Using genomic tools to inform management of the Atlantic northern fulmar

Colston-Nepali, Lila; Provencher, Jennifer F.; Franckowiak, Ryan P.; Sun, Zhengxin; Robertson, Gregory J.; Friesen, Vicki L.

doi:10.1007/s10592-020-01309-y

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 98 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Low genetic differentiation among fulmar breeding colonies (F ST = 0.003–0.01) indicates substantial gene flow, either currently or in the recent past (Friesen, 2015 ), or that populations are recently separated and have not yet reached migration–drift equilibrium. These low F ST values are consistent with a recent study of Atlantic fulmars (Colston‐Nepali et al, 2020 ); however, the demography of the Atlantic and Pacific subspecies is quite different: breeding fulmars in the Atlantic are distributed among many small colonies, whereas Pacific fulmars are concentrated at just a few large breeding colonies. Due to the remote nature of the Alaska colonies, there is little available evidence for demographic mechanisms that could contribute to low levels of genetic differentiation.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…When bycatch is genotyped with the same set of genetic markers, individual samples can be assigned to source populations using maximum likelihood or Bayesian inference (Pella & Masuda, 2000 ; Smouse et al, 1990 ). In high gene flow species, markers with greater differentiation than the genetic background may increase resolution for assignment (Nielsen et al, 2012 ) and without such markers, GSI may be of limited utility (Colston‐Nepali et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Genetic assignment of fisheries bycatch reveals disproportionate mortality among Alaska Northern Fulmar breeding colonies

Baetscher

Beck²,

Anderson

et al. 2022

Evolutionary Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global fisheries kill millions of seabirds annually through bycatch, but little is known about population‐level impacts, particularly in species that form metapopulations. U.S. North Pacific groundfish fisheries catch thousands of Northern Fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis rodgersii) each year, making fulmars the most frequently caught seabird in federally managed U.S. fisheries. Here, we used genetic stock identification to assign 1,536 fulmars sampled as bycatch to one of four Alaska breeding colonies and quantified the similarity of bycatch locations at sea among colonies. We found disproportionately high bycatch from the Pribilof Islands (6% of metapopulation, 23% of bycatch), and disproportionately low bycatch from Chagulak Island (34% of metapopulation, 14% of bycatch). Overlap between fisheries and colony‐specific foraging areas diverge more during the summer breeding season, leading to greater differences in bycatch susceptibility. Contemporary and historical gene flow likely contributes to low genetic differentiation among colonies (FST = 0.003–0.01), yet these values may not represent present connectivity. Our findings illustrate how genetic stock identification can link at‐sea threats to colonies and inform management to reduce bycatch from impacted colonies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genetic assignment of fisheries bycatch reveals disproportionate mortality among Alaska Northern Fulmar breeding colonies

Baetscher

Beck²,

Anderson

et al. 2022

Evolutionary Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, many individuals studying environmental systems are acutely aware of how anthropogenic actions influence Earth's systems. While there is growing momentum for acknowledging the environmental impact of research in grant proposals, research publications (e.g., Andruko et al., 2020), and theses (e.g., Colston‐Nepali, 2019), researchers lack a universally applicable framework for mitigating negative environmental impacts throughout the research process.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Environmental Responsibility Framework: A Toolbox for Recognizing and Promoting Ecologically Conscious Research

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ethical research has underpinned the studies of human and other vertebrate subjects for over seven decades (Declaration of Helsinki, 2022; Nuremberg Code, 1946). Such frameworks acknowledge that there are potentially harmful impacts of science, and in essence prioritize ethically appropriate research over advancement in knowledge. As such, responsible and ethical research requires scientists to consider the potential impact of their research on organisms, and on our planet's environment more broadly. Scientific research using field, laboratory, and computational approaches inevitably generates an environmental impact in at least one of three principal ways: (a) fossil fuel emissions from travel, (b) energy consumption of scientific equipment, computing, and data storage facilities (Bauer et al., 2021;Portegies Zwart, 2020), and (c) material use (Grogan, 2021 Supplemental file). Given the potential for research to generate unintended consequences on the environment itself and recognizing that ecosystems are self-organizing systems with their own health (Schaeffer et al., 1988), performance (Herricks et al., 1989), stress (Odum, 1985, and rights (Stone, 1972), a framework for gauging the environmental impacts of scientific research is long overdue.The concept of advancing scientific discoveries while simultaneously pursuing stewardship of the environment and ecological systems has been an ongoing dialogue (Grogan, 2021; Lategan, 2012)-from peer-reviewed studies reporting on the environmental impacts of management and policy decisions on species, habitats, and ecosystem services (Peçanha Enqvist et al., 2018) to individual lifestyle choices of environmental scientists (e.g., Fox et al., 2009; Nature, 2015). However, these important efforts do not extend to acknowledging the impact of the research process itself, and associated protocols, on the environment. Because the scientific method inherently requires making measurements (e.g., environmental monitoring) and/or the consumption of natural resources and materials to conduct experiments in and on the environment, how then does the scientific community accomplish

show abstract

“…Plastic monitoring should be considered alongside these other studies to bring added value to existing work. This is also important when considering beached birds or those incidentally caught in fisheries (i.e., bycatch birds) which can be linked to nearby colonies or foraging areas (e.g., Colston-Nepali et al 2020). Arctic-breeding bird species are also found outside of the Arctic, which thus provides the opportunity to establish spatial trends, provided that harmonized methods are used (Provencher et al 2017; van Franeker et al 2021).…”

Section: Benefitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring litter and microplastics in Arctic mammals and birds

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plastic pollution has been reported to affect Arctic mammals and birds. There are strengths and limitations to monitoring litter and microplastics using Arctic mammals and birds. One strength is the direct use of these data to understand the potential impacts on Arctic biodiversity as well as effects on human health, if selected species are consumed. Monitoring programs must be practically designed with all purposes in mind, and a spectrum of approaches and species will be required. Spatial and temporal trends of plastic pollution can be built on the information obtained from studies on northern fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis), a species that is an environmental indicator. To increase our understanding of the potential implications for human health, the species and locations chosen for monitoring should be selected based on the priorities of local communities. Monitoring programs under development should examine species for population level impacts in Arctic mammals and birds. Mammals and birds can be useful in source and surveillance monitoring via locally designed monitoring programs. We recommend future programs consider a range of monitoring objectives with mammals and birds as part of the suite of tools for monitoring litter and microplastics, plastic chemical additives and effects, and for understanding sources.

show abstract

Using genomic tools to inform management of the Atlantic northern fulmar

Cited by 10 publications

References 98 publications

Genetic assignment of fisheries bycatch reveals disproportionate mortality among Alaska Northern Fulmar breeding colonies

Genetic assignment of fisheries bycatch reveals disproportionate mortality among Alaska Northern Fulmar breeding colonies

The Environmental Responsibility Framework: A Toolbox for Recognizing and Promoting Ecologically Conscious Research

Monitoring litter and microplastics in Arctic mammals and birds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About