DOCSLIB.ORG

Survey of Invertebrate and Algal Communities on Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms in Southern California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Survey of Invertebrate and Algal Communities on Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms in Southern California ___________________ OCS Study MMS 2005-070 Survey of Invertebrate and Algal Communities on Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms in Southern California Final Report December 2005 U.S. Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service Pacific OCS Region _______________ OCS Study MMS 2005-070 Survey of Invertebrate and Algal Communities on Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms in Southern California Final Report December 2005 Prepared for: U.S. Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service Pacific OCS Region 770 Paseo Camarillo Camarillo, California 93010 Telephone: (805) 389-7810 Prepared by: Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 759 Parkway Street Jupiter, Florida 33477 Telephone: (561) 746-7946 iii DISCLAIMER This report was prepared under Contract 1435-01-98-CT-30865 between the Minerals Management Service (MMS), Pacific OCS Region, Camarillo, CA and Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., Jupiter, FL. This report has been technically reviewed by the MMS and has been approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the MMS, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. It is, however, exempt from review and compliance with MMS editorial standards. REPORT AVAILABILITY Printed copies of this report may be obtained from the Public Information Office at the following address: U.S. Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service Pacific OCS Region 770 Paseo Camarillo Camarillo, California 93010 Telephone: (805) 389-7810 An Adobe Acrobat version of this report may be accessed online at: www.mms.gov/omm/pacific CITATION Suggested citation: Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 2005. Survey of invertebrate and algal communities on offshore oil and gas platforms in southern California: Final report. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region, Camarillo, CA. December 2005. OCS Study MMS 2005-070. 232 pp. plus appendices. ABOUT THE COVER Photographic images acquired during diver and remotely operated vehicle surveys at select California platforms. Clockwise from upper left: View of unidentified ophiuroids, Metridium senile, Pisaster ochraceus, and calcareous worm tubes at 122 m water depth, Platform Hidalgo View of Mytilus spp., Metridium senile, Balanus spp., and Ophiothrix spiculata at 4 m water depth, Platform Habitat View of Corynactis californica, Ophiothrix spiculata, and encrusters at 41 m water depth, Platform Habitat View of Metridium senile, turf, bare metal, and Galathea californiensis at 177 m water depth, Platform Harvest View of Metridium senile, Amphipholis spp., and turf at 152 m water depth, Platform Gail v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................................................xi LIST OF PHOTOS .........................................................................................................................................xv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ES-1 1.0 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................1 2.0 Materials and Methods ............................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Review of Platform Information....................................................................................... 5 2.2 Platform Selection and Inspection Videotape Review .................................................. 5 2.3 Field Surveys..................................................................................................................... 12 2.3.1 Operational Procedures...................................................................................... 13 2.3.2 Platform Leg Selection ........................................................................................ 13 2.3.3 Sampling Procedures.......................................................................................... 13 2.4 Sample Analyses............................................................................................................... 15 2.4.1 Quantitative Slide and Videotape Analysis..................................................... 15 2.4.2 Voucher Collections............................................................................................ 16 2.4.3 Scraping Collections............................................................................................ 16 2.4.4 Growth Thickness Measurements..................................................................... 17 2.5 Data Analyses................................................................................................................... 17 3.0 Results.......................................................................................................................................... 19 3.1 Inspection Videotape Review......................................................................................... 19 3.2 Field Surveys..................................................................................................................... 19 3.3 Platform Characterization – Photographic Interpretation.......................................... 25 3.3.1 Platform Gail........................................................................................................ 26 3.3.2 Platform Grace..................................................................................................... 34 3.3.3 Platform Harvest................................................................................................. 40 3.3.4 Platform Hidalgo................................................................................................. 50 3.3.5 Platform Habitat.................................................................................................. 58 3.3.6 Platform Irene...................................................................................................... 61 3.4 Diablo and Nifty Rocks – Photographic Interpretation .............................................. 67 3.4.1 Physical Characteristics...................................................................................... 67 3.4.2 Community Description..................................................................................... 67 3.5 Random Point Count Analysis ....................................................................................... 74 3.6 Statistical Analysis of Photographic Data ..................................................................... 80 3.6.1 Whole Slide Analysis Photographic Data ........................................................ 80 3.6.2 PointCount’99® Photographic Data ................................................................. 86 3.6.3 Diablo and Nifty Rocks and Comparable Platform Zones............................ 89 3.7 Scraping Analysis ............................................................................................................. 92 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 3.8 Statistical Analysis of Scraping Data ............................................................................. 94 3.9 Wet Weight Determinations ......................................................................................... 101 3.10 Individual Mussel Measurements................................................................................ 104 3.11 Growth Thickness Measurements................................................................................ 104 4.0 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 107 4.1 Overview and Historical Perspective .......................................................................... 107 4.2 Study Limitations ........................................................................................................... 109 4.3 Comparisons Between Adjacent Platform Legs......................................................... 110 4.3.1 Platform Gail...................................................................................................... 111 4.3.2 Platform Grace................................................................................................... 113 4.3.3 Platform Harvest............................................................................................... 116 4.3.4 Platform Hidalgo............................................................................................... 118 4.3.5 Summary of Comparisons for Adjacent Platform Legs ............................... 120 4.4 Comparisons Between Platforms ................................................................................. 121 4.4.1 Rank Order of Dominant Taxa ........................................................................ 121 4.4.2 Density Comparisons........................................................................................ 130 4.4.3 Percent Cover Comparisons ............................................................................ 134 4.4.4 Comparison of Percent Cover Data: PointCount’99® vs. QSA................... 136 4.4.5 Clustering
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MARINE TANK GUIDE About the Marine Tank
    HOME EDITION MARINE TANK GUIDE About the Marine Tank With almost 34,000 miles of coastline, Alaska’s intertidal zones, the shore areas exposed and covered by ocean tides, are home to a variety of plants and animals. The Anchorage Museum’s marine tank is home to Alaskan animals which live in the intertidal zone. The plants and animals in the Museum’s marine tank are collected under an Alaska Department of Fish and Game Aquatic Resource Permit during low tide at various beaches in Southcentral and Southeast Alaska. Visitors are asked not to touch the marine animals. Touching is stressful for the animals. A full- time animal care technician maintains the marine tank. Since the tank is not located next to the ocean, ocean water cannot be constantly pumped through it. This means special salt water is mixed at the Museum. The tank is also cleaned regularly. Equipment which keeps the water moving, clean, chilled to 43°F and constantly monitored. Contamination from human hands would impact the cleanliness of the water and potentially hurt the animals. A second tank is home to the Museum’s king crab, named King Louie, and black rockfish, named Sebastian. King crab and black rockfish of Alaska live in deeper waters than the intertidal zone creatures. This guide shares information about some of the Museum’s marine animals. When known, the Dena’ina word for an animal is included, recognizing the thousands of years of stewardship and knowledge of Indigeneous people of the Anchorage area and their language. The Dena’ina & Marine Species The geographically diverse Dena’ina lands span both inland and coastal areas, including Anchorage.
    [Show full text]
  • COMPLETE LIST of MARINE and SHORELINE SPECIES 2012-2016 BIOBLITZ VASHON ISLAND Marine Algae Sponges
    COMPLETE LIST OF MARINE AND SHORELINE SPECIES 2012-2016 BIOBLITZ VASHON ISLAND List compiled by: Rayna Holtz, Jeff Adams, Maria Metler Marine algae Number Scientific name Common name Notes BB year Location 1 Laminaria saccharina sugar kelp 2013SH 2 Acrosiphonia sp. green rope 2015 M 3 Alga sp. filamentous brown algae unknown unique 2013 SH 4 Callophyllis spp. beautiful leaf seaweeds 2012 NP 5 Ceramium pacificum hairy pottery seaweed 2015 M 6 Chondracanthus exasperatus turkish towel 2012, 2013, 2014 NP, SH, CH 7 Colpomenia bullosa oyster thief 2012 NP 8 Corallinales unknown sp. crustous coralline 2012 NP 9 Costaria costata seersucker 2012, 2014, 2015 NP, CH, M 10 Cyanoebacteria sp. black slime blue-green algae 2015M 11 Desmarestia ligulata broad acid weed 2012 NP 12 Desmarestia ligulata flattened acid kelp 2015 M 13 Desmerestia aculeata (viridis) witch's hair 2012, 2015, 2016 NP, M, J 14 Endoclaydia muricata algae 2016 J 15 Enteromorpha intestinalis gutweed 2016 J 16 Fucus distichus rockweed 2014, 2016 CH, J 17 Fucus gardneri rockweed 2012, 2015 NP, M 18 Gracilaria/Gracilariopsis red spaghetti 2012, 2014, 2015 NP, CH, M 19 Hildenbrandia sp. rusty rock red algae 2013, 2015 SH, M 20 Laminaria saccharina sugar wrack kelp 2012, 2015 NP, M 21 Laminaria stechelli sugar wrack kelp 2012 NP 22 Mastocarpus papillatus Turkish washcloth 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 NP, SH, CH, M 23 Mazzaella splendens iridescent seaweed 2012, 2014 NP, CH 24 Nereocystis luetkeana bull kelp 2012, 2014 NP, CH 25 Polysiphonous spp. filamentous red 2015 M 26 Porphyra sp. nori (laver) 2012, 2013, 2015 NP, SH, M 27 Prionitis lyallii broad iodine seaweed 2015 M 28 Saccharina latissima sugar kelp 2012, 2014 NP, CH 29 Sarcodiotheca gaudichaudii sea noodles 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016 NP, CH, M, J 30 Sargassum muticum sargassum 2012, 2014, 2015 NP, CH, M 31 Sparlingia pertusa red eyelet silk 2013SH 32 Ulva intestinalis sea lettuce 2014, 2015, 2016 CH, M, J 33 Ulva lactuca sea lettuce 2012-2016 ALL 34 Ulva linza flat tube sea lettuce 2015 M 35 Ulva sp.
    [Show full text]
  • Metridium Farcimen (Tilesius, 1809)
    RESEARCH ARTICLE Individual marking of soft-bodied subtidal invertebrates in situ ± A novel staining technique applied to the giant plumose anemone Metridium farcimen (Tilesius, 1809) Christopher D. Wells1,2*, Kenneth P. Sebens1,2,3 1 Biology Department, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States of America, 2 Friday Harbor a1111111111 Laboratories, University of Washington, Friday Harbor, WA, United States of America, 3 School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States of America a1111111111 a1111111111 * [email protected] a1111111111 a1111111111 Abstract The ability to recognize individuals and track growth over time is crucial to population OPEN ACCESS dynamics research as well as studies of animal behavior. Invertebrates are particularly diffi- cult to track as they often molt, have regenerative capabilities, or lack hard parts to attach Citation: Wells CD, Sebens KP (2017) Individual marking of soft-bodied subtidal invertebrates in markers. We tested, in laboratory and field studies, a new way of marking sea anemones situ ± A novel staining technique applied to the (order Actiniaria) by injection of three vital stains (i.e., neutral red, methylene blue, and fluo- giant plumose anemone Metridium farcimen rescein). Neutral red and methylene blue did not affect growth or survival, but fluorescein (Tilesius, 1809). PLoS ONE 12(11): e0188263. was lethal at high concentrations. Marked individuals could be identified up to seven months https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188263 after injection
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Invertebrate Field Guide
    Marine Invertebrate Field Guide Contents ANEMONES ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 AGGREGATING ANEMONE (ANTHOPLEURA ELEGANTISSIMA) ............................................................................................................................... 2 BROODING ANEMONE (EPIACTIS PROLIFERA) ................................................................................................................................................... 2 CHRISTMAS ANEMONE (URTICINA CRASSICORNIS) ............................................................................................................................................ 3 PLUMOSE ANEMONE (METRIDIUM SENILE) ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 BARNACLES ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 ACORN BARNACLE (BALANUS GLANDULA) ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 HAYSTACK BARNACLE (SEMIBALANUS CARIOSUS) .............................................................................................................................................. 4 CHITONS ...........................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of Pycnogonid Life History Traits Eric Carl Lovely University of New Hampshire, Durham
    University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Doctoral Dissertations Student Scholarship Winter 1999 Evolution of pycnogonid life history traits Eric Carl Lovely University of New Hampshire, Durham Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation Recommended Citation Lovely, Eric Carl, "Evolution of pycnogonid life history traits" (1999). Doctoral Dissertations. 1975. https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation/1975 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Monitoring of Eelgrass Resources in Newport Bay Newport Beach, California
    MARINE TAXONOMIC SERVICES, LTD 2020 Monitoring of Eelgrass Resources in Newport Bay Newport Beach, California December 25, 2020 Prepared For: City of Newport Beach Public Works Department 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Contact: Chris Miller, Public Works Manager [email protected], (949) 644-3043 Newport Harbor Shallow-Water and Deep-Water Eelgrass Survey Prepared By: MARINE TAXONOMIC SERVICES, LLC COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, INC 920 RANCHEROS DRIVE, STE F-1 23 Morning Wood Drive SAN MARCOS, CA 92069 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 2020 NEWPORT BAY EELGRASS RESOURCES REPORT Contents Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................ ii Appendices .................................................................................................................................................................. iii Abbreviations ...............................................................................................................................................................iv Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Purpose .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ...............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Keystone Species Concept: a Critical Appraisal H
    opinion and perspectives ISSN 1948‐6596 perspective The keystone species concept: a critical appraisal H. Eden W. Cottee‐Jones* and Robert J. Whittaker† Conservation Biogeography and Macroecology Programme, School of Geography and the Environment, Oxford University Centre for the Environment, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3QY, UK *henry.cottee‐[email protected]; http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/graduate/research/ecottee‐jones.html †[email protected] Abstract. The keystone concept has been widely applied in the ecological literature since the idea was introduced in 1969. While it has been useful in framing biodiversity research and garnering support in conservation policy circles, the terminology surrounding the concept has been expanded to the extent that there is considerable confusion over what exactly a keystone species is. Several authors have ar‐ gued that the term is too broadly applied, while others have pointed out the technical and theoretical limitations of the concept. Here, we chart the history of the keystone concept’s evolution and summa‐ rise the plethora of different terms and definitions currently in use. In reviewing these terms, we also analyse the value of the keystone concept and highlight some promising areas of recent work. Keywords. community composition, ecosystem engineer, definitions, dominant species, keystone con‐ cept, keystone species Introduction: the origins of the concept cies” (p. 93). Paine’s field experiments have be‐ The keystone concept has its roots in food‐web come a classic ecological case study, with his dia‐ ecology, and was coined by Paine (1969). In his grams reproduced in many standard ecology texts, experimental manipulation of rocky shoreline his 1966 paper cited 2,509 times, and his note communities on the Pacific coast in Washington, coining the term ‘keystone species’ 465 times (ISI th Paine found that the removal of the carnivorous Web of Knowledge 13 September 2012).
    [Show full text]
  • Arthropoda: Pycnogonida)
    European Journal of Taxonomy 286: 1–33 ISSN 2118-9773 http://dx.doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2017.286 www.europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu 2017 · Sabroux R. et al. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. DNA Library of Life, research article urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:8B9DADD0-415E-4120-A10E-8A3411C1C1A4 Biodiversity and phylogeny of Ammotheidae (Arthropoda: Pycnogonida) Romain SABROUX 1, Laure CORBARI 2, Franz KRAPP 3, Céline BONILLO 4, Stépahnie LE PRIEUR 5 & Alexandre HASSANIN 6,* 1,2,6 UMR 7205, Institut de Systématique, Evolution et Biodiversité, Département Systématique et Evolution, Sorbonne Universités, Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, 55 rue Buffon, CP 51, 75005 Paris, France. 3 Zoologisches Forschungsmuseum Alexander Koenig, Adenauerallee 160, 53113 Bonn, Germany. 4,5 UMS CNRS 2700, Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, CP 26, 57 rue Cuvier, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France. * Corresponding author: [email protected] 1 Email: [email protected] 2 Email: [email protected] 3 Email: [email protected] 4 Email: [email protected] 5 Email: [email protected] 1 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:F48B4ABE-06BD-41B1-B856-A12BE97F9653 2 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:9E5EBA7B-C2F2-4F30-9FD5-1A0E49924F13 3 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:331AD231-A810-42F9-AF8A-DDC319AA351A 4 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:7333D242-0714-41D7-B2DB-6804F8064B13 5 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:5C9F4E71-9D73-459F-BABA-7495853B1981 6 urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:0DCC3E08-B2BA-4A2C-ADA5-1A256F24DAA1 Abstract. The family Ammotheidae is the most diversified group of the class Pycnogonida, with 297 species described in 20 genera.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C - Invertebrate Population Attributes
    APPENDIX C - INVERTEBRATE POPULATION ATTRIBUTES C1. Taxonomic list of megabenthic invertebrate species collected C2. Percent area of megabenthic invertebrate species by subpopulation C3. Abundance of megabenthic invertebrate species by subpopulation C4. Biomass of megabenthic invertebrate species by subpopulation C- 1 C1. Taxonomic list of megabenthic invertebrate species collected on the southern California shelf and upper slope at depths of 2-476m, July-October 2003. Taxon/Species Author Common Name PORIFERA CALCEREA --SCYCETTIDA Amphoriscidae Leucilla nuttingi (Urban 1902) urn sponge HEXACTINELLIDA --HEXACTINOSA Aphrocallistidae Aphrocallistes vastus Schulze 1887 cloud sponge DEMOSPONGIAE Porifera sp SD2 "sponge" Porifera sp SD4 "sponge" Porifera sp SD5 "sponge" Porifera sp SD15 "sponge" Porifera sp SD16 "sponge" --SPIROPHORIDA Tetillidae Tetilla arb de Laubenfels 1930 gray puffball sponge --HADROMERIDA Suberitidae Suberites suberea (Johnson 1842) hermitcrab sponge Tethyidae Tethya californiana (= aurantium ) de Laubenfels 1932 orange ball sponge CNIDARIA HYDROZOA --ATHECATAE Tubulariidae Tubularia crocea (L. Agassiz 1862) pink-mouth hydroid --THECATAE Aglaopheniidae Aglaophenia sp "hydroid" Plumulariidae Plumularia sp "seabristle" Sertulariidae Abietinaria sp "hydroid" --SIPHONOPHORA Rhodaliidae Dromalia alexandri Bigelow 1911 sea dandelion ANTHOZOA --ALCYONACEA Clavulariidae Telesto californica Kükenthal 1913 "soft coral" Telesto nuttingi Kükenthal 1913 "anemone" Gorgoniidae Adelogorgia phyllosclera Bayer 1958 orange gorgonian Eugorgia
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Ocean Acidification on Growth Rate, Calcified Tissue, and Behavior of the Juvenile Ochre Sea Star, Pisaster Ochraceus
    Effects of ocean acidification on growth rate, calcified tissue, and behavior of the juvenile ochre sea star, Pisaster ochraceus. by Melissa Linn Britsch A THESIS submitted to Oregon State University Honors College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Biology (Honors Scholar) Presented April 26, 2017 Commencement June 2017 ii AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Melissa Linn Britsch for the degree of Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Biology presented on April 26, 2017. Title: Effects of ocean acidification on growth rate, calcified tissue, and behavior of the juvenile ochre sea star, Pisaster ochraceus. Abstract approved:_____________________________________________________ Bruce Menge Anthropogenically-induced increases in the acidity of the ocean have the potential to seriously harm marine calcifying organisms by decreasing the availability of carbonate 2− (CO3 ) used to make shells. I tested the effects of lowered pH on juvenile Pisaster ochraceus, an intertidal sea star and keystone predator in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Populations of P. ochraceus were greatly reduced by outbreaks of sea star wasting disease, which has the potential to alter community structure and lower biodiversity in the intertidal region. However, large numbers of juvenile P. ochraceus have recruited to the rocky intertidal and their ability to persist will be important for the recovery of P. ochraceus populations. To test the effects of pH, I studied the growth rate, calcification, righting time, and movement and prey-sensing ability in the PISCO laboratory mesocosm at Hatfield Marine Science Center. The results of the experiments showed non-significant trends towards a negative effect of pH on growth rate and righting time.
    [Show full text]
  • Humboldt Bay Fishes
    Humboldt Bay Fishes ><((((º>`·._ .·´¯`·. _ .·´¯`·. ><((((º> ·´¯`·._.·´¯`·.. ><((((º>`·._ .·´¯`·. _ .·´¯`·. ><((((º> Acknowledgements The Humboldt Bay Harbor District would like to offer our sincere thanks and appreciation to the authors and photographers who have allowed us to use their work in this report. Photography and Illustrations We would like to thank the photographers and illustrators who have so graciously donated the use of their images for this publication. Andrey Dolgor Dan Gotshall Polar Research Institute of Marine Sea Challengers, Inc. Fisheries And Oceanography [email protected] [email protected] Michael Lanboeuf Milton Love [email protected] Marine Science Institute [email protected] Stephen Metherell Jacques Moreau [email protected] [email protected] Bernd Ueberschaer Clinton Bauder [email protected] [email protected] Fish descriptions contained in this report are from: Froese, R. and Pauly, D. Editors. 2003 FishBase. Worldwide Web electronic publication. http://www.fishbase.org/ 13 August 2003 Photographer Fish Photographer Bauder, Clinton wolf-eel Gotshall, Daniel W scalyhead sculpin Bauder, Clinton blackeye goby Gotshall, Daniel W speckled sanddab Bauder, Clinton spotted cusk-eel Gotshall, Daniel W. bocaccio Bauder, Clinton tube-snout Gotshall, Daniel W. brown rockfish Gotshall, Daniel W. yellowtail rockfish Flescher, Don american shad Gotshall, Daniel W. dover sole Flescher, Don stripped bass Gotshall, Daniel W. pacific sanddab Gotshall, Daniel W. kelp greenling Garcia-Franco, Mauricio louvar
    [Show full text]
  • Kelp Forest Monitoring Handbook — Volume 1: Sampling Protocol
    KELP FOREST MONITORING HANDBOOK VOLUME 1: SAMPLING PROTOCOL CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK KELP FOREST MONITORING HANDBOOK VOLUME 1: SAMPLING PROTOCOL Channel Islands National Park Gary E. Davis David J. Kushner Jennifer M. Mondragon Jeff E. Mondragon Derek Lerma Daniel V. Richards National Park Service Channel Islands National Park 1901 Spinnaker Drive Ventura, California 93001 November 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1 MONITORING DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................... Species Selection ...........................................................................................2 Site Selection .................................................................................................3 Sampling Technique Selection .......................................................................3 SAMPLING METHOD PROTOCOL......................................................................... General Information .......................................................................................8 1 m Quadrats ..................................................................................................9 5 m Quadrats ..................................................................................................11 Band Transects ...............................................................................................13 Random Point Contacts ..................................................................................15
    [Show full text]