PLASTIC POLLUTION IN SEABIRDS

Developing a program to monitor plastic pollution in seabirds in the pan-Arctic region.

January 2021 Acknowledgements

CAFF Designated Agencies:

• Norwegian Environment Agency, Trondheim, Norway • Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa, Canada • Faroese Museum of Natural History, Tórshavn, Faroe Islands (Kingdom of Denmark) • Finnish Ministry of the Environment, Helsinki, Finland • Icelandic Institute of Natural History, Reykjavik, Iceland • The Ministry of Nature and Environment, Greenland • Russian Federation Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Moscow, Russia • Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm, Sweden • United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska

CAFF Permanent Participant Organizations:

• Aleut International Association (AIA) • Arctic Athabaskan Council (AAC) • Gwich’in Council International (GCI) • Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) – Greenland, Russia, Alaska and Canada • Russian Indigenous Peoples of the North (RAIPON) • Saami Council

This report should be cited as: J. Baak, J. Linnebjerg. M. Mallory, T. Barry, M. Gavrilo, F. Merkel, C. Price, J. Provencher. 2021. Plastic pollution in seabirds, Developing a program to monitor plastic pollution in seabirds in the pan-Arctic region. Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna International Secretariat: Akureyri, Iceland. ISBN 978-9935-431-87-5.

This document is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. To view a copy of the license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0

Cover photograph: Black-legged Kittiwake, by Maria Gavrilo

Funding and support: This project was funded by Funding for the preparation of this document was received from the Arctic Council Project Support Instrument (PSI), managed by the Nordic Environment Finance Corporation (NEFCO).

Layout and technical production : María Rut Dýrfjörð, Kári Fannar Lárusson and Sue Novotny

For more information please contact: CAFF International Secretariat Borgir Norðurslóð 600 Akureyri Iceland www.caff.is

CAFF Designated Area TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT...... 4 INTRODUCTION...... 4 METHODS...... 6 RESULTS...... 7 PROPOSED ARCTIC SEABIRD MONITORING PROGRAM...... 9 CONCLUSIONS...... 17 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... 17 REFERENCES ...... 18 TABLES...... 23

DEVELOPING A PROGRAM TO MONITOR PLASTIC POLLUTION IN SEABIRDS IN THE PAN-ARCTIC REGION | 2021 3 PLASTIC POLLUTION IN SEABIRDS Developing a program to monitor plastic pollution in seabirds in the pan-Arctic region

ABSTRACT

Many Arctic seabird populations are decreasing and conservation strategies and minimise the threats to threats such as plastic pollution may exacerbate this sustainable seabird populations across the Arctic. decline. Though research on plastic ingestion by Additional components of this work include: 1) a seabirds in the Arctic is increasing, there is a lack of review of literature related to the vulnerability of standardized long-term monitoring programs, making it seabirds to plastic pollution including ingestion and difficult to monitor pan-Arctic and global trends of this entanglement in the Arctic; and 2) a comparative environmental pollutant. We combine knowledge on analysis of how plastic pollution is addressed in plastic ingestion, conservation status and the ability to current policies in the Arctic countries. monitor Arctic seabird species to develop a program to monitor plastic pollution in seabirds across the Arctic. No Arctic seabird species were found to have both high INTRODUCTION global conservation concern and high susceptibility to plastic ingestion. However, at a local scale, 15 of Seabirds are among the most numerous and widespread 64 (23%) Arctic seabirds are listed as endangered or marine megafauna (Croxall et al. 2012). As migratory critically endangered in at least one Arctic country, and species and top predators, they are exposed to a number of those, 26% have an average frequency of occurrence of environmental factors throughout their annual cycle of plastic ingestion greater than zero. Further, 24 Arctic- that may affect their physiology and survival, making breeding seabirds have not been examined for plastic them important indicators of changes in the marine ingestion in this region. We propose methods to monitor environment (Mallory et al. 2010; Avery-Gomm et al. plastic pollution in seabirds in the Arctic, including 2012). For example, decreases in fish populations or advice for monitoring spatial and temporal trends in increases in chemical pollutants can result in declines in plastic ingestion, nest incorporation and entanglement, seabird populations (Burger and Gochfeld 2002; Braune microplastics and plastic-associated contaminants, et al. 2005; Frederiksen et al. 2007; Letcher et al. 2010). point sources of plastic pollution and species of high Seabirds are also among the most threatened groups conservation concern in the pan-Arctic region. The of birds (Croxall et al. 2012) and many populations are working groups of the Arctic Council are currently in decline across the globe (Paleczny et al. 2015). Thus, developing a regional action plan for litter under the seabirds are particularly important to consider when Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) examining marine ecosystems and the threats that working group, and a monitoring plan for plastic under contribute to their decline. the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment (AMAP) Litter and Microplastics (LMEG) working group, and the Plastic pollution is ubiquitous in the marine environment program proposed here developed by the Conservation (UNEP 2016) and seabirds are particularly susceptible to of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) working group and the this pollutant due to their high trophic position, foraging Circumpolar Seabird Expert Group (CBird) is designed strategies and large foraging ranges (Day et al. 1985; van to support and contribute to these pan-Arctic initiatives. Franeker et al. 2015; Wilcox et al. 2015). To date, 180 of the world’s 409 seabird species have been reported to ingest plastic and other debris (Kühn and van Franeker CONTEXT 2020). Plastic pollution can have an impact on seabirds in two main ways: entanglement and ingestion. First, This report is part of an initiative by the Conservation seabirds can become entangled in larger debris such of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) Working Group of as abandoned, lost or discarded fishing gear (ALDFG), the Arctic Council to better understand the effects of which can lead to wounds, suffocation or starvation marine plastic pollution on Arctic seabirds and sea (Lively and Good 2019). Additionally, seabirds may ducks and is developed via CAFF’s Arctic Migratory use plastic debris in the construction of nests, causing Birds Initiative (AMBI) in collaboration with the entanglement and mortality of juveniles (Votier et al. Circumpolar Seabird Expert Group (CBird). Most 2011; Bond et al. 2012). Second, seabirds can ingest plastic Arctic countries do not have any coordinated long- pollution. Ingestion of plastic pollution can have a range term monitoring in place and this report proposes a of negative impacts on seabirds, including blockage program for monitoring the effects of plastic pollution or damage to the gastrointestinal tract (Brandão et al. on seabirds in the Arctic in order to inform larger 2011), reduced body condition or increased satiation

4 2021 | DEVELOPING A PROGRAM TO MONITOR PLASTIC POLLUTION IN SEABIRDS IN THE PAN-ARCTIC REGION (Auman et al. 1997), and an increase in plastic-derived are increasing globally (IUCN 2020), populations in contaminants in seabird tissue associated with higher Iceland and the mainland populations in Norway are levels of accumulated plastic pollution (Lavers and Bond endangered (IINH 2018; NBIC 2019), and there have been 2016), which may remain in the gastrointestinal tracts dramatic declines in the last 40 years in the Canadian for months (van Franeker and Law 2015). Arctic (Gaston et al. 2012; Mallory et al. 2020a). Other

The ingestion of plastic pollution by seabirds is an increasing issue even in remote areas, such as the Arctic The ingestion of plastic pollution by (Mallory et al. 2006; Provencher et seabirds is an increasing issue even al. 2009; Trevail et al. 2015). Plastic can enter the Arctic region through in remote areas, such as the Arctic. land-based sources (e.g. landfills), fishing activities, ocean currents, wind and biotransport by seabirds (Mallory et al. 2006; UNEP 2016), and has been found species, such as the black guillemot (Cepphus grylle) across the Arctic marine environment from surface and thick-billed murre (Uria lomvia), have varying waters (Lusher et al. 2015; Morgana et al. 2018) to the population statuses across the Arctic (Table 1). There deep sea floor (Bergmann et al. 2017; Buhl-Mortensen are a variety of threats that can cause these population and Buhl-Mortensen 2017; Tekman et al. 2017), and in declines, such as reduced fish populations, unsustainable sea ice (Obbard et al. 2014; Peeken et al. 2018; Kanhai et harvesting, incidental bycatch, entanglement in ALDFG, al. 2020). Of the 64 Arctic-breeding seabird species (Irons or environmental pollutants (Croxall et al. 2012; et al. 2015), 40 have been examined for ingested plastics, Grémillet et al. 2018; Christensen-Dalsgaard 2019; Dias and 23 (58%) of these species examined contained at et al. 2019; Dietz et al. 2019). Further, changes in prey least one plastic item (Baak et al. in press). However, distribution, habitat, sea level and more due to climate though plastic ingestion research is increasing in this change can negatively affect populations, and these region, there remain large knowledge gaps for various threats can act on seabirds simultaneously (Provencher species and regions (O’Hanlon et al. 2017; Provencher et al. 2019a). Therefore, since seabird populations can et al. 2015, 2017; Baak et al. in press). Further, there is experience multiple stressors at once, it is important a lack of long-term monitoring of plastic ingestion by to consider threats that may be both lethal (i.e. plastic seabirds in the Arctic, making it difficult to monitor pan- entanglement), and sub-lethal (i.e. plastic ingestion) in Arctic and global trends of this environmental pollutant. context of their conservation status, especially since plastic pollution may impact seabirds differently While there is currently no standardized, long-term, depending on the biology of the species and its current circumpolar monitoring program for plastic ingestion population trend. Further, plastic ingestion may differ by seabirds in the Arctic (Linnebjerg et al. in press), between species, as different species forage across the Arctic Council under the Arctic Monitoring and different areas and trophic levels (Poon et al. 2017). This Assessment Program (AMAP) is currently developing reinforces the need for monitoring plastic pollution in a guideline for monitoring plastic in the Arctic Arctic seabirds, not only for estimating the abundance environment. In the North Sea, the Convention for of marine plastic pollution but for assessing the impact the Protection of the Marine Environment of the on seabird individuals and populations. North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) monitoring program uses northern fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis) as an indicator In this study, we combine knowledge on plastic for plastic pollution (van Franeker et al. 2011; OSPAR pplastic pollution in Arctic seabirds. ollution ingestion, 2015; Provencher et al. 2017). This protocol has conservation status and the ability to monitor Arctic been used in Norway since the early 2000’s and has seabird species to propose a program to monitor recently been adopted in Iceland (Snæþórsson 2018, plastic pollution in seabirds across the pan-Arctic 2019) and some countries have opportunistically used region. Using this knowledge, the purposes of this this protocol in the Arctic (e.g. Canada; Provencher et study are to: a) better understand which Arctic al. 2009), but most Arctic countries do not have any seabirds may be most vulnerable to plastic pollution; coordinated long-term monitoring in place. Data from and b) develop a pan-Arctic program for monitoring long-term monitoring programs are important to plastic pollution in Arctic seabirds. These methods can assess spatial and temporal trends in plastic ingestion then be used by countries across the Arctic to make across the Arctic. Further, from a conservation specific, coordinated monitoring plans, thus creating perspective, these long-term monitoring programs data that can be combined and compared (when the can be used to monitor the impacts of plastic pollution same sampling methods are used), resulting in pan- on seabird species. Arctic analyses that help to track plastic pollution in the marine environment and the potential effects of Many Arctic seabirds are of conservation concern. plastic pollution on seabirds. For example, though northern fulmar populations

DEVELOPING A PROGRAM TO MONITOR PLASTIC POLLUTION IN SEABIRDS IN THE PAN-ARCTIC REGION | 2021 5 METHODS

For this program, we defined the Arctic region according 2016 updated in 2019), thus these definitions were used to the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF), for these countries. Finally, we used data from Baak et al. which includes Greenland, the Faroe Islands, Iceland, (in press) on plastic ingestion by Arctic seabird species. and parts of Norway, Russia, Canada, the United States (USA; Alaska), Sweden and Finland (Fig. 1; Irons et al. To determine which Arctic seabird species are typically 2015). However, as Sweden and Finland do not border available for sampling (e.g. through harvesting, bycatch the Arctic Ocean and do not have seas within the CAFF or current monitoring programs) for plastic pollution area, they are not included in this program specific to monitoring across the Arctic countries, two expert Arctic breeding seabirds. We also defined Arctic seabirds workshops were held in 2019 in Iceland and Russia. following CAFF (Irons et al. 2015), which includes 64 The Icelandic workshop, “Plastic Pollution in Seabirds”, seabird species that breed in the Arctic (Table 1). consisted of seabird researchers from universities and research institutions as well as members of the CAFF To determine species vulnerability on a global scale, we Circumpolar Seabird Expert Group (CBird) under the used data from the International Union for Conservation Arctic Council. In this workshop, a representative from of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species and each Arctic country gave an update on seabird plastic recorded each species population status (least concern, pollution ingestion monitoring in their respective near threatened, vulnerable, endangered, critically nation. Further, members generated a list of species endangered, regionally extinct or not assessed), and for which substantial data on plastic ingestion already population trend (increasing, stable, decreasing or exists, and a list of species that are easily accessible unknown). To determine species vulnerability on for plastic pollution ingestion monitoring in the Arctic. a regional scale, we used nationally developed red The Russian workshop, “Plastic pollution & seabirds lists (that follow IUCN population status definitions) in the Russian Arctic: State of knowledge, information from each Arctic country. Canada and the USA define exchange, possibilities for collaboration”, consisted population status following the Committee on the Status of plastic pollution and seabird experts representing of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC 2018) Arctic and adjacent northern and Far East coastal and the Endangered Species Program (U.S. Fish and areas in Russia, including representatives from Wildlife Service 2020), respectively, and Russia defines marine specially protected areas, research institutions, population status following the Red Data Book (uncertain universities and non-governmental organizations. status, rare, decreasing number and endangered; The Russian workshop was followed by a round-table Procedure for Red Data Book of the Russian Federation discussion “Seabirds, their monitoring and research in the Russian Arctic and adjacent seas”. In this workshop, participants provided updates on current knowledge on plastic pollution and plastic pollution ingestion by seabirds, and species suitable to monitor in terms of plastic pollution ingestion in Russia were suggested (CAFF 2020). Based on the results of the above workshops and the number of plastic ingestion reports (see Baak et al. in press for full list) for each seabird species, CBird representatives provided a list of all northern fulmar, black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) and thick-billed murre colonies in the Arctic that are visited at least once every 3 – 5 years for research or monitoring purposes. These data and expert opinion were used in the development of this monitoring program.

Fig. 1. The circumpolar Arctic as defined by CAFF (Irons et al. 2015) including an outline of the Arctic circle at 66°33’ N.

6 2021 | DEVELOPING A PROGRAM TO MONITOR PLASTIC POLLUTION IN SEABIRDS IN THE PAN-ARCTIC REGION RESULTS SPECIES VULNERABILITY

Forty (63%) of the 64 Arctic-breeding seabird species Group, 2013; Baak et al. in press), and all three are listed have been examined for plastic ingestion in the Arctic as least concern on the global IUCN Red List (Table 1). (Table 1; Baak et al. in press). Of these 40, 37 species Further, the fork-tailed storm petrel and the northern (93%) have a mean frequency of occurrence of plastic fulmar currently have increasing global population ingestion < 50%, 27 of which are listed as least concern trends, whereas the parakeet auklet is in decline (Table on the IUCN Red List (Table 1; Fig. 2). The remainder 1; Fig. 2). Locally, however, the northern fulmar is listed are listed as near threatened (n = 4), vulnerable (n = 5) as endangered in both Iceland and mainland Norway or endangered (n = 1), all of which have a decreasing (Table 1), and recent work in Canada shows a declining global population besides the common eider (Somateria population trend at some colonies (Mallory et al. 2020a). mollissima), which has an unknown population status The fork-tailed storm petrel and parakeet auklet have according to IUCN (Table 1; Fig. 2). not been assessed locally to date (Table 1).

The three species that had the highest reported frequency No Arctic seabird species were found to have both high of occurrence of plastic ingestion (> 50%) are fork-tailed global conservation concern and high susceptibility storm petrels (Oceanodroma furcata; mean 93%, max to plastic ingestion (Fig. 2), though many species of 100%; Day 1980; Baak et al. in press), parakeet auklets high conservation concern have not been extensively (Aethia psittacula; mean 67%, max 94%; Robards et al. examined for plastics (e.g. Ivory gull Pagophila eburnea). 1995; Baak et al. in press) and northern fulmars (mean However, the Leach’s storm petrel (Oceanodroma 58%, max 91%; van Franeker and the SNS Fulmar Study leucorhous), red-legged kittiwake (Rissa brevirostris),

Fig. 2. The global International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) population status and trend, and mean frequency of occurrence of plastic ingestion of Arctic-breeding seabirds, where ALTE = Aleutian tern (Onychoprion aleuticus); ATPU = Atlantic puffin (Fratercula arctica); BLKI = black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla); FTSP = fork-tailed storm petrel (Oceanodroma furcata); LHSP = Leach’s storm petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhous); MAMU = marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus); NOFU = northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis); PAAU = parakeet auklet (Aethia psittacula); and RLKI = red-legged kittiwake (Rissa brevirostris). Overlapping points (i.e. species with the same frequency of occurrence and IUCN status) were offset to show all species.

DEVELOPING A PROGRAM TO MONITOR PLASTIC POLLUTION IN SEABIRDS IN THE PAN-ARCTIC REGION | 2021 7 Black-legged kittiwake in Svalbard. Photograph by Kristine B. Westergaard and black-legged kittiwake all have mean plastic SPECIES SUITABLE FOR MONITORING pollution ingestion levels greater than zero (34%, 13% PLASTIC POLLUTION IN THE PAN-ARCTIC and 6%, respectively) and are listed as vulnerable on the REGION IUCN Redlist (Table 1). Further, black-legged kittiwakes are listed as endangered in mainland Norway and Determining spatial and temporal trends in plastic vulnerable in Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Iceland, ingestion across the pan-Arctic requires species that while red-legged kittiwakes are listed as rare in Russia. are known to ingest plastic, are widely distributed It should be noted that Leach’s storm-petrels are being geographically and are readily accessible for actively assessed by COSEWIC in Canada, and their status monitoring. Of the 40 Arctic seabirds known to have is likely to be changed from least concern to vulnerable ingested plastic, seven have a circumpolar distribution, in the coming year. and of these, six are available to scientists in at least three Arctic countries (Table 2). Of these, the northern Locally, 15 (23%) Arctic seabirds are listed as endangered fulmar, thick-billed murre, black-legged kittiwake and or critically endangered in at least one Arctic country common eider have the highest number of plastic (Table 1). Of these, the common murre (Uria aalge) ingestion studies across at least four Arctic countries. and razorbill (Alca torda) are the only species listed At some colonies, seabird monitoring programs could as endangered or critically endangered in at least be expanded to include plastic ingestion monitoring for three Arctic countries. However, common murres are these four species. The species accessible for monitoring at low risk of plastic ingestion (mean 0% frequency in the seven Arctic countries, based on the Icelandic and of occurrence; 341 total samples) and razorbills have Russian workshops, are listed in Table 3. The three most not been examined for plastic ingestion in the Arctic accessible for monitoring in the Arctic are the northern (although low levels have been reported outside of the fulmar (7 Arctic countries; 8 potential sampling Arctic; Provencher et al. 2014). Overall, 26% of the 15 methods), black-legged kittiwake (7 Arctic countries, 7 species at risk have a mean frequency of occurrence potential sampling methods) and thick-billed murre (6 greater than 0%. The thick-billed murre (mean 3% Arctic countries; 5 potential sampling methods; Table 3). frequency of occurrence) and black-legged kittiwake (6%) are of most conservation concern, with at least three Arctic countries listing them as vulnerable or endangered.

8 2021 | DEVELOPING A PROGRAM TO MONITOR PLASTIC POLLUTION IN SEABIRDS IN THE PAN-ARCTIC REGION PROPOSED ARCTIC SEABIRD MONITORING PROGRAM

Below we propose methods to monitor plastic pollution 2008). And finally, it may not be possible or justifiable to in Arctic seabirds and provide advice for monitoring sample species that are listed as endangered in certain spatial and temporal trends in plastic ingestion, nest regions (e.g. Ivory gulls). Therefore, the decision on incorporation and entanglement, microplastics and which sampling method to employ should be decided plastic-associated contaminants, point sources of plastic by the individual researcher within the limitations pollution and species of high conservation concern in of local ecosystems and permitting regimes. In order the pan-Arctic region, which are summarized in Table 4. to align slightly differing methods across regions, future research efforts will need to consider how to 1. Methods to monitor plastic pollution in facilitate use of comparable methodologies to support seabirds – Standardized methods (OSPAR harmonized reporting. However, regardless of the 2015; Provencher et al. 2017, 2019) should be sampling method used, standardized methods for used where possible to make data comparable seabird dissection and plastic classification (see OSPAR across spatially and temporally. 2015) should be used when performing necropsies, and Plastic ingestion can be monitored in a variety of plastic ingestion metrics (see Provencher et al. 2017) ways. As discussed in Provencher et al. (2019b), whole and data analysis and presentation (see Provencher et seabirds can be necropsied to examine stomach contents al. 2019) should be reported in a consistent manner to (collected from hunting, bycatch, beached, or otherwise harmonize reporting facilitate comparisons of plastic found dead). Further, there are a variety of non-lethal ingestion (i.e. occurrence, mass, colour, type, etc.) across methods, such as bolus samples, regurgitation, stomach species, regions and time. flushing and emetics (Provencher et al. 2019b). There are pros and cons to each sampling method (see Plastic ingestion levels differ depending on the sampling Provencher et al. 2017, 2019), and we recognize that method used. For example, Kühn and van Franeker certain methods are not feasible for some species in (2020) found that petrels and albatrosses have higher some regions. For example, in Greenland, it is illegal to occurrences of plastic ingestion when necropsy is shoot thick-billed murres during the breeding season performed than when regurgitates are examined, due to severe declines in local populations (Merkel et while in gulls, skuas and cormorants, plastic levels do al. 2014). Further, in Norway and Russia (except for the not differ between these two sampling methods. In indigenous peoples of Chukotka), hunting of thick-billed the Arctic, there are currently no studies that examine murres is prohibited year-round (Merkel and Barry the differences in plastic ingestion between sampling methods (Baak et al. in press). Thus, in future studies where multiple sampling methods are used, data should always be compared between methods.

In addition to standardized methods, adequate sample sizes are important to accurately compare plastic ingestion by seabirds over time. Power analyses are needed to determine the minimum sample size for a species in a given region (see van Franeker and Meijboom 2002; Provencher et al. 2015, 2017). For example, van Franeker and Meijboom (2002) determined that at least 40 individuals are needed to sample plastic ingestion in northern fulmars in the North Sea, however, in the Canadian Arctic, 80 northern fulmars are recommended (Provencher et al. 2015). Thus, power analyses should be conducted to determine the minimum sample size for a species in a given region for a given sampling method. If this is not possible, a minimum sample size of 40 individuals should be used, following van Franeker and Meijboom (2002). Again, in some regions, this number may not be feasible for certain sampling methods (e.g. carcass collection), thus sample sizes should be within the limits of local ecosystems and permitting regimes, as discussed above. Plastic ring around the neck of a European shag Photograph by Svein Håkon Lorentsen

DEVELOPING A PROGRAM TO MONITOR PLASTIC POLLUTION IN SEABIRDS IN THE PAN-ARCTIC REGION | 2021 9 2. Monitoring spatial trends in plastic The thick-billed murre is the second most studied ingestion – The northern fulmar, thick- species in the Arctic, with 14 studies to date published billed murre, and black-legged kittiwake across four Arctic countries (see Fig. 4; Baak et al. in should be monitored for spatial trends in press). Though murres in the Arctic have a relatively low plastic ingestion. frequency of occurrence of plastic ingestion (mean 3%, max of 24%; Lydersen et al. 1989; Baak et al. in press), Determining spatial trends in plastic ingestion across these seabirds are harvested for food in various Arctic the pan-Arctic requires species that are known to ingest countries (Gaston and Robertson 2010; Merkel et al. plastic and are widely distributed geographically. We 2014), making them a suitable monitoring species. Since advise the use of three seabird species: northern fulmars, this species has a circumpolar distribution (Gaston and thick-billed murres, and black-legged kittiwakes (Table Hipfner 2020), and 52 colonies across the Arctic (besides 2, 4). The northern fulmar is the most widely studied the Faroe Islands) are visited every 3 – 5 years for other species for plastic ingestion in the Arctic, with 27 studies monitoring purposes (Fig. 4), thick-billed murres have across seven Arctic countries (Fig. 3; Baak et al. in press). the potential to be monitored for spatial trends in plastic Further, this species has a wide distribution in the pollution across the Arctic, not only to determine spatial Arctic (Mallory et al. 2020b) and there are 50 colonies trends in plastic ingestion, but also to assess human across the Arctic that are monitored every 3-5 years health risks by examining plastic-related contaminants for other research (Fig. 3) where plastic ingestion could in tissues (when necropsy is the sampling method used). potentially be examined. Additionally, this species has a high mean frequency of occurrence of plastic ingestion Plastic pollution levels in black-legged kittiwakes in the in this region. In some Arctic regions, such as Russia, Arctic are higher than murres (mean 6%, max 15%; Baak fulmars have a limited breeding range and are not et al. in press), but lower than fulmars. However, the readily monitored due to the inaccessibility of colonies. black-legged kittiwake is one of the fourth most-studied However, data on plastic ingestion by fulmars span seabirds for plastic ingestion in the Arctic, with eight most of the Northern hemisphere (O’Hanlon et al. 2017; studies across four Arctic countries (Fig. 5; Baak et al. in OSPAR 2015), making fulmars important indicators of press). Further, with a circumpolar distribution (Hatch spatial trends in marine plastic pollution in the Arctic et al. 2020) and 3942 kittiwake colonies across the Arctic and in adjacent waters. that are visited every 3 – 5 years for other monitoring purposes (Fig. 5), they are ideal for monitoring spatial

Fig. 3. Northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) colonies visited every 3-5 years and locations where northern fulmars have been sampled for plastic ingestion in the Arctic.

10 2021 | DEVELOPING A PROGRAM TO MONITOR PLASTIC POLLUTION IN SEABIRDS IN THE PAN-ARCTIC REGION trends in plastics across these regions. However, it is suitable species to monitor for temporal trends are those important to note that of the 3942 colonies that can be that have historical information, can be readily accessed, monitored, 98% are in Alaska, with a large cluster in the and that may be part of other monitoring programs to Kodiak Archipelago (Fig. 5). reduce disturbance to colonies and individuals. Thus, we advise the use of northern fulmars, black-legged Finally, to obtain accurate information on the distribution kittiwakes and thick-billed murres for monitoring of plastics in the marine environment, it is important to temporal trends of plastic ingestion in the pan-Arctic sample various seabird species with different foraging region (Table 2, 4). strategies and diets (Poon et al. 2017). Northern fulmars and black-legged kittiwakes are both surface-feeders, Plastic ingestion by northern fulmars has been where northern fulmars are omnivorous and black- examined since the 1970s (Fig. 3; Baak et al. in press) and legged kittiwakes are generally piscivorous (Hatch et al. monitoring efforts have continued to increase, especially 2020; Mallory et al. 2020b), while thick-billed murres since the introduction of the OSPAR monitoring program are pursuit-divers (Gaston and Hipfner 2020). Thus, (OSPAR 2015). The current temporal distribution of data we suggest monitoring northern fulmars, thick-billed on plastic ingestion by fulmars, along with their high murres and black-legged kittiwakes for spatial trends in susceptibility to ingest plastics and high conservation plastic ingestion in the Arctic. concern in some regions, makes this species an important indicator of temporal trends in plastic ingestion in the 3. Monitoring temporal trends in plastic Arctic. Fulmars are the only species that are consistently ingestion – The northern fulmar, thick-billed monitored using a standardized method to facilitate murre and black-legged kittiwake should comparisons across years. Further, van Franeker and be monitored for temporal trends in plastic Meijboom (2002) determined that to accurately assess pollution ingestion. temporal trends in plastic ingestion by seabirds, four to eight consecutive years of data are required for Knowledge on the temporal trends of plastic ingestion statistical power. Thus, we advise that Arctic countries by seabirds is essential for understanding the changes adopt the OSPAR monitoring program where possible, in marine plastic pollution and evaluating the effect of to continue using northern fulmars to monitor temporal policies and programs aimed at preventing and reducing trends in plastic ingestion in the pan-Arctic region as plastic pollution in the marine environment. The most well as across the northern hemisphere.

Fig. 4. Thick-billed murre (Uria lomvia) colonies visited every 3-5 years and locations where thick- billed murres have been sampled for plastic ingestion in the Arctic.

DEVELOPING A PROGRAM TO MONITOR PLASTIC POLLUTION IN SEABIRDS IN THE PAN-ARCTIC REGION | 2021 11 After the northern fulmar, black-legged kittiwakes and entanglement in the Arctic. Further, of the three species thick-billed murres are some of the most studied species suitable for spatial and temporal monitoring of plastic in the Arctic, with plastic ingestion data ranging from ingestion across the Arctic (Table 4), only the black- 1969 – 2015 and 1969 – 2013, respectively. These species legged kittiwake actively builds nests. can also be monitored using the OSPAR monitoring protocol (e.g. Poon et al. 2017), thus when these species Outside of the Arctic, black-legged kittiwakes have are monitored for other purposes (e.g. productivity incorporated plastic debris in their nests (Hartwig et al. monitoring), plastic ingestion should continue to be 2007). For example, in Denmark, Hartwig et al. (2007) assessed to examine temporal trends on plastic ingestion found that 57% of black-legged kittiwake nests sampled in the pan-Arctic region. in 2005 contained plastic debris, an increase from 39% in 1992 (Clemens and Hartwig 1993). As black- 4. Monitoring nest incorporation and legged kittiwakes are broadly studied in the Arctic for entanglement – Black-legged kittiwake and plastic ingestion already, and many colonies are visited northern gannet (Morus bassanus) nests every 3-5 years for other monitoring, we suggest that should be monitored for nest incorporation black-legged kittiwake nests are monitored for nest of and entanglement in plastic pollution. incorporation of plastic debris in the Arctic. This will provide data that are comparable across many regions Incorporation of plastic debris into nests has been in the Arctic, and importantly, comparable to adjacent observed in several seabird species, increasing the risk seas where black-legged kittiwakes also nest in sub- of entanglement and mortality (e.g. Hartwig et al. 2007; Arctic and temperate locations. Votier et al. 2011; Grant et al. 2018; O’Hanlon et al. 2019). Using plastic debris as nesting material is associated Other seabird species that have been examined for with the abundance and availability of plastic debris nest incorporation and entanglement in more southern in the marine environment (Bond et al. 2012), thus regions, but are also found in the Arctic, are double- monitoring the use of plastic pollution in nests can crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus), great provide information on the amount and type of plastic cormorants (P. carbo), European shags (P. aristotelis) pollution in the local marine environment. Of the 64 and northern gannets (Podolsky and Kress 1989; Arctic breeding species included in this document, none Montevecchi 1991; Hartwig et al. 2007; Votier et al. 2011; have published information on nest incorporation or Acampora et al. 2016, Tavares et al. 2019; O’Hanlon et

Fig. 5. Black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) colonies visited every 3-5 years and locations where black-legged kittiwakes have been sampled for plastic ingestion in the Arctic.

12 2021 | DEVELOPING A PROGRAM TO MONITOR PLASTIC POLLUTION IN SEABIRDS IN THE PAN-ARCTIC REGION Seabird's nest with the plastic rubbish on the Arctic island. Photograph by Vladimir Melnik/www.shutterstock.com al. 2019). In the northeastern US, 37% of double-crested currently no power analysis for the number of black- cormorant nests contained plastic (Podolsky and Kress legged kittiwake nests needed for monitoring nest 1989). In eastern Canada, Montevecchi (1991) found that incorporation in the Arctic, we suggest following the 97% of northern gannet nests sampled in 1989 contained recommended range for northern gannet nests. plastic debris. However, after fisheries closures in 1992, this number decreased to 28% by 2007 (Bond et al. 2012). We recognize that in the Arctic, many seabird colonies Northern gannets are also known to become entangled are inaccessible for monitoring on-land. For example, in plastic debris in nests (e.g. Votier et al. 2011), thus in Arctic Canada, the majority of black-legged kittiwake this species can be monitored for both incorporation colonies are monitored by boat or by aerial survey and and entanglement at the same time. Within the Arctic the colonies are never physically visited. In these cases, region, the double-crested cormorant only occurs in the photographic surveillance by community members Bering Sea (Dorr et al. 2020) and the northern gannet or tourists on cruise ships could be used to estimate only breeds in Iceland, the Faroe Islands, Norway and the abundance of plastics incorporated into nests. the western part of the Russian Arctic (Mowbray 2020). Additionally, time-lapse cameras are often used for other However, as climate change increases, the northern seabird monitoring purposes, thus using these photos gannet is likely to expand its breeding range farther into to also monitor nest incorporation of plastic pollution the Arctic (Boertmann et al 2020), thus we suggest that across years and seasons should be explored (there is nest incorporation and entanglement of plastic debris currently a pilot study using this technique in northern are monitored at northern gannet colonies in the Arctic, Canada). While access to nests and their visibility may and where possible efforts should be coordinated in sub- vary across black-legged kittiwakes colonies in the Arctic colonies as well. Arctic, at a minimum the presence and absence of plastic pollution should be noted as the most reliable plastic Provencher et al. (2015) conducted a power analysis to pollution metric that can be recorded using different determine the number of northern gannet nest samples methods (e.g. direct observations, colony photographs, needed to detect a 10% change in nest incorporation etc.) of plastics and determined that between 140 – 629 nests are needed depending on the region. Though this number may vary for more northern colonies, we suggest sampling within this range when monitoring northern gannet nests in the Arctic. Further, as there is

DEVELOPING A PROGRAM TO MONITOR PLASTIC POLLUTION IN SEABIRDS IN THE PAN-ARCTIC REGION | 2021 13 5. Monitoring microplastics and plastic- Eiders have been previously examined for contaminants associated contaminants – Northern in the Arctic (e.g. Mallory et al. 2004). For example, in fulmars, thick-billed murres, black-legged Alaska, Stout et al. (2002) found that though many kittiwakes and common eiders should be eiders had contaminant concentrations below toxic monitored for microplastics and plastic- thresholds, they had higher levels of cadmium, copper, associated contaminants. lead and selenium than other seabird species. Though this study did not examine plastic ingestion or plastic- The majority of studies examining plastic ingestion in associated contaminants, contaminant monitoring in seabirds have looked at macroplastics (> 20-100 mm) the Arctic already uses seabirds for tracking patterns and mesoplastics (> 5-20 mm), however, microplastics and trends in environmental contaminants (Dietz et al. (< 5 mm; Barnes et al. 2008) and plastic-associated 2019), thus tissues can be sampled for plastic-associated contaminants are also important to consider when contaminants at the same time. monitoring the impacts of plastic pollution on seabirds. Plastic debris found in the marine environment contains Common eiders are widely distributed across the pan- both additives compounded during manufacturing and Arctic (Goudie et al. 2020), and consequently, are one of chemicals absorbed from sea water (Hirai et al. 2011) the fourth most studied species for plastic ingestion in the which can include unreacted chemicals and non- Arctic, with eight studies across four Arctic countries. Out intentionally added substances. These chemicals may of 998 eiders sampled across the Arctic, only one (0.1%) be a concern for seabirds and other marine organisms has ingested plastic (Baak et al. in press; Provencher et al. that ingest plastic pollution. Indeed, when plastic is 2013 in Provencher et al. 2014). However, the majority ingested, the chemicals used in plastic production can of these studies did not examine microplastics < 1mm, be incorporated into fish or seabird tissue (Tanaka et al. and none examined plastic-associated contaminants. 2013; Rochman et al. 2014; Tanaka et al. 2020). Further, As eiders are often harvested for consumption in the as many Arctic seabirds are harvested for consumption Arctic (ACIA 2005; Merkel and Barry 2008), monitoring (ACIA 2005), microplastics (small enough to translocate microplastics < 1mm and plastic related contaminants into seabird tissues) and plastic-associated contaminants in this species will be increasingly important for in seabird tissues may transfer to the humans that northern communities, especially as plastic pollution in consume them. In addition to the impact on seabirds, the Arctic continues to increase. Therefore, we suggest seabirds might also act as vectors of microplastics to the monitoring this species for microplastics < 1mm and marine and terrestrial environment where their guano plastic-associated contaminants in the pan-Arctic region. and other material (i.e. carcases and nest materials) Due to the small number of eiders that ingest plastic accumulate around their colonies (Provencher et in the Arctic, we encourage a minimum sample of 50 al. 2018). Thus, monitoring microplastic and plastic- eiders to monitor microplastic and plastic-associated associated contaminants is essential to understand the contaminants (e.g. PBDE’s; AMAP unpublished report). impacts on Arctic seabird species and the environment, as well as human health risks. Research that aims to better understand the impacts of physical plastic pollution to chemical contaminants Given that northern fulmars are one of the species with in biota can be easily applied via current seabird the highest levels of plastic pollution ingestion (Baak et programs throughout the region (Provencher et al. al. in press), and that there are ongoing monitoring of 2017). Specifically, several seabird species are monitored contaminants in northern fulmars in several regions for chemical pollutants via egg and carcass collections (Dietz et al. 2019), this species should be examined for recommended by national programs across the Arctic both plastic-derived and plastic-associated contaminants that contribute data to the Arctic Monitoring and where possible. Assessing both ingested plastics and Assessment Programme (AMAP), such as northern contaminants in this species across the Arctic will fulmars and thick-billed murres (Dietz et al. 2019). help elucidate how plastic ingestion and contaminants Therefore, any research on microplastics and plastic- burdens are linked. Further, in some Arctic countries associated contaminants should be conducted in (e.g. Canada and US) tissue samples have been archived coordination with the countries monitoring protocol (as frozen homogenates of whole eggs in chemically as recommended through AMAP. Further, seabird clean glassware) that can be used to study historical scientists can, where possible, collaborate with local plastic pollution contaminants. Additionally, tissues hunters to obtain tissues for analysis. If seabirds are not from a variety of other seabird species (e.g. thick-billed collected or hunted in a region, beached or bycatch birds murres and black-legged kittiwakes) are sampled for can be used to examine plastic-associated contaminants. contaminant monitoring purposes, thus there is a large Additionally, where possible eggs, chicks, fledglings and pool of samples that expand our ability to assess spatial adults should be examined for both physical plastic and temporal patterns in plastic ingestion. pollution and plastic-derived contaminants to fully understand how plastic pollution may be affecting these species.

14 2021 | DEVELOPING A PROGRAM TO MONITOR PLASTIC POLLUTION IN SEABIRDS IN THE PAN-ARCTIC REGION 6. Monitoring point sources of plastic provides a sample of debris that is either unable to be pollution – Glaucous gull (Larus regurgitated or unable to be digested (Seif et al. 2018). hyperboreus), great skua (Stercorarius Bolus samples collected from inland gull colonies can be skua) and other gull species that feed at used to monitor changes in waste management. Further, landfills and other urban or rural sites, bolus samples can be collected at colonies where current pellets/regurgitations should be monitored study programs exist or through citizen science (e.g. for plastic pollution near point sources to Lindborg et al. 2012). track local trends in plastic pollution. Finally, great skuas, as seabird predators, have a Although many Arctic countries have marine plastic unique potential for monitoring plastic ingestion using policies in place to prevent plastic waste entering regurgitated boluses because the frequency of plastic the marine environment (Linnebjerg et al. in press), ingestion can vary depending on the prey consumed waste management is an ongoing challenge. As waste (Hammer et al. 2016). For example, in Hammer et al. management practices evolve, monitoring point (2016), great skuas from the Faroe Islands had higher sources of pollution will be of increasing importance to incidences of plastic in bolus samples that contained better our understanding of the effectiveness of waste northern fulmars compared to boluses that contained management programs and is a core component of black-legged kittiwakes, which have a lower mean PAME’s Microplastic and Litter Regional Action Plan. As frequency of plastic ingestion than fulmars. Great skuas generalist predators and scavengers, larger gull species breed in Iceland, the Faroe Islands, Svalbard, mainland often make use of anthropogenic food sources, such as Norway and Northwest Russia (Furness et al. 2020) and landfills, making them particularly susceptible to plastic their range is predicted to increase farther into the Arctic ingestion (Bond 2016; Seif et al. 2018), and consequently with climate change (Boertmann et al. 2020), although at suitable biomonitors for local land-based plastic present they do not breed in Canada or the USA and thus pollution. Seif et al. (2018) examined plastic ingestion cannot be monitored in those regions. Nonetheless, this by herring gulls (Larus argentatus), great black- species has a 4% mean frequency of plastic ingestion backed gulls (Larus marinus) and Iceland gulls (Larus in the Arctic (Baak et al. in press) and can provide glaucoides) feeding at a landfill in Newfoundland, valuable monitoring information over much of the Canada, and found that approximately 75% of gulls region, particularly in areas where collecting samples ingested debris. from other species may be challenging. Thus, we advise monitoring glaucous gulls, great skuas and other gull Of the nine gull species examined for plastic ingestion in species to track local trends in plastic pollution in the the Arctic, red-legged kittiwakes and mew gulls (Larus Arctic region. canus) have the highest mean frequency of occurrence of plastic ingestion (both 13%, Table 1). However, these species are often not associated with landfills or waste dumps, thus give little information on point sources of plastic pollution. One gull species suitable for monitoring point sources of plastic pollution is the glaucous gull. This species has a pan-Arctic distribution, is known to ingest plastic (Table 1), and is also recommended as a monitoring species by AMAP (Dietz et al. 2019), thus is accessible for sampling in the Arctic. Importantly, there are recommended protocols for examining plastic pollution in bird boluses (Provencher et al. 2019). Therefore, we suggest that future research should focus on glaucous gulls and other gull species feeding at landfills, communities, military bases and other urban or rural sites to monitor the effectiveness of waste management in the Arctic. Additionally, glaucous gulls show a high body burden of contaminants, which is primarily related to feeding at a higher trophic level. Therefore, glaucous gulls can be used to assess how plastic chemicals are transferred to seabird tissues.

As gulls can regurgitate indigestible food items (Ryan 1987; Carey 2011), bolus or pellet samples can be used as a non-lethal method to monitor plastic ingestion by gulls feeding at local landfills or waste management facilities in the Arctic. Boluses provide a snapshot of debris recently ingested (e.g. Bond 2016), whereas necropsy Photograph: Maria Gavrilo

DEVELOPING A PROGRAM TO MONITOR PLASTIC POLLUTION IN SEABIRDS IN THE PAN-ARCTIC REGION | 2021 15 7. Monitoring species of high conservation puffin (Fratercula arctica), currently have no incidence concern – Leach’s storm-petrels should be of plastic ingestion in the Arctic. Moreover, these species monitored where possible for potential only have 1 – 2 studies across this region, all conducted effects of plastic pollution. before 1990 (Baak et al. in press). Importantly, Atlantic puffins have incidences of plastic ingestion in other The ability to predict the effect of plastic ingestion on regions (e.g. Ireland; Acampora et al. 2016), thus seabird species is limited by the lack of research on a additional studies are warranted to determine the risk variety of species (Avery-Gomm et al. 2016). This is of plastic ingestion for this species in the Arctic. Locally, especially important for understudied species with the Atlantic puffin, common murre and parasitic a high conservation status. This limitation can be jaeger (Stercorarius parasiticus) are listed as critically addressed by conducting baseline studies on plastic endangered in at least one Arctic country. As well, the ingestion by these species (Provencher et al. 2017). northern fulmar, thick-billed murre and long-tailed Across the Arctic, we found that seven seabird species jaeger (S. longicaudus) are listed as endangered in at least were listed as vulnerable and endangered on a global two Arctic countries, and seven other species are listed scale. Of these, three were reported to have ingested as endangered in one Arctic country (see Table 1). Since plastic, three have no occurrence of plastic and one has these species are already of high conservation concern in no data. the Arctic, plastic ingestion may exacerbate this decline (as in fulmars; Mallory et al. 2006). However, it is difficult Of the species of high conservation concern that have to assess the risk of plastic ingestion in these species. For ingested plastic, the Leach’s storm-petrel has the highest example, ivory gulls are listed as endangered in Canada mean frequency of occurrence (mean 34%, max 57%; but vulnerable in Greenland, Svalbard and Russia. They Baak et al. in press), including some chicks (Rothstein have no record of plastic ingestion; however, they have 1973 in Day et al. 1985). Though these data were collected only been examined in three studies, all of which were before the year 2000, recent plastic pollution ingestion conducted between 1969-1984 with small sample sizes levels in Leach’s storm-petrels in more southern regions (Day 1980; Mehlum and Giertz 1984; Gjertz et al. 1985). (Bond and Lavers 2013) suggest that this species is Though additional studies are warranted to determine still at risk of plastic ingestion. Recent research in sub- the risk of plastic ingestion for ivory gulls and other Arctic Canada (Newfoundland) found that while adults species, sampling these populations of high conservation may have low levels of ingested plastic pollution (<10% concern for plastic ingestion is impractical unless frequency of occurrence), fledglings may experience carcasses are found opportunistically. One avenue that very high levels of plastic ingestion (>80% frequency of future research should explore is how eggs may be occurrence; Mallory and Hedd unpub data). Importantly, monitoring for plastic-derived contaminants as a proxy Leach’s storm-petrels are listed as vulnerable with for plastic ingestion. This method may be of more use a decreasing population both globally and locally in for species where eggs can be collected or are already the Arctic, so understanding the threats to this species archived in some regions (i.e. ivory gulls). throughout its life span is important for conservation actions. We suggest monitoring Leach’s storm-petrels in the Arctic due to their high conservation concern, moderate Another seabird of global conservation concern and level of plastic ingestion and their North Atlantic and moderate risk of plastic ingestion is the red-legged North Pacific distribution (Pollet et al. 2020). Plastics kittiwake (Table 1). Like the Leach’s storm-petrel, the can be monitored in Leach’s storm-petrel using variety red-legged kittiwake is listed as vulnerable with a of methods (e.g. necropsy, stomach flushing). However, decreasing population on the global IUCN Red List but due to the conservation concern of Leach’s storm-petrels, has a 13% mean frequency of occurrence of plastic (max we suggest non-lethal methods where possible, such as 46%; Baak et al. in press). However, there are only three emetics (Bond and Lavers 2013), stomach flushing (Fijn plastic ingestion studies on red-legged kittiwakes in the et al. 2012), opportunistic carcass collections (Youngren Arctic, all from the Bering Sea between 1969 – 1994 et al. 2018), guano, or regurgitated bolus collections from (Day 1980; Robards et al. 1995; Artukhin et al. 2014). predator species (e.g. great skuas; Votier et al. 2016). Importantly, this species is only found in the Bering Sea (Byrd and Williams 2020), so while red-legged kittiwakes are not ideal for monitoring plastic ingestion across the Arctic, understanding the impacts of plastic pollution may inform conservation actions.

The three other species of global conservation concern, the marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), Aleutian tern (Onychoprion aleuticus) and Atlantic

16 2021 | DEVELOPING A PROGRAM TO MONITOR PLASTIC POLLUTION IN SEABIRDS IN THE PAN-ARCTIC REGION CONCLUSIONS

Plastic pollution is an increasing environmental threat (Smith and Stephenson 2013), making seabirds more that negatively impacts a variety of Arctic seabirds. vulnerable to plastic pollution. As this threat continues Importantly, as multiple threats can act on seabird to escalate, it is important to not only use seabirds as populations at the same time, it is important to consider tools for monitoring plastic pollution, but to consider the threats to seabirds in context with their conservation impacts of plastic ingestion on these species and how status. Thus, we provide advice on monitoring plastic pollution may exacerbate their decline. spatial and temporal trends in plastic ingestion, nest incorporation and entanglement, microplastics and plastic-associated contaminants, point sources of plastic ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS pollution, and species of high conservation concern in the pan-Arctic region. We strongly encourage We thank all participants in the Icelandic and Russian collaboration with local hunters, community members expert workshops. We also thank Robin Corcoran, Scott and other seabird and contaminant scientists to ensure Hatch, Robert Kaler, Kathy Kuletz, Thorkell Lindberg standardized, systematic sampling of seabirds for Thórarinsson, John Piatt, Heather Renner and Sarah plastic ingestion across the Arctic. Furthermore, as Schoen for contributing data on seabird colonies visited Arctic-breeding seabird species are found outside of the in the Arctic. This work was supported by the Arctic Arctic, this proposed program provides the opportunity Council Project Support Instrument (PSI), managed by to compare plastic pollution levels within the Arctic the Nordic Environment Finance Corporation (NEFCO) to regions across the globe (van Franeker et al. 2011; and the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) Provencher et al. 2017). As increasing temperatures working group of the Arctic Council. JEB was supported due to climate change continue to melt sea ice, more by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council microplastics will be released (Obbard et al. 2014) and scholarship at Acadia University. more floating plastics will enter into Arctic waters (Cózar et al. 2017). Further, human, shipping and fishing activities will continue to increase across the Arctic

Common Eider. Photograph: Mark Wilson

DEVELOPING A PROGRAM TO MONITOR PLASTIC POLLUTION IN SEABIRDS IN THE PAN-ARCTIC REGION | 2021 17 REFERENCES

Acampora H, Lyashevska O, Van Franeker JA, O’Connor I (2016) The use of beached bird surveys for marine plastic litter monitoring in Ireland. Mar Environ Res 120:122–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2016.08.00 ACIA (2005) Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. ACIA Overview report. Cambridge University Press. 1020 pp. Auman HJ, Ludwig JP, Giesy JP, Colborn T (1997) Plastic ingestion by Laysan Albatross chicks on Sand Island, Midway Atoll, in 1994 and 1995. In: Robinson G and & Gales R (eds) Albatross biology and conservation. Surrey Beatty and Sons: Chipping Norton. Avery-Gomm S, O’Hara PD, Kleine L, Bowes V, Wilson LK, Barry KL (2012) Northern fulmars as biological monitors of trends of plastic pollution in the eastern North Pacific. Mar ollutP Bull 64(1):1776-1781. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.04.017 Avery-Gomm S, Valliant M, Schacter CR, Robbins KR, Liboiron M, Daoust PY, Rios LM, Jones IL (2016) A study of wrecked Dovekies (Alle alle) in western North Atlantic highlights the importance of using standardised methods to quantify plastic ingestion. Mar Pollut Bull 113:75-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpolbul.2016.08.062 Avery-Gomm S, Borrelle SB, Provencher JF (2018) Linking plastic ingestion research with marine wildlife conservation. Sci Total Environ 637–638:1492–1495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.04.409 Baak JE, Linnebjerg JF, Barry T, Gavrilo MV, Mallory ML, Merkel FR, Price C, Strand J, Provencher JF. Plastic ingestion by seabirds in the circumpolar Arctic: A review. Environmental reviews [in press] Bergmann M, Wirzberger V, Krumpen T, Lorenz C, Primpke S, Tekman MB, Gerdts G (2017) High quantities of microplastic in Arctic deep-sea sediments from the HAUSGARTEN Observatory. Environ Sci Technol 51:11000– 11010. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b03331 Boertmann D, Merkel F, Gilg O (2020) Seabird colonies in East and North Greenland: A baseline. Arctic 73:20-39. Bond AL, Lavers JL (2013) Effectiveness of emetics to study plastic ingestion by Leach’s Storm-petrels (Oceanodroma leucorhoa). Mar Pollut Bull 70:171-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.02.030 Bond AL, Montevecchi WA, Guse N, Regular PM, Garthe S, Rail J-F (2012) Prevalence and composition of fishing gear debris in the nests of Northern Gannets (Morus bassanus) are related to fishing effort. Mar Pollut Bull 64:907-911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.03.011 Bond AL (2016) Diet Changes in Breeding Herring Gulls (Larus argentatus) in Witless Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, over 40 Years. Waterbirds 39:152–158. https://doi.org/10.1675/063.039.sp115 Brandão ML, Braga KM, Luque JL (2011) Marine debris ingestion by magellanic penguins, Spheniscus magellanicus (Aves: Sphenisciformes), from the Brazilian coastal zone. Mar Pollut Bull 62:2246-2249. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.07.016 Braune BM, Outridge PM, Fisk AT, Muir DCG, Helm PA, Hobbs K, Hoekstra PF, Kuzyk ZA, Kwan M, Letcher RJ, Lockhart WL, Norstrom RJ, Stern GA, Stirling I (2005) Persistent organic pollutants and mercury in marine biota of the Canadian Arctic: an overview of spatial and temporal trends. Sci Total Environ 351–352:4–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.10.034 Buhl-Mortensen L, Buhl-Mortensen P (2017) Marine litter in the Nordic Seas: Distribution composition and abundance. Mar Pollut Bull 125:260–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.08.048 Burger J, Gochfeld M (2002) Effects of chemicals and pollution onseabirds. In: Schreiber EA and Burger J (eds) Biology of Marine Birds, 1st ed, CRC Press, pp 485-525 Byrd GV, Williams JC (2020) Red-legged Kittiwake (Rissa brevirostris), version 1.0. In: Poole AF, Gill FB (eds) Birds of the world. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.relkit.01 Carey MJ (2011) Intergenerational transfer of plastic debris by Short-tailed Shearwaters (Ardenna tenuirostris). Emu 111:229–234. https://doi.org/10.1071/MU10085 Christensen-Dalsgaard S, Anker-Nilssen T, Crawford R, Bond A, Sigurðsson GM, Glemarec G, Hansen ES, Kadin M, Kindt-Larsen L, Mallory M, Petersen A, Provencher J, Bærum KM (2019) What’s the catch with the lumpsuckers? A North Atlantic study of seabird bycatch in lumpsucker gillnet fisheries. Biol Conserv 240:108278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108278 Clemens T, Hartwig E (1993) Müll als Nistmaterial von Dreizehenmöwen (Rissa tridactyla) - Untersuchung einer Brutkolonie an der Jammerbucht, Dänemark. Seevögel 14(1):6-7. COSEWIC (2018) COSEWIC wildlife species assessment: Process, categories and guidelines. http://www.cosewic.ca/index. php/en-ca/assessment-process/wildlife-species-assessment-process-categories-guidelines. Accessed 8 Apr 2020 Cózar A, Martí E, Duarte CM, García-de-Lomas J, van Sebille E, Ballator TJ, Eguíluz VM, González-Gordillo JI, Pedrotti ML, Echevarría F, Troublè R, Irigoien X (2017) The Arctic Ocean as a dead end for floating plastics in the North Atlantic branch of the Thermohaline Circulation. Sci Adv 3:e1600582. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600582 Croxall JP, Butchart SHM, Lascelles B, Stattersfield AJ, Sullivan B, Symes A, Taylor P (2012) Seabird conservation status, threats and priority actions: A global assessment. Bird Conserv Int 22:1–34. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0959270912000020

18 2021 | DEVELOPING A PROGRAM TO MONITOR PLASTIC POLLUTION IN SEABIRDS IN THE PAN-ARCTIC REGION Day RH, Wehle DHS, Coleman FC (1985) Ingestion of plastic pollutants by marine birds. In Shomura RS and Yoshida HO (eds) Proceedings of the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debris. Honolulu, Hawaii: U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, pp 344–386 Day RH (1980) The occurrence and characteristics of plastic pollution in Alaska’s marine birds. Thesis, University of Alaska. Dee Boersma P, Silva MC (2020) Fork-tailed Storm-Petrel (Oceanodroma furcata), version 1.0. In: Poole AF, Gill FB (eds) Birds of the world. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.ftspet.01 Dias MP, Martin R, Pearmain EJ, et al (2019) Threats to seabirds: A global assessment. Biol Conserv 237:525–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.06.033 Dietz R, Letcher RJ, Desforges J-P, Eulaers I, Sonne C, Wilson S, Andersen-Ranberg E, Basu N, Barst BD, Bustnes JO, Bytingsvik J, Ciesielski TM, Drevnick PE, Gabrielsen GW, Haarr A, Hylland K, Jenssen BM, Levin M, McKinney MA, Nørregaard RD, Pedersen KE, Provencher J, Styrishave B, Tartu S, Aars J, Ackerman JT, Rosing- Asvid A, Barrett R, Bignert A, Born EW, Branigan M, Braune B, Bryan CE, Dam M, Eagles-Smith CA, Evans M, Evans TJ, Fisk AT, Gamberg M, Gustavson K, Hartman CA, Helander B, Herzog MP, Hoekstra PF, Houde M, HoydalK, Jackson AK, Kucklick J, Lie E, Loseto L, Mallory ML, Miljeteig C, Mosbech A, Muir DCG, Nielsen ST, Peacock E, Pedro S, Peterson SH, Polder A, Rigét FF, Roach P, Saunes H, Sinding M-HS, Skaare JU, Søndergaard J, Stenson G, Stern G, Treu G, Schuur SS, Víkingsson G (2019) Current state of knowledge on biological effects from contaminants on arctic wildlife and fish. Sci Tot Environ 696: 133792.https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scitotenv.2019.133792 Dorr BS, Hatch JJ, Weseloh DV, Poole AF (2020) Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), version 1.0. In: Birds of the world. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.doccor.01 Fijn RC, van Franeker JA, Trathan PN (2012) Dietary variation in chick-feeding and self-provisioning Cape Petrel Daption capense and Snow Petrel Pagodroma nivea at Signy Island, South Orkney Islands, Antarctica. Mar Ornithol 40:81–87 Frederiksen M, Furness RW, Wanless S (2007) Regional variation in the role of bottom-up and top-down processes in controlling sandeel abundance in the North Sea. MEP 337:279–286. Furness RW, Boesman PFD, Garcia EF (2020) Great Skua (Stercorarius skua), version 1.0. In: del Hoyo J, Elliot A, Sargatal J, et al. (eds) Birds of the World. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/ bow.gresku1.01 Gaston AJ, Hipfner JM (2020) Thick-billed Murre (Uria lomvia), version 1.0. In: Billerman SM (ed) Birds of the world. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.thbmur.01 Gaston AJ, Mallory ML, Gilchrist HG (2012) Populations and trends of Canadian Arctic seabirds. Polar Biol 35: 1221- 1232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-012-1168-5 Gaston AJ, Robertson GJ (2010) Trends in the harvest of Brünnich’s guillemots Uria lomvia in Newfoundland: effects of regulatory changes and winter sea ice conditions. Wildl Biol 16:47-55.https://doi.org/10.2981/09-020 Gjertz I, Mehlum F, Gabrielsen GW (1985) Food sample analysis of seabirds collected during the ’Lance’-cruise in ice-filled waters in eastern Svalbard 1984. Norsk Polarinstitutt, Tromsø, Norway. Goudie RI, Robertson GJ, Reed A (2020) Common Eider (Somateria mollissima), version 1.0. In: Billerman SM (ed) Birds of the World. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.comeid.01 Grant ML, Lavers JL, Stuckenbrock S, Sharp PB, Bond AL (2018) The use of anthropogenic marine debris as a nesting material by Brown Boobies (Sula leucogaster). Mar Pollut Bull 137:96-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpolbul.2018.10.016 Grémillet D, Ponchon A, Paleczny M, Palomares MLD, Karpouzi, Pauly D (2018) Persisting worldwide seabird- fishery competition despite seabird community decline. Curr Biol 28(24):4009-4013.e2.https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.10.051 Hammer S, Nager RG, Johnson PCD, et al (2016) Plastic debris in great skua (Stercorarius skua) pellets corresponds to seabird prey species. Mar Pollut Bull 103:206–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.12.018 Hartwig E, Clemens T, Heckroth M (2007) Plastic debris as nesting material in a Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) colony at the Jammerbugt, Northwest Denmark. Mar Pollut Bull 54:595–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpolbul.2007.01.027 Hatch SA, Robertson GJ, Baird PH (2020) Black-legged Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla), version 1.0. In: Billerman SM (ed) Birds of the World. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.bklkit.01 Hirai H, Takada H, Ogata Y, Yamashita R, Mizukawa K, Saha M, Kwan C, Moore C, Gray H, Laursen D (2011) Organic micropollutants in marine debris from the open ocean and remote and urban beaches. Mar Pollut Bull 62: 1683-1692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.06.004 IINH (The Icelandic Institute of Natural History) (2018) Icelandic Red List 2018. Checklist dataset https://en.ni.is/ resources/publications/red-lists/red-list-birds accessed 2020-04-20.

DEVELOPING A PROGRAM TO MONITOR PLASTIC POLLUTION IN SEABIRDS IN THE PAN-ARCTIC REGION | 2021 19 Irons D, Petersen A, Anker-Nilssen T, Artukhin Y, Barrett R, Boertmann D, Gavrilo M, Gilchrist HG, Hansen E, Hario M, Kuletz K, Mallory ML, Merkel FR, Mosbech A, Labansen A, Olsen B, Österblom H, Reid J, Robertson GJ, Rönka M, Strøm H (2015) Circumpolar Seabird Monitoring Plan (CAFF Monitoring Report No. 17). CAFF International Secretariat, Akureyri, Iceland IUCN 2020. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2020-1. https://www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 20 April 2020. Jones IL, Konyukhov NB, Williams JC, Byrd GV (2020) Parakeet Auklet (Aethia psittacula), version 1.0. In: Poole AF, Gill FB (eds) Birds of the world. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow. parauk.01 Kühn S, van Franeker JA (2020) Quantitative overview of marine debris ingested by marine megafauna. Mar Pollut Bull 151:110858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110858 Kühn S, Bravo Rebolledo EL, van Franeker JA (2015) Deleterious effects of litter on marine life. In: Bergmann M, Gutow L, Klages M (eds) Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 75–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3_4 Lavers JL, Bond AL (2016) Ingested plastic as a route for trace metals in Laysan Albatross (Phoebastria immutabilis) and Bonin Petrel (Pterodroma hypoleuca) from Midway Atoll. Mar Pollut Bull 110: 493-500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.06.001 Letcher RJ, Bustnes JO, Dietz R, et al (2010) Exposure and effects assessment of persistent organohalogen contaminants in arctic wildlife and fish. Sci Total Environ 408:2995–3043.https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scitotenv.2009.10.038 Lindborg VA, Ledbetter JF, Walat JM, Moffett C (2012) Plastic consumption and diet of Glaucous-winged Gulls (Larus glaucescens). Mar Pollut Bull 64:2351–2356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.08.02 Linnebjerg JF, Baak JE, Barry T, Gavrilo MV, Mallory ML, Merkel FR, Price C, Strand J, Walker TR, Provencher JF. Review of plastic pollution policies of Arctic countries in relation to seabirds. FACETS [in press]. Lively JA, Good TP (2019) Chapter 10 – Ghost fishing. In: Sheppard C (ed) World Seas: An environmental evaluation, 2nd ed. Academic Press, pp 183-196 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805052-1.00010-3 Lusher AL, Tirelli V, O’Connor I, Officer R (2015) Microplastics in Arctic polar waters: The first reported values of particles in surface and sub-surface samples. Sci Rep 5:14947. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14947 Lydersen C, Gjertz I, Weslawski JM (1989) Stomach contents of autumn-feeding marine vertebrates from Hornsund, Svalbard. Polar Rec 25:107–114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247400010408 Mehlum F, Giertz I (1984) Feeding ecology of seabirds in the Svalbard area-a preliminary report. Oslo, Norway. Merkel FR, Labansen AL, Boertmann D, Mosbech A, Egevang C, Falk K, Linnebjerg JF, Frederiksen M, Kampp K (2014) Declining trends in the majority of Greenland’s Thick-Billed Murre (Uria lomvia) colonies 1981-2011. Polar Biol 37:1061-1071. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-014-1500-3 Merkel, F. and Barry, T. (eds.) 2008. Seabird harvest in the Arctic. CAFF International Secretariat, Circumpolar Seabird Group (CBird), CAFF Technical Report No. 16 NBIC (The Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre) (2019). Norwegian Red List 2015. Version 1.9. Checklist dataset https://doi.org/10.15468/mx9gdc accessed via GBIF.org on 2020-04-20. Mallory ML, Hatch SA, Nettleship DN (2020b) Northern Fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis), version 1.0, in: Billerman, S.M. (Ed.), Birds of the World. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.norful.01 Mallory ML, Robinson SA, Hebert CE, Forbes MR (2010) Seabirds as indicators of aquatic ecosystem conditions: A case for gathering multiple proxies of seabird health. Mar Pollut Bull 60(1):7–12. doi:10.1016/j. marpolbul.2009.08.024. Mallory ML, Robertson GJ, Moenting A (2006) Marine plastic debris in northern fulmars from Davis Strait, Nunavut, Canada. Mar Pollut Bull 52:813–815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2006.04.005 Mallory ML, Braune BM, Wayland M, Gilchrist HG, Dickson DL (2004) Contaminants in common eiders (Somateria mollissima) of the Canadian Arctic. Environ Rev 12:197–218. https://doi.org/10.1139/a05-004 Mallory ML, Dey CJ, McIntyre J, Pratte I, Mallory CL, Francis CM, Black AL, Provencher JF 2020a) Long-term declines in the size of Northern Fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) colonies on eastern Baffin Island, Canada. Arctic, in press. Montevecchi WA (1991) Incidence and types of plastic in gannets’ nests in the northwest Atlantic. Can J Zool 69:295–297. https://doi.org/10.1139/z91-047 Morgana S, Ghigliotti L, Estévez-Calvar N, Stifanese R, Wieckzorek A, Doyle T, Christiansen JS, Faimali M, Garaventa F (2018) Microplastics in the Arctic: A case study with sub-surface water and fish samples off Northeast Greenland. Environ Pollut 242:1078–1086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.08.001 Mowbray TB (2020) Northern Gannet (Morus bassanus), version 1.0. In: Billerman SM (ed) Birds of the World. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.norgan.01 O’Hanlon NJ, James NA, Masden EA, Bond AL (2017) Seabirds and marine plastic debris in the northeastern Atlantic: A synthesis and recommendations for monitoring and research. Environ Pollut 231:1291–1301. https://doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2017.08.101.

20 2021 | DEVELOPING A PROGRAM TO MONITOR PLASTIC POLLUTION IN SEABIRDS IN THE PAN-ARCTIC REGION O’Hanlon, NJ, Bond AL, Lavers JL, Masden EA, James NA (2019) Monitoring nest incorporation of anthropogenic debris by Northern Gannets across their range, Environ Pollut 255:113152. https://doi: 10.1016/j. envpol.2019.113152. Obbard RW, Sadri S, Wong YQ, Khitun AA, Baker I, Thompson RC (2014) Global warming releases microplastic legacy frozen in Arctic Sea ice. Earths Future 2:315–320. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014EF000240. OSPAR (2015) Guidelines for monitoring and assessment of plastic particles in stomachs of fulmars in the North Sea area. OSPAR, Texel, the Netherlands. https://www.ospar.org/convention/agreements?q=Guidelines%20for%20 Monitoring%20and%20Assessment%20of%20plastic%20particles%20in%20stomachs%20of%20fulmars%20 in%20the%20North%20Se Paleczny M, Hammill E, Karpouzi V, Pauly D (2015) Population trend of the world’s monitored seabirds, 1950-2010. PLoS ONE 10(6): e0129342. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129342 Peeken I, Primpke S, Beyer B, Gütermann J, Katlein C, Krumpen T, Bergmann M, Hehemann L, Gerdts G (2018) Arctic sea ice is an important temporal sink and means of transport for microplastic. Nat Commun 9:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03825-5 Petersen A, Irons D, Anker-Nilssen T, Artukhin Y, Barrett R, Boertmann D, Egevang C, Gavrilo MV, Gilchrist G, Hario M, Mallory M, Mosbech A, Olsen B, Osterblom H, Robertson G, Strøm H (2008) Framework for a Circumpolar Arctic Seabird Monitoring Network. CAFF CBMP Report No.15. CAFF International Secretariat, Akureyri, Iceland. Podolsky RH, Kress SW (1989) Plastic debris incorporated into Double-crested Cormorant nests in the Gulf of Maine. J Field Ornithol 60:248–250 Pollet IL, Bond AL, Hedd A, Huntington RG, Butler RG, Mauck R (2020) Leach’s Storm-Petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhoa), version 1.0. In: Billerman SM, Keeney PG, Rodewald PG, Schulenberg TS (eds) Birds of the World. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.lcspet.01 Poon FE, Provencher JF, Mallory ML, Braune BM, Smith PA (2017) Levels of ingested debris vary across species in Canadian Arctic seabirds. Mar Pollut Bull. 116(1):517–520. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.11.051. Procedure for Red Data Book of the Russian Federation. 2016. Adopted by the Decree of Ministry of Natural resources and environment of the Russian Federation form 23 May 2016 N 306, with Amendment of 24 March 2020. Provencher JF, Borrelle S, Sherley RB, Avery-Gomm S, Hodum P, Bond A, Major HL, McCoy KD, Crawford R, Merkel F, Votier S, Reynolds M, Hatfield J, Spatz D, Mallory M (2019a) Chapter 7 – Seabirds. In: Sheppard C (ed) World Seas: An environmental evaluation, 2nd ed. Academic Press, pp 133-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12- 805052-1.00007-3 Provencher JF, Borrelle SB, Bond AL, Lavers JL, van Franeker JA, Kühn S, Hammer S, Avery-Gomm S, Mallory ML (2019b) Recommended best practices for plastic and litter ingestion studies in marine birds: Collection, processing, and reporting. FACETS 4:111–130. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2018-0043 Provencher JF, Vermaire JC, Avery-Gomm S, Braune BM, Mallory ML (2018) Garbage in guano? Microplastic debris found in faecal precursors of seabirds known to ingest plastics. Sci Tot Environ 644: 1477-1484. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.101 Provencher JF, Bond AL, Avery-Gomm S, Borrelle SB, Bravo Rebolledo EL, Hammer S, Kühn S, Lavers JL, Mallory ML, Trevail A, van Franeker JA (2017) Quantifying ingested debris in marine megafauna: a review and recommendations for standardization. Anal Methods 9(9):1454–1469. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6AY02419J Provencher JF, Bond AL, Mallory ML (2015) Marine birds and plastic debris in Canada: A national synthesis and a way forward. Environ Rev 23:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2014-0039 Provencher JF, Bond AL, Hedd A, Montevecchi WA, Muzaffar SB, Courchesne SJ, Gilchrist HG, Jamison SE, Merkel FR, Falk K, Durinck J, Mallory ML (2014) Prevalence of marine debris in marine birds from the North Atlantic. Mar Pollut Bull 84:411–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.04.044 Provencher JF, Gaston AJ, Mallory ML (2009) Evidence for increased ingestion of plastics by northern fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis) in the Canadian Arctic. Mar Pollut Bull 58:1092–1095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpolbul.2009.04.002 Robards MD, Piatt JF, and Wohl KD. 1995. Increasing frequency of plastic particles ingested by seabirds in the subarctic North Pacific. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 30: 151–157. doi:10.1016/0025-326X(94)00121-O. Rochman CM, Lewison RL, Eriksen M, et al (2014) Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in fish tissue may be an indicator of plastic contamination in marine habitats. Sci Total Environ 476–477:622–633. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.01.058 Ryan PG (1987) The incidence and characteristics of plastic particles ingested by seabirds. Mar Environ Res 23:175– 206. https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-1136(87)90028-6 Seif S, Provencher JF, Avery-Gomm S, Daoust PY, Mallory ML, Smith PA (2018) Plastic and non-plastic debris ingestion in three gull species feeding in an urban landfill environment. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 74:349– 360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-017-0492-8 Smith LC, Stephenson SR (2013) New Trans-Arctic shipping routes navigable by midcentury. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:4871–4872. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1214212110 Snæþórsson AÖ (2018) Plast í meltingarvegi fýla við Ísland árið 2018. Náttúrustofa Norðausturlands. NNA-1808. [In Icelandic]

DEVELOPING A PROGRAM TO MONITOR PLASTIC POLLUTION IN SEABIRDS IN THE PAN-ARCTIC REGION | 2021 21 Snæþórsson AÖ (2019) Plast í meltingarvegi fýla við Ísland árið 2019. Náttúrustofa Norðausturlands. NNA-1904. [In Icelandic] Stout JH, Trust KA, Cochrane JF, Suydam RS, Quakenbush LT (2002) Environmental contaminants in four eider species from Alaska and Arctic Russia. Environ Pollut 119:215–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269- 7491(01)00336-0 Tanaka K, Watanuki Y, Takada H, Ishizuka M, Yamashita R, Kazama M, Hiki N, Kashiwada F, Mizukawa K, Mizukawa H, Hyrenbach D, Hester M, Ikenaka Y, Nakayama SMM (2020) In vivo accumulation of plastic- derived chemicals into seabird tissue. Curr Biol 30(4): 723-728.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.12.037 Tanaka K, Takada H, Yamashita R, et al (2013) Accumulation of plastic-derived chemicals in tissues of seabirds ingesting marine plastics. Mar Pollut Bull 69:219–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.12.010 Tavares DC, Moura JF, Merico A (2019) Anthropogenic debris accumulated in nests of seabirds in an uninhabited island in West Africa. Biol Conserv 236:586–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.05.043 Tekman MB, Krumpen T, Bergmann M (2017) Marine litter on deep Arctic seafloor continues to increase and spreads to the North at the HAUSGARTEN observatory. Deep Sea Res Part Oceanogr Res Pap 120:88–99. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2016.12.011 Trevail AM, Gabrielsen GW, Kühn S, Van Franeker JA (2015) Elevated levels of ingested plastic in a high Arctic seabird, the northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis). Polar Biol 38:975–981. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-015- 1657-4 UNEP (2016) Marine plastic debris and microplastics: Global lessons and research to inspire action and guide policy change. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya US Fish and Wildlife Service (2020) Endangered species program: Species status codes. https://www.fws.gov/ endangered/about/listing-status-codes.html. Accessed 8 Apr 2020 van Franeker JA, Law KL (2015) Seabirds, gyres and global trends in plastic pollution. Environ Pollut (203):89-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.02.034 van Franeker JA, Blaize C, Danielsen J, Fairclough K, Gollan J, Guse N, Hansen P-L, Heubeck M, Jensen J-K, Le Guillou G, Olsen B, Olsen K-O, Pedersen J, Stienen EWM, Turner DM (2011) Monitoring plastic ingestion by the Northern Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis in the North Sea. Environ Pollut 159(10): 2609–2615. https://doi:10.1016/j. envpol.2011.06.008. van Franeker JA, Meijboom A (2002) Litter NSV - Marine litter monitoring by Northern Fulmars: a pilot study. Alterra, Wageningen, Netherlands. http://edepot.wur.nl/45695 Votier SC, Crane JE, Bearhop S, de León A, McSorley CA, Mínguez E, Mitchell IP, Parsons M, Phillips RA, Furness RW (2006) Nocturnal foraging by great skuas Stercorarius skua: Implications for conservation of storm-petrel populations. J Ornithol 147(3):405-413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-005-0021-9. Votier SC, Archibald K, Morgan G, Morgan L (2011) The use of plastic debris as nesting material by a colonial seabird and associated entanglement mortality. Mar Pollut Bull 62:168–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpolbul.2010.11.009 Wilcox C, Van Sebille E, Hardesty BD (2015) Plastic in seabirds is pervasive and increasing. PNAS 112(38):11899- 11904. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1502108112 Youngren SM, Rapp DC, Hyrenbach KD (2018) Plastic ingestion by Tristram’s Storm-petrel (Oceanodroma tristrami) chicks from French frigate shoals, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Mar Pollut Bull 128:369–378. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.01.05

22 2021 | DEVELOPING A PROGRAM TO MONITOR PLASTIC POLLUTION IN SEABIRDS IN THE PAN-ARCTIC REGION c ened Threat- USA Not listed Not listed Not listed Not listed b ------ened ened (2014) (2014) (2012) Special Special Special Threat- concern concern concern CANADA

a 3 2 3 RUSSIA (2020) CR NT VU VU VU MAINLAND NORWAY (2015) LC LC LC LC NT VU NORWAY/ NORWAY/ SVALBARD (2015) CR EN VU VU ICELAND (2018) NT NT NT EN FAROE FAROE ISLANDS (2005)

LC LC LC LC EN VU GREEN- LAND (2018)

Unknown Unknown Increasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing POPULATION POPULATION STATUS 2015-2018) LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC NT NT NT NT NT EN VU VU IUCN STATUS (2015- 2018) 54 84 50 83 45 22 998 341 513 268 912 157 1235 TOTAL SAMPLE TOTAL EXAMINED FOR PLASTICS

0 ± 0 ± 0 ± 0 ± 0 ± 0 ± 1 ± 0 ± 0 ± 1 0 ± 37 ± 0 26 ± 20 20 ± 22 MEAN FO (%) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Somateria fischeri Uria aalge

Cepphus grylle Somateria mollissima Aethia cristatella Fratercula corniculata Fratercula arctica Polystica stelleri

Aethia pusilla Somateria spectabilis SPECIES Synthlioboramphus antiquus Ptychoramphus aleuticus Brachyramphus brevirostris Brachyramphus perdix Brachyramphus marmoratus Common eider ( King eider ( Spectacled eider ( Steller’s eider ( Ancient murrelet ( Atlantic puffin ( Black guillemot ( Cassin’s auklet ( Common murre ( Crested auklet ( Dovekie/Little auk (Alle alle) Horned puffin ( Kittlitz’s murrelet ( Least auklet ( Long-billed murrelet ( Marbled murrelet ( FAMILY Anatidae Alcidae Alcidae - - ORDER Anseriformes Charadrii formes Charadrii formes TABLES 1. The mean frequency of occurrence plastic ingestion (FO), global International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) population status, local (country-level) Table concern; least = LC parentheses. in are assessment population last of Dates 2015. al. et Irons by defined As species seabird Arctic for trends population and status, population EN = endangered; CR critically and RE regionally extinct. Plastic ingestion data retrieved from Baak et al. in press. NT = near threatened; VU vulnerable;

DEVELOPING A PROGRAM TO MONITOR PLASTIC POLLUTION IN SEABIRDS IN THE PAN-ARCTIC REGION | 2021 23 c Under Under review USA Not listed Not listed b (1996) (1997) (1998) CANADA Not at risk Not at risk Not at risk Not at risk

a 3 3 RUSSIA (2020) LC LC LC EN EN EN EN VU MAINLAND NORWAY (2015) LC LC NT NT NT EN NORWAY/ NORWAY/ SVALBARD (2015) LC NT NT EN EN EN VU VU ICELAND (2018) NT NT EN EN VU VU FAROE FAROE ISLANDS (2005)

LC LC LC NT VU VU VU GREEN- LAND (2018)

Stable Stable Unknown Unknown Increasing Increasing Increasing Increasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing POPULATION POPULATION STATUS 2015-2018) LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC NT VU VU IUCN STATUS (2015- 2018) 8 4 61 21 67 58 84 467 841 512 585 498 1025 TOTAL SAMPLE TOTAL EXAMINED FOR PLASTICS

1 ± 2 0 ± 3 ± 7 0 ± 0 ± 0 ± 6 ± 5 0 ± 1 ± 0 0 ± 67 ± 46 13 ± 12 10 ± 14 MEAN FO (%) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

) Rissa tridactyla Cepphus carbo )

) Uria lomvia Aethia pygmaea Cepphus columba

)

Aethia psittacula

Sterna hirundo Larus hyperboreus ) Fratercula cirrhata Hydroprogne caspia Larus argentatus Sterna paradisaea Chlidonias niger Alca torda SPECIES Cerorhinca monocerata Onychoprion aleuticus Chroicocephalus ridibundus Chroicocephalus philadelphia Larus glaucescens Larus marinus Parakeet auklet ( Pigeon guillemot ( Razorbill ( Rhinoceros auklet ( Spectacled guillemot ( Thick-billed murre ( Tufted puffin ( Whiskered auklet ( Laridae Aleutian tern ( Arctic tern ( Black-headed gull ( Black-legged kittiwake ( Black tern ( Bonaparte’s gull ( Caspian tern ( Common tern ( Glaucous gull ( Glaucous -winged gull ( Great black-backed gull ( Herring gull ( FAMILY Laridae Laridae - ORDER Charadrii formes

24 2021 | DEVELOPING A PROGRAM TO MONITOR PLASTIC POLLUTION IN SEABIRDS IN THE PAN-ARCTIC REGION c USA EN (2006) Not listed b CANADA a 3 2 2 3 RUSSIA (2020) LC LC LC LC NT NT NT NT EN VU MAINLAND NORWAY (2015) LC LC LC NT VU VU NORWAY/ NORWAY/ SVALBARD (2015) LC LC CR EN EN VU VU VU VU VU ICELAND (2018) NT NT EN VU VU VU FAROE FAROE ISLANDS (2005)

LC LC LC LC LC LC NT VU VU GREEN- LAND (2018)

Stable Stable Stable Stable Stable Stable Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Increasing Increasing Increasing Increasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing POPULATION POPULATION STATUS 2015-2018) LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC LC NT VU VU IUCN STATUS (2015- 2018) 1 1 1 4 11 14 63 29 82 1384 2268 TOTAL SAMPLE TOTAL EXAMINED FOR PLASTICS

0 ± 0 ± 0 ± 4 ± 3 0 ± 0 ± 93 ± 10 58 ± 29 34 ± 18 13 ± 18 13 ± MEAN FO (%) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

) ) )

) Larus fuscus ) )

) )

) ) ) ) Rissa brevirostris

Puffinus puffinus

Larus schistisagus Fulmarus glacialis

) Larus thayeri Xema sabini Larus glaucoides Stercorarius skua Sternula albifrons Rhodostethia rosea Hydrocoloeus minutus Pagophila eburnea Larus canus SPECIES Larus heuglini Stercorarius parasiticus Stercorarius longicaudus Stercorarius pomarinus Oceanodroma pelagicus Oceanodroma furcata Oceanodroma leucorhous Iceland gull ( Ivory gull ( Lesser black-backed gull ( Little gull ( Little tern ( Mew gull ( Red-legged kittiwake ( Ross’ gull ( Sabine’s gull ( Slaty-backed gull ( Thayer’s gull ( West-Siberian/Hueglin’s gull ( Arctic skua/ Parasitic jaeger ( Great skua ( Long-tailed jaeger ( Pomarine jaeger ( European Storm petrel ( Fork-tailed storm petrel ( Leach’s storm petrel ( Manx shearwater ( Northern fulmar ( - - - FAMILY Laridae Stercorari idae Hydro batidae Procellari idae - - ORDER Charadrii formes Procellarii formes

DEVELOPING A PROGRAM TO MONITOR PLASTIC POLLUTION IN SEABIRDS IN THE PAN-ARCTIC REGION | 2021 25 c USA Not listed b (1978) CANADA Not at risk Not at risk

a RUSSIA (2020) LC LC LC MAINLAND NORWAY (2015) NORWAY/ NORWAY/ SVALBARD (2015) LC VU VU ICELAND (2018) RE NT VU FAROE FAROE ISLANDS (2005)

LC GREEN- LAND (2018)

Increasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing POPULATION POPULATION STATUS 2015-2018) LC LC LC LC LC LC LC IUCN STATUS (2015- 2018) 4 13 18 TOTAL SAMPLE TOTAL EXAMINED FOR PLASTICS

0 ± 0 ± 10 ± 14 MEAN FO (%) )

) ) )

) )

Morus bassanus

SPECIES Phalacrocorax auritus Phalacrocorax aristotelis Phalacrocorax carbo Phalacrocorax pelagicus Phalacrocorax penicillatus Brandt’s cormorant Brandt’s cormorant ( Double-crested cormorant ( European shag ( Great cormorant ( Pelagic cormorant ( Red-faced cormorant (Phalacrocorax urile) Northern gannet ( - FAMILY Phalacro coracidae Sulidae probably extinct (Procedure for Red Data Book of the Russian Federation2016 updated in 2019). ORDER Suliformes us; 3 = rare, 2 = decreasing number; 1 = endangered; and 0 = a) Russia defines population status following the Red Data Book, where 5 = rehabilitated and rehabilitating; 4 uncertain stat us; 3 rare, 2 decreasing number; 1 endangered; 0 b) Canada defines population status following the Committee on t he Status of Endangered Wildlife in (COSEWIC 2018) c) The United States of America (USA) defines population status following the Endangered Species Program (see U.S. Fish and Wil dlife Service 2020).

26 2021 | DEVELOPING A PROGRAM TO MONITOR PLASTIC POLLUTION IN SEABIRDS IN THE PAN-ARCTIC REGION Table 2. Geographic range and the availability (number of Arctic countries where seabird species are accessible for monitoring plastic ingestion) of recommended seabird species known to have ingested plastic. Based on workshops in Iceland and Russia in 2019 and subsequent consultation with the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna Seabird Expert Group (CBird).

RECOMMENDED SPECIES GEOGRAPHIC RANGE AVAILABILITY Northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) Circumpolar 7 Black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) Circumpolar 7 Thick-billed murre (Uria lomvia) Circumpolar 6 Great skua (Stercorarius skua) Atlantic 5 Leach’s storm petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhous) Circumpolar 4 Black guillemot (Cepphus grylle) Circumpolar 3 Dovekie/Little auk (Alle alle) Atlantic 3 Crested auklet (Aethia cristatella) Pacific 1 Fork-tailed storm petrel (Oceanodroma furcata) Pacific 1 Horned puffinFratercula ( corniculata) Pacific 1 Least auklet (Aethia pusilla) Pacific 1 Parakeet auklet (Aethia psittacula) Pacific 1 Pigeon guillemot (Cepphus columba) Pacific 1 Tufted puffinFratercula ( cirrhata) Pacific 1

DEVELOPING A PROGRAM TO MONITOR PLASTIC POLLUTION IN SEABIRDS IN THE PAN-ARCTIC REGION | 2021 27 Table 3. Seabird species accessible for plastic monitoring in the Arctic via ongoing monitoring programs (during the breeding and/or non-breeding season). AMAP = sampled by national program in supper of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme; B = blood; BC = bycatch; C = carcass (salvage or collection), F = feathers; G = guano; H = harvest; P = pellets/bolus; R = regurgitation; and X = present (not sure of availability).

FAROE SPECIES GREENLAND ICELAND NORWAY RUSSIA CANADA USA ISLANDS Black-legged kittiwake B, F, R, B, C, F, B, F, H, D X, H F C R (Rissa tridactyla) C, G G, R Northern fulmar H, BC, BC, R, C, B, BC, C, B, C, F, G BC C, X BC, H (Fulmarus glacialis) AMAP F, B, G F, G Common eider H X F B, F, G, C F, G, C C, H H (Somateria mollissima) Thick-billed murre B, C, F, H BC B, F, C, G C, H H (Uria lomvia) G Common murre B, F, BC, B, C, F, H BC X H (Uria aalge) C , G G Glaucous gull B, C, F, AMAP X B, C, F, P P, C (Larus hyperboreus) G, P Atlantic puffin H X B, C, F, G X X (Fratercula arctica) Dovekie/Little auk B, C, F, H B, F (Alle alle) G Black guillemot B, BC, AMAP AMAP BC X C (Cepphus grylle) F, G European shag B, BC, C, X BC C, G (Phalacrocorax aristotelis) F, G, P Great cormorant B, F, G, P, BC C, G (Phalacrocorax carbo) BC King eider H F,G,H H (Somateria spectabilis) Leach’s storm petrel X X F, B C, R R (Oceanodroma leucorhous) Crested auklet C, X R, H (Aethia cristatella) Least auklet C, X R (Aethia pusilla) Parakeet auklet C, X R (Aethia psittacula) Whiskered auklet X R (Aethia pygmaea) Fork-tailed storm petrel R (Oceanodroma furcata) Red-faced cormorant R (Phalacrocorax urile) Tufted puffin C (Fratercula cirrhata) Horned puffin C (Fratercula corniculata) Glaucous-winged gull G, P (Larus glaucescens) Pigeon guillemot X (Cepphus columba) Spectacled eider B, F, G (Somateria fischeri) Great skua C, H, P P B, C, F, P P (Stercorarius skua)

28 2021 | DEVELOPING A PROGRAM TO MONITOR PLASTIC POLLUTION IN SEABIRDS IN THE PAN-ARCTIC REGION Table 4. Summary of species suggested for monitoring plastic pollution in seabirds in the pan-Arctic region including potential sampling methods for each species.

POTENTIAL SAMPLING MONITORING TYPE SCALE OF MONITORING RECOMMENDED SPECIES METHODS

Plastic ingestion pan-Arctic, spatial and Northern fulmar Bycatch, harvest, lethal temporal trends (Fulmarus glacialis) sample, opportunistic Thick-billed murre carcass collection, (Uria lomvia) pellets/bolus and/or Black-legged kittiwake regurgitation (Rissa tridactyla)

Nest incorporation and/ pan-Arctic, spatial and Black-legged kittiwake Nest monitoring or entanglement temporal trends Northern gannet (Morus bassanus)

Microplastics and pan-Arctic, spatial and Northern fulmars Bycatch, harvest, lethal plastic-associated temporal trends Thick-billed murres sample and/or opportu- contaminants Black-legged kittiwakes nistic carcass collection Common eider (Somateria mollissima)

Point sources of plastic Local, temporal trends Glaucous Gull Pellets/bolus and/or pollution (Larus hyperboreus) opportunistic carcass Great skua collection (Stercorarius skua)

Species of high conser- pan-Arctic, spatial and Leach’s storm-petrel Emetics, regurgitation, vation concern temporal trends (Oceanodroma leucorhous) stomach flushing and/ or opportunistic carcass collection

DEVELOPING A PROGRAM TO MONITOR PLASTIC POLLUTION IN SEABIRDS IN THE PAN-ARCTIC REGION | 2021 29

Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) Borgir, Norðurslóð 600 Akureyri Iceland Tel: +354 462-3350 [email protected] www.caff.is