Morphology-based taxonomic re-assessment of the Arctic lamprey, Lethenteron camtschaticum (Tilesius, 1811) and taxonomic position of other members of the genus

The lamprey genus Lethenteron Creaser & Hubbs, 1922 is widespread across Eurasia and North America, but the number and distribution of its constituent species is not firmly established. After a morphological examination of extant type material of the currently recognized species and their synonyms, Lethenteron mitsukurii (Hatta, 1901) is resurrected with Le. matsubarai Vladykov & Kott, 1978 as its junior synonym. Amongst nonparasitic species Le. reissneri (Dybowski, 1869) and Le. mitsukurii are confirmed as present in Japan and the former is also present on Sakhalin. An in-depth study of large samples of nonparasitic lamprey adults from Japan and Sakhalin Island is needed to determine whether the lower trunk myomere (< 66) individuals from these areas represent one or more undescribed species, or Le. mitsukurii, or Le. reissneri, or a mixture of these three alternatives. The material from the Anadyr Estuary identified by Berg (1931, 1948) as Lampetra japonica kessleri has been re-identified as Le. camtschaticum and there is no evidence that Le. kessleri occurs there. Lethenteron reissneri is reported from the Angara River system, Yenisei River drainage, Russia. Lethenteron alaskense Vladykov & Kott, 1978 is provisionally considered to be a junior synonym of Le. kessleri (Anikin, 1905). Petromyzon ernstii Dybowski, 1872, Ammocoetes aureus Bean, 1881, Petromyzon dentex Anikin, 1905, Lampetra mitsukurii major Hatta, 1911, and Lampetra japonica septentrionalis Berg, 1931 are junior synonyms of Petromyzon marinus camtschaticus Tilesius, 1811. A key is provided to adults of the six species recognized as belonging in the genus Lethenteron.

On factors for separation of the stock of beluga whale Delphinapterus leucas in the Anadyr Gulf of the Bering Sea

New eco-ethological data on the Anadyr stock of beluga whales are presented based on 14-year (2000-2013) studies by methods of satellite tracking telemetry, multi-spectral aerial surveys and genetic analysis, as well as traditional and ecosystem-based approaches. Possible factors of the separate stock formation in the Anadyr Gulf are discussed, as geographic isolation, environmental conditions, foraging resources, elimination of the beluga whales, and biological isolation (on the results of genetic analysis). The beluga whales are well-adapted to oceanographic conditions and ice regime of the Arctic waters that is realized in their relationship with edge of the sea ice, ability to live in both salt and fresh waters (they enter rivers), and versatility in feeding. Their ice-associating, high sociality, and white protective coloration provide protection against killer whales and other predators and their eury-halinity allows to expand the feeding grounds both to the sea and rivers and hunt for both freshwater, anadromous and marine prey. The food spectrum of beluga whales in the Anadyr estuary is very wide and includes 12 fish species and 1 crustacean species. In the summer-autumn season, the salmons are the most significant part of the diet, as chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta , pink salmon O. gorbuscha and arctic char Salvelinus malma , whereas arctic smelt Osmerus mordax dentex , saffron cod Eleginus gracilis , sculpins Cottidae sp., anadyr whitefish Coregonus anaulorum , and siberian whitefish Coregonus sardinella are presented in the diet to a lesser extent. There is supposed on the base of episodic net surveys, that the beluga whales feeding in marine areas is more diverse, and the most important their prey in the sea are walleye pollock Theragra chalcogramma , pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus , flounders Pleuronectidae sp., sculpins Cottidae sp., capelin Mallotus villosus catervarius , polar cod Boreogadus saida , halibuts Pleuronectidae sp., stingrays Bathyraja , herring Clupeidae sp., and several species of decapod crustaceans Hyppolitidae sp. and Lithodidae sp. Natural enemies of beluga whales are killer whale Orcinus orca , polar bear Ursus maritimus , and predatory form of pacific walrus Odobenus rosmarus . Rather large number of beluga whales are eliminated by the sea ice, up to 80 animals annually, that exceeds in several times the aboriginal landings in Chukotka. Parasitic fauna of the beluga whale is still unclear and requires special investigations; the cases of epizooty are unknown in the Anadyr Gulf. Philopatry is proper to the Anadyr beluga whales, with preference of the Anadyr estuary and the Anadyr Gulf as their habitats, that is explained by optimal for them environments and high food capacity. Unique adaptation of beluga whales to the environments of the Anadyr estuary is their ultrasonic vocalization in the high-turbidity waters. Genetic analysis shows a differentiated distribution of the beluga whales haplotypes in different areas of the North Pacific, so the stock of the Anadyr Gulf is significantly isolated in the post-glacial times. Low anthropogenic pressure on beluga whales in the Anadyr Gulf allows them to maintain their stock there.

Results on photo identification for beluga whale Delphinapterus leucas in the Anadyr estuary of the Bering Sea

Definition of individual beluga whales by the method of photo identification and selection of the main types of markers are presented for beluga whales in the Anadyr estuary, western Bering Sea. The study was conducted in the aggregation of beluga whales in three different sites at Anadyr - in the Anadyr sea port and at ferry docks № 8 and № 10 in the period from August 14 to September 6, 2013 (summer feeding of the whales). The maximum number of whales (40-70 animals) was observed at the ferry dock № 10, 2-6 whales were at the ferry dock № 8, and 1-2 ones - at the port. Mother-calf pairs were observed in all sites, but the portion of adult whales was the highest at the ferry dock № 10. Photocamera Nikon D90 and Nikkor lens (70-200 mm) were used for the photo ID. Mechanical skin damages, infections, spinal ridge traces, and age spots were used as individual markers. In total, 4400 images were obtained, including 155 ones with sides of beluga whales. The markers were observed both on the left side (32 cases) and right side (97 cases) of the whales, but both sides were identified for 13 whales only, including 3 females with calves. Taking into account the risk of reassessment in case of using two sides for identification, the identification is considered as successful for 110 individuals of beluga whale. Almost all identified individuals were met only once during the whole period of observation, only 6 of them were met twice, and only 4 - three times. One whale appeared 3 days in a row: on August 16, 17 and 18, and 5 individuals came 2 days in a row. Such few recurrent meetings may indicate a weak fidelity of beluga whales to certain water areas in the estuary, though maybe the length of study is insufficient, taking into account that a strong fidelity of mother-calf pairs of beluga whales to certain areas of the Anadyr estuary, considered as their hunting areas, was determined by visual observations of Shirshov Institute of Oceanology in the 1980s. Probably, the area at the dock № 10, where the whales form large aggregation, is not assigned to individual animals but is a common feeding area. This large aggregation is similar to the aggregation of beluga whales at Cape Beluzhy of Solovetsky Island in the White Sea. However, these aggregations are fundamentally different by their nature: the reproductive aggregation at Solovetsky Island is distinguished by various forms of social interactions, including sexual activity, while the search and hunting behavior prevail in the feeding aggregation at the ferry dock № 10. The main reason for the beluga whales concentration in this area is dense concentration of freshwater fish and salmons migrating for spawning. Reproductive aggregations of beluga whales are not known yet in the Far-Eastern Seas.

First indications of a sharp population decline in the globally threatened Spoon-billed Sandpiper Eurynorhynchus pygmeus

Spoon-billed Sandpiper Eurynorhynchus pygmeus is classed as globally Vulnerable, based on the only available population estimate, made in 1977, of 2,000–2,800 pairs. Surveys for breeding Spoon-billed Sandpipers were carried out in summer 2000 on the Anadyr estuary coast, the Chukotka autonomous region, Russia. Although six new breeding sites were found, only 16–17 breeding males/pairs were recorded on the northern coast of the Anadyr estuary and five males/pairs on the southern coast and more southerly lagoons. These numbers were much lower than expected, and the species was not recorded in several apparently suitable areas. Four formerly known breeding sites held only one displaying male between them. At no site was there evidence of an increasing or stable local population. Together with other indicative data these suggest a sharp decline in the population of Spoon-billed Sandpiper. The previous population size estimate obviously requires updating, both because there were some incorrect assumptions in the calculations made for the first population estimate, and also due to a recent population decline. It is likely that the current population numbers under 1,000 breeding pairs. Given that the population of this species may be substantially lower than the only previous estimate, and the evidence for a possible rapid decline in its population described in this paper, it is recommended that its IUCN status is changed from Vulnerable to Endangered. No reasons for the apparent rapid rate of decline are evident within the breeding range. “Bottle-necks” should be looked for at migration sites or wintering grounds, but currently, monitoring of the population is only possible on the breeding grounds.