First, regarding the difference from the past, when we recalculated based on the increased surface area from 25,000 square kilometres to 35,000, it meant that our estimate was biased on the low side because the area we covered was smaller and we then expanded. It also means that the exploitation rate during that fishery at the time was not 40% but was more like 30%. Although we calculated a 40% exploitation rate at that time, it would have been a 30% exploitation rate based on the new biomass, the expanded biomass. So it was good news that the exploitation rate was not as high at that time.
We also looked at other indicators to see if that would make sense. We looked at the percentage of old crabs in the catch, and we saw that there was a high percentage of older shell crab in the catch at that time, so it kind of matched the fact that the biomass, as we expanded, did give a true estimate of the entire population of crab, although the fishery was targeting only a small portion of it. That's why there's a difference between the two peaks.