Polar Research (Sep 2017)
Harmonizing circumpolar monitoring of Arctic fox: benefits, opportunities, challenges and recommendations
- Dominique Berteaux,
- Anne-Mathilde Thierry,
- Ray Alisauskas,
- Anders Angerbjörn,
- Eric Buchel,
- Liliya Doronina,
- Dorothee Ehrich,
- Nina E. Eide,
- Rasmus Erlandsson,
- Øystein Flagstad,
- Eva Fuglei,
- Olivier Gilg,
- Mikhail Goltsman,
- Heikki Henttonen,
- Rolf A. Ims,
- Siw T. Killengreen,
- Alexander Kondratyev,
- Elena Kruchenkova,
- Helmut Kruckenberg,
- Olga Kulikova,
- Arild Landa,
- Johannes Lang,
- Irina Menyushina,
- Julia Mikhnevich,
- Jukka Niemimaa,
- Karin Norén,
- Tuomo Ollila,
- Nikita Ovsyanikov,
- Liya Pokrovskaya,
- Ivan Pokrovsky,
- Anna Rodnikova,
- James D. Roth,
- Brigitte Sabard,
- Gustaf Samelius,
- Niels M. Schmidt,
- Benoit Sittler,
- Aleksandr A. Sokolov,
- Natalya A. Sokolova,
- Alice Stickney,
- Ester Rut Unnsteinsdóttir,
- Paula A. White
Affiliations
- Dominique Berteaux
- Université du Québec à Rimouski
- Anne-Mathilde Thierry
- Université du Québec à Rimouski
- Ray Alisauskas
- Environment Canada
- Anders Angerbjörn
- Stockholm University
- Eric Buchel
- Arctic Ecology Research Group
- Liliya Doronina
- University of Münster
- Dorothee Ehrich
- University of Tromsø
- Nina E. Eide
- Norwegian Institute for Nature Research
- Rasmus Erlandsson
- Stockholm University
- Øystein Flagstad
- Norwegian Institute for Nature Research
- Eva Fuglei
- Fram Centre
- Olivier Gilg
- Arctic Ecology Research Group
- Mikhail Goltsman
- Lomonosov Moscow State University
- Heikki Henttonen
- Natural Resources Institute Finland
- Rolf A. Ims
- University of Tromsø
- Siw T. Killengreen
- University of Tromsø
- Alexander Kondratyev
- Far-East Branch Russian Academy of Sciences
- Elena Kruchenkova
- Lomonosov Moscow State University
- Helmut Kruckenberg
- Institute for Waterbird and Wetlands Research
- Olga Kulikova
- Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences
- Arild Landa
- Norwegian Institute for Nature Research
- Johannes Lang
- Arctic Ecology Research Group
- Irina Menyushina
- Moscow, Russia
- Julia Mikhnevich
- Lomonosov Moscow State University
- Jukka Niemimaa
- Natural Resources Institute Finland
- Karin Norén
- Stockholm University
- Tuomo Ollila
- Metsähallitus
- Nikita Ovsyanikov
- Moscow, Russia
- Liya Pokrovskaya
- Lomonosov Moscow State University
- Ivan Pokrovsky
- Max Planck Institute for Ornithology
- Anna Rodnikova
- Lomonosov Moscow State University
- James D. Roth
- University of Manitoba
- Brigitte Sabard
- Arctic Ecology Research Group
- Gustaf Samelius
- Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
- Niels M. Schmidt
- Aarhus University
- Benoit Sittler
- Arctic Ecology Research Group
- Aleksandr A. Sokolov
- Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences
- Natalya A. Sokolova
- Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences
- Alice Stickney
- Ester, AK, USA
- Ester Rut Unnsteinsdóttir
- The Icelandic Institute of Natural History
- Paula A. White
- University of California Los Angeles
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1080/17518369.2017.1319602
- Journal volume & issue
-
Vol. 36,
no. 0
Abstract
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.
Keywords
- Alopex lagopus
- Arctic ecosystems
- biodiversity assessment
- biodiversity indicator
- data management
- protocol harmonization