Aim Our aim involved developing a method to analyse spatiotemporal distributions of Arctic marine mammals (AMMs) using heterogeneous open source data, such as scientific papers and open repositories. Another aim was to quantitatively estimate the effects of environmental covariates on AMMs’ distributions and to analyse whether their distributions have shifted along with environmental changes. Location Arctic shelf area. The Kara Sea. Methods Our literature search focused on survey data regarding polar bears (Ursus maritimus), Atlantic walruses (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus) and ringed seals (Phoca hispida). We mapped the data on a grid and built a hierarchical Poisson point process model to analyse species’ densities. The heterogeneous data lacked information on survey intensity and we could model only the relative density of each species. We explained relative densities with environmental covariates and random effects reflecting excess spatiotemporal variation and the unknown, varying sampling effort. The relative density of polar bears was explained also by the relative density of seals. Results The most important covariates explaining AMMs’ relative densities were ice concentration and distance to the coast, and regarding polar bears, also the relative density of seals. The results suggest that due to the decrease in the average ice concentration, the relative densities of polar bears and walruses slightly decreased or stayed constant during the 17‐year‐long study period, whereas seals shifted their distribution from the Eastern to the Western Kara Sea. Main conclusions Point process modelling is a robust methodology to estimate distributions from heterogeneous observations, providing spatially explicit information about ecosystems and thus serves advances for conservation efforts in the Arctic. In a simple trophic system, a distribution model of a top predator benefits from utilizing prey species’ distributions compared to a solely environmental model. The decreasing ice cover seems to have led to changes in AMMs’ distributions in the marginal Arctic region.

Oil spills resulting from maritime accidents pose a poorly understood risk to the Arctic environment. We propose a novel probabilistic method to quantitatively assess these risks. Our method accounts for spatiotemporally varying population distributions, the spreading of oil, and seasonally varying species-specific exposure potential and sensitivity to oil. It quantifies risk with explicit uncertainty estimates, enables one to compare risks over large geographic areas, and produces information on a meaningful scale for decision-making. We demonstrate the method by assessing the short-term risks oil spills pose to polar bears, ringed seals, and walrus in the Kara Sea, the western part of the Northern Sea Route. The risks differ considerably between species, spatial locations, and seasons. Our results support current aspirations to ban heavy fuel oil in the Arctic but show that we should not underestimate the risks of lighter oils either, as these oils can pollute larger areas than heavier ones. Our results also highlight the importance of spatially explicit season-specific oil spill risk assessment in the Arctic and that environmental variability and the lack of data are a major source of uncertainty related to the oil spill impacts.

No abstract

1) Species distribution models (SDMs) are currently the main tools to derive species niche estimates and spatially explicit predictions for species geographical distribution. However, unobserved environmental conditions and ecological processes may confound the model estimates if they have direct impact on the species and, at the same time, they are correlated with the observed environmental covariates. This, so‐called spatial confounding, is a general property of spatial models and it has not been studied in the context of SDMs before. 2) We examine how the estimation accuracy of SDMs depends on the type of spatial confounding. We construct two simulation studies where we alter spatial structures of the observed and unobserved covariates and the level of dependence between them. We fit generalized linear models with and without spatial random effects applying Bayesian inference and recording the bias induced to model estimates by spatial confounding. After this we examine spatial confounding also with real vegetation data from northern Norway. 3) Our results show that model estimates for coarse scale covariates, such as climate covariates, are likely to be biased if a species distribution depends also on an unobserved covariate operating on a finer spatial scale. Pushing higher probability for a relatively weak and smoothly varying spatial random effect compared to the observed covariates improved the model's estimation accuracy. The improvement was independent of the actual spatial structure of the unobserved covariate. 4) Our study addresses the major factors of spatial confounding in SDMs and provides a list of recommendations for pre‐inference assessment of spatial confounding and for inference‐based methods to decrease the chance of biased model estimates.