4.3 Review

Identifying key marine habitat sites for seabirds and sea ducks in the Canadian Arctic

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS
Volume 27, Issue 2, Pages 215-240

Publisher

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/er-2018-0067

Keywords

marine; foraging radius; Canadian Arctic; seabird; marine spatial planning

Funding

  1. Environment and Climate Change Canada
  2. Canada Research Chairs Program
  3. Fulbright Canada
  4. Acadia University
  5. Natural Resource Canada (Polar Continental Shelf Program)
  6. Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (Northern Contaminants Program, Northern Scientific Training Program)
  7. Nunavut General Monitoring Program
  8. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
  9. Nasivvik Program
  10. PEW Charitable Trusts
  11. Nunavut Wildlife Management Board
  12. Mitacs
  13. Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies
  14. W. Garfield Weston Foundation
  15. ArcticNet
  16. Polar Knowledge Canada

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Canadian Arctic hosts millions of marine birds annually, many of which aggregate in large numbers at well-defined sites at predictable times of the year. Marine habitats in this region will be under increasing threats from anthropogenic activities, largely facilitated by climate change and long-term trends of reduced sea ice extent and thickness. In this review, we update previous efforts to delineate the most important habitats for marine birds in Arctic Canada, using the most current population estimates for Canada, as well as recent information from shipboard surveys and telemetry studies. We identify 349 160 km(2) of key habitat, more than doubling earlier suggestions for key habitat extent. As of 2018, 1% of these habitats fall within the boundaries of legislated protected areas. New marine conservation areas currently being finalized in the Canadian Arctic will only increase the proportion protected to 13%.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available