634 



Fishery Bulletin 98(3) 



Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 



Habitat 

 Guilds 



 VI 



n V 



 III 



□ II 



D I 



Number Dives 



Number Transects 



Number Habitat 

 Patches 



Depth Range (m) 



Time Surveyed (h) 



Area Surveyed (m^) 



Total Area (ha) 



5 



13 



207 



98-305 



2.7 



7,638 



6.9 



6 



14 



185 



148-263 

 2.4 

 7.256 

 1 5 



13 

 39 



515 



94-296 

 6-0 

 13,626 

 196 



3 



4 



52 



153-210 



0,6 



1,285 



5.8 



6 

 13 

 66 



152-226 

 1 7 



3,949 

 1.4 



100 



60 



40 



20 







Overall 



33 



83 



1,025 



94-305 

 134 



33.754 

 35.2 



Figure 5 



Percent cover of bottom types in habitat guilds (see Fig. 4 for identifica- 

 tions) at five study sites in Soquel Canyon. Number of dives, transects, 

 and habitat patches, depth range, time and area covered, and total area 

 (as estimated from mosaic of side scan sonographs in geographic informa- 

 tion system) are listed for each site. 



at shallow depths (ANOVA, P<0.01). Within 

 depth category, site 2 generally had smaller 

 fishes, and site 5 consistently had the largest 

 fishes. S. levis and S. ruberrimus were abun- 

 dant only in the deep category, and were sig- 

 nificantly bigger at site 5. 



Patterns of species richness (S), diversity 

 (H'), and evenness (J') were evident among 

 the species assemblages associated with dif- 

 ferent bottom types (Fig. 8). The two most 

 distinct habitat guilds in the cluster analy- 

 sis (i.e. mud [guild I| and rock-boulder [guild 

 VI] ) ranked among the lowest in both H' and 

 J', with a single species clearly dominating 

 each guild. Diversity also was low in the boul- 

 der-mud guild (FV). although with somewhat 

 more even proportions among species. The 

 most diverse and evenly distributed assem- 

 blages were those in the remaining three 

 guilds (II, III, and V). 



Considering just the rock habitat guild (V), 

 diversity measures were examined among 

 sites having different fishing activity in both 

 shallow and deep depth categories ( Fig. 9 ). No 

 patterns in diversity among the three sites 

 in the shallow rock habitat guild were evi- 

 dent (Fig. 9A), although differences in rela- 

 tive abundance of each species were clear. 

 In deep water, a shift in relative abundance 

 occurred from site 2 to site 5, with large spe- 

 cies playing a larger role at the less fished 

 sites. The deep rock habitat guild at the iso- 



E 



^ r S. chlorosliclus 



7 



6  

 5 • 



4 



3 

 2 

 1 I- 



itl 



-Cl 



^ 



10 



6 • 

 4 



2 



S helvomaculatus 



rh 



Jl 



-41- 



12 3 4 5 

 n= 92 88 185 19 34 



S. ruberrimus 



-itL 



All 



2 3 4 5 



6 



5 



4 



3 



2 - 



1 







S. crameri 



S tews 



-^^ 



Jl 



2 r S rutus 



ih 



Study sites 



S elongatus 



12 3 4 5 



Figure 6 



Index of abundance (mean number/100 m-l of dominant species of non.schooling rnckfishes in the rock habitat guild 

 at five sites in Soquel Canyon. Vertical bars are 1 standard error; ii = number of habitat patches at each site. 



