Developing alternatives for optimal representation of seafloor habitats and associated communities inStellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary

The implementation of various types of marine protected areas is one of several management tools available for conserving representative examples of the biological diversity within marine ecosystems in general and National Marine Sanctuaries in particular. However, deciding where and how many sites to establish within a given area is frequently hampered by incomplete knowledge of the distribution of organisms and an understanding of the potential tradeoffs that would allow planners to address frequently competing interests in an objective manner. Fortunately, this is beginning to change. Recent studies on the continental shelf of the northeastern United States suggest that substrate and water mass characteristics are highly correlated with the composition of benthic communities and may therefore, serve as proxies for the distribution of biological biodiversity. A detailed geo-referenced interpretative map of major sediment types within Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS) has recently been developed, and computer-aided decision support tools have reached new levels of sophistication. We demonstrate the use of simulated annealing, a type of mathematical optimization, to identify suites of potential conservation sites within SBNMS that equally represent 1) all major sediment types and 2) derived habitat types based on both sediment and depth in the smallest amount of space. The Sanctuary was divided into 3610 0.5 min2 sampling units. Simulations incorporated constraints on the physical dispersion of sampling units to varying degrees such that solutions included between one and four site clusters. Target representation goals were set at 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 percent of each sediment type, and 10 and 20 percent of each habitat type. Simulations consisted of 100 runs, from which we identified the best solution (i.e., smallest total area) and four nearoptimal alternates. We also plotted total instances in which each sampling unit occurred in solution sets of the 100 runs as a means of gauging the variety of spatial configurations available under each scenario. Results suggested that the total combined area needed to represent each of the sediment types in equal proportions was equal to the percent representation level sought. Slightly larger areas were required to represent all habitat types at the same representation levels. Total boundary length increased in direct proportion to the number of sites at all levels of representation for simulations involving sediment and habitat classes, but increased more rapidly with number of sites at higher representation levels. There were a large number of alternate spatial configurations at all representation levels, although generally fewer among one and two versus three- and four-site solutions. These differences were less pronounced among simulations targeting habitat representation, suggesting that a similar degree of flexibility is inherent in the spatial arrangement of potential protected area systems containing one versus several sites for similar levels of habitat representation. We attribute these results to the distribution of sediment and depth zones within the Sanctuary, and to the fact that even levels of representation were sought in each scenario. (PDF contains 33 pages.)

[1]  Peter J. Auster,et al.  Use of Simulated Annealing for Identifying Essential Fish Habitat in a Multispecies Context , 2005 .

[2]  Heather M. Leslie,et al.  Applying ecological criteria to marine reserve design: A case study from the california channel islands , 2003 .

[3]  S. Andelman,et al.  COMPARING MARINE AND TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN OF COASTAL MARINE RESERVES , 2003 .

[4]  P. H. Flournoy.  Marine Protected Areas: Tools for Sustaining Ocean Ecosystems , 2003 .

[5]  G. Fader,et al.  Benthic habitat mapping on the Scotian Shelf based on multibeam bathymetry, surficial geology and sea floor photographs , 2001 .

[6]  K. Bjorndal,et al.  Historical Overfishing and the Recent Collapse of Coastal Ecosystems , 2001, Science.

[7]  M. Beck,et al.  Ecoregional planning in marine environments: identifying priority sites for conservation in the northern Gulf of Mexico , 2001 .

[8]  P. Auster,et al.  Fish Species and Community Distributions as Proxies for Seafloor Habitat Distributions: The Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Example (Northwest Atlantic, Gulf Of Maine) , 2001, Environmental Biology of Fishes.

[9]  L. Poppe,et al.  Relationships Among Sea-Floor Structure and Benthic Communities in Long Island Sound at Regional and Benthoscape Scales , 2000 .

[10]  F. Micheli,et al.  Synthesis of linkages between benthic and fish communities as a key to protecting essential fish habitat , 2000 .

[11]  G. Galasso.  Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Area to Be Avoided, Education and Monitoring Program. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series MSD-00-1 , 2000 .

[12]  Fogarty,et al.  Essential habitat, marine reserves and fishery management. , 1999, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[13]  J. Collie,et al.  Effects of bottom fishing on the benthic megafauna of Georges Bank , 1997 .

[14]  P. Auster,et al.  Comment: The Interface between Fisheries Research and Habitat Management , 1997 .

[15]  Lewis M. Alexander,et al.  Large Marine Ecosystems: Stress, Mitigation and Sustainability , 1995 .

[16]  R L Pressey,et al.  Beyond opportunism: Key principles for systematic reserve selection. , 1993, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[17]  J. Grassle,et al.  Patterns of species diversity in the deep sea as a function of sediment particle size diversity , 1992, Nature.

[18]  Tom Polacheck,et al.  YEAR AROUND CLOSED AREAS AS A MANAGEMENT TOOL , 1990 .

[19]  C. D. Gelatt,et al.  Optimization by Simulated Annealing , 1983, Science.

[20]  G. Cochrane,et al.  Benthic habitat mapping in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary: Classification of side scan sonar data from survey HMPR-108-2002-01: Version I , 2006 .

[21]  J. Hare,et al.  An annotated bibliography of diet studies of fishof the southeast United States and Gray’s ReefNational Marine Sanctuary , 2005 .

[22]  L. Kaufman,et al.  Movement of yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus Block 1790) and black grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci Poey 1860) in the northern Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary as determined by acoustic telemetry , 2005 .

[23]  P. Scheifele,et al.  Noise Levels and Sources in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary and the St. Lawrence River Estuary , 2005 .

[24]  Rebecca Stamski,et al.  The impacts of coastal protection structures in California’sMonterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary , 2005 .

[25]  R. Starr.  A review of the ecological effectiveness of subtidal marine reserves in Central California , 2004 .

[26]  Carolyn F. Skinder.  Marine Protected Areas in the Gulf of Maine: Policy for a Common Resource , 2002 .

[27]  M. Monaco,et al.  Distribution and sighting frequency of reef fishes in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary , 2001 .

[28]  Simon F. Thrush,et al.  Marine reserves : Parks, baselines, and fishery enhancement , 2000 .

[29]  S. Andelman,et al.  Mathematical Methods for Identifying Representative Reserve Networks , 2000 .

[30]  Daniel M Utech,et al.  The economic contribution of whalewatching to regional economies: Perspectives from two National Marine Sanctuaries , 2000 .

[31]  C. Pattengill-Semmens,et al.  Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary: A rapid assessment of coral, fish, and algae using the AGRRA Protocol , 2000 .

[32]  P. Auster,et al.  The Effects of Fishing on Fish Habitat , 1999 .

[33]  S. MacWilliams,et al.  Multi-species and multi-interest management: An ecosystem approach to market squid (Loligo opalescens) harvest in California , 1999 .

[34]  Michel J. Kaiser,et al.  The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems , 1998 .

[35]  P. Auster,et al.  Delineating and monitoring habitat management units in a temperate deep-water marine protected area , 1997 .

[36]  K. Sherman,et al.  The Northeast Shelf Ecosystem: Assessment, Sustainability, and Management , 1997 .

[37]  P. Auster,et al.  The impacts of mobile fishing gear on seafloor habitats in the gulf of Maine (Northwest Atlantic): Implications for conservation of fish populations , 1996 .

[38]  R. Thackway.  Developing Australia's representative system of marine protected areas : criteria and guidelines for identification and selection , 1996 .

[39]  D. Schneider,et al.  A spatial and temporal perspective on research and management of groundfish in the northwest Atlantic , 1995 .

[40]  A. O. Nicholls,et al.  An upgraded reserve selection algorithm , 1993 .

[41]  A. J. Underwood,et al.  Spatial variation in soft-sediment benthos , 1992 .

[42]  P. McCall,et al.  Animal-Sediment Relations , 1982 .