Ecological applications for conservation and management

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Ecological applications for conservation and management"

Ami Mosley
6 years ago
Views:

1 Ecological applications for conservation and management Goals: - Conservation - Sustainable services - provisioning - regulating - cultural - supporting

2 Provisioning services: The products obtained from ecosystems, including, for example, genetic resources, food, fiber, and fresh water. Regulating services: The benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes, including, for example, the regulation of climate, water, and some human diseases. Cultural services: The non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experience. Supporting services: Services that are necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services. Examples include biomass production, production of atmospheric oxygen, soil formation and retention, nutrient cycling, water cycling, and provisioning of habitat.

3 Ecological applications for conservation and management Human activities: - water quality / pollution - climate change - kelp harvesting - fishing

4 Population Growth / Migration Coastal Development toxicants: oil (otters) copper (abalone) entrainment impingement Pollution water quality: turbidity thermal salinity runoff: nutrients contaminants diseases

5 Ecological applications for conservation and management Human activities: - water quality / pollution - climate change - kelp harvesting - fishing

6 Coastal Upwelling Drives Ocean Productivity

7 Structure - schooling - long larval duration (3-5 months) - spawn in winter Upwelling Benthic - solitary - short larval duration (1-2 months) - spawn in spring Relaxation

8 Pattern: Interannual variation in rockfish recruitment midwater vs. benthic species Number of fish per transect Midwater complex Benthic Complex Year Cumulative upwelling index anomaly (thru June)

9 Density of recruits Density of recruits Temperature ( C) May June July August Mid-water rockfish n = 227 Benthic rockfish n = 363 Year 2000 Settlement of species complexes negatively correlated (r= 0.227, p=0.016)

10 Wind-driven upwelling response CO2 doubling Predicted changes in upwelling: - timing - location - intensity These changes will impact ocean ecosystems Snyder et al., 2003 July Sep Aug Wind stress curl (N/m 2 ) 6.0e-8 4.0e-8 2.0e e-8-4.0e-8-6.0e-8

11 44.4N Application: predicting ecological consequences of regional climate change Wind Stress Curl Anomalies (x 10-7 N/m 3 ) = Upwelling 2xCO 2 œ1xco 2 2xCO 2 Veg œ2xco 2 2xCO 2 Veg œ1xco N 37.0N 33.3N Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Not looking good or differences in replenishment may increase! (Diffenbaugh et al., PNAS, 2004)!

12 Ecological applications for conservation and management Human activities: - water quality / pollution - climate change - kelp harvesting - fishing

13 Kelp harvesting - chemicals (alginates) - feed for abalone mariculture limited to surface canopy

14 California Kelp Harvest Data courtesy CDFG Landings (1000 metric tons) Harvest within MBNMS

15 Kelp forest canopy function: nursery habitat (refuge and prey) Settlement Impact: does removal of canopy diminish nursery role of kelp canopy?

16 Approach: Manipulate canopy among replicate forests Coastline Fish transect distribution Harvest 100 m Control N= four replicate forests Beck, Carr and Karr, unpublished

17 Effect of Kelp Canopy Removal on KGB Recruitment KGB recruits per transect Pre-treatment Post-treatment 2 weeks post 4-6 weeks post P= P< P= P= Canopy Sub-canopy Present Absent Present Absent Present Absent Present Absent Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Manova Test Criteria - Pillai's Trace Canopy Effect Num DF Den DF Pr > F TIME TIME*TREATMENT TIME*LEVEL TIME*TREATMENT*LEVEL

18 Application: best management practices - Identify the ecological significance of forest canopy for biodiversity and nursery habitat - Recognize as essential fish habitat - Determine distribution and timing of kelp harvesting that minimizes impact to rockfish recruitment - Consider application of bed leasing as means of managing such activities

19 Ecological applications for conservation and management Human activities: - water quality / pollution - climate change - kelp harvesting - fishing

20 Species Fished from California Kelp Forests Commercial Southern California Central California Live-fish fishery blue rockfish X X olive rockfish X X black rockfish X X kelp rockfish X X gopher rockfish X X black & yellow rockfish X X china rockfish X copper rockfish X grass rockfish X X California sheephead X cabezon X X kelp greenling X X monkey-faced eel X

21 Species Fished from California Kelp Forests Commercial Southern California Central California Non-live-fish (= dead) fishery vermillion rockfish X lingcod X spiny lobster X red sea urchins X X red abalone* turban snails X kellet s whelk X sea cucumbers (Parastichopus ) X yellow tail X mackerel X * Historic commercial fishery with potential for future fishery

22 Species Fished from California Kelp Forests Recreational Southern California Central California kelp (calico) bass X opaleye X halfmoon X striped surfperch X X silver surfperch X California sheephead X pile surfperch X rubberlip surfperch X black surfperch X white seabass X X California barracuda X ocean whitefish X

23 Serial Depletion California Abalone

24 Commercial Catch in Nearshore MBNMS (Starr et al, 2002) 2500 Other Fish Landings (1000 lb) Invertebrates Rockfish Year

25 One Potential Tool Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are areas of the ocean in which some activity is restricted or prohibited. Common (e.g., National Marine Sanctuaries and fishery zones) no-take Marine Reserve designation prohibits the take of most or all marine organisms within their boundaries. < 0.1% coastal waters, < 0.01% California

26 How can science help inform MPA policy? Identify potential goals of MPAs Identify important design criteria Develop rigorous approaches for evaluating MPA effectiveness

27 Potential Roles for Marine Reserves Conservation For reasons we have terrestrial reserves For non-extractive values of intact natural ecosystems For non-extractive services we receive from marine ecosystems Requires protection of ecosystem structure, functions and services

28 Potential Roles for MPAs Fisheries Management protecting populations of fished species population buffers enhancing replenishment and resilience identifying effects of fishing targeted populations ecosystem-wide effects allocation of resource among users

29 Potential Roles for MPAs Population buffers, replenishment and resilience: Increasing sustainability of populations protect open spawning source reproductive capacity (size / fecundity) recruitment success (abalone recruitment) protecting habitat (kelp forests) reducing bycatch (trawls, traps, hook + line) assuring functional ecosystems

30 Potential Roles for MPAs Population buffers, replenishment and resilience: Increasing sustainability of populations protect open spawning source reproductive capacity (size / fecundity) recruitment success (abalone recruitment) protecting habitat (oyster reefs, corals) reducing bycatch (trawls, traps, hook + line) assuring functional ecosystems

31 Life History à Spatial Population Structure

32 Potential Roles for MPAs Population buffers, replenishment and resilience: Increasing sustainability of populations protect open spawning source reproductive capacity (size / fecundity) recruitment success (abalone recruitment) protecting habitat (oyster reefs, corals) reducing bycatch (trawls, traps, hook + line) assuring functional ecosystems

33 Enhanced Recruitment Within Reserves Reserves protect urchins Abalone recruit to urchins Three sites in and out of reserves mean density INSIDE adult urchins OUTSIDE juvenile abalone 20 INSIDE OUTSIDE Rogers-Bennett and Pearse 2001 Conserv. Biol.

34 Potential Roles for MPAs assuring functional ecosystems: functional roles of fished species and their effects on ecosystem structure, function, diversity examples of trophic cascades in kelp forest systems:

35 Functional Ecosystems: Changes in the Anacapa Reserve Ecological interactions are important Purple urchins rarer inside reserve than outside Behrens & Lafferty 2004 Urchin barrens have never occurred in the reserve

36 Cascading Effects of Predator Removal Southern California Central California sea otters lobster sheephead sea urchins rockfishes barrens kelp forest

37 How can science help inform MPA policy? Identify potential goals of MPAs Identify important design criteria Develop rigorous approaches for evaluating MPA effectiveness

38 4) CDFG Commission to establish in 2012 MLPA Geographic Structure North Central CA 2) Regional network Est d 2009 Central California 1) Regional network Est d ) Regional network Est d 2011 Southern California

39 Goal-based Design Guidelines 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.

40 Goal-based Design Guidelines 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.

41 Habitats and Ecosystems Key Marine Habitats Seafloor Habitats Rocky reefs Intertidal zones Sandy or soft bottoms Underwater pinnacles Submarine canyons Depth Zones Intertidal Intertidal to 30 m 30 to 100 m 100 to 200 m 200 m and deeper Biogenic Habitats Kelp forests Seagrass beds Mussel beds Oceanographic Habitats Upwelling areas Freshwater plumes Retention zones

42 Northern California Identifying geographic patterns of community structure on multiple scales North Central California Central California Biogeographic Provinces Point Conception Southern California

43 Geographic Patterns of Community Similarity Shallow Rocky Reefs (CRANE) All Taxa Santa Catalina Island Santa Catalina Island Santa Catalina Island Santa Catalina Island Los Angeles Santa Catalina Island San Clemente Island San Clemente Island San Clemente Island Santa Barbara Island Santa Barbara Island Anacapa Island Anacapa Island Santa Catalina Island San Nicolas Island San Nicolas Island Los Angeles San Diego Orange San Diego San Diego San Diego Orange San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego Los Angeles Santa Rosa Island Santa Rosa Island Santa Rosa Island Santa Rosa Island Santa Rosa Island Santa Rosa Island Santa Rosa Island San Miguel Island San Miguel Island San Miguel Island San Miguel Island Santa Barbara Santa Barbara Santa Barbara Santa Cruz Island Santa Cruz Island Santa Cruz Island Santa Cruz Island Santa Cruz Island Santa Cruz Island Santa Cruz Island Santa Cruz Island Anacapa Island Santa Cruz Island Anacapa Island Anacapa Island Group average Similarity Bray Curtis similarity: clusters significantly different (SIMPROF) at 30% similarity level Standardise Variables by Maximum Resemblance: S17 Bray Curtis similarity

Intertidal and Shallow Subtidal Rocky Reef Communities West Islands North Mainland Mid Islands East Islands South Mainland Proposed Bioregion Groupings

44 Intertidal and Shallow Subtidal Rocky Reef Communities West Islands North Mainland Mid Islands East Islands South Mainland Proposed Bioregion Groupings Both shallow rocky reef (CRANE) and intertidal data show significant differences (ANOSIM P=0.01) when grouped according to Proposed Bioregion guidelines

45 Initiative defines three kinds of MPAs State Marine Reserves (SMR) - no take of any species State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) - allow for restricted commercial or recreational take State Marine Park (SMP) - restricted recreational take only

46 Considering Protection in MPAs The Question: How much will an ecosystem differ from an unfished ecosystem if one or more proposed activities are allowed? A great deal if: " habitat is damaged " many species are removed " removed species play an important role in the resident ecosystem (predator, prey, competitor etc.) Very little if: " no habitat damage " little associated catch " species removed are highly mobile so MPAs won t change local abundance

47 Conceptual Model for Determining Levels Of Protection Does proposed activity alter natural physical habitat (ie. substrate) directly? NO Is abundance of any species in natural habitat (targeted or nontargeted) likely to be substantially different in the MPA relative to an SMR? (i.e. will take result in a chronic population reduction?) YES Is habitat alteration likely to change community structure substantially? NO YES NO YES Is removal of any species likely to impact community structure directly or indirectly? Does any removed species form biogenic habitat that would be substantially altered by removal? NO YES NO YES Is the altered abundance of any spp. likely to alter community structure through species interactions? Is habitat alteration likely to change community structure? NO YES LOP: NO YES Substantial change in community structure? High Mod-high Moderate Mod-low Low NO YES

48 Level of Protection MPA Types Very high SMR No take High SMCA Activities associated with this protection level In water depth > 50m: pelagic finfish, bonito and white seabass (H&L); coastal pelagic finfish (pelagic seine) Mod-high Moderate Mod-low Low SMCA SMCA SMP SMCA SMP SMCA SMP Squid (pelagic seine); In water depth <50m: pelagic finfish, bonito and white seabass (H&L); coastal pelagic finfish (pelagic seine); spot prawn (traps/pots); sea cucumber (scuba/hookah); grunion (hand harvest); abalone (snorkel); halibut, shorebased finfish, croaker, and flatfishes (H&L); clams (hand harvest); giant kelp (hand harvest); kelp bass, barred sand bass, sheephead, lingcod, cabezon, rockfish, and other reef fish (H&L, spear, trap); spotted sand bass and surfperches (H&L); lobster (trap, hoop net, scuba); rock scallop (scuba), urchin (scuba/ hookah); mussels (any method); all trawling; giant kelp (mechanical harvest); mariculture (existing methods in NCCSR)

Improve recreational, educational, and study

Protect representative and unique habitats. 5.

49 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.

50 Protecting Populations size and spacing MPAs must be large enough that adults don t move out of them too frequently (and become vulnerable to fishing) MPAs must be close enough together that sufficient larvae can move from one to the next

51 Species Movements and MPAs 10 km

52 Adult Movement 12 Home ranges of 25 west coast rocky habitat fish species number of species 8 4 Conclusion: 76% of these species moved less than 0.5 km 0 Median max. distance (km) Freiwald, 2012 Can. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

53 Size Guidelines Minimum alongshore span of 5 10 km (3-6 statute miles) Preferably km (6-12 statute miles) Extend from the intertidal zone to deep waters (3 statute miles offshore)

54 Protecting Populations size and spacing MPAs must be large enough that adults don t move out of them too frequently (and become vulnerable to fishing) MPAs must be close enough together that sufficient larvae can move from one to the next

55 Spacing: Reserves Connected by Larval Dispersal

56 Characteristics of Networks Single large reserve dispersal of young Network of smaller reserves - same overall size

Size and Spacing Guidelines Size Spacing Size: 5-10 km, minimum 10-20 km, preferred Intertidal to deep waters Spacing: 50 100

57 Size and Spacing Guidelines Size Spacing Size: 5-10 km, minimum km, preferred Intertidal to deep waters Spacing: km apart Size and spacing are interrelated Smaller MPAs more reliant on connectivity Data from Kinlan and Gaines 2003, PISCO 2007

58 How Much Habitat is Needed? For a habitat to contribute to a network Estimated proportion of species Square KM (or linear distance along coastline) Should be sufficient to encompass most of the species that live in the habitat Survey data shows how more area captures more species MLPA SAT determined that area should be sufficient to capture 90% of biodiversity

59 How much habitat is needed? The amount needed varies by habitat Habitat Representa-on needed to encompass 90% of biodiversity Data Source Rocky Inter,dal ~0.48 linear miles PISCO Biodiversity Shallow Rocky Reefs/Kelp Forests (0-30 M) ~1.14 linear miles Crane Sub,dal Surveys Deep Rocky Reefs ( M) ~0.20 square miles Love surveys Deep Rocky Reefs ( M) ~0.22 square miles Love Surveys Sandy Beaches ~1.14 Linear miles Based on 0-30 m sandy habitat Sandy Habitat (0-30 M) ~1.14 Linear miles Based on shallow rocky reefs Sandy Habitat ( M) ~2.24 square miles SCCWRP (BIGHT '98 & '03) Sandy Habitat ( M) ~1.10 square miles SCCWRP (BIGHT '98 & '03) Sandy Habitat (>200 M) ~0.46 square miles SCCWRP (BIGHT '98 & '03) All Sandy Habitat (>0 M) ~ 8 square miles Preferred integrate NMFS and SCCWRP Estuarine Habitats 0.12 square miles (77 acres) SONGS sampling

60 How can science help inform MPA policy? Identify potential goals of MPAs Identify important design criteria Develop rigorous approaches for evaluating MPA effectiveness

61 1. Required by MLPA Why Evaluate MPAs? The law requires that the master plan include [R]ecommendations for monitoring, research, and evaluation to assist in adaptive management of the MPA network (FGC Section 2856(a)2(H)) 2. Adopted Goals of the Central Coast Regional Stakeholder Group Goal 5-2. develop objectives, a long-term monitoring plan that includes standardized biological and socioeconomic monitoring protocols, and a strategy for MPA evaluation Given limited resources, any management approach comes with costs: detracts from alternative approaches redirects resources (financial and human)

Why Evaluate MPAs? 4. If ineffective and without evaluation, provides false sense of security jeopardizes resource, especially if other existing regulations are relaxed 5.

62 Why Evaluate MPAs? 4. If ineffective and without evaluation, provides false sense of security jeopardizes resource, especially if other existing regulations are relaxed 5. Critical to refining design and adaptive management: the sooner benefits/costs determined, the more rapidly aspects of design can be refined 6. Goals common to evaluation and application e.g., fisheries application

63 California Kelp Forest Food Web Humans Fishes PISCIVORES Pinnipeds SECONDARY PREDATORS INVERTEBRATE EATERS Fishes Birds Otters Fishes PREDATORS Seastars Molluscs Crustaceans GRAZERS PLANKTIVORES Fishes Crustaceans Fishes Crustaceans Urchins Molluscs DETRITIVORES Annelids Cucumbers Sessile Invertebrates Zooplankton MACROALGAE Corallines Red Foliose Other Brown Macroalgae Kelps Algal Detritus Phytoplankton

To Fish or Not to Fish? A role-playing activity based on the Marine Reserves process at the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary

To Fish or Not to Fish? A role-playing activity based on the Marine Reserves process at the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Introduction This role playing activity is designed to teach you about