**Colin A.
Simpfendorfer**

*Center for Shark
Research, Mote Marine Laboratory
1600 Ken Thompson
Parkway
Sarasota, Florida,
34236, USA
<colins@mote.org>*

**9.1 INTRODUCTION**

Information on the status of shark populations and how they respond to increases in mortality (e.g. from fishing, predation, disease), is critical to making management decisions about fished or endangered species. It is no surprise then that a considerable part of the fish and fisheries literature is devoted to this type of research. In the ideal situation long-term series of information about a population - catches, fishing effort, change in abundance -exist. In this situation dynamic fishery models can be applied to derive extensive management related information. However, in many situations the data required to support these types of management models do not exist. This is often the case with shark populations, where the collection of these data has been uneconomical or overlooked. In this situation population models that rely primarily on life history parameters can provide some useful information for management. Such models are normally referred to as demographic models. These demographic analyses became popular for shark stocks in the 1990s and are the most widely used form of population model for this group of fishes (Hoenig and Gruber, 1990; Cailliet, 1992; Cortes, 1995, 1998, 1999, 2002; Cortes and Parsons, 1996; Smith, Au and Show, 1998; Simpfendorfer, 1999a,b; Brewster-Geisz and Miller, 2000; Mollet and Cailliet, 2002).

The main parameter estimated by demographic analysis is the intrinsic rate of population increase (r), the measure of potential for growth rate in a population. There are two different techniques for estimating r -life tables and matrix models. Life tables are based on the Euler-Lotka equation:

(9.1) |

where l_{x} is the survival to age x, m_{x} is the fecundity at age x (female pups per female), a is
the age at maturity, and w is the maximum reproductive age. The life table is a
way of keeping track of the age-specific mortality and reproductive rates, and
estimating r.

The second technique uses matrix algebra to estimate the finite rate of population increase (λ) from reproductive and mortality data. The finite rate of population growth and the intrinsic rate of population growth are related via the simple relationship

λ = e^{r} | (9.2) |

Matrix methods can be applied to age-structured and stage-based data.

It is interesting to note that both life tables and matrix models were introduced to ecologists by the same person -P.H. Leslie (after whom the age-structured matrix model is named) -in the 1940s (Caswell, 2001). Life tables immediately became popular and were used extensively. However, matrix models did not gain favour with ecologists until the 1970s and have since become extremely popular. The slow rise in popularity of matrix models was probably the result of the need for an understanding of matrix algebra and the extra computational requirements. The increased availability of computers enabled researchers to overcome these drawbacks and embrace this powerful technique.

In this Section I review the use of life table and matrix approaches in modeling shark populations. I restrict this consideration to static assessments of populations. Both life table and matrix approaches can be used to develop dynamic models of populations, but in the shark literature they have been largely restricted to static assessments due to the lack of time-series data. For more general overviews of life table methods several general ecology books provide a more thorough consideration (Krebs, 1985), and for matrix models the revised “Matrix Population Models”(Caswell, 2001) is the authoritative text. In addition to the simple life table approach, I also describe a method developed by Au and Smith (1997) that estimates the rebound potential of a population. This method is based on the life table approach and is covered as a special case in that section.

**9.2 LIFE TABLES**

**9.2.1 General life
table approaches**

Life tables were originally developed by life insurance companies as a means of determining life expectancies of humans. Ecologists, however, have adapted them for use in answering biological questions. As described in the introduction, the life table approach is based on the Euler-Lotka equation (9.1). The life table is a simple way of laying out the reproductive and mortality schedule of a population to aid in the solving of this key equation. The classic construction of the life table is shown in Table 9.1. The columns making up the life table can be simply derived from life history studies. Age data are essential to the construction of the table, both for maximum age as well as age at first reproduction. Methods of age determination are covered in Section 6 of this manual. The proportion of the population surviving at the beginning of each age class can be derived from estimates of natural and, or total mortality rates:

l_{x} = l_{x-1} e^{-Z} | (9.3) |

Techniques for estimating mortality rates are covered in Section 8. The initial value of lxis normally set to a value of one, making it a “per recruit”analysis that examines if the population will replace that single recruit. The final pieces of data required are the age-specific number of female pups per reproductive event (litter for viviparous species, total eggs laid for oviparous species) and the frequency of reproductive events. In studies of shark populations the number of female pups is used as they are the only group that produces offspring. Thus, in reality this type of life table only tracks the female portion of the population. Rates of female pup production can be derived from total litter size by multiplying by the proportion of female embryos and dividing by the number of years between litters.

The first five columns in the table
containing the life history data are then used to calculate the value of *r*. The
calculation of *r* is iterative and is started by selecting a value of *r* and
calculating the values for the two columns on the right-hand side of the life
table. It can be seen that the summation of the final column is identical to
the left side of equation 9.1. Thus when the final column is summed it will
total 1.0 if the correct value of *r* has been selected. If the value does not
equal 1.0, then a new value of *r* is picked and the process is repeated until
the summation of column 7 equals 1.0. This may seem time-consuming and arduous,
however, the process is almost instantaneous with the use of a non-linear
optimization routine in a modern spreadsheet. The most commonly used of these
routines is the “Solver”add-in that comes standard with Microsoft Excel. The
life table can be entered into the spreadsheet and a cell containing the
starting value of *r* added. This cell is then used in the formulae of columns 6
and 7 to represent r. The solver can then be started and the value of the sum
of the final column set to equal 1.0 by changing the value of the cell
containing r.

Once the life table has been constructed
a number of other statistics can be calculated from the life table. The net
reproductive rate (R_{0}) is the total number of female
offspring produced per individual in a single cohort:

(9.4) |

The mean generation length (*G*) is the
mean period between birth of a parent and the birth of their offspring:

(9.5) |

Krebs (1985) also demonstrated that it
is possible to calculate a value related to *r* -the innate capacity for increase
for the particular environmental conditions (r_{m}). This statistic is calculated as:

(9.6) |

The value of r_{m}, however, is not equivalent to *r* and should not be used as a
substitute for it. The value of r_{m} is a useful
starting value for the iterative process of estimating r. The population
doubling rate can also be simply calculated:

(9.7) |

This statistic is handy for clearly
showing differences between populations, or different mortality, or
reproductive, scenarios within a population. The stable age distribution of the
population (the proportion of individuals in each age class, C_{x}) can be calculated using the equation:

(9.8) |

It is an assumption of the life table method that the age structure of the population is stable. In many situations, especially when a population is exploited, this assumption may be violated causing bias in the results. The static nature of life tables also means that they may underestimate the growth rate of a population as they do not include compensatory effects (e.g. decreases in mortality, increases in reproductive rate, decreases in reproductive age, etc. when population size is decreased). In the next section (9.2.2) a life table method is described that attempts to overcome this problem of not including compensation.

Initial use of the life table typically
involves using age-specific survival values based only on natural mortality.
However, age-specific values of fishing mortality (*F*) can easily be included by
basing survival on total mortality. Several studies of shark populations have
used this type of approach to investigate if current (or past) fishing
mortality rates were sustainable (Simpfendorfer, 1999b) or at what level of
fishing mortality *r* = 0 (i.e. the population will start to decline)
(Simpfendorfer, 1999a). This type of information can be useful to resource managers.
However, it is often difficult to translate a value of fishing mortality into a
catch level without other information (i.e. catch and abundance data). Due to
the age-structured nature of life tables it is possible to investigate other
management measures. For example, the impact of nursery area closures can be
studied by removing fishing mortality from the 0+ age class, or the impact of
size regulations can be studied by applying fishing mortality to specific age
classes.

*Example -Australian
sharpnose shark*

Simpfendorfer (1999a) produced life tables for the Australian
sharpnose shark (*Rhizoprionodon taylori*) in northern Australian waters. One of
these life tables (Table 9.1) was constructed using a natural mortality value
estimated from a catch curve (for females only, M = 0.56 year^{-1}). Based on these data the value of *r* was 0.271 year^{-1}, the population doubling time (t_{x2}) was 2.554 years, the generation time 2.304 years and the net
reproductive rate, 1.758. Simpfendorfer (1999a) calculated the fishing mortality
at which the population growth rate would be zero (*F _{c}*) to be 0.179 year

TABLE 9.1**Life table for the
Australian sharpnose shark, Rhizoprionodon taylori, from northern Australia
based on data from Simpfendorfer (1999a).**

Age (x) | Proportion surviving(l_{x}) | Female pups(m_{x}) | Reproductive rate(l_{x}m_{x}) | l_{x}m_{x}x | e_{-rx} | l_{x}m_{x}.e_{-rx} |

0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |

1 | 0.570638 | 1.982785 | 0.64565 | 0.64565 | 0.762338 | 0.492204 |

2 | 0.325628 | 2.588733 | 0.481027 | 0.962054 | 0.581159 | 0.279554 |

3 | 0.185816 | 2.80877 | 0.297824 | 0.893471 | 0.44304 | 0.131948 |

4 | 0.106034 | 2.888671 | 0.174784 | 0.699137 | 0.337746 | 0.059033 |

5 | 0.060507 | 2.917685 | 0.10074 | 0.503702 | 0.257477 | 0.025938 |

6 | 0.034527 | 2.928221 | 0.057694 | 0.346163 | 0.196284 | 0.011324 |

7 | 0.019703 | 2.932047 | 0.032965 | 0.230757 | 0.149635 | 0.004933 |

8 | 0.011243 | 2.933437 | 0.01882 | 0.150561 | 0.114073 | 0.002147 |

9 | 0.006416 | 2.933941 | 0.010741 | 0.096672 | 0.086962 | 0.000934 |

10 | 0.003661 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.066294 | 0 |

**9.2.2 Rebound potential**

Au and
Smith (1997) described a modification of the life table approach to estimate
what they termed “rebound potential”(*r _{2M}*). The rebound potential (or rebound rate) is a
measure of how fast a population will recover after fishing mortality has been
removed from a population. The technique is described and then some potential
modifications, assumptions and nuances considered. The description of the
technique will be relatively cursory due to space limitations. Those wishing to
find more detail on this technique should consult Au and Smith (1997) and
Smith, Au and Show (1998).

Au and Smith (1997) began by reformulating the
Euler-Lotka equation (9.1) by introducing parameters describing the survival to
the mean age at maturity (l_{á}) and average
number of female pups per litter (b). This allows equation 9.1 to be
rewritten as:

e^{-(Z+r)} = l_{α}be^{-rα}[1 - e^{-(Z+r)(w-α+1)}] = 1.0 | (9.9) |

The value of Z (total mortality) is
substituted for lx (survival to age x) in equation 9.1.
This reformulation allows *r* to be estimated more simply than the traditional
iterative method. However, it requires several assumptions about the mortality
and reproductive schedule (see below). Smith, Au and Show (1998) noted that a
similar formulation was described by Hoenig and Gruber (1990) in terms of the
survival in the first year after birth.

FIGURE 9.1**Contour plot of intrinsic rate of population increase r as
a function of fishing mortality (F) and age at first capture (AAFC) for
Rhizoprionodon taylori from northern Australia. Estimates are based on a life
table where natural mortality was calculated by a catch curve. Fishing is
sustainable at values of r > 0. From Simpfendorfer (1999a).**

The second step of the technique
involves assuming that the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is achieved at Z =
2M, and that at this level *r* = 0. They also assumed that all of the
compensation in the population growth rate occurs as a result of increased
survival to age at maturity (l_{α}). Thus
by substituting *r* = 0 and Z = 2M into equation 9.9 the increased value of l_{α}(l_{α,2M}) can be calculated. Finally, the value of rebound potential (r_{2M}) is calculated by removing the fishing pressure from the
population (i.e. Z = M) but retaining the increased value of l_{α,2M}

Au and Smith (1997) also considered that
in situations where fecundity varied with age the rebounding population is
likely to have a different value of b than the fished population. This would
occur because the average age of mature animals would decrease as more animals
recruited after fishing was stopped. To investigate the impact of these types
of changes Au and Smith (1997) and Smith, Au and Show (1998) used sensitivity
tests with 1.0b, 1.25b and 1.5b when solving for r_{2M}. Au and Smith (1997) showed that for the leopard shark (Triakis
semifasciata) that increased values of b resulted in significant changes in r_{2M}.

When using this method, researchers need
to be aware of the assumptions and restrictions on its use. In reformulating
the Euler-Lotka equation much of the ability to include age-specific rates of
reproduction and mortality was lost. The sensitivity of the results to changes
in the value of b indicates the limitations of such an approach. The assumption
that *MSY* occurs at Z = 2M also needs to be considered. Shark populations are
known to have limited ability to sustain fishing pressure (Holden, 1977;
Musick, 1999) due to their low fecundity and late age at maturity. As such *MSY*
may occur at lower levels of Z than 2M. In fact, a value of Z = 1.5M may be a
more appropriate level for *MSY*. This change can easily be included in the
technique to estimate r_{1.5M}. As more research is undertaken on
shark populations a clearer understanding of the mortality rates that produce
*MSY* will be gained. As this information becomes available, it may be necessary
to address the value of Z used in this technique.

**9.3 MATRIX MODELS**

**9.3.1 Application**

Matrix population models are commonly used by researchers in
studying the demography of a population. They provide a versatile method that
can be used in a wide range of situations. It is not possible here to cover the
whole suite of matrix models and how to use them. In this section, two forms of
static matrix models will be considered: age-structured and stage-based. In
both cases we will only consider static formulations of those models that are
equivalent to the life tables discussed above. Matrix models are quickly and
easily adapted to produce dynamic population models, but these fall outside the
scope of this Section. For a thorough coverage of all issues related to matrix
population models consult Caswell (2001) or Caswell (1989). As with life
tables, static matrix models only require life history information. The math
involved in producing the estimates of the finite rate of population growth
(λ= e^{r}) is more complex and requires an
understanding of matrix algebra. However, the need for such an understanding
can be largely overcome by the use of software developed specifically for use
with matrix models. A good example of this type of software is POPTOOLS, a
Microsoft Excel add-in that is available free on the internet
(http://www.cse.csiro.au/poptools/).

**9.3.2 Age-structured
models (Leslie Matrix)**

Static age-structured matrix models, also know as Leslie Matrices after the scientist who first described their use, have been less commonly used in the assessment of shark populations that have life tables. Hoenig and Gruber (1990) were the first to publish a paper that used a Leslie Matrix to estimate λ for a shark population (lemon shark, Negaprion brevirostris). The basis for the Leslie Matrix is:

N_{t+1}= AN_{t} | (9.10) |

where N is a vector describing the age composition of the population (either at time it t or t+1) and A is the transition matrix:

(9.11) |

For consistency with the life table
section, the same notation has been used: mxis the number of female pups per female in age class x and l_{x} is the survival to the end of age x. It is the transition
matrix A that is normally referred to as the Leslie Matrix. The matrix columns
represent the age classes. The value of λ is determined by finding the
dominant eigenvalue of A by using matrix algebra. When the dominant eigenvalue
is determined, two vectors (the right and left eigenvectors) also can be
calculated. The first of these represents the age-specific reproductive values
(v, the left eigenvector), and the second is the stable age/stage structure (w,
the right eigenvector). These sets of values are functionally equivalent to the
l_{x}m_{x} and c_{x} values in life table models.

As for life tables, a Leslie Matrix can be adapted to include information on fishing mortality at specific ages, or changes in the reproductive schedule. In addition, the static nature of the simple Leslie Matrix does not include compensatory effects for a population that is being fished.

*Example -Australian
sharpnose shark*

As a direct comparison to the example given in the life table section, a Leslie matrix was constructed from the data provided by Simpfendorfer (1999a):

0.00 | 1.98 | 2.59 | 2.81 | 2.89 | 2.92 | 2.93 | 2.93 | 2.93 | 2.93 | 0.00 | (9.12) |

1.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |

0.00 | 0.57 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |

0.00 | 0.00 | 0.33 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |

0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.19 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |

0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |

0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |

0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |

0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |

0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |

0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.006 | 0.00 | |

0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.004 |

This matrix was analysed using the Microsoft Excel
Add-In POPTOOLS. The dominant eigenvalue (λ) was 1.257 (r = 0.229 year^{-1}) and the population doubling time was 2.37 years.
These values are similar to those produced by the life table analysis, with the
population doubling time different by approximately 0.2 years. The left and
right eigenvectors (v and w) are given in Table 9.2.

TABLE 9.2

**Age specific reproductive value (w) and stable age
distributions (v) (proportional) of the Australian
sharpnose shark, Rhizoprionodon taylori, estimated
using a Leslie Matrix (equation 9.12).**

Age | w % | v % |

0 | 62.9 | 4.5 |

1 | 28.5 | 9.9 |

2 | 7.4 | 10.9 |

3 | 1.1 | 11.0 |

4 | 0.1 | 10.8 |

5 | 0.0 | 10.7 |

6 | 0.0 | 10.6 |

7 | 0.0 | 10.6 |

8 | 0.0 | 10.5 |

9 | 0.0 | 10.5 |

10 | 0.0 | 0.0 |

**9.3.3 Stage-based models**

In some
situations the life history of a species can be divided into discrete segments
or stages (e.g. neonate, juvenile, sub-adult, breeding adult, non-breeding
adult, etc.). In this case a stage-base matrix model can be applied. This type
of model can be useful if there is only limited age information for a species
or the time spent in stages is variable. In long-lived species, stage-based
models can also simplify the math involved in the calculations. The formulation
of the static stage-based transition matrix is similar to that of the Leslie
matrix, but the columns represent stages rather than ages, and the survival
values are divided between the probability of an individual surviving and
moving from one stage to the next (*G _{i}*) and the probability of an individual surviving and remaining in the
same stage (

(9.13) |

and

(9.14) |

If the stage-specific survival value is
not known, it can be estimated as the mean of the age-specific values (survival
or mortality, with S = e^{-Z}) in each stage. Other authors (e.g.
Brewster-Geisz and Miller, 2000; Mollet and Cailliet, 2002) have taken a
slightly different approach using the probability of survival of an individual
in a stage (σ_{i}) and the fraction of individuals in a
stage that move to the next stage (γ_{i}):

G_{i}= σ_{i}γ_{i} | (9.15) |

and

P_{i}= σ_{i}(1 - γ_{i}) | (9.16) |

This method requires an iterative approach to the estimation of the matrix parameters, and more detail can be found in Brewster-Geisz and Miller (2001) or Mollet and Cailliet (2002).

The staged-based transition matrix can
take many forms depending on how the stages selected for the population are
related. The best way to understand the elements of the stage-based transition
matrix is via a life cycle graph. Figure 9.2 shows a life cycle graph for the
sandbar shark (* Carcharhinus plumbeus*) with five stages (neonates, juveniles,
sub-adults, pregnant adults and resting adults). This life cycle was used by
Brewster-Geisz and Miller (2000). The transition matrix for this stage
classification as specified by Brewster-Geisz and Miller (2000) is:

(9.17) |

Only stage four animals produce young (hence only m4) on the top line, the transition to all stages up to pregnant adult are one-way, but animals alternate between pregnant and resting stage adults on an annual basis (hence the lack of P4and P5since they will always move to the other group if the time step is annual), and finally neonates become juveniles after one year (hence there is no P1value). Such a transition matrix could be used for many shark populations, but would need to be modified if reproduction was annual, or if the resting adult stage lasted longer than one year. It is not possible to specify all possible combinations of matrices here. Caswell (2001) provides a thorough coverage of how to develop a life cycle graph (which maps out the stages) and the resulting transition matrix.

FIGURE 9.2

**Life cycle graph of the sandbar shark, Carcharhinus plumbeus, used to
construct the matrix in equation 9.17. Compartments 1–5 represent the
different life stages (1 -neonate; 2 -juveniles; 3 -sub-adults; 4 -pregnant
adults; 5 -resting adults). Parameter values shown correspond to those in
equation 9.17. Based on information in Brewster-Geisz and Miller (2000).**

As with a Leslie matrix the value of γ of the stage-based model is estimated by determining the eigenvalue of the matrix. Similarly, the eigenvectors produce information on the reproductive value and stable age structure, but they are stage-specific rather than stage-specific.

*Example -sandbar
sharks*

Brewster-Geisz and Miller (2000) used a stage-based matrix model
to examine some management options for the sandbar shark (*Carcharhinus*
plumbeus) in the western North Atlantic. The life cycle graph for this species
is shown in Figure 9.2 and the matrix formulation is shown in equation 9.17.
The analysis examined the results of five scenarios with varying amounts of
fishing mortality on the five stages ranging from the current situation (in
1996) to total protection of the neonates and the pregnant females (including
the unrealistic assumption of no natural mortality on neonates). They estimated
that in the current situation *r* = -0.124 year ^{-1}, indicating that the population was over-fished and declining.
The four other scenarios used to explore protection for different stages by
eliminating fishing mortality also returned negative values of r. They examined
the effect of fishing mortality on *r* (Figure9.3) and demonstrated that if fishing mortality at all stages
was equal, *r* = 0 occurred at F = 0.071 year ^{-1}. This plot also demonstrates that when no fishing occurs the
value of *r* is approximately 0.07 year ^{-1}.

FIGURE 9.3**The relation between the intrinsic rate of increase (r) and fishing
mortality (F). Fcriticalis reached at 0.071. If F is less than Fcritical, the population will increase. If F is greater than Fcritical, the population will decrease. From Brewster-Geisz and
Miller (2001).**

**9.3.4 Elasticities**

One piece of information that can be useful in interpreting the
results of matrix models is how much influence changes in vital rates
(reproductive and mortality rates) can have on the population growth rate. In
absolute terms this is known as the sensitivity, but is normally reported as
the elasticity, which is the proportional change. Elasticity is calculated from
the elements of the transition matrix (*a _{ij}*), the population growth rate (γ) and the elements of the
right and left eigenvectors (

(9.18) |

where (w,v) is the scalar product of the two vectors (i.e,
(w,v)=v_{1}w_{1}+v_{2}w_{2}+_{…} + v_{n}w_{n}). Since elasticities are proportions they sum to give one:

(9.19) |

For each column of the matrix, which correspond to individual age or stage classes, elasticity values can be calculated by:

(9.20) |

where E_{i} is the age or stage elasticity.

Since elasticity will identify the age or stage where the smallest changes in vital rates will produce the biggest change in population growth rate, the researcher has a powerful tool to find where management or conservation action might produce the greatest benefits to the population. For example, Cortes (2002) used elasticity values from a wide range of shark species to show that populations of large, slow-growing, long-lived species were most vulnerable to changes in the survival of the juveniles (as opposed to the adults). Such a result suggests that management arrangements that protect juveniles (e.g. nursery area closures) would provide greater benefit to the population than those that protect adults (e.g. maximum size limit). For a more detailed discussion of the calculation and interpretation of elasticity values for matrix models see Caswell (2001).

**9.4 CONCLUSIONS AND
ADVICE**

The static modeling approaches outlined in this Section provide the researcher with methods to assess the status of a population based solely on life history data. This is particularly useful when there is little or no fishery information available for a population making more complex dynamic modeling approaches inappropriate. However, these simple approaches come with limitations, which must be kept in mind when interpreting the results and applying them to management or conservation. For example, a life table can provide good information on the intrinsic rate of increase for a population, or the fishing mortality rate at which the population will start to decline. However, it will not provide information on the abundance of the population, its level of population decline or the appropriate quota level to achieve a target biomass. These later types of information are more appropriately determined using the dynamic approaches described in Section 10.

The results of the static approaches should also be considered as conservative in their estimates of population growth rates. This is because both simple life tables and static matrix models do not allow for compensatory effects at low population sizes (e.g. increased growth, reproductive or survival rates). The rebound potential approach of Au and Smith (1997) described in the life table section is an attempt to overcome this limitations. However, the simple framework in which it is implemented means that a number of restrictive assumptions need to be made.

The choice between life tables or matrix models is largely a matter of personal preference. Each of the approaches will provide similar results if used in comparable ways. However, the trend in the fisheries and ecological literature is towards matrix models. Although the math involved in matrix models is more complex the development of software to quickly and easily do the analyses means that these approaches can be easily implemented on a personal computer. In addition the ability to easily calculate elasticity values, and their usefulness in determining management or conservation strategies, provides an incentive to take this approach.

Finally, which ever approach is chosen, it is important to remember that there is a degree of uncertainty and, or variation in the input parameters to any model. For this reason a good demographic analysis will always include a range of scenarios that consider different sets of life history parameters that reflect uncertainty or variation. There are two approaches to this. The first is to construct a number of life tables or matrices that reflect the potential ranges of values. The second approach is to construct a stochastic analysis such as that used by Cortes (1999) for sandbar sharks. With this approach probability distributions for the input parameters are constructed and several hundred random draws from the distributions are made and the life table or matrix solved. The result is probability distributions of the output parameters (e.g. r). The first approach is best suited to cases where there is uncertainty in the value of the parameters. The second approach is suited to the situation where there is variation in the value of the parameters.

**9.5 LITERATURE CITED**

**Au, D.W. & Smith, S.E.** 1997. A
demographic method with population density compensation for estimating
productivity and yield per recruit of the leopard shark (*Triakis semifasciata*).
*Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences*, 54: 415–420.

**Brewster-Geisz, K.K. & Miller, T.J.** 2000.
Management
of the sandbar shark, *Carcharhinus plumbeus*: implications of a stage-based
model. Fishery Bulletin, 98: 236–249.

**Cailliet, G.M.** 1992. Demography of the
central Californian population of the leopard shark (*Triakis semifasciata*).
*Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research*, 43: 183–193.

**Caswell, H.** 1989. *Matrix population
models: construction, analysis and interpretation*. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA. 328
pp.

**Caswell, H.** 2001. *Matrix population models.
Construction, analysis, and interpretation*. 2nd Edition. Sinauer, Sunderland,
MA.

**Cortes, E.** 1995. Demographic analysis of
the Atlantic sharpnose shark, *Rhizoprionodon terraenovae*, in the Gulf of
Mexico. Fishery Bulletin, 93: 57–66.

**Cortes, E.** 1998. Demographic analysis as
an aid in shark stock assessment and management. *Fisheries Research*, 39:
199–208.

**Cortes, E.** 1999. A stochastic
stage-based population model of the sandbar shark in the Western North
Atlantic. In J.A. Musick (ed.). *Life in the slow lane. Ecology and conservation
of long-lived marine animals*, pp. 115–136. *American Fisheries Society Symposium*
23, Bethesda, Maryland.

**Cortes, E.** 2002. Incorporating
uncertainty into demographic modeling: application to shark populations and
their conservation. *Conservation Biology*, 16: 1048–1062.

**Cortes, E. & Parsons, G.R.** 1996.
Comparative demography of two populations of the bonnethead shark (*Sphyrna
tiburo*). *Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences*, 53: 709–718.

**Hoenig, J.M. & Gruber, S.H.** 1990.
Life
history patterns in the elasmobranches: implications for fisheries management.
In H.L. Pratt Jr, S.H. Gruber & T. Taniuchi (eds). *Elasmobranchs as living
resources: advances in the biology, ecology, systematics, and the status of
fisheries*, pp. 1–16. NOAA Technical Report NMFS 90.

**Holden, M.J.** 1977. Elasmobranchs. In
J.A. Gulland (ed.). *Fish population dynamics*, pp.187–215. John Wiley &
Sons, London.

**Krebs, C.J.** 1985. *Ecology: the
experimental analysis of distribution and abundance, 3rd ed*. Harper and Row,
New York. 67 pp.

**Mollet, H.F. & Cailliet, G.M.** 2002.
Comparative
population demography of elasmobranchs using life history tables, Leslie
matrices and stage-based matrix models. *Marine and Freshwater Research*, 53:
503–516.

**Musick, J.A.** 1999. Ecology and
conservation of long-lived marine animals. In J.A. Musick (ed.). *Life in the
slow lane. Ecology and conservation of long-lived marine animals*, pp.1–10. *American Fisheries Society Symposium* 23, Bethesda,
Maryland.

**Simpfendorfer, C.A.** 1999a. Mortality
estimates and demographic analysis for the Australian sharpnose shark,
*Rhizoprionodon taylori*, from northern Australia. *Fishery Bulletin*, 97: 978–986.

**Simpfendorfer, C.A.** 1999b. Demographic
analysis of the dusky shark fishery in southwestern Australia. In J.A. Musick
(ed.). *Life in the slow lane. Ecology and conservation of long-lived marine
animals*, pp. 149–160. *American Fisheries Society Symposium* 23, Bethesda,
Maryland.

**Smith, S.E., Au, D.W. & Show, C.** 1998. Intrinsic rebound potential of 26 species of Pacific sharks. *Marine and
Freshwater Research*, 48: 663–678.