206 
Fishery Bulletin 109(2) 
CT> 
CT> 
<1) 
50 
25 
1960 
50 
25 
1960 
50 
25 
0 
1960 
50 - 
25 
1960 
M 
1 18 
10 
1990 
1990 
1990 
1990 
Year 
18 
10 
18 
10 
18 
10 
2020 
MJO 
I960 
1990 
2020 
4 

v 4 
\ V, 
1960 
’ 1990 
2020 
6 
« - 
V 
- 
■ ^*'**«sL"* • 
1960 
1990 
2020 
8 

- 
*'* 
1960 
1990 
2020 
Year 
Figure 6 
Time series of spawning outputs from simulation and stock synthesis assessment 
models (runs 1 to 8). The run number is shown in the upper right of each graph. 
See Table 2 for model and parameter setup for all runs. Solid lines are median 
simulation outputs and thick dashed lines are median assessment outputs. Thin 
dashed lines are 2.5% and 97.5% of quantiles from simulation outputs. Specifica- 
tions for each panel are: M = constant M and MJO = high M in juvenile and old fish; 
L/L=logistic selectivity in both simulation and assessment models; D/D = double 
normal selectivity in both simulation and assessment models; D/L = double normal 
selectivity in simulation model, but logistic selectivity in assessment model; and 
L/D = logistic selectivity in simulation model, but double normal selectivity in 
assessment model. 
ception was that a high percentage of runs estimated 
steepness at the upper bound of (/i = 1.0). If logistic 
selectivity functions were used and natural mortali- 
ties were correctly specified in both simulation and 
assessment models (run 9), there were still 16% of 
runs with h at the upper bound (Fig. 10). If logistic 
selectivity functions were used but natural mortality 
was incorrectly specified assessment models (run 10), 
