Download WGICA - ICES

ICES WGICA REPORT 2016
SCICOM/ACOM S TEERING G ROUP ON I NTEGRATED E COSYSTEM O BSERVATION AND M ONITORING
ICES CM 2016/SSGIEA:11
R EF . A COM
AND
S CICOM
First Interim Report of the ICES/PAME
Working Group on Integrated Ecosystem
Assessment for the Central Arctic Ocean
(WGICA)
24-26 May 2016
ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer
H. C. Andersens Boulevard 44–46
DK-1553 Copenhagen V
Denmark
Telephone (+45) 33 38 67 00
Telefax (+45) 33 93 42 15
www.ices.dk
[email protected]
Recommended format for purposes of citation:
ICES. 2016. First Interim Report of the ICES/PAME Working Group on Integrated
Ecosystem Assessment for the Central Arctic Ocean (WGICA), 24-26 May 2016, ICES
Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2016/SSGIEA:11. 222 pp.
For permission to reproduce material from this publication, please apply to the
General Secretary.
The document is a report of an Expert Group under the auspices of the International
Council for the Exploration of the Sea and does not necessarily represent the views of
the Council.
© 2016 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
ICES WGICA REPORT 2016
| i
C o nten ts
Executive summary ................................................................................................................ 1
1
Administrative details .................................................................................................. 2
2
Terms of Reference ........................................................................................................ 3
3
Summary of work plan ................................................................................................. 3
4
List of outcomes and achievements of the WG in this delivery period............... 3
5
Progress report on Terms of Reference and work plan .......................................... 3
6
Revisions to the work plan and justification ......................................................... 15
7
Next meeting................................................................................................................. 16
Annex 1. WGICA List of participants ............................................................................... 17
ICES WGICA REPORT 2016
| 1
Executive summary
The ICES/PAME Working Group on Integrated Ecosystem Assessment for the Central
Arctic Ocean (WGICA) held its inaugural meeting at ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen,
Denmark, from 24 to 26 May 2016. The group recognized the important contributions
made by the 2015 Workshop for the Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) of the
Central Arctic Ocean (CAO), which concluded that the purpose of an IEA for the
central Arctic Ocean was twofold: 1) provide a holistic and integrated view on the
status, trends and pressures, and 2) contribute to implementation of the ecosystem
approach to management of the central Arctic Ocean. The geographical scope of an
IEA should include the central Arctic Ocean Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) and the
relevant adjacent slope and shelf regions. The fluxes and properties of water through
the Atlantic and Pacific gateways also need to be taken into account when addressing
physical and biological variability of the basins of the Arctic Ocean. Ecosystem
components for the IEA should include: productivity/plankton, sea-ice biota, benthos,
fish, seabirds, and marine mammals assessed in the context of the vulnerabilities,
drivers, and impacts induced by natural and anthropogenic change. Two assessment
teams were established to initiate work on the development of integrated assessments
on a subregional basis:
•
Amerasian Basin/Pacific gateway team, and
•
Eurasian Basin/Atlantic gateway team.
The two teams will work in close contact with coordination provided by the chairs. The
teams will contribute to the development of an ecosystem status report for the Central
Arctic Ocean with in-depth analysis in two parts for the Amerasian and Eurasian
basins and relevant information from the Atlantic and Pacific gateways. During the
coming year, both teams will initiate their assessments through the following actions:
•
contribute to development of an ecosystem status report based on literature;
•
wherever possible, link to existing and current reviews and initiatives
(AMAP, PAME, CAFF, AMSA, EBSAs, etc.);
•
identify potential modelling efforts that might be considered for inclusion
in the IEA; and
•
seek to answer key questions posed in the 2015 WKICA report.
The next meeting of WGICA is planned to be held in April or May 2017 in Seattle, USA.
2 |
1
ICES WGICA REPORT 2016
Administrative details
Working Group name: ICES/PAME Working Group on Integrated Ecosystem
Assessment for the Central Arctic Ocean (WGICA)
Year of appointment within the current cycle: 2016
Reporting year within the current cycle: 1
Chairs:
John L. Bengtson, United States of America
Hein Rune Skjoldal, Norway
Meeting venue: ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark
Meeting dates: 24-26 May 2016
Participants: 18 persons from six countries (Canada, Denmark, Finland, Norway,
Russia, United States of America). See Annex 1 for a list of WGICA meeting
participants.
ICES WGICA REPORT 2016
2
| 3
Terms of Reference
Term of Reference a – Consider approach and methodology (-ies) for doing an IEA for
the CAO (based on the outcome of the 2015 Workshop for the Integrated Ecosystem
Assessment of the Central Arctic Ocean).
Term of Reference b – Assemble data and information and carry out appropriate
statistical and other types of analyses including mathematical modelling.
Term of Reference c – Prepare an IEA outline for the current status of the CAO
ecosystem (CAO LME and adjacent slope waters including Atlantic and Pacific
inflows and relevant shelf-basin exchanges) and effects, potential effects, and
vulnerability in relation to climate variability and change and human activities such
as Arctic shipping and potential future fisheries.
Term of Reference d – Consider requirements and design of monitoring of the CAO to
meet the need for repeated IEA in the near future as well as other types of assessments
(which can be modular components of IEAs).
Term of Reference e – Identify priority research issues which, when addressed, can
improve the knowledge base for the future iterations of the IEA.
3
4
Summary of work plan
Year 1
Consider approach and methodology for IEA, start assembling of data and
information, and consider monitoring requirements
Year 2
Continue assembling of data and information and carry out analyses. Prepare an
initial and incomplete draft of IEA
Year 3
Finalize IEA report and consider monitoring requirements and priority research issues
List of outcomes and achievements of the WG in this delivery
period
WGICA’s main outcome so far was to convene the working group and to hold its
inaugural meeting. Summary overviews of the principal ecosystem components were
prepared and presented at the working group’s meeting.
Agreement was reached on the general approach for developing an integrated
ecosystem assessment of the central Arctic Ocean. Two subgroups were established to
begin undertaking this work in each of two subregions: the Amerasian Basin/Pacific
Gateway and the Eurasian Basin/Atlantic Gateway.
5
Progress report on Terms of Reference and work plan
An Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) is a core element of the Ecosystem
Approach to Management (EA). The principle of the EA was adopted by the Arctic
4 |
ICES WGICA REPORT 2016
Council in 2004 as part of the Arctic Marine Strategic Plan. A definition of EA was
adopted by the Arctic Council in 2013:
“the comprehensive integrated management of human activities based on the best available
scientific and traditional knowledge of the ecosystem and its dynamics, in order to identify and
take action on influences which are critical to the health of marine ecosystems, thereby achieving
sustainable use of ecosystem goods and services and maintenance of ecosystem integrity.”
A first step of work under the Arctic Marine Strategic Plan was to identify ecosystem
units. A working map of 17 Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) in the Arctic area was
agreed in 2006. The year after, the PAME WG established an expert group on LMEs
and the EA (EA-EG). This group was led by the USA with Norway joining as a co-lead
country in 2009. The group was broadened in 2011-2013 to become a joint expert group
with participation also by AMAP, CAFF and SDWG.
The
EA-EG
has
developed
an
EA
concept
paper
(http://www.pame.is/index.php/projects/ecosystem-approach/ea-documents-andworkshop-reports) with a framework for implementing the EA consisting of six
elements:
•
Define the ecosystem
•
Describe the ecosystem
•
Set ecological objectives
•
Assess the ecosystem (IEA)
•
Value the ecosystem
•
Manage human activities
This framework is structuring the current work on the EA by the EA-EG. The first
element – define the ecosystem – relates to the defined Arctic LMEs. Work was carried
out over several years, starting with a first EA workshop in Tromsø in January 2011, to
consider the need for revision of the working map of 17 Arctic LMEs. Consultations
with national experts were carried out and a revised map, now of 18 Arctic LMEs, was
adopted by the Arctic Council in 2013 (Figure 5.1).
ICES WGICA REPORT 2016
| 5
Figure 5.1. Map of 18 Large Marine Ecosystems (LME) in the Arctic as adopted by the Arctic Council
in 2013. The Central Arctic Ocean (CAO) LME is defined as the deep basins with their specific
habitats and biota. Characteristics of this system include strongly stratified water columns,
seasonal and multi-annual sea ice, and overall low primary and secondary production with very
strong seasonality between winter darkness and a short summer season. The slope regions are
included as part of the adjacent shelf LMEs (e.g. Barents, Kara, Laptev). This is also the case for the
Chukchi Borderland region which is included as part of the northern Bering-Chukchi LME. The
Beaufort Sea LME includes the southern part of the Canadian Basin (south of 76°N). The boundaries
of the CAO LME do not follow political boundaries. The CAO LME includes parts of the Exclusive
Economic Zones (EEZs) of Canada, Denmark/Greenland, Norway, and Russia.
Term of Reference a: Approaches and methodologies to integrated
ecosystem assessments
Several groups have conducted integrated ecosystem assessments that may be relevant
to WGICA’s assessment of the Central Arctic Ocean. The approaches and
methodologies used by these groups were reviewed.
ICES Working Groups for integrated ecosystem assessments of the Barents Sea (WGIBAR) and the
Norwegian Sea (WGINOR)
The International Council for Exploration of the Sea (ICES) puts emphasis on ecosystems
in their current Strategic Plan and has established a number of regional working
groups for doing Integrated Ecosystem Assessments. Two of these groups are
WGINOR and WGIBAR that were established in 2013 and 2014 for the Norwegian Sea
and Barents Sea ecosystems, respectively. Both groups have met three times and
produced reports that are available at the ICES webpage (http://www.ices.dk/exploreus/who-we-are/pages/expert-groups.aspx). WGINOR and WGIBAR have taken a
similar approach and scope to doing IEA for the two LMEs. The scope has been to focus
on the influence of climate variability and change on the (mostly) pelagic part of the
ecosystems and on interactions with fisheries. The approach has been to assemble time-
6 |
ICES WGICA REPORT 2016
series of oceanography, plankton, and fish stock information and provide a
multivariate description and analysis of the variability and changes in the two
ecosystems. Information on seabirds, marine mammals, benthos, fishing activities, and
catches has also been included in some of the work. Much of the data come from joint
surveys in the Barents and Norwegian Seas and are presented both with spatial
information (e.g. distribution maps from the surveys) as well as spatially aggregated
(e.g. fish stocks, mean zooplankton biomass) as annual time-series for the ecosystems.
Integrated trend plots of all the time-series variables (represented as anomalies) are
used to visually show temporal patterns of change, which are further explored by
multivariate analyses (MVA), notably Principle Component Analysis. The purpose is
to understand the current situation in the ecosystem with focus on the most recent year,
e.g. 2015 in the two most recent reports by WGINOR and WGIBAR. Use of time-series
and MVA help inform interannual and decadal perspectives, which again may help us
to better understand the current situation and likely short-term developments in the
ecosystems.
ICES Working Group on the Northwest Atlantic Regional Sea (WGNARS)
The overarching objective of WGNARS is to develop Integrated Ecosystem Assessment
(IEA) capacity in the Northwest Atlantic region: specifically for the Grand Banks area,
off the coast of Newfoundland, Canada; and the Gulf of Maine and Georges Banks
areas, off the coast of the United States. All study areas under consideration benefit
from well-developed ocean observation systems, marine ecosystem surveys, and
habitat studies of various types. WGNARS aimed to organize existing information
types and sources and effectively synthesize and analyse these in the context of
linkages between key ecosystem components, as well as the influence of specific
environmental drivers and/or human pressures. The general approach of WGNARS
was
to
develop
operational
objectives
from
relevant
management
priorities/regulations; develop conceptual models based of interest to management,
including time-series indicators; and compare the effectiveness of management
strategies evaluated by various software packages (Mental Modeler, Qpress, Loop
Analyst). The WGNARS group learned that scopes of interest can change over the
period of the working group; ‘simple’ definition of the ecosystem may be considered
operationally more effective than ‘comprehensive’ for evaluation purposes in some
cases; ‘weights’ of interaction values may vary when based on expert opinion; and
expert participation is vital to IEA process inputs.
Integrated Ecosystem Assessments by NOAA Fisheries (USA)
The type and scope of activities integrated in NOAA Fisheries IEA is broad,
encompassing the full range of actions necessary to implement the ecosystem approach
to management (EA), which includes Ecosystem Based Fishery Management (EBFM).
The implementation of NOAA’s EBFM is seen as a series of increasingly
comprehensive syntheses and quantitative analyses. NOAA’s IEA is “a synthesis and
quantitative analysis of information on relevant physical, chemical, ecological, and
human processes in relation to specified management objectives.” The relevance of the
NOAA IEA to WGICA is twofold. The scope of the NOAA IEA is very broad including
not only physics and biology, but the entire range of human activities concerned with
EA. What is the scope IEA as conducted by WGICA? Second, perhaps the most important
products of the NOAA IEA is the Ecosystem Status Report which is a document that
demonstrates the extent of the current information on physical, chemical, ecological,
ICES WGICA REPORT 2016
| 7
and human processes supporting the syntheses and quantitative analyses for a specific
ecosystem, such as the California Current. What is the form and content of the products of
the IEA on the central Arctic Ocean?
Workshop on Integrated Ecosystem Assessment for the Central Arctic Ocean (WKICA)
This workshop was held in Bergen, Norway, in May 2015. It was sponsored jointly by
ICES and Arctic Council working groups AMAP, CAFF, and PAME and the joint
Ecosystem Approach Expert Group (EAEG). The workshop considered the potential
for an integrated ecosystem assessment in the central Arctic Ocean. The workshop
concluded that the purpose of an IEA for the central Arctic Ocean was seen as twofold:
1) provide a holistic and integrated view on the status, trends and pressures, and 2)
contribute to implementation of the EA to management of the central Arctic Ocean.
Regarding the review of data and information that could be used for an IEA, the
meeting noted findings from an Inventory of Arctic Research and Monitoring resulting
from the Third Meeting of Scientific Experts on Fish Stocks in the Central Arctic Ocean
in April 2015.
The geographical scope of an IEA should include the Central Arctic Ocean LME and
the slope regions of the adjacent shelf LMEs and also shelf portions where relevant.
The fluxes and properties of water through the Atlantic and Pacific gateways need also
to be taken into account when addressing physical and biological variability of the
basins of the Arctic Ocean. The thematic scope of an IEA should include three main
pressures or human activities: climate change, shipping and fisheries. WKICA agreed
that it would be worthwhile and good if ICES established a working group on IEA for
the central Arctic Ocean (WGICA) jointly in collaboration with Arctic Council working
groups. It was suggested that the new group should consider the approach and
methodologies for doing an IEA the first year as well as starting to assemble data and
information building from the Inventory of Arctic Research and Monitoring.
Conducting the IEA could then be done over the next two years including integrated
data analyses across datasets and preparing the IEA report. WGICA was established
by ICES and initially PAME among the Arctic Council working groups as
recommended by WKICA.
Participants at the WGICA May 2016 meeting agreed that the WKICA report set out a
very useful framework for undertaking an IEA for the Central Arctic Ocean.
Components for such an assessment should include:
ECOSYSTEM
COMPONENTS
productivity/plankton
sea ice biota
benthos
fish
seabirds
Marine mammals
V ULNERABILITIES / DRIVERS / IMPACT
INDUCING ANTHROPOGENIC ACTIVITIES
fishing
shipping
oil and gas
warming
acidification
pollution
WGICA does not have to deal with all components in isolation. CAFF, CBMP, AMAP,
and other groups are already assessing various parts of the ecosystem. WGICA should
seek opportunities to link up with those efforts wherever possible.
8 |
ICES WGICA REPORT 2016
Term of Reference b: Data, information and analyses
Arctic Fish stocks and fisheries process (Mundy)
The Arctic Coastal States (Norway, the Russian Federation, the United States of
America, Canada, and the Kingdom of Denmark) convened the Third Scientific
Meeting on Arctic Fish Stocks in 2015. The meeting’s purpose was to identify ongoing
Arctic research and monitoring activities, and to continue the process of developing
the scientific information necessary to support the development of an international
agreement on fishing in the Arctic in areas outside the territorial waters of the five
Arctic coastal states. The terms of reference for the third meeting were the result of
discussions among the Arctic coastal states in 2014. The 2014 meeting reaffirmed that,
although commercial fishing in the high seas area of the central Arctic Ocean appears
unlikely to occur in the near future, the state of currently available scientific
information needs to be improved in order to reduce the substantial uncertainties
associated with Arctic fish stocks. The Arctic coastal states plus four cooperating
nations (the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, Japan, and Iceland) and
the European Union have called for a Fourth Meeting of Scientific Experts on Arctic
Fish Stocks in the central Arctic Ocean to be convened in advance of further
negotiations on matters related to potential commercial fishing in the Central Arctic
Ocean. Good coordination between WGICA and the Fourth Meeting of Scientific
Experts on Arctic Fish Stocks in the central Arctic Ocean is essential. It was agreed that
Randi Ingvaldsen and Phil Mundy are assigned as a subcommittee of WGICA to
facilitate cooperation and coordination between the two groups.
Norwegian oceanographic and biological sampling (Ingvaldsen)
The Institute of Marine Research has surveys to the area north of Svalbard during the
SI_ARCTIC project. Surveys have been conducted in 2014 and 2015, and will be
conducted in 2016 and 2017. During the survey, all parts of the marine ecosystem
including physical, chemical, and biological oceanography (temperature, salinity,
currents, fluorescence, oxygen, nutrients, and chlorophyll) were sampled. Biological
sampling included phytoplankton and zooplankton (species abundance and biomass),
fish (species abundance, biomass, age, and stomach samples), and benthic organisms
(species abundance and biomass). Underway acoustic registration of fish and plankton
(echosounder) and ocean currents (ADCP), as well as underway measurements of
surface layer temperature, meteorology and sea state, and visual observations of
marine mammals and seabirds were also conducted.
The Pacific Arctic Group (PAG) and Distributed Biological Observatory (DBO) (Grebmeier)
Pacific Arctic Group is an international group of organizations and individuals having
a Pacific perspective on the Arctic science region to investigate climate, oceanography,
air-sea ice interactions, and modelling. Countries participating in PAG include those
sampling regularly in the Pacific Arctic region, specifically Canada, China, Korea,
Japan, Russia, and the United States. PAG serves as a Pacific Arctic regional
partnership to plan, coordinate and collaborate on science activities of mutual interest.
Two meetings per year allow members to share information on annual field activities
and subsequent results. PAG collaborators develop an annual cruise table of PAGrelated field programs. Cruises by Canada, China, Korea, Japan, Russia, and the USA
are identified by dates, ship name, DBO region, project title, PAG contact, and the Chief
Scientist information. PAG has successfully developed and implemented long-term
monitoring activities, such as the Distributed Biological Observatory (DBO) and the
ICES WGICA REPORT 2016
| 9
developing Pacific Arctic Climate Ecosystem Observatory (PACEO). In addition, PAG
undertakes Pacific Arctic regional, multidisciplinary syntheses of scientific findings in
the marine region relevant to ongoing scientific objectives at the core of the PAG.
Further information on PAG activities is available at: http://pag.arcticportal.org/.
Arctic marine ecosystems are undergoing significant changes due to rapid sea ice loss
and seawater warming, particularly on the inflow shelves in the Pacific Arctic region.
Key processes that are shifting in phenology include seasonal sea ice formation and
retreat over a latitudinal range, advection of nutrient-rich Pacific water across the
shelves into the Arctic Basin, lower trophic production, and pelagic-benthic coupling
on the broad continental shelves that connect lower trophic organisms to upper trophic
level resource use. Since 2010, PAG has endorsed the Distributed Biological
Observatory (DBO) that is focused on ship-based research in the northern Bering and
Chukchi Seas. The PAG established the DBO as the organizing framework for research
that consists of standard stations and transect lines for consistent sampling of select
physical, chemical, and biological measurements as a “change detection array” along
a latitudinal gradient extending from the northern Bering Sea to the northern Chukchi
Sea and now eastward into the Beaufort Sea. DBO sampling is focused on regional
locations of high productivity, biodiversity, and rates of biological change. Annual
research cruises networked by PAG members through national support include
collection of standardized sampling ranging from physical to biochemical data,
including biological measurements across the main trophic levels to document
biodiversity and biomass, to satellite observations and mooring arrays. As such, the
DBO collects and evaluates key information to allow ecosystem approaches to
management in both regional and ideally to pan-Arctic ecosystems. Further
information on the DBO project and associated research products can be found at the
following website http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/dbo.
Canadian Arctic Research (Hedges)
Recent Canadian Arctic research and monitoring activities include studies on
oceanography, primary productivity, a survey of marine fish, coastal research, and
monitoring in the Beaufort Sea, multispecies surveys in offshore and inshore waters of
Baffin Bay and Davis Strait, surveys of benthic biodiversity, and aquatic invasive
species monitoring. Several synthesis and integration projects are also underway,
specifically of marine fish distributions, diversity and habitat associations in the
Beaufort Sea, near-publication of the Marine Fishes of Arctic Canada (a guide to
taxonomy and species distributions), and summaries of fish and benthos in the central
Arctic Ocean. The ArcticNet program (http://www.arcticnet.ulaval.ca/index.php) also
provides funding for a wide range of projects in Arctic Canada. Lists of currently
funded and previously funded projects that span many levels of marine ecosystems
can be found on the ArcticNet website. Canadians will hold a meeting in August 2016,
including DFO, Coast Guard, and Polar Knowledge Canada (former high Arctic
research station), to draft a research plan in September 2016 (two vessels, icebreaker,
glider, multinational United States, Canada, Russia in the Pacific gateway area for
2018–2019).
Term of Reference c: IEA outline – review status of IEA components
Oceanography in the inflow region of Atlantic water in Nansen Basin (Ingvaldsen)
The Atlantic inflow is the main oceanic heat flow to the Arctic Ocean. This flow occurs
in two branches: one across the Barents Sea and one to the west and north of Svalbard.
10 |
ICES WGICA REPORT 2016
Somewhere north and east of Svalbard the Atlantic Water (AW) subducts below the
colder, fresher and lighter meltwater thus becoming a subsurface flow in the Arctic
Ocean. AW follows the edges and ridges in the Arctic Ocean influencing all basins but
at different depths. Downstream from the Svalbard region the AW is isolated from the
surface and sea ice because of the cold halocline. In a vertical view the Arctic Ocean
can be viewed as a stack of water layers with strong density gradients between the
layers; thus with a strong stratification preventing vertical mixing. Over the last three
decades, the AW temperature in the inflow region has increased by at least 1oC and the
sea ice cover decreased substantially in both summer and winter. Due to the strong
stratification, primary production in the Arctic Ocean is strongly affected by nutrient
limitation. In the Nansen Basin, at least two processes are important for vertical supply
of nutrients. Enhanced mixing during winter (convection and wind mixing) might be
expected associated with the recent reductions in winter sea ice cover. In addition, the
vertical supply of heat and nutrients might be enhanced by wind induced upwelling
along the sea ice edge/shelf break. Both processes might increase primary production
in the Nansen Basin.
Circulation and water masses of the Arctic Ocean: recent changes (Ivanov)
Significant changes in thermohaline conditions of the upper Arctic Ocean (from the
ocean surface to Atlantic Water layer) were triggered by the rapid decay of summer ice
cover and other factors in the 2000s. Main oceanic changes include:
•
Salinity change in the upper layer, which is non-uniform around the Arctic
Ocean: strong freshening in the Canada Basin (Beaufort gyre) and moderate
salination in the Eurasian sector.
•
Strong and relatively deep warming over the areas with strongest decay of
sea ice in summer.
•
Warming of Atlantic water inflow over the entire basin. Shoaling of the
upper boundary of AW layer.
The strongest warming (up to 3–4°C above the freezing point) was observed in waters
that remained ice-free for the longest periods of time. Long-term current
measurements at an array of six moorings clustered along a meridional transect in the
Laptev Sea are being carried out as the part of the long-term NABOS project
(http://nabos.iarc.uaf.edu/). Two branches of AW vigorously interact on their eastward
motion from St. Anna Trough towards the Lomonosov Ridge.
Sea ice biota of the Central Arctic Ocean (Melnikov)
There are two Arctic sea ice ecological systems that coexist: multiyear and seasonal ice
ecosystems. Due to the remarkable decreasing of the first and the simultaneous
increasing of the second, one can expect future changes in the biodiversity and primary
productivity of the Arctic Ocean. An important research focus should be to identify
changes in biodiversity of Arctic sea ice ecosystems. Understanding the causes of these
changes should include a search for new approaches to investigating current and
future conditions in the changing environment. Results of future studies of “what,
when, and where” sea ice ecosystems are changing can be compared to four decades
of observations of the sea ice biota in the central Arctic Basin.
Sea ice biota in the Arctic Ocean: diversity and production (Hop)
The sea‐ice related foodweb and biodiversity are critical components of the Arctic
marine ecosystem. Higher trophic levels are directly or indirectly supported by over
ICES WGICA REPORT 2016
| 11
2000 species of small algae and animals that are associated with sea ice, but often
inconspicuous to the naked eye. These species inhabit a wide range of microhabitats
inside the brine channel system, on top of the ice in melt ponds and immediately
underneath the ice at the ice‐water boundary, including extensive pressure ridges. The
spatial distribution of sea ice biota is shaped by dynamic properties of the sea ice. Based
on the ongoing sea ice decline, we can expect shifts in ice‐associated biota composition,
abundance, biomass, and the timing of the seasonal development (referred to as
phenology). Without sufficient monitoring, such changes will be difficult to detect until
effects are dramatic or detected in other parts of the ecosystem due to the coupled
processes between sea ice, water column and benthic biota. Most of the data on sea ice
biota have resulted from research projects conducted in drift ice and landfast sea ice.
As part of the work in the Sea Ice Biota Expert Network of the Circumpolar Biodiversity
Monitoring Program (CBMP), data from published and unpublished sources have
been assembled around the Arctic for microbes, eukaryotes (diatoms, flagellates, and
heterotrophs), meiofauna, and macrofauna. Datasets for these different taxonomic
levels will be presented as composite figures in CBMP’s State of the Arctic Marine
Biodiversity Report (SAMBR).
Shelf-Basin Interactions in the Pacific Arctic Ocean (Grebmeier)
The Arctic Ocean is undergoing rapid sea ice retreat and seawater warming,
particularly on the inflow shelves influenced by exchange with the Pacific and Atlantic
oceans. The northern regions of the Pacific Arctic shelf seas and deeper into the Arctic
Basin are becoming accessible during the late summer and fall months with earlier sea
ice retreat, atmospheric changes, and northward advection of warming Pacific water
into the region. The seasonal opening of areas can change primary production with
increasing solar radiation and light penetration in surface waters, particularly having
an impact on primary production in the marginal ice zone, although regionally limited
by stratification and nutrient availability. Unknown consequences may occur for
carbon cycling and the biodiversity of zooplankton and benthic organisms. There are
only a few studies on high Arctic foodwebs and the impacts are relatively unknown,
including the fate of export fluxes over the slope into the deep Arctic Ocean. While
northward migrations of Subarctic species are starting to be observed into the Arctic,
the Arctic Basin and Central Arctic Ocean (CAO) are poorly studied compared to shelf
ecosystems, particularly for trophic level studies of predator–prey connections that
would help promote understanding of population structure for resource management.
The question of whether the ecosystem will support the northward migration of
commercial fisheries into the CAO or whether the CAO can sustain fish populations
over the winter is of interest to both Arctic and non-Arctic nations. There is a need for
ecosystem-based, multidisciplinary studies to understand the connection of the Arctic
shelves-to basin and the CAO itself.
Primary production and zooplankton biomass (Skjoldal)
Growth of phytoplankton (and ice algae) in the central Arctic Ocean is limited by light
and nutrients. The high latitude location associated with short summer season, low sun
angle, presence of sea ice, and high prevalence of fog and clouds are factors limiting
the amount of light coming down in the water column. The high degree of stratification
due to ice melt and large input of freshwater from rivers create strongly stratified
conditions in the water column, which result in low input, and concentrations of
inorganic nutrients (nitrate, phosphate, silicate). The low light and nutrient conditions
limit the rate of primary production in the central Arctic Ocean. There is a scarcity of
direct measurements of rates of primary production in the central Arctic Ocean.
12 |
ICES WGICA REPORT 2016
Nevertheless, the existing data from various sources reported in the literature converge
to suggest a low annual average of 10–20 g C m-2 for the central Arctic Ocean, with low
rates (< 5 g C m-2) in areas with heavy ice and in the ultra-oligotrophic Beaufort Gyre
and somewhat higher rates (> 20 g C m-2) in the peripheral slope waters with seasonal
ice cover. The level of primary production (per unit area, and by phytoplankton and
ice algae combined) in the central Arctic Ocean is about one order of magnitude lower
than in adjacent Subarctic seas such as the Nordic Seas and the Bering Sea.
The zooplankton species of the central Arctic Ocean are fairly well known in general
terms (species composition, vertical and horizontal distribution, and abundance and
biomass) from a series of investigations from ice drift stations and research icebreakers. The amount of zooplankton decreases by three orders of magnitude from the
surface layer to the deep depths of the basins of the Arctic Ocean. The depth-integrated
biomass of zooplankton in the epi- and mesopelagic layer (0–1000 m) is typically in the
range 1–10 g dry weight m-2. The highest biomass is found in a belt along the slopes on
the Eurasian side from north of Svalbard to the Chukchi Borderland region with typical
values of 3–6 g dw m-2. The biomass is about 2–3 g dw m-2 in the central part (North
Pole region) of the Arctic Ocean. By comparison, zooplankton biomass is typically 10–
20 g dw m-2 in the Norwegian Sea and 5–10 g dw m-2 in the Barents Sea.
Fish at the Atlantic gateway to the Central Arctic Ocean (Gjøsæter)
The main Atlantic gateway to the CAO, as far as water transport is concerned, is the
deep Fram Strait. The northern Norwegian Sea, the Greenland Sea, and the Barents Sea
may serve as gateways for fish moving northwards towards the CAO. For instance, the
Barents Sea currently has about 200 fish species from 66 families, and many of those
are moving north affected by ocean warming. In recent years, two fish atlases were
prepared (listing all sampled fish species including distribution maps) based on an
autumn ecosystem survey, and a winter groundfish survey, covering 111 and 87 fish
species respectively. A third fish atlas covering about 60 species also includes scenarios
for future distribution given various climate scenarios. These atlases can be found at:
http://www.imr.no/filarkiv/2011/09/atlas_august_2011_press_quality_til_web.pdf/nbno
http://www.imr.no/filarkiv/2013/07/imr-pinro_2-2013_winteratlas.pdf/nb-no
http://www.imr.no/filarkiv/2014/05/fh_4-2014_barecore_til_web.pdf/nb-no
There are relatively few commercial fish species in the Atlantic gateway area – of which
about eight are demersal, four pelagic, and four semi-pelagic.
Fish in the Canadian Beaufort Sea and the Canada Basin (Hedges)
The Beaufort Regional Environmental Assessment (BREA) Marine Fishes Project built
on limited past fish projects in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. The program conducted a
comprehensive survey of deep waters (20–1500 m) in the southern Canadian Beaufort
Sea to develop an understanding of the diversity and distribution of marine fish,
habitats, and ecosystem processes. The program results provided a baseline for
detecting and responding to changes in the ecosystem in relation to anthropogenic
developments in the region. Surveys were conducted in 2012, 2013, and 2014, with each
survey lasting 5–6 weeks. Marine fish were sampled using hydroacoustics and fishing
nets. Plankton nets, boxcores, a beam trawl and a CTD-rosette were used to sample
supporting trophic levels. The BREA program added at least 689 new records of marine
fish in the Beaufort Sea, including 16 new species, eight new genera and two new
ICES WGICA REPORT 2016
| 13
families. The majority of fish species were primarily benthic, with only a few pelagic
and cryopelagic species encountered.
Marine mammals in the Pacific Arctic (Bengtson)
Four species of ice-associated seals, spotted (Phoca largha), ribbon (Histriophoca fasciata),
ringed (Phoca hispida), and bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus), inhabit the Bering,
Chukchi, and Beaufort seas of the Arctic Pacific Gateway. Collectively, they are known
as ice-associated seals. Despite the fact that these seals are vital resources for many
coastal communities, as well as key ecological components of Arctic marine
ecosystems, relatively little is known of the seals' population status, stock structure,
trends in abundance, life history, seasonal movements, diving behaviour, diet or
harvest rates. Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) are also widely distributed in sea ice
areas of the Arctic Pacific Gateway. Walrus feed on benthic prey, so they are mostly
restricted to areas over the continental shelf. Ice-associated seals and walrus are highly
dependent on suitable sea ice condition and distribution, and therefore may be
particularly vulnerable to climatic change, offshore oil development, or other
environmental impacts that could alter their habitat. Cetacean species in the Pacific
Arctic include bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) and beluga whales (Delphinapterus
leucas). Both species are highly migratory, with bowhead whales remaining closely
associated with sea ice during most of the year. Beluga whales are frequently found in
continental shelf areas but are also known to range into deep water over the Canada
Basin. At present, there has been no assessment of the specific size or trend of the polar
bear (Ursus maritimus) subpopulation in the Arctic Basin. This area supports relatively
low densities of polar bears year-round, although animals from the subpopulations
around the polar basin use the Arctic Basin area seasonally (e.g. during the summer
minimum sea-ice extent). In recent years, there have been several studies with
circumpolar inference, including the Arctic Basin and what is referred to as the “Last
Ice Area,” the ecologically important region in northern Canada and Greenland that is
expected to retain summer sea ice well into the 21st Century and may serve as a
refugium for polar bears.
Marine mammals in the Atlantic Arctic (Frie)
Based on records from the Norwegian sightings database going back to 1980, the list of
marine mammal species observed north of 80°N between East Greenland and Franz
Joseph Land, comprise 12 whale species, five pinniped species, and polar bears.
Narwhals, belugas, bowheads, ringed seals, and bearded seals are ice-associated yearround. Harp and hooded seals breed and molt on ice and harp seals generally also feed
close to the ice edge through the rest of the year, mainly on krill, amphipods, and small
pelagic fish. Telemetry data on polar bears from the Barents Sea show a strong
affiliation with the edge of sea ice, where the bears are feeding on seals, mainly ringed
seals. The number of observations of the critically endangered Spitsbergen bowhead
population has increased over the past decades. A survey off NE Greenland in 2009
indicated a population of at least 100 individuals and probably more taking into
account bowheads around Svalbard and Franz Joseph Land. It has been suggested that
retraction of the sea ice has increased the production of lipid rich copepods, which are
likely the main prey of the Spitsbergen bowhead population. Also many balaenopterid
(“rorqual”) whale species are increasingly observed to the north of Svalbard. Narwhals
have been observed farther into the Arctic Ocean than any other species in the
Norwegian marine mammal sighting database. Telemetry data on two narwhals in NE
Greenland showed a high preference for slope areas with Greenland halibut, which is
also their preferred prey in the Baffin Bay area. Walruses in the Svalbard-Franz Joseph
14 |
ICES WGICA REPORT 2016
Land area use both sea ice and land as haul-outs. Male walruses in particular may
move far into the ice, also into the Arctic Ocean.
Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs) (von Quillfeldt)
The Convention on Biological Diversity has facilitated the description of ecologically
or biologically significant marine areas (EBSAs) using the best available scientific and
technical information and integrating the traditional, scientific, and technological
knowledge of indigenous and local communities. In the Arctic, two areas beyond
national jurisdiction have met the EBSA criteria: the marginal ice zone and the seasonal
ice cover over the deep Arctic Ocean (Area no. 1) and the multiyear ice of the Central
Arctic Ocean (Area no. 2). Area no. 1 focused in particular on production and lower
trophic level communities, fish, birds, and mammals (ringed seal, polar bear, narwhal,
beluga, bowhead whale) and the consequences of changes in sea ice condition, primary
production, timing and duration of ice edge bloom, nutrient replenishment and species
composition. Area no. 2 focused in particular on the physical qualities of the sea ice,
the primary production, and lower trophic levels (autotrophic and heterotrophic
communities), fish (Boreogadus saida, Arctogadus glacialis), and the polar bear and
consequences of changes in production and possible ecosystem effects.
Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (Skjoldal)
An Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA) was carried out by PAME using Arctic
LMEs as geographical entities for compiling and evaluating information in AMSA
http://pame.is/images/03_Projects/AMSA/AMSA_2009_report/AMSA_2009_Report_2
nd_print.pdf). Recommendation AMSA IIC called for Arctic states to identify areas of
heightened ecological and cultural importance in the Arctic, with the aim to consider
protective measures against impacts from Arctic marine shipping. This was done in a
project (the so-called AMSA IIC project) by AMAP, CAFF and SDWG with a report
where about 100 areas were identified as being of heightened ecological significance.
AMSA recommendation IID concerned specially designated Arctic marine areas, and
states were asked to explore the need for internationally designated areas for the
purpose of environmental protection in regions of the Arctic Ocean.
In following up AMSA IID, PAME agreed to limit this work to international waters (i.e.
high seas) in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The AMSA IIC report identified the
whole CAO LME as an area of heightened ecological significance but noticed that the
area was not homogenous and that not every area within it is of equal ecological
significance. The report noted the special importance of sea ice amphipods and other
sea ice biota, and the use of the peripheral areas of the pack ice of the CAO by polar
bears from several subpopulations and by most of the global populations of ivory gull
and Ross’s gull in the post-breeding period in late summer and autumn.
Term of Reference d: Existing and planned monitoring programs
Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) (Larsen)
The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) focuses on climate
change, contaminants, radioactivity, and their effects. Ongoing AMAP marine
assessment work includes the AMAP Trends and Effects Monitoring Programme, the
Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic, the Arctic Ocean Acidification, and the
SWIPA (Snow, Water, Ice, and Permafrost in the Arctic) Update. The Norwegian
Institute for Air Research is the AMAP data centre for atmospheric contaminants and
ICES is the data centre for marine contaminants. AMAP is currently involved in
ICES WGICA REPORT 2016
| 15
WGICA at the Secretariat level. The AMAP WG is currently defining the work plan for
2017–2019 and is considering further involvement in WGICA work. WGICA members
are encouraged to contact national AMAP WG members to discuss with them further
AMAP involvement.
Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks (SAON) (Larsen)
The activities of the Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks (SAON) were reviewed,
with specific emphasis on the Arctic Data Committee. The most interesting of SAON’s
work for WGICA would most likely be “Mapping the Arctic Ocean Fisheries Data
Ecosystem: using network science and linked data to enhance data access.” Also
relevant to WGICA is SAON’s Committee on Observations and Networks efforts to
establish inventories of Arctic observational assets: networks, platforms, programs,
and projects.
Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) (von Quillefeldt)
CAFF has many initiatives and products that are directly relevant to an integrated
ecosystem assessment in the Central Arctic Ocean:
•
Assessments, monitoring, Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program
(CBMP)
•
State of the Arctic Marine Biodiversity Report (SAMBR), scheduled for
delivery in 2017
•
Arctic Alien Invasive Species Strategy and Action Plan (ARIAS)
•
Marine Protected Indicator report
•
Arctic Biodiversity Data Service
•
Actions for Arctic Biodiversity (2013–2021)
•
Life Linked to Ice report
Scientific Meetings on Arctic Fish Stocks (Mundy)
The experts participating in the recent series of Scientific Meetings on Arctic Fish Stocks
(as described above) share many common goals with WGICA. Both groups are
considering how best to approach monitoring and a long-term scientific research
program for fish stocks and their associated ecosystems in the central Arctic Ocean.
Continued coordination and cooperation between these two groups is viewed as
essential.
6
Revisions to the work plan and justification
The current WGICA work plan was deemed appropriate, so no changes were made.
Two assessment teams were established to initiate work on the development of
integrated assessments on a subregional basis:
•
Amerasian Basin/Pacific gateway team, and
•
Eurasian Basin/Atlantic gateway team.
An advantage to approaching the initial assessments by geographic subarea is that it
will be easier to incorporate relevant information from each of the two basin
areas/gateways and to integrate the various ecosystem components from the outset.
The two groups will be established by enlisting disciplinary experts for each area.
16 |
ICES WGICA REPORT 2016
Jackie Grebmeier agreed to lead the Amerasian Basin/Pacific Gateway team. Randi
Ingvaldsen and Harald Gjøsæter have agreed to co-lead the Eurasian Basin/Atlantic
Gateway team. Team leads should assemble their teams from among the current
WGICA membership and additional disciplinary experts as needed. Team leads are
asked to identify new team members as necessary, and communicate this to the
WGICA chairs, who will then appoint those experts as new WGICA members.
The two teams will work in close contact with coordination provided by the two cochairs. The team leads will draw up a plan of work by the end of August in
consultations with the team members and the co-chairs. As a start, team members
should read the available review papers from the literature and provide review
paragraphs.
During the coming year, both teams are to initiate their assessments within the
following guidelines:
1) Contribute to the development of an ecosystem status report for the two main
basins of the Central Arctic Ocean based on literature. This should include
information from the gateways (e.g. fluxes and properties of Atlantic and
Pacific waters, import and expatriation of zooplankton) which is relevant to
understand the properties and changes in the basins. The status report (with
sections on the Amerasian and Eurasian Basins) should contain information on:
a) Abundance and trends of biota,
b) Seasonal distribution of biota (including recent changes and future
projections),
c)
Biologically important and sensitive areas,
d) Spatial and temporal aspects of ecosystem features, and
e) The following topics:
1) Climate and oceanography
2) Sea ice biota, plankton, benthos
3) Fish and fish stocks
4) Marine mammals and seabirds
5) Descriptions of vulnerabilities to potential impacts from climate
change, shipping, potential fishing, and other anthropogenic activities;
2) Wherever possible, link to existing and current reviews and initiatives (AMAP,
PAME, CAFF, AMSA, EBSAs, etc.);
3) Identify potential modelling efforts that might be considered for inclusion in
the IEA; and
4) Seek to answer key questions posed in the 2015 WKICA report (plus relevant
questions for topics not previously identified (such as for sea ice biota).
7
Next meeting
The next meeting of WGICA is planned to be held in April or May 2017 in Seattle, USA
ICES WGICA REPORT 2016
| 17
Annex 1. WGICA List of participants
N AME
John Bengtson,
Co-Chair
A DDRESS
Alaska Fisheries Science Center,
NOAA Fisheries
E- MAIL
[email protected]
7600 Sand Point Way N.E.,
Seattle, WA 98115 USA
Karen Edelvang
Danmarks Tekniske Univ.,
Institut for Akvatiske Res.,
Jaegersborg Alle 1, Bygning
Baghuset, Rum, 2920
Charlottenlund, Denmark
[email protected]
Anne Kirstine Frie
Institute of Marine Research,
Tromso Branch, 9294 Tromso,
Norway
[email protected]
Harald Gjøsæter
Institute of Marine Research, PO
Box 1870 Nordnes, N-5817
Bergen, Norway
[email protected]
Jacqueline
Grebmeier
Chesapeake Biological
Laboratory, Univ. of Maryland
Center for Environmental
Science, 146 Williams St.,
Solomons, MD 20688 USA
[email protected]
Kevin Hedges
Department of Fisheries and
Oceans
[email protected]
501 University Crescent,
Winnipeg MB MB R3T 2N6
Canada
Håkon Hop
Norwegian Polar Institute
[email protected]
Polarmiljøsenteret
9296 Tromsø
Norway
Randi Ingvaldsen
Institute of Marine Research, PO
Box 1870 Nordnes, N-5817
Bergen, Norway
[email protected]
Vladimir Ivanov
Arctic and Antarctic Research
Institute
[email protected]
38 Bering Street
St Petersburg 199397
Russian Federation
Harri Kuosa
Erik Palmenin aukio 1, PO Box
140, Fl-00251, Helsinki, Finland
[email protected]
Jan Rene Larsen
Arctic Monitoring and
Assessment Programme
[email protected]
Gaustadalléen 21
N-0349 Oslo
Norway
Igor Melnikov
P.P. Shirshov Institute of
Oceanology
36 Nakhimovsky Prospekt
Moscow 117851
Russian Federation
[email protected]
18 |
ICES WGICA REPORT 2016
Phil Mundy
Alaska Fisheries Science Center,
NOAA Fisheries, 17109 Lena
Loop Road, Juneau, AK 99801
USA
[email protected]
Cecilie von
Quillefeldt
Norwegian Polar Insitute
[email protected]
Polarmiljøsenteret
9296 Tromsø
Norway
Hein Rune Skjoldal,
Co-Chair
Lisa Speer
Institute of Marine Research, PO
Box 1870 Nordnes, N-5817
Bergen, Norway
[email protected]
Natural Resource Defence
Council
[email protected]
40 West 20th Street
New York, NY 10011
United States
Todd Stevenson
Circumpolar Conservation
Union, Ocean Conservancy, 111
SW Columbia St., Suite 200,
Portland, OR 97201 USA
[email protected]
Nadine Templeman
Bedford Institute of
Oceanography
[email protected]
1 Challenger Drive
Dartmouth NS B2Y 4A2
Canada