Endocladia/Mastocarpus Assemblage
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Mussel recovery and species dynamics at four California rocky intertidal sites: 1992 data report Item Type monograph Publisher Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region Download date 04/10/2021 11:42:05 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/1834/33064 0 OCS Study • J MMS 96-0009 0 n Mussel Recovery and Species Dynamics at Four California 0 Rocky Intertidal Sites D 1992 Data Report 0 0 0 J 0 u u J J J u U.S. Department of the Interior J ••..:! Minerals Management Service ····~ Pacific OCS Region n OCS Study MMS 96-0009 0 Mussel Recovery and Species n Dynamics at Four California [J Rocky Intertidal Sites 0 1992 Data Report 0 D 0 Prepared by: n : I Minerals Management Service ~-) Maurice Hill [_] Lynnette Vesco Mary Elaine Dunaway Mike McCrary 0 Mark Pierson and D · Kinnetic Laboratories. Inc: 0 Eric Nigg [J [J MMS Reference No. PC 94-1 u i l U.S. Department of the Interior lJ Minerals Management Service Pacific OCS Region May 1996 [] r L r r L L It is suggested that this report be cited as follows: Minerals Management Service and Kinnetic Laboratories, Inc. 1996. Mussel recovery and L species dynamics at four California rocky intertidal sites. 1992 data report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 96-0009. 151 pp. L ii L n !] PROJECT ORGANIZATION [j CONTRACTING OFFICER'S TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE Fred Piltz, Chief, Environmental Studies Section PROJECT/REPORT TEAM 0 Mary Elaine Dunaway Maurice Hill [! Mike McCrary Eric Nigg Mark Pierson [) Lynnette Vesco FIELD SURVEY TEAM [J Mary Elaine Dunaway Michael Foster lj Bob Gillard l~ Maurice Hill Mike McCrary EricNigg Sallie Nigg Mark Pierson Diana Stellar 0 Lynnette Vesco n PROJECT SUPPORT u Mertis Baffoe-Harding Debbie Eidson Nollie Gildow-Owens Joann Golden Janice Madison Tammy Miller Rochelle Williams-Hooks MMS ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES PROGRAM LIAISON TomAhlfeld [] iii 11 l..J [J [] 0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was funded by the MMS Pacific OCS Regional Office in Camarillo, California. The MMS Intertidal team gratefully acknowledges the support and encouragement of our 0 management in this endeavor. We wish to thank the many scientists at Kinnetic Laboratories, Inc., for their continued interest in 0 the study and for their assistance in this effort. In particular, we would like to acknowledge Laurie Kiguchi for her personal time and attention, John Toal for the field preparation efforts, and Kathleen Dorsey and Peter Wilde for their help in providing needed information and 0 computer programs for the report. [J We appreciate the participation of Dr. Robert Gillard (MMS, Gulf of Mexico Regional Office) in the project initiation and field data collection. 0 We want to thank Dr. Michael S. Foster at Moss Landing Marine Laboratories for generously providing transportation, skippers, and field assistance at Pescadero Rocks. We also want to thank Dr. Steven N. Murray for providing us with current taxonomic nomenclature on intertidal [] organisms. We acknowledge the Hearst Ranch and Sea Ranch Associations for providing access to the sites. ur1 0 0 [] ij '- i],_ [] v [] [] 0 PREFACE This is an interim report for a study of mussel recovery and species dynamics at four California rocky intertidal sites. Conducted by Kinnetic Laboratories, Inc. (KLI), and funded by the 0 Minerals Management Service (MMS), the initial experimental field study began in spring 1985 and continued through spring 1991. The initial field study included six sites along the central and northern California coast. In 1992, MMS decided to continue the work started by KLI 0 through an in-house study and establishment of the MMS Intertidal (MINT) team. Four of the original six sites have been continued by MMS. The study methods of the original study have been retained by the MINT team, and close coordination with the original KLI team continues. 0 In 1994, the MMS Environmental Studies Program officially awarded a contract to the MINT team for this in-house study. This interim report presents the results from the fa111992 sampling, the first year of sampling by the MINT team. The report presents a limited statistical analysis 0 and visual comparison of the 1992 data. The next interim report will include data collected during fall 1994 and will present a broader statistical analysis of both the 1992 and 1994 data 0 sets. D ,., u D 0 D--' 0 u 0 0 0 vii 0 [] f] 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT ORGANIZATION ................................................... iii 0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................................... v 0 PREFACE ................................................................. vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . xvii 0 I. INTRODUCTION .............. : ........................................... 1 II. METHODS ............................................................... 4 0 A. Survey Sites . 4 B. Field Methods and Analyses ............................................... 9 0 ill. RESULTS ............................................................... 15 A. Kibesillah Hill . ; . 15 0 I. Mytilus Assemblage ................................................... 15 2. Endocladia/Mastocarpus Assemblage ..................................... 27 <I B. Sea Ranch ...................................................... : . ..... 32 LJ I. Mytilus Assemblage ................................................... 32 2. Endocladia/Mastocarpus Assemblage ..................................... 41 C. Pescadero Rocks ........................................................ 46 0 I. Mytilus Assemblage ................................................... 46 2. Endocladia/Mastocarpus Assemblage ..................................... 56 D. Point Sierra Nevada ..................................................... 61 0 I. Mytilus Assemblage ................................................... 61 2. Endocladia/Mastocarpus Assemblage ..................................... 71 IV. DISCUSSION ............ : ......................... : ............ : ....... 75 .. A. Comparison of the Mytilus Assemblage at the Four Study Sites ................... 75 [l B. Comparison of the Endocladia/Mastocarpus Assemblage at the Four Study Sites ..... 85 C. Conclusion ............................................................ 89 L1 V. REFERENCES ........................................................... 90 [] VI. APPENDIX ............................................................. 93 u [] ix [] n 0 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Location of the four study sites ............................................ 6 0 2. Recovery of spring- and fall-cleared plots in the Mytilus assemblage at Kibesillah Hill ............................................. 16 0 3. Similarity of the control plots in the Endocladia/Mastocarpus assemblage at Kibesillah Hill ............................................. 31 0 4. Recovery of spring- and fall-cleared plots in the Mytilus assemblage at Sea Ranch ....... : . ....................................... 33 0 5. Similarity of the control plots in the Endocladia/Mastocarpus [J assemblage at Sea Ranch ................................................. 45 6. Recovery of spring- and fall-cleared plots in the Mytilus 0 assemblage at Pescadero Rocks ........................... ; ................ 47 7. Similarity of the control plots in the Endocladia/Mastocarpus lJ" assemblage at Pescadero Rocks ........................................... 60 8. Recovery of spring- and fall-cleared plots in the Mytilus 0 assemblage at Point Sierra Nevada ......................................... 62 9. Similarity of the control plots in the Endocladia/Mastocarpus assemblage at Point Sierra Nevada ......................................... 74 LJn d 0 [} [] 0 0 xi 0 fJ 0 0 LIST OF TABLES 1. Summary of site characteristics for the Mytilus assemblage ...................... 7 0 2. Summary of site characteristics for the Endocladia!Mastocarpus assemblage. ....... 8 3. Recent changes to macrophyte and macroinvertebrate nomenclature for 0 taxa observed in this study ................................................ 13 [] 4. Similarity (percent) of the Mytilus assemblage cleared plots to the control plots, the percent cleared plots have recovered, and the similarity of the least similar 0 control plots during fall 1992 ........... : ......................... , ....... 17 5. Macrophyte, macroinvertebrate, and substratum abundances in the Mytilus 0 assemblage control plots at Kibesillah Hill during fall 1992 . 18 6. Macrophyte, macroinvertebrate, and substratum abundances in the Mytilus 0 assemblage cleared plots at Kibesillah Hill during fall1992 .... ; ................ 21 7. Summary of Mytilus cover, density, and recovery rate during falll992 ............ 25 n u 8. Macrophyte, macroinvertebrate, and substratum abundances in the Endocladia!Mastocarpus assemblage control plots at Kibesillah Hill 0 during fall 1992 . ......... 28 9. Macrophyte, macroinvertebrate, and substratum abundances in the Mytilus 0 assemblage control plots at Sea Ranch during fall 1992 ........................ 34 10. Macrophyte, macroinvertebrate, and substratum abundances in the Mytilus assemblage cleared plots atSea Ranchduringfall1')92 ........................37 11. Macrophyte, macroinvertebrate, and substratum abundances in the 0 Endocladia/Mastocarpus assemblage control plots at Sea Ranch during fall 1992 ....................................................... 42 [1 12. Macrophyte, macroinvertebrate, and substratum abundances in the Mytilus assemblage control plots at Pescadero Rocks during fall 1992 ................... 48 0 13. Macrophyte, macroinvertebrate,