Distribution, density and abundance of Antarctic ice seals off Queen Maud Land and the eastern Weddell Sea

The Antarctic Pack Ice Seal (APIS) Program was initiated in 1994 to estimate the abundance of four species of Antarctic phocids: the crabeater seal Lobodon carcinophaga , Weddell seal Leptonychotes weddellii , Ross seal Ommatophoca rossii and leopard seal Hydrurga leptonyx and to identify ecological relationships and habitat use patterns. The Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean (the eastern sector of the Weddell Sea) was surveyed by research teams from Germany, Norway and South Africa using a range of aerial methods over five austral summers between 1996–1997 and 2000–2001. We used these observations to model densities of seals in the area, taking into account haul-out probabilities, survey-specific sighting probabilities and covariates derived from satellite-based ice concentrations and bathymetry. These models predicted the total abundance over the area bounded by the surveys (30° W and 10° E). In this sector of the coast, we estimated seal abundances of: 514 (95 % CI 337–886) 10^3 crabeater seals, 60.0 (43.2–94.4) 10^3 Weddell seals and 13.2 (5.50–39.7) 10^3 leopard seals. The crabeater seal densities, approximately 14,000 seals per degree longitude, are similar to estimates obtained by surveys in the Pacific and Indian sectors by other APIS researchers. Very few Ross seals were observed (24 total), leading to a conservative estimate of 830 (119–2894) individuals over the study area. These results provide an important baseline against which to compare future changes in seal distribution and abundance

Haul-Out Behavior of Harbor Seals (Phoca vitulina) in Hood Canal, Washington

The goal of this study was to model haul-out behavior of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) in the Hood Canal region of Washington State with respect to changes in physiological, environmental, and temporal covariates. Previous research has provided a solid understanding of seal haul-out behavior. Here, we expand on that work using a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with temporal autocorrelation and a large dataset. Our dataset included behavioral haul-out records from archival and VHF radio tag deployments on 25 individual seals representing 61,430 seal hours. A novel application for increased computational efficiency allowed us to examine this large dataset with a GLMM that appropriately accounts for temporal autocorellation. We found significant relationships with the covariates hour of day, day of year, minutes from high tide and year. Additionally, there was a significant effect of the interaction term hour of day : day of year. This interaction term demonstrated that seals are more likely to haul out during nighttime hours in August and September, but then switch to predominantly daylight haul-out patterns in October and November. We attribute this change in behavior to an effect of human disturbance levels. This study also examined a unique ecological event to determine the role of increased killer whale (Orcinus orca) predation on haul-out behavior. In 2003 and 2005 these harbor seals were exposed to unprecedented levels of killer whale predation and results show an overall increase in haul-out probability after exposure to killer whales. The outcome of this study will be integral to understanding any changes in population abundance as a result of increased killer whale predation

Projecting marine mammal distribution in a changing climate

Climate-related shifts in marine mammal range and distribution have been observed in some populations; however, the nature and magnitude of future responses are uncertain in novel environments projected under climate change. This poses a challenge for agencies charged with management and conservation of these species. Specialized diets, restricted ranges, or reliance on specific substrates or sites (e.g., for pupping) make many marine mammal populations particularly vulnerable to climate change. High-latitude, predominantly ice-obligate, species have experienced some of the largest changes in habitat and distribution and these are expected to continue. Efforts to predict and project marine mammal distributions to date have emphasized data-driven statistical habitat models. These have proven successful for short time-scale (e.g., seasonal) management activities, but confidence that such relationships will hold for multi-decade projections and novel environments is limited. Recent advances in mechanistic modeling of marine mammals (i.e., models that rely on robust physiological and ecological principles expected to hold under climate change) may address this limitation. The success of such approaches rests on continued advances in marine mammal ecology, behavior, and physiology together with improved regional climate projections. The broad scope of this challenge suggests initial priorities be placed on vulnerable species or populations (those already experiencing declines or projected to undergo ecological shifts resulting from climate changes that are consistent across climate projections) and species or populations for which ample data already exist (with the hope that these may inform climate change sensitivities in less well observed species or populations elsewhere). The sustained monitoring networks, novel observations, and modeling advances required to more confidently project marine mammal distributions in a changing climate will ultimately benefit management decisions across time-scales, further promoting the resilience of marine mammal populations

Marine mammal hotspots across the circumpolar Arctic

Aim: Identify hotspots and areas of high species richness for Arctic marine mammals. Location: Circumpolar Arctic. Methods: A total of 2115 biologging devices were deployed on marine mammals from 13 species in the Arctic from 2005 to 2019. Getis-Ord Gi* hotspots were calculated based on the number of individuals in grid cells for each species and for phyloge-netic groups (nine pinnipeds, three cetaceans, all species) and areas with high spe-cies richness were identified for summer (Jun-Nov), winter (Dec-May) and the entire year. Seasonal habitat differences among species’ hotspots were investigated using Principal Component Analysis. Results: Hotspots and areas with high species richness occurred within the Arctic continental-shelf seas and within the marginal ice zone, particularly in the “Arctic gateways” of the north Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Summer hotspots were generally found further north than winter hotspots, but there were exceptions to this pattern, including bowhead whales in the Greenland-Barents Seas and species with coastal distributions in Svalbard, Norway and East Greenland. Areas with high species rich-ness generally overlapped high-density hotspots. Large regional and seasonal dif-ferences in habitat features of hotspots were found among species but also within species from different regions. Gap analysis (discrepancy between hotspots and IUCN ranges) identified species and regions where more research is required. Main conclusions: This study identified important areas (and habitat types) for Arctic marine mammals using available biotelemetry data. The results herein serve as a benchmark to measure future distributional shifts. Expanded monitoring and teleme-try studies are needed on Arctic species to understand the impacts of climate change and concomitant ecosystem changes (synergistic effects of multiple stressors). While efforts should be made to fill knowledge gaps, including regional gaps and more com-plete sex and age coverage, hotspots identified herein can inform management ef-forts to mitigate the impacts of human activities and ecological changes, including creation of protected areas

The retrospective analysis of Antarctic tracking data project

The Retrospective Analysis of Antarctic Tracking Data (RAATD) is a Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research project led jointly by the Expert Groups on Birds and Marine Mammals and Antarctic Biodiversity Informatics, and endorsed by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. RAATD consolidated tracking data for multiple species of Antarctic meso- and top-predators to identify Areas of Ecological Significance. These datasets and accompanying syntheses provide a greater understanding of fundamental ecosystem processes in the Southern Ocean, support modelling of predator distributions under future climate scenarios and create inputs that can be incorporated into decision making processes by management authorities. In this data paper, we present the compiled tracking data from research groups that have worked in the Antarctic since the 1990s. The data are publicly available through biodiversity.aq and the Ocean Biogeographic Information System. The archive includes tracking data from over 70 contributors across 12 national Antarctic programs, and includes data from 17 predator species, 4060 individual animals, and over 2.9 million observed locations

The retrospective analysis of Antarctic tracking data project

The Retrospective Analysis of Antarctic Tracking Data (RAATD) is a Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research project led jointly by the Expert Groups on Birds and Marine Mammals and Antarctic Biodiversity Informatics, and endorsed by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. RAATD consolidated tracking data for multiple species of Antarctic meso- and top-predators to identify Areas of Ecological Significance. These datasets and accompanying syntheses provide a greater understanding of fundamental ecosystem processes in the Southern Ocean, support modelling of predator distributions under future climate scenarios and create inputs that can be incorporated into decision making processes by management authorities. In this data paper, we present the compiled tracking data from research groups that have worked in the Antarctic since the 1990s. The data are publicly available through biodiversity.aq and the Ocean Biogeographic Information System. The archive includes tracking data from over 70 contributors across 12 national Antarctic programs, and includes data from 17 predator species, 4060 individual animals, and over 2.9 million observed locations.Supplementary Figure S1: Filtered location data (black) and tag deployment locations (red) for each species. Maps are Lambert Azimuthal projections extending from 90° S to 20° S.Supplementary Table S1: Names and coordinates of the major study sites in the Southern Ocean and on the Antarctic Continent where tracking devices were deployed on the selected species (indicated by their 4-letter codes in the last column).Online Table 1: Description of fields (column names) in the metadata and data files.Supranational committees and organisations including the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research Life Science Group and BirdLife International. National institutions and foundations, including but not limited to Argentina (Dirección Nacional del Antártico), Australia (Australian Antarctic program; Australian Research Council; Sea World Research and Rescue Foundation Inc., IMOS is a national collaborative research infrastructure, supported by the Australian Government and operated by a consortium of institutions as an unincorporated joint venture, with the University of Tasmania as Lead Agent), Belgium (Belgian Science Policy Office, EU Lifewatch ERIC), Brazil (Brazilian Antarctic Programme; Brazilian National Research Council (CNPq/MCTI) and CAPES), France (Agence Nationale de la Recherche; Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales; Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; the French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB; www.fondationbiodiversite.fr) in the context of the CESAB project “RAATD”; Fondation Total; Institut Paul-Emile Victor; Programme Zone Atelier de Recherches sur l’Environnement Antarctique et Subantarctique; Terres Australes et Antarctiques Françaises), Germany (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Hanse-Wissenschaftskolleg - Institute for Advanced Study), Italy (Italian National Antarctic Research Program; Ministry for Education University and Research), Japan (Japanese Antarctic Research Expedition; JSPS Kakenhi grant), Monaco (Fondation Prince Albert II de Monaco), New Zealand (Ministry for Primary Industries - BRAG; Pew Charitable Trusts), Norway (Norwegian Antarctic Research Expeditions; Norwegian Research Council), Portugal (Foundation for Science and Technology), South Africa (Department of Environmental Affairs; National Research Foundation; South African National Antarctic Programme), UK (Darwin Plus; Ecosystems Programme at the British Antarctic Survey; Natural Environment Research Council; WWF), and USA (U.S. AMLR Program of NOAA Fisheries; US Office of Polar Programs).http://www.nature.com/sdataam2021Mammal Research Institut

The Barents and Chukchi Seas: Comparison of two Arctic shelf ecosystems

This paper compares and contrasts the ecosystems of the Barents and Chukchi Seas. Despite their similarity in a number of features, the Barents Sea supports a vast biomass of commercially important fish, but the Chukchi does not. Here we examine a number of aspects of these two seas to ascertain how they are similar and how they differ. We then indentify processes and mechanisms that may be responsible for their similarities and differences.Both the Barents and Chukchi Seas are high latitude, seasonally ice covered, Arctic shelf-seas. Both have strongly advective regimes, and receive water from the south. Water entering the Barents comes from the deep, ice-free and "warm" Norwegian Sea, and contains not only heat, but also a rich supply of zooplankton that supports larval fish in spring. In contrast, Bering Sea water entering the Chukchi in spring and early summer is cold. In spring, this Bering Sea water is depleted of large, lipid-rich zooplankton, thus likely resulting in a relatively low availability of zooplankton for fish. Although primary production on average is similar in the two seas, fish biomass density is an order of magnitude greater in the Barents than in the Chukchi Sea. The Barents Sea supports immense fisheries, whereas the Chukchi Sea does not. The density of cetaceans in the Barents Sea is about double that in the Chukchi Sea, as is the density of nesting seabirds, whereas, the density of pinnipeds in the Chukchi is about double that in the Barents Sea. In the Chukchi Sea, export of carbon to the benthos and benthic biomass may be greater. We hypothesize that the difference in fish abundance in the two seas is driven by differences in the heat and plankton advected into them, and the amount of primary production consumed in the upper water column. However, we suggest that the critical difference between the Chukchi and Barents Seas is the pre-cooled water entering the Chukchi Sea from the south. This cold water, and the winter mixing of the Chukchi Sea as it becomes ice covered, result in water temperatures below the physiological limits of the commercially valuable fish that thrive in the southeastern Bering Sea. If climate change warms the Barents Sea, thereby increasing the open water area via reducing ice cover, productivity at most trophic levels is likely to increase. In the Chukchi, warming should also reduce sea ice cover, permitting a longer production season. However, the shallow northern Bering and Chukchi Seas are expected to continue to be ice-covered in winter, so water there will continue to be cold in winter and spring, and is likely to continue to be a barrier to the movement of temperate fish into the Chukchi Sea. Thus, it is unlikely that large populations of boreal fish species will become established in this Arctic marginal sea. © 2012 Elsevier B.V

QUASI-POISSON VS. NEGATIVE BINOMIAL REGRESSION: HOW SHOULD WE MODEL OVERDISPERSED COUNT DATA?

Quasi-Poisson and negative binomial regression models have equal numbers of parameters, and either could be used for overdispersed count data. While they often give similar results, there can be striking differences in estimating the effects of covariates. We explain when and why such differences occur. The variance of a quasi-Poisson model is a linear function of the mean while the variance of a negative binomial model is a quadratic function of the mean. These variance relationships affect the weights in the iteratively weighted least-squares algorithm of fitting models to data. Because the variance is a function of the mean, large and small counts get weighted differently in quasi-Poisson and negative binomial regression. We provide an example using harbor seal counts from aerial surveys. These counts are affected by date, time of day, and time relative to low tide. We present results on a data set that showed a dramatic difference on estimating abundance of harbor seals when using quasi- Poisson vs. negative binomial regression. This difference is described and explained in light of the different weighting used in each regression method. A general understanding of weighting can help ecologists choose between these two methods. Two supplemental files are attached below: The NBvsPoi_FINAL SAS program uses a SAS macro to analyze the data in SSEAK98_FINAL.txt. The SAS program and macro are commented for further explanation