1
National Marine Sanctuaries and Marine Spatial Planning: The Importance of Apex Predators in Planning for the Future Sara Maxwell 1 , Barry Nickel 1 , Scott Shaffer 2 , Bruce Mate 3 , Steven Bograd 4 , William Henry 1 , Michelle Kappes 5 , Greg Breed 1 , Helen Bailey 4 , Michael Weise 6 , Carey Kuhn 7 , Patrick Robinson 1 , Barbara Block 8 , Daniel Costa 1 1 University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz CA, 2 Department of Biological Sciences, San Jose State University, San Jose CA, 3 Hatfield Marine Science Center, Oregon State University, Newport OR, 4 Environmental Research Division, NOAA, Pacific Grove CA, 5 Université de la Réunion, Saint-Denis, Réunion, 6 Office of Naval Research, Washington DC, 7 National Marine Mammal Lab, NOAA, Seattle WA, 8 Hopkins Marine Station, Stanford University, Pacific Grove CA Introduction & Methods: Understanding how apex predators use marine protected areas is crucial to implementing marine spatial management (MSP) (Hooker & Gerber 2004). We used satellite tracking to determine habitat utilization with the California Current System and US National Marine Sanctuaries between 2003 and 2008. Species include: 1. Blue whales, Balaenoptera musculus; n=51; 2004 2007 2. Humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae; n=21; 2004 2005 3. California sea lions, Zalophus californianus; n=79; 2003 2008 4. Sooty shearwaters; Puffinus griseus; n=26, 2005 2006 5. Black-footed albatrosses, Diomedea nigripes; n=38; 2003 2006 6. Laysan albatrosses, D. immutabilis; n=99; 2003, 2005 2006 Tracks were gridded (0.25°) and high density areas calculated for individual species and all species over a number of time periods. Conclusions & Recommendations: The Sanctuaries incorporate high density species areas though gaps occur in northern California and southern Oregon (Figure 1). Shifts in distribution patters occurred between years, particularly anomalously warm oceanographic years (Figure 2) (Schwing et al 2006) and use varied by species (Figure 3). We recommend: 1. Extending Sanctuary boundaries offshore to protect during variable years 2. Apply MSP to reduce interactions between whales and potential offshore oil and gas development. 3. Use MSP to prevent against direct (i.e. bird bycatch) and indirect (i.e. resource competition with sea lions) fishery interactions within Sanctuary boundaries. 4. Increase protections in northern California and southern Oregon. These changes will result in more comprehensive protections on along the US West Coast. Figure 1. Number of species per grid cell for all satellite tracking years (2003-2008). The Sanctuaries incorporate high-density areas in central California but additional protections are necessary offshore and to the north. Species represented: Blue whales, humpback whales, California sea lions, sooty shearwaters, black-footed albatrosses and Laysan albatrosses. Figure 2. Species distributions (animals per grid cell) for blue whales in 2005 (a) and 2006 (b), female California sea lions in 2005 (c) and 2006 (d); California sea lion males in 2005 (e) and 2004 (f) show how distribution varied in cooler (2004 or 2006) vs. warmer (2005) years. Stars represent tagging locations. Blue whales 2005 Blue whales 2006 Sea lions (female) 2005 Sea lions (female) 2006 (a) (d) (b) (c) Sea lions (male) 2005 Sea lions (male) 2004 (e) (f) Black-footed albatross Sea lions (female) Humpback whales Sooty shearwaters (d) (b) (c) (a) Figure 3. Overall species distributions (animals per grid cell) for black-footed albatrosses (a), sooty shearwaters (b), female sea lions (c) and humpback whales (d) show the various intensities species use the Sanctuaries. Literature Cited: Hooker SK & Gerber LR (2004) Marine reserves as a tool for ecosystem-based management: the potential importance of megafauna. Bioscience 54(1):27-39; Swing FB, Bond NA, Bograd SJ, Mitchell T, Alexander MA, Mantua N (2006) Delayed coastal upwelling along the US West Coast in 2005: a historical perspective. Geophysical Research Letters 33:L22S01. Acknowledgements: All data is part of the Tagging of Pacific Pelagics project, funded by grants from Sloan Foundation, Moore Foundation, Joint Industry Project and NOPP. S Maxwell is funded by National Science Foundation and UCSC STEPS Institute and acknowledges the support of the UCSC Center for Integrated Spatial Research. Cordell Bank NMS Gulf of the Farallones NMS Monterey Bay NMS Channel Islands NMS Olympic Coast NMS

Marine Spatial Planning and the National Marine

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    5

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Marine Spatial Planning and the National Marine

National Marine Sanctuaries and Marine Spatial Planning: The Importance of Apex Predators in Planning for the Future

Sara Maxwell1, Barry Nickel1, Scott Shaffer2, Bruce Mate3, Steven Bograd4, William Henry1, Michelle Kappes5, GregBreed1, Helen Bailey4, Michael Weise6, Carey Kuhn7, Patrick Robinson1, Barbara Block8, Daniel Costa1

1University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz CA, 2Department of Biological Sciences, San Jose State University, San Jose CA, 3Hatfield Marine ScienceCenter, Oregon State University, Newport OR, 4Environmental Research Division, NOAA, Pacific Grove CA, 5Université de la Réunion, Saint-Denis,Réunion, 6Office of Naval Research, Washington DC, 7National Marine Mammal Lab, NOAA, Seattle WA, 8Hopkins Marine Station, Stanford University,Pacific Grove CA

Introduction & Methods:Understanding how apex predators usemarine protected areas is crucial toimplementing marine spatial management(MSP) (Hooker & Gerber 2004). We usedsatellite tracking to determine habitatutilization with the California CurrentSystem and US National Marine Sanctuariesbetween 2003 and 2008. Species include:

1. Blue whales, Balaenoptera musculus; n=51; 2004 – 2007

2. Humpback whales, Megapteranovaeangliae; n=21; 2004 – 2005

3. California sea lions, Zalophuscalifornianus; n=79; 2003 – 2008

4. Sooty shearwaters; Puffinus griseus; n=26, 2005 – 2006

5. Black-footed albatrosses, Diomedeanigripes; n=38; 2003 – 2006

6. Laysan albatrosses, D. immutabilis; n=99; 2003, 2005 – 2006

Tracks were gridded (0.25°) and high densityareas calculated for individual species andall species over a number of time periods.

Conclusions & Recommendations:The Sanctuaries incorporate high densityspecies areas though gaps occur in northernCalifornia and southern Oregon (Figure 1).Shifts in distribution patters occurredbetween years, particularly anomalouslywarm oceanographic years (Figure 2)(Schwing et al 2006) and use varied byspecies (Figure 3). We recommend:

1. Extending Sanctuary boundaries offshore to protect during variable years

2. Apply MSP to reduce interactions between whales and potential offshore oil and gas development.

3. Use MSP to prevent against direct (i.e. bird bycatch) and indirect (i.e. resource competition with sea lions) fishery interactions within Sanctuary boundaries.

4. Increase protections in northern California and southern Oregon.

These changes will result in morecomprehensive protections on along the USWest Coast.

Figure 1. Number of species per grid cell for all satellite tracking years(2003-2008). The Sanctuaries incorporate high-density areas in centralCalifornia but additional protections are necessary offshore and to thenorth. Species represented: Blue whales, humpback whales, Californiasea lions, sooty shearwaters, black-footed albatrosses and Laysanalbatrosses.

Figure 2. Species distributions (animals per grid cell) for blue whales in 2005 (a) and 2006 (b), female Californiasea lions in 2005 (c) and 2006 (d); California sea lion males in 2005 (e) and 2004 (f) show how distribution variedin cooler (2004 or 2006) vs. warmer (2005) years. Stars represent tagging locations.

Blue whales 2005

Blue whales 2006

Sea lions (female)2005

Sea lions (female)2006

(a)

(d)(b)

(c)Sea lions (male)

2005

Sea lions (male)2004

(e)

(f)

Black-footedalbatross

Sea lions (female)

Humpbackwhales

Sootyshearwaters

(d)(b)

(c)(a)

Figure 3. Overall species distributions (animals per grid cell) for black-footedalbatrosses (a), sooty shearwaters (b), female sea lions (c) and humpbackwhales (d) show the various intensities species use the Sanctuaries.

Literature Cited: Hooker SK & Gerber LR (2004) Marine reserves as a tool for ecosystem-based management: the potential importance of megafauna. Bioscience 54(1):27-39; Swing FB, Bond NA, BogradSJ, Mitchell T, Alexander MA, Mantua N (2006) Delayed coastal upwelling along the US West Coast in 2005: a historical perspective. Geophysical Research Letters 33:L22S01.Acknowledgements: All data is part of the Tagging of Pacific Pelagics project, funded by grants from Sloan Foundation, Moore Foundation, Joint Industry Project and NOPP. S Maxwell is funded byNational Science Foundation and UCSC STEPS Institute and acknowledges the support of the UCSC Center for Integrated Spatial Research.

Cordell Bank NMS

Gulf of the Farallones NMS

Monterey Bay NMS

Channel Islands NMS

Olympic Coast NMS