Linda Barker Maryland DNR Fisheries Service November 29, 2007 AFS Conference - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oyster population biomass variance estimates for the maryland portion of chesapeake bay 1994 2006
Download
1 / 14

  • 221 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Oyster Population/Biomass/Variance Estimates for the Maryland Portion of Chesapeake Bay 1994 – 2006. Linda Barker Maryland DNR Fisheries Service November 29, 2007 AFS Conference. Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement. Baseline: 1994 level of abundance Goal: 10-fold increase by 2010

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

Download Presentation

Linda Barker Maryland DNR Fisheries Service November 29, 2007 AFS Conference

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Oyster population biomass variance estimates for the maryland portion of chesapeake bay 1994 2006

Oyster Population/Biomass/Variance Estimates for theMaryland Portion of Chesapeake Bay 1994 – 2006

Linda Barker

Maryland DNR Fisheries Service

November 29, 2007

AFS Conference


Chesapeake bay 2000 agreement

Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement

  • Baseline: 1994 level of abundance

  • Goal:10-fold increase by 2010

  • Indicator: Annual biomass estimate of small& market size oysters


Indicator timeline

Indicator Timeline

  • Developed in: 2000

  • Original estimates: 1994-2000

  • Updated: 2001, 2002

  • Documented: 2007

  • Variance estimate: 2007

  • 2007 update:1994-2006 w/variance


Methods population biomass calculations

Methods: Population/Biomass Calculations

Area x Density = Oysters

Oysters x Weight = Biomass


Methods area

Methods: Area

Spatial BasisTemporal Basis

8 basins values constant 1994-2006

Habitat Surveys

Yates (1906-1911)

MBBS (1976-1983)

Md DNR COL (1999-2000)

High Quality HabitatLow Quality Habitat

71% decline from MBBS73% decline from MBBS

91% decline from Yates89% decline from Yates

Shell plantings < 5 years old

60 to 1,800 acres/basin1,000 to 12,000 acres/basin


Methods density

Methods: Density

On High Quality Habitat

From DNR Fall Survey (annual values)

  • Observed value: oysters/bushel

  • Transformed to: oysters/acre ( ~750x )

    Hatchery seed plantings not included

    On Low Quality Habitat

    Basis is undocumented

    Value changed in 2002 (to reflect drought?)

  • 1994-2001 = 2.02 oysters/m2

  • 2002-2006 = 0.36 oysters/m2


Methods biomass

Methods: Biomass

Biomass

Biomass = Population x Weight (by size class)

Total = sum for all size classes/basins

Population by Size Group

For 5-mm size classes

Total population x rel. abundance

From Md DNR Fall Survey

Conversion to Biomass

Jordan et al., 2002

log weight = -3.8 + 2.1 * log size


Methods variance

Methods: Variance

For Population on HQ Habitat

Density variance (oysters/bu)2 x (730 bu/ac)2 x (acres) 2

For Population on LQ Habitat

none calculated


Results ope time series as an unintelligible table

Results: OPE Time Series(as an unintelligible table)


Results ope time series

Results: OPE Time Series


Results ope time series1

Results: OPE Time Series


Conclusions

Conclusions

  • OPEs based on many critical assumptions

    • many contain error.

  • The data are not the problem

    • values at a very small spatial scale are inflated to create values at a much greater spatial scale

  • High variance

    • even so, these are underestimates!

    • insufficient precision to show change over time.


Recommendation

Recommendation

  • The use of an absolute estimate of abundance that has sufficient precision to show real trends in the bay-wide oyster population will require entirely different stock assessment methods,

    at orders of magnitude more cost.

  • A relative index of abundance based on observed densities may be useful.


Many thanks to kelly greenhawk dnr fisheries col

MANY THANKS to Kelly GreenhawkDNR Fisheries, COL


  • Login