Final Technical Report: - Southwest Fisheries Science Center - NOAA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Blue whales had the greatest deviation between stratified line-transect and modeled density estimates across all years pooled (RD = 1.335) and for any single year (range = 0.222 to 5.602). The highest value of RD for the annual predictions of blue whales was due to considerably more sightings than predicted during 2006 in the waters of the equatorial cold tongue and off the West coast of the Baja Peninsula. The corresponding lowest value for blue whales was due to higher predictions than sightings for the equatorial cold tongue stratum in 1989. Blue whale distribution is very patchy, even relative to other cetacean species, and it is possible that the apparent discrepancy between the stratified line-transect and the model’s predicted estimates of density are due to the inability of the encounter rate or group size models to properly account for this patchiness. 4.8 <strong>Final</strong> Models for the California Current Ecosystem Barlow and Forney (2007) provide information on the search effort, number of species sighted, and associated multiple-covariate line-transect abundance estimates for the 1991-2005 shipboard surveys. The 12 species for which we developed final habitat models for the CCE were selected to maximize sample size and included: striped dolphin, short-beaked common dolphin, Risso’s dolphin, Pacific white-sided dolphin, northern right whale dolphin, Dall’s porpoise, sperm whale, fin whale, blue whale, humpback whale, Baird's beaked whale, and a small beaked whale guild (Ziphius and Mesoplodon). A total of 8,956 transect segments from the 1991-2001 CCE surveys were available for model building, the majority of which were 5 km in length (refer to Becker 2007 for a description of data processing). Models were built using only those segments for which all the habitat data were available. Due to persistent cloud cover off the California coast, satellitederived SST data were available for approximately 86% of the database segments (7,744). Fewer segments were available to develop the combined models (7,426), because additional segments were missing in situ data due to instrument failure. To parameterize the final predictive models, the best models were re-fit to the entire 1991-2005 dataset, consisting of 11,252 transect segments, of which 10,005 segments were available for the remotely sensed models and 9,509 segments for the combined models. The number of sightings available for building, validating, and re-fitting the final CCE models also varied, depending on the data sources (Table 19). 80
Table 19. Data type (remotely sensed [RS] or combined remotely sensed and in situ [CB]) and number of sightings used to build, validate, and parameterize the final models for the CCE. The sightings used to build the final models are from the SWFSC’s 1991, 1993, 1996, and 2001 surveys of the CCE. Sightings from SWFSC’s 2005 survey were used to validate the best models. The best models were re-fit to all years of data (i.e. 1991-2005) to parameterize the final predictive models. Numbers reflect sightings for which remotely sensed SST data were available (remotely sensed models) or for which both the remotely sensed and in situ grid data were available (combined models). The numbers reflect sightings in Beaufort sea states 0-5. Species Data Type 81 Total number of sightings build validate re-fit Striped dolphin RS 51 23 74 Short-beaked common dolphin CB 298 87 385 Risso’s dolphin RS 90 13 103 Pacific white-sided dolphin CB 49 4 53 Northern right whale dolphin CB 56 5 61 Dall’s porpoise CB 311 50 361 Sperm whale CB 47 21 68 Fin whale RS 152 86 238 Blue whale CB 157 24 181 Humpback whale RS 98 52 150 Baird’s beaked whale RS 13 5 18 Small beaked whales RS 68 11 79 Model validation using the novel 2005 dataset revealed that the models for Risso’s dolphin and Baird’s beaked whale were not effective at capturing their distribution patterns, indicating that the models required re-examination and subsequent replacement of continuous habitat predictors with static variables (see Section 4.7). Models for both species were substantially improved using the static variables; the final models for all species showed that density estimates were similar to those derived by Barlow (2003) using line-transect analyses (Table 20).
Page 1 and 2:
U N I R A P E D T T E M D S E N TA
Page 3:
C O L A N IO T A N U N C I EA .S. D
Page 6 and 7:
This report was prepared under cont
Page 8 and 9:
Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbr
Page 10 and 11:
C.1 Journal Publications ..........
Page 12 and 13:
Figure 18. Encounter rate models bu
Page 14 and 15:
List of Tables Table 1. Summary of
Page 16 and 17:
Appendix B, Table B-6. Summary of m
Page 18 and 19:
Acknowledgements This project was f
Page 20 and 21:
of these choices as possible and us
Page 22 and 23:
Although our models include most of
Page 24 and 25:
2.0 Background The Navy and other m
Page 26 and 27:
comparison is based on a separate s
Page 28 and 29:
Figure 1. Transects (green lines) s
Page 30 and 31:
used to evaluate the ability of sum
Page 32 and 33:
3.1.5 Mid-trophic Sampling with Net
Page 34 and 35:
variable. Interpolated maps of the
Page 36 and 37:
Table 2. Variogram model results. A
Page 38 and 39:
“number of individuals” as the
Page 40 and 41:
Encounter Rate and Group Size Model
Page 42 and 43:
were built separately for each of t
Page 44 and 45:
Expanding models to the entire U.S.
Page 46 and 47:
Table 4. Summary of the weighted ef
Page 48 and 49:
Consistent with Barlow and Forney (
Page 50 and 51:
incorporation of geographic coordin
Page 52 and 53: overwhelming majority of “Bryde
Page 54 and 55: the genera Ziphius and Mesoplodon.
Page 56 and 57: Table 7. Geographically stratified
Page 58 and 59: above, and the data themselves, are
Page 60 and 61: (hereafter “summer”). SWFSC has
Page 62 and 63: avoid these problems, we decided to
Page 64 and 65: Figure 9. Thermocline depth (m) obs
Page 66 and 67: Attempts to adjust search parameter
Page 68 and 69: CAMMS 1991 PODS 1993 ORCAWALE 1996
Page 70 and 71: 4.2 Modeling Framework : GLM and GA
Page 72 and 73: 4.2.4 Conclusions Regardings Modeli
Page 74 and 75: Table 10 cont. Comparison of the si
Page 76 and 77: Table 11 cont. Comparison of the si
Page 78 and 79: Figure 15. The transect lines used
Page 80 and 81: A) Striped dolphin 10 km B) Short-b
Page 82 and 83: dependent. For example, the number
Page 84 and 85: Figure 19. Predicted average densit
Page 86 and 87: ecosystem, eastern spinner dolphins
Page 88 and 89: Table 13. Variables selected for mo
Page 90 and 91: Table 14. Starting and final AIC va
Page 92 and 93: Table 17. Ratios of observed to pre
Page 94 and 95: species represented in the acoustic
Page 96 and 97: 0.29 (Risso’s dolphin) to 3.20 (n
Page 98 and 99: Figure 25. Sample 2005 validation p
Page 100 and 101: Table 18. (continued) 1991 1993 Nor
Page 104 and 105: Table 20. Abundance (number of anim
Page 106 and 107: Table 22. Proportion of deviance ex
Page 108 and 109: Figure 27. Average density (AveDens
Page 110 and 111: Table 23. Effective degrees of free
Page 112 and 113: We attempted to build encounter rat
Page 114 and 115: 5.0 Conclusion The field of predict
Page 116 and 117: 6.0 Transition Plan The models of c
Page 118 and 119: needed to ensure that the SDSS rema
Page 120 and 121: Administrative Report LJ-07-02. NOA
Page 122 and 123: Forney KA, Barlow J (1993) Prelimin
Page 124 and 125: Redfern JV, Barlow J, Ballance LT,
Page 126 and 127: Appendix A: Detailed Model Results
Page 128 and 129: Table A-1 (continued) Blue whale 19
Page 130 and 131: Figure A-1a. Striped dolphin 108
Page 132 and 133: Figure A-1c. Risso’s dolphin 110
Page 134 and 135: Figure A-1e. Northern right whale d
Page 136 and 137: Figure A-1g. Sperm whale 114
Page 138 and 139: Figure A-1i. Blue whale 116
Page 140 and 141: Figure A-1k. Baird’s beaked whale
Page 142 and 143: Figure A-2. Predicted average densi
Page 144 and 145: Figure A-2b. Short-beaked common do
Page 146 and 147: Figure A-2d. Pacific white-sided do
Page 148 and 149: Figure A-2f. Dall’s porpoise 126
Page 150 and 151: Figure A-2h. Fin whale 128
Page 152 and 153:
Figure A-2j. Humpback whale 130
Page 154 and 155:
Figure A-2l. Small beaked whales 13
Page 156 and 157:
Table B-2. Summary of model validat
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Table B-10. Summary of model valida
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Figure B-1. Predicted yearly and av
Page 186 and 187:
Figure B-1. b) Eastern spinner dolp
Page 188 and 189:
Figure B-1. c) Whitebelly spinner d
Page 190 and 191:
Figure B-1. d) Striped dolphin 168
Page 192 and 193:
Figure B-1. e) Rough-toothed dolphi
Page 194 and 195:
Figure B-1. f) Short-beaked common
Page 196 and 197:
Figure B-1. g) Bottlenose dolphin 1
Page 198 and 199:
Figure B-1. h) Risso’s dolphin 17
Page 200 and 201:
Figure B-1. i) Cuvier’s beaked wh
Page 202 and 203:
Figure B-1. j) Blue whale 180
Page 204 and 205:
Figure B-1. k) Bryde’s whale 182
Page 206 and 207:
Figure B-1. l) Short-finned pilot w
Page 208 and 209:
Figure B-1. m) Dwarf sperm whale 18
Page 210 and 211:
Figure B-1. n) Mesoplodon beaked wh
Page 212 and 213:
Figure B-1. o) Small beaked whales
Page 214 and 215:
Figure B-2. Predicted average densi
Page 216 and 217:
Figure B-2. (cont.) c) Whitebelly s
Page 218 and 219:
Figure B-2. (cont.) g) Bottlenose d
Page 220 and 221:
Figure B-2. (cont.) k) Bryde’s wh
Page 222 and 223:
Figure B-2. (cont.) o) Small beaked
Page 224 and 225:
Ferguson MC (2005) Cetacean Populat
Page 226 and 227:
Barlow J, Kahru M, Mitchell BG (In
Page 228 and 229:
Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-374, U.S. Dep
show all

Final Technical Report: - Southwest Fisheries Science Center - NOAA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?