26
MLPA Science Advisory Team January 20, 2006 Meeting Handout #11 -----Original Message----- From: David Kaplan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 2:44 PM To: Melissa Miller-Henson Cc: Loo Botsford Subject: From Botsford/ Kaplan: Persistence/connectivity Analysis SAT members: Attached are the results of our analyses of the effects of the spatial patterns of the different reserve proposals on population persistence. The plots can be viewed as the effectiveness of reproduction at each location in terms of how likely an individual is to replace themselves. We have taken 0.35 to be the level at which populations will persist. In this version we specifically account for the effects of the spatial distribution of habitat, in this case hard habitat. Based on discussions at the last meeting of the evaluation team we divided the hard habitat into 0-30m depth and 30-100m depth. We can use other demarcations. Ideally these should be associated with specific species or communities. The SAT should discuss this choice. We also account specifically for the level of fishing outside of reserves. We represent the effects of fishing in terms of the remaining Fraction of Lifetime Egg Production (FLEP), with levels of 0.0, 0.2 and 0.3. Recall estimates for some rockfish were as low as 0.2. (To give some idea of how FLEP in the fished area would change we have computed the new equilibrium value for various percentages of change in F (Page 20 of these plots). As before, we have made the runs for two reserve cases, SMR only and all 3 types of MPAs. The first several slides explain the setup of the runs and the graphics, and show the information we are using. Most important there is the degree of overlap between reserves and suitable habitat. The rest are the results. >From them you can see where there is enough connectivity that species with different dispersal distances are likely to persist (i.e., where the appropriate line goes above the .35 level). As you saw in earlier results, short distance dispersers persist almost everywhere there is a reserve, so the lines for the longer distance dispersers are the most interesting. Like the other groups, we have not done an overall evaluation of these results for the different proposals. We hope we can discuss this at the SAT meeting. These results are a draft for the SAT only at this point. This is NOT the version we will show to the BRTF. We are working on more easily accessible summary graphics to use once the SAT decides what the message should be. Loo Botsford and David Kaplan

From: David Kaplan [mailto:[email protected]] Sent

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    9

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: From: David Kaplan [mailto:dmkaplan@ucdavis.edu] Sent

MLPA Science Advisory TeamJanuary 20, 2006 Meeting

Handout #11

-----Original Message-----From: David Kaplan [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 2:44 PM

To: Melissa Miller-HensonCc: Loo BotsfordSubject: From Botsford/ Kaplan: Persistence/connectivity Analysis

SAT members:

Attached are the results of our analyses of the effects of the spatial patterns of the differentreserve proposals on population persistence. The plots can be viewed as the effectiveness ofreproduction at each location in terms of how likely an individual is to replace themselves.

We have taken 0.35 to be the level at which populations will persist.

In this version we specifically account for the effects of the spatial distribution of habitat, in this

case hard habitat. Based on discussions at the last meeting of the evaluation team wedivided the hard habitat into 0-30m depth and 30-100m depth. We can use otherdemarcations. Ideally these should be associated with specific species or communities. The

SAT should discuss this choice.

We also account specifically for the level of fishing outside of reserves. We represent theeffects of fishing in terms of the remaining Fraction of Lifetime Egg Production (FLEP), withlevels of 0.0, 0.2 and 0.3. Recall estimates for some rockfish were as low as 0.2. (To give

some idea of how FLEP in the fished area would change we have computed the newequilibrium value for various percentages of change in F (Page 20 of these plots).

As before, we have made the runs for two reserve cases, SMR only and all 3 types of MPAs.

The first several slides explain the setup of the runs and the graphics, and show the

information we are using. Most important there is the degree of overlap between reservesand suitable habitat. The rest are the results. >From them you can see where there isenough connectivity that species with different dispersal distances are likely to persist

(i.e., where the appropriate line goes above the .35 level). As you saw in earlier results, shortdistance dispersers persist almost everywhere there is a reserve, so the lines for the longerdistance dispersers are the most interesting.

Like the other groups, we have not done an overall evaluation of these results for the different

proposals. We hope we can discuss this at the SAT meeting. These results are a draft forthe SAT only at this point. This is NOT the version we will show to the BRTF. We are workingon more easily accessible summary graphics to use once the SAT decides what the

message should be.

Loo Botsford and David Kaplan

Page 2: From: David Kaplan [mailto:dmkaplan@ucdavis.edu] Sent

��

������������ ������ ����

�� �����������������

�����������������������������

���������������������������������������

�����������������������

�������������������������������������

����������������������� ���������

��� !�"� �������� ���������#

������������������������� $�� �����"�

���� �"�����������

������� $�� �����"����� �"�����������

������ ����������%������������%��������

������������

MLP

A S

cie

nce A

dvis

ory

Team

January

20, 2006 M

eeting

Hanout #11

Page 3: From: David Kaplan [mailto:dmkaplan@ucdavis.edu] Sent

��N

N

&'(&�"�������������

(&')&&�"�������������������������

��*+�����

�����,�

&'(&�"

(&')&&�"

��������

���

�����

,��%������

Page 4: From: David Kaplan [mailto:dmkaplan@ucdavis.edu] Sent

��

-)+���*

.�����*�����������������������������/&�0"����

��������������������#��.�������������1��+���������

"�������������#

�����

.����

2�����������������������������

&'(&�"

�������������

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

��%0���

��"���

2����� ����*

���� ����

�������

�����������

3'�!�����

������%��� ���

%���� ���

*��������������+

����������������

4����� �����

��#�,��%������

Page 5: From: David Kaplan [mailto:dmkaplan@ucdavis.edu] Sent

��

-)+���*

.�����*�����������������������������/&�0"����

��������������������#��.�������������1��+���������

"�������������#

�����

.����

2�����������������������������

&'(&�"

�������������

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

5���������

���������

6��������

*�%0

��������

���

� ����,���0

Page 6: From: David Kaplan [mailto:dmkaplan@ucdavis.edu] Sent

��

-&+��

-&+���*

-)+��

-7+���*

�����

.����

�����������������&'(&�"

��������

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

-)+���*

-7+��

Page 7: From: David Kaplan [mailto:dmkaplan@ucdavis.edu] Sent

��

-(+��

-(+���*

-�+��

-,+���*

�����

.����

�����������������&'(&�"

��������

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

-�+���*

-,+��

Page 8: From: David Kaplan [mailto:dmkaplan@ucdavis.edu] Sent

��

-&+��

-&+���*

-)+��

-7+���*

�����

.����

�����������������(&')&&�"

��������

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

-)+���*

-7+��

Page 9: From: David Kaplan [mailto:dmkaplan@ucdavis.edu] Sent

��

-(+��

-(+���*

-�+��

-,+���*

�����

.����

�����������������(&')&&�"

��������

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

-�+���*

-,+��

Page 10: From: David Kaplan [mailto:dmkaplan@ucdavis.edu] Sent

��

2��������������� ����������

��%0����)+�� ����+�&'(&�"

��������

050

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)

,����%� � �1�

8&#(/9

�� ��������

�������

���������)#&

�� �����

���'����

�������������

����������

���������

8&#7�����9

�� ��������'

��������������&#&

Page 11: From: David Kaplan [mailto:dmkaplan@ucdavis.edu] Sent

��

!�"� �������� ����������

��%0����)+�� ����+�&'(&�"

��������

050

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)

�� ��:�&#&

�� ��:�&#7

�� ��:�&#(

�� ��������� �1� �������'�����������������

Page 12: From: David Kaplan [mailto:dmkaplan@ucdavis.edu] Sent

��

2������������� $�� �����"����� �"������������

��%0����)+�� ����+�&'(&�"

��������+��� �:&#7

050

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)

;��������

%� ���%��1��

�������� �"���

�������������

��������

������%��

���� �"���

�1�� ����

����� �

�� �����

����������

�����

�����

������

�����

Page 13: From: David Kaplan [mailto:dmkaplan@ucdavis.edu] Sent

��

� ��������8�9��� �:&���8�9��� �:&#7���8%9��� �:&#(

<������*��8�9��� �:&���8�9��� �:&#7���8�9��� �:&#(

��������

!��!���!"

2������������� $�� �����"����� �"�����������������7�

=������������������� �

Page 14: From: David Kaplan [mailto:dmkaplan@ucdavis.edu] Sent

��

8�9��� �:&

���%0����&+�&'(&"��������������

8�9��� �:&#7

8%9��� �:&#(

8�9��� �:&

8�9��� �:&#7

8�9��� �:&#(

050

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)

050

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)

� �����

��*�

Page 15: From: David Kaplan [mailto:dmkaplan@ucdavis.edu] Sent

��

8�9��� �:&

���%0����&+�(&')&&"��������������

8�9��� �:&#7

8%9��� �:&#(

8�9��� �:&

8�9��� �:&#7

8�9��� �:&#(

050

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)

050

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)

� �����

��*�

Page 16: From: David Kaplan [mailto:dmkaplan@ucdavis.edu] Sent

��

8�9��� �:&

���%0����)+�&'(&"��������������

8�9��� �:&#7

8%9��� �:&#(

8�9��� �:&

8�9��� �:&#7

8�9��� �:&#(

050

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)

050

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)

� �����

��*�

Page 17: From: David Kaplan [mailto:dmkaplan@ucdavis.edu] Sent

��

8�9��� �:&

���%0����)+�(&')&&"��������������

8�9��� �:&#7

8%9��� �:&#(

8�9��� �:&

8�9��� �:&#7

8�9��� �:&#(

050

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)

050

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)

� �����

��*�

Page 18: From: David Kaplan [mailto:dmkaplan@ucdavis.edu] Sent

��

8�9��� �:&

���%0����7+�&'(&"��������������

8�9��� �:&#7

8%9��� �:&#(

8�9��� �:&

8�9��� �:&#7

8�9��� �:&#(

050

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)

050

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)

� �����

��*�

Page 19: From: David Kaplan [mailto:dmkaplan@ucdavis.edu] Sent

��

8�9��� �:&

���%0����7+�(&')&&"��������������

8�9��� �:&#7

8%9��� �:&#(

8�9��� �:&

8�9��� �:&#7

8�9��� �:&#(

050

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)

050

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)

� �����

��*�

Page 20: From: David Kaplan [mailto:dmkaplan@ucdavis.edu] Sent

��

8�9��� �:&

���%0����(+�&'(&"��������������

8�9��� �:&#7

8%9��� �:&#(

8�9��� �:&

8�9��� �:&#7

8�9��� �:&#(

050

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)

050

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)

� �����

��*�

Page 21: From: David Kaplan [mailto:dmkaplan@ucdavis.edu] Sent

��

8�9��� �:&

���%0����(+�(&')&&"��������������

8�9��� �:&#7

8%9��� �:&#(

8�9��� �:&

8�9��� �:&#7

8�9��� �:&#(

050

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)

050

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)

� �����

��*�

Page 22: From: David Kaplan [mailto:dmkaplan@ucdavis.edu] Sent

��

8�9��� �:&

���%0�����+�&'(&"��������������

8�9��� �:&#7

8%9��� �:&#(

8�9��� �:&

8�9��� �:&#7

8�9��� �:&#(

050

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)

050

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)

� �����

��*�

Page 23: From: David Kaplan [mailto:dmkaplan@ucdavis.edu] Sent

��

8�9��� �:&

���%0�����+�(&')&&"��������������

8�9��� �:&#7

8%9��� �:&#(

8�9��� �:&

8�9��� �:&#7

8�9��� �:&#(

050

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)

050

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)

� �����

��*�

Page 24: From: David Kaplan [mailto:dmkaplan@ucdavis.edu] Sent

��

8�9��� �:&

���%0����,+�&'(&"��������������

8�9��� �:&#7

8%9��� �:&#(

8�9��� �:&

8�9��� �:&#7

8�9��� �:&#(

050

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)

050

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)

� �����

��*�

Page 25: From: David Kaplan [mailto:dmkaplan@ucdavis.edu] Sent

��

8�9��� �:&

���%0����,+�(&')&&"��������������

8�9��� �:&#7

8%9��� �:&#(

8�9��� �:&

8�9��� �:&#7

8�9��� �:&#(

050

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)

050

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)0

50100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

Dist

ance

Alo

ng C

oast

(km

)

� �����

��*�

Page 26: From: David Kaplan [mailto:dmkaplan@ucdavis.edu] Sent

��

>�%����������� �������������*�������*���%��