{"id":1896,"date":"2019-03-01T20:25:32","date_gmt":"2019-03-01T20:25:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maregroup.org\/\/?p=1896"},"modified":"2021-07-20T20:59:41","modified_gmt":"2021-07-20T20:59:41","slug":"assessment-of-warty-sea-cucumber-abundance-at-anacapa-island","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maregroup.org\/2019\/03\/assessment-of-warty-sea-cucumber-abundance-at-anacapa-island\/","title":{"rendered":"March 2019- Assessment of Warty Sea Cucumber Abundance at Anacapa Island"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div><\/div><\/span>

Assessment of Warty Sea Cucumber Abundance at Anacapa Island<\/p><\/h1><\/span>

<\/div><\/div><\/div>
<\/div>
<\/div><\/div>
<\/div>
\"\"<\/span><\/div>
<\/div>

Final Report to:<\/p>\n

Resources Legacy Fund Foundation<\/p>\n

Grant #13319<\/p>\n

March, 2019<\/p>\n

Andrew Lauermann, Heidi Lovig, Greta Goshorn<\/p><\/h1><\/div>

\"\"<\/span><\/div>

Marine Applied Research and Exploration
\n320 2nd Street, Suite 1C, Eureka, CA 95501 (707) 269-0800
\nwww.maregroup.org<\/p>\n<\/div>

<\/div>
<\/div><\/div>

TABLE OF CONTENTS
\nLIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..2
\nLIST OF TABLES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3
\nINTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4
\nBACKGROUND ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4
\nPURPOSE…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….5
\nOBJECTIVES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….5
\nSURVEY METHODS ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..6
\nROV EQUIPMENT AND SAMPLING OPERATIONS ………………………………………………………………………..7
\nSUBSTRATE AND HABITAT ANNOTATION……………………………………………………………………………………8
\nINVERTEBRATE ENUMERATION………………………………………………………………………………………………….9
\nROV POSITIONAL DATA ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….9
\nRESULTS……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..10
\nSURVEY TOTALS………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….10
\nSUBSTRATE AND HABITAT………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11
\nINVERTEBRATE TOTALS……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..12
\nWARTY SEA CUCUMBERS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….13
\nDISCUSSION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………15
\nPROJECT DELIVERABLES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………15
\nREFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………16<\/p>\n<\/div>

LIST OF FIGURES<\/strong><\/p>\n

Figure 1. Planned transect lines placed parallel to depth contours at Anacapa Island SMR
\nand East Fish Camp…………………………………………………………………………………………………………6<\/p>\n

Figure 2. Basic ROV strip transect methodology used to collect video data along the sea floor,
\nshowing overlapping base substrate layers produced during video processing and habitat
\ntypes (hard, mixed soft) derived from the overlapping substrates…………………………………….8<\/p>\n

Figure 3. Density of WSCs per 100m2 in each habitat type for the spring and fall at Anacapa
\nIsland SMR and East Fish Camp. Densities represent the total number of WCSs observed per
\n100m2 of each habitat type……………………………………………………………………………………………..13<\/p>\n

Figure 4. The mean density of WSC (per m2) summarized from 10 meter transect segments
\nacross all habitats by 5 meter depth bin for each season at Anacapa Island SMR and East
\nFish Camp. Error bars represent one standard error…………………………………………………………………..14<\/p>\n<\/div>

LIST OF TABLES<\/strong><\/p>\n

Table 1. Survey totals for Anacapa Island SMR and East Fish Camp, including hours of video,
\ntotal distance surveyed (kilometers), swept area of transects (hectares), and average,
\nminimum and maximum depth (meters) by season…………………………………………………………10<\/p>\n

Table 2. Percentages of substrates and habitats by season at Anacapa Island SMR and East
\nFish Camp. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11<\/p>\n

Table 3. Common and taxonomic (species) names of quantified invertebrates for the spring
\nand fall combined………………………………………………………………………………………………………….12<\/p>\n

Table 4. The average, minimum and maximum depth, and the number of warty sea
\ncucumbers observed at Anacapa SMR and East Fish Camp during the spring and fall. ………13<\/p>\n<\/div>

<\/div><\/div>
<\/div><\/div>

INTRODUCTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

BACKGROUND<\/strong><\/p>\n

Warty sea cucumbers (WSC), Apostichopus parvimensis, are an important component of the
\nsubtidal zone, feeding on benthic waste and recycling nutrients. WSCs are found in and
\nadjacent to rocky outcroppings from the shallow intertidal to approximately 60 m deep from
\nMonterey, California to Bahia Tortugas, Mexico. Within their range in Southern California
\nand Mexico, dive fisheries catch WSCs for export to Asian markets. Similar to other sea
\ncucumber fisheries around the world, demand for WSCs seems to be consistently increasing,
\nwhile the resource is becoming less abundant. This trend is also evident in California, where
\nlandings data gathered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) show that
\nthe fishery has declined in both overall catch and catch per unit of effort (CPUE) in recent
\nyears (State of California Fish and Game Commission, 2017).<\/p>\n

CDFW scientists have performed SCUBA surveys since 2013 in an effort to increase their
\nunderstanding of basic life history information of the species. Results from the surveys have
\nindicated that WSCs form spawning aggregations each year in the spring and summer. This
\ncoincides with a peak in the number of cucumbers harvested in commercial dive landings,
\nwith approximately 75% of landings occurring during spring and early summer periods.
\nBased on these findings, the Fish and Game Commission recently adopted a seasonal closure
\nto protect spawning aggregations of WSCs each year from March 1-June 14.<\/p>\n

While seasonal abundance levels have been well documented at SCUBA depths (less than 30
\nmeters), anecdotal reports from commercial fishery participants have suggested that WSCs
\ndisplay a seasonal migration from deep to shallower water for spawning. However, to what
\ndegree they utilize deeper waters when they are not found in shallow areas or what
\nproportion of the population moves to shallow areas during spawning remains unknown.
\nBecause of this, CDFW biologists are interested in gathering more data on WSC distribution
\nand seasonality of abundance to determine the role that deeper, unstudied areas (greater
\nthan 30 meters) play in supporting their populations. This data may be critical, as the
\nincreasingly high demand for WSCs coupled with the lack of information about them makes
\nthem vulnerable to overexploitation.<\/p>\n

The Southern California WSC dive fishery occurs near Anacapa Island State Marine Reserve<\/a>
\n(Anacapa Island SMR). A differential in WSC densities inside and outside of this Marine
\nProtected Area (MPA) has been documented by previous dive studies, where WSC were
\nshown to be much less abundant outside of the MPA than inside (Schroeter et al., 2001,
\nCalifornia Department of Fish and Game, 2007, State of California Fish and Game
\nCommission, 2017). To better understand seasonal abundance and depth distribution inside
\nand outside of MPAs and to examine seasonality of abundance deeper than SCUBA depths,
\nMarine Applied Research and Exploration (MARE) and CDFW conducted a 2-phase
\nassessment around Anacapa Island in 2018.Sampling was completed using MARE\u2019s remotely
\noperated vehicle, ROV Beagle. Two study sites were selected, one inside the protection of
\nAnacapa Island SMR and one outside of the reserve that was subject to fishing. Both sites are
\nadjacent to CDFW and National Park Service monitoring stations. Each site was sampled
\nduring the spring (phase 1), and fall (phase 2) to survey both WSC spawning and non-
\nspawning seasons.<\/p>\n

PURPOSE<\/strong><\/p>\n

The purpose of this study was to provide CDFW with critical information that will be used to
\ninform the management of the WSC dive fishery and to further understand the performance
\nof an MPA in relation to the fishery. Specifically, we ask whether there is evidence of a
\nseasonal shift in abundance between shallow well studied areas and deeper areas out to the
\nobserved maximum depth range of the species in the study area. In addition, these data will
\ninform future study design by providing information related to the extent of sampling
\nneeded to accurately characterize WSC populations in both MPAs and fished areas.<\/p>\n

OBJECTIVES<\/strong><\/p>\n

1) Estimate WSC density and relative abundance around two study locations off
\nAnacapa Island during spring and fall seasons.
\n2) Provide spatial data to CDFW to allow examination of the distribution and depth
\nrange of WSC inside and outside of Anacapa Island SMR.
\n3) Provide an archive of high quality video transects capturing ecological conditions that
\ncan be used to inform poorly understood aspects of WSC biology (i.e. growth, size
\ndistribution, habitat associations and movement) that are important to future
\nmanagement efforts.<\/p>\n

The following report describes the data collection and post-processing methods used for this
\nstudy. Data summary statistics are presented to highlight preliminary survey results and
\ngeneral trends. A complete dataset was provided to CDFW for further analysis.<\/p>\n

SURVEY METHODS<\/strong><\/p>\n

Phase one surveys were performed in the spring, from May 10th – 12th, 2018 and the second
\nphase, in the fall, from November 18th – 20th, 2018. During each phase, two study sites were
\nsurveyed, Anacapa Island SMR and East Fish Camp around Anacapa Island in the Channel
\nIslands (Figure 1). Survey sites and planned transect lines were provided to MARE by CDFW.
\nTransect lines were placed parallel to depth contours and evenly spaced across the target
\nrange of 15 to 60 meters depth (Figure 1). Sites and transects were chosen to target rocky
\nhabitat although the patchy nature of the Anacapa Island reefs ensured that sufficient soft
\nsediment and mixed habitats were surveyed.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Figure 1. Planned transect lines placed parallel to depth contours at Anacapa Island SMR
\nand East Fish Camp.<\/p>\n

\"\"ROV EQUIPMENT AND SAMPLING OPERATIONS
\nMARE\u2019s ROV, the Beagle, was used
\nto collect data during the survey.
\nThe ROV was operated off of NOAA\u2019s
\nR\/V Shearwater, a National Marine
\nSanctuaries research vessel. The<\/p>\n

ROV was flown along the pre-
\nplanned transect lines between the<\/p>\n

hours of 0800 and 1700. It was
\nflown off the vessel\u2019s stern using a
\n\u201clive boat\u201d technique that employed
\na 700 lb. depressor weight. Using
\nthis method, the 50 meter tether
\nallowed the ROV pilot sufficient
\nmaneuverability to maintain a
\nconstant speed and a straight
\ncourse down the transect line. The ROV pilot and ship\u2019s helm used real-time video displays
\nof the location of the ship and ROV to navigate.
\nFor this survey, the Beagle was configured with a forward-facing high definition (HD) video
\ncamera, downward-facing standard definition video camera, and forward facing HD still
\ncamera that collected video and still imagery of WSCs and their surrounding habitats. Photos
\nwere taken of WSCs by scientists when encountered and also automatically at approximately
\n30 second intervals to capture habitat and other species. The ROV\u2019s on-screen display also
\nrecorded time, depth, altitude, heading, temperature and range. In addition, positional
\ncoordinates were recorded to track the position of the ROV relative to the ship in real time
\nand to provide the basis for determining length and area of transects for analysis.<\/p>\n

POST-PROCESSING METHODS<\/strong><\/p>\n

All data collected by the ROV, along with subsequent observations extracted during post-
\nprocessing of the video, were linked in a Microsoft Access\u00ae database by time, which was<\/p>\n

synced across all data streams at a one second interval. During video post-processing, a
\ncustomized computer keyboard was used to input the time of species observations and
\nhabitat characteristics into a Microsoft Access\u00ae database.<\/p>\n

SUBSTRATE AND HABITAT ANNOTATION<\/strong><\/p>\n

Video was reviewed for six different substrate types: rock, boulder, cobble, gravel, sand and
\nmud (Green et al. 1999). Each substrate was recorded as a discrete segment by entering the
\nbeginning and ending time. Annotation was completed in a multi-viewing approach, in which
\neach substrate was recorded independently, capturing the often overlapping segments of
\neach substrate type (Figure 2). Percent by substrate represents the ratio of the transect lines
\nthat have a given substrate compared to the total line, therefore overlapping substrates can
\nresult in a sum greater than 100%.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Figure 2. Basic ROV strip transect methodology used to collect video data along the sea floor,
\nshowing overlapping base substrate layers produced during video annotation and habitat
\ntypes (hard, mixed soft) derived from the overlapping substrates.<\/p>\n

After the video review and annotation process, the substrate data were combined to create
\nthree independent habitat categories: hard, soft, and mixed (Figure 2). Rock and boulder
\nwere categorized as hard substrate types, while cobble, gravel, sand, and mud were
\ncategorized as soft substrates. Hard habitat was defined as any combination of the hard
\nsubstrates, soft habitat as any combination of soft substrates, and mixed habitat as any
\ncombination of hard and soft substrates. Habitat percentages sum to 100% and are derived
\nfrom substrate types as the proportion of the survey line that contained that specific habitat
\ntype.<\/p>\n

INVERTEBRATE ENUMERATION<\/strong><\/p>\n

Video was reviewed for observations of WSCs as well as the following invertebrates of
\ninterest to CDFW scientists: other sea cucumber species, sea stars, sea urchins,
\ncorals\/gorgonians, spiny lobster, and keyhole limpets. During the review process, the
\nforward video camera files were reviewed, and the select macro-invertebrates were
\nrecorded. Each invertebrate observation was entered into a Microsoft Access\u00ae database at
\nthe one second time interval when it crossed the bottom of the viewing screen. This insured
\nthat the positional coordinates of the observation were matched exactly with the estimated
\nposition of the ROV.<\/p>\n

ROV POSITIONAL DATA<\/strong><\/p>\n

Acoustic tracking systems generate numerous erroneous positional fixes due to acoustic
\nnoise and other errors caused by vessel movement. For this reason, positional data were
\npost-processed to remove outliers and generate smoothed transects along each survey line
\nthat best represent the true path of the ROV. Estimates of transect length derived from
\nsurvey lines processed using this technique have been found to have an accuracy of 1.7 \u00b1 0.5
\nmeters in total length when compared to known lengths between 0 and 100 meters (Karpov
\net al. 2006).<\/p>\n

ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES<\/strong><\/p>\n

WARTY SEA CUCUMBER SUMMARIES<\/strong><\/p>\n

Data for WSCs was summarized by habitat type for each site and study season. The density
\nof WSCs per 100m2 in each habitat type (hard, mixed and soft) for the spring and fall at
\nAnacapa Island SMR and East Fish Camp were calculated using the following equation:
\n(Total number of WSCs per habitat type \/ Total m2 of each habitat type) * 100
\nData for WSCs was also summarized by depth by breaking transects into 10 linear-meter
\nsegments. Densities for each segment were calculated using the following equation:
\n(Total number of WSCs per 10 m segment \/ Total m2 of each 10 m segment)
\nSegments were then grouped into depth bins using the average depth per segment and
\nsummarized for each study location and season.<\/p>\n

RESULTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

SURVEY TOTALS<\/strong><\/p>\n

Survey effort was similar between sites and sampling periods (Table 1). A total of 15.7 hours
\nof video was reviewed, 8 hours for the spring survey, and 7.7 hours for the fall survey. Less
\ndistance was surveyed during the spring (10.0 km) than in the fall (12.1 km), where effort
\nwas added to fill in transects that were not surveyed at the East Fish Camp in spring due to
\ntime restrictions (Figure 1). The range of depths surveyed during the spring and fall was
\ncomparable at both sites (Table 1).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Table 1. Survey totals for Anacapa Island SMR and East Fish Camp, including hours of video,
\ntotal distance surveyed (kilometers), swept area of transects (hectares), and average,
\nminimum and maximum depth (meters) by season.<\/p>\n

SUBSTRATE AND HABITAT<\/strong><\/p>\n

A summary of substrate and habitat composition for all survey sites and transects is given in
\nTable 2. Soft habitat was the dominant habitat observed overall, accounting for an average
\nof 59% of the habitat surveyed at Anacapa Island SMR, and 68% of the habitat observed at
\nEast Fish Camp during both seasons (Table 2). Sand was the dominant substrate observed
\nwithin the soft category, accounting for an average of 83% at Anacapa Island SMR, and 86%
\nat East Fish Camp combined for both seasons. Hard and mixed habitats were less common
\nindividually, however rocky substrate within those categories was relatively common
\naccounting for an average of 41% at Anacapa Island SMR and 31% at East Fish Camp for both
\nseasons combined (Table 2).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Table 2. Percentages of substrates and habitats by season at Anacapa Island SMR and East
\nFish Camp.<\/p>\n

INVERTEBRATE TOTALS<\/strong><\/p>\n

Total counts for all invertebrates observed at both Anacapa Island SMR and East Fish Camp
\nare given in Table for both survey sites and seasons combined. There were approximately
\n75% less WSCs enumerated during the fall than the spring survey (Table 4). Site specific
\ndifferences were not presented and data were not analyzed for non-WSC invertebrate
\nspecies observed in this study. These data were provided to CDFW scientists for further
\nanalysis.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Table 3. Common and taxonomic (species) names of quantified invertebrates for the spring
\nand fall combined.<\/p>\n

WARTY SEA CUCUMBERS<\/strong><\/p>\n

Overall, fewer WSCs were observed at East Fish Camp than at Anacapa Island SMR (Table 4).
\nAnd, while the largest proportion of habitat surveyed was soft habitat (Table 2), a greater
\ndensity of WSCs were found on hard and mixed habitat types (Figure 3). WSCs were also,
\nmore abundant at both Anacapa Island SMR and East Fish Camp during the spring than the
\nfall (Table 4, Figure 3).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Table 4. The average, minimum, and maximum depth and the total number of warty sea
\ncucumbers observed at Anacapa Island SMR and East Fish Camp during the spring and fall.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Figure 3. Density of WSCs per 100m2 in each habitat type for the spring and fall at Anacapa
\nIsland SMR and East Fish Camp. Densities represent the total number of WCSs observed
\nper 100m2 of each habitat type.<\/p>\n

As expected, there was a lower mean density of WSCs at East Fish Camp (the fished site) in
\nall depth bins than at Anacapa Island SMR (the protected site) (Figure 4). Additionally,
\nthere were higher mean densities of WSCs observed at both sites in the 15 to 20 meter
\nrange than at any other depth (Figure 4).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Figure 4. The mean density of WSC (per m2) summarized from 10 meter transect segments
\nacross all habitats by 5 meter depth bin for each season at Anacapa Island SMR and East
\nFish Camp. Error bars represent one standard error.<\/p>\n

DISCUSSION<\/strong><\/p>\n

The WSC dive fishery around Anacapa Island is not an exception to the pattern seen in other
\nsea cucumber fisheries, where market demand is increasing as the abundance of the
\nresource is decreasing (Chavez et al., 2011). The purpose of this study was to provide CDFW
\nwith information to help inform management of the WSC dive fishery by further
\nunderstanding the performance of an MPA in relation to the fishery and by quantifying
\nseasonal WSC abundance to see if they undergo seasonal shifts from shallow to deep.
\nWe looked at the role Anacapa Island SMR (a MPA) may play in providing refugee for this
\nspecies by documenting their densities within the SMR and in a nearby fished area. The
\nresults clearly indicated a differential in WSC densities inside and outside the protection of
\nthe MPA, with WSCs being more abundant (~75%) at the MPA site, than the fished site at all
\ndepths and during both survey seasons. These results were consistent with previous results
\nreported by CDFW SCUBA surveys.
\nWe also quantified WSCs to see if there was evidence of a seasonal shift in abundance
\nbetween shallow-water habitats (<30 m) and deep-water habitats (> 30 m). It was found that
\nanecdotal reports of WSCs exhibiting a seasonal depth migration were not supported by this
\nstudy. Although differences in abundance were observed between seasons, with densities
\nconsiderably lower in the fall than in the spring, there was no shift in the distribution of
\nabundance by depth.
\nIn addition, there was no difference in WSC abundance by habitat type between seasons.
\nDensity by habitat type remained proportional between seasons, with no shift from one
\nhabitat type to another. Further study is required to explain the change in WSC abundance
\nin winter months, when densities in shallower waters decrease drastically.<\/p>\n

PROJECT DELIVERABLES<\/strong><\/p>\n

MARE<\/a> will provide CDFW<\/a> lead scientist copies of the primary video (forward and downward
\nfacing) and HD still photos for the entire survey on a portable hard drive. Each video and
\nphoto file folder has an accompanying storyboard detailing the ROV name, date, dive
\nnumber, location, and transect number. All video recordings contain a timecode audio track
\nthat can be used to automatically extract GPS time from the video.<\/p>\n

A copy of the master Microsoft Access database, which contains all the raw and post-
\nprocessed data will also be provided to the CDFW lead scientist. These data will include ROV<\/p>\n

position (raw and cleaned), ROV sensor readings (depth, temperature, salinity, dissolved
\noxygen, forward and downward range, heading, pitch and roll), calculated transect width
\nand area, substrate and habitat, and invertebrate identifications. Included in the processed
\nposition table are the computed transect identifications for invertebrate transects (see
\nmethods).<\/p>\n

REFERENCES<\/strong><\/p>\n

California Department of Fish and Game. 2007. Status of the Fisheries Report, 5. Sea<\/a>
\nCucumbers.<\/p>\n

Chavez, E.A., Salgado-Rogel, A.L., Palleiro-Nayar, J. 2011. Stock Assessment of the Wary Sea<\/a>
\nCucumber Fishery (Parastichopus Parvimensis) of NW Baja California. CalCOFI Rep., Vol. 52.<\/p>\n

Greene, H.G., M.M. Yoklavich, R.M. Starr, V.M. O\u2019Connell, W.W. Wakefield, D.E. Sullivan, J.E.<\/a>
\nMcRea Jr., and G.M. Cailliet. 1999. A classification scheme for deep seafloor habitats:
\nOceanologica Acta 22(6):663\u2013678.<\/p>\n

Gotshall, D.W. 2005. Guide to marine invertebrates \u2013 Alaska to Baja California, second<\/a>
\nedition (revised). Sea Challengers, Monterey, California, USA.<\/p>\n

Karpov, K., A. Lauermann, M. Bergen, and M. Prall. 2006. Accuracy and Precision of<\/a>
\nMeasurements of Transect Length and Width Made with a Remotely Operated Vehicle.
\nMarine Technical Science Journal 40(3):79\u201385.<\/p>\n

Schroeter SC., Reed DS., Kushner DJ, Estes JA., Ono DS. 2001. The use of marine reserves in<\/a>
\nevaluating the dive fishery for the warty sea cucumber (Apostichopus parvminesis) in
\nCalifornia, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 58: 1173-1781.<\/p>\n

State of California Fish and Game Commission. July 11, 2017. Initial Statement of Reasons<\/a>
\nfor Regulatory Action, Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Re: Commercial Taking of
\nSea Cucumber.<\/p>\n

Veisze, P. and K. Karpov. 2002. Geopositioning a Remotely Operated Vehicle for Marine
\nSpecies and Habitat Analysis. Pages 105\u2013115 in Undersea with GIS. Dawn J.
\nWright, Editor. ESRI Press.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1898,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"content-type":"","rank_math_lock_modified_date":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[54],"tags":[94,60,95,68,61,62,63,78,93],"class_list":["post-1896","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-research","tag-anacapa-island","tag-andrew-lauermann","tag-cdfw","tag-greta-goshorn","tag-heidi-lovig","tag-mare","tag-marine-applied-research-exploration","tag-rov-surveys","tag-warty-sea-cucumber"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/maregroup.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/Image_001-e1626814719758.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maregroup.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1896"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maregroup.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maregroup.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maregroup.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maregroup.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1896"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/maregroup.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1896\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4565,"href":"https:\/\/maregroup.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1896\/revisions\/4565"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maregroup.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1898"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maregroup.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1896"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maregroup.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1896"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maregroup.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1896"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}