1 Introduction: Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve Lander Video Fish Report

The video lander is a stationary, underwater camera system used to target benthic fish communities on rocky reefs. The video lander is deployed for approximately eight minutes of video collection at a time. Video from lander deployments(hereafter called ‘drops’) are quality controlled using established criteria for visibility (water clarity), view (visible camera angle), and benthic habitat type. Usable video is then reviewed to identify all fish to species or species groups and estimate the relative abundance for all fishes observed.

Lander sampling began at the Redfish Rocks in 2010, two years before harvest restrictions began. Sampling is conducted in the marine reserve and its associated comparison areas, Humbug and Orford Reef (see methods Appendix for additional information about comparison area selection). We sampled at these sites over several years, with varied levels of success in achieving usable data - data that met requirements for view, visibility, and benthic habitat type (rocky substrates). These efforts results in six years of usable data for our analysis and inclusion in the synthesis report.

Table 1: Redfish Rocks Lander Monitoring Efforts. Sample sizes represent the number of usable drops per year at each site

Data from lander monitoring efforts can be used to explore questions about fish relative abundance from a non-extractive, fisheries-independent tool used elsewhere in Oregon and the US West Coast. We can use metrics for diversity and community composition derived from these data to compare across monitoring tools, to understand tool bias, or to validate trends in relative abundance observed across tools. Data on relative abundance also enables us to explore how fish communities change over time; and whether these changes are similar both inside the reserve and outside in comparison areas. For all data our main focus is exploring trends by site and year.

1.1 Survey Maps

1.1.1 Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve

Fig. 1: Map of Lander Drops at Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve

1.1.2 Humbug Comparison Area

$Fig. 1: Map of Lander Drops at Humbug Comparison Area$

Fig. 1: Map of Lander Drops at Humbug Comparison Area

1.1.3 Orford Reef Comparison Area

Fig. 1: Map of Lander Drops at Orford Reef Comparison Area

1.2 Research Questions

Diversity

Does species diversity vary by site or year?

Community Composition

Does community composition vary by site or year?
- If yes, what species drive this variation?

Aggregate Abundance

Does aggregate density vary by site or year?

Focal Species Abundance

Does focal species density vary by site or year?
Does focal species size vary by site or year?

2 Takeaways

Here we present a summary of our lander monitoring results and our conclusions. Our conclusions are written with an evaluation of our sampling design, knowledge from prior marine reserves monitoring reports, and future directions of marine reserves monitoring in mind.

2.1 Lander Results Summary

Diversity was greatest at Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and Humbug Comparison Area compared to the Orford Reef Comparison Area.

The Humbug Comparison Area was similar across multiple diversity metrics to the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve. Observed and estimated species richness was higher at the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve than the Orford Reef Comparison Area with lander video monitoring data. There were more rare species observed at the marine reserve than the Orford Reef Comparison Area, and there were also higher effective number of species (Hill diversity numbers) at the marine reserve than Orford Reef Comparison Area. Sampling at Orford Reef was limited with the lander, (only two years), which likely influenced results of this analysis.

Fish community composition is similar between sites and years; variation driven by three most abundant species

Three species drove the majority of variation in the data - Black Rockfish, Blue/Deacon Rockfish and Kelp Greenling - rather than variation by site or year. These species were also the most abundant species at each site.

We detected no differences in aggregate MaxN or focal species by site.

We found no differences in aggregate MaxN between the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and the Humbug and Orford Reef Comparison Areas. There were also no differences by site in Max N for the three focal species with sufficient data for analysis - Black Rockfish, Blue/Deacon Rockfish and Lingcod.

Few observations for China Rockfish, Yelloweye Rockfish and Cabezon limited analysis for this report.

There were too few observations of China Rockfish (n=2), Yelloweye Rockfish (n=3) and Cabezon (n=1) to detect differences in MaxN by site, so statistical analyses were not conducted. With current sampling practices, the lander is not an effective tool for monitoring these species.

Limited sample sizes prevented analysis of trends through time with lander data.

This monitoring tool evolved over time to reflect both configuration, technological and methodological changes. In the early years sampling effort focused specifically on this tool with dedicated days specifically for lander sampling; however, beginning in 2014/2015 lander sampling was paired with dive surveys because of limited staffing and weather windows to accomplish monitoring at multiple sites with multiple tools. This led to a reduction in effort with this survey tool, that resulted in a reduction of useable drops for analysis per year. The result of all these changes led to unequal sample sizes (useable drops) available for analysis to understand changes through time, so we focused on pooling the available data to focus on documenting differences among sites.

2.2 Conclusions

Results of this report consistent with the first ODFW Ecological Monitoring report of 2010/2011.

In the first Ecological Monitoring Report of 2010-2011, the Redfish Rocks lander summary of baseline data reported overall low abundances of nearshore fishes, and little to no difference in MaxN for community composition, aggregate or focal species between the reserve and Humbug Comparison Area. While our densities for Black, Blue/Deacon, Kelp Greenling, and Lingcod are higher in this report, we similarly found no difference in community composition, aggregate or focal species between the reserve and Humbug Comparison Area. Our first monitoring report questioned the use of the use of the lander for detecting change between sites because of the low abundances and limited species-specific identification hindered assessment of fish community comparisons. Current challenges with this tool include limited sample sizes that prevent yearly trend analysis, and high cost of staff time required for video review.

Detecting trends in nearshore ocean changes with lander surveys is challenging and inefficient, and we are likely to discontinue its use in future monitoring at this site.

The biggest challenge with the lander monitoring tool is the high effort required to generate useable data (drops) for analysis. There are many reasons why lander drops may be excluded throughout the process from data collection to video review and/or exclusion for methodological changes as the tool develops through time. The result has led to unequal sample sizes through the years, despite days of fieldwork that would suggest otherwise. This combined with the long staff time required to perform video review and quality assurance / control on the data (Watson & Huntington 2021) makes this an inefficient monitoring tool as it is currently used.The first ODFW monitoring report questioned the use of the lander for detecting change between sites because of low abundances and limited species-specific identification, and that challenge remains after four additional years of tool development and sampling effort.

The lander tool was developed to provide additional data on the invertebrate and biogenic habitat communities; however we found the data unsuitable for inclusion in this report. Initial exploration into the invertebrate data, resulted in high percentages of lander drops with either unidentified invertebrate species or with no invertebrate species recorded. For example with our focal invertebrate species, the percent of lander drops with zeros ranged from 80 - 99%, even when we pooled data across sites. This is likely a result of lander development, where its construction focused on camera angles and view frames appropriate for assessing fish, and invertebrates typically require different camera position and video review requirements. With our biogenic habitat data, we found that two most commonly observed categories were also the categories with the largest error amongst reviewers documented in the early development of this tool (Lawrence et al 2015). A simulation revealed that the current distribution of cover in these categories was within the range of random guessing, and with staff turnover through the years we had low confidence in the reliability of data. With other monitoring tools more efficient to detect changes between sites or trends by year, the future use of monitoring with this tool is unlikely.

3 Lander Video Methods

Lander fish sampling is conducted in the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve, Humbug and Orford Reef Comparison Areas. The purpose of lander fish sampling is to generate a relative abundance estimate, mean MaxN, of select species at depths shallower than 30m. Lander drops at the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and its comparison areas targeted hard bottom, rocky substrates at depths shallower than 30m. Drops were randomly generated using hard bottom habitat maps and separated by a minimum distance of 100 m to assure independence.

Monitoring began in 2010 and data has been collected across 6 years. The first years of lander surveys were marked by tool exploration and development as ODFW attempted to adapt survey methods for the nearshore Oregon environment. Monitoring efforts prior to 2014 used a different camera configuration (standard definition cameras) and variable drop times based on recommendations from previous ODFW lander work in Oregon (Hannah and Blume 2012). In 2014, a more cost-effective, lighter camera configuration (HD GoPro Hero 3 cameras) was created and tested in nearshore waters to determine appropriate methods to continue lander monitoring (Watson and Huntington 2016). In 2014, drop duration was also standardized to 8 minutes.

All videos are reviewed to confirm the lander was oriented up right and that the benthic habitat in view met predetermined conditions of visibility, camera view and rocky reef habitat. All fish are identified to species, or species group. Relative abundance is recorded using the metric MaxN. Fish are counted in the video frame that contains the greatest single count of a given species which is a conservative approach to avoid double counting of schooling fishes and represents the minimum known count for a particular species (Ellis and DeMartini 1995, Harvey et al 2007). The unit of replication is at the drop level and only drops that were 4 minutes or longer in duration were used for analysis. This was previously determined to be a minimum drop time needed to achieve both time of first arrival and time to MaxN for more than half of 15 nearshore species known to be surveyed by the lander, including all common species (Watson and Huntington 2016).

The video lander tool configuration and survey methods have evolved since 2010. With each configuration or methodological change, data were statistically evaluated for significant differences in the relative abundance metric MaxN. The migration from standard-definition to high-definition cameras was found to have no detectable influence on our ability to identify fishes to species (i.e. no statistical reduction in the number of ‘unknown’ species), and therefore no known influence on aggregate MaxN. Similarly, we excluded drops with durations shorter than 4 min to account for previously documented time of first arrival and time to MaxN. For the remaining drops between 4 and 8 minutes, there were no statistically significant relationships between drop duration and either species richness or MaxN. We therefore felt it was appropriate to pool data across lander surveys between 2010-2019 for this analysis.

For additional details on method development, data collection, data review, and confounding factor analyses, please review documentation in the Methods Appendix.

3.1 Diversity

With scuba fish surveys, we explored several concepts related to species diversity at a given site:

species richness
unique, common & rare species
diversity indices
diversity through time

3.1.1 Species Richness

To report total observed species richness at a given site we used incidence data across all sampling years because species turnover at each site (reserve or comparison area) likely occurs on timescales greater than one year.

To calculate estimated species richness, we used a rarefaction and extrapolation technique as described in Hsieh et al 2016, to calculate the effective number of species at each given site. This is the equivalent of calculating Hill diversity = 0. Hill numbers represent a unified standardization method for quantifying and comparing species diversity across multiple sites (Hill 1973), and they represent an intuitive and statistically rigorous alternative to other diversity indices (Chao et al 2014).

We used the same sampling based incidence data as used to document total observed species richness, using the iNext package in R to estimate the asymptote of the species accumulation curve, or the estimated total number of species observable by lander fish drops at a given site. We also calculated confidence intervals associated with these rarefaction and extrapolation curves and can therefore compare across sites to explore similarity of total estimated species richness for a given sampling effort.

3.1.2 Unique, Common, and Rare Species

Richness alone does not sufficiently describe species biodiversity; additionally uniqueness, rarity and common species also shape and define concepts of biodiversity.

As a first step to exploring unique, rare and common species we generated species count tables. The species count tables include a total count for each species summed for all years by site, and for each year-site combination, as well as mean frequency of occurrence across all samples. This information can tell us both about how frequently the species is observed, as well as its relative abundance.

From the species count tables we identified rare species, as those with a frequency of occurrence of 10% or less (Green and Young 1993), and common species as those with a frequency of occurrence greater than 50% (in other words, the species is observed on one of every two transects). We also identified species that were unique to each marine reserve and comparison area.

3.1.3 Diversity Indices

To gain additional insight into species diversity, we explored several diversity indices by comparing Hill diversity numbers, also known as the effective number of species, across sites using the iNEXT diversity package in R (Hsieh et al 2016). Hill numbers are parameterized by a diversity order q, which determines the measures’ sensitivity to species relative abundances (Hsieh et al 2016). Hill numbers include the three most widely used species diversity measures; species richness (q = 0), Shannon diversity (q=1) and Simpson diversity (q=2) (Hsieh et al 2016). We used sampling based incidence data with the iNext package in R, to plot rarefaction and extrapolation curves for each Hill number, and compare results across sites. We also calculated 95% confidence intervals associated with these rarefaction & extrapolation curves.

3.1.4 Diversity Through Time

Finally we explored how diversity changed through time. First we plotted each species yearly rarefaction curve against the total cumulative rarefaction curve for all years combined to determine if we had sampled appropriately to compare species diversity from year to year. When our sampling effort was not adequate to compare across years, we pooled data from all years to compare average lander drop diversity using an analysis of variance (ANOVA).

All analyses and graphs were created in R v4.0.2, using the iNEXT and Vegan packages.

3.2 Community Composition

We focused our community composition analysis on the question of whether variation in mean MaxN was driven by spatial (site) or temporal (year) factors. We did this through both data visualizations with non-multidimensional scaling (nMDS) plots and with statistical tests such as principal coordinates analyses (PCO), multivariate ANOVA tests (PERMANOVA), and dispersion tests (PERMDISP). In addition to site and year, we also explored several species-specific drivers of variation.

To explore variation by site and year, we used fish mean MaxN data collected on lander video drops with a log transformation to downweight dominant species without overly enhancing importance of rare species (Clarke et al. 2006).Densities were calculated from lander Max fish count data (# MaxN / area) so a similarity-based resemblance matrix was selected. A dummy variable (=1) was added prior to creating the resemblance matrix due to the high prevalence of zeros in the dataset. To visualize the data, we ran a cluster analysis and generated nMDS plots by site and year.

To test the statistical significance in our data of variation by site and year we ran a permutational analysis of variance (PERMANOVA), using a model with site and year as fixed effects factors. To explore if any significant results of the PERMANOVA were related to true differences in location or differences in dispersion of samples (either by site or year to year), we ran a PERMDISP, a distance based test for homogeneity of multivariate dispersions for any factor of significance in the PERMANOVA (Anderson and Walsh 2013). If a factor was significant in the PERMANOVA but not the PERMDISP, then it can be inferred that the significance is related to a location effect, but not a dispersion effect. If the factor is also significant in the PERMDISP, then significance in the PERMANOVA is related to dispersion, but there may also be a location effect.

Beyond site and year, we explored species-specific drivers in the variation of fish community structure. We extended our data visualization, by performing a vector analysis of fish species in the community, selecting only the species with > 0.5 Pearson correlations (Hinkle et al. 2003). We then generated density plots of the identified species to visualize their relationship to site or year. To better understand how these species contributed to variation in the data, we ran a principal coordinates (PCO) analysis, using a Bray-Curtis resemblance matrix, which provides information on the percent of variation explained by each axis.

All analyses and graphs were made in PRIMERe version 7 with PERMANOVA extension.

3.3 Abundance

We explored changes in aggregate and focal species MaxN by site with generalized linear models (GLMs). We modeled raw MaxN data with no offset (Maunder and Punt 2004, Zuur 2012) and a negative binomial distribution. GLMs were selected because we lacked consistent data across the timeseries to apply generalized additive models (GAMs) to explore non-linear trends through time (Veneables and Dichmont 2004, Zuur et al. 2009). GLMs were fitted using the MASS and DHARMa packages in R. Site was treated as a fixed categorical variable (Zuur et al 2009; Zuur 2012).

Specifically we analyzed aggregate Max N and species-specific Mean Max N for focal species.

There are six focal fish species for the OR Marine Reserves Ecological Monitoring Program:

Black Rockfish; Sebastes melanops
Blue/Deacon Rockfish; Sebastes mystinus / S. diaconus
China Rockfish; Sebastes nebulosus
Yellow-eye Rockfish; Sebastes ruberrimus
Cabezon; Scorpaenichthys marmoratus
Lingcod; Ophiodon elongatus

These species were chosen based on their ecological, economic or management importance. For more information please refer to the methods Appendix detailing focal species selection. Additional species beyond focal species were included for analysis when they were identified in community analysis as being an important driver of variation.

All analyses and data plots were created in R v4.0.2, using the MASS (version 4.0.4), and DHARMa packages. Models were structured in R as follows:

MaxN model = MASS::glm.nb(MaxN ~ Site)

4 Redfish Rocks Results

Lander fish sampling efforts at Redfish Rocks and its comparison area resulted in six years of data collection, where varying sample sizes were collected per year (Fig. 2). Lander sampling occurred in multiple sites every year; however, data collected at Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve was unusable in 2019.

Fig. 2: Lander fish monitoring efforts at the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas resulted in varied sample sizes over the six years of data collection. Sample size is represented in number of useable drops.

Table 2: Redfish Rocks Lander Fish Monitoring Efforts

$~$ $~$

4.1 Diversity

4.1.1 Species richness

Higher fish species richness is observed at the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve than Orford Reef Comparison Area.

Over the six years of sampling with lander fish surveys, a total of 11 species (or species groups) were observed in the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve (Table 3). The Humbug Comparison Area had similar total number of observed species (n = 9). Lower species richness was observed at the Orford Reef Comparison Area (n = 5). These observed numbers of species richness are similar to the estimated numbers of total species richness (Table 3)

library(kableExtra)

pna <- data.frame(Area = c("Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve",
                           "Humbug Comparison Area",
                           "Orford Reef Comparison Area"),
                  Observed_Richness = c("11","9","5"),
                  Estimated_Richness = c("19","11","6"),
                  LCL = c("11","9","5"),
                  UCL = c("75", "31","18"))


  kbl(pna, caption = "Table 3: Observed and estimated species richness by site with lower (LCL) and upper (UCL) 95% confidence limits") %>% 
  kableExtra::kable_classic()

Table 3: Observed and estimated species richness by site with lower (LCL) and upper (UCL) 95% confidence limits
Area	Observed_Richness	Estimated_Richness	LCL	UCL
Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve	11	19	11	75
Humbug Comparison Area	9	11	9	31
Orford Reef Comparison Area	5	6	5	18

$~$ $~$

Species rarefaction curves highlight that for any samples size, including those for any given year, the species richness of Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and the Humbug Comparison Area are very similar, but Orford Reef had lower species richness (Fig. 3). The marine reserve and Humbug Comparison Area rarefaction curves are beginning to level off, suggesting monitoring efforts are nearing saturation in species richness with this tool at these sites. The Orford Reef Comparison Area does not appear to level off, suggesting more sampling is needed at this site to appropriately describe species richness.

Fig. 3: Species rarefaction curves for the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas. Data are pooled across all years of sampling for each site.

$~$ $~$ $~$ $~$

4.1.2 Unique, common and rare species

Although the number of rare species differ between the marine reserve and the Orford Reef Comparison Area, the number of unique and common species among all sites is similar.

The Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve had three unique species - the Yelloweye Rockfish, Vermilion Rockfish (S.miniatus) and Wolf Eel (Anarrhichthys ocellatus). Two unique species were observed at the Humbug Comparison Area - Cabezon and Pile Perch (Rhacochilus vacca). No unique species were observed at the Orford Reef Comparison Area. The Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve (n = 1) had similar numbers of common species to both the Humbug Comparison Area (n = 2) and the Orford Reef Comparison Area (n = 0). At both the marine reserve and Humbug Comparison Area Black Rockfish were considered common species. The Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and Humbug Comparison Area had more rare species (n = 7, n = 5 respectively) than the Orford Reef Comparison Area (n = 2).

Many of the species of fisheries interest - China, Quillback, Cabezon, Yelloweye, Copper and Vermillion Rockfish - were not observed frequently resulting in low pooled counts. Not all species were observed each year, for a summary of species counts over the years by site please see tables below.

Pooled species counts across all years and species counts by individual sampling year are included in the following tables:

$~$ $~$

4.1.2.1 Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve

Fig. 4: Relative frequency of occurrence of invertebrate species observed at the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas from lander drops. See separate tabs for each site.

4.1.2.2 Humbug Comparison Area

Fig. 4: Relative frequency of invertebrate species observed at the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas from lander transects. See separate tabs for each site.

4.1.2.3 Orford Reef Comparison Area

Fig. 4: Relative frequency of invertebrate species observed at the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas from lander transects. See separate tabs for each site.

$~$ $~$ $~$ $~$

4.1.3 Diversity Indices

The Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve has higher effective number of species than the Orford Reef Comparison Area across all three diversity indices.

The Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and Humbug Comparison Area have similar effective number of species across the three diversity indices. However, both sites have higher effective number of species than the Orford Reef Comparison Area, across the three diversity indices (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5: Comparing effective number of species (Hill diversity numbers) across the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas from lander drops. Hill numbers include the three most widely used species diversity measures; species richness (q = 0), Shannon diversity (q=1) and Simpson diversity (q=2) (Hsieh et al 2016).

$~$ $~$ $~$ $~$

4.1.4 Diversity through time

We did not get enough samples to evaluate change in species diversity through time at the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and its comparison areas.

Species rarefaction curves by year for each site indicated that we did not sample enough on a yearly basis to compare changes in mean species richness through time (Fig. 6-8). When plotting mean species richness by year with 95% confidence intervals, the confidence intervals overlap suggesting more sampling is needed to detect any meaningful changes in annual species richness.

$~$ $~$

For an average lander drop, there is similar species diversity observed at the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas.

When comparing mean species richness for an average lander drop, there were no significant differences between sites (F. 1.934, p>0.05, Fig. 9).

Fig. 9: Mean species richness by site with 95% confidence intervals at the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and associated comparison areas from lander data.

$~$ $~$

4.2 Community Composition

$~$ $~$

4.2.1 Variation by Site and Year

Fish community composition was similar by site and year at the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and its surrounding comparison areas with lander video data.

There was no structuring of fish community composition data across sites and years with lander video fish data at the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and surrounding comparison areas. (Fig. 10).

Multivariate statistics do not indicate site or year as a factor of significance.

PERMANOVA results indicate that neither site nor year was a factor of significance with video lander fish data (p > 0.05, Table 10). The interaction between site and year was significant (p < 0.05), but this is likely attributable to randomized sampling and differences in sampling effort by site and year, not any biologically significant differences

Table 10: PERMANOVA results

$~$ $~$

4.2.1.1 Site

Fig. 10: Results from nMDS plots with lander video fish data, demonstrating similarity in fish community composition at the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas. See separate tabs for site and year.

4.2.1.2 Year

Fig. 10: Results from nMDS plots with lander video fish data, demonstrating similairity in fish community composition at the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas. See separate tabs for site and year.

$~$ $~$

4.2.2 Other drivers of variation

Three species drive variation in fish community composition data at both the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and its comparison area.

We explored species-specific drivers of variation, and found that Black Rockfish, Blue/Deacon Rockfish, and Kelp Greenling were driving the majority of the variation in fish community structure (Fig. 11).

Principal coordinate analysis revealed that ~45% of the variation is explained by differences in MaxN of both Black and Blue/Deacon Rockfish along the x axis and ~19% of the variation explained by Kelp Greenlings along the y axis. (Fig. 11). Bubble plots indicate that variation along the y axis is largely driven by the presence or absence of Kelp Greenling in lander videos, accounting for the spatial separation of samples in the PCO plot. Together the abundance of these three species accounts for over 63% of model variability.

4.2.2.1 PCO Vector Plot

Fig. 11: Results from species correlations and principal coordinate analysis demonstrating that Black Rockfish, Blue/Deacon Rockfish, and Kelp Greenling drive variation in community structure at the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and its surrounding comparison areas. See separate tabs for vector and bubble plots. Bubble color / size represents species-specific densities in each sample (species density range indicated in legend).

4.2.2.2 PCO Bubble Plot

$~$ $~$

4.3 Aggregate Abundance

$~$ $~$

4.3.1 Aggregate MaxN

No significant difference in aggregate fish MaxN between the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas.

No significant difference in aggregate MaxN between the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and the Humbug or Orford Reef Comparison Areas (p > 0.05; Table 11).

GLM model results can be found in the links below:

Table 11: GLM model results: parametric terms

$~$ $~$

4.3.1.1 Aggregate Mean MaxN by Site

Fig. 12: Aggregate Mean MaxN by site with 95% confidence intervals, at the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas.

$~$ $~$

4.4 Focal Species Abundance

$~$ $~$

4.4.1 Black Rockfish, S. melanops

$~$

4.4.1.1 MaxN

No significant difference in Black Rockfish MaxN observed between the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas.

No significant differences in Black Rockfish MaxN between the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and the Humbug or Orford Reef Comparison Areas (p > 0.05; Table 12).

GLM model results can be found in the links below:

Table 12: GLM model results: parametric terms

$~$ $~$

4.4.1.1.1 Black Rockfish Mean MaxN by Site

Fig 13: Black Rockfish mean MaxN by site with 95% confidence intervals, at the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas.

$~$ $~$

4.4.2 Blue/Deacon Rockfish, S.mystinus / S.diaconus

$~$

4.4.2.1 MaxN

No significant difference in Blue/Deacon Rockfish MaxN observed between the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas.

No significant difference in Blue/Deacon Rockfish MaxN between the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and the Humbug or Orford Reef Comparison Areas (p > 0.05; Table 13).

GLM model results can be found in the links below:

Table 13: GLM model results: parametric terms

$~$ $~$

4.4.2.1.1 Blue/Deacon Rockfish Mean MaxN by Site

Fig. 14: Blue/Deacon Rockfish mean MaxN by site with 95% confidence intervals, at the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas.

$~$ $~$

4.4.3 China Rockfish, S. nebulosus

$~$

4.4.3.1 MaxN

Two China Rockfish observed, one at the marine reserve and the other at Orford Reef Comparison Area, over six years of monitoring.

MaxN of China Rockfish was very low across sites and years, so statistical analyses were not conducted.

$~$ $~$

4.4.4 Yelloweye Rockfish, S.ruberrimus

$~$

4.4.4.1 MaxN

Three Yelloweye Rockfish observed at the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve over six years of monitoring.

MaxN of Yelloweye Rockfish was very low across sites and years, so statistical analyses were not conducted.

$~$ $~$

4.4.5 Cabezon, Scorpaenichthys marmoratus

$~$

4.4.5.1 MaxN

One Cabezon observed at the Humbug Comparison Area only over six year of monitoring.

MaxN of Cabezon was very low across sites and years, so statistical analyses were not conducted.

$~$ $~$

4.4.6 Lingcod, Ophiodon elongatus

$~$

4.4.6.1 MaxN

No significant difference in Lingcod MaxN between at the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas.

No significant differences in Lingcod MaxN between the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and the Humbug or Orford Reef Comparison Areas (p > 0.05; Table 14). Zero Lingcod were observed at the Orford Reef Comparison Area.

GLM model results can be found in the links below:

Table 14: GLM model results: parametric terms

$~$ $~$

4.4.6.1.1 Lingcod Mean MaxN by Site

Fig 15: Lingcod mean MaxN by site with 95% confidence intervals, at the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas.

4.5 Additional Species Density

$~$ $~$

4.5.1 Kelp Greenling, Hexagrammos decagrammus

$~$

4.5.1.1 MaxN

No significant difference in Kelp Greenling MaxN between the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas.

No significant differences in Kelp Greenling MaxN between the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and the Humbug or Orford Reef Comparison Areas (p > 0.05; Table 15).

GLM model results can be found in the links below:

Table 15: GLM model results: parametric terms

$~$ $~$

4.5.1.1.1 Kelp Greenling Mean MaxN by Site

Fig 16: Kelp Greeling mean MaxN by site with 95% confidence intervals, at the Redfish Rocks Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas.

5 References

Anderson M.J., Walsh D.C.I. 2013. PERMANOVA, ANOSIM, and the Mantel test in the face of heterogeneous dispersions: What null hypothesis are you testing? Ecological Monographs 83(4): 557-574.

Chao A., Gotelli N.J., Hsieh T.C., Sander E.L., Ma K.H., Colwell R.K., Ellison A.M. (2014) Rarefaction and extrapolation with Hill numbers: A framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies. Ecol Monogr 84:45–67

Clarke K.R., Chapman M.G., Somerfield P.J., Needham H.R. (2006). Dispersion-based weighting of species counts in assemblage analyses. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 320: 11-27.

Ellis, D., DeMartini, E., 1995. Evaluation of a video camera technique for indexing abundances of juvenile pink snapper, Pristipomoides filamentosus, and other Hawaiian insular shelf fishes. Fish. Bull. 93 (1), 67-77.

Green, R. H., & Young, R. C. (1993). Sampling to detect rare species. Ecological Applications, 3(2), 351-356.

Hannah, R. W., & Blume, M. T. (2012). Tests of an experimental unbaited video lander as a marine fish survey tool for high-relief deepwater rocky reefs. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 430, 1-9.

Harvey, E.S., Cappo, M., Butler, J.J., Hall, N., Kendrick, G.A., 2007. Bait attraction affects the performance of remote underwater video stations in assessment of demersal fish community structure. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 350, 245-254.

Hill M.O. (1973) Diversity and Evenness : A Unifying Notation and Its Consequences. Ecology 54:427–432.

Hinkle D.E., Wiersma W., Jurs S.G. Applied Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. 5th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 2003

Hsieh, T. C., Ma, K. H., & Chao, A. (2016). iNEXT: an R package for rarefaction and extrapolation of species diversity (H ill numbers). Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(12), 1451-1456.

Lawrence K.A., Watson J.L., Huntington B.E. (2016). A method for quantifying bioegnic habitat from stationary underwater video. ODFW Informational Report No. 2016-04. Marine Resources Program. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Newport, OR.

Legendre P. and Anderson M.J. 1999. Distance-based redundancy analysis: Testing multispecies responses in multifactorial ecological experiments. Ecological Monographs 69(1): 1-24.

Lester, S. E., Halpern, B. S., Grorud-Colvert, K., Lubchenco, J., Ruttenberg, B. I., Gaines, S. D., … & Warner, R. R. (2009). Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: a global synthesis. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 384, 33-46.

Love, M. S., & Yoklavich, M. M. (2006). Deep rock habitats. In The ecology of marine fishes (pp. 253-266). University of California Press.

ODFW (2014). Oregon Marine Reserve Ecological Monitoring Report 2010-2011. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Marine Resources Program. Newport Oregon. 1-131.

R Core Team (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL: https://www.R-project.org/.

Venables, W. N., & Dichmont, C. M. (2004). GLMs, GAMMs and GLMMs: an overview of theory for applications in fisheries research. Fisheries research, 70(2-3), 319-337.

Watson, J.L. and Huntington, B.E. (2016). Assessing the performance of a cost-effective video lander for estimating relative abundance and diversity of nearshore fish assemblages. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol., 483: 104–111.

Watson, J.L. and Huntington, B.E. (2021). Comparing angling, underwater visual census, and video sampling methods to refine [fishery independent] long-term monitoring of a reef fish assemblage in a temperate marine reserve. ODFW Science Bulletin 2021-15. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Newport. Mar. Biol. Ecol., 483: 104–111.

Zuur, A., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N., Saveliev, A. A., & Smith, G. M. (2009). Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer Science & Business Media.

Zuur, A. F. (2012). A beginner’s guide to generalized additive models with R (pp. 1-206). Newburgh, NY, USA: Highland Statistics Limited.

### This can be a useful function to play a sound at the end of a long script

#beepr::beep()