Final Technical Report: - Southwest Fisheries Science Center - NOAA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

used to evaluate the ability of summer/fall models to predict winter/spring cetacean density patterns (Section 3.8). 3.1.2 In situ Oceanographic Measurements Oceanographic variables were measured on NMFS cetacean and ecosystem assessment surveys in the ETP during 1986-2006 and in the CCE during 1991-2005. Sea surface temperature (SST) and salinity (SSS) from a thermosalinograph were recorded continuously at 0.5 to 2 minute intervals and averaged over 5-10 km intervals to reduce both the number of observations and the discrepancy in sample spacing along and between transects. Thermocline depth (TD, depth of maximum temperature gradient in a 10 m interval), thermocline strength (TS, ºC m -1 ), and mixed layer depth (MLD, the depth at which temperature is 0.5ºC less than surface temperature) were estimated from expendable bathythermograph (XBT) and conductivitytemperature-depth (CTD) casts collected three to five times per day. Surface chlorophyll (CHL, mg m -3 ) was estimated at the same stations from the surface bottle on the CTD or from bucket samples analyzed by standard techniques (Holm-Hansen et al. 1965). CHL was log-transformed (using natural logarithms) to normalize the data for interpolation. Details of the field methods can be found in Philbrick et al. (2001, 2003). 3.1.3 Remotely Sensed Oceanographic Measurements Remotely sensed sea surface temperature (SST) data were considered for models within the California Current Ecosystem. Models included SST and measures of its variance as potential predictors. SST data (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service/Pathfinder v5) were obtained via an OPeNDAP server using Matlab code that enabled remote, automated downloading of data for user-specified positions and resolutions. As part of this analysis (Becker 2007), we examined the predictive power of six different spatial resolutions of satellite SST data ranging from one pixel (approximately 31 km 2 ) to 36 pixels (approximately 1,109 km 2 ). Three temporal resolutions were also compared: 1) 1-day, 2) 8-day, and 3) 30-day composites. We used the coefficient of variation of SST, CV(SST), for resolutions greater than one pixel as a proxy for frontal regions in the California Current study area. Results are summarized below and details can be found in Becker (2007). Our SST temporal resolution analysis for the satellite-derived data indicated that, while 30-day SST composites had good within-dataset explanatory ability, predictive ability across datasets was poor at this coarser temporal resolution. A correlation analysis showed high correlation between the 1-day and 8-day SST values (R 2 = 0.96), indicating that the 8-day composites provided adequate representation of average conditions on the day of the survey. Based on this evaluation and the greater availability of 8-day composite data compared to 1-day composites, we selected 8-day running average SST composites, centered on the date of each survey segment. 8
The SST spatial resolution comparison indicated that, for the majority of species, the greatest predictive ability was observed for the coarsest SST spatial resolution (Table 1). The predictive ability of different spatial resolutions of satellite-derived CV(SST) was more variable than that of SST. For many species, the best CV(SST) spatial resolution was among the finer resolutions considered in this study, perhaps reflecting the importance of localized upwelling events or small-scale frontal features. Table 1. Summary of satellite-derived sea surface temperature (SST) and CV(SST) spatial resolutions selected for ten California Current Ecosystem species. Numbers refer to the number of pixels included in the resolution. The spatial resolutions tested included 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, and 36 pixels, corresponding to 5.55-33.3 km boxes (i.e., 30.8 – 1,108.9 km 2 ). Models are described in more detail in Section 3.3. Past studies have shown relationships between cetacean sightings and other remotely sensed measures such as chlorophyll (Smith et al. 1986, Jaquet et al. 1996, Moore et al. 2002). However, satellite-derived measures of chlorophyll concentration were not available for 3 of the 4 survey years used to develop our CCE habitat models. The Coastal Zone Color Scanner (CZCS), one of the first satellite sensors to collect ocean color data, ceased operation in 1986 and the Sea Wide-Field-of-View Sensor (SeaWiFS) began operating shortly after our 1996 cetacean survey was over. Since chlorophyll data were not available for most of our time series, we did not include this variable as a potential predictor in our habitat models. 3.1.4 Water Depth and Bottom Slope Water depth was derived from the ETOPO2 2-minute global relief data (U.S. Department of Commerce 2006), re-gridded to match the pixel resolutions used for modeling. Slope was calculated as the magnitude of the bathymetry gradient using the gradient operator tool in Generic Mapping Tools (Wessel and Smith 1998). Depth and slope values for each geographic location were obtained using the “sample” tool in ArcGIS (version 9.2, ESRI, Inc.). 9
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 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 102 and 103:
Blue whales had the greatest deviat
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?