Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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