Environmental Reviews

Polar research: has science helped management and conservation?

Journal: Environmental Reviews

Manuscript ID er-2018-0021.R2

Manuscript Type: Review

Date Submitted by the Author: 28-Jun-2018

Complete List of Authors: Vongraven, Dag ; Norwegian Polar Institute, Polar environmental management Derocher, Andrew; University of Alberta, Biological Sciences Bohart, Alyssa;Draft University of Alberta, Biological Sciences

Keyword: , review, management, research, conservation

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Page 1 of 37 Environmental Reviews

Polar bear research: has science helped management

and conservation?

Dag Vongraven1, Andrew E. Derocher2 and Alyssa M. Bohart2

1Norwegian Polar Institute, Fram Center, 9296 Tromsø, Norway

2Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada

T6G 2E9

Draft

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Environmental Reviews Page 2 of 37

ABSTRACT

Wildlife management is predicated upon the use of scientific research to assist decision-making. However, assessment of the effectiveness of the management- research relationship is rarely undertaken. Polar (Ursus maritimus) have benefitted from an international agreement that required each of the countries within the species’ range to manage using the best available scientific data. The objective of this paper is to conduct a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature on polar bears to describe research trends and to assess how effectively research has met management needs. We analyzed 1191 peer-reviewed scientific papers from

1886-2016 covering 24 research topics. Annual counts of papers within each research topic were assessed for Drafttemporal trends, spatial coverage, and the extent to which they have facilitated management and monitoring needs. The annual number of papers increased from <10 in the early 1960s to >50 in recent years with a mean of 2.2 papers/subpopulation/year with great variation between the 19 global subpopulations. We conclude that there is an imbalance in the geographic and thematic focus of peer-reviewed research in recent years, and that only four subpopulations appear to have had a research focus covering most parameters essential for conservation and sound management.

KEYWORDS: Polar bear, research, review, management, conservation

2

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Page 3 of 37 Environmental Reviews

INTRODUCTION

Modern wildlife management and conservation practices are predicated upon the

incorporation and application of science and scientific methods. Acceptance of

science as the underpinning of wildlife management evolved in the early 1900s

(Leopold 1933), and wildlife research advanced to encompass a diversity of fields

including ecology, ethology, physiology, mathematics, chemistry, genetics, and many

others. Wildlife conservation is a component of wildlife management tasked with

specific goals that often focus on preventing whereas wildlife

management often has consumptive use as a primary objective (Caughley 1977;

Caughley and Gunn 1996). While there are many successes that result from wildlife research, there is often a gap betweenDraft the products of research and the needs of management (e.g., Balme et al. 2014; Toomey 2016). Conservation efforts have

reduced the rate of species loss yet many taxa are still threatened by anthropogenic

pressures (Hoffmann et al. 2010). Globally, mammals are threatened by loss

and degradation, harvest, climate change, pollution, and disease (Schipper et al.

2008). Threat level varies across mammals but apex predators are particularly

vulnerable to anthropogenic activities.

The challenges facing apex carnivores are evident in polar bears (Ursus

maritimus), where the predominant long-term risk factor is habitat loss resulting

from climate warming (Regehr et al. 2016; Stirling and Derocher 2012). Additional

risk factors, similar to those affecting other mammals, also threaten polar bears

(Sonne 2010; Stirling and Derocher 2012; Vongraven et al. 2012). Polar bears face a

dual challenge of being classified as a while undergoing a harvest

in parts of their range (Regehr et al. 2017). Consequently, managers can be

3

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Environmental Reviews Page 4 of 37

challenged to balance conservation goals with consumptive use. The species has become a symbol of a rapidly changing Arctic in the face of climate warming

(Vongraven 2009) and in contrast, the target of climate change deniers (Harvey et al.

2018). The scientific evidence, however, is clear that increasing temperatures and rapidly receding sea ice (Parkinson 2014; Stern and Laidre 2016) puts ice-dependent marine mammal species in peril (Laidre et al. 2008), and presents a significant conservation challenge (Laidre et al. 2015; Stirling and Derocher 2012).

To be useful to conservation, knowledge has to be relevant to the challenges that a species is facing, both in the short and long term. Polar bear science has dealt with a wide range of issues and priorities because both management and science have changed over time. In the beginning, research was focused on basic knowledge, primarily dealing with the numberDraft and location of populations, their abundance, and life history. Before the 1960s it was believed that all polar bears belonged to a single, nomadic population (Pedersen 1945). Through the 1970s, due to the results of mark- recapture studies and, later, advancements in telemetry that allowed tracking of polar bear movement, analyses revealed that bears stayed within areas that could be considered population units, now acknowledged as “subpopulations” (International

Union for the Conservation of Nature Standards and Petitions Subcommittee 2010).

Historically, the species was heavily harvested over its entire range and concerns about harvest sustainability arose in the 1950s and increased through the

1960s (Harington 1964; Loughrey 1956; Scott et al. 1959; Tovey and Scott 1957).

Knowledge about population structure, abundance, and status was rudimentary but polar bears were listed in an early version of the IUCN Red List as threatened due to a perceived decrease in abundance due to harvest (Scott 1965). In response to the

4

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Page 5 of 37 Environmental Reviews

concern about over-harvest, the five nations with polar bears (i.e., Canada, Denmark

(now Greenland), Norway, Soviet Union (now Russia), and the USA) met in 1965 to

examine the threats to the species. After years of negotiation, the Agreement on the

Conservation of Polar Bears was signed in 1973, ratified in 1976, renewed in 1981,

and remains in effect (Larsen and Stirling 2009; Polar Bear Range States 2015). The

Agreement was unique in that it was one of the first environmental regimes to be

based on ecological principles (Fikkan et al. 1993). To a large degree, the Agreement

was successful at controlling excessive harvest (Prestrud and Stirling 1994), even

though other challenges persisted. An important passage in the Agreement stated

that each member nation “shall manage polar bear populations in accordance with

sound conservation practices based on the best available scientific data” (Lentfer

1974). The Agreement also statedDraft that “Each Contracting Party shall conduct

national research programs on polar bears, particularly research relating to the

conservation and management of the species” and this requirement resulted in the

initiation of national research programs in the 1970s.

Management and conservation needs for polar bears are well understood

and were reviewed by Vongraven et al. (2012) who identified what parameters

should be monitored across subpopulations to secure the knowledge base needed to

manage and implement measures to conserve polar bears. Vongraven et al. (2012)

recommended the use of 12 monitoring parameters with varying intensities across

subpopulations, based on prior knowledge level, ecoregion, and accessibility. Despite

a substantial amount of published research on polar bears, there has been no

assessment to determine whether these recommendations have been sufficiently

addressed and ultimately implemented across the species’ range. It is useful to

5

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Environmental Reviews Page 6 of 37

evaluate whether the research required for management has been undertaken and, if so, whether that research has helped to ensure management needs.

Systematic reviews of peer-reviewed research papers have been used to gain insights related to specific problems (e.g., Abed et al. 2011; Feuer et al. 1999; Zingg et al. 2015), yet reviews of research on single species are uncommon with the exception of some high-profile species (e.g., Balme et al. 2014). Such reviews are useful for summarizing research results and their implications (Pullin and Knight

2009; Stewart et al. 2005). In this paper, we review the peer-reviewed research on polar bears conducted from 1886 through 2016, with the objective of assessing the number of papers and the coverage of research topics across subpopulations, and whether these address the recommended monitoring parameters identified by

Vongraven et al. (2012), which is Draftused as a standard for research needs for present day management and conservation.

APPROACH

A list of peer-reviewed research literature on polar bears was extracted from a search in ISI Web of Science (February 2016), for the period 1864 through 2015. The search included the following databases: Web of Science Core Collection, BIOSIS

Citation Index, BIOSIS Previews, CABI: CAB Abstracts, Current Contents Connect,

Data Citation Index, Derwent Innovations Index, FSTA – the food science resource,

KCI-Korean Journal Database, MEDLINE, SciELO Citation Index, and Zoological

Record. The search string was “POLAR BEAR” OR “URSUS MARITIMUS” OR

“THALARCTOS MARITIMUS”, and the initial search yielded 8,222 hits. To remove document types that were not peer-reviewed science, we refined the hit list by

6

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Page 7 of 37 Environmental Reviews

choosing certain document types (i.e., article, editorial, letter, book, case report,

review, or report), which removed 396 documents, leaving 7,826 hits in the search

results. The downloading process from Web of Science automatically removed 4,914

duplicate references, leaving 2,912. Two co-authors independently reviewed the list

to remove publications that did not have polar bears as a focal element, or

publications that were not peer-reviewed, leaving a final list of 1,146 papers. In

February 2017, a new search yielded 45 peer-reviewed papers from 2016, which was

included in the final list. Papers not in English and without English abstracts had their

abstracts translated using Google Translate, and the paper review was based on the

abstract. A total of 1191 papers covering 1886-2016 were scored as being peer-

reviewed scientific papers, and four papers were discarded as meaningful translation

of abstracts failed. Of the resultingDraft 1187 papers, 40 (3.4%) were published before

1960 and tended to be general, describe natural history, and address topics not

studied after 1960, so we excluded them from further analyses.

In some research fields and regions, grey literature can contain large parts of

available evidence, and systematic reviews could be biased if such literature is

omitted (Haddaway and Bayliss 2015). However, grey literature varies in quality, and

is generally less accessible, making it difficult to assess the rigor of methods and

results against scientific standards (Calver and King 2000; Corlett 2011). We

therefore excluded grey literature from our review although it often results in peer-

reviewed publications (Corlett 2011).

A list of 24 research topics was compiled from independent input from all co-

authors. All papers were assessed and assigned to one or more of the 24 research

topics (Table 1) based on the study objectives, methods, or discussion. The papers

7

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Environmental Reviews Page 8 of 37

were classified according to year of publication, subpopulation, research topics, nationality of lead authors, and funding sources. Funding sources were derived from information in the acknowledgement section, or in supplemental material. For simplicity and due to overlap in topics, some were not analyzed separately. For example, body condition was classified according to the context it was presented in a paper. A paper examining maternal body condition was classified as reproductive ecology while a study examining body condition in the context of hibernation or seasonal fasting was classified as physiology.

The number of publications over time was analyzed with a log-linear model

(generalized linear model with a Poisson distribution and a log link), for all papers and for papers within each topic following Bornmann (2017). A global model with the interaction between Year andDraft Topics was used to estimate topic-specific growth rate of the number of papers (Table 1). The goodness-of-fit of the model was assessed using the residual deviance and the associated degrees of freedom (a ratio >1 indicating overdispersion), as well as plotting and examining residuals.

Results are given as an estimate ± standard error (SE), and the topics are grouped by the recommended monitoring parameters from Vongraven et al. (2012). The year since 1960 when half the total number of papers on each research topic had been published was calculated to illustrate whether the bulk of the papers were published early or late in the period. To compare research focus with research needs identified as important to polar bear conservation and management, we assessed these research topics against the recommended parameters for circumpolar monitoring given by Vongraven et al. (2012) (Table 1).

8

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Page 9 of 37 Environmental Reviews

Polar bears are distributed in 19 subpopulations, based on genetics and

movements (Fig. 1, e.g., Bethke et al. 1996; Mauritzen et al. 2002; Paetkau et al.

1999; Polar Bear Specialist Group 2014), and the number of subpopulations has been

stable for more than two decades (Bethke et al. 1996; Polar Bear Specialist Group

1998, 2002, 2006, 2010, 2014). Papers were classified to a specific subpopulation or

subpopulations if they were directly identified or by using the study area description.

If no location was noted or if research questions were specific to the species and not

a subpopulation, the study location was classified as “generic”. A paper could be

both generic and relevant for one or more subpopulations. The number of papers

per subpopulation was calculated, as was the number of papers per subpopulation

and year.

Even though some subpopulationsDraft have small numbers of papers assigned to

them, there might still be a focus on certain research topics within these

subpopulations, a focus that could disappear when number of papers per research

topic is compared across all subpopulations. To obtain a standardized view of the

research history relative to monitoring and management within each subpopulation,

that to some degree corrects for the number of papers and gives a sense of the

research focus, we first ranked the number of peer-reviewed papers within each

recommended monitoring parameter across subpopulations. Subpopulations with

the same number of papers were given the same median rank. Finally, we ranked

subpopulations based on median rank across all topics for each subpopulation. The

ranks provide a means to assess how well peer-reviewed research has addressed the

recommended monitoring parameters. A rank lower or equal to 7 was considered to

9

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Environmental Reviews Page 10 of 37

be high, a rank equal to or between ranks of 7 and 12 to be medium, and a rank higher than the median rank of 12 to be low.

The trend in the proportion of studies funded by federal governments was examined using a logistic generalized linear model, and the goodness of fit was tested with a pseudo R squared “McFadden” procedure. Statistical analyses were conducted using the R package (R Core Team 2016). Spatial/geographic distribution of main research topics were described and mapped using ArcGIS (Environmental

Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA, USA).

Draft

10

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Page 11 of 37 Environmental Reviews

FINDINGS

A log-linear model for the total number of papers was slightly overdispersed but not

significantly (residual deviance = 63, df = 55, P=0.22). This model showed a 4.9%

annual increase (Fig. 2). The model examining topic-specific growth rates of the

number of papers had a good fit (Table 1, Fig. 3; residual deviance = 1622, df = 1705).

When assigning papers to subpopulations, those published before 1980 were

often challenging to attribute to any given subpopulation because many were

undefined at that time or borders may have been modified since they were first

delimited. Of the 1147 papers that met our inclusion criteria and were published

1960-2016, 364 (31.7%) contained only general information about the species and could not be assigned to any specificDraft subpopulation. An additional 246 papers (21.4%) had general information on polar bears, but had additional information

associated with one or more specific subpopulations, which meant that 610 papers

(53.2%) contained general information about some aspect of the biology of polar

bears. A total of 781 (68.1%) papers were assigned to one or more subpopulations,

of which 534 (46.6%) were assigned to one subpopulation, 111 (9.7%) to two

subpopulations, 42 (3.7%) to three subpopulations, 20 (1.7%) to four

subpopulations, and the remaining 74 papers to five or more (range 5-19)

subpopulations. Two papers were assigned to all 19 subpopulations.

A mean of 2.2 papers (SE: 0.11) were published per subpopulation/year. Both

the total number of papers and the annual number of papers for each subpopulation

varied widely (Fig. 4 and 5). The Western Hudson Bay subpopulation had the highest

number at 253 papers (22.1% of the total) and has maintained this ranking since the

1980s. The Arctic Basin subpopulation was the least studied with only 12 papers

11

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Environmental Reviews Page 12 of 37

(1.0%). The Barents Sea subpopulation has been studied since the 1960s, and the number of publications increased after 1997. Publications on the Southern Beaufort

Sea subpopulation have been stable and higher than most other subpopulations since the late 1980s. Publication numbers for the Chukchi Sea and Lancaster Sound subpopulations were also higher than most other subpopulations. The East

Greenland subpopulation had a high number of papers after 2003.

The annual rate of increase within each of the research topics varied widely

(Table 1). Papers on climate change had the highest estimated annual increase of

20.3%, resulting from a high number of papers, mainly after 2007. Papers on traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and population status also had high estimates of annual increase, 19.8% and 14.1%, respectively, although both with relatively few papers. There were two topics (i.e.,Draft shipping and population boundaries) with no significant increase over time. Seven topics (i.e., climate change, TEK, population status, population genetics, habitat, evolution/fossil record, and research impact) showed a large increase in publications after 2000, reflecting changing priorities, methods, and focus (Fig. 3). Pollution studies increased rapidly in the 1990s, and tourism studies, based on only six papers, also increased. Population estimates were published in 42 papers, but the annual increase was low (2.8%). Papers providing information about population estimates averaged 0.8 papers/year and increased to

1.6 papers/year excluding the first three decades. Population trend showed a similar pattern with 38 papers and a low annual increase (4.1%). Of 196 papers on pollution,

75% were published by lead authors from Canada, Denmark/Greenland, and

Norway. Pollution studies dominated research in East Greenland (62.4% of all papers), were prominent in the Barents Sea (27.8%), and comprised a significant part

12

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Page 13 of 37 Environmental Reviews

of research from most other subpopulations (median 24.2%; range 18.2-62.4%), but

were uncommon from Norwegian Bay, Western Hudson Bay, and Kara Sea

subpopulations.

Of all papers, 34.9% had lead authors from Canada, 27.4% from USA, 11.3%

from Norway, 5.5% from Denmark, 4.2% from Germany, 3.7% from Russia, and the

rest had lead authors from 25 different countries. Research on captive animals was

led by authors from Germany and USA with 62.1% of 140 papers on this topic. Most

(52%) of all papers published by German lead authors were related to zoos and

captive animals, and of 323 papers published by lead authors from USA, 60 (19%)

related to captive animals.

The standardized view of subpopulations ranked using median number of

peer-reviewed research papers withinDraft each recommended monitoring parameter

(Table 2) shows that Western Hudson Bay, and Southern Beaufort Sea, were the only

subpopulations that addressed all recommended monitoring parameters. The

Barents Sea subpopulation had covered all except TEK, harvest, and research impact,

partly justified by the fact that the Barents Sea has no indigenous people or legal

harvest after 1973. Lancaster Sound scored high as well, although being only

medium ranked with regards to climate change. Arctic Basin was ranked in the lower

part of the table on all recommended monitoring parameters. Foxe Basin, Northern

Beaufort Sea, Southern Hudson Bay, M’Clintock Channel, and Davis Strait

subpopulations had an overall medium rank, while the rest of the subpopulations

were ranked low but had some focus within one or a few of the parameters,

particularly East Greenland, which is ranked first or among the top four in pollution,

anatomy, and disease/parasites.

13

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Environmental Reviews Page 14 of 37

The fraction of studies fully or in part directly funded through governments increased in the entire period, from about ¼ of the studies in the early 1960s to ¾ of the studies more recently. The logistic model showed a significant increase in the fraction of government-funded studies over time (p<0.001; McFadden R-squared=

0.27).

DISCUSSION

Even though the quality of the peer-review process has been criticized (Benos et al.

2007; Jefferson et al. 2002), it is still the most important characteristic for identifying rigorous science upon which management is based. As is the case within most research fields relevant to speciesDraft conservation, polar bear research has also been published in non-peer reviewed literature (i.e., grey literature). Our finding that the fraction of peer-reviewed studies funded by governments increased from 1960 to

2016 supports the argument that grey literature on polar bears is eventually published in peer-reviewed journals.

The demand for knowledge about polar bears and the production of peer- reviewed literature rose sharply in the 1960s, particularly as a result of concern about the possibility of excess harvest. Broadly, polar bear research topics were influenced by global events rather than regional events even though management happens at the subpopulation level, not the circumpolar level. Over time, research focus has shifted from human-caused mortality to climate change and pollution. The number of publications increased through the 1970s, 1980s, and accelerated during the 1990s. Research topics relevant to climate change, including studies of habitat and habitat projections, were extensively covered since the 1990s with most of

14

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Page 15 of 37 Environmental Reviews

these papers published after 2000. Some of the increase was likely related to the

third assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was

the first report to focus on diminishing polar ice caps as a threat from climate

warming (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001). Also, the listing of

polar bears as threatened by the USA in 2008 may have contributed to some of the

increase in climate change papers. The conservation value of research into the

effects of climate change should be obvious (Amstrup et al. 2010). It is also a

research topic that needs robust documentation, due to climate change-deniers,

who downplay climate warming and its effects on polar bears, and thus impede

acceptance for conservation action (Harvey et al. 2018).

Much of the more recent increase in publications was associated with papers

on pollution. High levels of persistentDraft organic environmental pollutants in polar

bears were first reported in 1975 (Bowes and Jonkel 1975), but attention on these

pollutants in the Arctic did not peak until the 1990s. In 1993 the United Nations

Environment Programme initiated negotiations with the goal to regulate persistent

organic pollutants (UNEP 2001), and resulted the Stockholm Convention of 2004. In

East Greenland and Svalbard, pollution is the focal topic of research. It is evident that

especially active research groups specializing on pollution studies independent of

specific management needs have driven this field. Such studies historically had an

impact on international regulations of some pollutants, but there is still little

understanding of how pollution affects polar bear life history at the individual or

population levels (Sonne 2010), so these studies have had limited application to

conservation and management.

15

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Environmental Reviews Page 16 of 37

Polar bear management occurs at the subpopulation level yet more than half of the literature addresses multiple subpopulations. How these multi-subpopulation studies differ from single subpopulations studies in management application is unclear. We suspect, however, that more focused studies may be easier for managers to implement.

Estimates of population size and trend are fundamental to understand population status for national and international threat assessments. For example, the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, which is the global assessment process for the status of species, has been a challenge to the polar bear science community because data on habitat reduction has been easier to document than data on polar bear subpopulation abundance, trend, and how abundance links to habitat change

(Akcakaya et al. 2006; Regehr et al.Draft 2016). Even though a Red List assessment could be based on metrics such as area of occupancy and extent of occurrence (IUCN

2001), which would be easier to link to change in preferred habitat, polar bear status has been assessed through the use of criteria for projected future population decline, which requires more information on population abundance, trend, and life history parameters (Regehr et al. 2016). Thus, studies and monitoring of these parameters are a high priority for all subpopulations yet such studies have not increased substantially over time and our results show that the existing peer- reviewed studies are likely insufficient for management. Only a fraction of the subpopulations have a sufficient level of knowledge on population abundance and trend. The recommended frequency of new population size estimates is five years

(Vongraven et al. 2012) or a mean of four studies/year if all subpopulations were monitored at the same frequency. As the observed annual mean was only 0.7

16

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Page 17 of 37 Environmental Reviews

papers/year (42 papers over 57 years), population abundance and trend in most

subpopulations were not monitored with sufficient resolution. The dearth of

abundance estimates agrees with the subpopulation assessments and status table

published by the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group, where half the

subpopulations are data deficient (Polar Bear Specialist Group 2014). One caveat is

that it may be hard to get journals to publish updates of population estimates, as

journals often seek novel research (Coulson et al. 2013). This, however, is not the

case for polar bears. In Western Hudson Bay there have been six population

estimates of which five were published in peer-reviewed journals (Derocher and

Stirling 1995; Lunn et al. 2016; Lunn et al. 1997; Regehr et al. 2007; Stapleton et al.

2014), and one in the grey literature (Polar Bear Specialist Group 1993). There are

other similar examples in the BeaufortDraft Sea; four estimates of the Southern Beaufort

subpopulation over 35 years (Amstrup et al. 1986; Bromaghin et al. 2015; DeMaster

et al. 1980; Regehr et al. 2006), and two out of three estimates of the Northern

Beaufort subpopulation over 30 years were published (Stirling et al. 2007; Stirling et

al. 2011). A more likely reason for the data deficiency among polar bear

subpopulations is that information on population trend does not exist.

Studies involving information and samples from harvested bears have

contributed to estimates of population size and survival (Taylor et al. 2005; Taylor et

al. 2008; Taylor et al. 2009), distribution (Taylor and Lee 1995), population structure

(Crompton et al. 2008; Paetkau et al. 1999), foraging ecology (Thiemann et al. 2006),

and basic biology (Dyck et al. 2004). In most harvested wildlife, data on number

harvested, age, and sex composition are collected to assess the effects of harvest

and population status (Derocher et al. 1997; Paloheimo and Fraser 1981; Weinbaum

17

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Environmental Reviews Page 18 of 37

et al. 2013). However, the annual 600-700 bears harvested in North America

(Peacock et al. 2011; Vongraven et al. 2012) represent a large reservoir of knowledge that has been infrequently utilized. Vongraven et al. (2012) proposed three potential ways harvest data analyses could be helpful: temporal patterns of harvest age and sex; spatial patterns of harvest over time; and temporal and spatial patterns of body condition, diet, and contaminants generated from harvest samples. They also proposed that analyses of harvest data might provide insights into demographic parameters if other monitoring activities are occurring infrequently.

To respond to population changes with appropriate management action, there is an ongoing need for information on population dynamics (e.g., how vital rates respond to environmental change, changes in distribution). Similarly, studies of how boundaries between managementDraft units change are needed, as these influence management actions. The present polar bear subpopulation delineations were presented by the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group in 1993 (Polar Bear Specialist

Group 1993) with some subsequent modifications based on published papers (e.g.,

Mauritzen et al. 2002). It is generally accepted that these boundaries are useful as management units, but that they do not reflect “geographically or otherwise distinct groups in the population between which there is little demographic or genetic exchange” (IUCN 2001) . These boundaries have been debated (e.g. Peacock et al.

2011), and in a time with rapid change in preferred sea ice , there is a lack of new peer-reviewed scrutiny of subpopulation boundaries. This is particularly problematic because population boundaries are predicted to change in response to climate change (Derocher et al. 2004).

18

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Page 19 of 37 Environmental Reviews

Some polar bear subpopulations in Canada had harvest quotas increased

using TEK without input from scientific studies (Wiig 2005). Such an approach would

seem contrary to the International Agreement. However, inclusion of TEK has been

an ongoing process across the Arctic as co-management has developed (Peacock et

al. 2011). Studies that investigate how different aspects of TEK can be used to

address specific information needs, and what their relative strengths and

weaknesses may be for informing management, are largely absent in the literature.

Although there have been a few such studies in the last decade, more are needed to

facilitate coordination and synergy to improve polar bear management. We have

classified 16 studies as relevant to TEK, all published after 2007, which suggests that

this is an emerging field for polar bear research.

It is relevant to note that someDraft of the publications on polar bears may be a

result of a side projects undertaken as part of monitoring studies rather than a study

planned a priori. Given the large cost of polar bear research, projects resulting in

capture and handling often archive tissues for analyses but it is impossible to assess

the frequency of publications resulting from post-hoc projects. Such studies are not a

direct response to a management or conservation need yet may provide meaningful

insights.

Conclusion

It is clear that no jurisdiction has funded all the research and monitoring

required. Nonetheless, the species is well studied compared to other Arctic species.

Also, the fact that 83% of all papers had lead authors from the Parties to the 1973

Agreement is consistent with its mandate. This study aimed to assess the degree to

19

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Environmental Reviews Page 20 of 37

which peer-reviewed science has provided the knowledge needed for management.

We conclude that science to varying degrees provided direct input into some priority management areas, but there are needs that science has yet to, or is unable to, address. Several issues are of particular concern:

1. A few subpopulations (Western Hudson Bay, Barents Sea and Southern

Beaufort Sea) are well studied, but about one third of the subpopulations are

severely lacking scientific information. Approximately half the subpopulations

lack research focus on all recommended monitoring parameters.

2. There is a lack of current knowledge on population abundance and trend for

most subpopulations.

3. There is a need to update information on the delineation of management

units/subpopulations as theDraft habitat, and consequently the distribution of

polar bears, changes.

4. There is an imbalance in the geographic and thematic focus of peer-reviewed

research in recent years, an imbalance that may impede conservation action

in those subpopulations where information is lacking.

5. Pollution is an example of a research topic that has seen limited application

to conservation and management.

Whether the available knowledge presented by science has been used by managers in decision making is challenging to assess, as there are no metrics available that provide such insight. The availability of scientific knowledge clearly depends on how organizations publish their scientific output (Cossarini et al. 2014).

There also seems to be a pattern where available science is often ignored in environmental policy (Dicks et al. 2014). Whether science is used or not, there are

20

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Page 21 of 37 Environmental Reviews

examples of success stories and failures. In Alaska, peer-reviewed science informed

the designation and protection of critical habitat for polar bears (Department of the

Interior 2010). Also in the US, peer-reviewed studies informed the before the

decision to list polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act

(Amstrup et al. 2007, 2008; Durner et al. 2007). In Svalbard, nature reserves were

established on the islands of Kong Karls Land in 1971 and Hopen in 2003 with

protection of important polar bear denning areas as a main objective. These reserves

were established based on research that was eventually published in peer-reviewed

journals (Derocher et al. 2011; Larsen 1970; Norwegian Ministry of Climate and

Environment 2003; Norwegian Ministry of Environment 1973). In Western Hudson

Bay harvest quotas were reduced from 64 to 16 based on a population decline based

on science (Regehr et al. 2007), butDraft in recent years the quotas have increased again

without support from science (Lunn et al. 2016; Stapleton et al. 2014). Peer-

reviewed science has also been used on the larger scale, both at the regional and

international levels. Research into levels of organic pollutants in Arctic wildlife,

including polar bears, influenced the establishment of the Aarhus Protocol on

Persistent Organic Pollutants in 1998 and later the Stockholm Convention in 2004

(Rottem 2017). Polar bear science also informed the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (Larsen et al. 2014), and it has been vital in informing conservation

tools such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Red List of

Threatened Species, where polar bears were listed as Vulnerable in 2005 (Regehr et

al. 2016).

Many successful management actions, however, are in place before the

research appears in peer-reviewed journals. It is also noteworthy that some research

21

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Environmental Reviews Page 22 of 37

is commissioned by management authorities and some research may be curiosity driven without clear management application.

The recommended monitoring parameters for polar bears are understood and achievable with sufficient funding. Our study, however, reveals clear deficiencies. Given the high cost of conducting polar bear research and the conservation challenges ahead, a more systematic and planned approach to research may improve the long-term prospects for this iconic Arctic species. We recommend that those subpopulations lacking information on recommended monitoring priorities should be studied, population abundance, trend, and delineation studies should be implemented in those subpopulations without such data, and the effects of environmental pollutants on populations be quantified. Such a template of studies would greatly improve monitoringDraft of polar bears but would not address the main threat of habitat loss from climate change.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Funding for this study was provided by ArcticNet, the Canadian Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the Canadian Wildlife Federation, Environment and Climate Change

Canada, Hauser Bears, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of

Canada, Polar Bears International, Quark Expeditions, and the World Wildlife Fund

(Canada). We thank Corey Smereka for assistance with the literature search.

22

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Page 23 of 37 Environmental Reviews

REFERENCES

Abed, H., Rahn, D.D., Lowenstein, L., Balk, E.M., Clemons, J.L., Rogers, R.G., and Systemat Reivew Grp Soc, G. 2011. Incidence and Management of Graft Erosion, Wound Granulation, and Dyspareunia Following Vaginal Prolapse Repair with Graft Materials: A Systematic Review. International Urogynecology Journal 22(7): 789-798. doi: 10.1007/s00192-011-1384-5. Akcakaya, H.R., Butchart, S.H.M., Mace, G.M., Stuart, S.N., and Hilton-Taylor, C. 2006. Use and Misuse of the Iucn Red List Criteria in Projecting Climate Change Impacts on . Global Change Biology 12(11): 2037-2043. Amstrup, S.C., DeWeaver, E.T., Douglas, D.C., Marcot, B.G., Durner, G.M., Bitz, C.M., and Bailey, D.A. 2010. Greenhouse gas mitigation can reduce sea-ice loss and increase polar bear persistence. Nature 468(7326): 955-960. doi: 10.1038/nature09653. Amstrup, S.C., Marcot, B.G., and Douglas, D.C. 2007. Forecasting the Range-Wide Status of Polar Bears at Selected Times in the 21st Century. USGS Science Strategy to support US Fish and Wildlife Service polar bear listing decision. Amstrup, S.C., Marcot, B.G., and Douglas, D.C. 2008. A Bayesian Network Modeling Approach to Forecasting the 21st Century Worldwide Status of Polar Bears. In Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Observations, Projections, Mechanisms, and Implications. Edited by E.T.B. DeWeaver, C.M.; Tremblay, L.-B. American Geophysical Union, Washington DC. pp. 213-268. Amstrup, S.C., Stirling, I., and Lentfer, J.W. 1986. Past and Present Status of Polar Bears in Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14: 241-251. Balme, G.A., Lindsey, P.A., Swanepoel,Draft L.H., and Hunter, L.T.B. 2014. Failure of Research to Address the Rangewide Conservation Needs of Large Carnivores: Leopards in South Africa as a Case Study. Conservation Letters 7(1): 3-11. Benos, D.J., Bashari, E., Chaves, J.M., Gaggar, A., Kapoor, N., LaFrance, M., Mans, R., Mayhew, D., McGowan, S., Polter, A., Qadri, Y., Sarfare, S., Schultz, K., Splittgerber, R., Stephenson, J., Tower, C., Walton, R.G., and Zotov, A. 2007. The Ups and Downs of Peer Review. Advances in Physiology Education 31(2): 145-152. doi: 10.1152/advan.00104.2006. Bethke, R., Taylor, M., Amstrup, S., and Messier, F. 1996. Population Delineation of Polar Bears Using Satellite Collar Data. Ecological Applications 6: 311-317. Bornmann, L. 2017. Confidence Intervals for Journal Impact Factors. Scientometrics 111(3): 1869-1871. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2365-3. Bowes, G.W., and Jonkel, C.J. 1975. Presence and Distribution of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) in Arctic and Subarctic Marine Food Chains. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32(11): 2111-2123. Bromaghin, J.F., McDonald, T.L., Stirling, I., Derocher, A.E., Richardson, E.S., Regehr, E.V., Douglas, D.C., Durner, G.M., Atwood, T., and Amstrup, S.C. 2015. Polar Bear Population Dynamics in the Southern Beaufort Sea During a Period of Sea Ice Decline. Ecological Applications. Calver, M.C., and King, D.R. 2000. Why Publication Matters in . Pacific Conservation Biology 6(1): 2-8. Caughley, G. 1977. Analysis of Vertebrate Populations. John Wiley & Sons, London. Caughley, G., and Gunn, A. 1996. Conservation Biology in Theory and Practice. Blackwell Science, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Corlett, R.T. 2011. Trouble with the Gray Literature. Biotropica 43(1): 3-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2010.00714.x. Cossarini, D.M., MacDonald, B.H., and Wells, P.G. 2014. Communicating Marine Environmental Information to Decision Makers: Enablers and Barriers to Use of Publications (Grey Literature) of the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine 23

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Environmental Reviews Page 24 of 37

Environment. Ocean & Coastal Management 96: 163-172. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.05.015. Coulson, T., Hays, G., Boots, M., Wilson, K., Baker, L., and Livermore, P. 2013. Publishing the Best Original Research in Animal Ecology: Looking Forward from 2013. Journal of Animal Ecology 82(1): 1-2. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.12026. Crompton, A.E., Obbard, M.E., Petersen, S.D., and Wilson, P.J. 2008. Population Genetic Structure in Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus) from Hudson Bay, Canada: Implications of Future Climate Change. Biological Conservation 141(10): 2528-2539. DeMaster, D.P., Kingsley, M.C.S., and Stirling, I. 1980. A Multiple Mark and Recapture Estimate Applied to Polar Bears. Canadian Journal of Zoology 58(4): 633-638. Department of the Interior. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) in the United States; Final Rule. Federal Register 75(234): 76086-76137. Derocher, A.E., Andersen, M., Wiig, Ø., Aars, J., Hansen, E., and Biuw, M. 2011. Sea Ice and Polar Bear Den Ecology at Hopen Island, Svalbard. Marine Ecology Progress Series 441: 273-297. Derocher, A.E., Lunn, N.J., and Stirling, I. 2004. Polar Bears in a Warming Climate. Integrative and Comparative Biology 44(2): 163-176. Derocher, A.E., and Stirling, I. 1995. Estimation of Polar Bear Population Size and Survival in Western Hudson Bay. Journal of Wildlife Management 59(2): 215-221. Derocher, A.E., Stirling, I., and Calvert, W. 1997. Male-Biased Harvesting of Polar Bears in Western Hudson Bay. Journal of Wildlife Management 61(4): 1075-1082. Dicks, L.V., Walsh, J.C., and Sutherland, W.J. 2014. Organising Evidence for Environmental Management Decisions: A '4s' Hierarchy. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 29(11): 607- 613. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2014.09.004.Draft Durner, G.M., Douglas, D.C., Nielson, R.M., Amstrup, S.C., and McDonald, T.L. 2007. Predicting the Future Distribution of Polar Bear Habitat in the Polar Basin from Resource Selection Functions Applied to 21st Century General Circulation Model Projections of Sea Ice. USGS Science Strategy to support US Fish and Wildlife Service polar bear listing decision. Dyck, M.G., Bourgeois, J.M., and Miller, E.H. 2004. Growth and Variation in the Bacula of Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus) in the Canadian Arctic. Journal of Zoology 264(1): 105- 110. Feuer, D.J., Broadley, K.E., and Committee, T.S.R.S. 1999. Systematic Review and Meta- Analysis of Corticosteroids for the Resolution of Malignant Bowel Obstruction in Advanced Gynaecological and Gastrointestinal Cancers. Annals of Oncology 10(9): 1035-1041. doi: 10.1023/a:1008361102808. Fikkan, A., Osherenko, G., and Arikainen, A. 1993. Polar Bears: The Importance of Simplicity. In Polar politics: creating international environmental regimes. Edited by O.R. Young and G. Osherenko. Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London. pp. 96-151. Haddaway, N.R., and Bayliss, H.R. 2015. Shades of Grey: Two Forms of Grey Literature Important for Reviews in Conservation. Biological Conservation 191(Supplement C): 827-829. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.08.018. Harington, C.R. 1964. Polar Bears and Their Present Status. Reprint from Canadian Audubon Magazine, Jan-Feb 1964. Harvey, J.A., van den Berg, D., Ellers, J., Kampen, R., Crowther, T.W., Roessingh, P., Verheggen, B., Nuijten, R.J.M., Post, E., Lewandowsky, S., Stirling, I., Balgopal, M., Amstrup, S.C., and Mann, M.E. 2018. Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate- Change Denial by Proxy. BioScience: bix133-bix133. doi: 10.1093/biosci/bix133. Hoffmann, M., Hilton-Taylor, C., Angulo, A., Bohm, M., Brooks, T.M., Butchart, S.H.M., Carpenter, K.E., Chanson, J., Collen, B., Cox, N.A., Darwall, W.R.T., Dulvy, N.K., Harrison, L.R., Katariya, V., Pollock, C.M., Quader, S., Richman, N.I., Rodrigues, A.S.L., Tognelli, M.F., Vie, J.C., Aguiar, J.M., Allen, D.J., Allen, G.R., Amori, G., Ananjeva, N.B., 24

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Page 25 of 37 Environmental Reviews

Andreone, F., Andrew, P., Ortiz, A.L.A., Baillie, J.E.M., Baldi, R., Bell, B.D., Biju, S.D., Bird, J.P., Black-Decima, P., Blanc, J.J., Bolanos, F., Bolivar, G., Burfield, I.J., Burton, J.A., Capper, D.R., Castro, F., Catullo, G., Cavanagh, R.D., Channing, A., Chao, N.L., Chenery, A.M., Chiozza, F., Clausnitzer, V., Collar, N.J., Collett, L.C., Collette, B.B., Fernandez, C.F.C., Craig, M.T., Crosby, M.J., Cumberlidge, N., Cuttelod, A., Derocher, A.E., Diesmos, A.C., Donaldson, J.S., Duckworth, J.W., Dutson, G., Dutta, S.K., Emslie, R.H., Farjon, A., Fowler, S., Freyhof, J., Garshelis, D.L., Gerlach, J., Gower, D.J., Grant, T.D., Hammerson, G.A., Harris, R.B., Heaney, L.R., Hedges, S.B., Hero, J.M., Hughes, B., Hussain, S.A., Icochea, M., Inger, R.F., Ishii, N., Iskandar, D.T., Jenkins, R.K.B., Kaneko, Y., Kottelat, M., Kovacs, K.M., Kuzmin, S.L., La Marca, E., Lamoreux, J.F., Lau, M.W.N., Lavilla, E.O., Leus, K., Lewison, R.L., Lichtenstein, G., Livingstone, S.R., Lukoschek, V., Mallon, D.P., McGowan, P.J.K., McIvor, A., Moehlman, P.D., Molur, S., Alonso, A.M., Musick, J.A., Nowell, K., Nussbaum, R.A., Olech, W., Orlov, N.L., Papenfuss, T.J., Parra-Olea, G., Perrin, W.F., Polidoro, B.A., Pourkazemi, M., Racey, P.A., Ragle, J.S., Ram, M., Rathbun, G., Reynolds, R.P., Rhodin, A.G.J., Richards, S.J., Rodriguez, L.O., Ron, S.R., Rondinini, C., Rylands, A.B., Sadovy de Mitcheson, Y., Sanciangco, J.C., Sanders, K.L., Santos-Barrera, G., Schipper, J., Self-Sullivan, C., Shi, Y., Shoemaker, A., Short, F.T., Sillero-Zubiri, C., Silvano, D.L., Smith, K.G., Smith, A.T., Snoeks, J., Stattersfield, A.J., Symes, A.J., Taber, A.B., Talukdar, B.K., Temple, H.J., Timmins, R., Tobias, J.A., Tsytsulina, K., Tweddle, D., Ubeda, C., Valenti, S.V., Paul van Dijk, P., Veiga, L.M., Veloso, A., Wege, D.C., Wilkinson, M., Williamson, E.A., Xie, F., Young, B.E., Akcakaya, H.R., Bennun, L., Blackburn, T.M., Boitani, L., Dublin, H.T., da Fonseca, G.A.B., Gascon, C., Lacher, T.E., Jr., Mace, G.M., Mainka, S.A., McNeely, J.A., Mittermeier, R.A., Reid, G.M., Rodriguez, J.P., Rosenberg, A.A., Samways, M.J., Smart, J., Stein, B.A., and Stuart,Draft S.N. 2010. The Impact of Conservation on the Status of the World's Vertebrates. Science 330(6010): 1503-1509. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2001. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Integovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA. International Union for the Conservation of Nature Standards and Petitions Subcommittee. 2010. Guidelines for Using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 8.1. Prepared by the Standards and Petitions Subcommittee in March 2010. IUCN. 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. Jefferson, T., Wager, E., and Davidoff, F. 2002. Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review. Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association 287(21): 2786-2790. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2786. Laidre, K.L., Stern, H., Kovacs, K.M., Lowry, L., Moore, S.E., Regehr, E.V., Ferguson, S.H., Wiig, Ø., Boveng, P., Angliss, R.P., Born, E.W., Litovka, D., Quakenbush, L., Lydersen, C., Vongraven, D., and Ugarte, F. 2015. Arctic Marine Mammal Population Status, Sea Ice Habitat Loss, and Conservation Recommendations for the 21st Century. Conservation Biology 29(3): 724-737. Laidre, K.L., Stirling, I., Lowry, L.F., Wiig, O., Heide-Jorgensen, M.P., and Ferguson, S.H. 2008. Quantifying the Sensitivity of Arctic Marine Mammals to Climate-Induced Habitat Change. Ecological Applications 18(2): S97-S125. Larsen, J.N., Anisimov, O.A., Constable, A., Hollowed, A.B., Maynard, N., Prestrud, P., Prowse, T.D., and Stone, J.M.R. 2014. Polar Regions. In Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Edited by V.R. Barros and C.B. Field and D.J. Dokken and M.D. Mastrandrea and K.J. Mach and T.E. Bilir and M. Chatterjee and K.L. Ebi and Y.O. Estrada and R.C. Genova and B. Girma and E.S. Kissel and A.N. Levy and S. MacCracken and P.R.

25

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Environmental Reviews Page 26 of 37

Mastrandrea and L.L. White. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA. pp. 1567-1612. Larsen, T. 1970. Polar Bear Research in Svalbard. Oryx 10(6): 368-372. Larsen, T.S., and Stirling, I. 2009. The Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears - Its History and Future. Rapportserie no. 127. Lentfer, J. 1974. Agreement on Conservation of Polar Bears. Polar Record 17(108): 327-330. Leopold, A. 1933. Game Management. Charles Scribner & Sons, New York. Loughrey, A.G. 1956. The Polar Bear and Its Protection. Oryx 3: 233-239. Lunn, N.J., Servanty, S., Regehr, E.V., Converse, S.J., Richardson, E., and Stirling, I. 2016. Demography of an Apex Predator at the Edge of Its Range: Impacts of Changing Sea Ice on Polar Bears in Hudson Bay. Ecological Applications 26(5): 1302-1320. doi: 10.1890/15-1256. Lunn, N.J., Stirling, I., Andriashek, D., and Kolenosky, G.B. 1997. Re-Estimating the Size of the Polar Bear Population in Western Hudson Bay. Arctic 50(3): 234-240. Mauritzen, M., Derocher, A.E., Wiig, O., Belikov, S.E., Boltunov, A.N., Hansen, E., and Garner, G.W. 2002. Using Satellite Telemetry to Define Spatial Population Structure in Polar Bears in the Norwegian and Western Russian Arctic. Journal of Applied Ecology 39(1): 79-90. Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment. 2003. Regulation on Protection of Hopen Nature Reserve in Svalbard (in Norwegian). Norwegian Ministry of Environment. 1973. Regulation on Establishment of National Parks, Nature Reserves and Bird Sanctuaries, Svalbard (in Norwegian). Paetkau, D., Amstrup, S.C., Born, E.W., Calvert, W., Derocher, A.E., Garner, G.W., Messier, F., Stirling, I., Taylor, M.K., Wiig, Ø., and Strobeck, C. 1999. Genetic Structure of the World's Polar Bear Populations.Draft Molecular Ecology 8: 1571-1584. Paloheimo, J.E., and Fraser, D. 1981. Estimation of Harvest Rate and Vulnerability from Age and Sex Data. Journal of Wildlife Management 45(4): 948-958. doi: 10.2307/3808102. Parkinson, C.L. 2014. Spatially Mapped Reductions in the Length of the Arctic Sea Ice Season. Geophysical Research Letters 41: 4316-4322. doi: 10.1002/2014GL060434. Peacock, E., Derocher, A.E., Thiemann, G.W., and Stirling, I. 2011. Conservation and Management of Canada's Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus) in a Changing Arctic. Canadian Journal of Zoology 89: 371-385. Pedersen, A. 1945. Der Eisbär (Thalarctos Maritimus Phipps): Verbreitung Und Lebensweise. Aktieselskabet E. Bruun & Co Trykkerier, Copenhagen. Polar Bear Range States. 2015. Circumpolar Action Plan: Conservation Strategy for the Polar Bear. Parties to the 1973 Agreement on the conservation of polar bears. Polar Bear Specialist Group. 1993. Proceedings of the 11th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group 25-27 January 1993, Copenhagen, Denmark. IUCN. Polar Bear Specialist Group. 1998. Proceedings of the 12th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group 3-7 February 1997, Oslo, Norway. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Polar Bear Specialist Group. 2002. Proceedings of the 13th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group 23-28 June 2001, Nuuk, Greenland. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Polar Bear Specialist Group. 2006. Proceedings of the 14th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group 20-24 June 2005, Seattle, USA. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Polar Bear Specialist Group. 2010. Proceedings of the 15th Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group 29 June - 3 July 2009, Copenhagen, Denmark. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Polar Bear Specialist Group. 2014. Status Table for All 19 Polar Bear Subpopulations. 26

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Page 27 of 37 Environmental Reviews

Prestrud, P., and Stirling, I. 1994. The International Polar Bear Agreement and the Current Status of Polar Bear Conservation. Aquatic Mammals 20(3): 113-124. Pullin, A.S., and Knight, T.M. 2009. Doing More Good Than Harm - Building an Evidence-Base for Conservation and Environmental Management. Biological Conservation 142(5): 931-934. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.01.010. R Core Team. 2016. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Http://Www.R-Project.Org. Regehr, E.V., Amstrup, S.C., and Stirling, I. 2006. Polar Bear Population Status in the Southern Beaufort Sea. Open-File Report 2006-1337. Regehr, E.V., Laidre, K.L., Akçakaya, H.R., Amstrup, S.C., Atwood, T.C., Lunn, N.J., Obbard, M., Stern, H., Thiemann, G.W., and Wiig, Ø. 2016. of Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus) in Relation to Projected Sea-Ice Declines. Biology Letters 12(12). doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2016.0556. Regehr, E.V., Lunn, N.J., Amstrup, S.C., and Stirling, L. 2007. Effects of Earlier Sea Ice Breakup on Survival and Population Size of Polar Bears in Western Hudson Bay. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(8): 2673-2683. Regehr, E.V., Wilson, R.R., Rode, K.D., Runge, M.C., and Stern, H.L. 2017. Harvesting Wildlife Affected by Climate Change: A Modelling and Management Approach for Polar Bears. Journal of Applied Ecology: n/a-n/a. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12864. Rottem, S.V. 2017. The Use of Arctic Science: Pops, Norway and the Stockholm Convention. Arctic Review 8. doi: 10.23865/arctic.v8.723. Schipper, J., Chanson, J.S., Chiozza, F., Cox, N.A., Hoffmann, M., Katariya, V., Lamoreux, J., Rodrigues, A.S., Stuart, S.N., Temple, H.J., Baillie, J., Boitani, L., Lacher, T.E., Jr., Mittermeier, R.A., Smith, A.T., Absolon, D., Aguiar, J.M., Amori, G., Bakkour, N., Baldi, R., Berridge, R.J., Bielby,Draft J., Black, P.A., Blanc, J.J., Brooks, T.M., Burton, J.A., Butynski, T.M., Catullo, G., Chapman, R., Cokeliss, Z., Collen, B., Conroy, J., Cooke, J.G., da Fonseca, G.A., Derocher, A.E., Dublin, H.T., Duckworth, J.W., Emmons, L., Emslie, R.H., Festa-Bianchet, M., Foster, M., Foster, S., Garshelis, D.L., Gates, C., Gimenez-Dixon, M., Gonzalez, S., Gonzalez-Maya, J.F., Good, T.C., Hammerson, G., Hammond, P.S., Happold, D., Happold, M., Hare, J., Harris, R.B., Hawkins, C.E., Haywood, M., Heaney, L.R., Hedges, S., Helgen, K.M., Hilton-Taylor, C., Hussain, S.A., Ishii, N., Jefferson, T.A., Jenkins, R.K., Johnston, C.H., Keith, M., Kingdon, J., Knox, D.H., Kovacs, K.M., Langhammer, P., Leus, K., Lewison, R., Lichtenstein, G., Lowry, L.F., Macavoy, Z., Mace, G.M., Mallon, D.P., Masi, M., McKnight, M.W., Medellin, R.A., Medici, P., Mills, G., Moehlman, P.D., Molur, S., Mora, A., Nowell, K., Oates, J.F., Olech, W., Oliver, W.R., Oprea, M., Patterson, B.D., Perrin, W.F., Polidoro, B.A., Pollock, C., Powel, A., Protas, Y., Racey, P., Ragle, J., Ramani, P., Rathbun, G., Reeves, R.R., Reilly, S.B., Reynolds, J.E., III, Rondinini, C., Rosell-Ambal, R.G., Rulli, M., Rylands, A.B., Savini, S., Schank, C.J., Sechrest, W., Self-Sullivan, C., Shoemaker, A., Sillero-Zubiri, C., De, S.N., Smith, D.E., Srinivasulu, C., Stephenson, P.J., van, S.N., Talukdar, B.K., Taylor, B.L., Timmins, R., Tirira, D.G., Tognelli, M.F., Tsytsulina, K., Veiga, L.M., Vie, J.C., Williamson, E.A., Wyatt, S.A., Xie, Y., and Young, B.E. 2008. The Status of the World's Land and Marine Mammals: Diversity, Threat, and Knowledge. Science 322(5899): 225-230. doi: 10.1126/science.1165115. Scott, P. 1965. Preliminary List of Rare Mammals and Birds. In The launching of the New Ark. Edited by P. Scott. World Wildife Fund. pp. 155-237. Scott, R.F., Kenyon, K.W., Buckley, J.L., and Olson, S.T. 1959. Status and Management of the Polar Bear and Pacific Walrus. Transactions of the 24th North American Wildlife Conference 24: 366-373. Sonne, C. 2010. Health Effects from Long-Range Transported Contaminants in Arctic Top Predators: An Integrated Review Based on Studies of Polar Bears and Relevant Model Species. Environment International 36: 461-491.

27

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Environmental Reviews Page 28 of 37

Stapleton, S., Atkinson, S., Hedman, D., and Garshelis, D. 2014. Revisiting Western Hudson Bay: Using Aerial Surveys to Update Polar Bear Abundance in a Sentinel Population. Biological Conservation 170: 38-47. Stern, H.L., and Laidre, K.L. 2016. Sea-Ice Indicators of Polar Bear Habitat. The Cryosphere Discuss. 2016: 1-36. doi: 10.5194/tc-2016-110. Stewart, G.B., Coles, C.F., and Pullin, A.S. 2005. Applying Evidence-Based Practice in Conservation Management: Lessons from the First Systematic Review and Dissemination Projects. Biological Conservation 126(2): 270-278. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.06.003. Stirling, I., and Derocher, A.E. 2012. Effects of Climate Warming on Polar Bears: A Review of the Evidence. Global Change Biology 18(9): 2694-2706. Stirling, I., McDonald, T.L., Richardson, E.S., and Regehr, E.V. 2007. Polar Bear Population Status in the Northern Beaufort Sea. USGS Science Strategy to support US Fish and Wildlife Service polar bear listing decision. Stirling, I., McDonald, T.L., Richardson, E.S., Regehr, E.V., and Amstrup, S.C. 2011. Polar Bear Population Status in the Northern Beaufort Sea, Canada, 1971-2006. Ecological Applications 21(3): 859-876. Taylor, M., and Lee, J. 1995. Distribution and Abundance of Canadian Polar Bear Populations: A Management Perspective. Arctic 48(2): 147-154. Taylor, M.K., Laake, J., McLoughlin, P.D., Born, E.W., Cluff, H.D., Ferguson, S.H., Rosing-Asvid, A., Schweinsburg, R., and Messier, F. 2005. Demography and Viability of a Hunted Population of Polar Bears. Arctic 58(2): 203-214. Taylor, M.K., Laake, J., McLoughlin, P.D., Cluff, H.D., Born, E.W., Rosing-Asvid, A., and Messier, F. 2008. Population Parameters and Harvest Risks for Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus) of Kane Basin, CanadaDraft and Greenland. Polar Biology 31(4): 491-499. Taylor, M.K., Laake, J., McLoughlin, P.D., Cluff, H.D., and Messier, F. 2009. Demography and Population Viability of Polar Bears in the Gulf of Boothia, Nunavut. Marine Mammal Science 25(4): 778-796. Thiemann, G.W., Iverson, S.J., and Stirling, I. 2006. Seasonal, Sexual and Anatomical Variability in the Adipose Tissue of Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus). Journal of Zoology (London) 269: 65-76. Toomey, A.H. 2016. What Happens at the Gap between Knowledge and Practice? Spaces of Encounter and Misencounter between Environmental Scientists and Local People. Ecology and Society 21(2). doi: 10.5751/es-08409-210228. Tovey, P.E., and Scott, R.F. 1957. A Preliminary Report on the Status of the Polar Bear in Alaska. Alaska Sci. Conf 8: 1-11. UNEP. 2001. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (as Amended in 2009). UNEP, Stockholm. Vongraven, D. 2009. The Ballyhoo over Polar Bears. Polar Research 28: 323-326. Vongraven, D., Aars, J., Amstrup, S.C., Atkinson, S.N., Belikov, S.E., Born, E.W., Debruyn, T.D., Derocher, A.E., Durner, G.M., Gill, M., Lunn, N., Obbard, M.E., Omelak, J., Ovsyanikov, N., Peacock, E., Richardson, E., Sahanatien, V., Stirling, I., and Wiig, Ø. 2012. A Circumpolar Monitoring Framework for Polar Bears. Ursus Monographs 5: 1- 66. Weinbaum, K.Z., Brashares, J.S., Golden, C.D., and Getz, W.M. 2013. Searching for Sustainability: Are Assessments of Wildlife Harvests Behind the Times? Ecology Letters 16(1): 99-111. doi: 10.1111/ele.12008. Wiig, Ø. 2005. Are Polar Bears Threatened? Science 309(5742): 1814-1815. Zingg, W., Holmes, A., Dettenkofer, M., Goetting, T., Secci, F., Clack, L., Allegranzi, B., Magiorakos, A.-P., Pittet, D., and Systematic Review, E.-B. 2015. Hospital Organisation, Management, and Structure for Prevention of Health-Care-Associated Infection: A Systematic Review and Expert Consensus. Lancet Infectious Diseases 15(2): 212-224. doi: 10.1016/s1473-3099(14)20854-0. 28

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Page 29 of 37 Environmental Reviews

Figure 1 Polar bear subpopulations as delineated by the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist

Group (Polar Bear Specialist Group 2014). The map was made in ESRI ArcGIS

software using public domain map data @ naturalearthdata.com.

Figure 2 The annual number of peer-reviewed papers published on polar bears per year,

1960-2016. The line is a Poisson generalized linear model.

Figure 3 Counts of research papers over time (1960-2016) in topic in the nine categories

showing the highest rates of increase as estimated by a Poisson generalized

linear model.

Figure 4 The number of research papers per subpopulation in 1960-2016. The size of the

circle relates to the total number of papers for each subpopulation. Figure 5 The number of peer-reviewedDraft papers on polar bears published by subpopulation and year, 1960-2016. The subpopulations are sorted in the same

sequence as in Table 2. Subpopulation names are provided in Fig. 1.

SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

Figure S1 Counts of research papers covering the 15 research topics showing the lowest

rates of increase as estimated by a Poisson generalized linear model. The

model estimate was not significantly different from zero for the two research

topics Shipping and Population boundaries.

29

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Environmental Reviews Page 30 of 37

Draft

Polar bear subpopulations as delineated by the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group.

297x209mm (300 x 300 DPI)

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Page 31 of 37 Environmental Reviews

Draft

Annual number of peer-reviewed research papers in the period 1960-2016.

264x181mm (96 x 96 DPI)

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Environmental Reviews Page 32 of 37

Draft Counts of research papers in various topics in the nine categories showing the highest rates of increase as estimated by a Poisson generalized linear model.

84x53mm (300 x 300 DPI)

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Page 33 of 37 Environmental Reviews

Draft

The number of research papers per subpopulation in the period 1960-2016. The size of the circle relates to the total number of papers for each subpopulation.

279x215mm (300 x 300 DPI)

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Environmental Reviews Page 34 of 37

Draft The number of peer-reviewed research papers on polar bears by subpopulation and year. The subpopulations are sorted in the same sequence as in Table 2. Subpopulation names are provided in Figure 1.

84x51mm (300 x 300 DPI)

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Page 35 of 37 Environmental Reviews

Recommended monitoring Research topics (this INCREASE Number of parameters SE p1 50% year study) (%) papers (from Vongraven et al. 2012) Population size Population trend 4.1 1.2 *** 38 2002 and trend Population abundance 2.8 1.0 ** 42 1994 Reproduction Reproductive ecology 2.2 0.6 *** 123 1995 Survival Habitat and Climate change 20.3 2.3 *** 79 2013 ecosystem change Habitat 9.0 1.1 *** 85 2008 Human-caused Harvest 2.9 0.8 *** 65 2000 mortality Human-bear Human Wildlife 3.5 1.2 ** 29 1997 conflict Conflict Population Distribution 1.3 1.3 ns 22 1995 boundaries Prey distribution Predator/Prey 5.6 0.7 *** 113 2007 and abundance Pollution 8.7 0.7 *** 196 2006 Health Disease/Parasites 4.2 0.7 *** 103 2004 Stature Anatomy 5.6 1.0 *** 55 2005 Shipping 7.5 5.1 ns 3 2016 Human activity Draft Tourism 7.2 1.8 *** 23 2007 Behavioral Behavior 4.0 0.7 *** 97 2001 change Effects of monitoring itself Research impact 6.8 3.4 * 6 2000 on polar bears Traditional Ecological TEK 19.8 5.0 *** 16 2011 Knowledge Population status 14.1 3.4 *** 18 2009 Population genetics 12.1 2.2 *** 31 2013 Evolution/Fossil 7.4 1.4 *** 41 2011 record Protection 4.3 1.0 *** 33 2008 Research methods 4.4 0.6 *** 148 2004 Zoos/Captivity 2.1 0.5 *** 140 1996 Physiology 1.4 0.6 * 100 1990 1 Significance levels: *** p < 0.001. ** p < 0.01. * p < 0.05. ns p>= 0.05

Table 1 Annual increase of peer-reviewed publications relating to various research topics in the period

1960-2016. Counts of papers, fitted using a Poisson Generalized Linear Model, the percent

increase and standard errors are given. Topics are grouped and sorted based on the

parameters given in Vongraven et al. (2012), and sorted by percent increase within each group

of parameters. Significance levels (p) indicate the probability of the estimated increase not https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs Environmental Reviews Page 36 of 37 being equal to 0. The column “50% year” indicates the year in which 50% of the total number of papers in the entire period was published.

Draft

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs NO OF PAPERS PAPERS RANK RANGE RANGE RANK MEDIAN

11 11 8.25 13 4-14.5 12 93 10 2.5-13.5 12.25 16 82 8-16.5 72 15.5 8-18 19 55 18.25 12-19 28 14.5 14.5 14.5 12.25 5-16.5 13 17.5 71 17.5 6-19 16 16.25 67 8.5-17.5 6-17.5 44 54 16 16 2 16 2.75 1-17 6 16 187 7 9.5 2-17 8.75 1-16 141 16 104 16 16 1 16 15.75 1-18.5 118 Research impact Pollution** 17 17 8 17 17 17 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 8 8 8 12.5 8 8 10.25 7-18 89 Anatomy/- Stature 12 12 12 16.5 16.5 9 8 16.5 16.5 16.5 7 16.5 16.5 9 7 1-16.5 8 114 Diseases/- Parasites

19 18 11 6 13.5 13.5 16.5 13.5 13.5 16.5 4 13.5 8.5 3 Predator- prey 17 17 3 14 1 8 2 2 17 17 17 17 Environmental Reviews

12 5 Draft12 12 7 10 14 10 8.5 9 10 4 19 8 15.5 15.5 17.5 5 15.5 10 17.5 Repro- ductive ecology TEK https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/er-pubs 11 11 11 7 18 9.5 10 5 18 5 11 8.5 18 6 8 9.5 8.25 5-12.5 105 14.5 14.5 14.5 8 14.5 14.5 1 6 12 6 RECOMMENDED MONITORING PARAMETERS RECOMMENDED 11 5 5 11 10 11 4 16 18 16 8.5 16 8.5 19 6 6 9.5 2 4 4.75 2-11 136 13.5 13.5 13.5 8.5 Climate Climate change/- Habitat Behavior 16 16 4 14 1 3 2 4 4 16 16 12.5 12.5 5 12.5 18.5 18.5 Harvest Harvest

16 16 19 14.5 14.5 14.5 10.5 10.5 4 10.5 10 10.5 9 10.5 7 7 10 10.5 7 17.5 17.5 10 Population Population boundaries* median rank across parameters. All individual ranks below the median of 10 (of 19 subpopulations) are shaded grey. The total number of number total The grey. shaded are 10subpopulations) (of 19 of median the ranksbelow individual All parameters. across rank median papers per subpopulation differ from the numbers in Fig. 4 because some papers were assigned to more than one parameter. oneparameter. than more to assigned were papers some inbecause 4 Fig. numbers the from differ subpopulation per papers 1 2.5 4 1 3 1 2.5 1 5 1 2 5 2.25 1-5 224 14 15 7.5 7.5 2.5 4.5 4.5 2.5 2 10.5 10.5 6 10.5 1 12.5 2.5 6 12.5 7 18.5 7 6 16.5 8 16.5 18.5 6 2.5 10 Population Population studies

2 Table the on based ordered are Subpopulations parameter. monitoring recommended each to assigned papers of number of scores Ranked LS LP LP CS CS 2.5 KS KS BS BS SB SB 2.5 FB 6 7.5 4 2 2 3 10 2 3 9 2 3 3 2-10 194 KB KB BB SH SH 4.5 DS 7.5 AB AB EG EG GB NB NB 7.5 MC MC VM VM WH WH NW NW SUBPOPULATION papers peer-reviewed with thenumber highest of topic the research and majorthreat a but parameter, Not ** a priority * Population boundaries is not listed as a separate recommended monitoring parameter in Vongraven et al. 2012 2012 et al. Vongraven parameter in monitoring recommended separate boundaries listed as a is not Population * Page 37 of