638 



Fishery Bulletin 98(3) 



B 



Most 



Fished 



Less 



Fished 



ro 



T3 



C 



ro 

 > 



0) 



050 

 040 



Deep rock guild V 



L_ 



Location 2 



S =22 



H' = 2,08 



J' = 0.67 



n = 56 patches 



95% S in 39 patches 



9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 



11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 



50 

 40 

 30 

 20 - 

 0.10 

 00 



..L 



Location 3 



S = 14 



H' = 2.14 



J' =0 81 



n = 54 patches 



95% S in 23 patches 



I ... . 



1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 



060 - 

 50 - 

 40 - 

 30 - 

 0,20 - 

 10 

 000 — 

 1 



Location 5 



S = 14 



H'= 1 61 



J' =0.61 



n = 34 patches 



95% S in 1 7 patches 



I 



11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 



Species 

 Figure 9 (continued) 



SPECIES CODE 



1 Sebastes helvomaculalus 



2 Sebasles cramen 



3 Sebasles paucispinis 



4 Sebasles rutus 



5 Sebasles saxicola 



6 Agonidae 



7 Sebasles diploproa 



8 Sebasles elongalus 



9 Sebasles chlorostictus 



1 Sebasles rubemmus 



1 1 Ophiodon elongalus 



1 2 Sebasles ensifer 



1 3 Hydrolagus colliei 



14 Sebasles rosenblaW 



1 5 Merluccius productus 



1 6 Sebaslolobus alascanus 



17 Argentina sialis 



1 8 Cilhanchlhys spp 



1 9 Errex zachirus 



20 Lycodes corleztanus 



21 Microslomus pacificus 



22 Sebasles levts 



23 Anoplopoma limbna 



24 Epiatretus siouiii 



25 Hexanchus gnseus 



26 Icelinus filamentosus 



27 Sebasles babcocki 



28 Sebasles enlomelas 



29 Sebasles miniatus 



30 Sebasles semicinclus 



31 Zoarcidae 



The high abundances of large species of benthic rock- 

 fishes associated with complex habitats of rock, boulder, 

 and mud combinations at several sites in Soquel Canyon 

 are unique among other habitat-based groundfish assess- 

 ments, lending further credibility to its designation as a 

 natural harvest refuge. Other studies have reported rela- 

 tively high numbers of various species of rockfishes asso- 

 ciated with rock substrata (Richards, 1986; Stein et al., 

 1992; O'Connell and Carlile, 1993; Murie et al., 1994), 

 but none have estimated abundances as high as those in 

 Soquel Canyon. This is especially true when considering 

 the extreme abundances of large fishes at site 5, an iso- 

 lated outcrop on a steep section of the canyon wall sur- 

 rounded by extensive fields of mud. For example, highest 

 mean abundances of S. ruherrimus (number fisli/100 m-) 

 on complex rock substrata were estimated to be about 



0.3 off central Oregon (Stein et al., 1992), 0.9 in the Gulf 

 of Alaska (O'Connell and Carlile, 1993), 1.4 off British 

 Columbia (Richards, 1986), and 2.8 at site 5 in Soquel 

 Canyon. Other economically valuable species (e.g. S. pau- 

 cispiniK and O. elongatus) had even higher abundances at 

 some of the relatively unfished sites in the canyon (Table 

 1 and Fig. 6), but their abundances were not estimated 

 in the other studies. Mean abundances of S. elongatus, a 

 smaller species that is less frequently caught by anglers 

 (Richards, 1986; Karpov et al., 1995), were similar off Brit- 

 ish Columbia, Oregon and in Soquel Canyon (about 1.5, 

 0.8, and 1.0 fish/100 m- of rock habitat, respectively). 



The abundance of Sebastes helvomaculatus, another 

 small species that is of minor value to regional fisheries, 

 might be considered an indirect indicator of fishing activity. 

 This benthic species was strongly associated with the same 



