210 
Fishery Bulletin 109(2) 
M 
MJO 
1 20 
9 
450 
10 
2j 60 
250 
0 
■4!llili!lllllllllli.lt....i.n. 
0 
0.2 0.6 
1.0 
0.2 0.6 
1.0 
120 
120 
1 1 
12 
o 
CD 
a/a 
60 
o 0 
.lllllllllllllllllll.lllll.-l_ ..1. 
0 
■■■iillllililiiiih.ii...i 
C 
O’ 
3.2 0.6 
1.0 
0'2 0.6 
1.0 
<1> 
it 120 
- 
13 
120 
14 
^ 60 
60 
0 
...lllllllllllllllllillil...i.l 
0 
0.2 0.6 
1.0 
0.2 0.6 
1.0 
120 
15 
120 
16 
D/D 
CD 
o 
60 
0 
.lllllllllllllllllll..l.iii ■!„ 
0 
linllllllllllllllllilliiiii.il. «.. 
0.2 0.6 
1.0 
0.2 0.6 
1.0 
Steepness (h) 
Steepness (h) 
Figure 10 
Frequency plots of estimated steepness (h) in stock synthesis assessment model 
for runs 9 to 16. The run number is shown in the upper left of each graph. True 
steepness value is 0.6. No prior for /; was 
used in 
the assessment models. 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, 
out double normal selectivity 
in 
assessment model. 
For run 14, which had the same model configuration as 
run 10, except that four natural mortality values were 
used in both the simulation and estimation models, the 
assessment outputs matched well with those in the 
simulation model (Table 3; Figs. 8 and 9). Estimated 
natural mortalities also matched reasonably well with 
