314 
Fishery Bulletin 108(3) 
Table 3 
The five tiers of data quality used when evaluating the productivity and susceptibility of an individual stock. 
Data 
quality tier Description 
Example 
1 
Best data. Information is based on collected data for the stock 
and area of interest that is established and substantial 
Data-rich stock assessment; published literature 
for which multiple methods are used, etc. 
2 
Adequate data Information is based on limited coverage 
and corroboration, or for some other reason is deemed not as 
reliable as tier-1 data 
Limited temporal or spatial data, relatively old 
information, etc. 
3 
Limited data. Estimates with high variation and limited 
confidence and may be based on studies of similar taxa or 
life history strategies 
Similar genus or family, etc. 
4 
Very limited data. Information based on expert opinion or 
on general literature reviews from a wide range of species, 
or outside of region 
General data not referenced 
5 
No data. When there are no data on which to make even an expert opinion, the person using the PSA should give 
this attribute a “data quality” score of 5 and not provide a “productivity” or “susceptibility” score so as not to bias 
those index scores. When plotted, the susceptibility or productivity index score will be based on one less attribute, 
and will be highlighted as such by its related quality score. 
3.0 
2.5 
= 2.0 
/ 
A* 
V 
\ <## 
• ^ O o v- 
\ 
/ / 
' N / 
/ /\ 
/ y >- 
* 
J A 
/, 
1.0 - 
3.0 
(High) 
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 
Productivity Score (Low) 
i I Blue .shark < \y 1 Longfin ltiako shark 
t ) Conation thresher shark Bitteye thresher shark 
A Oceanic whitetip shark O Silky shark 
Figure 2 
Comparison of vulnerabilities among common shark 
species in the highly migratory Atlantic shark com- 
plexes (gray), Hawaii-based pelagic longline — tuna sector 
(white), and Hawaii-based pelagic longline — swordfish 
sector (black). 
Results and discussion 
Range of vulnerability scores 
The managed stocks evaluated in this report represent 
both targeted (n=71; 44%) and nontargeted species 
( /r = 9 1 ; 56%) that were included in fishery management 
plans to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished 
stocks. The stocks generally displayed vulnerability 
scores greater than 1.0 (Fig. 1). Species evaluated within 
the Atlantic highly migratory shark complexes were 
found to be the most vulnerable, averaging vulnerability 
scores of 2.17, and California Current coastal pelagic 
species were the least vulnerable, averaging 1.29. 
Although different groups of species will exhibit dif- 
ferent ranges of productivity and susceptibility scores, 
it is interesting to note that in some cases even the 
same species may exhibit different productivity scores. 
For example, the productivity scores for the blue ( Prio - 
nace glauca), bigeye thresher ( Alopias superciliosus), 
longfin mako (Isurus paucus), oceanic whitetip (Car- 
charhinus longimanus ), silky (C. falciformis), and com- 
mon thresher (A. vulpinus) sharks differed between 
the highly migratory Atlantic shark complexes and the 
Hawaii-based pelagic longline fishery example applica- 
tions (Fig. 2). These differences are likely related to 
intraspecific variations in life history patterns (Cope, 
2006) and to the use of different weightings in the vul- 
nerability analysis (see Patrick et ah, 2009). 
In contrast, the species in the Hawaii-based pelagic 
longline fishery (both the tuna and swordfish sectors) 
showed an expanded range of productivity and suscep- 
