scholarly journals Predation of Harp Seals, Pagophilus groenlandicus, by Polar Bears, Ursus maritimus, in Svalbard

ARCTIC ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas G. Smith ◽  
Ian Stirling
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Polar Bear ◽  
Barents Sea ◽  
Population Level ◽  
Open Water ◽  
Ursus Maritimus ◽  
Polar Bears ◽  
Pagophilus Groenlandicus ◽  
Large Numbers ◽  
Pack Ice

Harp seals (Pagophilus groenlandicus) that breed in February and March in the White Sea migrate to open water around Svalbard and Franz Josef Land in the Barents Sea, feeding pelagically while following the receding ice edge northward to the edge of the polar pack. Although harp seals are present throughout the area during the summer, they are primarily pelagic and do not appear to be extensively preyed upon by polar bears (Ursus maritimus). However, occasionally, large numbers of harp seals may haul out and rest on the pack ice or feed in the water below the ice and surface to breathe between the floes. When approached by a polar bear while on the ice, harp seals do not exhibit the instant flight response characteristic of the polar bear’s primary prey species, ringed (Pusa hispida) and bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus). In this situation, polar bears may make multiple kills without either consuming their own prey or scavenging seals killed by other bears. This behavior appears not to frighten other nearby harp seals, whether hauled out on the ice or in the water below the floes. These unusual concentrations of harp seals hauled out on sea ice may be related to the distribution and abundance of fish or other epontic prey. Their lack of an escape response to predators on the surface of the sea ice is probably a result of briefly hauling out in large numbers in spring while whelping on the sea ice in areas where the consequences of potential polar bear predation are insignificant. The rare events of harp seal mortality from bears killing them on the surface of pack ice during the summer do not appear to have a significant impact at the population level of either species.

scholarly journals Iñupiaq Knowledge of Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus) in the Southern Beaufort Sea, Alaska

ARCTIC ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. 239-257
Author(s):  
Karyn D. Rode ◽  
Hannah Voorhees ◽  
Henry P. Huntington ◽  
George M. Durner
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Polar Bear ◽  
Late Summer ◽  
Beaufort Sea ◽  
Ursus Maritimus ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Polar Bears ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Ice Breakup ◽  
Pack Ice

Successful wildlife management depends upon coordination and consultation with local communities. However, much of the research used to inform management is often derived solely from data collected directly from wildlife. Indigenous people living in the Arctic have a close connection to their environment, which provides unique opportunities to observe their environment and the ecology of Arctic species. Further, most northern Arctic communities occur within the range of polar bears (nanuq, Ursus maritimus) and have experienced significant climatic changes. Here, we used semi-structured interviews from 2017 to 2019 to document Iñupiaq knowledge of polar bears observed over four decades in four Alaskan communities in the range of the Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear subpopulation: Wainwright, Utqiaġvik, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik. All but one of 47 participants described directional and notable changes in sea ice, including earlier ice breakup, later ice return, thinner ice, and less multiyear pack ice. These changes corresponded with observations of bears spending more time on land during the late summer and early fall in recent decades—observations consistent with scientific and Indigenous knowledge studies in Alaska, Canada, and Greenland. Participants noted that polar bear and seal body condition and local abundance either varied geographically or exhibited no patterns. However, participants described a recent phenomenon of bears being exhausted and lethargic when arriving on shore in the summer and fall after extensive swims from the pack ice. Further, several participants suggested that maternal denning is occurring more often on land than sea ice. Participants indicated that village and regional governments are increasingly challenged to obtain resources needed to keep their communities safe as polar bears spend more time on land, an issue that is likely to be exacerbated both in this region and elsewhere as sea ice loss continues. 

scholarly journals Long-distance swimming by polar bears (Ursus maritimus) of the southern Beaufort Sea during years of extensive open water

2012 ◽  
Vol 90 (5) ◽  
pp. 663-676 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.M. Pagano ◽  
G.M. Durner ◽  
S.C. Amstrup ◽  
K.S. Simac ◽  
G.S. York
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Adult Female ◽  
Open Water ◽  
Ursus Maritimus ◽  
Polar Bears ◽  
Long Distance ◽  
Gps Collars ◽  
Movement Data ◽  
Global Positioning ◽  
Ice Conditions

Polar bears ( Ursus maritimus Phipps, 1774) depend on sea ice for catching marine mammal prey. Recent sea-ice declines have been linked to reductions in body condition, survival, and population size. Reduced foraging opportunity is hypothesized to be the primary cause of sea-ice-linked declines, but the costs of travel through a deteriorated sea-ice environment also may be a factor. We used movement data from 52 adult female polar bears wearing Global Positioning System (GPS) collars, including some with dependent young, to document long-distance swimming (>50 km) by polar bears in the southern Beaufort and Chukchi seas. During 6 years (2004–2009), we identified 50 long-distance swims by 20 bears. Swim duration and distance ranged from 0.7 to 9.7 days (mean = 3.4 days) and 53.7 to 687.1 km (mean = 154.2 km), respectively. Frequency of swimming appeared to increase over the course of the study. We show that adult female polar bears and their cubs are capable of swimming long distances during periods when extensive areas of open water are present. However, long-distance swimming appears to have higher energetic demands than moving over sea ice. Our observations suggest long-distance swimming is a behavioral response to declining summer sea-ice conditions.

Unusual Predation Attempts of Polar Bears on Ringed Seals in the Southern Beaufort Sea: Possible Significance of Changing Spring Ice Conditions

ARCTIC ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Stirling ◽  
Evan Richardson ◽  
Gregory W. Thiemann ◽  
Andrew E. Derocher
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Polar Bear ◽  
Foraging Behaviour ◽  
Open Water ◽  
Beaufort Sea ◽  
Polar Bears ◽  
Ringed Seals ◽  
Decadal Scale ◽  
Underlying Causes ◽  
Ice Conditions

In April and May 2003 through 2006, unusually rough and rafted sea ice extended for several tens of kilometres offshore in the southeastern Beaufort Sea from about Atkinson Point to the Alaska border. Hunting success of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) seeking seals was low despite extensive searching for prey. It is unknown whether seals were less abundant in comparison to other years or less accessible because they maintained breathing holes below rafted ice rather than snowdrifts, or whether some other factor was involved. However, we found 13 sites where polar bears had clawed holes through rafted ice in attempts to capture ringed seals (Phoca hispida) in 2005 through 2006 and another site during an additional research project in 2007. Ice thickness at the 12 sites that we measured averaged 41 cm. These observations, along with cannibalized and starved polar bears found on the sea ice in the same general area in the springs of 2004 through 2006, suggest that during those years, polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea were nutritionally stressed. Searches made farther north during the same period and using the same methods produced no similar observations near Banks Island or in Amundsen Gulf. A possible underlying ecological explanation is a decadal-scale downturn in seal populations. But a more likely explanation is major changes in the sea-ice and marine environment resulting from record amounts and duration of open water in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, possibly influenced by climate warming. Because the underlying causes of observed changes in polar bear body condition and foraging behaviour are unknown, further study is warranted.

scholarly journals Testing the hypothesis that routine sea ice coverage of 3-5 mkm2 results in a greater than 30% decline in population size of polar bears (Ursus maritimus)

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan J Crockford
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Population Size ◽  
Habitat Loss ◽  
Polar Bear ◽  
Population Decline ◽  
Ursus Maritimus ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Polar Bears ◽  
Population Declines ◽  
Sea Ice Decline

The polar bear (Ursus maritimus) was the first species to be classified as threatened with extinction based on predictions of future conditions rather than current status. These predictions were made using expert-opinion forecasts of population declines linked to modeled habitat loss – first by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)’s Red List in 2006, and then by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 2008 under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), based on data collected to 2005 and 2006, respectively. Both assessments predicted significant population declines of polar bears would result by mid-century as a consequence of summer sea ice extent rapidly reaching 3-5 mkm2 on a regular basis: the IUCN predicted a >30% decline in total population, while the USFWS predicted the global population would decline by 67% (including total extirpation of ten subpopulations within two vulnerable ecoregions). Biologists involved in these conservation assessments had to make several critical assumptions about how polar bears might be affected by future habitat loss, since sea ice conditions predicted to occur by 2050 had not occurred prior to 2006. However, summer sea ice declines have been much faster than expected: low ice levels not expected until mid-century (about 3-5 mkm2) have occurred regularly since 2007. Realization of predicted sea ice levels allows the ‘rapid sea ice decline = population decline’ assumption for polar bears to be treated as a testable hypothesis. Data collected between 2007 and 2015 reveal that polar bear numbers have not declined as predicted and no subpopulation has been extirpated. Several subpopulations expected to be at high risk of decline remained stable and five showed increases in population size. Another at-risk subpopulation was not counted but showed marked improvement in reproductive parameters and body condition with less summer ice. As a consequence, the hypothesis that repeated summer sea ice levels of below 5 mkm2 will cause significant population declines in polar bears is rejected, a result that indicates the ESA and IUCN judgments to list polar bears as threatened based on future risks of habitat loss were scientifically unfounded and that similar predictions for Arctic seals and walrus may be likewise flawed. The lack of a demonstrable ‘rapid sea ice decline = population decline’ relationship for polar bears also potentially invalidates updated survival model outputs that predict catastrophic population declines should the Arctic become ice-free in summer.

scholarly journals Testing the hypothesis that routine sea ice coverage of 3-5 mkm2 results in a greater than 30% decline in population size of polar bears (Ursus maritimus)

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan J Crockford
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Population Size ◽  
Habitat Loss ◽  
Polar Bear ◽  
Population Decline ◽  
Ursus Maritimus ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Polar Bears ◽  
Population Declines ◽  
Sea Ice Decline

The polar bear (Ursus maritimus) was the first species to be classified as threatened with extinction based on predictions of future conditions rather than current status. These predictions were made using expert-opinion forecasts of population declines linked to modeled habitat loss – first by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)’s Red List in 2006, and then by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 2008 under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), based on data collected to 2005 and 2006, respectively. Both assessments predicted significant population declines of polar bears would result by mid-century as a consequence of summer sea ice extent rapidly reaching 3-5 mkm2 on a regular basis: the IUCN predicted a >30% decline in total population, while the USFWS predicted the global population would decline by 67% (including total extirpation of ten subpopulations within two vulnerable ecoregions). Biologists involved in these conservation assessments had to make several critical assumptions about how polar bears might be affected by future habitat loss, since sea ice conditions predicted to occur by 2050 had not occurred prior to 2006. However, summer sea ice declines have been much faster than expected: low ice levels not expected until mid-century (about 3-5 mkm2) have occurred regularly since 2007. Realization of predicted sea ice levels allows the ‘rapid sea ice decline = population decline’ assumption for polar bears to be treated as a testable hypothesis. Data collected between 2007 and 2015 reveal that polar bear numbers have not declined as predicted and no subpopulation has been extirpated. Several subpopulations expected to be at high risk of decline remained stable and five showed increases in population size. Another at-risk subpopulation was not counted but showed marked improvement in reproductive parameters and body condition with less summer ice. As a consequence, the hypothesis that repeated summer sea ice levels of below 5 mkm2 will cause significant population declines in polar bears is rejected, a result that indicates the ESA and IUCN judgments to list polar bears as threatened based on future risks of habitat loss were scientifically unfounded and that similar predictions for Arctic seals and walrus may be likewise flawed. The lack of a demonstrable ‘rapid sea ice decline = population decline’ relationship for polar bears also potentially invalidates updated survival model outputs that predict catastrophic population declines should the Arctic become ice-free in summer.

Relationships between estimates of ringed seal (Phoca hispida) and polar bear (Ursus maritimus) populations in the Canadian Arctic

1995 ◽  
Vol 52 (12) ◽  
pp. 2594-2612 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Stirling ◽  
Nils Are Øritsland
Keyword(s):  
Metabolic Rate ◽  
Population Size ◽  
Polar Bear ◽  
Population Level ◽  
Ursus Maritimus ◽  
Polar Bears ◽  
Phoca Hispida ◽  
Ringed Seals ◽  
Reproductive Rates ◽  
The Relationship

Analysis of estimates of population size of ringed s,eals (Phoca hispida) and polar bears (Ursus maritimus) from several areas indicated that estimates of one predicted the range of expected population size of the other in areas where ringed seals constitute the primary prey. In some areas, the closeness of this relationship indicates where estimates of either seals or bears may be inaccurate. The number of seals required to support a population of polar bears of predetermined size was estimated independently using both behavioral and energetic data. Behavioral estimates of the number of seals killed may overestimate energetic requirements and vice versa. Predation and energy matrices indicated that high levels of predation on seals are sustainable only if most animals killed are young-of-the-year. The field metabolic rate of the polar bear appears to be about twice the basal metabolic rate. Densities of seals vary in response to overall productivity of the ecosystem in different areas, and fluctuations in their numbers and reproductive rates between years can be used to monitor changes in productivity of the ecosystem. These changes also cause variation in productivity of bears, which indicates the sensitivity, at the population level, of the relationship between ringed seals and polar bears.

scholarly journals The Polar Bear and its Protection

Oryx ◽  
1956 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 233-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan G. Loughrey
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Polar Bear ◽  
East Coast ◽  
Open Water ◽  
Large Degree ◽  
Hudson Bay ◽  
Large Size ◽  
Pack Ice ◽  
Time Of Year ◽  
Ice Floes

The polar bear, Thalarctos maritimus, (Phipps) enjoys such colloquial names as: “ice-bear,” “sea-bear,” “ice-tiger” and “ice-king.” In view of its large size and its supremacy over the other beasts of the ice-floes it well deserves these epithets. Primarily the polar bear is an animal of the broken arctic pack ice and is found in greatest numbers along the southern edge of the pack. It avoids large expanses of open water or frozen sea ice. The movements of the pack ice to a large degree determine its distribution and movements. Polar bears are carried southward with the pack ice in the spring and summer. In August and September when the ice begins to break up they generally come ashore and make their way north. At this time of year they may be found in considerable numbers along certain coasts where the sea ice has been brought by the winds, tides and currents. An Eskimo from Southampton Island, in northern Hudson Bay, informed me that in August, 1948, he and a companion counted over 180 of these bears along the east coast of that island.

scholarly journals Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) use of the Cape Bathurst polynya and flaw lead

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin M. Henderson ◽  
Andrew E. Derocher
Keyword(s):  
Polar Bear ◽  
Step Length ◽  
Ursus Maritimus ◽  
Polar Bears ◽  
Long Distance ◽  
Subadult Male ◽  
Male And Female ◽  
Habitat Features ◽  
Adult Females ◽  
Pack Ice

The Cape Bathurst polynya and flaw lead (CBP) are major, predictable habitat features with ≤15% ice cover in an otherwise ice-covered Beaufort Sea, and thought to provide hunting opportunities for polar bears (Ursus maritimus Phipps, 1774). We assessed 78 adult (female; with and without cubs) and subadult (male and female) polar bears’ use of the CBP from October – June, 2007–2014. The CBP was up to 725 km wide in autumn, ice-covered in winter, and <306 km wide in spring. Seventy-nine percent (n = 62) of the bears used the CBP (≥1 location <2.4 km, or one 4 h step length, from the CBP). Use was higher for solitary adult females and subadult males, which travelled faster with low turning angles along wider sections than females with offspring and subadult females. Bears were closest to the CBP during the spring hyperphagia season. While a wider CBP did not prevent crossing, bears primarily crossed from the coast towards pack ice at locations 53% narrower than areas not crossed. Bears might avoid crossing when it would require a long-distance swim. The CBP affects polar bear ecology by providing hunting habitat and a corridor that could increase prey encounters but may affect movement.

scholarly journals Space-use strategy affects energy requirements in Barents Sea polar bears

2020 ◽  
Vol 639 ◽  
pp. 1-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
MA Blanchet ◽  
J Aars ◽  
M Andersen ◽  
H Routti
Keyword(s):  
Energy Expenditure ◽  
Sea Ice ◽  
Environmental Changes ◽  
Barents Sea ◽  
Open Water ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Polar Bears ◽  
Gps Collars ◽  
The Barents Sea ◽  
High Caloric Diet

Polar bears Ursus maritimus are currently facing rapid environmental changes with loss of sea ice and shifts in their prey distribution. Two distinct ecotypes exist in the Barents Sea, where sea ice is decreasing at the highest rate in the Arctic. Coastal bears remain within the Archipelago of Svalbard year-round, whereas offshore bears follow the marginal ice zone (MIZ). We explored these 2 ecotypes’ habitat use, activity and energy needs as well as seasonal variation within these parameters. During the period from 2011-2018, adult female polar bears were equipped with GPS collars and activity sensors (n = 84); 46 of these were equipped with conductivity switches to record aquatic behaviour. Offshore bears travelled longer distances at a higher speed on land and at sea away from land and had a higher activity rate compared to coastal bears. This translated into higher overall energy expenditure. Offshore bears also undertook more distant and energetically costly trips from land to the MIZ, swimming in open water. Both ecotypes showed similar seasonal patterns of activity and movement consistent with their life history linked to sea ice phenology. Despite higher energy expenditure, the offshore strategy seemed to be as profitable as the coastal one as females had marginally better spring body condition, likely due to their specialized high caloric diet of seals throughout the year. However, both ecotypes are currently experiencing habitat changes. Future studies should aim to predict how rapidly declining sea ice in the Barents Sea may challenge polar bears energetically during the coming decades.

scholarly journals Invariant polar bear habitat selection during a period of sea ice loss

2016 ◽  
Vol 283 (1836) ◽  
pp. 20160380 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan R. Wilson ◽  
Eric V. Regehr ◽  
Karyn D. Rode ◽  
Michelle St Martin
Keyword(s):  
Habitat Selection ◽  
Sea Ice ◽  
Polar Bear ◽  
Chukchi Sea ◽  
Population Level ◽  
Polar Bears ◽  
Population Declines ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Productive Water ◽  
Primary Driver

Climate change is expected to alter many species' habitat. A species' ability to adjust to these changes is partially determined by their ability to adjust habitat selection preferences to new environmental conditions. Sea ice loss has forced polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ) to spend longer periods annually over less productive waters, which may be a primary driver of population declines. A negative population response to greater time spent over less productive water implies, however, that prey are not also shifting their space use in response to sea ice loss. We show that polar bear habitat selection in the Chukchi Sea has not changed between periods before and after significant sea ice loss, leading to a 75% reduction of highly selected habitat in summer. Summer was the only period with loss of highly selected habitat, supporting the contention that summer will be a critical period for polar bears as sea ice loss continues. Our results indicate that bears are either unable to shift selection patterns to reflect new prey use patterns or that there has not been a shift towards polar basin waters becoming more productive for prey. Continued sea ice loss is likely to further reduce habitat with population-level consequences for polar bears.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document