1 1.10 Application of estuarine and coastal classifications in marine ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Jennings, S., Cotter, A. J. R. 1999. Fishing effects in northeast Atlantic shelf seas: patterns in fishing effort, diversity and community structure. 1. Introduction. Fisheries Research 40, 103– 106. Jones, K., Heggmem, D.T., Wade, T.G., Neale, A.C., Ebert, D.W., Nash, M.S., Mehaffey, M.H., Hermann, K.A., Selle, A.R., Augustine, S., Goodman, I.A., Pederson, J., Bolgrien, D., Viger, J.M., Chiang, D., Lin, C.J., Zhong, Y., Baker, J., Van Remortel, R.D. 2000. Assessing landscape conditions relative to water resources in the western United States: A strategic approach, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 64, 227-245. Kendall, M.S., Kruer, C.R., Buja, K.R., Christensen, J.D., Finkbeiner, M., Warner, R.A., Monaco, M.E., 2002. Methods used to map the benthic habitats of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In: NOAA Technical Memorandum, vol. 152. Silver Spring, Maryland, p. 45. Kendall, M.S., Christensen, J., Hillis-Starr, J., 2003. Multi-scale data used to analyze the spatial distribution of French grunts, Haemulon flavolineatum, relative to hard and soft bottom in a benthic landscape. Environmental Biology of Fishes 66, 19–26. Kendall, M.S., Thomas, M. 2008. The influence of thematic and spatial resolution on maps of a coral reef ecosystem. Marine Geodesy 31, 75-102. Kennish, M. J., Bricker, S.B., Dennison, W.C., Glibert, P.M., Livingston, R.J., Moore, K.A., Noble, R.T., Paerl, H.W., Ramstack, J.M., Seitzinger, S., Tomasko, D.A., I. Valiela. 2007. Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor Estuary: case study of a highly eutrophic coastal bay system. Ecological Applications 17(5), Supplement: S3-S16. Knudby, A., LeDrew E., Brenning A. 2010. Predictive mapping of reef fish species richness, diversity and biomass in Zanzibar using IKONOS imagery and machine-learning techniques. Remote Sensing of Environment 114 (6), 1230-1241. 82
Kostylev, V., Todd, B.J., Fader, G.B.J., Courtney, R.C., Cameron, G.D.M., Pickrill, R.A. 2001. Benthic habitat mapping on the Scotian Shelf based on multibeam bathymetry, surficial geology and sea floor photographs. Marine Ecology Progress Series 219, 121-137. Krause, J. C., Boedeker, D., Backhausen, I., Heinicke, K., Groß, A., von Nordheim, H. 2006. Rationale behind site selection for the NATURA 2000 network in the German EEZ. In Progress in Natura 2000 sites and fisheries in German offshore waters. Marine Conservation in Europe: Natura, pp. 65–95. Ed. by H. von Nordheim, D. Boedeker, and J. C. Krause. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg. 263 pp. Lathrop, R.G., Bognar, J.A., Hendrickson, A.C., P.D. Bowers. 1999. Data Synthesis Effort for the Barnegat Bay Estuary Program: Habitat Loss and Alteration in the Barnegat Bay Region. Center for Remote Sensing & Spatial Analysis, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. http://www.crssa.rutgers.edu/projects/runj/datasnth.html Lathrop, R.G, Bognar, J.A. 2001. Habitat Loss and Alteration in the Barnegat Bay Region. Journal of Coastal Research SI 32, 212-228. Leathwick, J., Moilanen, A., Francis, M., Elith, J., Taylor, P., Julian, K., Hastie, T., Duffy, C. 2008. Design and evaluation of large-scale marine protected areas. Conservation Letters 1, 92- 101. Leslie, H., Ruckelshaus, M., Ball, I.R., Andelman, S., Possingham, H.P. 2003. Using siting algorithms in the design of marine reserve networks. Ecological Applications 13, 185–198. Jamieson, G.S., Levings C.O. 2001. Marine protected areas in Canada – implications for both conservation and fisheries management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58(1), 138–156. Lourie, S.A., Vincent, A.C.J. 2004. Using biogeography to help set priorities in marine conservation. Conservation Biology 18, 1004-1020. 83
Page 1 and 2:
1.10 Application of estuarine and c
Page 3 and 4:
SYNOPSIS Coastal and marine classif
Page 5 and 6:
government and non-governmental man
Page 7 and 8:
paucity of species and habitat data
Page 9 and 10:
and many sub-catastrophic disturban
Page 11 and 12:
conservation practitioners, industr
Page 13 and 14:
levels of the hierarchy are defined
Page 15 and 16:
distributions, both within and surr
Page 17 and 18:
In a hierarchical framework for the
Page 19 and 20:
1.10.2.3 Australian Coastal Classif
Page 21 and 22:
Ecological theory predicts that the
Page 23 and 24:
outbreaks in the late 1970s (Green
Page 25 and 26:
intertidal zones, and shallow coast
Page 27 and 28:
1.10.3.1 Identifying Priority Conse
Page 29 and 30:
y the Massachusetts Oceans Act (200
Page 31 and 32: eight color coded zones to provide
Page 33 and 34: appropriate place to investigate fe
Page 35 and 36: 1.10.4.3 Massachusetts Ocean Plan T
Page 37 and 38: One of the foundational concepts un
Page 39 and 40: ecosystems has shown that considera
Page 41 and 42: In May 2004, Germany was the first
Page 43 and 44: improve the design and interpretati
Page 45 and 46: NOAA’s CoastWatch Change Analysis
Page 47 and 48: ground resolution of 30 m. Each cla
Page 49 and 50: also be used to assess the role of
Page 51 and 52: States (Gundlach and Hayes 1978). T
Page 53 and 54: information at the species level. I
Page 55 and 56: 1.10.8.4 Classifying and Mapping Hu
Page 57 and 58: map of the entire Australian shorel
Page 59 and 60: within 11 regions, leading to an ov
Page 61 and 62: enhancement of certain functions in
Page 63 and 64: achieved by identifying barriers to
Page 65 and 66: ecosystem service values extracted
Page 67 and 68: 1.10.12 FUTURE DIRECTIONS AND PRIOR
Page 69 and 70: 1.10.12.1 Linking Patterns and Proc
Page 71 and 72: approach. New classifications will
Page 73 and 74: Arundel, H. and Mount, R. 2007. Nat
Page 75 and 76: Connell, J. H. 1978. Diversity in t
Page 77 and 78: Duke. N.C., Meynecke, J.O., Dittman
Page 79 and 80: Green, A.L., C.E. Birkeland, R.H. R
Page 81: Hiddink, J. G., Jennings, S., Kaise
Page 85 and 86: Maxwell, D.L., Stelzenmüller, V.,
Page 87 and 88: Spatial and temporal patterns in fi
Page 89 and 90: Sharples, C. 2006. Indicative Mappi
Page 91 and 92: Wells, S., Ravilous, C., Corcoran,
Page 93 and 94: FIGURE LEGENDS Figure 1. A) Classes
Page 95 and 96: Figure 10. Ecological evaluation in
Page 97 and 98: Figure 21. Combining 'intolerance'
Page 99 and 100: selected planning units in gray ins
Page 101 and 102: Box 2. Classifications as thematic
Page 103 and 104: Figure 1. 1
Page 117 and 118: Figure 15. Fishing effort (hrs/day)
Page 121 and 122: Figure 19. 100% Conversion. 80% 60%
Page 133 and 134:
Figure 31. 31
Page 135:
Figure 33. 33
show all

1 1.10 Application of estuarine and coastal classifications in marine ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?