Marine Protected areas in the Channel Islands: the first five years Jenn Caselle * Scott Hamilton * Dan Malone * David Kushner +! Mark Carr * *Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans, UCSB and UCSC + Channel Islands National Park
Most of our oceans are impacted by humans Halpern et. al Science 2008
Protected Areas Rare in the Sea Roberts and Hawkins Far less than 1% of ocean in marine reserves
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
SCUBA surveys Fish: density and sizes Kelps and mobile inverts: density Algae and inverts: % cover
Sampling design Coastline 30 x 2 m belt transects Fish transect distribution 5 m 10 m 15 m 20 m 5 m 12 m 20 m Algae / invertebrate transect distribution
Sampling Sites San Miguel Santa Rosa Santa Cruz Anacapa Santa Barbara
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) Satellite-derived sea surface temperature C Fig. from Broitman, B.
Biogeographic Patterns EAST WEST
There are strong regional effects on community structure San Miguel Santa Rosa W & S Santa Cruz N Anacapa & Santa Cruz Santa Barbara NE Santa Cruz Fish community structure SMI SRI SCI ANA SBI SIMPROF P = 0.01 *PISCO and KFM data sets show similar patterns
Given the biogeographic differences across the islands! Does density, size structure and biomass differ inside and outside of reserves??
Reserve Understanding ratios Reserve/Non-Reserve Fewer inside reserve relative to outside, ratio <1 Non-reserve Spp A B C D Ratio = 3/9 = 0.33 <1 1 Ratio
Reserve Understanding ratios Reserve/Non-Reserve Greater inside reserve relative to inside, ratio > 1 Non-reserve Ratio = 9/3 = 3.0 Spp A B C D E F G H <1 1 >1 Ratio
Are there more fish in the CI reserves?
Targeted fish species are more abundant in reserves Ocean whitefish Lingcod Sheephead Blue rockfish Rock wrasse Cabezon Vermillion rockfish Shiner surfperch Olive rockfish Gopher rockfish Kelp Bass Treefish Pile surfperch Copper rockfish Striped surfperch Painted greenling Brown rockfish Rubberlip surfperch Black surfperch Kelp rockfish B & Y rockfish Senorita Bat ray Garibaldi Opaleye Blacksmith Kelp surfperch Giant Kelpfish Halfmoon Silverside Rainbow surfperch Tubesnout Fish Density Targeted (avg. ratio = 1.48 ± 0.12) Non-targeted (avg. ratio = 0.95 ± 0.07) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Reserve : non-reserve ratio
Similar patterns are seen in ROV surveys from deeper waters Blacksmith Vermilion RF Blue RF Lingcod Copper RF Treefish Sebastomus Pile Perch Gopher RF CA Sheephead Olive RF Señorita Targeted Avg. ratio = 1.44 ± 0.08 Non-targeted Avg. ratio = 1.45 ± 0.35 ROV Surveys (2005-2007) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Ratio of Fish Density (Inside/Outside)
Biomass of targeted species is increasing over time in reserves 1.0 D) Targeted species E) Non-targeted species Biomass 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 In Out 0.0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 ANCOVA: reserve effect Targeted spp., p=0.03, Non-targeted spp., p=0.47 Hamilton, Caselle, et al PNAS 2010
Densities of algae and invertebrates show similar patterns 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) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Reserve : non-reserve ratio
Are fish bigger in marine reserves?
Targeted fish species are larger in reserves Fish Average Length Ocean whitefish Copper rockfish Kelp bass Lingcod B & Y rockfish Brown rockfish Sheephead Olive Rockfish Black surfperch Kelp rockfish Blacksmith Rainbow Surfperch Cabezon Rock wrasse Rubberlip surfperch Blue rockfish Opaleye Kelp surfperch Vermillion rockfish Painted greenling Striped surfperch Halfmoon Bat ray Pile surfperch Giant kelpfish Island kelpfish Shiner surfperch Graibaldi Gopher rockfish Treefish Senorita Silverside Targeted (avg. ratio = 1.05 ± 0.02) Non-targeted (avg. ratio = 0.97 ± 0.02) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 Reserve : non-reserve ratio
50 40 30 20 10 0 50 40 Anacapa 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Sta Barbara Kelp Bass In Out Median length In = 25 cm Out = 21 cm *** Percent of total 30 20 10 0 50 40 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Sta Cruz In = 32.5 cm Out = 30 cm ** 20 10 0 50 40 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Sta Rosa In = 21 cm Out = 18 cm *** 30 20 10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 In = 35 cm Out = 24 cm *** Total length (cm) ** = p<0.01, *** = p<0.001, ns= non sig
CA sheephead Percent of total 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Anacapa 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Sta Barbara 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Sta Cruz 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Sta Rosa San Miguel In Out 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Total length (cm) Median length In=29 cm Out=15 cm *** In=28 cm Out=30 cm * In=31 cm Out=27 cm *** In=38 cm Out=38 cm ns In=34 cm Out=40 cm *** * = p<0.05, *** = p<0.001, ns= non sig
Why does this matter? Bigger fish produce far more eggs CA Sheephead Kelp Rockfish Fecundity (Eggs) x 1000 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Total length Fecundity (Eggs) x 1000 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 10 20 30 40 Total length
!Potential" egg production is greater in reserves Egg Production Olive rockfish Sheephead Kelp bass Kelp rockfish 0 1 2 3 4 Reserve : non-reserve ratio
Is there more fish biomass in marine reserves?
Targeted fish species have greater biomass in reserves Ocean whitefish Lingcod Sheephead Kelp bass Rock wrasse Copper rockfish Cabezon Olive Rockfish Blue rockfish Vermillion rockfish Kelp rockfish Island kelpfish Brown rockfish Rubberlip surfperch B & Y rockfish Painted greenling Pile surfperch Blacksmith Bat ray Black surfperch Opaleye Striped surfperch Kelp surfperch Gopher rockfish Shiner surfperch Graibaldi Halfmoon Giant kelpfish Senorita Treefish Rainbow Surfperch Silverside Tubesnout Fish Biomass Targeted (avg. ratio = 1.70 ± 0.27) Non-targeted (avg. ratio = 0.88 ± 0.07) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Reserve : non-reserve ratio
Total biomass of targeted species is greater in reserves Targeted Species In Out Non-targeted Species 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Total fish biomass (m tons/hectare)
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?
Density Fish per Transect 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 CA sheephead In Out Scorpion MR 1 km
Density Fish per Transect 7 6 5 4 3 2 Kelp bass In Out 1 0 Scorpion MR 1 km
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??
Fish biodiversity differs in reserves 17 16 Species richness ns 15 14 13 0.70 0.65 IN OUT Evenness * 0.60 0.55 0.50 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 IN OUT Diversity * San Miguel and Santa Barbara Islands are important drivers of these patterns 1.4 IN OUT Photo: National Geographic
Are there differences in food web structure in reserves? Predator functional group (i.e., role in ecosystem) Herbivores Planktivores Carnivores Piscivores Algae Zooplankton Invertebrates Fishes Prey type
Piscivores and carnivores show the strongest response to reserve protection Functional role Biomass Piscivores Carnivores Planktivores Herbivores 0 1 2 3 4 Reserve : non-reserve ratio
Differences in community structure of invertebrates and algae MDS Axis 2! Strong biogeographic differences (west vs. east! Strong differences in Anacapa reserve (old vs. ne South Point - 2005 Chickasaw - 2005 Chickasaw - 2006 Johnson's Lee North - 2005 Trancion Canyon - 2005 South Point - 2007 Chickasaw Johnson's - Lee 2007 South Point - 2006 North - 2007 Trancion Canyon - 2006 Johnson's Lee South Johnson's - 2005 Lee North - 2006 West channel Cluster Point - 2006 Cluster Point - 2005 Cluster Point - 2007 Johnson's Lee South - 2007 Johnson's Lee South - 2006 Trancion Canyon - 2007 reserve Landing Cove - 2005 Landing Cove - 2007 Landing Cove - 2006 Cathedral Cove - 2005 East chann el New Anacapa Cathedral Cove - 2006 Cathedral Cove - 2007 MDS Axis 1 Scorpion Anchorage - 2006 Potato Potato Pasture Pasture - 2005-2007 East East Fish Fish Camp - 2005-2006 Little Scorpion - 2006 Potato Pasture - 2006 Little Scorpion Scorpion Anchorage East Fish Camp - 2007 Lighthouse - 2007-2005 - 2007 Scorpion Anchorage - 2007 Cav ern Dev Point il's Peak - 2007Member - 2007 Little Scorpion Cav ern - 2005 Point - 2006 Cav ern Point - 2005 Admiral's Reef - 2007 Southeast Reef - 2006 Southeast Reef - 2007 Lighthouse - 2005 Admiral's Reef - 2005 Southeast Reef - 2005 Cat Canyon - 2006 Webster's Arch - 2007 Grav eyard Canyon - 2007 SE Sea Lion Rookery - 2007 Arch Point - 2007 Grav eyard Canyon - 2005 Lighthouse - 2006 Webster's Arch - 2005 Dev il's Peak Member Pedro Pedro - 2006 Pedro Reef Reef Reef - 2005 Cat - 2006 - Canyon 2007-2007 SE Sea Lion Rookery - 2005 Webster's Arch - 2006 Dev il's Peak Member - 2005 Admiral's Reef - 2006 Keyhole - 2007 Black Sea Bass Reef - 2005 Black Sea Bass Reef - 2006 Black Sea Bass Reef - 2007 Keyhole - 2005 Cat Canyon - 2005 SE Sea Lion Rookery Grav - 2006 eyard Canyon - 2006 Keyhole - 2006 2D Stress: 0.09 Arch Point - 2005 Arch Point - 2006 Old Anacapa reserve (established 1978) Reserve Status OUT IN Multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) analysis on KFM data Fine-scale monitoring 2005-2007
Particular species drive the differences in community structure MDS Axis 2 South Point - 2005 Chickasaw - 2005 Chickasaw - 2006 Johnson's Lee North - 2005 Trancion Canyon - 2005 South Point - 2007 Chickasaw Johnson's - Lee 2007 South Point - 2006 North - 2007 Trancion Canyon - 2006 Johnson's Lee South Johnson's - 2005 Lee North - 2006 Cluster Point - 2006 Cluster Point - 2005 Cluster Point - 2007 West chann el Johnson's Lee South - 2007 Johnson's Lee South - 2006 Trancion Canyon - 2007 Landing Cove - 2007 Landing Cove - 2005 Landing Cove - 2006 Cathedral Cove - 2005 Cathedral Cove - 2006 Cathedral Cove - 2007 MDS Axis 1 East chann el Scorpion Anchorage - 2006 Potato Potato Pasture Pasture - 2005-2007 East East Fish Fish Camp - 2005-2006 Little Scorpion - 2006 Potato Pasture - 2006 Little Scorpion Scorpion Anchorage East Fish Camp - 2007 Lighthouse - 2007-2005 - 2007 Scorpion Anchorage - 2007 Cav ern Dev Point il's Peak - 2007Member - 2007 Little Scorpion Cav ern - 2005 Point - 2006 Cav ern Point - 2005 Admiral's Reef - 2007 Southeast Reef - 2006 Southeast Reef - 2007 Lighthouse - 2005 Admiral's Reef - 2005 Southeast Reef - 2005 Cat Canyon - 2006 Webster's Arch - 2007 Grav eyard Canyon - 2007 SE Sea Lion Rookery - 2007 Arch Point - 2007 Grav eyard Canyon - 2005 Lighthouse - 2006 Webster's Arch - 2005 Dev il's Peak Member Pedro Pedro - 2006 Pedro Reef Reef Reef - 2005 Cat - 2006 - Canyon 2007-2007 SE Sea Lion Rookery - 2005 Webster's Arch - 2006 Dev il's Peak Member - 2005 Admiral's Reef - 2006 Keyhole - 2007 Black Sea Bass Reef - 2005 Black Sea Bass Reef - 2006 Black Sea Bass Reef - 2007 Keyhole - 2005 Cat Canyon - 2005 SE Sea Lion Rookery Grav - 2006 eyard Canyon - 2006 Keyhole - 2006 2D Stress: 0.09 Arch Point - 2005 Arch Point - 2006 Reserve Status OUT IN New Anacapa reserve Old Anacapa reserve (e.
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.
CA Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA)! 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 North Coast 2009-2011 North Central Coast 2007-2008 San Francisco Bay 2011 Central Coast 2004-2007 California divided in five study regions South Coast 2008-2010
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 California Department Fish & Game MLPA Initiative Team Regional Science Advisory Team California Fish and Game Commission Blue Ribbon Task Force Statewide Stakeholder Group Regional Stakeholder Group Public input to all groups throughout the process Geographic Information System Team
Creating MPA proposals - Iterative process: RSG develop SAT Evaluate RSG Refine Three examples of how science feeds into the design and evaluation of the MPA network proposals 1)! Size and spacing guidelines 2)! Bioregions 3)! Habitat replication
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
Changes in community structure may require more time than changes in abundance or size structure Changes in community structure require: 1. Successful:! Egg production! Recruitment of young! Growth (of both prey and predators) Egg production Recruitment of young Growth 2. Species interactions:! Competition! Predator-prey interactions
Densities of legal-sized and mature fish are greater in reserves Sheephead Lingcod Cabezon Kelp bass Density of legal sized fish Olive Rockfish Sheephead Gopher rockfish Blue rockfish Copper rockfish Kelp Bass B & Y rockfish Kelp rockfish Density of mature fish 0 1 2 3 4 Reserve : non-reserve ratio 0 1 2 3 4 Reserve : non-reserve ratio
Can we go beyond simple Inside vs. Outside comparisons?
Scorpion Marine Reserve, Santa Cruz Isle 2005-2007 NPS and PISCO South Point Marine Reserve, Santa Rosa Isle
Density CA sheephead Fish per Transect 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 In Out Scorpion MR 1 km
Density 3 CA sheephead 2.5 In Out Fish per Transect 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 1 km South Point MR
Density Fish per Transect 7 6 5 4 3 2 Kelp bass In Out 1 0 Scorpion MR 1 km