sustainability

Article
Assessment of Three Major Shrimp Stocks in Bangladesh Marine
Waters Using Both Length-Based and Catch-Based Approaches
Suman Barua 1,2, * , Qun Liu 1, *, Mohammed Shahidul Alam 3 , Petra Schneider 4 , Shoukot Kabir Chowdhury 2
and Mohammad Mojibul Hoque Mozumder 5

1 College of Fisheries, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266003, China

2 Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock, Dhaka 1215, Bangladesh
3 Department of Fisheries, University of Chittagong, Chattogram 4331, Bangladesh
4 Department for Water, Environment, Civil Engineering and Safety, University of Applied Sciences
Magdeburg-Stendal, Breitscheidstraße 2, D-39114 Magdeburg, Germany
5 Fisheries and Environmental Management Group, Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science (HELSUS),
Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
* Correspondence: [email protected] (Q.L.); [email protected] (S.B.); Tel.: +86-136-8542-6216 (Q.L.)

Abstract: Penaeus monodon (tiger shrimp), Metapenaeus monoceros (brown shrimp), and Fenneropenaeus
indicus (white shrimp) are the most economically important shrimp species in the waters of the Bay
of Bengal, Bangladesh. This is the first analytical study to assess three major shrimp stocks using
both length-based and catch-based methods, such as length-based Bayesian biomass estimation
(LBB), length-based indicator (LBI), and a catch-based method entitled JABBA (Just Another Bayesian
Biomass Assessment), to explore and process the data; estimate the growth parameters, with length
at first capture; present relative biomasses; and approximate the reference points. The parameters
of the von Bertalanffy Growth Function (VBGF) analysis for the tiger, brown, and white shrimps
were L∞ = 113.0 mm, 85.4 mm, and 76.4 mm, respectively, for carapace length. Our results showed
that the relative biomass level (B/BMSY ) of the tiger shrimp was 0.43, suggesting an overfished
status, and brown and white shrimps were 0.84 and 0.96, indicating that they were fully exploited
Citation: Barua, S.; Liu, Q.; but not overfished. This study, therefore, advised an optimum carapace length limit to catch from
Alam, M.S.; Schneider, P.; 57.0–70.0 mm for tiger shrimp, 44.0–53.0 mm for brown shrimp, and 40.0–48.0 mm for white shrimp.
Chowdhury, S.K.;
The estimated maximum sustainable yield (MSY) reference points were as follows: optimal biomass
Mozumder, M.M.H. Assessment of
BMSY = 3116 mt, 15,885 mt, and 2649 mt for tiger, brown, and white shrimp, respectively, and optimal
Three Major Shrimp Stocks in
harvest rate uMSY = 12%, 33%, and 8% for tiger, brown, and white shrimp, respectively. The average
Bangladesh Marine Waters Using
annual catch values for the last ten years were 265 mt, 2396 mt, and 115 mt below the estimated MSY
Both Length-Based and Catch-Based
Approaches. Sustainability 2023, 15, values of 389 mt, 4899 mt, and 209 mt for tiger, brown, and white shrimp, respectively. But, brown
12835. https://doi.org/10.3390/ shrimp had the estimated highest carrying capacity (31,770 mt) and intrinsic growth rate (0.66) than
su151712835 the tiger and white shrimp, which was replicated distinctly in the graphical representation of the
Kobe plot and the surplus production plot. Hence, the brown shrimp stock is estimated to be in a
Academic Editor: Tim Gray
better state than the tiger and white shrimp stocks.
Received: 26 March 2023
Revised: 14 August 2023 Keywords: Bay of Bengal; Penaeus monodon; Metapenaeus monoceros; Fenneropenaeus indicus; LBB; LBI;
Accepted: 16 August 2023 JABBA; overfishing; optimum length limits
Published: 24 August 2023

1. Introduction
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. The marine fisheries sector of Bangladesh is vital to the country’s economy since it
This article is an open access article provides food and income for hundreds of thousands of marine and coastal fishers [1].
distributed under the terms and Inland capture, inland culture, and marine capture make up the country’s various fisheries
conditions of the Creative Commons resources, with marine fisheries accounting for roughly 15% of total fish production in
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// 2020–2021. Marine shrimp accounts for 7% (46,297 mt) of overall marine fisheries pro-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ duction, whereas industrial shrimp trawl makes up 7% (3069 mt) of total marine shrimp
4.0/). production [2]. Industrial fishing through private ownership developed over the years [3],

Sustainability 2023, 15, 12835. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151712835 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 12835 2 of 25

culminating in 230 such vessels engaged in fishing in the EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) of
Bangladesh waters deeper than 40 m in 2021–2022. Of these, 28 were shrimping vessels [2].
Shrimp plays a crucial part in the country’s overall marine landings [4]. Although 37
species of shrimp have been documented from the maritime waters of Bangladesh [5,6],
the tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon), brown shrimp (Metapenaeus monoceros), and white
shrimp (Fenneropenaeus indicus) are the most economically important shrimp species [1,3,6].
The tiger shrimp is superior to other species when considering economic value [7,8]. The
extensive collection of post-larvae (PL) and brood stock (mature shrimp) from the wild has
made the tiger shrimp fishery in Bangladesh vulnerable [8]. Contrarily, brown shrimp is a
pivotal contributor to the shrimp trawling landing, accounting for more than half of the
total shrimp landing [9,10]. White shrimp, the third-most-common capture from shrimp
trawling, often makes up between 5 and 10 percent of the total shrimp haul [2,9].
In the early 1970s, researchers undertook a series of pilot surveys to determine the
current state of the Bay of Bengal’s fish and shrimp populations. Initiated by FAO, these
surveys came at the same time as the advent of a demersal trawling fleet and the completion
of several stock assessments by foreign scientists working with local expertise. Using data
gathered from surveys conducted between 1968 and 1971, West (1973) made an early esti-
mate of a virgin stock of 6800–11,400 mt of shrimp biomass [11]. Rashid (1983) used Mitsui
Tayo survey data from 1976–1977 to determine that the shrimp stock was 8400 mt [12].
A swept area study between 1981 and 1983 found a shrimp stock of 3600 to 3900 mt [13].
In fisheries, a target harvest rate is typically determined by calculating the Maximum
Sustainable Yield (MSY) [14,15]. Historically, MSY reference points for the Bangladesh
shrimp fisheries have been evaluated by applying biomass dynamic models that use catch
and effort data [1,8,9,11,16,17]. However, there has been no comprehensive research on
assessing life history of shrimp stocks based on the length-based approaches within the last
25 years [18], beyond graphical presentation of length–composition and length–weight data
of species groups of several cruises in different years, which have been included as length-
based status in the survey report of RV Meen Sandhani [5]. But, the conducted surveys
were seasonal on an intermittent basis. Hence, applying length-based stock assessment
methods on such length–frequency data should be regarded with caution if the data are not
representative throughout the entire year. The common assumption of any length-based
package is that the data should be representative [19–21]. In addition, a study on shrimp
species by Mustafa et al. (2006) used the traditional length-based fish stock assessment
(FiSAT-The FAO-ICLARM Stock Assessment Tools) technique [18]. But, Sparre (1990) men-
tioned that length-converted catch curves of traditional length-based methods cannot be
used for short-lived animals when growth is seasonal, including penaeid shrimps, which
have more than one cohort in a year [22].
Though the number of shrimp trawlers has remained the same for the last two decades,
overall shrimp landings have declined since the fishery began from the mid-eighties [9].
Due to their high monetary value and demand, these fisheries require careful management
based on expert scientific advice assembled from a comprehensive stock assessment strategy.
Detailed information on historical catch data, mortality, age structure, stock–recruitment
relationship, catch-per-unit effort, and other life-history parameters are all crucial for a
conventional stock assessment [23]. Marine fisheries in Bangladesh are categorized as
data-poor because they lack this information. This is in line with most of the world’s fish
stocks. The fundamental indices of abundance needed for these approaches are dependent
on catch and effort data [24,25], although various data-poor stock assessment methods
based on surplus production models (SPMs) have been developed [26–28]. However,
these indices can be inconclusive and/or misleading using a single assessing approach in
relation to having information about the status of stock using a variety of methodological
approaches [29,30].
In this study, we tried to figure out the status of the three commercially important
shrimp species stocks in the marine waters of Bangladesh by using the most up-to-date
analytical tools based on both length-based and catch-based methods. Compared to
 assessing approach in relation to having information about the status of stock using a va-
riety of methodological approaches [29,30].
In this study, we tried to figure out the status of the three commercially important
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12835 shrimp species stocks in the marine waters of Bangladesh by using the most up-to-date 3 of 25
analytical tools based on both length-based and catch-based methods. Compared to the
findings of earlier studies, the results are interpreted in the context of formulating sustain-
able management
the findings measures.
of earlier studies, the results are interpreted in the context of formulating
sustainable management measures.
2. Materials and Methods
2. Materials
2.1. Study Area and Methods
2.1. Study Area
The marine fisheries sector of Bangladesh consists of two sub-sectors: industrial and
The marine
artisanal. fisheries
Industrial fishing sector of Bangladesh
has been earmarked consists
to fish of
notwo sub-sectors:
shallower than 40industrial
m depthand by
artisanal. Industrial fishing has been earmarked to fish no shallower than
law [31,32] in the EEZ of Bangladesh (Figure 1). Industrial trawlers are of two kinds, 40 m depth in-
by law [31,32]
cluding freezerinand
theiced
EEZwooden-hull
of Bangladesh (FigureFreezer
trawlers. 1). Industrial
trawlerstrawlers are ofinto
are divided twoshrimp
kinds,
including freezer and iced wooden-hull trawlers. Freezer trawlers are divided
and finfish trawlers [33,34]. The overall lengths (LOAs) of shrimp trawlers are from 20.5 into shrimp
and
to finfish
44.5 trawlers
m, they [33,34]. The
have outriggers, andoverall lengths2–4
they operate (LOAs)
modernof shrimp trawlers
shrimp nets are from
at a time. The
20.5 to 44.5 m, they have outriggers, and they operate 2–4 modern shrimp
mesh sizes of the cod end of the shrimp trawl nets has been allowed to fix at 45 mm, and nets at a time.
The mesh sizes of the cod end of the shrimp trawl nets has been allowed to fix at 45 mm,
the head rope lengths were from 15 to 35 m [35]. Shrimp trawler capacities usually have a
and the head rope lengths were from 15 to 35 m [35]. Shrimp trawler capacities usually
gross tonnage of 150–250 metric tons with a main engine power of 500–900 HP. Thirty (30)
have a gross tonnage of 150–250 metric tons with a main engine power of 500–900 HP.
days of fishing have been allowed by law on each trip. The usual number of hauls is 5–6
Thirty (30) days of fishing have been allowed by law on each trip. The usual number of
on a fishing day, and the period of each haul is 3–4 h. The fishing days and the number of
hauls is 5–6 on a fishing day, and the period of each haul is 3–4 h. The fishing days and the
hauls vary based on weather conditions and the vessel’s seaworthiness [1].
number of hauls vary based on weather conditions and the vessel’s seaworthiness [1].

Figure 1. Map of the Bay of Bengal Bangladesh marine waters showing industrial fishing zone
(beyond 40 m depth colored by deep sky) and the location of sample unloading (red circle) [7,36].
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 27

Figure 1. Map of the Bay of Bengal Bangladesh marine waters showing industrial fishing zone (be-
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12835 4 of 25
yond 40 m depth colored by deep sky) and the location of sample unloading (red circle) [7,36].

2.2. Data Sources

2.2. Data
2.2.1. Sources Methods
Length-Based
2.2.1. Length-Based Methods
Length frequency data of carapace length (CL) (head length) from 1496 individuals
of tigerLength
shrimpfrequency data
(both sex), of carapace
1365 length
individuals (CL) (head
of brown shrimplength)
(bothfrom
sex), 1496 individuals
and 1084 individ-of
tiger shrimp (both sex), 1365 individuals of brown shrimp (both sex), and 1084
uals of white shrimp (both sex) were collected (Figure 2) monthly from July 2021 to May individuals
of white
2022 fromshrimp (both
industrial sex) weretrawlers,
shrimping collectedexcept
(Figurein2)June
monthly
2022,from
due toJuly 2021
the to May
annual 2022
fishing
ban [31]. During length measurement, data collecting crews specified by the skipper[31].
from industrial shrimping trawlers, except in June 2022, due to the annual fishing ban of
During length measurement, data collecting crews specified by the skipper
the shrimping vessels randomly collected 10% of well-mixed shrimp from each category of the shrimping
vessels
while a randomly
sufficient collected
number of 10% of well-mixed
samples shrimpOtherwise,
were hauled. from each category
take thewhile
wholea sufficient
catch to
number of samples were hauled. Otherwise, take the whole catch to measure for the small
measure for the small amount of catch. Landings were very poor for white shrimp in
amount of catch. Landings were very poor for white shrimp in March, April, and May.
March, April, and May. Carapace lengths were measured to the nearest 0.1 mm using dig-
Carapace lengths were measured to the nearest 0.1 mm using digital slide calipers for the
ital slide calipers for the three abovementioned shrimps.
three abovementioned shrimps.

Figure 2. Data collection on shrimps. (A) Tiger shrimp, (B) Brown shrimp, and (C) White shrimp
from industrial shrimping vessels at sea.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12835 5 of 25

2.2.2. Catch-Based Methods

Though trawl fishery commenced in 1972 [3], commercial shrimp trawling achieved
its pace in 1986 [35]. Therefore, to analyze the stock status from catch and resilience, the
time-series data (catch and effort) from 1986 to 2021 (36 years) of commercially important
shrimp species of P. monodon, M. monoceros, and F. indicus were taken from logbook data
sheets of the marine fisheries office of Department of Fisheries (DoF) and Fisheries Resource
Survey System’s (FRSS) publication [9].

2.3. Stock Assessment Indicators

For the inclusive assessment of three major industrial shrimp stocks, we first used a
newly developed R package, length-based Bayesian Biomass Estimation, known as LBB
of Froese et al. (2018) to assess the fishery’s biological characteristics (growth and ratio of
mortality), exploitation, and selectivity [21].
Secondly, we incorporated length frequency (LF) data into the length-based sustain-
ability indicators proposed by Froese (2004) with respect to length reference points [37,38].
These indicators estimated a parameter that prevented growth and recruitment overfishing
based on management recommendations.
Finally, we used Winker et al. (2018)’s Just Another Bayesian Biomass Assessment
(JABBA) to assess catch–effort time-series data to give an innovative biomass dynamic
modeling approach [39].

2.3.1. LBB Method

Froese et al. (2018) introduced a new and straightforward method, LBB (Length-
based Bayesian Biomass Estimation), to assess stock status by analyzing length frequency
data from commercial catches [21]. Species that grow throughout their lives, as do most
commercially exploited fish and invertebrates, are suitable for the LBB approach, which
requires only length–frequency (LF) data. It can elucidate asymptotic length (L∞ ), mean
length at first capture (Lc ), relative natural mortality (M/k), and relative fishing mortality
(F/M) from one or more LF samples of a stock’s size composition [21,40]. In the LBB,
the assumption is growth in body length according to the von Bertalanffy (1938) growth
equation [41], which can be described as:
h i
Lt = Lin f 1 − e−k(t−t0 ) (1)

Lt is the length at age t, L∞ is the asymptotic length, k is the rate by which L∞ is

approached, and t0 is the theoretical age at zero length.
For full gear selection, catch curve is expressed by the equation [15]:
!z
Lin f − L k
NL = NLstart (2)
Lin f − Lstart

where NL is the number of survivors to a specific length L, NLstart is the number at length
Lstart with full selection (i.e., the gear retains all individuals entering the gear), Z is the total
mortality rate, and k is the somatic growth rate.
The selectivity of the fishing gear (here is assumed to be a trawl selection curve) can
be given as the function:
1
SL = (3)
1 + e α( L− Lc )
−

where SL is the fraction of individuals that are caught by the gear at length L, Lc is the
length at first capture, and α denotes the steepness of the ogive [15,42].
The life history parameters of L∞ , Lc , α, M/k, and F/k and the selection ogive are
calculated by applying the following two equations [40]:
! M + F SL
K K
Lin f − Li i
NLi = NLi−1 (4)
Lin f − Li−1
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12835 6 of 25

CLi = NLi S Li (5)

where NLi is the number of Li length class individuals, NLi−1 is the number of individuals
in the previous length class, and CLi is the catch for length class Li [21]. The ratio of M/k
and F/M are not the absolute values of F, M, and k to minimize the parameter requirements.
Then, M/k and F/k can be deduced by fitting Equation (4) to LF data.
The length Lopt , representing the maximum biomass of the unexploited cohort [43], is
obtained from:
3
Lopt = Lin f ( ) (6)
3+ MK
Based on Equation (6), the mean length at first capture (Lc_opt ), which maximizes the
catch and the biomass for a given pair of F/M and M/K ratios, is expressed by the equation:
F
Lin f (2 + 3 M )
Lc_opt = F M
(7)
(1 + M )(3 + K )

As per Hordyk et al. (2015) and Froese et al. (2018), to simulate the estimation of Lc
and Linf , the M/K value was set to 1.5 [20,21]. Using this equation, we can determine the
Z/K prior (the ratio of the total mortality rate to the somatic growth rate) [15,44]:

Z Lin f − Lmean
= K( ) (8)
K Lmean − Lc

F/K prior equals Z/K-M/K, and the relative fishing mortality F/M = (F/K)/(M/K).
According to Froese et al. (2018) [21], the relative yield per recruit (Y’/R) and catch
per unit effort per recruit (CPUE’/R) specified by Beverton and Holt in 1966 [45] can
be calculated as a function of Lc/Linf, F/K, M/K, and relative fishing mortality (F/M).
Assuming CPUE is proportional to biomass in the exploited population, the derived index
of CPUE’/R indicates the utilized biomass per recruit B’/R. The relative biomass of fish
(>Lc ) when no fishing occurs (F = 0) is expressed as:
    2  3 
!M L L L
B00 > Lc Lc
K 3 1− L c
3 1− L c
1− L c
 in f in f in f 
= 1− 1 −   +   −    (9)
R Lin f  
1 + M1 1 + M2 1 + M3
K K K

when B0 0 is the unfished biomass, the ratio of fished to unfished biomass is:
CPUE0
 
B R
=   (10)
B0 B0 > Lc
R

The relative biomass that can produce proxy MSY ( BMSY

B0 ) for a given fishery can be
F
evaluated by re-running Equations (9) and (10) with M = 1 and Lc = Lc_opt [21].
All the analysis was performed using LBB_33a.R, an R-code algorithm presented by
Froese et al. (2018) [21] (http://www.oceanrep.geomar.de/ accessed on 10 November
2022). The estimated value of B/B MSY classifies the status of stock; overexploited status
is assigned where B/B MSY < 0.8, fully exploited status is where 0.8 ≤ B/B MSY ≤ 1.2, and
non-fully exploited status is where B/B MSY > 1.2 [46].

2.3.2. Length-Based Indicators

Three candid length-based indicators (Pmat , Popt , and Pmega ) were suggested by
Froese (2004) to maintain fishing sustainability and minimize growth and recruitment
overfishing [37].
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12835 7 of 25

Pmat and Popt with 100% as the target display the proportion of fish that are mature
and the ideal size in the catch, and Pmega shows the proportion of mega-spawners in the
catch, defined as fish higher than the length of optimum (Lopt ) plus 10% of Lopt (≥1.1%
Lopt ). The targeted length classes should fall between Lopt and ±10% of Lopt to maintain the
fishery’s sustainability and optimum biological yield. These indicators can, therefore, be
calculated as:
Lmax
Pmat = ∑ Lmat ( PL ) (11)
i.e., the percentage of fish in the catch having a length greater than the length at sexual
maturity (Lm ).
1.1Lopt
Popt = ∑ L0.9Lopt ( PL ) (12)

i.e., the percentage of fish between 0.9 × Lopt and 1.1 × Lopt where log(Lopt ) = 1.053 ×
log(lm) − 0.0565.
Lmax
Pmega = ∑1.1Lopt ( PL ) (13)

i.e., the percentage of fish greater than 110% of the optimum length (≥1.1Lopt ), where PL
indicates the percentage of fish in the catch in the length interval L.

2.3.3. Fisheries Reference Points from Catch Data

These three commercially important shrimp species are usually ready to export from
shrimping vessels, and this is why the prevalence of the under-reporting of shrimp catches
is thought to be low. Headless shrimps of the three studied species are mainly exported,
except for some head-on tiger shrimps. Conversion factors of 0.63 for tiger shrimp, 0.66 for
brown shrimp, and 0.68 for white shrimp were used to convert catch data from headless
weight to total weight [1]. The catch is expressed in metric tons (mt), and effort is calculated
as the sum of all fishing days across all vessels.

The JABBA Model

The JABBA model, which stands for “Just Another Bayesian Biomass Assessment”,
is a Bayesian State-Space Surplus Production Model (SPM) that uses data weighting and
a state space tool to fit and average many CPUE time-series data. This approach makes
the ability to select among the Fox, Schaefer, or Pella–Tomlinson production functions. It
offers choices for assessing or correcting process and observation errors as well as future
projections to determine the proper catch regime needed to improve stock biomass [39].
SPMs are some of the most straightforward and popular models for describing the
capture of excess or surplus biomass from fish stock. In its simplest terms, fish growth and
reproduction increase the size of the stock, and, in contrast, natural and fishing mortality
reduce the size of the stock. Though its applications have often been questioned, the
stock production model has been an accepted fishery management strategy to estimate the
Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) [14,15].
Most crucially, these models do not require size or age information [28,39]. Empirically,
the changes in biomass over time, which are prone to variations in size structure, recruit-
ment, selectivity, environmental circumstances, etc., are often not effectively described by
SPMs [47]. As a result, uncertainties in parameter estimation are typical to observe. How-
ever, Bayesian state-space modelling techniques in SPMs address process errors (biomass
dynamics variability) and observation errors (biomass index variability) to reduce model
parameter uncertainty [39].
The generalized three-parameter SPM proposed by Pella and Tomlinson (1969) is used
to define the surplus production function in this model as follows [47]:
r Bt m−1
SPt = Bt (1 − ( ) ) (14)
( m − 1) K
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12835 8 of 25

where r, K, and B are the intrinsic rate of population growth, carrying capacity, and the
biomass of the stock at time t, and m is the shape parameter that determines the B/K ratio
for maximum surplus production.
The Schaefer form is used when the shape parameter (m) is 2, with surplus production
reaching MSY at K/2 [39]. If 0 < m < 2, surplus production causes MSY at biomass
levels below K/2 and vice versa if m > 2. The Pella–Tomlinson model maximizes excess
production at 0.37 K when m approaches one through Fox models [48]. Therefore, BMSY
can be estimated from the following equation:
B MSY 1
= m(− ) (15)
K m−1
From Equations (14) and (15), BMSY and fishing mortality at MSY (FMSY ) can
be calculated:
1
B MSY = Km(− ) (16)
m−1
r 1
FMSY = (1 − ) (17)
m−1 m
From a fisheries basic equation C = FB, fishing mortality is then expressed as

C
F= (18)
B
where C is the annual catch. Therefore, MSY can be depicted as

MSY = FMSY .B MSY (19)

By combining and rearranging Equations (16)–(18), it is possible to express r in

Equation (14) as:
MSY m − 1
r= . (20)
B MSY 1 − m1
Equations (16) and (20) show the possibility of converting MSY/BMSY and BMSY /K
estimates into r and m [49,50].
Additionally, JABBA permits surplus production and a standard “hockey stick” re-
cruitment function. Barrowman and Myers (2000) [51] introduced the hockey stick model,
which states that recruitment potential is considerably stalled below a specific biomass ratio
level: Plim = Blim /K, with Plim values of 0.2–0.25 commonly used as recruitment overfishing
limits [39]. Including a multiplier into the surplus production function makes it possible to
achieve a linear reduction in the underlying hockey stick between 1 and 0. For values of
B/K < Plim :
  m −1 !
r Bt Bt Bt
SPt = Bt 1 − if < Plim (21)
(m − 1) ( Plim K ) K K

This composite model becomes the Pella–Tomlinson model as Plim approaches zero.

Input Fishery Data

JABBA requires two comma-separated value files (.csv). The “Catch” input file con-
tained the time-series shrimp catch (mt) of industrial trawlers from 1986 to 2021, and the
“Abundance indices” file included the CPUE for those years.

Formulation of Input Parameters

JABBA investigates stock status using catch and abundance indices (CPUE) and the
priors of initial carrying capacity (K), intrinsic rate of population increase (r), and starting
biomass depletion rate (psi). The initial model run assumed that K was ten times the
maximal catch in the time-series data, with a coefficient of variation (CV) of 200% [52]. For
r, the general range based on SealifeBase’s resilience categories [27] was used. Commercial-
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12835 9 of 25

scale shrimp collecting in Bangladesh’s coastal waters began in the 1980s [9]. Therefore,
assuming that the stock’s initial biomass was near its carrying capacity (K) with a CV = 0.25,
the lognormal biomass depletion prior (psi) for the base model was set at 0.9 K. While
the process variance and observation variance priors were implemented by assuming the
inverse gamma distributions specified by Winker et al. (2018), all catchability parameters
were expressed as non-informative homogeneous priors [39].
This study employed the JABBA default option for process variance priors, which
was σ2 ∆ ~1/gamma (4, 0.01). This study had a process error mean of 0.059, 95% confidence
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 27
ranges of 0.03–0.1, and a CV of 28% [53]. State-space SPMs worked best at this process
error level [39]. The observation variance was made up of an observation error that could
be estimated externally (σ in )thewith
Table 1. The number of individuals SE
changes in catchability from year to year [39]. It is usual
monthly sample collections from July 2021 to May 2022.
to add a fixed observation error for abundance indices with externally generated standard
Month
errors to account for additional sampling errors [54]. Total observation errors between 0.1
Species Aug’ Sep’2 Oct’2 Nov’2 Dec’2 Jan’ Feb’2 Mar’2 Apr’2 May’2 Total
and 0.4 were assumed
Jul’21
21 1
for1 abundance
1 1
indices
22
[39].
2 2 2 2
Tiger
3.shrimp
Results100 90 105 180 351 125 129 130 100 113 73 1496
3.1. Length Distribution
Brown
90 90 105 183 183 122 119 155 100 138 80 1365
shrimp
Length frequency composition (Figure 3) for three shrimp species displayed a length
White
range of carapace
98 90 length
105 (CL)219
90 from102
38.0 90
to 120.0
95 mm
67 for64tiger64shrimp,
1084 18.0 to 74.0 mm for
shrimp
brown shrimp, and 28.0 to 75.0 mm for white shrimp.

Figure
Figure3. 3.
The bar bar
The chartchart
illustrates the length–frequency
illustrates distributions of
the length–frequency (A) tiger shrimp,
distributions of(B)
(A)brown
shrimp, (B) brown tiger
shrimp, and (C) white shrimp based on month-wise data collection from July 2021 to May 2022.
shrimp, and (C) white shrimp based on month-wise data collection from July 2021 to May 2022.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12835 10 of 25

The median length of the tiger shrimp was 79.0 mm, the brown shrimp was 46.0 mm,
and the white shrimp was 51.5 mm (Table 1).

Table 1. The number of individuals in the monthly sample collections from July 2021 to May 2022.

Month
Species Total
Jul’21 Aug’21 Sep’21 Oct’21 Nov’21 Dec’21 Jan’ 22 Feb’22 Mar’22 Apr’22 May’22
Tiger
100 90 105 180 351 125 129 130 100 113 73 1496
shrimp
Brown
90 90 105 183 183 122 119 155 100 138 80 1365
shrimp
White
98 90 105 90 219 102 90 95 67 64 64 1084
shrimp

3.2. Shrimp’s Stock Analysis Based on LBB Outputs

Results of LBB estimation (Table 2) using length–frequency (LF) data of 3945 individu-
als for three commercially important shrimp species from Bangladesh marine waters were
given below.

Table 2. Summary of LBB estimates for three commercial shrimp stocks.

Parameter Tiger Shrimp Brown Shrimp White Shrimp

Lmax (mm) 120.0 74.0 75.0
Lmean (mm) 90.8 45.2 57.1
Lin f (mm) 113.0 (111.0–116.0) 85.4 (84.0–87.0) 76.4 (74.0–78.6)
Lc50 (mm) 72.6 (71.2–74.0) 33.3 (32.5–34.0) 51.0 (50.3–51.6)
Lc /Lc_opt 0.85 0.73 1.2
Lmean /Lopt 0.9 0.84 1.2
Lc /Lin f 0.64 (0.63–0.65) 0.39 (0.38–0.40) 0.66 (0.65–0.67)
L95th /Lin f 0.92 0.87 0.92
M/k 0.61 (0.35–0.83) 1.68 (1.4–1.97) 1.59 (1.35–1.86)
F/M 2.6 (1.5–5.1) 0.99 (0.7–1.4) 1.31 (0.74–1.94)
Z/K 2.1 (1.8–2.6) 3.3 (3.1–3.6) 3.7 (2.9–4.4)
B/B0 0.18 (0.06–0.37) 0.3 (0.18–0.45) 0.35 (0.14–0.56)
B/B MSY 0.43 (0.14–0.87) 0.84 (0.5–1.2) 0.96 (0.39–1.6)
alpha 1.28 (1.24–1.32) 2.0 (1.92–2.09) 2.89 (2.79–2.99)
Fully exploited but not Fully exploited but not
Status Grossly overexploited
overfished overfished

3.2.1. Tiger Shrimp

Tiger shrimp is widely distributed around Bangladesh’s coastal and marine waters.
This species was observed to reach the maximum carapace length or head length of
120.0 mm. The estimate of B/B0 = 0.18 indicates that the present condition of biomass
is deficient, i.e., the stock has declined by 82% from its original level (Figure 4A), whereas
the estimate of F/M = 2.6 denotes that tiger shrimp is largely overfished. The ratio of
Lmean /Lopt (=0.9) and Lc /Lc_opt (=0.85) are below unity, indicating fishing of small individ-
uals that leads to the chance of growth overfishing. The ratio of B and B MSY (B/B MSY ) was
0.43, which indicates that the stock is grossly overexploited.
 Tiger shrimp is widely distributed around Bangladesh’s coastal and marine waters.
This species was observed to reach the maximum carapace length or head length of 120.0
mm. The estimate of B/B0 = 0.18 indicates that the present condition of biomass is deficient,
i.e., the stock has declined by 82% from its original level (Figure 4A), whereas the estimate
of F/M = 2.6 denotes that tiger shrimp is largely overfished. The ratio of 𝐿 ⁄𝐿 (=0.9)
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12835 and 𝐿 ⁄𝐿 _ (=0.85) are below unity, indicating fishing of small individuals that leads 11 of 25
to the chance of growth overfishing. The ratio of B and 𝐵 (𝐵⁄𝐵 ) was 0.43, which
indicates that the stock is grossly overexploited.

Figure 4. LBB plots for (A) tiger shrimp, (B) brown shrimp, and (C) white shrimp from the Bay of
Bengal, Bangladesh. The left curves show the fits of the model to the length data, and the right curves
are the predictions of the LBB analysis, where Lc is the length of 50% individuals captured by the gear,
Linf is the asymptotic length, and Lopt is the length where the maximum biomass of the unexploited
stock is obtained.

3.2.2. Brown Shrimp

The major shrimp catch in the shrimping vessel was brown shrimp. This species
reached a maximum carapace length of 74.0 mm. The estimated parameters F/M (=0.99)
and B/B0 (=0.47) indicated that the stock was in good condition (Figure 4B). In addition,
the ratio of B and B MSY (B/B MSY ) was 0.84, which denoted that the stock was in the fully
exploited condition but not overfished, indicating the stock was sustainable.

3.2.3. White Shrimp

White shrimp is widespread around the Indo-pacific subcontinent. It reaches a maxi-
mum length of 75.0 mm. In this study, the F/M (=1.3) indicates that the fishery is under
increasing fishing pressure. The ratio B/B0 (=0.35) is very low, projecting that its standing
biomass has declined significantly. The ratio parameters Lmean /Lopt (=1.2) and Lc /Lc_opt
(=1.2) are above unity, which suggests that the size of white shrimp is still in a good
condition. Although, the stock is in a fully exploited (B/B MSY = 0.96) condition (Figure 4C).

3.3. Results from Length-Based Indicators

According to the catch composition analysis, only 25.13 percent, 30.69 percent, and
20.02 percent of the shrimp were of an optimum size (Popt ) for tiger, brown, and white
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12835 12 of 25

shrimp, respectively, whereas 86.09%, 35.53%, and 92.06% of the shrimp were of mature
size (Pmat ) for those species. The proportions of older and larger shrimp, known as mega-
spawners (Pmega), were 63.03% for tiger shrimp, 13.19% for brown shrimp, and 73.89% for
white shrimp (Table 3). Maximizing marine shrimp fisheries’ production requires targeting
the length classes (Lopt ± 10% of Lopt ) between 57.0–70.0 mm for tiger shrimp, 44.0–53.0 mm
for brown shrimp, and 40.0–48.0 mm for white shrimp (Figure 5).

Table 3. The results of LBI (length-based indicators) are based on the indicators and a decision tree
proposed by Froese (2004) and Cope and Punt (2009) [37,38], respectively.

Stock Probability of
Species Lm (mm) Lopt (mm) Pmat Popt Pmega Pobj
Condition Being SB < RP
44% for TRP
Tiger shrimp 113.0 63.43 86.09 25.13 63.03 1.74 SB < RP
22% for LRP
0% for TRP
Brown shrimp 85.4 48.67 35.53 30.69 13.19 0.79 SB ≥ RP
0% for LRP
44% for TRP
White shrimp 76.4 43.8 92.06 20.02 73.89 1.86 SB < RP
22% for LRP
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 27
Note: SB is the spawning biomass, RP is the reference point, TRP is the target reference point, and LRP is the limit
reference point.

Figure
Figure5. 5.
Length frequency
Length frequency distributions of theoftiger
distributions the shrimp (A), brown
tiger shrimp shrimp shrimp
(A), brown (B), and (B),
white
and white shrimp
shrimp (C) show the L∞, Lopt, and (0.9 Lopt − 1.1Lopt) for the grey area.
(C) show the L∞ , Lopt , and (0.9 Lopt − 1.1Lopt ) for the grey area.
3.4. Shrimp’s Stock Analysis Based on JABBA Outputs
The model converged and fitted the biomass index quite well, capturing the main
temporal trends in the observed data of three shrimp stocks (Figure 6—model fit); there-
fore, the assessment of JABBA is considered the most credible in the assessment of the
shrimp fisheries of Bangladesh. Even though there were noticeable variations in the fitness
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12835 13 of 25

Based on Cope and Punt’s (2009) decision tree [38], there is no (0%) probability that the
true spawning biomass (SB) could be below both TRP and LRP for brown shrimp among
the three studied shrimp species, which indicated a healthy spawning stock biomass of
brown shrimp in the marine waters of Bangladesh.

3.4. Shrimp’s Stock Analysis Based on JABBA Outputs

The model converged and fitted the biomass index quite well, capturing the main
temporal trends in the observed data of three shrimp stocks (Figure 6—model fit); therefore,
the assessment of JABBA is considered the most credible in the assessment of the shrimp
fisheries of Bangladesh. Even though there were noticeable variations in the fitness
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of of
27
abundance indices (log index in Figure 6), they were within the 95% confidence interval
(CI).

Figure 6.6. Observed

Figure Observed and
and expected
expected index
index fit
fit to
to the
the CPUE
CPUE (left)
(left) and
and residuals
residuals (right)
(right) used
used for
fortuning
tuning
the JABBA model for three major shrimp species. The solid lines in the figures are
the JABBA model for three major shrimp species. The solid lines in the figures are the model’s the model’s pre-
dicted values, and the circles are observed data values. Shading areas represent the estimated 95%
predicted values, and the circles are observed data values. Shading areas represent the estimated 95%
confidence intervals around the predicted values.
confidence intervals around the predicted values.

Overall, observed
Overall, observed and
and predicted
predicted CPUE
CPUE trends
trends showed
showed consistency
consistency in
in production
production
models. There is no indication of prior misspecification in Figure 7, which shows
models. There is no indication of prior misspecification in Figure 7, which shows the pos-
the
posteriors and predicted prior distribution for the four important model parameters r,
teriors and predicted prior distribution for the four important model parameters (K, (K,psi,
r,
andand
psi, q). q).
Point estimates of model parameters and key quantities are shown in Table 4 and
Figure 8, along with the 95% confidence intervals. The r and K parameters are estimated
as 0.24 year−1 and 6232.89 mt for tiger shrimp, 0.66 year−1 and 31,770.30 mt for brown
shrimp, and 0.15 year−1 and 5298.48 mt for white shrimp. The catchability coefficient (q) is
almost close among the three species. The estimated MSY values are 388.84 mt, 4899.24 mt,
and 208.68 mt for the tiger, brown, and white shrimp, respectively. The B2021 /BMSY values
(1.64) for brown shrimp are above the target reference points of 1.0, but those of the tiger
and white shrimp show as 19% (0.81) and 48% (0.52) lower than the targeted. The reference
point of harvest rate for brown shrimp is higher (0.33) than tiger shrimp (0.12) and white
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12835 14 of 25

shrimp (0.08). Accordingly, the estimated F2021 /FMSY values (0.92, 0.19, and 0.87 for tiger,
brown, and white shrimp, respectively) are smaller than 1.0, indicating a much lower
fishing mortality for brown shrimp than absorbance. Both of these reference points show
that the brown shrimp biomass is currently above more than 150% of the target reference
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 27
point (B/BMSY = 1), and the fishing mortality is presently 80% lower than the target reference
point (F/FMSY = 1).

Figure7.
Figure Priorand
7. Prior andposterior
posteriordistributions
distributionsofoffour
fourkey
keymodel
modelparameters (K,r,r,psi,
parameters(K, psi,and q)for
andq) forthree
three
major shrimp species. Posteriors distributions are plotted using generic kernel densities.
major shrimp species. Posteriors distributions are plotted using generic kernel densities.

4. Point
TablePoint estimates
estimates and 95%
of model confidenceand
parameters intervals (CI) of estimated
key quantities parameters
are shown using
in Table the
4 and
JABBA model.
Figure 8, along with the 95% confidence intervals. The r and K parameters are estimated
as 0.24 year−1 and 6232.89 mt for tiger shrimp, 0.66 year−1 and 31,770.30 mt for brown
Parameters Tiger Shrimp Brown Shrimp White Shrimp
shrimp, and 0.15 year−1 and 5298.48 mt for white shrimp. The catchability coefficient (q) is
almost Kclose 6232.89 The estimated 31,770.30 5298.48
(yearamong
−1 ) the three species. MSY values are 388.84 mt, 4899.24
(4003.64–12,361.32) (15,214.16–90,873.27) (2816.63–9344.75)
mt, and 208.68 mt for the tiger, brown, and white shrimp, respectively. The B2021/BMSY val-
−1 )
r (year
ues (1.64) for brown shrimp0.24are(0.12–0.41)
above the target 0.66 (0.27–1.93)
reference points of 1.0,0.15
but(0.07–0.37)
those of the
tiger and white shrimp show 0.000024 as 19% (0.81) and 48%0.000018
(0.52) lower than the0.000017
targeted. The
q
reference point of harvest(0.000011–0.000040)
rate for brown shrimp (0.000005–0.000042)
is higher (0.33) than(0.000007–0.000043)
tiger shrimp (0.12)
and white shrimp (0.08). Accordingly, 388.84 the estimated F
4899.24
2021 /F MSY values (0.92, 0.19,
208.68and 0.87
MSY (mt)
for tiger, brown, and white(275.87–552.85)
shrimp, respectively) are smaller than 1.0, indicating
(2791.25–23,536.08) a much
(128.20–301.46)
lower fishing mortality for brown shrimp
3116.45 than absorbance.
15,885.15 Both of these reference
2649.24 points
BMSYthe
show that (mt)
brown shrimp biomass is currently above more than 150% of the target
(2001.82–6180.66) (7607.08–45,436.64) (1408.31–4672.38)
reference point (B/B
FMSY (year−1 ) MSY = 1), and the fishing
0.12 (0.06–0.20) mortality is presently
0.33 (0.14–0.97) 80% lower than the tar-
0.08 (0.03–0.18)
get reference point (F/FMSY = 1).
B/B0 0.89 (0.74–1.07) 0.91 (0.76–1.09) 0.88 (0.73–1.08)
Table 2.B2021 /BMSY of LBB estimates
Summary 0.81 (0.57–1.14) 1.64
for three commercial (1.09–2.01)
shrimp stocks. 0.52 (0.27–1.03)
F2021 /FMSY
Parameter Tiger0.92 (0.53–1.39)
Shrimp Brown 0.19 (0.04–0.49)
Shrimp White 0.87 (0.37–1.79)
Shrimp
𝐿 (mm) 120.0 74.0 75.0
𝐿 (mm) 90.8 45.2 57.1
𝐿 (mm) 113.0 (111.0–116.0) 85.4 (84.0–87.0) 76.4 (74.0–78.6)
𝐿 (mm) 72.6 (71.2–74.0) 33.3 (32.5–34.0) 51.0 (50.3–51.6)
𝐿 ⁄𝐿 _ 0.85 0.73 1.2
𝐿 ⁄𝐿 0.9 0.84 1.2
𝐿 ⁄𝐿 0.64 (0.63–0.65) 0.39 (0.38–0.40) 0.66 (0.65–0.67)
𝐿 ⁄𝐿 0.92 0.87 0.92
 44% for
White shrimp 76.4 43.8 92.06 20.02 73.89 1.86 SB < RP
22% for
Note: SB is the spawning biomass, RP is the reference point, TRP is the target reference poi
LRP is2023,
Sustainability the
15, limit
12835 reference point. 15 of 25

Figure 8. Estimated biomass trajectories from the model fitted to the entire time series of 1986–2021
for the three studied shrimp species. Grey-shaded areas denote 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 8. Estimated biomass trajectories from the model fitted to the entire time series of 198
for the three studied shrimp species.
The Kobe Grey-shaded
plots (Figure 9) illustrate areas denote 95%
the simultaneous confidence
development of the intervals.
B/BMSY
and F/FMSY for the tiger and white shrimps, except for the brown shrimp. The plot for
tiger shrimp shows a gradual stock depletion from 1986, moving from a healthy stock
The Kobe plotswith(Figure
sustainable9) illustrate
fishing the
pressure to simultaneous
a stock already depleteddevelopment
by over-fishing before of2010.
the B/BM
Then, the stock slowly recovers with lower fishing pressure than FMSY . In 2021, the stock
F/FMSY for the tiger and white shrimps, except for the brown shrimp. The plot fo
remained in the yellow zone with more than 50% probability, where reduced fishing
shrimp shows a gradual
pressure wasstockgraduallydepletion fromto produce
being approached 1986, maximum
movingsustainable
from ayield healthy
(MSY). stock
The plot for brown shrimp showed a terrific scenario, where the stock from 1986 to 2021
sustainable fishingalways
pressure to a stock already depleted by over-fishing before 2010.
remained above BMSY , having 100% probability in a healthy zone (green) of the
the stock slowly recovers
Kobe plot, with with lowerfishing
a sustainable fishing pressure
pressure than FMSY
that was immensely . In
lower than2021,
the FMSYthe
. sto
The plot of white shrimp showed the gradual stock reduction from 1986 and moved from a
mained in the yellow zone with more than 50% probability, where reduced fishing
healthy stock employing high fishing pressure to a stock that already been depleted by over-
sure was gradually being
fishing untilapproached
2016. In 2021, theto produce
stock moved in the maximum
recovery zone sustainable yield (MSY
with a 62% probability
where stock biomass and fishing pressure are below reference points. On the other hand,
plot for brown shrimp
the surplusshowed
productionaphases
terrific scenario,
(Figure where
10) for the three the
shrimp stock
stocks from
indicate 1986 to 20
that surplus
ways remained above BMSYis, remarkably
production having 100% probability
larger than the catches ofin a entire
the healthy
studyzone
period (green)
for brown of the
shrimp. Surplus production is not significantly more significant than the catches from 2011
plot, with a sustainable
to the end fishing pressure
of the study thattiger
year for both wasandimmensely lower than
white shrimps. Although, the
catches FMSY. Th
of the
of white shrimp showed
first half ofthe gradual
the entire stock
study years werereduction
always above from
surplus 1986 andformoved
production both tiger from
and ah
white shrimps. Therefore, the biomass for three shrimp stocks had a high probability of
increasing if the current level of fishing pressure was maintained.
Sustainability
Sustainability2023,
2023,15,
15,x12835
FOR PEER REVIEW 18 16
ofof2725

Kobephase
Figure9.9.Kobe
Figure phaseplot
plotshowing
showing the
the estimated
estimated trajectories
trajectories (1986–2021) of B/B
(1986–2021) of B/BMSY and F/FMSYfor
MSY and F/FMSY
for
tiger shrimp (A), brown shrimp (B), and white shrimp (C). Different grey-shaded areas
tiger shrimp (A), brown shrimp (B), and white shrimp (C). Different grey-shaded areas denote the denote the
terminalassessment
terminal assessmentyear’s
year’s50%,
50%,80%,
80%,and
and95%
95%confidence
confidenceintervals.
intervals.The
Theprobability
probabilityofofterminal
terminalyear
year
points falling within each quadrant is indicated in the figure’s legend.
points falling within each quadrant is indicated in the figure’s legend.
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 27
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12835 17 of 25

Figure 10. JABBA SP-phase plot showing estimated surplus production curves and catch/biomass
Figure 10. JABBA SP-phase plot showing estimated surplus production curves and catch/biomass
trajectories(1986–2021)
trajectories (1986–2021)asasa afunction
functionofofbiomass
biomassfor
forthree
threemajor
majorshrimp
shrimpspecies. MSYestimates
species.MSY estimatesare
are
illustratedwith
illustrated with95%
95%CIs
CIs(grey-shaded
(grey-shadedarea).
area).

4. Discussion
4. Discussion
4.1. Stock Condition Analysis Based on LBB Approaches
4.1. Stock Condition Analysis Based on LBB Approaches
Assumptions of the LBB approach, such as recruitment, growth, and mortality, should
Assumptions
be considered. of using
Thus, the LBBthisapproach, such not
method should as recruitment, growth,
be recommended andassumptions
if these mortality,
should be considered.
are violated. Thus,
The result using
of this this will
method method should notif be
be questioned LFrecommended if these as-
data are not representative.
sumptions
For reliableareLF
violated. The
data, the result
LBB of this
method method
can will
provide be questionedrobust
comparatively if LF data
advice aretonot
the
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12835 18 of 25

data-limited stocks [21]. In this study, the length–frequency data collections randomly
covered different sizes from the catch of trawl nets throughout the year from different areas
so that fish species of almost all sizes and different water areas were sampled.
LBB is a new assessment tool to assess length-based data for data-limited fishery.
The Bayesian Monte Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) approach is used in LBB to estimate
all parameters. Herein, for MCMC, as the output of the Bayesian statistics, the main
advantage is that the posterior inference is straightforward, which can give direct informa-
tion about the parameter asked for [55,56] and calculate credible probability distributions
simultaneously for multiple parameters, with model prediction as well [57]. L∞ , F/M,
Z/K, F/k, B/B0 , B/B MSY , and Lc50 are some key parameters that were estimated with
95% confidence intervals, and these results could provide decisive information on the
stock of interest. The calculated asymptotic length L∞ (CL) for tiger and brown shrimps
were estimated in the present study, which were higher than the estimates of a previous
study by Mustafa et al. 2006 [18], where they mentioned total length (TL) of shrimp species
separated by sex. In our study, we arbitrarily found conversion values from TL to CL
as 3.1, 3.1, and 3.4 for tiger, brown, and white shrimps, respectively. But, white shrimp
(Fenneropenaeus indicus) was not included in their study. Based on the stock status given
by Palomares et al. (2018), the leading results of the LBB for industrial shrimp fisheries
in Bangladesh marine waters show very interesting information, including tiger shrimp
being grossly overfished, both brown shrimp and white shrimp being fully exploited but
not overfished, and suggesting fairly good stock [58]. Tiger shrimp is a desired item in
the export market [8], but the stock is now heavily overfished. These results are generally
consistent with some previous studies on major industrial shrimp stocks [1,7,8,10], which
found that the biomass of tiger shrimp population is suffering from depletion, as are other
main commercial fish species, which corresponded to the lowered CPUE trend in finfish in
the historical catch along Bangladesh marine waters [59].
Overfishing is a leading anthropogenic issue in marine ecosystems and has reduced
biodiversity and impaired ecosystem function [60]. A study by the Food and Agricultural
Organization (FAO) of the United Nations suggested that 31.4% of global fish stock is
overfished, and 58.1% is fully exploited [61]. Although, this statistic came from only 20%
of global catches, where less than 1% of all species have been assessed [62]. Therefore,
the practical situation of worldwide stock status is likely to be even worse. The result
of Lc /Lc_opt was less than one for tiger shrimp but not for white and brown shrimps.
This result suggests the tiger shrimp stock suffers from growth overfishing [63]. Growth
overfishing occurs when fish are caught before they reach their optimum size, along with
plummeting fishery performances [64].

4.2. Stock Condition Analysis Based on Length-Based Indicators

We have analyzed the catch composition to determine the proportion of mature fish
(Pmat ), optimally sized fish (Popt ), and mega-spawners (Pmega ) using the sustainability
indicators proposed by Froese (2004) [37], who suggested to advise stock assessment
indicators in a form that the general public could understand to tackle deliberate overfishing
and to encourage the responsible use of aquatic resources. Length–frequency data make
these predictions easy. To minimize growth overfishing, the catch should contain as many
mature fish (Pmat ) as possible and be within 10% of optimum length (Lopt ) [37]. The findings
of this study depict good sizes of mature individuals of tiger and white shrimps, which
made up the bulk of the catch (86% and 92% of Pmat , with 63% and 74% of Pmega for tiger
shrimp and white shrimp, respectively). However, it showed comparatively smaller sized
brown shrimp that made up the bulk of the catch (Pmat = 35%, and Pmega = 13%). All
three shrimp species had a considerably low percentage of optimum-sized individuals.
While this is evidence that the stock of brown shrimp is suffering from growth overfishing,
the stock of both tiger and white shrimp indicate overfishing in terms of recruitment,
and the smaller genre of brown shrimp is supposed to be prone to maintain itself in a
smaller-sized cluster.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12835 19 of 25

The calculated value of Pmega in this study was estimated to be higher for both tiger
and white shrimp, indicating continually removing the larger sizes of such species from the
stock. Froese (2004) advised not catching more than 30–40% of mega-spawners [37], as the
mega-spawners can intensify the recruiting success and play vital roles in the proliferation
of stock biomass. Hence, the low reproductive potentials of tiger and white shrimp stocks
are consistent with these higher removals of the larger individuals of such species for
export and breeding purposes. The Cope and Punt decision tree based on Froese indicators
estimates that both tiger and white shrimp spawning stock biomasses are below the target
reference point (TRP) and limit reference point (LRP) [38]. However, the spawning stock
biomass for brown shrimp is substantially higher than both the TRP and LRP. From the
empirical trawl catch composition and the observation of historical catch quantity, the
first author, solely responsible for looking after marine catches for more than a decade
as a mid-level officer of the Marine Fisheries Office under the Department of Fisheries,
Bangladesh, has observed a considerable haul of brown shrimp under the existing selective
pattern of gears.
Given these observations, a medium-length limit for catches larger than the length at
initial sexual maturity for all three species is reasonable to advise since the fishery will be
sustained at any removal rate if juvenile shrimps are allowed to grow and reproduce at
least once [37]. Therefore, the recommendations on medium-length limits and associated
mesh size regulations will be reasonable management measures for the decisive authority.

4.3. Stock Condition Analysis Based on JABBA Model

This study used catch–effort data and an open source Bayesian State-Space Surplus
Production Model, JABBA, to assess shrimp stock biomass and its response to the current
degree of fishing efforts [39]. Maximum yearly catch limits, such as MSY and TAC, are
effective instruments for managing an exploited fish stock. Combining them with length-
based management indicators ensures a fishery’s sustainable stock biomass. Therefore,
this study coupled length-based indicators with the JABBA model to produce catch-based
reference points for developing comprehensive management recommendations for the
shrimp fisheries of Bangladesh. By utilizing the entire history of catch and effort records,
going back to the start of the fishery’s history will provide the most accurate assessment of
the stock status. Industrial shrimp trawling beyond 40 m began in 1981 with eight shrimp
trawlers, but it gained momentum in 1986 when the number of shrimp trawlers expanded
to 36 [35]. Offshore fish trawling in Bangladesh was first conducted in 1972 [3]. As a result,
it was considered that the historical catch data from 1986 represented almost the whole
history of capture for these fisheries.
In many cases, CPUE is standardized when raw fishing efforts are associated with
some factors, including fleet efficiency, species targeting, the environment, and population
or fishing fleet dynamics [65–67]. Tiger, brown, and white shrimps are the main targeting
species of shrimping vessels (MFO annual catch logs). It is a fact that these three com-
mercially important shrimp species are usually ready to export from shrimping vessels,
and this is why the prevalence of the under-reporting of shrimp catches is assumed to be
low [1]. The authorities restricted shrimp trawling in 2003 by not replacing ageing shrimp
trawlers with new vessels [68]. This led to a decrease in fishing pressure in the subsequent
years [1], and the variations among shrimping vessels were not considerably observed
due to the same shapes and trawling speeds, almost all being of an old age, and the same
hauling strategies of the shrimping vessels (personal interviews with skippers during data
collections). In addition, shrimping vessels can fish beyond the 40 m depth contour [31,32]
in the marine waters of the Bay of Bengal, Bangladesh, where no significant environmental
variations are observed. Hence, this study did not standardize the fishing efforts before
fitting the CPUE in the JABBA model to consider the minimal effects of such factors on
fishing efforts.
Using the Schaefer surplus production function, the JABBA model estimated total
reference points for assessing shrimp stocks with a reasonable degree of fitness. Due to
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12835 20 of 25

their high resilience, shrimp can double their population quickly [69]. The prior stock’s
biomass at the inception of the study was considered to be 90% of initial biomass (assuming
K = initial biomass). The output of the JABBA model in Table 4 showed that the estimated
biomass in 2021 is 2524 mt, which is lower than the BMSY of 3116 mt for tiger shrimp. The
average annual catch from 1986 to 2021 is 417 mt, which is higher than the estimated MSY
of 389 mt. For brown shrimp, the calculated biomass in 2021 is 26,051 mt, which is nearly
double of BMSY (15,885 mt). The average annual catch from 1986 to 2021 is 2763 mt, which
is about half of the estimated MSY of 4899 mt. For white shrimp, the estimated biomass
in 2021 is 1377 mt, which is lower than the BMSY of 2649 mt. The average annual catch
from 1986 to 2021 is 261 mt, which is higher than the calculated MSY of 209 mt. Fishing
mortality for all three major shrimp species has decreased reasonably in the last decade,
and the stock biomass of these three species is approaching the safe zone (Figure 6) because
of an official decision upon shrimp trawling by not replacing old shrimp trawlers with new
ones [68]. As a result, at the end of the study year, the stock’s biomass was within surplus
production (Figure 7) for all three shrimp species, which indicated that the stock biomass
will not be depleted further and will be capable to produce MSY if the current removal rate
continues [39].
Despite the high demand and economic potential, the shrimp fishery has not been
valued as such, particularly in management and research. Though there are a few studies
available in national and international journals for tiger and brown shrimps [1,7,8,10,16,17],
no study has been found yet that solely focuses on the assessment of white shrimp. There-
fore, this would be the first study on assessing white shrimp stock also.
Table 5 showed that the present and previous study’s results vary in all parameters.
Particularly for tiger shrimp, a significant variation is observed in K and r. The estimated
K values by Barua et al. (2020) [8] and Alam et al. (2022) [7] were much lower than the
present study. However, the 95% confidence intervals of their estimates of K overlapped
with the range of this study’s estimates. The estimation of r by Barua et al. (2020) was much
higher than in the present study [8]. But, other reference points related to biomass, such
as MSY, BMSY , and FMSY of the present study, were around the results of previous studies.
The estimated mean biomass for the reference year of 2021 was significantly higher than
those of previous studies.
For brown shrimp, the estimates of K and r in the present study were within the results
of previous studies [7,10]. The estimated MSY and mean biomass in the reference year of the
present research were much higher than those of Barua (2021) and Alam et al. (2022) [7,10].
The estimated BMSY in the present study was near to the result of Alam et al. (2022) [7],
which was far higher from Barua (2021) [10]; the calculated value of FMSY in the present
study was between the result of Barua (2021) and Alam et al. (2022) [7,10]. One of the main
reasons for such variations in estimated parameters using the same stock is the application
of different models to assess the stock. A significant disparity has been observed in different
parameter estimates of brown shrimp, especially in the MSY and the high mean biomass of
the reference year (Bcurrent ). The high resilience of the brown shrimp species (population
doubling time < 15 months) [69] and female spawns once every two months [70] made the
vast availability of brown shrimp in the marine waters of the Bay of Bengal, Bangladesh.
If we consider the empirical situation that prevailed in the present fishing fleet, then we
have observed a lot of brown shrimp catches by other demersal finfish trawlers that are
actually listed as shrimp catches not truly specified under brown shrimp catches in the catch
log (personal observation). Therefore, the increased estimation of brown shrimp biomass
elucidated by the present study is justified based on the current stock scenario. Moreover,
no inclusions of shrimp trawlers in the present fishing fleet and an annual fishing ban for
87 days significantly contribute to this augmentation of brown shrimp in present years.
For white shrimp, the catch was above the MSY (209 mt) in the initial years of study.
Though the catch showed fluctuations from 1990 to 2005, the catch trend has declined
since 2005. The real catch was sharp, below the MSY reference point in the years from
2005 to 2021 (Figure 6). There were no changes in stock size throughout the study’s years,
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12835 21 of 25

but it always remained in a declining state. The low-performing nature of F. indicus stock
was because of the engagement of more effort than absorbance during the inception of
the trawling industry; hence, there was supposed to be no space for rebuilding the stock.
The poor performance of this white shrimp stock from 2005 to 2021 (Figure 9) may have
resulted from the biology of this species, such as its low fecundity, less survival rate of
PL (Post Larva), less spawning frequency, poor habitat interaction, poor prey–predator
relationship, etc. In addition, indiscriminate killing of the PL of other shrimp species during
the collection of the PL of tiger shrimp by subsistence coastal fishers for year after year has
consequently driven the stock of white shrimp to a diminishing rate because the post-larvae
of this species coexist with the post-larvae of tiger shrimp in a great abundance along the
coastal peripheries [71].

Table 5. The means of the estimated reference points for three major shrimp species between previous
and the present study with 95% confidence intervals.

Species FMSY Model

Name K (mt) r (Year−1 ) MSY (mt) BMSY (mt) *BCurrent (mt) (year−1 ) Used Reference

4720 0.45 527 2360 1250 0.22 CMSY

(3350–6650) (0.32–0.62 (388–717) (1670–3320) (885–1550) (0.16–0.31) [8]
monodon
Penaeus

5015 - 203 2062 1429 0.13 DB-SRA

(3635–5808) (166–250) (1451–2694) (626–2458) (0.08–0.23) [7]

6233 0.24 389 3116 2524 0.12 JABBA Present

(4004–12,361) (0.12–0.41) (276–553) (2002–6181) (0.06–0.20) study
10,000 1.22 3090 5060 5960 0.61 CMSY [10]
Metapenaeus

(8380–12,200) (1.03–1.45) (2920–3260) (4990–6110) (4760–6830) (0.51–0.73)

monoceros

35,871 - 1408 15,140 9470 0.12 DB-SRA

(26,192–40,750) (1155–1715) (10,795–19,320) (4200–17,097) (0.07–0.20) [7]

31,770 0.66 4899 15,885 26,051 0.33 JABBA Present

(15,214–90,873) (0.27–1.93) (2791–23,536) (7607–45,437) (0.14–0.97) study
Fenneropenaeus
indicus

5298 0.15 209 2649 1377 0.08 JABBA Present

(2817–9345) (0.07–0.37) (128–301) (1408–4672) (0.03–0.18) study

* BCurrent stands for biomass in the reference year of 2022.

5. Conclusions
Multi-methodological approaches provide a path forward for the better assessment
of data-limited fisheries and a means to obtain a greater understanding of stock status
when cautiously articulated, estimating all parameters than may be obtained from a single-
assessment approach in isolation. Given the substantial economic importance and demand
for shrimp fisheries both domestically and abroad, this study used a suite of different
methods, including two length-based and catch-based methods, to robustly evaluate growth
parameters, current stock statuses, and optimum length limits for capture. Although there
is only a length-based study for assessing tiger and brown shrimps in the marine waters of
Bangladesh, it is not wise to convert length into imaginary ages through length-converted
catch curves for penaeid shrimps, where more than a cohort is observed, i.e., growth
is seasonal. Hence, comparisons have been drawn with previous studies that assessed
using catch-based approaches. In this study, both length-based and catch-based methods
displayed the actual situations of the stock, e.g., the stock of brown shrimp is in a better
state than those of tiger and white shrimps, except for some fluctuations in a few estimates.
Hence, it is possible to draw the following conclusion from these results:
i. The von Bertalanffy Growth Function (VBGF) parameters for tiger, brown, and
white shrimps were L∞ = 113.0 mm, 85.4 mm, and 76.4 mm, respectively, for
carapace length;
ii. The relative biomass level (B/BMSY ) of the tiger shrimp was 0.43, suggesting an
overfishing status, and the values of the brown and white shrimps were 0.84 and
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12835 22 of 25

0.96, respectively, indicating that they were fully exploited but not overfished.
The estimates of Lc /Lc_opt were less than the unity for tiger and brown shrimps,
suggesting that the stocks were suffering from growth overfishing;
iii. This study recommended an optimum length limit to catch from 57.0–70.0 mm for
tiger shrimp, 44.0–53.0 mm for brown shrimp, and 40.0–48.0 mm for white shrimp;
iv. The estimated maximum sustainable yield (MSY) reference points were optimal:
biomass BMSY = 3116 mt, 15,885 mt, and 2649 mt for tiger, brown and white shrimp,
respectively, and optimal harvest rate uMSY = 12%, 33%, and 8% for tiger, brown
and white shrimp, respectively. The average annual catch for the last ten years was
below the estimated MSY values of 389 mt, 4899 mt, and 209 mt for tiger, brown,
and white shrimp, respectively;
v. Brown shrimp were calculated using the JABBA model to have the highest car-
rying capacity (31,770 mt) and intrinsic growth rate (66%) compared to tiger and
white shrimp. The ratio of fishing mortality for brown shrimp was the lowest
(F/FMSY = 0.19) among the three shrimp species. Similarly, the proportion of fish-
ing and natural mortality calculated using the LBB model showed the lowest and
prudent estimate for brown shrimp (F/M = 0.99) compared to the tiger (=2.6) and
white shrimps (=1.31). Therefore, the stock of brown shrimp was concluded to be in
a better state than those of the tiger and white shrimps.

Author Contributions: S.B.: conceptualization, data collection, methodology, software, data analysis,
visualization, writing—original manuscript, and review and editing; Q.L.: conceptualization, super-
vision, and review and editing; M.S.A.: visualization, review and editing. P.S.: funding, review and
editing; S.K.C.: data collection, review and editing; and M.M.H.M.: review and editing. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work is supported by the special research fund of Ocean University of China
(201562030).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The datasets generated during this study are available from the corre-
sponding author upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgments: The first author would like to express his gratitude to the Chinese Scholarship
Council (CSC) and the SOA (State Oceanic Administration) for the sponsorship of his doctoral
degree course. The first author is also grateful to the College of Fisheries, Ocean University of
China, and Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock, for their kind approval
to admit and continue his doctoral study. The authors extend thanks to the owners, management,
skippers, officers, and crews of the vessels of Shimizu Specialized Fishing Ltd., C & Agro Fishing
Ltd. ,and Sea Resources Ltd., especially Sk. Saiful Islam (Senior Skipper), Md. Hasibul Islam Shamim
(E.D.), and Suman Sen (E.D.) for their immense cooperation in the collection of data during the
study period. The authors also extend thanks to the Marine Fisheries Office, Department of Fisheries,
Chattogram, for the collection and verification of catch data. The authors thank the editors and the
five anonymous reviewers for their useful comments, which have helped to improve the final version
of the manuscript. Last but not least, thanks to proofreading editor for giving final touch to improve
the accepted article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Barua, S.; Magnusson, A.; Humayun, N.M. Assessment of offshore shrimp stocks of Bangladesh based on commercial shrimp
trawl logbook data. Indian J. Fish. 2018, 65, 1–6. [CrossRef]
2. DoF. National Fish Week 2022 Compendium (in Bangla); Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock: Dhaka,
Bangladesh, 2022; 170p. Available online: www.fisheries.gov.bd (accessed on 20 March 2023).
3. Rahman, A.K.A.; Khan, M.G.; Chowdhury, Z.A.; Hussain, M.M. Economically Important Marine Fishes and Shellfishes of Bangladesh;
Department of Fisheries: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 1995.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12835 23 of 25

4. Penn, J.W. The Current Status of Off Shore Marine Fish Stocks in Bangladesh Waters with Special Reference to Penaeid Shrimp Stocks; FAO:
Rome, Italy, 1982; 47p.
5. Fanning, P.; Chowdhury, S.R.; Uddin, M.S.; Al-Mamun, M.A. Marine Fisheries Survey Reports and Stock Assessment 2019; Bangladesh
Marine Fisheries Capacity Building Project, Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock: Dhaka, Bangladesh,
2019. Available online: http://mfsmu.fisheries.gov.bd/site/download/03cb42dc-8a4f-4dd3-a08943e5f5bcf61b (accessed on
20 March 2023).
6. Lamboeuf, M. Bangladesh Demersal Fish Resources of the Continental Shelf ; R/V Anusandhani Trawling Survey Results (September
1984–June 1986); FAO: Rome, Italy, 1987; 26p.
7. Alam, M.S.; Liu, Q.; Schneider, P.; Mozumder, M.M.H.; Uddin, M.M.; Monwar, M.M.; Hoque, M.E.; Barua, S. Stock Assessment
and Rebuilding of Two Major Shrimp Fisheries (Penaeus monodon and Metapenaeus monoceros) from the Industrial Fishing Zone of
Bangladesh. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 201. [CrossRef]
8. Barua, S.; Al Mamun, M.A.; Nazrul, K.M.S.; Mamun, A.; Das, J. Maximum sustainable yield estimate for Tiger shrimp, Penaeus
monodon off Bangladesh coast using trawl catch log. Bangladesh Marit. J. 2020, 4, 135–144.
9. FRSS. Fisheries Resources Survey System: Fisheries Statistical Report of Bangladesh; Department of Fisheries (DoF), Ministry of
Fisheries and Livestock (MoFL): Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2022; Volume 31, pp. 1–57.
10. Barua, S. Maximum sustainable yield estimate for Brown shrimp, Metapenaeus monoceros (Fabricius 1798) in marine waters of
Bangladesh using trawl catch log. Indian J. Geo-Mar. Sci. 2021, 50, 258–261.
11. West, W.Q.B. Fishery Resources of the Upper Bay of Bengal. Indian Ocean Programme, Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission,
IOFC/DEV/73/28; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1973; 44p.
12. Rashid, M.H. Mitsui Taiyo shrimp survey 1976-77 by the survey research vessels M. V. Santa Monica and M. V. Orion 8 in the
marine waters of Bangladesh. Mar. Fish. Bull. 1983, 2, 23.
13. White, T.F.; Khan, M.G. The marine resources of Bangladesh and their potential for commercial development. In Proceedings of
the National Seminar on Fisheries Development in Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 1–4 January 1985; pp. 1–4.
14. Hilborn, R.; Walters, C.J. Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment, Choices, Dynamics and Uncertainty; Chapman and Hall: New York,
NY, USA, 1992.
15. Quinn, T.J.; Deriso, R.B. Quantitative Fish Dynamics; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999.
16. Khan, M.S.; Hoque, M.S. Bioeconomics modelling: Bangladesh shrimp fishery. In International Seminar in Malaysia; Malaysia
Construction Industry Development Board: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2000.
17. Kar, T.K.; Chakraborty, K. A bioeconomic assessment of the Bangladesh shrimp fishery. World J. Model. Simul. 2011, 7, 58–69.
18. Mustafa, M.G.; Ali, M.S.; Azadi, M.A. Some aspect of population dynamics of three penaeid shrimps (Penaeus monodon, Penaeus
semisulcatus and Metapenaeus monoceros) from the Bay of Bengal, Bangladesh. Chittagong Univ. J. Sci. 2006, 30, 97–102.
19. Mildenberger, T.K.; Taylor, M.H.; Wolff, M. TropFishR: An R package for fisheries analysis with length-frequency data. Methods
Ecol. Evol. 2017, 8, 1520–1527. [CrossRef]
20. Hordyk, A.; Ono, K.; Sainsbury, K.; Loneragan, N.; Prince, J. Some explorations of the life history ratios to describe length
composition, spawning-per-recruit, and the spawning potential ratio. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2015, 72, 204–216. [CrossRef]
21. Froese, R.; Winker, H.; Coro, G.; Demirel, N.; Tsikliras, A.C.; Dimarchopoulou, D.; Scarcella, G.; Probst, W.N.; Dureuil, M.;
Pauly, D. A new approach for estimating stock status from length frequency data. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2018, 75, 2004–2015. [CrossRef]
22. Sparre, P. Can we use traditional length-based fish stock assessment when growth is seasonal? Fishbyte 1990, 8, 29–32.
23. Smith, D.; Punt, A.; Dowling, N.; Smith, A.; Tuck, G.; Knuckey, I. Reconciling approaches to the assessment and management
of data-poor species and fisheries with Australia’s harvest strategy policy. Mar. Coast. Fish. Dyn. Manag. Ecosyst. Sci. 2009,
1, 244–254. [CrossRef]
24. Agnew, D.J.; Gutiérrez, N.L.; Butterworth, D.S. Fish catch data: Less than what meets the eye. Mar. Policy 2013, 42, 268–269.
[CrossRef]
25. Branch, T.A.; Jensen, O.P.; Ricard, D.; Ye, Y.; Hilborn, R. Contrasting Global Trends in Marine Fishery Status Obtained from
Catches and from Stock Assessments. Conserv. Biol. 2011, 25, 777–786. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Prager, M.H. ASPIC: A Surplus-Production Model Incorporating Covariates. Coll. Vol. Sci. Pap. Int. Comm. Conserv. Atl. Tunas
1992, 28, 218–229.
27. Martell, S.; Froese, R. A simple method for estimating MSY from catch and resilience. Fish Fish. 2013, 14, 504–514. [CrossRef]
28. Rosenberg, A.A.; Fogarty, M.J.; Cooper, A.B.; Dickey-Collas, M.; Fulton, E.A.; Gutiérrez, N.L.; Hyde, K.J.W.; Kleisner, K.M.;
Kristiansen, T.; Longo, C.; et al. Developing New Approaches to Global Stock Status Assessment and Fishery Production Potential of the
Seas; FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1086; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2014; 175p.
29. Raza, H.; Liu, Q.; Alam, M.S.; Han, Y. Length based stock assessment of five fish species from the marine water of Pakistan.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1587. [CrossRef]
30. Barua, S.; Thordarson, G.; Jonsdottir, I.G. Comparison of catch and survey data for assessing northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis)
from Arnarfjordur (NW-Iceland) using a stock production model. Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2018, 18, 359–366. [CrossRef]
31. MFA. 2020. Marine Fisheries Act 2020. Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock, SRO 211-AIN/2019, 24 June 2019. Available online:
http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-1347.html (accessed on 10 June 2022).
32. MFO. Marine Fisheries Ordinance 1983 (Bangladesh). 1983. Available online: http://www.fisheries.gov.bd/sites/default/files
(accessed on 10 June 2022).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12835 24 of 25

33. IOTC. IOTC National Report 2020 (Bangladesh part). 2020; National Report of Bangladesh for IOTC; IOTC: Dhaka, Bangladesh,
2020.
34. Barua, S.; Karim, E.; Humayun, N.M. Present status and species composition of commercially important finfish in landed trawl
catch from Bangladesh marine waters. J. Pure Appl. Zool. 2014, 2, 150–159.
35. Islam, M.S. Perspectives of the coastal and marine fisheries of the Bay of Bengal, Bangladesh. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2003,
46, 763–796. [CrossRef]
36. Barua, S.; Liu, Q.; Alam, M.S.; Schneider, P.; Mozumder, M.M.H.; Rouf, M.A. Population dynamics and stock assessment of two
major eels (Muraenesox bagio and Congresox talabonoides) from the marine waters of Bangladesh. Front. Mar. Sci. 2023, 10, 1134343.
[CrossRef]
37. Froese, R. Keep it simple: Three indicators to deal with overfishing. Fish Fish. 2004, 5, 86–91. [CrossRef]
38. Cope, J.M.; Punt, A.E. Length-based reference points for data-limited situations: Applications and restrictions. Mar. Coast. Fish.
Dyn. Manag. Ecosyst. Sci. 2009, 1, 169–186. [CrossRef]
39. Winker, H.; Carvalho, F.; Kapur, M. JABBA: Just another bayesian biomass assessment. Fish. Res. 2018, 204, 275–288. [CrossRef]
40. Froese, R.; Winker, H.; Coro, G.; Demirel, N.; Tsikliras, A.C.; Dimarchopoulou, D.; Scarcella, G.; Probst, W.N.; Dureuil, M.;
Pauly, D. A Simple User Guide for LBB (LBB_33a.R). 2019. Available online: http://oceanrep.geomar.de/44832/ (accessed on
11 October 2020).
41. Von Bertalanffy, L. A quantitative theory of organic growth (inquiries on growth laws. ii). Hum. Biol. 1938, 10, 181–213.
42. Sparre, P.; Venema, S.C. Introduction to Tropical Fish Stock Assessment—Part 1: Manual. FAO Fish. Tech. Pap. 1998, 306, 1407.
43. Holt, S.J. The evaluation of fisheries resources by the dynamic analysis of stocks, and notes on the time factors involved. In
International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries; ICNAF Special Publication: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1958; pp. 77–95.
44. Beverton, R.J.H.; Holt, S.J. On the Dynamics of Exploited Fish Populations; Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: London, UK,
1957.
45. Beverton, R.J.H.; Holt, S.J. Manual of methods for fish stock assessment, Part II—Tables of yield functions. In FAO Fisheries
Technical Paper No. 38; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1966; p. 10.
46. Amorim, P.; Sousa, P.; Jardim, E.; Menezes, G.M. Sustainability status of data-limited fisheries: Global challenges for snapper and
grouper. Front. Mar. Sci. 2019, 6, 654. [CrossRef]
47. Pella, J.J.; Tomlinson, P.K. A generalized stock production model. InterAmerican Trop. Tuna Comm. Bull. 1969, 13, 421–458.
48. Fox, W.W., Jr. An exponential surplus-yield model for optimizing exploited fish populations. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 1970, 99, 80–88.
[CrossRef]
49. Thorson, J.T.; Cope, J.M.; Branch, T.A.; Jensen, O.P. Spawning biomass reference points for exploited marine fishes, incorporating
taxonomic and body size information. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2012, 69, 1556–1568. [CrossRef]
50. Wang, S.P.; Maunder, M.N.; Aires-da-Silva, A. Selectivity’s distortion of the production function and its influence on management
advice from surplus production models. Fish. Res. 2014, 158, 181–193. [CrossRef]
51. Barrowman, N.J.; Myers, R.A. Still more spawner–recruitment curves: The hockey stick and its generalizations. Can. J. Fish.
Aquat. Sci. 2000, 57, 665–676. [CrossRef]
52. ICCAT. Report of the 2017 ICCAT Atlantic Swordfish Stock Assessment Session; Retrieved from Collection of Volume Scientific Papers;
ICCAT: Madrid, Spain; Volume 74, pp. 841–967.
53. Meyer, R.; Millar, R.B. BUGS in Bayesian stock assessments. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1999, 56, 1078–1086. [CrossRef]
54. Maunder, M.N.; Piner, K.R. Dealing with data conflicts in statistical inference of population assessment models that integrate
information from multiple diverse data sets. Fish. Res. 2017, 192, 16–27. [CrossRef]
55. Cowles, M.K.; Carlin, B.P. Markov chain Monte Carlo convergence diagnostics: A comparative review. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1996,
91, 883–904. [CrossRef]
56. O’Hara, R.B.; Sillanpää, M.J. A review of Bayesian variable selection methods: What, how and which. Bayesian Anal. 2009,
4, 85–117. [CrossRef]
57. Haddon, M. Modelling and Quantitative Methods in Fisheries, 2nd ed.; Chapman and Hall: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
58. Palomares, M.L.D.; Froese, R.; Derrick, B.; Nöel, S.-L.; Tsui, G.; Woroniak, J.; Pauly, D. A preliminary global assessment of the
status of exploited marine fish and invertebrate populations. In A Report Prepared by the Sea Around Us for OCEANA; OCEANA:
Washington, DC, USA, 2018; p. 64.
59. Barua, S. Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) estimates for industrial finfish fishery in marine waters of Bangladesh using trawl
catch log. Bang. J. Fish. 2019, 31, 313–324.
60. Worm, B.; Hilborn, R.; Baum, J.K.; Branch, T.A.; Collie, J.S.; Costello, C.; Fogarty, M.J.; Fulton, E.A.; Hutchings, J.A.;
Jennings, S.; et al. Rebuilding global fisheries. Science 2009, 325, 578–585. [CrossRef]
61. FAO; Garcia, S.M.; Ye, Y.; Rice, J.; Charles, A. Rebuilding of marine fisheries Part 1: Global review. FAO Fish. Aquac. Tech. Pap.
2018, 630, I-274.
62. Costello, C.; Ovando, D.; Hilborn, R.; Gaines, S.D.; Deschenes, O.; Lester, S.E. Status and solutions for the world’s unassessed
fisheries. Science 2012, 338, 517–520. [CrossRef]
63. Liang, C.; Xian, W.; Liu, S.; Pauly, D. Assessments of 14 exploited fish and Invertebrate stocks in Chinese waters using the LBB
method. Front. Mar. Sci. 2020, 7, 314. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 12835 25 of 25

64. Nadon, M.O.; Ault, J.S.; Williams, I.D.; Smith, S.G.; DiNardo, G.T. Length-based assessment of coral reef fish populations in the
main and northwestern Hawaiian Islands. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0133960. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65. Hampton, J.; Sibert, J.R.; Kleiber, P.; Maunder, M.N.; Harley, S.J. Changes in abundance of large pelagic predators in the Pacific
Ocean. Nature 2005, 434, E2–E3. [PubMed]
66. Hinton, M.G.; Maunder, M.N. Methods for standardizing CPUE and how to select among them. Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT 2004,
56, 169–177.
67. Branch, T.A.; Hilborn, R.; Haynie, A.C.; Fay, G.; Flynn, L.; Griffiths, J.; Marshall, K.N.; Randall, J.K.; Scheuerell, J.M.; Ward, E.J.;
et al. Fleet dynamics and fishermen behavior: Lessons for fisheries managers. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2006, 63, 1647–1668.
[CrossRef]
68. MoFL. Circular No. 160; Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock, Bangladesh Secretariat: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2003.
69. Froese, R.; Pauly, D. (Eds.) FishBase 2000: Concepts, Design, and Data Sources; WorldFish: Penang, Malaysia, 2000; 344p.
70. Rao, G.S. Studies on the reproductive biology of the brown prawn Metapenaeus monoceros (Fabricius, 1798) along the Kakinada
coast. Indian J. Fish. 1989, 36, 107–123.
71. Khan, R.N.; Aravindan, N.; Kalavati, C. Distribution of two post larvae species of commercial prawns (Fenneropenaeus indicus and
Penaeus monodon) in a coastal tropical estuary. J. Aquat. Sci. 2001, 16, 99–104. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.