No abstract

Spitsbergen's bowhead whales ( Balaena mysticetus ) were hunted to near extinction in the world's first commercial whaling enterprise; this population clearly remains threatened, but nothing is known about its distribution, making assessment unfeasible. In this study, we document range, movement patterns and habitat preferences of this population, based on tagging done from an icebreaker-based helicopter. Despite their reduced abundance, Spitsbergen's bowhead whales occupy much of their historical range, stretching across the northern Barents Region from East Greenland eastward to Franz Josef Land. Unlike larger bowhead populations to the west, they do not migrate in a classical sense, but rather disperse from wintering grounds in the northernmost parts of their range during spring, returning northward again in autumn, a pattern opposite in terms of directionality compared to other Arctic bowhead whale populations. The extreme affiliation of this population with cold, ice-filled waters is a concern given ongoing climate warming and concomitant rapid sea ice habitat loss.

Abstract1. The natural environment of the Arctic is changing rapidly owing to climate change. At the same time in many countries including Russia the region is attracting growing attention of decisionmakers and business communities. In light of the above it is necessary to protect the biodiversity of the regional marine ecosystems in the most effective way possible, namely by establishing a network of marine protected areas.2. Identifying conservation priority areas is a key step towards this goal. To achieve it, a study based on a systematic conservation planning approach was conducted. An expanded group of experts used the MARXAN algorithm to produce initial results, then discussed and refined them to select 47 conservation priority areas in the Russian Arctic seas.3. The resulting network covers nearly 25% of the Russian Arctic seas, which guarantees proportional representation of their biodiversity as well as achieving connectivity, sustainability and naturalness. This was largely made possible by the selected methodology, based on the MARXAN decision support tool supplemented by extensive post-analysis that helped fill any gaps inevitable in the formal approach.4. Although available data were sparse, and of varying quality and a single regionalization scheme could not be used (as is often the case for such areas), the selected approach has proven successful for such a large area that covers both the coastal zone and parts of the High Seas. Such an approach could be used further to identify marine protected areas throughout the Arctic Ocean. Kudersky, 2004;Pavlov & Sundet, 2011;Spiridonov & Zalota, 2017) and sea ice habitat loss (Amstrup, Marcot, & Douglas, 2008;Moore & Huntington, 2008). Perhaps equally important, these changes lead to greater human presence in the region (Huettmann, 2012;Jørgensen et al., 2016;Wenzel et al., 2016). This could take many forms from increased oil and gas exploration and production, intensified shipping, fishing, aquaculture and tourism as well as greater military presence.In recent years serious efforts to protect marine biodiversity have been undertaken worldwide and the Russian Arctic seas are no exception. The Arctic is receiving growing attention in Russia as politicians, investors, media and the general public are pushing for a comeback after the country's withdrawal from the region in the 1990s. There are two approaches to conservation that prevail in the world today. One is based on industries regulations that are introduced alongside measures to protect or manage particular species or stocks (Roff & Zacharias, 2011). The other centres on areabased conservation measures and is widely regarded as effective (Roff & Zacharias, 2011;Spiridonov et al., 2012). In the Russian Arctic the latter remains less common. The region has seven Strictly Protected Natural Reserves, or zapovedniks (IUCN Ia), three National Parks (IUCN II), four Preserves (IUCN IV/VI), one Natural Monument (IUCN III) and 41 Regional Protected Areas (IUCN Ib), but their primary purpose is to protect terr...

Environmental change and increasing levels of human activity are threats to marine mammals in the Arctic. Identifying marine mammal hotspots and areas of high species richness are essential to help guide management and conservation efforts. Herein, space use based on biotelemetric tracking devices deployed on 13 species (ringed seal Pusa hispida, bearded seal Erignathus barbatus, harbour seal Phoca vitulina, walrus Odobenus rosmarus, harp seal Pagophilus groenlandicus, hooded seal Cystophora cristata, polar bear Ursus maritimus, bowhead whale Balaena mysticetus, narwhal Monodon monoceros, white whale Delphinapterus leucas, blue whale Balaenoptera musculus, fin whale Balaenoptera physalus and humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae; total = 585 individuals) in the Greenland and northern Barents Seas between 2005 and 2018 is reported. Getis-Ord Gi* hotspots were calculated for each species as well as all species combined, and areas of high species richness were identified for summer/autumn (Jun-Dec), winter/spring (Jan-May) and the entire year. The marginal ice zone (MIZ) of the Greenland Sea and northern Barents Sea, the waters surrounding the Svalbard Archipelago and a few Northeast Greenland coastal sites were identified as key marine mammal hotspots and areas of high species richness in this region. Individual hotspots identified areas important for most of the tagged animals, such as common resting, nursing, moulting and foraging areas. Location hotspots identified areas heavily used by segments of the tagged populations, including denning areas for polar bears and foraging areas. The hotspots identified herein are also important habitats for seabirds and fishes, and thus conservation and management measures targeting these regions would benefit multiple groups of Arctic animals.

No abstract