPL4VWX-1961-2010-WATSON AMPL5YZ American pHippogloss American pUSA 21 Pleuronect Pleuronect 0.84 0.61 2014 35 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 25,479 2,675 MSY-MT 5,133 1,330 NEFSC-AMPL5YZ-1980-2014-SISIMP2016 APOLLNEMWalleye poTheragra c Walleye po Japan 61 Pollock Gadiformes 35,136 7,720 APOLLNSJ Walleye poTheragra c Walleye po Japan 61 Pollock Gadiforme 0.11 1.41 2013 34 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 95,800 45,207 MSY-MT 85,397 9,870 FAFRFJ-APOLLNSJ-1970-2013-JPNIMP2016 APOLLOKS Walleye poTheragra c Walleye po Japan 61 Pollock Gadiformes 38,682 36,400 APOLLPJPNWalleye poTheragra c Walleye po Japan 61 Pollock Gadiforme 1.52 0.99 2013 33 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 910,000 176,348 MSY-MT 207,308 156,000 FAFRFJ-APOLLPJPN-1975-2013-JPNIMP2016 ARFLOUNDArrowtootAtheresthe Arrowtoot USA 67 Pleuronect Pleuronect 2.72 0.24 2014 39 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 908,000 30,868 MSY-est-M 14,226 19,100 AFSC-ARFLOUNDBSAI-1976-2015-SISIMP2016 ARFLOUNDArrowtootAtheresthe Arrowtoot USA 67 Pleuronect Pleuronect 3.31 0.5 2014 54 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 2,090,000 254,271 MSY-MT 11,856 36,300 AFSC-ARFLOUNDGA-1961-2015-SISIMP2016 ARFLOUNDArrowtootAtheresthe Arrowtoot USA 67 Pleuronect Pleuronect 3.08 0.22 2014 99 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 79,800 5,844 MSY-MT 2,305 1,440 NWFSC-ARFLOUNDPCOAST-1914-2015-SISIMP2016 ARGHAKENArgentine hMerluccius Argentine hArgentina 41 Hake Gadiforme 0.28 0.85 2018 33 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 170,125 138,112 MSY-MT 108,098 51,099 INIDEP-ARGHAKENARG-1985-2018-PARMA ARGHAKES Argentine hMerluccius Argentine hArgentina 41 Hake Gadiforme 0.81 0.96 2018 29 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 885,210 527,521 MSY-MT 458,290 420,278 INIDEP-ARGHAKESARG-1989-2019-Parma ARGREENNArabesque Pleurogram Arabesque Japan 61 Scorpaenif Scorpaeniformes 8,864 4,090 ARGREENNArabesque Pleurogram Arabesque Japan 61 Scorpaenif Scorpaeniformes 99,718 46,300 ARGREENS Arabesque Pleurogram Arabesque Japan 61 Scorpaenif Scorpaeniformes 18,654 2,300 ATHAL3NO Atlantic haHippogloss Atlantic ha Canada 21 Pleuronect Pleuronect 1.31 0.51 2009 40 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 31,800 2,130 MSY-est-M 2,023 2,290 DFO-MAR-ATHAL3NOPs4VWX5Zc-1960-2010-CHING ATHAL4RSTAtlantic haHippogloss Atlantic ha Canada 21 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 439 1,095 ATHAL5YZ Atlantic haHippogloss Atlantic ha USA 21 Pleuronect Pleuronect 0.03 0.91 2007 115 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 1,300 3,500 MSY-MT 397 84 NEFSC-ATHAL5YZ-1800-2007-COL ATKABSAI Atka mackePleurogram Atka macke USA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.5 0.29 2014 38 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 589,000 70,239 MSY-est-M 45,137 30,900 AFSC-ATKABSAI-1977-2015-SISIMP2016 ATKAGA Atka mackePleurogram Atka mackeUSA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaeniformes 4,196 1,040 AUROCKPCAurora rocSebastes a Aurora roc USA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.59 0.61 2012 97 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 4,370 72 MSY-MT 27 43 NWFSC-AUROCKPCOAST-1916-2013-SISIMP2016 BGRDRNSWBlue grenaMacruronu Blue grena Australia 57 Other Gadi Gadiforme 3.12 0.1 2017 58 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 142,308 5,506 MSY-MT 2,446 1,692 CSIRO-BGRDRNSWWA-1960-2017-MOESENEDER BGROCKPCBlackgill roSebastes mBlackgill ro USA 77 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 0.74 1.03 2010 61 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 6,590 222 MSY-MT 273 149 NWFSC-BGROCKPCOAST-1950-2011-STACHURA BHAKECWABenguela hMerluccius Benguela h Angola 47 Hake Gadiforme 1.81 0.42 2010 1 TBdivTBms ERdivERmsy-dimensionless 2,544 4,675 FAO-DR-BHAKECWASG4-1994-2010-ASHBROOK BLACKROC Black rockfSebastes mBlack rockf USA 77 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 0.77 1.07 2014 99 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 5,770 343 MSY-MT 271 380 SWFSC-BLACKROCKCAL-1916-2015-SISIMP2016 BLACKROC Black rockfSebastes m Black rockf USA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.52 0.83 2014 123 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 8,060 518 MSY-MT 140 485 NWFSC-BLACKROCKORECOAST-1892-2015-SISIMP2016 BLACKROC Black rockfSebastes mBlack rockf USA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.05 1.07 2014 75 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 5,640 276 MSY-est-M 309 356 NWFSC-BLACKROCKWASH-1940-2015-SISIMP2016 BLINGI-II-II Blue ling ICMolva dyptBlue ling Spain 27 Other Gadi Gadiformes 1,448 205 BLINGVa-X Blue ling ICMolva dyptBlue ling Iceland 27 Other Gadi Gadiformes 2,824 636 BLINGVb-V Blue ling ICMolva dyptBlue ling France 27 Other Gadi Gadiforme 1.31 0.25 2017 23 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 267,733 10,499 MSY-est-M 9,881 2,670 WGDEEP-BLINGVb-VI-VII-1966-2018-ICESIMP2018 BLUEROCK Blue rockfiSebastes mBlue rockfi USA 77 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 0.75 1.19 2007 92 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 5,450 275 MSY-MT 221 263 NWFSC-BLUEROCKCAL-1916-2007-BRANCH BNKROCKCBank rockfSebastes ruBank rockf USA 77 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 0.95 1.05 1998 18 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 6,380 560 MSY-est-M 839 562 PFMC-BNKROCKCAL-1979-1999-CHING BOCACCBC Bocaccio BSebastes p Bocaccio Canada 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 0.07 2.74 2012 78 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 1,880 702 MSY-est-M 1,038 138 DFO-PAC-BOCACCBCW-1935-2012-CHING BOCACCSP Bocaccio SoSebastes p Bocaccio USA 77 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 0.4 0.21 2012 78 TBdivTBms FdivFmsy-c 19,100 1,347 MSY-MT 2,164 188 SWFSC-BOCACCSPCOAST-1935-2013-SISIMP2016 BRILL2232 Brill Baltic AScophthalm Brill Denmark 27 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 38 40 BRILLIIIa-IVBrill ICES 3aScophthalmBrill Netherland 27 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 2,450 2,620 BRNROCKPBrown rockSebastes a Brown rockUSA 77 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 0.96 0.66 2012 97 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 1,450 150 MSY-MT 102 95 SWFSC-BRNROCKPCOAST-1916-2012-SISIMP2016 CABEZNCA Cabezon NScorpaenic Cabezon USA 77 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.7 0.22 2008 9 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 483 129 MSY-MT 37 39 PFMC-CABEZNCAL-1930-2009-CHING CABEZORE Cabezon OScorpaenic Cabezon USA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 2.07 0.56 2008 36 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 455 48 MSY-MT 29 43 NWFSC-CABEZORECOAST-1973-2009-STACHURA CABEZSCALCabezon SoScorpaenic Cabezon USA 77 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 2.45 0.18 2008 9 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 789 30 MSY-MT 92 10 PFMC-CABEZSCAL-1930-2009-CHING CALSCORPSCalifornia sScorpaena California s USA 77 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.85 0.46 2014 99 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 1,550 127 MSY-MT 127 124 SWFSC-CALSCORPSCAL-1914-2015-SISIMP2016 CHAKESA Shallow waMerluccius Shallow waSouth Afric 47 Hake Gadiforme 2.47 0.14 2015 99 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 510,000 62,800 MSY-MT 36,394 14,400 MARAM-CHAKESA-1917-2015-Rademeyer CHILISPCOAChilipeppeSebastes go Chilipeppe USA 77 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.54 0.18 2014 123 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 36,700 2,133 MSY-MT 1,195 325 SWFSC-CHILISPCOAST-1892-2015-SISIMP2016 CHROCKCP China rockfSebastes n China rockfUSA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.52 0.53 2014 115 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 381 16 MSY-MT 4 7 NWFSC-CHROCKCPCOAST-1900-2015-SISIMP2016 CHROCKNPChina rockfSebastes n China rockf USA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.83 0.48 2014 115 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 183 5 MSY-est-M 1 3 SWFSC-CHROCKNPCOAST-1900-2015-SISIMP2016 CHROCKSP China rockfSebastes n China rockf USA 77 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 0.67 1.04 2014 114 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 280 21 MSY-MT 17 12 NWFSC-CHROCKSPCOAST-1900-2015-SISIMP2016 COD1abdceAtlantic codGadus mor Atlantic codGreenland 21 Cod Gadiformes 87,882 3,740 COD1f-XIV Atlantic codGadus mor Atlantic codGreenland 27 Cod Gadiforme 4.18 0.77 2017 45 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 81,200 10,527 16,300 NWWG-COD1f-XIV-1972-2018-ICESIMP2018 COD1IN Atlantic codGadus mor Atlantic codGreenland 21 Cod Gadiforme 5.35 2.39 2017 42 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 46,100 13,974 31,200 NWWG-COD1IN-1975-2018-ICESIMP2018 COD2J3KL Atlantic codGadus mor Atlantic codCanada 21 Cod Gadiforme 0.05 0.24 2007 17 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 467,000 149,392 MSY-conv- 206,799 13,030 DFO-NFLD-COD2J3KL-1850-2011-CHING COD3M Atlantic codGadus mor Atlantic codPortugal 21 Cod Gadiforme 0.86 0.69 2011 24 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 58,800 23,378 MSY-est-M 17,881 13,900 NAFO-SC-COD3M-1960-2012-CHING COD3NO Atlantic codGadus mor Atlantic codCanada 21 Cod Gadiforme 0.13 0.21 2011 28 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 7,570 28,973 MSY-est-M 45,352 819 NAFO-SC-COD3NO-1953-2011-CHING COD3Pn4R Atlantic codGadus mor Atlantic cod Canada 21 Cod Gadiforme 0.07 0.97 2018 45 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 11,467 96,607 MSY-est-M 41,265 2,496 DFO-QUE-COD3Pn4RS-1964-2019-ASHBROOK COD3Ps Atlantic codGadus mor Atlantic codCanada 21 Cod Gadiforme 1.6 0.23 2014 32 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 27,600 33,890 MSY-est-M 33,601 6,866 DFO-COD3Ps-1980-2014-WATSON COD4TVn Atlantic codGadus mor Atlantic cod Canada 21 Cod Gadiforme 0.03 0.03 2018 69 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 15,236 61,083 MSY-est-M 36,010 59 DFO-SG-COD4TVn-1917-2018-ASHBROOK COD4VsW Atlantic codGadus mor Atlantic codCanada 21 Cod Gadiforme 0.06 0.02 2002 33 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 8,335 45,356 MSY-est-M 38,685 83 DFO-MAR-COD4VsW-1958-2002-PREFONTAINE COD4X5Yb Atlantic codGadus mor Atlantic codCanada 21 Cod Gadiforme 0.21 0.65 2017 35 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 13,588 15,066 746 DFO-MAR-COD4X5Yb-1960-2018-ASHBROOK COD5Zjm Atlantic codGadus mor Atlantic codCanada 21 Cod Gadiforme 0.26 0.78 2009 32 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 13,175 6,063 MSY-est-M 8,750 574 TRAC-COD5Zjm-1978-2010-WATSON CODBA222 Atlantic codGadus mor Atlantic codDenmark 27 Cod Gadiforme 0.3 2.31 2017 24 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 34,500 23,000 MSY-MT 22,238 5,050 WGBFAS-CODBA2224-1993-2018-ICESIMP2018 CODBA253 Atlantic codGadus mor Atlantic codPoland 27 Cod Gadiforme 1.75 1.24 2012 47 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmgt-c 233,000 323,632 MSY-est-M 149,226 30,900 WGBFAS-CODBA2532-1964-2013-ICESIMP2016 CODFABNKAtlantic codGadus mor Atlantic codFaroe Islan 27 Cod Gadiformes 1,725 17 CODFAPL Atlantic codGadus mor Atlantic codFaroe Islan 27 Cod Gadiforme 0.95 0.33 2017 59 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 64,500 26,004 MSY-est-M 21,038 5,370 NWWG-CODFAPL-1958-2018-ICESIMP2018 CODGB Atlantic codGadus mor Atlantic codUSA 21 Cod Gadiforme 0.12 1.28 2011 34 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 31,317 28,774 MSY-MT 24,136 4,530 NEFSC-CODGB-1976-2011-CHING CODGOM Atlantic codGadus mor Atlantic codUSA 21 Cod Gadiforme 0.04 4.98 2014 8 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmgt-c 4,128 10,043 MSY-MT 5,230 1,470 NEFSC-CODGOM-2006-2014-ASHBROOK CODICE Atlantic codGadus mor Atlantic codIceland 27 Cod Gadiforme 2.88 0.91 2017 63 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 970,886 359,258 MSY-est-M 317,683 244,000 NWWG-CODICE-1952-2018-ICESIMP2018 CODIIIaW-I Atlantic codGadus mor Atlantic codGreat Brita 27 Cod Gadiforme 0.76 1.42 2017 55 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 243,000 267,310 MSY-est-M 176,925 46,700 WGNSSK-CODIIIaW-IV-VIId-1962-2018-ICESIMP2018 CODIS Atlantic codGadus mor Atlantic codIreland 27 Cod Gadiforme 0.83 0.09 2016 49 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 8,650 4,091 MSY-est-M 6,375 142 WGCSE-CODIS-1968-2017-ICESIMP2018 CODKAT Atlantic codGadus mor Atlantic codDenmark 27 Cod Gadiformes 4,164 2,516 552 CODNEAR Atlantic codGadus mor Atlantic codRussia 27 Cod Gadiforme 3.93 1 2017 72 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 2,620,000 758,785 MSY-est-M 670,333 868,000 AFWG-CODNEAR-1943-2018-ICESIMP2018 CODNEARNAtlantic codGadus mor Atlantic codNorway 27 Cod Gadiforme 0.28 3.31 2015 21 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmgt-c 32,542 41,521 52,900 AFWG-CODNEARNCW-1982-2016-ICESIMP2016 CODVIa Atlantic codGadus mor Atlantic codGreat Brita 27 Cod Gadiforme 0.14 5.65 2016 36 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 4,250 10,734 MSY-est-M 8,448 1,740 WGCSE-CODVIa-1980-2017-ICESIMP2018 CODVIb Atlantic codGadus mor Atlantic codGreat Brita 27 Cod Gadiformes 612 62 CODVIIek Atlantic codGadus mor Atlantic codFrance 27 Cod Gadiforme 0.68 1.24 2016 46 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 10,300 10,300 MSY-MT 7,572 3,520 WGCSE-CODVIIek-1970-2017-ICESIMP2018 COWCODS Cowcod SoSebastes le Cowcod USA 77 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 0.89 0.02 2015 116 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 1,120 69 MSY-MT 70 2 PFMC-COWCODSCAL-1900-2015-HIVELY CPRROCKP Copper rocSebastes ca Copper roc USA 77 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.45 0.33 2012 97 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 3,290 197 MSY-MT 118 95 SWFSC-CPRROCKPCOAST-1916-2012-SISIMP2016 CROCKPCO Canary rocSebastes p Canary roc USA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.36 0.05 2014 123 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 36,000 1,226 MSY-MT 1,047 42 NWFSC-CROCKPCOAST-1892-2015-SISIMP2016 CROCKWCVCanary rocSebastes p Canary roc Canada 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.37 0.74 2009 65 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 8,890 714 MSY-MT 908 800 DFO-CROCKWCVANISOGQCI-1945-2009-STANTON CUSK4X Cusk WesteBrosme bro Cusk Canada 21 Other Gadi Gadiformes 16,900 1,483 MSY-MT CUSKI-II Tusk NorthBrosme broTusk Norway 27 Other Gadi Gadiformes 12,421 11,700 CUSKNEAT Tusk NorthBrosme broTusk Norway 27 Other Gadi Gadiformes 8,119 4,820 CUSKVa-XIVTusk ICES 5Brosme broTusk Iceland 27 Other Gadi Gadiforme 2.08 0.68 2017 36 SSBdivSSBmERdivERmg 33,000 8,434 MSY-est-M 6,281 2,540 WGDEEP-CUSKVa-XIV-1979-2018-ICESIMP2018 CUSKVIb Tusk RockaBrosme broTusk Norway 27 Other Gadi Gadiformes 717 47 CUSKXII Tusk North Brosme broTusk Russia 27 Other Gadi Gadiformes 19 - DAB2232 Dab Baltic ALimanda limDab Denmark 27 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 1,594 1,270 DABIIIa-IV Dab ICES 3 Limanda limDab Denmark 27 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 48,593 49,900 DEEPCHAK Deep wateMerluccius Deep wateSouth Afric 47 Hake Gadiforme 0.98 1.14 2015 99 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 517,000 118,900 MSY-MT 69,011 133,000 MARAM-DEEPCHAKESA-1917-2015-Rademeyer DEEPFLATHDeepwater Platycepha Deepwater Australia 81 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.67 0.3 2015 36 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 10,400 1,200 MSY-MT 775 523 CSIRO-DEEPFLATHEADSE-1980-2015-MOESENEDER DKROCKPC DarkblotchSebastes cr Darkblotch USA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 0.93 0.23 2014 100 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 17,900 674 MSY-MT 494 104 NWFSC-DKROCKPCOAST-1915-2015-SISIMP2016 DSOLEGA Dover sole Microstom Dover sole USA 67 Pleuronect Pleuronect 2.44 0.05 2014 37 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 141,000 2,921 MSY-est-M 1,452 324 AFSC-DSOLEGA-1978-2015-SISIMP2016 DSOLEPCO Dover sole Microstom Dover sole USA 67 Pleuronect Pleuronect 3.48 0.13 2010 101 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 685,000 34,757 MSY-MT 8,390 11,300 SWFSC-DSOLEPCOAST-1910-2011-STACHURA DUSROCKGDusky rockSebastes va Dusky rock USA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.71 0.65 2014 38 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 63,100 3,740 MSY-est-M 2,165 3,030 AFSC-DUSROCKGA-1977-2015-SISIMP2016 ECSOLESASEast coast sAustroglos East coast s South Afric 47 Pleuronect Pleuronect 1.54 0.2 2019 100 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 15,258 491 MSY-MT 706 190 FBDAFF-ECSOLESASC-1920-2020-GLAZER EFLOUN22 European fPlatichthys European f Denmark 27 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 1,833 1,130 EFLOUN24 European fPlatichthys European f Poland 27 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 8,237 11,100 EFLOUN26 European fPlatichthys European f Poland 27 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 4,254 4,440 EFLOUN27 European fPlatichthys European f Estonia 27 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 552 176 EFLOUNIIIaEuropean fPlatichthys European f Denmark 27 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 3,244 2,440 EPOLLIV-III European pPollachius European pNorway 27 Pollock Gadiformes 1,708 1,910 EPOLLVIII-I European pPollachius European pFrance 27 Pollock Gadiformes 1,886 1,610 ESOLEHS English soleParophrys English soleCanada 67 Pleuronect Pleuronect 1.27 0.36 2001 58 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 3,410 905 MSY-est-M 747 414 DFO-PAC-ESOLEHS-1944-2001-COLLIE ESOLEPCOAEnglish soleParophrys English soleUSA 67 Pleuronect Pleuronect 6.47 0.07 2006 131 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 69,900 3,875 MSY-MT 2,391 1,080 NWFSC-ESOLEPCOAST-1876-2007-BRANCH FHFLOUNS Flathead floHippogloss Flathead floJapan 61 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 4,084 5,450 FLSOLEBSAFlathead soHippogloss Flathead soUSA 67 Pleuronect Pleuronect 2.24 0.14 2014 38 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 738,000 83,321 MSY-MT 13,277 15,800 AFSC-FLSOLEBSAI-1977-2015-SISIMP2016 FLSOLEGA Flathead soHippogloss Flathead soUSA 67 Pleuronect Pleuronect 2.53 0.13 2014 37 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 258,000 8,807 MSY-est-M 1,888 2,560 AFSC-FLSOLEGA-1978-2015-SISIMP2016 FMEG8c9a FourspotteLepidorhom Fourspotte Portugal 27 Pleuronect Pleuronect 1.63 0.92 2017 32 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 8,490 2,138 MSY-est-M 1,630 1,170 WGBIE-FMEG8c9a-1986-2018-ICESIMP2018 GFORKBM Greater forPhycis blen Greater forItaly 37 Other Gadi Gadiformes 37 41 GFORKNEAGreater forPhycis blen Greater forSpain 27 Other Gadi Gadiformes 2,599 2,020 GGURNIIIa Grey gurnaEutrigla gu Grey gurna Netherland 27 Scorpaenif Scorpaeniformes 10,800 17,100 GHAL01AB Greenland Reinhardtiu Greenland Canada 21 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 11,652 24,200 GHAL23KLMGreenland Reinhardtiu Greenland Canada 21 Pleuronect Pleuronect 0.38 1.79 2006 32 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 76,500 35,149 MSY-est-M 9,672 6,530 NAFO-SC-GHAL23KLMNO-1960-2006-PREFONTAINE GHAL4RST Greenland Reinhardtiu Greenland Canada 21 Pleuronect Pleuronect 0.26 3.3 2010 37 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 47,100 4,672 MSY-est-M 3,347 1,458 DFO-GHAL4RST-1970-2015-WATSON GHALBSAI Greenland Reinhardtiu Greenland USA 67 Pleuronect Pleuronect 0.58 0.67 2014 55 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 122,000 13,892 1,650 AFSC-GHALBSAI-1960-2015-HIVELY GHALNEAR Greenland Reinhardtiu Greenland Norway 27 Pleuronect Pleuronect 1.81 0.36 2016 25 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 666,000 38,271 MSY-est-M 16,712 24,900 AFWG-GHALNEAR-1935-2016-ICESIMP2018 GHALV-VI-XGreenland Reinhardtiu Greenland Iceland 27 Pleuronect Pleuronect 0.69 1.03 2017 58 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-dimensionless 25,343 23,500 NWWG-GHALV-VI-XII-XIV-1960-2018-ICESIMP2018 GOLDREDNGolden redSebastes n Golden redNorway 27 Scorpaenif Scorpaeniformes 34,400 13,044 5,340 GOLDREDVGolden redSebastes n Golden redIceland 27 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.4 1.23 2017 47 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 434,000 58,153 56,000 NWWG-GOLDREDV-VI-XII-XIV-1966-2018-ICESIMP2018 GOPHERSP Gopher rocSebastes caGopher roc USA 77 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 2.6 0.19 2004 40 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 2,570 101 MSY-MT 78 50 SWFSC-GOPHERSPCOAST-1965-2005-STANTON GRNSTROCGreenstripSebastes e Greenstrip USA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 2.82 0 2009 94 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 29,200 803 MSY-MT 291 9 PFMC-GRNSTROCKPCOAST-1916-2009-STANTON GRSPROCK GreenspottSebastes ch Greenspott USA 77 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.22 - 2010 95 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 1,190 59 MSY-MT 55 0 SWFSC-GRSPROCKNCAL-1916-2010-STACHURA GRSPROCK GreenspottSebastes ch Greenspott USA 77 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.59 0.12 2010 95 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 1,920 56 MSY-MT 69 11 SWFSC-GRSPROCKSCAL-1916-2010-STACHURA HAD3LNO Haddock GMelanogra Haddock Canada 21 Other Gadi Gadiforme 2.15 0 2013 18 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 16,400 2,926 MSY-est-M 8,245 228 DFO-HAD3LNO-1953-2013-WATSON HAD3Ps Haddock StMelanogra Haddock Canada 21 Other Gadi Gadiformes 3 0 HAD4X5Y Haddock WMelanogra Haddock Canada 21 Other Gadi Gadiforme 0.81 0.19 2015 31 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmgt-c 58,758 14,700 MSY-MT 11,871 2,926 DFO-MAR-HAD4X5Y-1970-2016-ASHBROOK HAD5Y Haddock GMelanogra Haddock USA 21 Other Gadi Gadiforme 2.23 0.55 2014 38 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 17,804 1,083 MSY-MT 1,904 1,020 NEFSC-HAD5Y-1977-2014-SISIMP2016 HADFAPL Haddock FaMelanogra Haddock Faroe Islan 27 Other Gadi Gadiforme 0.69 1.38 2017 61 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 87,500 35,000 MSY-MT 14,961 2,850 NWWG-HADFAPL-1956-2018-ICESIMP2018 HADGB Haddock GMelanogra Haddock USA 21 Other Gadi Gadiforme 1.39 0.62 2014 55 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 224,829 24,900 MSY-MT 23,517 18,600 NEFSC-HADGB-1960-2014-SISIMP2016 HADICE Haddock IcMelanogra Haddock Iceland 27 Other Gadi Gadiforme 1.82 0.95 2017 39 SSBdivSSBmERdivERmg 122,611 81,728 MSY-est-M 57,864 37,100 NWWG-HADICE-1977-2018-ICESIMP2018 HADIS Haddock IrMelanogra Haddock Great Brita 27 Other Gadi Gadiforme 5.3 0.39 2016 24 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 22,000 1,998 1,310 WGCSE-HADIS-1993-2017-ICESIMP2018 HADNEAR Haddock NMelanogra Haddock Norway 27 Other Gadi Gadiforme 8.44 0.57 2016 67 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 743,000 215,806 MSY-est-M 138,760 233,000 AFWG-HADNEAR-1947-2017-ICESIMP2018 HADNS-IIIa Haddock ICMelanogra Haddock Iceland 27 Other Gadi Gadiforme 1.55 1.3 2017 46 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 499,000 159,432 - WGNSSK-HADNS-IIIa-VIa-1972-2018-ICESIMP2018 HADROCK Haddock RMelanogra Haddock Great Brita 27 Other Gadi Gadiforme 1.69 0.51 2016 26 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 23,300 9,000 MSY-MT 8,610 2,890 WGCSE-HADROCK-1990-2017-ICESIMP2018 HADVIIb-k Haddock ICMelanogra Haddock France 27 Other Gadi Gadiforme 2.83 1.69 2016 24 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 60,300 20,137 MSY-est-M 14,050 17,900 WGCSE-HADVIIb-k-1993-2017-ICESIMP2018 HAKEMEDGHake Malta Merluccius Hake Italy 37 Hake Gadiformes 1,630 1,590 HAKEMEDGHake GeogMerluccius Hake Spain 37 Hake Gadiforme 1.42 2.87 2014 12 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmgt-c 18,720 7,772 MSY-est-M 6,048 4,720 STECF-HAKEMEDGSA1-7-2003-2014-OSIO HAKEMEDGHake AdriaMerluccius Hake Italy 37 Hake Gadiformes 6,202 6,859 5,340 HAKEMEDGHake WestMerluccius Hake Italy 37 Hake Gadiforme 1.85 4.86 2014 9 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmgt-c 2,698 1,119 MSY-est-M 935 759 STECF-HAKEMEDGSA19-2006-2014-OSIO HAKEMEDGHake EasteMerluccius Hake Greece 37 Hake Gadiformes 3,198 3,290 HAKEMEDGHake AegeMerluccius Hake Greece 37 Hake Gadiformes 10,684 7,464 7,160 HAKEMEDGHake Gulf oMerluccius Hake France 37 Hake Gadiforme 0.27 16.73 2012 15 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmgt-c 1,299 2,226 MSY-est-M 2,016 1,110 STECF-HAKEMEDGSA7-1998-2012-OSIO HAKEMEDGHake GeogMerluccius Hake Italy 37 Hake Gadiforme 1.12 5.25 2014 9 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmgt-c 6,687 3,397 MSY-est-M 3,479 3,070 STECF-HAKEMEDGSA9-11-2006-2014-OSIO HAKENRTNHake ICES 3Merluccius Hake France 27 Hake Gadiforme 7.22 0.89 2017 40 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 372,000 106,752 MSY-est-M 61,743 110,000 WGBIE-HAKENRTN-1978-2018-ICESIMP2018 HAKENWA Hake North Merluccius Hake Morocco 34 Hake Gadiformes 6,232 MSY-MT 7,395 5,381 HAKESOTH Hake ICES 8Merluccius Hake Spain 27 Hake Gadiforme 1.8 1.76 2017 36 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 29,200 17,849 MSY-est-M 14,161 10,800 WGBIE-HAKESOTH-1982-2018-ICESIMP2018 HAKESPPN Hake spp NMerluccius Hake spp Mauritania 34 Hake Gadiformes 10,816 MSY-MT 13,440 16,972 HAKESPPSAHake spp SMerluccius Hake spp Namibia 47 Hake Gadiforme 0.72 0.95 2019 56 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 2,426,180 303,687 MSY-MT 265,108 152,033 NatMIRC-HAKESPPSAF-1964-2019-ASHBROOK HOKIENZ Hoki EasterMacruronu Hoki New Zealan 81 Other Gadi Gadiforme 1.52 0.3 2015 44 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 280,961 73,100 MSY-MT 50,082 60,000 NIWA-HOKIENZ-1970-2015-FU HOKIWNZ Hoki WesteMacruronu Hoki New Zealan 81 Other Gadi Gadiforme 1.09 0.62 2015 44 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 352,966 119,800 MSY-MT 78,859 100,000 NIWA-HOKIWNZ-1970-2015-FU KCROCKNP Kichiji rockSebastolob Kichiji rock Japan 61 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.46 0.37 2013 19 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 6,470 744 MSY-calc-M 1,029 398 FAFRFJ-KCROCKNPAC-1975-2013-JPNIMP2016 KCROCKOK Kichiji rockSebastolob Kichiji rock Japan 61 Scorpaenif Scorpaeniformes 652 309 KCROCKSWKichiji rockSebastolob Kichiji rock Japan 61 Scorpaenif Scorpaeniformes 926 363 KELPGREENKelp greenHexagramm Kelp green USA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 2.24 0.14 2014 100 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 1,130 130 MSY-MT 18 33 NWFSC-KELPGREENLINGORECOAST-1915-2015-SISIMP2016 KMFLOUNBKamchatka Atheresthe Kamchatka USA 67 Pleuronect Pleuronect 1.29 0.57 2014 24 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 168,000 7,848 MSY-est-M 4,037 6,460 AFSC-KMFLOUNBSAI-1991-2015-SISIMP2016 LCODLINGPLongfin codLaemonem Longfin codJapan 61 Cod Gadiformes 29,153 16,300 LINGCODN Lingcod NoOphiodon eLingcod USA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.42 0.25 2008 81 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 31,800 1,734 MSY-MT 936 350 NWFSC-LINGCODNPCOAST-1928-2009-STACHURA LINGCODSOLingcod StrOphiodon eLingcod Canada 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 0.12 0.48 1989 39 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 10,744 763 MSY-MT 754 44 DFO-PAC-LINGCODSOG-1927-2014-OSGOOD LINGCODSPLingcod SoOphiodon eLingcod USA 77 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 2.89 0.09 2008 81 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 30,900 1,678 MSY-MT 1,008 171 NWFSC-LINGCODSPCOAST-1928-2009-STACHURA LINGI-II Ling North-Molva molvLing Norway 27 Other Gadi Gadiformes 7,760 8,820 LINGNEATLLing NortheMolva molvLing Norway 27 Other Gadi Gadiformes 22,834 19,300 LINGVa Ling IcelandMolva molvLing Iceland 27 Other Gadi Gadiforme 3.55 1.34 2017 36 SSBdivSSBmERdivERmg 49,641 6,503 8,770 WGDEEP-LINGVa-1979-2018-ICESIMP2018 LINGVb Ling Faroe Molva molvLing Faroe Islan 27 Other Gadi Gadiformes 4,896 5,890 LSOLEIIIa-IVLemon sole Microstom Lemon soleGreat Brita 27 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 4,903 5,010 LSTHORNH Longspine Sebastolob Longspine USA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 2.19 0.14 2012 49 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 68,300 2,529 MSY-MT 1,406 871 NWFSC-LSTHORNHPCOAST-1964-2012-HIVELY LUMP3Pn4 Lumpfish NCyclopteru Lumpfish Canada 21 Scorpaenif Scorpaeniformes 245 36 MEG8c9a Megrim ICELepidorhom Megrim Portugal 27 Pleuronect Pleuronect 2.03 0.85 2017 32 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 2,260 372 288 WGBIE-MEG8c9a-1985-2018-ICESIMP2018 MEGSPPIV Megrim spLepidorhom Megrim sp Great Brita 27 Pleuronect Pleuronect 1.78 0.33 2017 33 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-dimensionless 4,242 2,790 WGCSE-MEGSPPIVa-VIa-1985-2017-ICESIMP2018 MEGSPPVI Megrim spLepidorhom Megrim sp Spain 27 Pleuronect Pleuronect 2.25 0.11 2015 11 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 13,763 1,915 MSY-est-M 602 405 WGCSE-MEGSPPVIb-1990-2016-ICESIMP2018 MEGVII-VII Megrim ICELepidorhom Megrim France 27 Pleuronect Pleuronect 1.93 1.15 2017 34 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 140,000 17,924 16,000 WGBIE-MEGVII-VIIIabd-1983-2018-ICESIMP2018 NPOUTIIIa- Norway poTrisopterus Norway po Denmark 27 Other Gadi Gadiforme 2.34 2.65 2017 34 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 497,000 169,411 MSY-est-M 112,958 30,100 WGNSSK-NPOUTIIIa-IV-1984-2017-ICESIMP2018 NPOUTVIa Norway poTrisopterus Norway po Denmark 27 Other Gadi Gadiformes 6,816 1 NROCKBSA Northern rSebastes p Northern r USA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.93 0.18 2014 38 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 220,000 7,506 MSY-est-M 2,762 2,340 AFSC-NROCKBSAI-1977-2015-SISIMP2016 NROCKGA Northern rSebastes p Northern r USA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.57 0.76 2014 54 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 81,900 6,070 MSY-MT 3,939 4,270 AFSC-NROCKGA-1961-2015-SISIMP2016 NRSOLEEB Northern rLepidopset Northern r USA 67 Pleuronect Pleuronect 2.43 0.21 2014 40 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 1,270,000 259,310 MSY-MT 39,813 51,900 AFSC-NRSOLEEBSAI-1975-2015-SISIMP2016 NRSOLEGA Northern rLepidopset Northern rUSA 67 Pleuronect Pleuronect 2.33 0.3 2014 38 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 75,600 3,273 MSY-est-M 2,028 1,720 AFSC-NRSOLEGA-1977-2015-SISIMP2016 OFLOUNECJapanese flParalichthy Japanese fl Japan 61 Pleuronect Pleuronect 0.33 2.42 2013 28 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 3,170 1,182 MSY-MT 1,488 1,160 FAFRFJ-OFLOUNECS-1975-2013-JPNIMP2016 OFLOUNNSJapanese flParalichthy Japanese fl Japan 61 Pleuronect Pleuronect 0.23 2.07 2013 15 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 2,210 1,556 MSY-MT 1,363 992 FAFRFJ-OFLOUNNSJ-1970-2013-JPNIMP2016 OFLOUNPAJapanese flParalichthy Japanese fl Japan 61 Pleuronect Pleuronect 1.4 0.39 2012 7 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 7,190 2,156 MSY-calc-M 1,727 2,380 FAFRFJ-OFLOUNPAC-1970-2013-JPNIMP2016 OFLOUNSE Japanese flParalichthy Japanese fl Japan 61 Pleuronect Pleuronect 0.49 1.41 2013 20 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 2,170 875 MSY-MT 659 668 FAFRFJ-OFLOUNSETO-1965-2013-JPNIMP2016 PATCODARPatagonian Salilota ausPatagonian Argentina 41 Cod Gadiforme 1.04 0.31 2019 35 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 108,844 6,478 MSY-MT 7,147 2,164 INIDEP-PATCODARGS-1984-2020-Parma PATGRENAPatagonian Macruronu Patagonian Chile 87 Other Gadi Gadiforme 0.25 0.67 2019 35 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 359 115,125 MSY-est-M 137,730 17,902 IFOPCH-PATGRENADIERCH-1985-2020-Quiroz PATGRENAPatagonian Macruronu Patagonian Argentina 41 Other Gadi Gadiforme 0.99 0.32 2018 34 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 686,905 78,761 MSY-MT 90,378 50,000 INIDEP-PATGRENADIERSARG-1983-2019-Parma PCOD5ABC Pacific cod Gadus mac Pacific cod Canada 67 Cod Gadiforme 0.41 0.15 2018 63 TBdivTBmgERdivERms 15,687 3,461 215 DFO-PAC-PCOD5ABCD-1953-2019-ASHBROOK PCODAI Pacific cod Gadus mac Pacific cod USA 67 Cod Gadiforme 0.8 0.52 2014 24 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 68,900 25,565 MSY-est-M 26,425 10,600 AFSC-PCODAI-1991-2014-SISIMP2016 PCODBS Pacific cod Gadus mac Pacific cod USA 67 Cod Gadiforme 1.23 0.89 2014 38 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 1,670,000 188,554 MSY-est-M 152,339 239,000 AFSC-PCODBS-1977-2015-SISIMP2016 PCODGA Pacific cod Gadus mac Pacific cod USA 67 Cod Gadiforme 1.78 0.22 2015 39 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmgt-c 640,000 68,528 MSY-est-M 51,794 84,900 AFSC-PCODGA-1977-2015-SISIMP2016 PCODHOKKPacific cod Gadus mac Pacific cod Japan 61 Cod Gadiformes 31,683 28,900 PCODNPACPacific cod Gadus mac Pacific cod Japan 61 Cod Gadiforme 0.22 0.75 2013 18 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 267,000 188,098 MSY-calc-M 11,621 30,400 FAFRFJ-PCODNPAC-1975-2014-JPNIMP2016 PCODSOJ Pacific cod Gadus mac Pacific cod Japan 61 Cod Gadiformes 2,902 3,920 PCODWCVAPacific cod Gadus mac Pacific cod Canada 67 Cod Gadiforme 0.88 0.14 2017 62 TBdivTBmgERdivERms 16,817 1,715 MSY-est-M 1,339 165 DFO-PAC-PCODWCVANI-1953-2019-ASHBROOK PERCHEBSAPacific oceaSebastes a Pacific ocea USA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.66 1.26 2014 55 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 598,000 14,489 MSY-est-M 24,891 32,400 AFSC-PERCHEBSAI-1960-2015-SISIMP2016 PERCHQCI Pacific oceaSebastes a Pacific oceaCanada 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1 0.7 2016 77 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 47,272 3,843 MSY-MT 3,865 2,279 DFO-PAC-PERCHQCI-1939-2017-ASHBROOK PERCHWCVPacific oceaSebastes a Pacific ocea Canada 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.48 0.38 2012 73 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 16,400 1,048 MSY-MT 1,006 382 DFO-PERCHWCVANI-1939-2013-WATSON PHAKEPCO Pacific hakeMerluccius Pacific hakeUSA 67 Hake Gadiforme 2.63 0.2 2015 50 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 1,807,250 406,000 MSY-MT 224,438 191,000 PFMC-PHAKEPCOAST-1966-2016-WATSON PHALNPAC Pacific halibHippogloss Pacific halibUSA 67 Pleuronect Pleuronect 1.42 1.28 2013 14 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmgt-c 77,000 21,305 10,700 IPHC-PHALNPAC-1888-2014-HIVELY PHFLOUNNPointhead Cleisthenes Pointhead Japan 61 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 2,424 2,000 PHFLOUNS Pointhead Cleisthenes Pointhead Japan 61 Pleuronect Pleuronect 0.85 1.07 2013 17 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 8,850 2,962 MSY-MT 3,142 3,030 FAFRFJ-PHFLOUNSOJ-1966-2013-JPNIMP2016 PLAIC2123 European pPleuronect European pDenmark 27 Pleuronect Pleuronect 2.5 0.69 2017 19 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 21,700 4,475 4,240 WGBFAS-PLAIC2123-1998-2018-ICESIMP2018 PLAIC2432 European pPleuronect European pDenmark 27 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 1,469 1,030 PLAIC7d European pPleuronect European pFrance 27 Pleuronect Pleuronect 1.91 0.8 2017 38 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 71,065 4,969 MSY-est-M 5,681 7,760 WGNSSK-PLAIC7d-1979-2018-ICESIMP2018 PLAICCELT European pPleuronect European pBelgium 27 Pleuronect Pleuronect 1.46 0.37 2017 41 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-d 6,520 1,177 MSY-est-M 960 390 WGCSE-PLAICCELT-1977-2017-ICESIMP2018 PLAICECHWEuropean pPleuronect European pGreat Brita 27 Pleuronect Pleuronect 2.89 1.14 2013 34 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 6,730 2,015 MSY-est-M 1,649 2,130 WGCSE-PLAICECHW-1979-2014-ICESIMP2016 PLAICIS European pPleuronect European pGreat Brita 27 Pleuronect Pleuronect 1.65 0.39 2017 37 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 20,500 4,848 MSY-est-M 3,092 1,440 WGCSE-PLAICIS-1980-2018-ICESIMP2018 PLAICNS European pPleuronect European pNetherland 27 Pleuronect Pleuronect 1.62 0.95 2017 61 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 1,040,000 194,994 MSY-est-M 163,633 114,000 WGNSSK-PLAICNS-1956-2018-ICESIMP2018 PLAICVIIbc European pPleuronect European pIreland 27 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 164 29 PLAICVIIh-kEuropean pPleuronect European pFrance 27 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 278 115 PLAICVIII-IXEuropean pPleuronect European pFrance 27 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 241 173 POLL3Ps Pollock St. Pollachius vPollock Canada 21 Pollock Gadiformes 1,081 650 POLL4VWX Pollock ScoPollachius vPollock Canada 21 Pollock Gadiformes 8,519 1,430 POLL5YZ Pollock GuPollachius v Pollock USA 21 Pollock Gadiforme 1.47 0.25 2014 45 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 258,542 19,678 MSY-MT 11,465 6,070 NEFSC-POLL5YZ-1970-2014-SISIMP2016 POLLFAPL Pollock FarPollachius vPollock Faroe Islan 27 Pollock Gadiforme 1.47 1.37 2017 57 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 142,000 43,140 MSY-est-M 36,544 30,600 NWWG-POLLFAPL-1958-2018-ICESIMP2018 POLLIEG Pollock IcePollachius vPollock Iceland 27 Pollock Gadiforme 3.11 0.61 2017 38 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 389,332 65,000 MSY-MT 58,595 49,100 NWWG-POLLIEG-1977-2018-ICESIMP2018 POLLNEAR Pollock NoPollachius vPollock Norway 27 Pollock Gadiforme 1.76 0.81 2017 58 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmgt-c 714,000 178,424 MSY-est-M 160,666 146,000 AFWG-POLLNEAR-1957-2018-ICESIMP2018 POLLNS-VI-Pollock ICEPollachius vPollock Iceland 27 Pollock Gadiforme 1.79 0.74 2017 51 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 523,000 200,000 MSY-MT 162,125 97,500 WGNSSK-POLLNS-VI-IIIa-1964-2018-ICESIMP2018 POPERCHGPacific oceaSebastes a Pacific oceaUSA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.36 0.51 2010 50 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 462,000 20,243 MSY-MT 38,402 17,600 AFSC-POPERCHGA-1959-2010-STACHURA POPERCHP Pacific oceaSebastes a Pacific oceaUSA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 0.49 0.28 2010 71 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 25,500 1,058 MSY-MT 2,112 141 NWFSC-POPERCHPCOAST-1940-2011-STACHURA PRCODME Poor cod LTrisopterus Poor cod Italy 37 Cod Gadiformes 420 128 105 PSOLEPCOAPetrale soleEopsetta joPetrale soleUSA 67 Pleuronect Pleuronect 1.11 0.94 2014 139 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 19,400 2,588 MSY-MT 1,609 2,360 NWFSC-PSOLEPCOAST-1876-2015-SISIMP2016 QROCKPCOQuillback rSebastes mQuillback r Canada 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaeniformes 144 MSY-MT 126 34 QROCKPCOQuillback rSebastes mQuillback r Canada 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaeniformes 462 MSY-MT 166 159 REDDEEP2JDeepwater Sebastes mDeepwater Canada 21 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 0.63 0.02 2009 32 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 159,000 22,000 MSY-MT 23,412 1,000 DFO-REDDEEP2J3K-3LNO-1960-2010-WATSON REDDEEPD Beaked redSebastes mBeaked red Russia 27 Scorpaenif Scorpaeniformes 61,146 27,400 REDDEEPI- Deepwater Sebastes mDeepwater Norway 27 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 2.17 0.18 2016 25 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 1,260,000 86,385 MSY-est-M 13,845 34,000 NWWG-REDDEEPI-II-1990-2016-ICESIMP2018 REDDEEPS Beaked redSebastes mBeaked red Russia 27 Scorpaenif Scorpaeniformes 41,324 5,600 REDDEEPU Deepwater Sebastes mDeepwater Canada 21 Scorpaenif Scorpaeniformes 29,616 328 REDDEEPU Deepwater Sebastes mDeepwater Canada 21 Scorpaenif Scorpaeniformes 18,229 3,042 REDDEEPV Beaked redSebastes mBeaked redRussia 27 Scorpaenif Scorpaeniformes 23,719 8,370 REDDEEPX Beaked redSebastes mBeaked redIceland 27 Scorpaenif Scorpaeniformes 6,492 3,030 REDFISHSP Redfish speSebastes sp Redfish speGreenland 21 Scorpaenif Scorpaeniformes 5,195 500 REDFISHSP Redfish speSebastes sp Redfish spe Canada 21 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.31 0.21 2013 55 TBdivTBms FdivFmsy-d 267,000 24,440 MSY-MT 17,263 6,000 NAFO-SC-REDFISHSPP3LN-1959-2013-WATSON REDFISHSP Redfish speSebastes spRedfish speRussia 21 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.03 0.26 2014 26 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 143,000 27,362 MSY-est-M 15,082 7,400 NAFO-SC-REDFISHSPP3M-1988-2014-WATSON REDFISHSP Redfish speSebastes sp Redfish speCanada 21 Scorpaenif Scorpaeniformes 39,787 764 REXSOLEGARex sole GuGlyptoceph Rex sole USA 67 Pleuronect Pleuronect 1.04 1.29 2014 33 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 41,400 2,688 MSY-est-M 2,607 3,580 AFSC-REXSOLEGA-1982-2014-SISIMP2016 REXSOLEPCRex sole PaGlyptoceph Rex sole USA 67 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 18,500 1,646 MSY-MT REYEROCK Rougheye Sebastes a Rougheye USA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 0.7 0.3 2014 38 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 40,400 1,440 MSY-est-M 569 194 AFSC-REYEROCKBSAI-1974-2015-HIVELY REYEROCK Rougheye Sebastes a Rougheye USA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.55 0.18 2009 33 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 45,400 658 MSY-est-M 697 445 AFSC-REYEROCKGA-1974-2010-STACHURA RGURNNEARed gurnarChelidonich Red gurnar France 27 Scorpaenif Scorpaeniformes 4,437 3,650 RHAKEGOMRed hake GUrophycis cRed hake USA 21 Hake Gadiformes 1,033 266 RHAKESGB Red hake SUrophycis cRed hake USA 21 Hake Gadiformes 3,262 1,200 RHGRENNERoughhead Macrourus Roughhead Spain 27 Other Gadi Gadiformes 826 654 RNGENI-II- Roundnose Coryphaen Roundnose France 27 Other Gadi Gadiformes 182 58 RNGENMA Roundnose Coryphaen Roundnose Spain 27 Other Gadi Gadiformes 5,624 660 RNGENVb- Roundnose Coryphaen Roundnose France 27 Other Gadi Gadiforme 0.58 0.25 2015 28 TBdivTBms ERdivERmsy-dimensionless 9,958 1,660 WGDEEP-RNGENVb-VI-VII-XIIb-1988-2016-ICESIMP2016 RNGRENIIIaRoundnose Coryphaen Roundnose Denmark 27 Other Gadi Gadiformes 1,967 1 RSFLOUNS Round nosEopsetta g Round nosJapan 61 Pleuronect Pleuronect 0.52 1.06 2013 21 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 2,740 1,569 MSY-MT 2,174 826 FAFRFJ-RSFLOUNSOJ-1966-2013-JPNIMP2016 RSOLE5AB Rock sole QLepidopset Rock sole Canada 67 Pleuronect Pleuronect 1.4 0.46 2013 69 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 3,508 524 MSY-MT 460 362 DFO-PAC-RSOLE5AB-1944-2014-OSGOOD RSOLEGA Rock sole GLepidopset Rock sole USA 67 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 156,000 2,028 1,720 RSOLEHSTRRock sole HLepidopset Rock sole Canada 67 Pleuronect Pleuronect 2.99 0.08 2013 69 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 19,181 1,895 MSY-MT 1,050 594 DFO-PAC-RSOLEHSTR-1945-2014-OSGOOD RSROCKBC Redstripe rSebastes p Redstripe r Canada 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 3.14 0.03 2017 78 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 7,455 541 MSY-calc-M 234 170 DFO-PAC-RSROCKBCWN-1939-2018-ASHBROOK RSROCKBC Redstripe rSebastes p Redstripe r Canada 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 2.34 0.16 2017 78 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 15,665 1,513 MSY-calc-M 832 1,023 DFO-PAC-RSROCKBCWS-1939-2018-ASHBROOK RSSOLENPARoughscale Clidoderma Roughscale Japan 61 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 1,430 197 SABLEFEBS Sablefish EAnoplopom Sablefish USA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.02 1.49 2014 55 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 202,000 18,950 MSY-MT 20,545 12,000 AFSC-SABLEFEBSAIGA-1960-2015-SISIMP2016 SABLEFPCASablefish PAnoplopom Sablefish Canada 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 0.78 1.15 2010 46 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 28,500 3,230 MSY-MT 2,523 2,080 DFO-PAC-SABLEFPCAN-1913-2010-HIVELY SABLEFPCOSablefish PAnoplopom Sablefish USA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 0.88 0.82 2014 115 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 168,000 7,476 MSY-MT 4,845 4,460 NWFSC-SABLEFPCOAST-1900-2015-SISIMP2016 SBELLYROCShortbelly Sebastes joShortbelly USA 77 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.81 - 2005 56 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 64,000 789 MSY-est-M 379 - SWFSC-SBELLYROCKPCOAST-1950-2005-BRANCH SBWHITAC Southern bMicromesi Southern bNew Zealan 81 Other Gadi Gadiforme 1.46 0.72 2013 37 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 152,997 20,553 MSY-est-M 17,817 28,600 NZMFishMIDDEPTHSWG-SBWHITACIR-1977-2013-FU SBWHITAR Southern bMicromesi Southern bArgentina 41 Other Gadi Gadiforme 0.61 0.19 2019 33 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 435,368 96,296 MSY-MT 72,360 15,050 INIDEP-SBWHITARGS-1985-2020-PARMA SBWHITCH Southern bMicromesi Southern bChile 87 Other Gadi Gadiforme 0.39 1.2 2020 43 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-d 130,562 2,959 MSY-est-M 22,634 2,634 IFOPCH-SBWHITCH-1978-2020-Quiroz SFLOUNMASummer floParalichthy Summer floUSA 21 Pleuronect Pleuronect 0.65 1.16 2014 33 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 99,365 12,945 MSY-MT 13,843 10,200 NEFSC-SFLOUNMATLC-1982-2014-SISIMP2016 SHAKE4VWSilver hake Merluccius Silver hake Canada 21 Hake Gadiforme 2.47 0.18 2014 22 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 122,000 16,000 MSY-MT 32,806 6,930 DFO-MAR-SHAKE4VWX-1969-2015-OSGOOD SHAKEGOMSilver hake Merluccius Silver hake USA 21 Hake Gadiformes 13,900 1,370 SHAKESGB Silver hake Merluccius Silver hake USA 21 Hake Gadiformes 72,723 5,430 SHCROCKP Sharpchin Sebastes zaSharpchin USA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 2.17 0.06 2012 121 TBdivTBms FdivFmsy-c 12,800 270 MSY-MT 123 14 NWFSC-SHCROCKPCOAST-1892-2012-SISIMP2016 SNROCKPC Splitnose rSebastes d Splitnose r USA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.87 0.06 2008 104 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 70,200 1,268 MSY-MT 378 66 NWFSC-SNROCKPCOAST-1905-2009-STANTON SOLECS Common sSolea solea Common s Belgium 27 Pleuronect Pleuronect 0.92 1.46 2017 47 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 4,690 1,133 MSY-est-M 975 818 WGCSE-SOLECS-1970-2018-ICESIMP2018 SOLECWAS Sole CentraCynoglossu Sole Guinea 34 Pleuronect Pleuronect 1.54 0.37 2009 1 TBdivTBms ERdivERmsy-dimensionless 7,568 5,349 FAO-DR-SOLECWASG1-1994-2009-ASHBROOK SOLECWAS Sole CentraCynoglossu Sole Angola 34 Pleuronect Pleuronect 0.74 1.72 2010 1 TBdivTBms ERdivERmsy-dimensionless 818 767 FAO-DR-SOLECWASG4-1994-2010-ASHBROOK SOLEIIIa-22Common sSolea solea Common s Denmark 27 Pleuronect Pleuronect 0.93 1.21 2017 34 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 3,460 930 MSY-est-M 718 520 WGBFAS-SOLEIIIa-2224-1983-2018-ICESIMP2018 SOLEIS Common sSolea solea Common s Belgium 27 Pleuronect Pleuronect 0.55 0.09 2017 48 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 2,570 1,355 MSY-est-M 155 36 WGCSE-SOLEIS-1968-2018-ICESIMP2018 SOLENS Common sSolea solea Common s Netherland 27 Pleuronect Pleuronect 1.68 1.09 2017 61 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 64,800 25,030 MSY-est-M 20,390 12,400 WGNSSK-SOLENS-1956-2018-ICESIMP2018 SOLEVIIbc Common sSolea solea Common s Ireland 27 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 60 43 SOLEVIId Common sSolea solea Common s France 27 Pleuronect Pleuronect 0.71 0.94 2017 36 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 17,300 4,828 MSY-est-M 4,560 2,430 WGNSSK-SOLEVIId-1981-2018-ICESIMP2018 SOLEVIIe Common sSolea solea Common s Great Brita 27 Pleuronect Pleuronect 1.34 0.74 2017 49 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 5,270 1,123 MSY-est-M 939 1,010 WGCSE-SOLEVIIe-1967-2018-ICESIMP2018 SOLEVIIh-k Common sSolea solea Common s France 27 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 124 92 SOLEVIIIab Common sSolea solea Common s France 27 Pleuronect Pleuronect 1.21 0.54 2017 34 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 16,000 7,983 MSY-est-M 4,942 3,300 WGBIE-SOLEVIIIab-1982-2018-ICESIMP2018 SOLEVIIIc-I Common sSolea solea Common s Spain 27 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 758 730 SOLMEDGSCommon sSolea solea Common s Italy 37 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 3,161 1,694 2,050 SOLMEDGSCommon sSolea solea Common s France 37 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 420 205 184 SOUTHHAKSouthern hMerluccius Southern h Chile 87 Hake Gadiforme 0.78 1.42 2019 43 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-d 548,813 20,045 MSY-est-M 34,253 28,214 IFOPCH-SOUTHHAKECH-1977-2019-Quiroz SOUTHHAKSouthern hMerluccius Southern h New Zealan 81 Hake Gadiforme 1.23 0.09 2012 39 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 28,526 4,144 MSY-MT 1,490 950 NIWA-SOUTHHAKECR-1974-2012-FU SOUTHHAKSouthern hMerluccius Southern h New Zealan 81 Hake Gadiforme 1.44 0.22 2014 41 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 48,056 4,341 MSY-MT 1,664 1,800 NIWA-SOUTHHAKESA-1974-2014-FU SOUTHHAKSouthern hMerluccius Southern h New Zealan 81 Hake Gadiforme 1.4 0.16 2012 40 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 61,796 8,077 MSY-MT 5,151 3,600 NIWA-SOUTHHAKEWCSI-1973-2012-FU SPHAKECH South PacifMerluccius South PacifChile 87 Hake Gadiforme 0.59 1.06 2020 81 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-d 381,369 60,650 MSY-est-M 65,260 55,400 IFOPCH-SPHAKECH-1940-2020-Quiroz SRAKEROC Shortraker Sebastes b Shortraker USA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 2.11 0.04 2014 11 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 23,000 2,444 MSY-est-M 255 197 AFSC-SRAKEROCKBSAI-2004-2014-SISIMP2016 SRAKEROC Shortraker Sebastes b Shortraker USA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.53 0.15 2014 22 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 57,200 3,083 MSY-est-M 1,173 685 AFSC-SRAKEROCKGA-1993-2014-SISIMP2016 SSTHORNHShortspine SebastolobShortspine USA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.87 0.18 2014 31 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 87,200 3,342 MSY-est-M 1,092 1,130 AFSC-SSTHORNHGA-1980-2014-SISIMP2016 SSTHORNHShortspine SebastolobShortspine USA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.86 0.37 2012 112 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 244,000 2,034 MSY-MT 907 911 NWFSC-SSTHORNHPCOAST-1901-2013-SISIMP2016 STFLOUNN Starry flounPlatichthys Starry floun USA 67 Pleuronect Pleuronect 1.24 0.12 2004 35 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 5,440 818 MSY-MT 491 104 SWFSC-STFLOUNNPCOAST-1970-2005-STANTON STFLOUNS Starry flounPlatichthys Starry floun USA 77 Pleuronect Pleuronect 1.55 0.07 2004 35 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 3,460 396 MSY-MT 262 46 SWFSC-STFLOUNSPCOAST-1970-2005-STANTON TIGERFLAT Tiger flatheNeoplatyce Tiger flathe Australia 81 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.37 5.24 2015 101 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 23,400 2,854 MSY-MT 2,307 3,070 CSIRO-TIGERFLATSE-1915-2015-MOESENEDER TUR2232 Turbot BaltScophthalm Turbot Denmark 27 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 322 322 TURBLKGSATurbot BlacPsetta max Turbot Turkey 37 Pleuronect Pleuronect 0.12 5.38 2014 65 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 4,718 2,463 MSY-est-M 2,598 1,160 STECF-TURBLKGSA29-1950-2014-OSIO TURIIIa Turbot KatScophthalm Turbot Denmark 27 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 197 204 TURIV Turbot NorScophthalm Turbot Netherland 27 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 3,315 4,160 WHAKE3Ps White hake Urophycis tWhite hakeCanada 21 Hake Gadiformes 783 445 WHAKE4RSWhite hake Urophycis tWhite hake Canada 21 Hake Gadiformes 93 10 WHAKE4T White hake Urophycis tWhite hake Canada 21 Hake Gadiformes 21,900 3,927 15 WHAKE4VWWhite hake Urophycis tWhite hake Canada 21 Hake Gadiformes 4,260 2,060 WHAKEGB White hake Urophycis tWhite hakeUSA 21 Hake Gadiforme 0.88 0.4 2014 52 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 44,896 5,422 MSY-MT 4,815 2,010 NEFSC-WHAKEGBGOM-1963-2014-SISIMP2016 WHITIIIa Whiting KaMerlangius Whiting Denmark 27 Other Gadi Gadiformes 1,114 1,660 WHITMEDGWhiting BlaMerlangius Whiting Turkey 37 Other Gadi Gadiforme 0.83 1.37 2014 21 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 27,515 9,731 MSY-est-M 9,810 8,860 STECF-WHITMEDGSA29-1994-2014-OSIO WHITNS-VI Whiting ICEMerlangius Whiting Great Brita 27 Other Gadi Gadiforme 1.01 1.27 2017 40 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 279,000 78,441 MSY-est-M 88,578 29,300 WGNSSK-WHITNS-VIId-1978-2018-ICESIMP2018 WHITVIa Whiting WMerlangius Whiting Great Brita 27 Other Gadi Gadiforme 0.36 0.29 2016 36 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 32,225 11,828 MSY-est-M 9,247 1,060 WGCSE-WHITVIa-1980-2017-ICESIMP2018 WHITVIb Whiting RoMerlangius Whiting Great Brita 27 Other Gadi Gadiformes 222 28 WHITVIIa Whiting IrisMerlangius Whiting Great Brita 27 Other Gadi Gadiforme 0.07 2.59 2016 37 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 2,240 149 MSY-est-M 6,832 780 WGCSE-WHITVIIa-1980-2017-ICESIMP2018 WHITVIIek Whiting CeMerlangius Whiting France 27 Other Gadi Gadiforme 1.89 0.83 2016 18 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 89,119 21,000 MSY-MT 17,080 22,500 WGCSE-WHITVIIek-1999-2017-ICESIMP2018 WHITVIII-IXWhiting ICEMerlangius Whiting France 27 Other Gadi Gadiformes 1,950 2,200 WINDOWGWindowpaScophthalm Windowpa USA 21 Pleuronect Pleuronect 0.17 3.92 2007 31 TBdivTBms ERdivERmsy-calc-dime 700 MSY-MT 1,151 210 NEFSC-WINDOWGOMGB-1975-2007-HENDRICKSON WINDOWS WindowpaScophthalm Windowpa USA 21 Pleuronect Pleuronect 0.56 1.26 2007 31 TBdivTBms ERdivERmsy-calc-dime 500 MSY-MT 1,645 539 NEFSC-WINDOWSNEMATL-1975-2007-HENDRICKSON WINFLOUNWinter flouPseudopleu Winter flou Canada 21 Pleuronect Pleuronect 1.31 0.02 2011 39 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 1,271 12,861 MSY-est-M 1,378 196 DFO-SG-WINFLOUN4T-1960-2012-OSGOOD WINFLOUNWinter flouPseudopleu Winter flou USA 21 Pleuronect Pleuronect 0.43 1.45 2014 33 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 7,075 2,840 MSY-MT 2,166 1,220 NEFSC-WINFLOUN5Z-1982-2014-SISIMP2016 WINFLOUNWinter flouPseudopleu Winter flou USA 21 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 279 275 WINFLOUNWinter flouPseudopleu Winter flou USA 21 Pleuronect Pleuronect 0.16 0.17 2010 30 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 17,394 11,728 MSY-MT 5,290 753 NEFSC-WINFLOUNSNEMATL-1980-2010-HIVELY WITFLOUN Witch flounGlyptoceph Witch flounCanada 21 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 4,049 190 WITFLOUN Witch flounGlyptoceph Witch flounCanada 21 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 733 412 WITFLOUN Witch flounGlyptoceph Witch flounCanada 21 Pleuronect Pleuronect 0.51 0.27 2016 56 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 13,505 26,200 MSY-MT 1,967 296 DFO-SG-WITFLOUN4RST-1960-2016-ASHBROOK WITFLOUN Witch flounGlyptoceph Witch flounUSA 21 Pleuronect Pleuronect 0.22 2.46 2014 33 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 1,985 1,957 MSY-MT 2,699 604 NEFSC-WITFLOUN5Y-1982-2014-SISIMP2016 WITFLOUN Witch flounGlyptoceph Witch flounDenmark 27 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 2,817 2,740 WLFLOUNNWillowy floTanakius ki Willowy flo Japan 61 Pleuronect Pleuronect 1.04 0.57 2013 16 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 673 145 MSY-MT 195 80 FAFRFJ-WLFLOUNNPAC-1997-2013-JPNIMP2016 WPOLLAI Walleye poTheragra c Walleye po USA 67 Pollock Gadiforme 0.94 0.04 2014 37 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmgt-c 216,000 13,280 MSY-est-M 24,371 2,380 AFSC-WPOLLAI-1978-2015-SISIMP2016 WPOLLBCWWalleye poTheragra c Walleye po Canada 67 Pollock Gadiforme 0.63 1.65 2018 52 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 15,565 1,120 MSY-est-M 894 1,165 DFO-PAC-WPOLLBCWN-1966-2018-ASHBROOK WPOLLBCWWalleye poTheragra c Walleye po Canada 67 Pollock Gadiforme 0.72 0.37 2018 53 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 75,924 5,969 MSY-est-M 899 1,608 DFO-PAC-WPOLLBCWS-1966-2018-ASHBROOK WPOLLBOGWalleye poTheragra c Walleye po USA 67 Pollock Gadiformes 106,000 30,375 428 WPOLLEBS Walleye poTheragra c Walleye po USA 67 Pollock Gadiforme 1.51 0.35 2014 51 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 7,780,000 1,449,932 MSY-est-M 1,184,889 1,290,000 AFSC-WPOLLEBS-1963-2015-HIVELY WPOLLGA Walleye poTheragra c Walleye po USA 67 Pollock Gadiforme 0.96 0.84 2015 46 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmgt-c 1,730,000 125,033 MSY-est-M 93,596 143,000 AFSC-WPOLLGA-1970-2015-SISIMP2016 WPOLLNAVWalleye poTheragra c Walleye po Russia 61 Pollock Gadiforme 1.47 0.71 2006 13 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmgt-c 2,912,244 687,302 MSY-est-M 449,600 310,000 VNIRO-WPOLLNAVAR-1984-2015-ASHBROOK WPOLLNSOWalleye poTheragra c Walleye po Russia 61 Pollock Gadiforme 0.99 0.69 2010 48 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmgt-c 8,518,509 966,700 MSY-MT 1,099,719 883,000 VNIRO-WPOLLNSO-1963-2017-ASHBROOK WPOLLWB Walleye poTheragra c Walleye po Russia 61 Pollock Gadiformes 305,893 152,724 15,100 WROCKBCWWidow rocSebastes e Widow roc Canada 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.49 0.69 2019 80 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 16,296 1,909 MSY-MT 1,438 1,909 DFO-PAC-WROCKBCW-1939-2024-ASHBROOK WROCKPCOWidow rocSebastes e Widow roc USA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 1.73 0.11 2014 99 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 132,000 7,776 MSY-MT 3,221 726 NWFSC-WROCKPCOAST-1916-2015-SISIMP2016 YELL3LNO Yellowtail fLimanda fe Yellowtail f Canada 21 Pleuronect Pleuronect 1.76 0.22 2015 51 TBdivTBms FdivFmsy-d 360,887 18,730 MSY-MT 12,019 7,990 NAFO-SC-YELL3LNO-1960-2015-WATSON YELL4T Yellowtail fLimanda fe Yellowtail f Canada 21 Pleuronect Pleuronect 2.1 0.02 2015 31 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 139,579 5,724 MSY-est-M 120 95 DFO-SG-YELL4T-1960-2016-ASHBROOK YELLCCODGYellowtail fLimanda fe Yellowtail f USA 21 Pleuronect Pleuronect 0.16 2.29 2014 30 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 1,586 1,285 MSY-MT 1,466 480 NEFSC-YELLCCODGOM-1985-2014-SISIMP2016 YELLGB Yellowtail fLimanda fe Yellowtail f USA 21 Pleuronect Pleuronect 0.22 1.14 2007 35 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 20,800 9,400 MSY-MT 6,385 159 NEFSC-YELLGB-1935-2008-BAUM YELLSNEMAYellowtail fLimanda fe Yellowtail f USA 21 Pleuronect Pleuronect 0.12 10.11 2014 42 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 623 541 MSY-MT 4,624 625 NEFSC-YELLSNEMATL-1973-2014-SISIMP2016 YEYEROCKGYelloweye Sebastes ruYelloweye USA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaeniformes 327 98 YEYEROCK Yelloweye Sebastes ruYelloweye USA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 0.57 0.26 2014 99 SSBdivSSBmFdivFmsy-c 2,350 63 MSY-MT 102 9 NWFSC-YEYEROCKPCOAST-1916-2015-SISIMP2016 YEYEROCK Yelloweye Sebastes ruYelloweye Canada 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaeniformes 52 8 YSFLOUNN Yellow stripPseudopleu Yellow strip Japan 61 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 2,690 1,550 YSFLOUNSOYellow stripPseudopleu Yellow strip Japan 61 Pleuronect Pleuronectiformes 488 240 YSOLEBSAI Yellowfin sLimanda as Yellowfin s USA 67 Pleuronect Pleuronect 1.62 1.07 2014 61 SSBdivSSBmERdivERms 2,310,000 134,622 MSY-est-M 127,631 157,000 AFSC-YSOLEBSAI-1954-2015-SISIMP2016 YTROCKNP Yellowtail rSebastes fl Yellowtail r USA 67 Scorpaenif Scorpaenif 2 0.17 2005 39 TBdivTBms ERdivERms 143,000 4,805 MSY-MT 4,919 1,610 NWFSC-YTROCKNPCOAST-1967-2005-STANTON