Content area
Full text
About the Authors:
Seth Stapleton
* E-mail: [email protected]
Current address: Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, United States of America
Affiliation: United States Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, Alaska, United States of America
Michelle LaRue
Affiliation: Department of Earth Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America
Nicolas Lecomte
Current address: Université de Moncton, Department of Biology, Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada
Affiliation: Department of Environment, Government of Nunavut, Igloolik, Nunavut, Canada
Stephen Atkinson
Affiliation: Department of Environment, Government of Nunavut, Igloolik, Nunavut, Canada
David Garshelis
Affiliations Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, United States of America, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Grand Rapids, Minnesota, United States of America
Claire Porter
Affiliation: Department of Earth Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America
Todd Atwood
Affiliation: United States Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, Alaska, United States of America
Introduction
The loss of Arctic sea ice has accelerated during recent years [1]–[3], with minimum sea ice extent reaching a record low during September, 2012. A nearly ice-free summer is now forecasted to occur as early as 2016 [4], . Such large-scale, precipitous environmental changes will be detrimental for many species dependent on sea ice habitats [6].
Despite potentially massive ecological impacts, regimes for monitoring wildlife remain deficient across large portions of the Arctic. For example, marine mammal assessment programs traditionally have used some combination of costly aircraft- or ship-based surveys and/or mark-recapture programs [7], [8], but the precision of resulting demographic estimates is often inadequate to detect trends in abundance [9]. Moreover, some areas are simply too inaccessible for routine monitoring. As such, baseline or long-term data are lacking for numerous species, precluding status and trend assessment and hindering management efforts. Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) [10] and ribbon seals (Histriophoca fasciata) [11] are among the Arctic marine mammals currently classified as data deficient by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Likewise, data are insufficient to assess polar bear (Ursus maritimus) status across large portions of their range [12]; even in surveyed areas, monitoring intervals are often inadequate [13]. More frequent, systematic and efficient population surveys are needed to match the...