Harmonizing circumpolar monitoring of Arctic fox: benefits, opportunities, challenges and recommendations.
Dominique Berteaux
(1)
,
Anne-Mathilde Thierry
(1, 2)
,
Ray Alisauskas
(3)
,
Anders Angerbjörn
(4)
,
Eric Buchel
(5)
,
Liliya Doronina
(6, 7)
,
Dorothee Ehrich
(8)
,
Nina E. Eide
(2)
,
Rasmus Erlandsson
(4)
,
Øystein Flagstad
(2)
,
Eva Fuglei
(9)
,
Olivier Gilg
(5, 10)
,
Mikhail Goltsman
(7)
,
Heikki Henttonen
(11)
,
Rolf A. Ims
(8)
,
Siw T. Killengreen
(8)
,
Alexander Kondratyev
(12)
,
Elena Kruchenkova
(7)
,
Helmut Kruckenberg
(13)
,
Olga Kulikova
(14)
,
Arild Landa
(2)
,
Johannes Lang
(5, 15)
,
Irina Menyushina
(16)
,
Julia Mikhnevich
(7)
,
Jukka Niemimaa
(11)
,
Karin Norén
(4)
,
Tuomo Ollila
(17)
,
Nikita Ovsyanikov
,
Liya Pokrovskaya
(7)
,
Ivan Pokrovsky
(18)
,
Anna Rodnikova
(7)
,
James D. Roth
(19)
,
Brigitte Sabard
(5)
,
Gustaf Samelius
(20)
,
Niels M. Schmidt
(21)
,
Benoit Sittler
(5, 22)
,
Aleksandr A. Sokolov
(14, 23)
,
Natalya A. Sokolova
(14, 23)
,
Alice Stickney
,
Ester Rut Unnsteinsdóttir
(24)
,
Paula A. White
(25)
1
Canada Research Chair on Northern Biodiversity
2 NINA - Norwegian Institute for Nature Research
3 Prairie and Northern Wildlife Research Centre
4 Department of Zoology [Stockholm]
5 Groupe de Recherche en Ecologie Arctique
6 ZMBE - Institute of Experimental Pathology
7 Department of Vertebrate Zoology
8 Department of Arctic and Marine Biology
9 Norwegian Polar Institute
10 BGS - Biogéosciences [UMR 6282]
11 LUKE - Natural Resources Institute Finland
12 IBPN - Institute of Biological Problems of the North
13 Institute for Waterbird and Wetlands Research
14 Arctic Research Station of Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
15 Working Group for Wildlife Biology
16 Parks and Wildlife
17 Parks and Wildlife
18 Department of Migration and Immuno-ecology
19 Department of Biological Sciences [Winnipeg]
20 Grimsö Wildlife Research Station
21 ARC - Arctic Research Centre [Aarhus]
22 Chair for Landscape Management
23 Science Center for Arctic Studies
24 The Icelandic Institute of Natural History
25 CTR - Center for Tropical Research (|os Angeles]
2 NINA - Norwegian Institute for Nature Research
3 Prairie and Northern Wildlife Research Centre
4 Department of Zoology [Stockholm]
5 Groupe de Recherche en Ecologie Arctique
6 ZMBE - Institute of Experimental Pathology
7 Department of Vertebrate Zoology
8 Department of Arctic and Marine Biology
9 Norwegian Polar Institute
10 BGS - Biogéosciences [UMR 6282]
11 LUKE - Natural Resources Institute Finland
12 IBPN - Institute of Biological Problems of the North
13 Institute for Waterbird and Wetlands Research
14 Arctic Research Station of Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
15 Working Group for Wildlife Biology
16 Parks and Wildlife
17 Parks and Wildlife
18 Department of Migration and Immuno-ecology
19 Department of Biological Sciences [Winnipeg]
20 Grimsö Wildlife Research Station
21 ARC - Arctic Research Centre [Aarhus]
22 Chair for Landscape Management
23 Science Center for Arctic Studies
24 The Icelandic Institute of Natural History
25 CTR - Center for Tropical Research (|os Angeles]
Olivier Gilg
- Fonction : Auteur
- PersonId : 801257
- ORCID : 0000-0002-9083-4492
Nikita Ovsyanikov
- Fonction : Auteur
Niels M. Schmidt
- Fonction : Auteur
- PersonId : 762826
- ORCID : 0000-0002-4166-6218
Alice Stickney
- Fonction : Auteur
Résumé
The biodiversity working group of the Arctic Council has developed pan-Arctic biodiversity
monitoring plans to improve our ability to detect, understand and report on long-term
change in Arctic biodiversity. The Arctic fox (Vulpes lagopus) was identified as a target of
future monitoring because of its circumpolar distribution, ecological importance and reliance
on Arctic ecosystems. We provide the first exhaustive survey of contemporary Arctic fox
monitoring programmes, describing 34 projects located in eight countries. Monitored populations
covered equally the four climate zones of the species’ distribution, and there were
large differences between populations in long-term trends, multi-annual fluctuations, diet
composition, degree of competition with red fox and human interferences. Den density,
number of active dens, number of breeding dens and litter size were assessed in almost all
populations, while projects varied greatly with respect to monitoring of other variables
indicative of population status, ecosystem state or ecosystem function. We review the
benefits, opportunities and challenges to increased integration of monitoring projects. We
argue that better harmonizing protocols of data collection and data management would
allow new questions to be addressed while adding tremendous value to individual projects.
However, despite many opportunities, challenges remain. We offer six recommendations that
represent decisive progress toward a better integration of Arctic fox monitoring projects.
Further, our work serves as a template that can be used to integrate monitoring efforts of
other species, thereby providing a key step for future assessments of global biodiversity.