1 Introduction: Cascade Head Marine Reserve Hook and Line Surveys

Hook and line (HnL) sampling target demersal fishes living on rocky reef habitats using catch and release methods. All fish caught are identified to species level and measured for length. Fish are caught using standardized gear for a fixed amount of time, providing data on effort.

Hook and Line surveys (HnL) began at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and two of its comparison areas, Schooner Creek and Cavalier, in 2013, before implementation of the marine reserve in 2014. Sampling is conducted in the marine reserve and three comparison areas, Schooner Creek, Cavalier, and Cape Foulweather (see methods Appendix for additional information about comparison area selection). Monitoring efforts resulted in four years of data for our analysis and inclusion in the synthesis report.

Table 1: Cascade Head Hook and Line Monitoring Efforts. Sample sizes represent the number of cell-days per year at each site

Data from hook and line surveys can be used to explore questions about fish abundance and size from a survey tool that is similar to local commercial nearshore hook and line fishing efforts. We can also explore these data with questions about diversity and community composition to compare across monitoring tools to understand tool bias or to validate trends seen across tools. This can further help us understand how the fish communities in these areas are similar or different. Data on abundance and size enable us to explore how fish catch, biomass, and size have changed 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 Cascade Head Marine Reserve

Fig. 1: Map of Hook and Line Sampling Cells at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve

1.1.2 Schooner Creek Comparison Area

Fig. 1: Map of Hook and Line Sampling Cells at the Schooner Creek Comparison Area

1.1.3 Cavalier Comparison Area

Fig. 1: Map of Hook and Line Sampling Cells at the Cavalier Comparison Area

1.1.4 Cape Foulweather Comparison Area

Fig. 1: Map of Hook and Line Sampling Cells at the Cape Foulweather Comparison Area

1.2 Research Questions

Diversity

Does species diversity vary by site or year?

Community Composition

Does fish community structure vary by site or year?
- If yes, what species drive this variation?
- If no, what other factors may structure the fish community?

Aggregate Abundance

Does aggregate abundance vary by site or year?
Does aggregate biomass vary by site or year?

Focal Species Abundance

Does focal species abundance vary by site or year?
Does focal species biomass vary by site or year?
Does focal species size vary by site or year?

2 Takeaways

Here we present a summary of our Hook and Line 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 Hook and Line Results Summary

Species diversity was similar between the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and 2 of 3 comparison areas.

Species diversity was similar between the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and the Schooner Creek and Cavalier Comparison Areas as evidenced by the results of multiple analyses in the diversity section of this report. The Cape Foulweather Comparison Area was different than all other sites. The Cascade Head Marine Reserve, Schooner Creek and Cavalier Comparison Areas had similar numbers of observed and estimated species and the Hill diversity numbers (effective number of species) were similar across these sites. Despite some clear differences at Cape Foulweather (lower observed, estimated and effective number of species), there were a few similarities to the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and other comparison area sites. The most common species observed across all sites were Black Rockfish and Lingcod.

Catch composition was more variable at Cascade Head Marine Reserve than its comparison areas, with differences driven by higher CPUE of Black Rockfish within the marine reserve.

More variability was seen at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve than its three comparison areas in fish catch composition. There was some minimal differences in fish catch composition by year but they explained little of the variation in the data. Instead, species-specific drivers of fish catch composition associated with Black Rockfish and Lingcod accounted for the majority of variation. High CPUE of Black Rockfish were associated with low CPUE of Lingcod and vice versa. The differences between the marine reserve and its comparison areas were driven by higher catch of Black Rockfish within the marine reserve. Season and habitat variables accounted for little variation in the data.

Higher aggregate CPUE and BPUE was detected in the Cascade Head Marine Reserve than its comparison areas, likely driven by higher Black Rockfish CPUE and BPUE in the marine reserve.

There was higher aggregate abundance with both CPUE and BPUE in the Cascade Head Marine Reserve than in the three comparison areas. This higher aggregate abundance was apparent across all survey years, and likely driven by similarly high Black Rockfish CPUE and BPUE in the marine reserve. Black Rockfish was the most abundant species at all sites.

Table 2: Snapshot of Mean Abundance Results

Yearly trends in Black Rockfish and aggregate abundance are similar within each site suggesting changes in the most abundant species drive aggregate trends at each site

The yearly trends in Black Rockfish CPUE are the similar to yearly trends at the aggregate level for all sites. Yearly trends in Black Rockfish BPUE also mirror the yearly trends in aggregate BPUE at three sites including the marine reserve, Schooner Creek and Cape Foulweather Comparison Areas.

We were able to detect natural, interannual variability in CPUE, BPUE, and size for select species.

We detected yearly change in CPUE, BPUE and mean size for select species, but these trends were inconsistent across species and survey locations. A majority of significant yearly trends were declines in either of the two schooling species - Black Rockfish or Blue/Deacon Rockfish. All the significant Lingcod yearly trends (CPUE, BPUE) involved an increase through 2015 or 2016, followed by a decline through 2018. There were not enough observations of China Rockfish, Yelloweye Rockfish, and Cabezon to detect changes between sites or trends by year.

Table 3: Snapshot of Abundance Trend Results

Smaller top quartile sizes of Black Rockfish and Lingcod were detected at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve than 2 of 3 comparison areas.

We could only analyze top quartile size data for Black Rockfish and Lingcod because of small sample sizes of other species across the four sites. The Cascade Head Marine Reserve had smaller top quartile sizes of Black Rockfish and Lingcod than 2 of 3 comparison areas - Schooner Creek and Cavalier. Top quartile sizes were similar between the marine reserve and Cape Foulweather Comparison Area for both species. Future tracking of this could reveal changes in the larger size classes of species that might be obscured by recruitment of smaller fish.

2.2 Conclusions

This is the most comprehensive report evaluating the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its comparison areas with Hook and Line gear

The first summary of hook and line gear from the Cascade Head Marine Reserve concluded that the Cavalier Comparison Area should be discontinued because of low catch rates, and summarized one year (2013) of species counts and mean sizes between the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and Schooner Creek Comparison Area. This was our first summary of baseline monitoring data with hook and line gear at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve. Since then, we’ve added back in the Cavalier Comparison Area and also the Cape Foulweather Comparison Area as part of hook and line sampling, and run statistical analyses on five years of data. Comparisons between the marine reserve and Schooner Creek Comparison Area from the 2012/2013 report indicate that the most abundant species differ between these two sites (Black v Blue Rockfish), but species’ mean sizes were similar. Our current report supports that there were similarly mean sized fish in the marine reserve and Schooner Creek, but also indicated that the most abundant species were the same between these two sites (Black Rockfish and Lingcod). Additionally, this report provides the first information about species diversity, community composition and aggregate and species abundance between the marine reserve and three comparison areas.

Important documentation of higher aggregate and species abundances in the Cascade Head Marine Reserve

All comparison areas had lower aggregate abundances (CPUE and BPUE) than the Cascade Head Marine Reserve. Similarly Black Rockfish had higher CPUE and BPUE in the reserve than all three comparison areas. No differences in Blue/Deacon Rockfish were observed among sites, but some differences in Lingcod CPUE and BPUE were detected. These differences help us set the stage for understanding a marine reserve effect, where scientific literature suggests that areas closed to fishing may increase in both aggregate and/or species-specific abundance metrics (Lester et al 2009). It is important to document the initial conditions in the marine reserve and its comparison areas to understand future changes and prevent falsely declaring changes attributable to marine reserve protedctions, when there may be none.

We had limited ability to analyze data on solitary demersal species with our statistical approach in this report.

For China, Cabezon and Yelloweye, the number of observations per year per site for these species was typically less than ten individuals precluding species-specific modeling approaches in this report. Hook and line data gather information on other species (e.g. Copper, Quillback, Vermillion Rockfish), but these solitary demersal fish also had small sample sizes per site per year and similarly would have required an individualized approach for analysis.

Monitoring with hook and line surveys will continue at current levels and intervals.

Current monitoring efforts are able to detect interannual trends for the most abundant species but there is limited ability to detect changes of solitary demersal species with current efforts (e.g. China, Cabezon, Quillback), but Lingocd is an exception. It is unclear whether increasing effort across all sites would increase our ability to detect change for these species, given that they are found in relatively low densities with this survey tool. Future analytical efforts may explore different techniques than the ones in this report, which may be more appropriate for data-poor species (e.g. occupancy modeling), or exploring species-habitat relationships. Without an increase to program budget or staff, hook and line survey efforts will likely continue at current levels and intervals.

3 Hook & Line Methods

Hook and Line (HnL) surveys were conducted in the Cascade Head Marine Reserve, Schooner Creek, Cavalier, and Cape Foulweather Comparison Areas. Surveys began in Cascade Head, Schooner Creek and Cavalier in 2013 with unequal survey effort; in the initial years there was a strong focus to place more survey effort in the Reserve to ensure adequate characterization of baseline conditions prior to closure. In 2014, only Cascade Head and Schooner Creek Comparison Area were surveyed. From 2015 onwards, the Reserve and its three comparison areas were surveyed each year. Survey effort targeted 2 days in the Reserve, 2 days at Schooner Creek, 1 - 1.5 days at Cavalier, and 0.5-1 day at Cape Foulweather for a total of 6 days, for both spring and fall surveys. Each day between 5-6 cells (500m x 500 m grids) are targeted, with 3 fifteen-minute fishing drifts occurring in each cell. All catch data collected from drifts are combined for a single cell; the unit of replication for hook and line catch data is at the cell-day level, while all size data is at the individual fish level. All fish caught during each drift are identified to species, measured and released. During each drift we also determined the amount of time not spent fishing, such as when anglers hang up on the bottom, stop to rest, or take a photo with their fish caught. This time is factored into the total time spent fishing, to truly represent fishing effort during these surveys. We then calculate both a catch and biomass per unit effort for each given cell-day and species. For additional details on data collection, please review documentation in the Methods Appendix.

3.1 Diversity

With hook and line gear, 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 explore species richness at a given site, we reported total observed species richness and also calculated total estimated species richness.

To report total observed species richness at a given site we used incidence data across all survey years because each site (reserve or comparison area) likely has a species pool larger than can be surveyed in any one year. We excluded unidentified species from the summaries as well as species not well targeted by hook and line gear (e.g. Wolf eel).

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 hook and line gear at a given site. We also calculated confidence intervals associated with these rarefaction & extrapolation curves & can therefore compare across sites to explore similarity of total estimated species richness for a given survey effort.

3.1.2 Unique, Common, and Rare Species

Richness alone does not comprise all aspects of species biodiversity - 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. These tables exclude the unidentified species and species not well targeted by hook and line gear. The species count tables include a total count for each species summed for all years by area, and for each year-area 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.

Frequency of occurrence was defined as the proportion of cells surveyed that a species was observed. 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%. The 50% threshold for common species represents that a species is caught in one out of every two cells surveyed. 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 (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 annual species rarefaction curves to determine if we had sampled appropriately (i.e. reached an asymptote) to compare species diversity from year to year. When our survey effort was not adequate to compare across years, we pooled data from all years to compare average daily diversity using an anova. Average cell diversity provides useful information about the expected number of species per hook and line sample unit, but is not directly related to total expected species richness in a given survey area.

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 around understanding if the variation in fish community structure 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 other potential drivers of variation including species-specific differences, habitat and environmental factors.

To explore variation by site and year, we used catch per unit effort (CPUE) data with a dispersion weighting transformation to downweight species that have high variability within each site. This allows us to better deal with highly aggregated schooling species without enhancing importance of rare species (Clarke et al. 2006). CPUE data are considered a rate (catch per angler hour) so a Euclidean distance 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 ANOVA, using a nested mixed model with site and year as fixed, and cell, our sampling replicate for hook and line gear, as a random nested factor under site. 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 significant factors from 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 several additional factors that could be driving the variation in 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 euclidean distance resemblance matrix, which provides information on the percent of variation explained by each axis.

In addition to species specific drivers of variation, we also explored the relationship between community composition and environmental variables. We employed a multivariate model incorporating month, proportion of hard bottom (rock) within a sampling cell, and average drift depth (averaged among cell/day combinations) to test if these habitat or environmental variables explained significant variation across sites or years. Due to strict requirements of these variables needing to match with each specific biological sample, only samples that contained estimates of all the above variables were used for analysis. An initial histogram of data yielded non-normal distributions so an overall data transformation (Log(x+1)) was employed. CPUE data are considered a rate (catch per angler hour) so a distance based resemblance matrix was selected, using a euclidean distance with an addition of a dummy variable (=1). With these data a distance-based linear model (DistLM) and a distance-based redundancy analysis (dbRDA) were conducted to determine which variables may explain variation across sites or years (Legendre and Anderson 1999). DistLM is akin to a multivariate multiple regressions model where the relationship between a multivariate data cloud (resemblance matrix) and one or more predictor variables are analyzed and modeled. The dbRDA routine then visualizes the model and fits it into a multi-dimensional space. In the DistLM model AIC values were used as the selection criteria and a Best selection procedure was employed to find the best combination of variables with the lowest AIC value as the best model fit.

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

3.3 Abundance

We explored changes in aggregate and focal species catch rates (catch per unit effort, CPUE), biomass rates (biomass per unit effort, BPUE), and size (focal species only) by site and year with generalized additive mixed models (GAMM). We modeled raw catch and biomass data with an offset for fishing effort (angler hour) (Maunder and Punt 2004, Zuur 2012); size data were modeled without an offset. A negative binomial distribution was used for the CPUE model and a gaussian distribution on log-transformed biomass for the BPUE model. After exploration of spatial-temporal auto correlation of residuals with focal species data, a gaussian distribution for the size model. GAMMs were chosen to account for non-linear trends in metrics by year detected in preliminary data exploration (Veneables and Dichmont 2004, Zuur et al. 2009). GAMMs were fitted using the mgcv package in R. Site was treated as a fixed categorical variable, while Year was continuous and smoothed with the thin-plate smoother ‘s()’ (Zuur et al 2009; Zuur 2012), grouped by Site, and k was restricted to 3 knots to prevent over-fitting. Cell was included as a random effect in the model to account for the nested nature of the sampling design and for random differences in depth and habitat among cells. We limited our modeling exercise to focus on Site and Year as these are two of the primary questions of interest. For species with very low CPUE across most sites and years, no statistical analyses were conducted as the data violated assumptions of the model framework.

Specifically we analyzed aggregate CPUE and BPUE, and species-specific CPUE, BPUE and size for focal species. Additionally for focal species, we complemented the GAMM modeling results for size with an analysis of variance (ANOVA) exploring changes in the mean top quartile size of fish by site. The mean top quartile size of fish is a measure of how the mean size of the largest quartile of fish changes through time, a technique borrowed from fish longevity studies (Choat and Robertson 2002), whereas the GAMM modeling results evaluate change in mean size of all individuals of a species. The mean size of fish may obscure gains in the larger size classes through time if there has been a strong recruitment of juvenile fishes. When results were significant, a Tukey test was run to determine significant differences among sites.

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 mgcv (version 1.8-36), mgcViz and gratia packages. Models were structured in R as follows:

CPUE Model = gam(Catch ~ site + s(Year, by = site, k = 3) + s(Cell_ID, bs = “re”), offset = log(Effort), family = nb)

BPUE = mgcv::gam(log(Biomass + 1) ~ Site + s(Year, by = Site, k = 3) + s(Cell_ID, bs = “re”), offset = log(Effort), family = gaussian)

Size Model = gam(Length ~ site + s(Year, by = site, k = 3) + s(Cell_ID, bs = “re”), family = gaussian)

4 Cascade Head Results

Hook and line survey efforts at Cascade Head and its comparison areas resulted in five years of data collection, where varying sample sizes were collected per year (Fig. 2). The first three years of sampling (2013- 2015) resulted in more survey effort in the Marine Reserve than in the comparison areas. Survey efforts at the Cape Foulweather Comparison Area did not begin until 2015.

Fig. 2: Hook and line monitoring efforts at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and surrounding comparison areas resulted in varied sample sizes over the five years of data collection. Sample size is represented in cell-days.

Table 4: Cascade Head Hook and Line Monitoring Efforts

\(~\) \(~\)

4.1 Diversity

4.1.1 Species richness

Species richness is similar across the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its comparison areas.

Over the five years of sampling with hook and line gear a total of 15 species were observed in the Cascade Head Marine Reserve (Table 5). The Schooner Creek Comparison Area had slightly fewer species, 13, whereas Cavalier had the same number of observed species (15) and Cape Foulweather had the least (8) (Table 5). Even though the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and the Cavalier Comparison Area have the same number of observed species, their estimates of total species richness are different (Table 5); Cavalier has higher estimated total species richness than the Cascade Head Marine Reserve. The estimated species richness for the two other comparison areas is the same as the observed species richness (Table 5).

library(kableExtra)
pna <- data.frame(Area = c("Cascade Head Marine Reserve", "Schooner Creek Comparison Area", "Cavalier Comparison Area", "Cape Foulweather Comparison Area"), Observed_Richness = c("15","13","15", "8"), Estimated_Richness = c("17","13","21", "8"), LCL = c("15","13","15", "8"), UCL = c("37", "15","52", "13"))


  kbl(pna, caption = "Table 5: Observed and estimated species richness by area with lower (LCL) and upper (UCL) 95% confidence limits") %>% 
  kableExtra::kable_classic()

Table 5: Observed and estimated species richness by area with lower (LCL) and upper (UCL) 95% confidence limits
Area	Observed_Richness	Estimated_Richness	LCL	UCL
Cascade Head Marine Reserve	15	17	15	37
Schooner Creek Comparison Area	13	13	13	15
Cavalier Comparison Area	15	21	15	52
Cape Foulweather Comparison Area	8	8	8	13

\(~\) \(~\)

Species rarefaction curves highlight that at small samples sizes, such as those for any given year, the species richness among the Cascade Head Marine Reserve, Schooner Creek Comparison Area and Cavalier Comparison Area are similar (Fig. 3). Cape Foulweather has the lowest species richness among sites at comparable sample sizes. As effort across sites increases, more species are observed at the Marine Reserve and Cavalier Comparison Area than at Schooner Creek, resulting in higher estimated species richness for these sites (Fig. 3, Table 5). The Schooner Creek Comparison Area rarefaction curve appears to level off, suggesting saturation in species richness with this tool in this site.

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

\(~\) \(~\) \(~\) \(~\)

4.1.2 Unique, common and rare species

The number of unique and common species is similar across all sites, but the marine reserve and Cavalier Comparison Area have more rare species.

The Cascade Head Marine Reserve had one unique species - the Pacific Staghorn, Leptocottus armatus. The brown rockfish, S. auriculatus, was unique to the Cavalier Comparison Area. No unique species were found at either the Schooner Creek or Cape Foulweather Comparison Areas; however Buffalo Sculpin, Enophrys bison, were unique to the comparison areas generally and not observed in the Cascade Head Marine Reserve (Fig. 4).

The Cascade Head Marine Reserve had similar numbers of common species to each of the three comparison areas. Across all sites, the two most common species by count and frequency of occurrence were Black Rockfish and Lingcod. The Cascade Head Marine Reserve (n = 6) and Cavalier Comparison Area (n = 8) had more rare species than the Schooner Creek and Cape Foulweather Comparison Areas (both sites n=3). Many of the other species of fisheries interest - China, Quillback, Yelloweye, Copper and Vermillion Rockfish - were not caught frequently resulting in low pooled counts. Not all species were observed each year, for a summary of species counts and frequency observed over the years by site please see tables below (Tables 6-13).

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

\(~\) \(~\)

4.1.2.1 Cascade Head Marine Reserve

Fig. 4: Relative frequency of occurrence of species observed at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its associated Comparison Areas.

4.1.2.2 Schooner Creek Comparison Area

Fig. 4: Relative frequency of species observed at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and the comparison areas.

4.1.2.3 Cavalier Comparison Area

Fig. 4: Relative frequency of species observed at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and the comparison areas.

4.1.2.4 Cape Foulweather Comparison Area

Fig. 4: Relative frequency of species observed at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and the comparison areas.

\(~\) \(~\)

\(~\) \(~\) \(~\) \(~\)

4.1.3 Diversity Indices

The Cascade Head Marine Reserve is similar to the Schooner Creek and Cavalier Comparison Areas across all three diversity indices, however the Cape Foulweather Comparison Area is different than all other sites.

Minimal differences in the catch composition among the Cascade Head Marine Reserve, Schooner Creek Comparison Area and Cavalier Comparison Area can be seen across the three diversity indices (Fig. 5). The Cape Foulweather Comparison Area has a lower effective number of species for all three diversity indices than the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and the two other comparison areas (Fig. 5). This is not surprising since the Cape Foulweather Comparison Area is part of a much smaller and shallower reef than the other sites.

Fig. 5: Comparing effective number of species (hill diversity numbers) across the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its associated Comparison Areas. 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 Cascade Head 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 annual species rarefaction curves 95% confidence intervals, there is high overlap among the years suggesting that additional sampling is needed detect temporal patterns in species richness.

\(~\) \(~\)

For an average day of sampling, the Cascade Head Marine Reserve has higher species richness than the Cavalier Comparison Area, but similar richness to Schooner Creek and Cape Foulweather Comparison Areas.

When comparing mean species richness for an average day of sampling, there were statistically significant differences among sites (F = 6.751, p = 0.000). However, Tukey HSD tests reveal that this difference was entirely driven by the pairwise comparison between Cascade Head Marine Reserve and Cavalier Comparison Area (adj. p = 0.000); on average more species are observed in a day of sampling at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve than the Cavalier Comparison Area (Fig. 9).The Schooner Creek Comparison Area and the Cape Foulweather Comparison Area had similar mean species richness to the Cascade Head Marine Reserve to a given day of sampling (adj. p > 0.05).

Fig. 9: Mean species richness by area with 95% confidence intervals at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and associated Comparison Areas.

\(~\) \(~\)

4.2 Community Composition

\(~\) \(~\)

4.2.1 Variation by Site and Year

The Cascade Head Marine Reserve has much more variable CPUE of fish communities than any of its comparison areas.

More variability in fish communities with CPUE data can be seen at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve, than at its three comparison areas (Fig. 10). Some catches in the Cascade Head Marine Reserve are similar to the comparison areas, however, other samples from the Cascade Head Marine Reserve appear to be distinct.

There are no clear groupings of fish community structure by year at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its comparison areas with hook and line data.

With five years of sampling with hook and line gear, there are no apparent groupings of fishing community structure by year at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its comparison areas (Fig. 10).

Multivariate statistics indicate significant differences between sites, cells, and years sampled, but likely site is the only factor of biological relevance.

PERMANOVA results indicate that the factors site, year and cell were significant but none of the interactions were significant for fish community stucture (Table 14). Estimated variation described by each of the variables and variable interactions was very small. Site accounted for the highest variability of all the variables/interactions (25%), but the residuals still explained the majority of the variability in the data (67%). Likely there is a site effect, but the small significance of year (6%) or cell (8%) is likely not biologically relevant.

Table 14: PERMANOVA results

PERMDISP results indicate that dispersions of samples were significantly different between sites (p=0.001), with only the Cavalier and Cape Foulweather Comparison Area not significantly different (p > 0.05). CPUE at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and Schooner Creek Comparison Area have much higher dispersion where as Cavalier and the Cape Foulweather Comparison Areas maintain greater consistency between samples.

PERMDISP results by year and cell indicated significant differences in dispersion (p < 0.05), but there were no trends detected among significant pairwise comparisons between years or cells (Table 17, 18). This suggests the significance identified in the PERMANOVA is likely a combination of both differences in dispersions and location for both site, year, and cell. While year and cell were significant factors, a lack of consistent trends in pairwise comparisons indicates the differences found between years is likely due to sampling variability (e.g. 2014 v. 2015) or natural variability in CPUE and not a distinct temporal trend. The significance of site in PERMANOVA and PermDISP tests likely indicates true differences between Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its comparison areas as Cascade Head has both higher dispersion than other sites and contains a large proportion of samples that are distinct in multivariate space from the comparison areas as well.

\(~\) \(~\)

4.2.1.1 Area

Fig. 10: Results from nMDS plots with CPUE data, demonstrating there is more variability in catch composition at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve than its comparison areas, but no apparent groupings of catch composition by year. See separate tabs for area and year.

4.2.1.2 Year

Fig 10: Results from nMDS plots for CPUE data, demonstrating there is more variability in catch composition at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve than its comparison areas, but no apparent groupings of catch composition by year.See separate tabs for area and year.

\(~\) \(~\)

4.2.2 Other drivers of variation

Black Rockfish and Lingcod catch drive the majority of variation in data regardless of site or year.

We explored species-specific drivers of variation, and found that Black Rockfish and Lingcod were driving the majority of variation in the data (Fig. 11). Principal coordinate analysis revealed that ~46% of the variation is explained by CPUE of Black Rockfish and 18% of variation is described by CPUE of Lingcod (Fig. 11). Together the abundance of these two species accounts for over 65% of model variability. The vector plots also indicate differences between Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its comparison areas are driven by higher CPUE of Black Rockfish within the marine reserve.

Including month and habitat variables accounted for little of the total variation in catch composition at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas.

DISTLM results indicated three environmental variables (year, month, and average drift depth), were significant and the best model included all of these variables (Table 19). Year roughly correlated with the x axis and explained 67% of model variation, but only explained 6.1% of the total variation. This indicates that although significant, year alone does not explain the variation in fish communities. Depth roughly correlated with the y axis and explained 19.5% of model variation, but only 1.7% of total variation. The depth range of these surveys - 10-50 meters - is a range in which communities are fairly homogneous and differences among community structure by depth would not be seen until much deeper depths (e.g. 100 m or more, Love and Yoklavich 2006). Month explained only 13% of model variation, and 1.1% of total variation in fish community structure with hook and line data. Therefore, even though a model including these variables is the best, the low amount of total variation (< 10%) explained by these factors suggests as currently incorporated, they are not substantial drivers of fish community structure.

Table 19: Cascade Head DistLM results

4.2.2.1 PCO Vector Plot

Fig. 11: Results from species correlations and principal coordinate analysis demonstrating that black rockfish and lingcod drive variaiton in community structure at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its surrounding comparison areas. Bubble color/size represents species-specific densities in each sample (Species density range indicated in legend). See separate tabs for vector and bubble plots.

4.2.2.2 PCO Bubble Plot

Fig. 11: Results from species correlations and principal coordinate analysis demonstrating that black rockfish and lingcod drive variation in community structure regardless of site at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its surrounding comparison areas. Bubble color/size repsents species-specific densities in each sample (species density range indicated in legend).See separate tabs for vector and bubble plots.

\(~\) \(~\)

4.3 Aggregate Abundance

\(~\) \(~\)

4.3.1 Aggregate CPUE

Significantly higher aggregate CPUE in the Cascade Head Marine Reserve than any of its comparison areas.

Cascade Head Marine Reserve had higher aggregate CPUE than any of its comparison areas (all p < 0.05; Table 20).

Significant yearly trends in aggregate CPUE at the Cavalier and Schooner Creek Comparison Areas.

There were significant yearly trends at both the Cavalier and Cape Foulweather Comparison Areas (p < 0.05; Table 21). At the Cavalier Comparison Area, CPUE increased to a peak around 2015, then declined through 2018. At the Schooner Creek Comparison Area, CPUE slightly decreased across the sampling period (2013 and 2018). No significant yearly trends in aggregate CPUE were detected at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve or Cape Foulweather Comparison Area (p > 0.05; Table 21).

The random effect of cell (unit of replication) was identified as a significant component of variation (Table 21).

GAMM model results can be found in the links below:

\(~\) \(~\)

4.3.1.1 Aggregate CPUE timeseries

Fig. 12: Aggregate catch per unit effort (CPUE) timeseries and modeled GAMM results with 95% confidence intervals, at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas. See separate tabs for timeseries and GAMM results.

4.3.1.2 Aggregate CPUE modeled GAMM results

\(~\) \(~\)

4.3.2 Aggregate BPUE

Significantly higher aggregate BPUE in the Cascade Head Marine Reserve than any of its comparison areas.

Cascade Head Marine Reserve had higher aggregate BPUE than any of its three comparison areas (all p < 0.05; Table 22).

Significant yearly trends in aggregate BPUE at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and Schooner Creek Comparison Area.

There were significant yearly trends in aggregate BPUE at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and Schooner Creek Comparison Area (p < 0.05; Table 23). The yearly trend in aggregate BPUE were similar for both the marine reserve and Schooner Creek Comparison Area, with declining trends across the 2013-2018 sampling period. There were no significant yearly trends at the Cavalier or Cape Foulweather Comparison Areas (p > 0.05; Table 23)

The random effect of cell (unit of replication) was identified as a significant component of variation (Table 23).

GAMM model results can be found in the links below:

\(~\) \(~\)

4.3.2.1 Aggregate BPUE timeseries

Fig. 13: Aggregate biomass per unit effort (BPUE) timeseries and GAMM model results with 95% confidence intervals, at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas. See separate timeseries and GAMM results.

4.3.2.2 Aggregate BPUE modeled GAMM results

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4 Focal Species Abundance & Size

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4.1 Black Rockfish, S. melanops

\(~\)

4.4.1.1 CPUE

Significantly higher Black Rockfish CPUE at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve than at its comparison areas.

Cascade Head Marine Reserve had higher CPUE of Black Rockfish than any of its three comparison areas (all p < 0.05; Table 24).

Significant yearly trends in Black Rockfish CPUE observed at both Schooner Creek and Cavalier Comparison Areas.

There were significant yearly trends in Black Rockfish CPUE at the Schooner Creek and Cavalier Comparison Areas. At the Schooner Creek Comparison Area, there was a decline in CPUE through time. At the Cavalier Comparison Area, Black Rockfish CPUE slightly increased to 2015 and then declined through 2018 (p < 0.05; Table 25). There were no significant trends by year at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve or the Cape Foulweather Comparison Area (p > 0.05; Table 25).

The random effect of cell (unit of replication) was identified as a significant component of variation (Table 25).

GAMM model results can be found in the links below:

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4.1.1.1 Black Rockfish CPUE Timeseries

Fig. 14: Black Rockfish catch per unit effort (CPUE) timeseries and GAMM model results with 95% confidence intervals, at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas. See separate tabs for timeseries and GAMM results.

4.4.1.1.2 Black Rockfish CPUE Modeled GAMM Results

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4.1.2 Size

No difference in mean size of Black Rockfish between the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its comparison areas.

Mean size of Black Rockfish was greater at Schooner Creek by less than 1cm (p = 0.04). There were no other significant differences in mean size of Black Rockfish among sites (all p > 0.05, Table 26).

Significant yearly trends in Black Rockfish mean size at Cascade Head Marine Reserve and Cape Foulweather Comparison Area.

There were significant yearly trends in Black Rockfish mean size at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and Cape Foulweather Comparison Area (both p<0.05, Table 27). At the Cascade Head Marine Reserve, mean size declined slightly in 2015/2016 and increased gradually through 2018. At the Cape Foulweather Comparison Area, Black Rockfish mean size decreased through time from a peak in 2015 to a low in 2018. There was no significant yearly trend in Black Rockfish mean size at the Schooner Creek or Cavalier Comparison Areas (p>0.05). Even though the model results reveal statistically significant yearly trends at two sites, the mean size timeseries underscores that mean sizes do not fluctuate more than 1-2 cm per year, per site, and likely represents natural variation as opposed to biological significance through time (Fig. 15).

The random effect of cell (unit of replication) was identified as a significant component of variation (Table 27).

GAMM model results can be found in the links below:

\(~\) \(~\)

The Cascade Head Marine Reserve has significantly smaller top quartile sizes of Black Rockfish than the Schooner Creek and Cavalier Comparison Areas, but similar top quartile sizes with the Cape Foulweather Comparison Area.

There were differences by site in the top quartile of sizes of Black Rockfish (F. 29.173, p. < 0.05). The Cascade Head Marine Reserve had significantly smaller top quartile sizes of Black Rockfish than the Schooner Creek or Cavalier Comparison Areas (adj. p < 0.05). There was no difference in top quartile sizes between the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and the Cape Foulweather Comparison Area (adj. p > 0.05).

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4.1.2.1 Black Rockfish Mean Size Timeseries

Fig. 15: Black Rockfish mean size timeseries and GAMM model results with 95% confidence intervals at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas. See separate tabs for timeseries and GAMM results.

4.4.1.2.2 Black Rockfish Modeled Size GAMM Results

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4.1.3 BPUE

Significantly higher Black Rockfish BPUE at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve than its comparison areas.

Cascade Head Marine Reserve had significantly higher BPUE than any of its three comparison areas (all p< 0.05; Table 28).

Significant yearly trends in Black Rockfish BPUE at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve, Schooner Creek, and Cavalier Comparison Areas.

There were significant yearly trends in Black Rockfish BPUE at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve, Schooner Creek, and Cavalier Comparison Areas (all p < 0.05; Table 29), all with similar declining trends across the 2013-2018 sampling period. There were no significant yearly trends at the Cape Foulweather Comparison Area (p > 0.05; Table 29)

The random effect of cell (unit of replication) was identified as a significant component of variation (Table 29).

GAMM model results can be found in the links below:

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4.1.3.1 Black Rockfish BPUE Timeseries

Fig. 16: Black Rockfish biomass per unit effort (BPUE) timeseries and GAMM model results with 95% confidence intervals, at the Cascde Head Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas. See separate tabs for timeseries and GAMM results.

4.4.1.3.2 Black Rockfish BPUE Modeled GAMM Results

Fig. 16: Black Rockfish biomass per unit effort (BPUE) timeseries and GAMM model results with 95% confidence intervals, at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas. See separate tabs for time series and GAMM results.

\(~\) \(~\)

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

\(~\)

4.4.2.1 CPUE

No significant difference in Blue/Deacon Rockfish CPUE between the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its comparison areas.

There was no difference in Blue/Deacon Rockfish CPUE between the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and the Schooner Creek, Cavalier, or Cape Foulweather Comparison Areas (p > 0.05; Table 30).

Significant yearly trends in Blue/Deacon Rockfish CPUE at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve, Schooner Creek and Cavalier Comparison Areas.

There were significant yearly trends in CPUE at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and two of its surrounding comparison areas - Schooner Creek and Cavalier (all p < 0.05, Table 31), all with declining trends between 2013-2014 followed by a leveling-off. There were no Blue/Deacon Rockfish observed for any survey year at the Cape Foulweather Comparison Area.

The random effect of cell (unit of replication) was identified as a significant component of variation (Table 31).

GAMM model results can be found in the links below:

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4.2.1.1 Blue/Deacon Rockfish CPUE Timeseries

Fig. 17: Blue/Deacon Rockfish catch per unit effort (CPUE) timeseries and modeled GAMM results with 95% confidence intervals, at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas. See separate tabs for timeseries and GAMM model results.

4.4.2.1.2 Blue/Deacon Rockfish CPUE Modeled GAMM Results

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4.2.2 Size

There was no difference in mean size of Blue/Deacon Rockfish between the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its comparison areas..

There were no significant differences in mean size of Blue/Deacon Rockfish among sites (all p> 0.05, Table 32). Note, there were no Blue/Deacon Rockfish caught at the Cape Foulweather Comparison Area and this site was excluded from modeling.

A significant yearly trend in Blue/Deacon Rockfish mean size at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve, but not its surrounding comparison areas.

The Cascade Head Marine Reserve had a slight decrease in Blue/Deacon Rockfish mean size over the five years of sampling (p<0.05, Table 33). There were no statistically significant yearly trends in mean size of Blue/Deacon Rockfish at the Schooner Creek or Cavalier Comparison Areas (all p> 0.05, Table 33). Note, there were no Blue/Deacon Rockfish caught at the Cape Foulweather Comparison Area and this site was excluded from analysis.

The random effect of cell (unit of replication) was identified as a significant component of variation (Table 33).

GAMM model results can be found in the links below:

\(~\)

Too few observations of Blue/Deacon Rockfish to explore differences by site in top quartile sizes.

Low numbers of Blue/Deacon Rockfish catch at both the Cavalier Comparison Area and the Cape Foulweather Comparison Area resulted in too few observation to statistically compare top quartile sizes across sites.

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4.2.2.1 Blue/Deacon Rockfish Mean Size Timeseries

Fig. 18: Blue/Deacon Rockfish mean size timeseries and GAMM model results with 95% confidence intervals at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas. See separate tabs for timeseries and GAMM model results.

4.4.2.2.2 Blue/Deacon Rockfish Modeled Size GAMM Results

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4.2.3 BPUE

No significant difference in Blue/Deacon Rockfish BPUE between the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its surrounding comparison areas.

There was no difference in Blue/Deacon Rockfish BPUE between the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and the Schooner Creek, Cavalier, or Cape Foulweather Comparison Areas (all p > 0.05; Table 34).

Significant yearly trends in Blue/Deacon Rockfish BPUE at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve, Schooner Creek, and Cavalier Comparison Areas.

Significant yearly trends were observed at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve, Schooner Creek, and Cavalier Comparison Areas for Blue/Deacon Rockfish BPUE (p < 0.05; Table 35). At the marine reserve, Blue/Deacon BPUE declined through time from a high in 2013 to a leveling-off at then end of the sampling period; a similar trend was detected at the Schooner Creek Comparison Area. There was a declining trend through time without a leveling-off at the Cavalier Comparison Area. There were no Blue/Deacon Rockfish observed for any survey year at the Cape Foulweather Comparison Area.

The random effect of cell (unit of replication) was not a significant component of variation (Table 35).

GAMM model results can be found in the links below:

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4.2.3.1 Blue/Deacon BPUE Timeseries

Fig. 19: Blue/Deacon Rockfish biomass per unit effort (BPUE) timeseries and modeled GAMM results with 95% confidence intervals, at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas. See separate tabs for timeseries and GAMM model results.

4.4.2.3.2 Blue/Deacon BPUE Modeled GAMM Results

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4.3 China Rockfish, S. nebulosus

\(~\)

4.4.3.1 CPUE

Too few observations of China Rockfish to detect differences in CPUE by site or year.

Catch rates of China Rockfish were very low across all sites and years (e.g. 1 fish caught per 25 angler hours fishing), so statistical analyses were not conducted (Fig. 20).

4.4.3.1.1 China Rockfish CPUE Timeseries

Fig. 20: China Rockfish catch per unit effort (CPUE) timeseries with 95% confidence intervals at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas.

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4.3.2 Size

Too few observations of China Rockfish to detect differences in size by site or year.

Catch rates of China Rockfish were very low across all sites and years (e.g. 1 fish caught per 25 angler hours fishing), so statistical analyses were not conducted (Fig. 20).

Too few observations of China Rockfish to detect differences in top quartile sizes.

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4.3.3 BPUE

Too few observations of China Rockfish to detect differences in BPUE by site or year.

Low catch rates of China Rockfish across all sites and years resulted in very low BPUE estimates, so statistical analyses were not conducted (Fig. 20).

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4.3.3.1 China Rockfish BPUE Timeseries

Fig. 21: China Rockfish biomass per unit effort (BPUE) timeseries with 95% confidence intervals at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas.

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4.4 Yelloweye Rockfish, S.ruberrimus

\(~\)

4.4.4.1 CPUE

Too few observations of Yelloweye Rockfish to detect differences in CPUE by site or year.

Catch rates of Yelloweye Rockfish were very low across all sites and years (e.g. 1 fish caught per 25 angler hours fishing; Fig. 22), so statistical analyses were not conducted.

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4.4.1.1 Yelloweye Rockfish CPUE Timeseries

Fig. 22: Yelloweye Rockfish catch per unit effort (CPUE) timeseries with 95% confidence intervals at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas.

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4.4.2 Size

Too few observations of Yelloweye Rockfish to detect differences in size by site or year.

Catch rates of Yelloweye Rockfish were very low across all sites and years (e.g. 1 fish caught per 25 angler hours fishing), so statistical analyses were not conducted (Fig. 22).

Too few observations of Yelloweye Rockfish to detect differences in top quartile sizes.

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4.4.2.1 Yelloweye Rockfish Mean Size Timeseries

Fig. 23: Mean Yelloweye Rockfish sizes with 95% confidence intervals by site and year at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas.

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4.4.3 BPUE

Too few observations of Yelloweye Rockfish to detect differences in BPUE by site or year.

Catch rates of Yelloweye Rockfish were very low across all sites and years (e.g. 1 fish caught per 25 angler hours fishing Fig. 22) resulting in low estimates of BPUE (Fig. 24), so statistical analyses were not conducted.

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4.4.3.1 Yelloweye Rockfish BPUE Timeseries

Fig. 24: Yelloweye Rockfish biomass per unit effort (BPUE) timeseries with 95% confidence intervals at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas.

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4.5 Cabezon, Scorpaenichthys marmoratus

\(~\)

4.4.5.1 CPUE

Too few observations of Cabezon to detect differences in CPUE by site or trends by year.

Catch rates of Cabezon catch were low across all sites and years (Fig. 25), (e.g. highest CPUE 1 fish caught per every 5 hours spent fishing) so statistical analyses were not conducted.

4.4.5.1.1 Cabezon CPUE Timeseries

Fig. 25: Cabezon catch per unit effort (CPUE) timeseries with 95% confidence intervals at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas.

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4.5.2 Size

Too few observations of Cabezon to detect differences in size by site or year.

Catch rates of Cabezon were very low across all sites and years (e.g. 1 fish caught per 5 angler hours fishing; Fig. 25), so statistical analyses on size data were not conducted. Cabezon mean size timeseries data are presented below (Fig. 26).

Too few observations of Cabezon across sites to explore changes in top quartile sizes.

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4.5.2.1 Cabezon Mean Size Timeseries

Fig. 26: Cabezon mean size timeseries and GAMM model results with 95% confidence intervals at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas.

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4.5.3 BPUE

Too few observations of Cabezon to detect differences in BPUE by site or year.

Catch rates of Cabezon were very low across all sites and years resulting in low BPUE (Fig. 27), so statistical analyses were not conducted.

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4.5.3.1 Cabezon BPUE Timeseries

Fig. 27: Cabezon biomass per unit effort (BPUE) timeseries with 95% confidence intervals, at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas.

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4.6 Lingcod, Ophiodon elongatus

\(~\)

4.4.6.1 CPUE

Significantly higher Lingcod CPUE in the Cascade Head Marine Reserve than the Cavalier or Cape Foulweather Comparison Areas.

There was a significantly higher Lingcod CPUE in the Cascade Head Marine Reserve than the Cavalier or Cape Foulweather Comparison Areas (both p < 0.05; Table 36). There was no difference in Lingcod CPUE between the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and Schooner Comparison Area (p > 0.05; Table 36).

Significant yearly trends in Lingcod CPUE at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve, Schooner Creek and Cape Foulweather Comparison Areas.

There were significant yearly trends in Lingcod CPUE at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve, Schooner Creek and Cape Foulweather Comparison Areas. At the Cascade Head Marine Reserve there was to peak around 2016 followed by decline through 2018. A similar trend was also observed at the Schooner Creek and Cape Foulweather Comparison Areas. There was no significant yearly trend at the Cavalier Comparison Area (p > 0.05; Table 37).

The random effect of cell (unit of replication) was not significant (Table 37).

GAMM model results can be found in the links below:

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4.6.1.1 Lingcod CPUE Timeseries

Fig. 28: Lingcod catch per unit effort (CPUE) timeseries and GAMM model results with 95% confidence intervals at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas. See separate tabs for timeseries and GAMM results.

4.4.6.1.2 Lingcod CPUE Modeled GAMM Results

Fig. 28: Lingcod catch per unit effort (CPUE) timeseries and GAMM model results with 95% confidence intervals, at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas. See separate tabs for timeseries and GAMM results.

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4.6.2 Size

No significant difference in mean size of Lingcod at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its comparison areas.

The mean size of Lingcod was not significantly different between the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its comparison areas (all p> 0.05, Table 38).

No significant yearly trends in Lingcod mean size at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve or its surrounding comparison areas.

There was no significant yearly trend in Lingcod mean size at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve or the Schooner Creek, Cavalier or Cape Foulweather Comparison Areas (p>0.030, Table 39).

The random effect of cell (unit of replication) was identified as a significant component of variation for mean size of Lingcod (Table 39).

GAMM model results can be found in the links below:

\(~\)

The Cascade Head Marine Reserve has smaller top quartile sizes of Lingcod than the Schooner Creek and Cavalier Comparison Areas.

There were differences by site in the top quartile of sizes of Lingcod (F.29.173, p.< 0.05). The Cascade Head Marine Reserve had statistically smaller top quartile sizes of Lingcod than the Schooner Creek and Cavalier Comparison Areas (all adj. p < 0.05). The Cascade Head Marine Reserve and Cape Foulweather Comparison Area had similarly sized top quartile of Lingcod (adj. p > 0.05).

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4.6.2.1 Lingcod Mean Size Timeseries

Fig. 29: Lingcod mean size timeseries and GAMM model results with 95% confidence intervals at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas.See separate tabs for timeseries and GAMM results.

4.4.6.2.2 Lingcod Modeled Size GAMM Results

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4.6.3 BPUE

Significantly higher Lingcod BPUE in the Cascade Head Marine Reserve than the Cavalier Comparison Area.

Lingcod BPUE was higher in the Cascade Head Marine Reserve than the Cavalier Comparison Area (p < 0.05, Table 40). There was no difference in Lingcod CPUE between the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and the Schooner Creek or Cape Foulweather Comparison Areas (p > 0.05; Table 40).

Significant yearly trends in Lingcod BPUE at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and Cape Foulweather Comparison Area.

There were significant yearly trends in Lingcod BPUE at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and Cape Foulweather Comparison Area (p < 0.05; Table 41). At the Cascade Head Marine Reserve, BPUE increased through 2016 and then declined through 2018. A similar trend was also observed at the Cape Foulweather Comparison Area. No significant yearly trends were observed at the Schooner Creek or Cavalier Comparison Areas (p > 0.05; Table 41).

The random effect of cell (unit of replication) was not statistically significant (Table 41).

GAMM model results can be found in the links below:

\(~\) \(~\)

4.4.6.3.1 Lingcod BPUE Timeseries

Fig. 30: Lingcod biomass per unit effort (BPUE) timeseries and modeled GAMM results with 95% confidence intervals, at the Cascade Head Marine Reserve and its associated comparison areas. See separate tabs for timeseries and GAMM results.

4.4.6.3.2 Lingcod Modeled BPUE GAMM Results

\(~\) \(~\)

4.5 Additional Species Abundance & Size

No other species were identified from the community analysis, as additionally important drivers of variation in the community.

\(~\) \(~\)

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

Choat, J. H., & Robertson, D. R. (2002). Age-based studies. Coral reef fishes: Dynamics and diversity in a complex ecosystem, 57-80.

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.

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

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.

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.

Maunder, M. N., & Punt, A. E. (2004). Standardizing catch and effort data: a review of recent approaches. Fisheries research, 70(2-3), 141-159.

ODFW (2015). Oregon Marine Reserve Ecological Monitoring Report 2012-2013. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Marine Resources Program. Newport Oregon. 1-126.

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/.

Starr, R. M., Wendt, D. E., Barnes, C. L., Marks, C. I., Malone, D., Waltz, G., … & Yochum, N. (2015). Variation in responses of fishes across multiple reserves within a network of marine protected areas in temperate waters. PLoS One, 10(3), e0118502.

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.

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()