Final Technical Report: - Southwest Fisheries Science Center - NOAA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

incorporation of geographic coordinates into the model is a simple way to account for this relationship. Table 5. Total number of sightings used to build, validate, and parameterize the final models for the ETP. The sightings used to build the initial models are from the SWFSC’s 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2003 surveys of the ETP. Sightings from the SWFSC survey in 2006 were used to validate the best models. The best models were re-fit to the additional year of data to parameterize the final predictive models. Numbers reflect sightings made in Beaufort sea states of 0-5 and for which in situ data were available. Guild Total number of sightings build validate re-fit Offshore spotted dolphin 886 116 1002 Eastern spinner dolphin 395 62 457 Whitebelly spinner dolphin 168 16 184 Striped dolphin 1081 124 1205 Rough-toothed dolphin 212 34 246 Short-beaked common dolphin 423 66 489 Bottlenose dolphin 626 87 713 Risso's dolphin 250 25 275 Cuvier's beaked whale 116 9 125 Blue whale 74 35 109 Bryde's whale 267 29 296 Short-finned pilot whale 296 58 354 Dwarf sperm whale 99 13 112 Mesoplodon spp. 116 14 130 Small beaked whales 257 26 283 Oceanography values for each segment were calculated as weighted averages of the oceanography data collected on the same day as, and within a radius of 50 km of, each segment midpoint. Inverse distance weighting (distance -1 ) was used in the weighted average computations. GAM Model Construction Encounter rate and group size models for the ETP were constructed using survey data from 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2003. All models were created using the R (version 2.6.2) mgcv package (version 1.3-29), as described under Model Comparison Analysis in Section 3.3. Models containing univariate smooths were constructed first. Interactions were introduced on a case-by-case basis to improve model fit and predictive ability. 28
The eastern spinner dolphin was the only species for which interactions were included in the GAMs. Model Evaluation For each guild and response variable, a “simple” and a “complex” model were compared using ASPE and ratio criteria for the geographic strata shown in shown in Figure 7. The “simple models” had relatively few effective degrees of freedom and the smallest sum of absolute deviations of the observed-to-predicted ratios. Similarly, the “complex models” represented those having a relatively large number of effective degrees of freedom in addition to good agreement between observed and predicted values of the response variable. For cases in which a single model clearly outperformed all of the others, only one model was selected. 29 Figure 7. Geographic strata used for ETP model selection and validation. WBP: West Baja Peninsula. GOC: Gulf of California. NEC: North Equatorial Current. NECC: North Equatorial Countercurrent. EWP: Equatorial Warm Pool. CRD: Costa Rica Dome. ECT: Equatorial Cold Tongue. Coast: Coastal stratum (separated from other geographic strata only for the offshore spotted dolphin analysis). As discussed above under <strong>Final</strong> CCE Model Selection for the California Current ecosystem, we convened a workshop for cetacean experts to solicit feedback on preliminary model results. We incorporated all of the experts’ comments into the final models, as summarized below: Build a model for “small beaked whales” that includes all sightings for the genus Mesoplodon, in addition to “unidentified small beaked whale” sightings. Include sightings of “Bryde’s or sei (Balaenoptera borealis) whales” in the Bryde’s whale model. Bryde’s and sei whales can be difficult to distinguish from a distance, but the
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 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?