Jenn Caselle * Scott Hamilton * Dan Malone * David Kushner ... Casselle... · San Miguel Santa Rosa...

Marine Protected areas in the Channel Islands: the first five

years

*Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of

Coastal Oceans, UCSB and UCSC

+Channel Islands National Park

Jenn Caselle * Scott Hamilton *

Dan Malone *

David Kushner +!

Mark Carr *

Most of our oceans are impacted by humans

Halpern et. al Science 2008

Protected Areas Rare in the Sea

Far less than 1% of ocean in marine reserves

Roberts and Hawkins

125 Marine Reserves with Peer Reviewed Scientific Studies

Data: Sarah Lester and Ben Halpern, 2007

Large Effects

Of Reserves

Within

Their Borders:

More biomass More animals

Larger animals

More species

Lester et al. 2009

Halpern 2003

Networks represent an integrated system of

multiple protected areas

Often designed to:

- conserve regional biodiversity and ecosystem

function across habitats,

- buffer against catastrophes,

-! connect populations on ecological timescales,

- provide sustained socioeconomic benefits

Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary

Channel Islands MPAs

Background

-! In April 2003, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) implemented new network of MPAs in state waters of the CINMS

-! This followed more than 4 years of public meetings, working group discussions and scientific analysis

-! In July 2007, these MPAs were extended into Federal waters

-! Channel Islands Zoning network is now the largest in continental US waters (total area 240 sq. nautical miles)

Photo: CINMS image library

CI MPAs-Monitoring Priorities

Fish: density and sizes Kelps and mobile inverts: density Algae and inverts: % cover

SCUBA surveys

Coastline

Sampling design

Fish transect distribution

5 m

10 m

15 m

20 m

12 m

5 m

20 m

Algae / invertebrate transect distribution

30 x 2 m belt transects

Anacapa Santa Barbara

San Miguel Santa Rosa Santa Cruz

Sampling Sites

Satellite-derived sea surface temperature

There is strong regional environmental variation

across the Channel Islands

-! MPA network encompasses this variation

-! This gradient can influence population and community attributes

(i.e., how fast individuals grow, where species occur and how

abundant they are)

Fig. from Broitman, B.

°C

Biogeographic Patterns

WEST

EAST

W & S Santa Cruz

NE Santa Cruz

San Miguel

Santa Rosa

Santa Barbara

SMI SRI SCI

ANA SBI

There are strong regional effects on community structure

N Anacapa & Santa Cruz

*PISCO and KFM data sets show similar

patterns

Fish community

structure

SIMPROF P = 0.01

Given the biogeographic differences across

the islands!

Does density, size structure and biomass differ inside and outside of reserves?

?

Reserve

Non-reserve

Understanding ratios

Reserve/Non-Reserve

Fewer inside reserve relative to outside, ratio <1

Ratio = 3/9 = 0.33

Spp

A B

C D

1 <1

Ratio

Reserve

Non-reserve

Understanding ratios

Reserve/Non-Reserve

Ratio = 9/3 = 3.0

Greater inside reserve relative to inside, ratio > 1

Spp

A B

C D

1 <1 >1

E F

G H

Ratio

Are there more fish in the CI reserves?

Targeted fish species are more abundant in reserves

Reserve : non-reserve ratio

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Ocean whitefishLingcod

SheepheadBlue rockfishRock wrasse

CabezonVermillion rockfish

Shiner surfperchOlive rockfish

Gopher rockfishKelp Bass

TreefishPile surfperch

Copper rockfishStriped surfperchPainted greenling

Brown rockfishRubberlip surfperch

Black surfperchKelp rockfish

B & Y rockfishSenorita

Bat rayGaribaldiOpaleye

BlacksmithKelp surfperchGiant Kelpfish

HalfmoonSilverside

Rainbow surfperchTubesnout

Fish Density

Reserve : non-reserve ratio

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Ocean whitefishLingcod

SheepheadBlue rockfishRock wrasse

CabezonVermillion rockfish

Shiner surfperchOlive rockfish

Gopher rockfishKelp Bass

TreefishPile surfperch

Copper rockfishStriped surfperchPainted greenling

Brown rockfishRubberlip surfperch

Black surfperchKelp rockfish

B & Y rockfishSenorita

Bat rayGaribaldiOpaleye

BlacksmithKelp surfperchGiant Kelpfish

HalfmoonSilverside

Rainbow surfperchTubesnout

Targeted(avg. ratio = 1.48 ± 0.12)

Non-targeted(avg. ratio = 0.95 ± 0.07)

Fish Density

Ratio of Fish Density (Inside/Outside)

0 1 2 3 4 5

Blacksmith

Vermilion RF

Blue RF

Lingcod

Copper RF

Treefish

Sebastomus

Pile Perch

Gopher RF

CA Sheephead

Olive RF

Señorita

ROV Surveys (2005-2007)

Targeted Avg. ratio = 1.44 ± 0.08

Non-targeted Avg. ratio = 1.45 ± 0.35

Similar patterns are seen in ROV surveys from deeper waters

D) Targeted species

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

In

Out

E) Non-targeted species

Year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Bio

mass (

t ha

-1)

Biomass (t ha-1

)

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

In

Out Targeted species

Non-targeted species

A) MPA network averages

Biomass (t ha-1

)0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Santa

Bar

baraAna

capa

Santa

Cru

z

Santa

Ros

a

San M

igue

l

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

B) Targeted species C) Non-targeted species

Bio

mass

Biomass of targeted species is increasing over time in reserves

Hamilton, Caselle, et al PNAS 2010

ANCOVA: reserve effect Targeted spp., p=0.03, Non-targeted spp., p=0.47

Densities of algae and invertebrates show similar patterns

Reserve : non-reserve ratio

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Red abalone

Spiny lobster

Puffball sponge

Warty sea cucumber

Rock scallop

Queen tegula

Red gorgonian

Red turban snail

Red urchin

Crowned urchin

Chestnut cowry

Rose anemone

Palm kelp

Giant spined star

Wavy turban snail

Giant Kelp

Golden gorgonian

Brown gorgonian

Keyhole limpet

Oarweed

Sunflower star

Sea hare

Bat star

Purple urchin

Stalked tunicate

White urchin

Kellet's whelk

Invertebrate Density

Targeted(avg. ratio = 1.43 ± 0.50)

Non-targeted(avg. ratio = 0.95 ± 0.22)

Are fish bigger in marine reserves?

Targeted fish species are larger in reserves

Reserve : non-reserve ratio

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

Ocean whitefishCopper rockfish

Kelp bassLingcod

B & Y rockfishBrown rockfish

SheepheadOlive Rockfish

Black surfperchKelp rockfish

BlacksmithRainbow Surfperch

CabezonRock wrasse

Rubberlip surfperchBlue rockfish

OpaleyeKelp surfperch

Vermillion rockfishPainted greenlingStriped surfperch

HalfmoonBat ray

Pile surfperchGiant kelpfish

Island kelpfishShiner surfperch

GraibaldiGopher rockfish

TreefishSenorita

Silverside

Fish Average Length

Targeted (avg. ratio = 1.05 ± 0.02)

Non-targeted (avg. ratio = 0.97 ± 0.02)

In = 25 cm Out = 21 cm

***

In = 32.5 cm Out = 30 cm

**

In = 21 cm Out = 18 cm

***

In = 35 cm Out = 24 cm

***

Total length (cm)

Perc

ent of to

tal

0 10 20 30 40 50

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

0 10 20 30 40 50

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

0 10 20 30 40 50

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

0 10 20 30 40 50

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Out In

Anacapa

Sta Barbara

Sta Cruz

Sta Rosa

Median length

Kelp Bass

** = p<0.01, *** = p<0.001, ns= non sig

CA sheephead

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

In=29 cm Out=15 cm

***

In=28 cm Out=30 cm

*

In=38 cm Out=38 cm

ns

In=31 cm Out=27 cm

***

Perc

en

t of to

tal

In=34 cm Out=40 cm

***

Sta Cruz

Sta Rosa

Sta Barbara

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35

In Out

Anacapa Median length

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Total length (cm)

San Miguel

* = p<0.05, *** = p<0.001, ns= non sig

0 500

1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

0 20 40 60 80 100 Total length

Fecundit

y (

Eggs)

x 1

000

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0 10 20 30 40 Total length

Fecundit

y (

Eggs)

x 1

000

CA Sheephead Kelp Rockfish

Bigger fish produce far more eggs

Why does this matter?

!Potential" egg production is greater in reserves

Reserve : non-reserve ratio

0 1 2 3 4

Olive rockfish

Sheephead

Kelp bass

Kelp rockfish

Egg Production

Is there more fish biomass in marine reserves?

Targeted fish species have greater biomass in reserves

Reserve : non-reserve ratio

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Ocean whitefishLingcod

SheepheadKelp bass

Rock wrasseCopper rockfish

CabezonOlive Rockfish

Blue rockfishVermillion rockfish

Kelp rockfishIsland kelpfish

Brown rockfishRubberlip surfperch

B & Y rockfishPainted greenling

Pile surfperchBlacksmith

Bat rayBlack surfperch

OpaleyeStriped surfperch

Kelp surfperchGopher rockfishShiner surfperch

GraibaldiHalfmoon

Giant kelpfishSenoritaTreefish

Rainbow SurfperchSilverside

Tubesnout

Fish Biomass

Targeted (avg. ratio = 1.70 ± 0.27)

Non-targeted (avg. ratio = 0.88 ± 0.07)

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Total fish biomass (m tons/hectare)

Total biomass of targeted species is greater in reserves

Non-targeted Species

Targeted Species

In

Out

Can we go beyond simple Inside vs. Outside

comparisons?

Scorpion Marine Reserve, Santa Cruz Isle

2005-2007 NPS and PISCO

Fine-scale surveys at 4 reserves: sites near the core and edge of a reserve, and at increasing distances outside of

reserves

Are fish densities highest in the core of a reserve?

CA sheephead

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Fis

h p

er T

ran

sect

Scorpion MR

Density

1 km

In

Out

Kelp bass

Scorpion MR

Density

1 km

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Fis

h p

er T

ran

sect

Fis

h p

er T

ran

sect

In

Out

Lobsters are larger inside of reserves and lobster catches are greater in the center of reserves

Species composition differs geographically

across the Channel Islands!

Does community structure differ in and out

of reserves?

?

IN OUT

Ric

hn

ess

(# s

pecie

s p

er s

ite)

13

14

15

16

17

IN OUT

Sh

an

no

n d

ivers

ity

ind

ex (H

')

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

IN OUT

Even

ness

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

Fish biodiversity differs in reserves Species richness

Diversity

Evenness

ns

*

*

San Miguel and Santa Barbara Islands are important drivers of

these patterns

Photo: National Geographic

Are there differences in food web

structure in reserves?

Herbivores Planktivores Carnivores Piscivores

Predator functional group (i.e., role in ecosystem)

Prey type

Algae Zooplankton Invertebrates Fishes

Reserve : non-reserve ratio

0 1 2 3 4

Herbivores

Planktivores

Carnivores

Piscivores

Biomass

Piscivores and carnivores show the

strongest response to reserve protection

Functional role

Reserve Status

OUT

IN

Admiral's Reef - 2005

Admiral's Reef - 2006

Admiral's Reef - 2007

Black Sea Bass Reef - 2005

Black Sea Bass Reef - 2006

Black Sea Bass Reef - 2007

Cathedral Cov e - 2005

Cathedral Cov e - 2006Cathedral Cov e - 2007

East Fish Camp - 2005East Fish Camp - 2006East Fish Camp - 2007

Keyhole - 2005

Keyhole - 2006

Keyhole - 2007

Landing Cov e - 2005

Landing Cov e - 2006

Landing Cov e - 2007

Lighthouse - 2005

Lighthouse - 2006

Lighthouse - 2007

Arch Point - 2005

Arch Point - 2006

Arch Point - 2007

Cat Canyon - 2005

Cat Canyon - 2006

Cat Canyon - 2007

Grav eyard Canyon - 2005

Grav eyard Canyon - 2006

Grav eyard Canyon - 2007

SE Sea Lion Rookery - 2005

SE Sea Lion Rookery - 2006

SE Sea Lion Rookery - 2007

Southeast Reef - 2005

Southeast Reef - 2006

Southeast Reef - 2007

Webster's Arch - 2005

Webster's Arch - 2006

Webster's Arch - 2007

Cav ern Point - 2005Cav ern Point - 2006

Cav ern Point - 2007

Dev il's Peak Member - 2005

Dev il's Peak Member - 2006

Dev il's Peak Member - 2007

Little Scorpion - 2005

Little Scorpion - 2006Little Scorpion - 2007

Pedro Reef - 2005Pedro Reef - 2006Pedro Reef - 2007

Potato Pasture - 2005

Potato Pasture - 2006

Potato Pasture - 2007

Scorpion Anchorage - 2005

Scorpion Anchorage - 2006

Scorpion Anchorage - 2007

Chickasaw - 2005

Chickasaw - 2006

Chickasaw - 2007

Cluster Point - 2005

Cluster Point - 2006

Cluster Point - 2007

Johnson's Lee North - 2005

Johnson's Lee North - 2006

Johnson's Lee North - 2007Johnson's Lee South - 2005

Johnson's Lee South - 2006

Johnson's Lee South - 2007South Point - 2005

South Point - 2006

South Point - 2007Trancion Canyon - 2005

Trancion Canyon - 2006

Trancion Canyon - 2007

2D Stress: 0.09

Differences in community structure of

invertebrates and algae

Old Anacapa reserve

(established

1978)

West channel

East chann

el

New Anacapa

reserve

MDS Axis 1

MD

S A

xis

2

Multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) analysis on KFM data

Fine-scale monitoring 2005-2007

•! Strong biogeographic differences (west vs. east)

•! Strong differences in Anacapa reserve (old vs. new)

Reserve Status

OUT

IN

Admiral's Reef - 2005

Admiral's Reef - 2006

Admiral's Reef - 2007

Black Sea Bass Reef - 2005

Black Sea Bass Reef - 2006

Black Sea Bass Reef - 2007

Cathedral Cov e - 2005

Cathedral Cov e - 2006Cathedral Cov e - 2007

East Fish Camp - 2005East Fish Camp - 2006East Fish Camp - 2007

Keyhole - 2005

Keyhole - 2006

Keyhole - 2007

Landing Cov e - 2005

Landing Cov e - 2006

Landing Cov e - 2007

Lighthouse - 2005

Lighthouse - 2006

Lighthouse - 2007

Arch Point - 2005

Arch Point - 2006

Arch Point - 2007

Cat Canyon - 2005

Cat Canyon - 2006

Cat Canyon - 2007

Grav eyard Canyon - 2005

Grav eyard Canyon - 2006

Grav eyard Canyon - 2007

SE Sea Lion Rookery - 2005

SE Sea Lion Rookery - 2006

SE Sea Lion Rookery - 2007

Southeast Reef - 2005

Southeast Reef - 2006

Southeast Reef - 2007

Webster's Arch - 2005

Webster's Arch - 2006

Webster's Arch - 2007

Cav ern Point - 2005Cav ern Point - 2006

Cav ern Point - 2007

Dev il's Peak Member - 2005

Dev il's Peak Member - 2006

Dev il's Peak Member - 2007

Little Scorpion - 2005

Little Scorpion - 2006Little Scorpion - 2007

Pedro Reef - 2005Pedro Reef - 2006Pedro Reef - 2007

Potato Pasture - 2005

Potato Pasture - 2006

Potato Pasture - 2007

Scorpion Anchorage - 2005

Scorpion Anchorage - 2006

Scorpion Anchorage - 2007

Chickasaw - 2005

Chickasaw - 2006

Chickasaw - 2007

Cluster Point - 2005

Cluster Point - 2006

Cluster Point - 2007

Johnson's Lee North - 2005

Johnson's Lee North - 2006

Johnson's Lee North - 2007Johnson's Lee South - 2005

Johnson's Lee South - 2006

Johnson's Lee South - 2007South Point - 2005

South Point - 2006

South Point - 2007Trancion Canyon - 2005

Trancion Canyon - 2006

Trancion Canyon - 2007

2D Stress: 0.09

East chann

el

MDS Axis 1

MD

S A

xis

2

Particular species drive the differences in

community structure

West chann

el

Old Anacapa

reserve (e.

1978)

New Anacapa

reserve

CI MPAs-Monitoring Priorities

Most

lobsters

move little

but a few

make long

distance

movements

Data from CALobster. Analysis by M. Kay, H.

Lenihan, C. Miller, and K.

Barsky

Some fish species spend most of their time

in reserves, others move more often

Data and analysis: J. Lindholm, A. Knight, D. Klein, M. Domeier and J. Caselle

CI MPAs-Monitoring Priorities

Some commercial fisheries fared well,

others declined

Data: California Department of Fish and Game; Analysis: M. Bergen, D. Aseltine-Neilson, and C. Valle

Recreational fisheries shifted locations but

changes did not appear to be related to MPAs

Data: California Department of Fish and Game. Analysis: C. Ryan, L. McGarvie, S. Owen, W. Dunlap, and A. Sadrozinski

Conclusions

How does density, size structure and biomass vary throughout the CI MPA network?

There are consistent differences in abundance,

biomass, and size structure of targeted (i.e. FISHED)

fishes in the CI MPAs

How does species composition and food web structure differ throughout the CI MPA network?

Species composition, while not dramatically different

now, will likely continue to change for decades in the

reserves relative to outside, possibly altering the

trophic structure of MPAs

Conclusions

How does animals move in relation to MPAs?

Many reef organisms have small home ranges and

spend the majority of their time in MPAs. However,

individuals of these species can make larger

excursions.

How have fisheries changed throughout the CI MPA network?

Commercial and recreational fisheries have changed

since implementation of MPAs however, large losses to

most fisheries were not observed. Changes in these

fisheries are linked to environmental shifts, market

forces, and changes in fishery regulations.

North Coast 2009 - 2011

North Central Coast 2007 -2008

San Francisco Bay 2011

Central Coast 2004 - 2007

South Coast 2008 - 2010

California divided in

five study regions

•! Signed into California state law in 1999

-! Improve design and

management of marine

protected areas (MPAs) in

CA state waters and

manage as a network

•! Requires

-! Use of #best readily

available science$

-! Involvement of

stakeholders and other

interested parties

CA Marine Life Protection Act

(MLPA)

CA Marine Life Protection Act Goals

1.! Protect natural diversity and ecosystem functions.

2.! Sustain and restore marine life populations.

3.! Improve recreational, educational, and study

opportunities.

4.! Protect representative and unique habitats.

5.! Clear objectives, effective management, adequate

enforcement, sound science.

6.! Ensure that MPAs are designed and managed as a network.

The MLPA Initiative Process

Blue Ribbon Task Force

Regional Stakeholder

Group

Regional Science Advisory

Team

MLPA Initiative

Team

California Fish and Game Commission

Statewide Stakeholder

Group

Geographic Information

System

Team

Pu

blic

in

pu

t to

all g

rou

ps

thro

ug

ho

ut

the p

rocess

California Department

Fish & Game

1)! Size and spacing guidelines

2)! Bioregions

3)! Habitat replication

Creating MPA proposals - Iterative process:

RSG

develop RSG

Refine

SAT

Evaluate

Three examples of how science feeds into the design

and evaluation of the MPA network proposals

Acknowledgments:

-! Hard work and dedication of numerous PISCO and KFM divers

-! Funding: David and Lucille Packard, and Gordon and Betty Moore

Foundations, National Park Service, Ocean Protection Council, Ca

Dept Fish and Game, Commonweal Ocean Policy Program

-! Larry Allen for the the cool fish icons!

-! Pete Raimondi and Nick Shears for statistical assistance

More Information on Kelp Forest Monitoring Programs: PISCO-Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal

Oceans (www.piscoweb.org) National Park Service (www.nps.gov)

Extra slides

Egg production

Recruitment of young

Growth

Changes in community structure may require more

time than changes in abundance or size structure

1. Successful:

•! Egg production

•! Recruitment of young

•! Growth (of both prey and

predators)

Changes in community structure require:

2. Species interactions:

•! Competition

•! Predator-prey interactions

Densities of legal-sized and mature fish are greater in reserves

Reserve : non-reserve ratio

0 1 2 3 4

Sheephead

Lingcod

Cabezon

Kelp bass

Density of legal sized fish

Reserve : non-reserve ratio

0 1 2 3 4

Olive Rockfish

Sheephead

Gopher rockfish

Blue rockfish

Copper rockfish

Kelp Bass

B & Y rockfish

Kelp rockfish

Density of mature fish

Can we go beyond simple Inside vs. Outside

comparisons?

South Point Marine Reserve, Santa Rosa Isle

Scorpion Marine Reserve, Santa Cruz Isle

2005-2007 NPS and PISCO

CA sheephead

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Fis

h p

er T

ran

sect

Scorpion MR

Density

1 km

In

Out

CA sheephead

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3 Fis

h p

er T

ran

sect

South Point MR

Density

1 km

In

Out

Kelp bass

Scorpion MR

Density

1 km

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Fis

h p

er T

ran

sect

Fis

h p

er T

ran

sect

In

Out