Dear MARMAM community,

My co-authors and I are pleased to share our recent publication in the
Journal of Wildlife Management:

Smith, M. E. K., L. Horstmann, and R. Stimmelmayr. 2022. Stable
isotope differences of polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea and
Chukchi Sea. Journal of Wildlife Management. 86(3): e22225.
http://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22225

Abstract:

The life‐history, genetic, and habitat use differences between the 2
polar bear (Ursus maritimus) subpopulations in Alaska, USA, have been
used to determine the geographic border separating them, but it has
sparked a debate of the correct placement of the border for several
years. Recently, the Southern Beaufort Sea (SBS) polar bear
subpopulation has declined because of sea ice loss, while the Chukchi
Sea (CS) subpopulation appears stable. To provide additional informa-
tion about potential differences between the SBS and CS
subpopulations, such as differences in prey sources, we used stable
isotope analysis of carbon and nitrogen from bone collagen of polar
bears in these 2 neighboring subpopulations. We analyzed polar bear
bones from 112 individuals collected from 1954–2019. Our purpose was
to determine if the SBS and CS subpopulations could be distinguished
based on the stable isotope signatures of bone collagen. A difference
>1‰ in stable carbon isotope (δ13C) values suggests a change in carbon
sources, such as nearshore to offshore, while a 3‰ change in stable
nitrogen isotope (δ15N) values equates to a change of about 1 trophic
level. Our study indicated a difference in δ13C values (P≤0.001) but
not δ15N values (P=0.654) between the CS (−13.0±0.3‰ and 22.0±0.9‰,
respectively) and SBS bears (−14.7 ± 1.3‰ and 22.2 ± 1.0‰,
respectively). Our findings indicate that the 2 subpopulations are
consuming similar high trophic level prey, while feeding in ecosystems
with different δ13C baselines. We performed a logistic regression
analysis using δ13C and δ15N values of the polar bears to predict
their placement into these 2 subpopulations. Using Icy Cape, Alaska as
the geographical boundary, the analysis correctly placed polar bears
in their respective subpopulations 82% of the time. Overall accuracy
of placement changed to 84% when using the current geographi- cal
boundary at Utqiaġvik, Alaska. We predicted samples collected from the
Wainwright, Alaska region as 58% CS and 42% SBS polar bears. This
suggests that the area between Wainwright and Icy Cape is a polar bear
mixing zone that includes bears from both subpopulations. Bone
collagen has a long‐term, potentially life‐long, stable isotope
turnover rate, and our results could be used to determine the
association of harvested polar bears to Alaska subpopulations, thus
aiding in transboundary harvest quota management.


The article is available at:

https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.22225


Please feel free to contact us with any questions.

Thank you,


*Malia E. K. Smith*

Ph.D. Student, Emslie Lab/Fleming Lab

Department of Biology & Marine Biology

University of North Carolina Wilmington

Email: [email protected] / [email protected]
_______________________________________________
MARMAM mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/marmam

Reply via email to