FITTING SURPLUS PRODUCTION MODELS - COMPARING METHODS AND MEASURING UNCERTAINTY

Three approaches are commonly used to fit surplus production models to observed data: effort-averaging methods; process-error estimators; and observation-error estimators. We compare these approaches using real and simulated data sets, and conclude that they yield substantially different interpretations of productivity. Effort-averaging methods assume the stock is in equilibrium relative to the recent effort; this assumption is rarely satisfied and usually leads to overestimation of potential yield and optimum effort. Effort-averaging methods will almost always produce what appears to be ''reasonable'' estimates of maximum sustainable yield and optimum effort, and the r2 statistic used to evaluate the goodness of fit can provide an unrealistic illusion of confidence about the parameter estimates obtained. Process-error estimators produce much less reliable estimates than observation-error estimators. The observation-error estimator provides the lowest estimates of maximum sustainable yield and optimum effort and is the least biased and the most precise (shown in Monte-Carlo trials). We suggest that observation-error estimators be used when fitting surplus production models, that effort-averaging methods be abandoned, and that process-error estimators should only be applied if simulation studies and practical experience suggest that they will be superior to observation-error estimators.