Arctic Science Research Articles

A Busy March for Arctic Affairs Watchers

March 2016 witnessed brisk activity on Arctic issues. A summit between President Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau culminated in a joint statement on climate change impacts on the Arctic and the White House issued a progress report on implementing its National Strategy for the Arctic Region and a Framework for the coming years. In Fairbanks, Alaska, the Arctic Council, the US Arctic Research Commission,a Model Arctic Council, and the Arctic Science Summit Week all brought much needed attention to Arctic issues.

Bringing Indigenous Kamchatka to Google Earth: Collaborative Digital Mapping with the Itelmen Peoples

This project is part of the Innovations in Ethnographic Mapping and Indigenous Cartographies project, funded by a Google Research Grant, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Insight Development Grant, with additional funding from the National Science Foundation, the Arctic Social Sciences Program, and the US Fulbright Scholar Program.

Benthic macrofaunal production for a typical shelf–slope–basin region in the western Arctic Ocean

Secondary production by macrofaunal communities in the western Arctic Ocean were quantified during the 4th and 5th Chinese Arctic Scientific Expeditions. The total production and P/B ratio for each sector ranged from 3.8 (±7.9) to 615.6 (±635.5)kJm−2yr−1 and 0.5 (± 0.2) to 0.7 (± 0.2) yr−1, respectively. The shallow shelves in the western Arctic Ocean exhibited particularly high production (178.7–615.6kJm−2yr−1), particularly in the two “hotspots” – the southern and northeastern (around Barrow Canyon) Chukchi Sea. Benthic macrofaunal production decreased sharply with depth and latitude along a shelf–slope–basin transect, with values of 17.0–269.8kJm−2yr−1 in slope regions and 3.8–10.1kJm−2yr−1 in basins. Redundancy analysis indicated that hydrological characteristics (depth, bottom temperature and salinity) and granulometric parameters (mean particle size, % sand and % clay) show significant positive/negative correlations with total production. These correlations revealed that the dominant factors influencing benthic production are the habitat type and food supply from the overlying water column. In the Arctic, the extreme environmental conditions and low temperature constrain macrofaunal metabolic processes, such that food and energy are primarily used to increase body mass rather than for reproduction. Hence, energy turnover is relatively low at high latitudes. These data further our understanding of benthic production processes and ecosystem dynamics in the context of rapid climate change in the western Arctic Ocean.

Arctic Freshwater Synthesis: Introduction

AbstractIn response to a joint request from the World Climate Research Program's Climate and Cryosphere Project, the International Arctic Science Committee, and the Arctic Council's Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, an updated scientific assessment has been conducted of the Arctic Freshwater System, entitled the Arctic Freshwater Synthesis (AFS). The major reason for joint request was an increasing concern that changes to the Arctic Freshwater System have produced, and could produce even greater, changes to biogeophysical and socioeconomic systems of special importance to northern residents and also produce extra‐Arctic climatic effects that will have global consequences. Hence, the key objective of the AFS was to produce an updated, comprehensive, and integrated review of the structure and function of the entire Arctic Freshwater System. The AFS was organized around six key thematic areas: atmosphere, oceans, terrestrial hydrology, terrestrial ecology, resources and modeling, and the review of each coauthored by an international group of scientists and published as separate articles in this special section of Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences. This Introduction reviews the motivations for, and foci of, previous studies of the Arctic Freshwater System, discusses criteria used to define the domain of the Arctic Freshwater System, and details key characteristics of the definition adopted for the AFS.

Arctic Freshwater Synthesis: Summary of key emerging issues

AbstractIn response to a joint request from the World Climate Research Program's Climate and Cryosphere Project, the International Arctic Science Committee, and the Arctic Council's Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program an updated scientific assessment has been conducted of the Arctic Freshwater System, entitled the Arctic Freshwater Synthesis (AFS). The major reason behind the joint request was an increasing concern that changes to the Arctic Freshwater System have produced, and could produce even greater, changes to biogeophysical and socioeconomic systems of special importance to northern residents and also produce extra‐Arctic climatic effects that will have global consequences. The AFS was structured around six key thematic areas: atmosphere, oceans, terrestrial hydrology, terrestrial ecology, resources, and modeling, the review of each coauthored by an international group of scientists and published as separate articles in this special section of Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences. This AFS summary article reviews key issues that emerged during the conduct of the synthesis, especially those that are cross‐thematic in nature, and identifies future research required to address such issues.

Environmental Assessment in the Arctic: A Gap Analysis and Research Agenda

Environmental assessment (EA) is employed across the Arctic to assess, mitigate, and monitor the impacts of resource development. Despite the increasing pressures of resource development on Arctic communities and ecosystems and the growing demands for more efficient and effective EA processes, little is known about the needs and priorities of research that will help us to understand and improve EA and its relevance to Arctic communities. A gap analysis of EA research across eight Arctic nations, based on a review of the scholarly literature, government research and policy documents, and a questionnaire survey of Arctic EA scholars, addressed both project-based EA and strategic EA that focused on policy, planning, and regional assessment. Results indicate seven priority research themes: understanding community and stakeholder expectations about EA; assessing the efficiency and responsiveness of EA to rapidly changing socio-ecological and regulatory environments; examining the influence of EA on development decisions; addressing the capacity for meaningful engagement in EA; strengthening the relationship between EA and land-use planning and Arctic science programs; demonstrating the value of regional EA; and assessing the ability of EA to respond to the reality of climate change. These are not the only areas where further EA research is needed, but they are critical to the effectiveness of EA in the Arctic and to ensuring its relevance to Arctic communities.

The science of schmoozing.

Watching Hugues Lantuit work the cocktail hour at Arctic Change, a Canadian research conference held in Ottawa in December, is a master class in networking. He's gracious. (“It is very nice to meet you,” he tells a graduate student, shaking with two hands.) He's self-deprecating. (“I'm sure I have no shot at that job.”) He's a little coarse. (“I tried for half an hour to tie this f\***|ing bow tie; can you help me?”) He is constantly introducing one person to another. “Ah, you work at the Yukon Research Centre,” he says to the stranger he's persuaded to tie his bow tie, as a crowd forms. “We are actually collaborating on a multimillion-dollar grant proposal. So if we get it, I will remember this moment as a formative step.” Laughter all around. In the burgeoning world of Arctic research, nearly everyone knows Lantuit, a professor at the Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) in Potsdam, Germany. At age 37, he's leveraged his deep network of contacts to build an impressive career. In 2006, he co-founded the Association of Polar Early Career Scientists (APECS), which now has more than 5000 members. Five years later, he became co–principal investigator on a 5-year, €9 million project to study permafrost in the Arctic. He serves on major international research committees. The research program he manages, on Herschel Island in the Canadian Beaufort Sea, is at an important site for monitoring erosion of Arctic permafrost coasts, which make up a third of Earth's shores. “He's the man,” says colleague Paul Overduin, a geoscientist at AWI. “He puts us on the map in a lot of ways.” ![Figure][1] “He's just someone who's constantly connecting his peers.” ILLUSTRATION: ROBERT NEUBECKER As early as graduate school, Lantuit says, he was “genuinely interested in bringing people together.” As a master's student at McGill University in 2002, he founded the Geography Graduate Society and became a key assistant on an international permafrost-mapping project. The experience taught him lessons about networking in science that have subsequently shaped his career. First, he says, what matters isn't how impressive the title on a business card is—it's the role you play in projects or initiatives. Second, while wearing a welcoming face never hurts, it's what you offer scientifically that turns conversations into scientific opportunities. Lantuit got connected early on, but he found few resources to help other young Arctic scientists do the same. So he and Jenny Baeseman, a microbial biologist, created APECS, which runs workshops that bring together young and established scientists to explore publishing, fieldwork, funding, and career advancement. His reputation as a connector grew as he matched colleagues with opportunities—including helping Baeseman, who was focused on Antarctica, join a project in the Arctic. “He's just someone who's constantly connecting his peers,” Baeseman says. They connect him in return: Lantuit's CV lists the myriad partnerships, international research projects, journal special issues, panels, and conferences he's created or run. All that connecting takes time away from research, he acknowledges. “There are scientists who will publish 50 papers in Nature in their career. I won't. I'm fine with that.” Yet, none of this would be possible if he hadn't published well-regarded papers on erosion on Arctic coasts. “I tell my [Ph.D.] students, you need to deliver scientifically,” he says. Several of them wanted to attend the Ottawa meeting, but Lantuit said no. “Their dissertations are late.” Lantuit's appetite for new projects and partnerships remains voracious. Managing his various ongoing efforts taxes his phone's scheduling app, which lists a relentless string of meetings, dinners, sessions, and cocktail hours for the 5-day meeting. “I have this inner drive to connect,” he says as he gets up to walk to the conference's gala dinner. He has assembled a colorful table of heavy hitters: influential scientists, well-known administrators, and funders. These are useful people to know, but it's clear he genuinely likes each one. “It's fun,” he says, and heads for the ballroom. [1]: pending:yes

Measuring Arctic Sea Ice Motion in Real Time With Photogrammetry

The U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) has been collecting sea ice data in the Arctic, off the northern coast of Alaska, with an airborne system employing a radar altimeter, lidar, and a photogrammetric camera in an effort to obtain wide swaths of measurements coincident with CryoSat-2 track footprints. Because the satellite tracks traverse regions of moving pack ice, and the aircraft speed and measurement footprint are smaller than that of the satellite, it is necessary to know the local ice motion in order to plan and fly a full-coverage survey. With the advent of functional and real-time orthographic photogrammetric systems, we have developed a Real-Time Ice Motion Estimation (RTIME) system that permits the rapid determination of sea ice motion. RTIME enables tracking of specific patches of ice, allowing direct comparison of airborne data to satellite data on a point-by-point basis. This system should be of utility to other Arctic airborne science programs.

Canada and the Asian Observers to the Arctic Council: Anxiety and Opportunity

Canada is an Arctic nation, although deep-seated anxieties about sovereignty and control belie its self-proclaimed status as an Arctic superpower.1 More than 40% of the country's landmass and 162,000 kilometers (approximately 101,000 miles) of its coastline lie north of sixty, spanning approximately one-quarter of the global Arctic. Popular imagery has long cast the Arctic as a resource-rich of destiny, a homeland for indigenous peoples, a fragile environment in need of protection, and a source of national inspiration. Through these various lenses, Canadian commentators watch intently as Asian states' interests grow in Arctic science, environmental issues, resource development, shipping opportunities, and regional governance. For a country with a history of limited investment in northern transportation and economic development, the entrance of new players resurrects old anxieties about national interests, sovereignty, and practical control. While Canada seeks Asian investment to help drive its economic growth, commentators worry about the long-term implications of the rise of Asia, China's grand strategic interests more generally, and the growing footprint and influence of state-owned enterprises in a sparsely populated region. Accordingly, Canada's ongoing challenge lies in balancing the emerging opportunities associated with the opening of the Arctic as a resource and transportation frontier with the security and stewardship issues associated with protecting part of the Canadian homeland.This essay begins with an overview of Canada's Arctic strategy and how this frames its approach to circumpolar affairs and the Arctic Council, followed by a discussion of Canada's concerns about the admission of new observers to the council. The next section notes emerging opportunities for enhanced Canada-Asia engagement, despite persistent anxiety about increasing Asian interest in Arctic science, governance, resources, and maritime routes. This essay concludes that by working through existing mechanisms and ensuring that Asian states' participation does not erode Arctic state sovereignty, Canada and the other Arctic states can realize their national goals, maintain their leadership roles in regional governance, and accommodate growing international interest in the circumpolar north.Canada's Arctic StrategyCanada's priorities for the Arctic are laid out in its 2009 white paper Canada's Northern Strategy: Our North, Our Heritage, Our Future, which promotes an overriding agenda of seeking to develop a healthy, prosperous, and secure region within a strong and sovereign Canada.2 This strategy contains four main pillars: exercising Canada's Arctic sovereignty, promoting social and economic development, protecting Canada's environmental heritage, and improving and devolving governance. The Conservative Party government of Stephen Harper considers the sovereignty pillar to be its foremost priority, an approach that capitalizes on Canadian nationalism and primordial anxieties about the country's control over its share of the Arctic. Despite official assurances that Canadian sovereignty is well established in legal terms and that boundary or status-of-water disputes with neighboring countries are well managed, threat narratives that imagine foreign challenges to Canada's Arctic lands and seas continue to resonate with Canadians. Nevertheless, the country works closely with other Arctic states to promote and protect its international interests and cooperate on a broader vision for the region.Official statements confirm that Canada considers the Arctic Council to be the preeminent intergovernmental forum for cooperation between the eight Arctic member states and the international indigenous peoples' organizations that partake in the council as permanent participants. Among these organizations are the Arctic Athabaskan Council, Gwich'in Council International, and Inuit Circumpolar Council, all of which have Canadian constituents. …

Future-Proofing Japan’s Interests in the Arctic: Scientific Collaboration and a Search for Balance

In May 2013 the Arctic states convened in Kiruna, Sweden, in part to decide on whether six new states should be admitted as observers to the Arctic Council. Japan's application was accepted along with those of China, India, Italy, Singapore, and South Korea. At a glance, one might ask what credentials Japan has to be involved in the leading Arctic forum. However, a closer look at its engagement in the Arctic indicates that Japan has genuine interests in political, economic, and environmental developments there. This essay examines Japan's interests in the Arctic, its new role as an observer to the Arctic Council, and the international relationships that will affect Japan's engagement in the region.Japan's Current Engagement in the ArcticJapan is no newcomer to the Arctic. Already in 1925, the country became one of the fourteen high-contracting parties to the Spitsbergen Treaty, which recognizes the sovereignty of Norway over the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard. In 1990, Japan formally joined the Arctic research community by becoming a member of the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) as a non-Arctic state. In the same year, the Centre for Arctic Research at the National Institute of Polar Research (NIPR) was established in Japan.According to the Japanese government, the country's primary aim of engagement in the Arctic has been and remains understanding and protecting the natural environment.1 As the negative impacts of climate change became more apparent, policies related to scientific research were given higher priority. Since May 2011, the NIPR has led a nationwide project that seeks to integrate the various strands of Japanese scientific research related to climate change in the Arctic.2 In addition, since Japan made the decision to prioritize becoming an observer in the Arctic Council, the region has gained a certain level of political momentum and Japan's Arctic policies have started to gather pace and shape. For instance, just before the council's decision, an Arctic ambassador was assigned by Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) in March 2013, and the Arctic was included in the central government's new Basic Plan on Ocean Policy, published in April 2013.3This greater focus on the Arctic can be partly attributed to a stronger lobby from the Ocean Policy Research Foundation (OPRF). OPRF is a think tank and lobbying organization for the Japanese shipping and manufacturing industries and has conducted several research projects on the Arctic, especially regarding the Northern Sea Route (NSR). Guided by the Basic Plan on Ocean Policy, a new interministerial committee on the Arctic (called Hokkyokukai Ni Kakaru Shomondai Ni Taisuru Kankei Shocho Renraku Kaigi, or the Liaison Committee among Ministries and Agencies on Various Issues Related to the Arctic) was set up in July 2013. The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT)-one of the more proactive and powerful ministries of Japan-has also shown an interest in the Arctic. In 2013, MLIT conducted a small project to study the practical legal implications of using the NSR along the Russian coast, with a view toward developing the sea route further. More recently, in January 2014, OPRF began collaborating with MLIT and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) on a new project to specifically consider the construction of a new icebreaker for Arctic observations.4Japan's Reasons for Joining the Arctic CouncilJapan's decision to apply for observer status on the Arctic Council came at a time when the council was beginning to take on new responsibilities. As the Arctic region underwent climate changes, the council's adoption of new roles related to safety of navigation and search and rescue was taken as an indication that the council itself was changing and that the positions of member states were shifting.5 The council is the only formal mechanism in the Arctic similar to the Antarctic Treaty System. …

Circumpolar science: Scandinavian approaches to the Arctic and the North Atlantic, ca. 1920 to 1960.

ArgumentThe Scandinavian countries share a solid reputation as longstanding contributors to top level Arctic research. This received view, however, veils some deep-seated contrasts in the ways that Sweden, Norway, and Denmark have conducted research in the Arctic and the North Atlantic. In this paper it is argued that instead of focusing on the geographical determinism of science – the fact that the Arctic is close to, indeed part of, Scandinavian territories – we should look more closely at the geopolitics of science to understand the differences and similarities between these three Nordic countries. Through case studies of, mainly, Swedish Arctic and North Atlantic glaciology in the 1920s through to the 1940s, and of Norwegian preparations in the 1950s for the International Geophysical Year 1957/58, the paper demonstrates how different styles of research – research agendas, methodological choices, collaborative patterns, international networks, availability of infrastructure, relations to politics and power – are conditioned on economic interests and strategic and geopolitical trajectories, either these are explicitly put in the forefront of scientific priorities as in the case of Norway in the 1950s, or when they are manifestly disregarded in the name of scientific internationalism, as in the case of Swedish glaciology. The case of Danish colonial science in Greenland is only cursorily drawn into this analysis but corroborates the overall thesis. The analysis of this wider science politics of Scandinavian circumpolar science is exercised against a brief introductory backdrop of Arctic science historiography. Its chief message is that the analysis of polar science applying modern theory and method of the social studies of science is comparatively recent and that the full potential of merging the literature of Arctic science and exploration with those of security, geopolitics, indigenous voices, and the politics of nationalism is yet to be realized.

Bridging Arctic environmental science and life cycle assessment: a preliminary assessment of regional scaling factors

Current research aims to make the impact assessment module of life cycle assessment (LCA) less site-generic and thus more relevant to particular regions. The Arctic region attracts its share of interest when it comes to environmental issues, but little research has been performed with the explicit aim to incorporate its particular features into LCA. Through a survey directed to individual experts and a brief literature review, this article identifies environmental impact categories of particular relevance to this region. Findings should be interpreted with caution; nevertheless, impact categories connected to POPs, heavy metals, ecotoxicity, acidification and the cryosphere are with confidence identified as important. The regional scaling factors resulting from the survey could in principle be employed in LCA calculations, but optimally require verification by specified future research. However, indications of a certain resistance to a full quantitative clarification of priorities in the Arctic environment are identified.

Strategic Arctic science: national interests in building natural knowledge – interwar era through the Cold War

From the 1930s through the 1950s—the decades bracketing the second and third international polar years—research in the physical and biological environmental sciences of the Arctic increased dramatically. The heroic, expedition-based style of Arctic science, dominant in the first decades of the twentieth century, gave way to a systematic, long-term, strategic and largely statefunded model of research which increased both Arctic presence and the volume of research output. Factors that made this change possible were distinct for each of the five circumpolar nation-states considered here. For Soviet leaders, the Arctic was an untamed land containing vast economic resources, all within reach if its long-sought Northern Sea Route became reality; Soviet officials sought environmental knowledge of this region with a range of motivations from economic and strategic concerns to enhancing the prestige of socialism. In contrast, United States officials largely ignored the Arctic until the outbreak of World War II, when military commanders quickly grasped the strategic importance of this region. Anxious that the Arctic might become a literal battleground between East and West by 1947, as the Cold War began, Pentagon leaders funded vast northern research programs, including in strategically located Greenland. Canadian leaders—while appreciating the national security concerns of its powerful southern neighbor—were even more concerned with maintaining sovereignty over its northern territories and gaining knowledge to assist its northern economic ambitions. Norway and Sweden, as smaller states, faced distinct challenges. With strong claims to Arctic heritage but limited resources, leaders of these states sought to create independent research strategies while, especially in the case of Norway, protecting their geopolitical interests in relation to the Soviet Union and the U.S. This article provides the first internationally comparative study of the multiple economic, military, political, and strategic factors that motivated scientific activities and programs in the far north, from the interwar period through World War II and the Cold War, when carefully coordinated, station-based research programs were introduced. The production of knowledge about Arctic's physical environment—including its changing climate—had little resemblance either to ideas of science-based ‘progress,’ or responses to perceived environmental concerns. Instead, it demonstrates that strategic military, economic, geopolitical, and national security concerns influenced and shaped most science undertakings, including those of the International Polar Year of 1932–1933 and the following polar year, the International Geophysical Year of 1957–1958.

Melting the glacial curtain: the politics of Scandinavian–Soviet networks in the geophysical field sciences between two polar years, 1932/33–1957/58

While providing a brief background of the development of Scandinavian–Russian relations in the polar sciences in the early 20th century, this paper focuses on the period from the 1930s when the Swedish geographer Hans Ahlmann and Norwegian oceanographer Harald Ulrik Sverdrup developed a curiosity of the Soviet Union as a field for the practice of Arctic science. Visit of the Arctic Research Institute in Leningrad in 1934 further enhanced Ahlmann's sympathy and in 1935 he co-founded the Society for the Promotion of Cultural and Scientific Relations between Sweden and the Soviet Union. After further wartime collaboration, Ahlmann returned to the Soviet Union in 1958 and 1960 as president of the International Union of Geographical Sciences. Using his longtime Soviet contacts to penetrate the Iron Curtain, Ahlmann became a key figure in maintaining the flow of scientific information between East and West. New materials from archives open perspectives for better understanding of the international connections and transfer of knowledge in geophysical and geographical science in its formative period. The key message from this paper is that while tensions did exist and presented scientists with differential loyalties, they still managed to find ways to undertake fruitful scientific collaborations even under political restraints and could sometimes play political roles.

The evolution of local participation and the mode of knowledge production in Arctic research

Arctic science is often claimed to have been transformed by the increased involvement of local people, but these claims of a research paradigm have not been empirically evaluated. We argue that the new participatory research paradigm emerging in Arctic science embodies many of the principles of the Mode 2 knowledge production framework. Using the Mode 2 thesis as an assessment framework, we examined research articles appearing between 1965 and 2010 in the journal Arctic to assess the extent to which there has been a paradigm shift toward more participatory approaches. Results suggest that the involvement of local people has increased only slightly over the last half century and continues to vary systematically among disciplines, organizations, and regions. Analysis of three additional journals focused on Arctic and circumpolar science establishes the generality of these slight increases in local involvement. There is clearly room for more community involvement in Arctic science, but achieving this will require either increasing the proportional representation of the organizations, disciplines, and regions with a track record of successful Mode 2 research, or encouraging Mode 2 research innovation within the organizations, disciplines, and regions currently predominated by Mode 1 approaches.

Assembling an Arctic Ocean Boundary Monitoring Array

The Arctic Ocean boundary monitoring array has been maintained over many years by six research institutes located worldwide. Our approach to Arctic Ocean boundary measurements is generating significant scientific outcomes. However, it is not always easy to access Arctic data. On the basis of our last five years’ experience of assembling pan-Arctic boundary data, and considering the success of Argo, I propose that Arctic data policy should be driven by specific scientific-based requirements. Otherwise, it will be hard to implement the International Polar Year data policy. This approach would also help to establish a consensus of future Arctic science.

CircumArctic Rangifer monitoring and assessment (CARMA) network – origins, goals, accomplishments and future

-

Review of LASHIPA: History of Large Scale Resource Exploitation in Polar Areas, edited by Louwrens Hacquebord (2012).

This collection of papers reflects the results of two separate but related research projects: the International Polar Year (IPY) project History of Large Scale Resource Exploitation in Polar Areas (LASHIPA) and a European Science Foundation Collaborative Research (EUROCORES) 2006—10 BOREAS project entitled Colony, Empire, Environment: a Comparative International History of Twentieth Century Arctic Science (CEE). The collected papers were given at a workshop in St. Petersburg, Russia, in November 2009, where most of the participants were doctoral students gathered to offer the results of their research for the first time. (Published: 11 March 2013) Citation: Polar Research 2013, 32 , 20610, http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/polar.v32i0.20610

Marine ecosystem synthesis: From physics to whales in the Pacific Arctic

Synthesis of Arctic Research (SOAR) Workshop; Anchorage, Alaska, 14–16 March 2012 The Synthesis of Arctic Research (SOAR) program brings together a multidisciplinary group of Arctic scientists and Alaskan coastal community residents to explore and integrate marine research information in the Pacific Arctic region. The goal of SOAR is to increase scientific understanding of the relationships among oceanographic conditions (physics, chemistry, sea ice), benthic organisms, lower trophic pelagic species (forage fish and zooplankton), and higher trophic species (i.e., seabirds, walrus, whales) in the Pacific Arctic, with particular emphasis on the Chukchi Sea oil and gas lease sale areas.

Recent climate-related terrestrial biodiversity research in Canada's Arctic national parks: review, summary, and management implications

It is now well documented that Arctic climates and ecosystems are changing at some of the fastest rates on planet Earth. These changes are significant for all Arctic biodiversity, and they are a great challenge for cooperative management boards of Canada's Arctic national parks, those legislated to maintain or improve the ecological integrity of all national parks. Owing to the inherent complexity of natural ecosystems, it is not at all clear how, nor how rapidly, these ongoing changes will affect park biodiversity and impact the traditional land-based lifestyles of Indigenous park cooperative management partners. In this context, this paper reviews and integrates recent research carried out in Canadian Arctic national parks: (1) geophysical – a reduction in glacial area and volume, active layer thickening, warming soil temperatures, and terrain instability; (2) vegetation – widespread but ecosystem-specific increases in NDVI ‘greenness’, plant biomass, shrub and herb coverage, and growing season lengths; and (3) wildlife – complex changes in small mammals and ungulate populations, very negative effects on some polar bear populations, and relatively stable mammalian predator and raptor populations at this time. This work provides a partial snapshot of ongoing and evolving ecological effects of climate change in Arctic national parks, and provides a strong foundation for prioritising future research and monitoring efforts. These evolving changes also undermine the historical paradigm of place-based conservation and necessitate a new approach for managing protected areas that involves acceptance of ongoing transformational change and adoption of a risk-based, forward looking paradigm in a changing world. It is proposed that Arctic national parks are ideal locations to focus Arctic science, especially as a component of a strategic, coordinated, and pan-Arctic approach to Arctic research that makes the most effective use of limited resources in the vast areas of Canada's north.