Hulson et al.: Distribution of sampling effort for age composition of multiple species 
337 
0.06 - 
Log of growth rate at 20% of A max 
g Log of growth rate at 50% of L* 
0.05 - 
0.04 - 
o 
y = 0.056 -0.004 xx a 
y = 0.072 -0.008 xx 
R 2 = 0.84 ^ 
R 2 = 0.61 d 
0.03 - 
° Roundfish 
Flatfish 
< 0.02 - 
• Rockfish 
N 
o GOA 
0 0.01 - 
□ Al 
Q, 
A BS 
E 
m o oo - 
1 0.06 - 
.. Log of average population growth rate 
| j Log of minimum lifetime growth rate 
o 
c 
'•§ 0 05 - 
s 
Q. 
o 
CL 0.04 - 
! # >-l A 
y = 0.061 -0.005 xx a'Q.r_ 
R 2 = 0.72 ° 
y = 0.058 -0.005 xx A®'-. rS 
R 2 = 0.88 “ 
0.03 - 
'' 
0.02 - 
0.01 - 
0.00 - 
0123450 1 2345 
Log of growth rate statistic 
Figure 5 
Linear relationships among the life-history statistics evaluated — (A) log of growth rate at 20% 
of the maximum age observed (A max ); (B) log of growth rate at 50% of asymptotic length (L„); 
(C) log of average population growth rate; and (D) log of minimum lifetime growth rate — and 
the estimated proportion of total sample size by species across the sampling goals and sampling 
methods evaluated when including aging error (AE1) in analyses with data from the NOAA 
Alaska Fisheries Science Center bottom trawl surveys for the Gulf of Alaska (GOA, 1984-2011), 
Aleutian Islands (AI, 1980-2010), and Bering Sea (BS, 1982-2011). i? 2 =coefficient of multiple 
determination. 
sidered here should be investigated to obtain a more 
definitive answer to this question. Although, at some 
point it must be recognized that the uncertainty in- 
herent in collecting and analyzing fisheries data, and 
the simplifications that are unavoidable in simulation 
analyses, make a comprehensive answer to this ques- 
tion unobtainable. In this study we have, however, pro- 
vided several useful and interesting results that can be 
considered when approaching the issue of age sample 
size distribution and its subsequent influence on stock 
assessment. 
The use of sampling theory, to estimate age sample 
sizes for each species, resulted in surprisingly consis- 
tent patterns in comparisons of the resulting sample 
sizes across species in a distributional sense rather 
than by restricting the results to only species-specific 
evaluation. Upon viewing the species-specific sample 
sizes as a proportion of total sample size, regardless 
of the sampling goal, sampling method, or whether 
aging error was applied, the same pattern emerged. 
The rockfish species type required the largest propor- 
tion of total sample size, flatfish were intermediate, 
and roundfish required the lowest proportion of total 
sample size. Potentially the most interesting results 
of this study were the relationships between the dis- 
tributions of sample size and life-history characteris- 
