ATLAS

OF MARINE AND COASTAL BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY OF THE RUSSIAN ARCTIC

Edited by V.A. Spiridonov, M.V. Gavrilo, E.D. Krasnova and N.G. Nikolaeva

Москва 2011 Authors: Belikov S.E., AllRussian Research Institute for Nature Protection (VNIIPriroda) Gavrilo M.V., Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute (AARI) Gorin S.L., Russian Research Institute of Fishery and Oceanography (VNIRO) Ivanov A.N., Geographical Faculty of the M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University (MSU) Krasnova E.D., N.A. Pertsov, White Sea Biological Station of the Moscow State University (WSBS MSU) Editors: Vassily A. Spiridonov, Maria V. Gavrilo, Elena D. Krasnova and Natalia G. Nikolaeva Krasnov Yu.V., Murmansk Marine Biological Institute (MMBI) of the Kola Scientific Centre of Russian Academy of Sciences (MMBI RAS) Kulangiev A.O., КЕ – Association, St. Petersburg Copy editor: E.D. Krasnova Lashmanov F.I., Interdepartmental Ichthyological Commission Makarov A.V., WSBS MSU and P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology of RAS Nikolaeva N.G., Russian Bird Conservation Union (RBCU) Popov A.V., AARI А92 Atlas of marine and coastal biological diversity of the Russian Arctic. — Moscow: WWF Russia, Sergienko L.A., Petrozavodsk State University 2011. — 64 pp. Shroeders M.A., Petrozavodsk State University Spiridonov V.A., WWF Russia and P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology of RAS ISBN 9785990278622 Map compilation counseling: Geographical Faculty of the M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University. Licence of the Federal Agency of Geodesy and Cartography, the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian In this era of climate change and increasing economic activity in the Arctic, this publication, prepared Federation No. MOG06821K as of 20 May 2009 (valid until 20 May 2014). by the specialists of leading scientific institutions of the Russian Academy of Sciences, universities, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of the Russian Federation, and the Federal Agency of Fishery, Scientific consultant on cartography: provides a crucial foundation for planning conservation activities in the seas and the coastal zone of the T.V. Kotova (Research Institute of Integrated Cartography of the Geographical Faculty of the M.V. Russian Arctic. The Atlas illustrates the distribution of specially protected natural areas in the coastal zone Lomonosov Moscow State University) of the Russian Arctic seas, presents schemes of physiographical and biogeographical regionalization, data on species diversity of particular taxonomic groups, biotopes and components of biological diversity Reviewers: which may be used for marine spatial planning in the Russian Arctic, development of protected natural Prof. A.B.Tzetlin (Science and Educational Centre «Marine Biology, Oceanology and Geology» areas network, establishment of fishery refuge zones and areas with special shipping regulations. of the M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University) A particular emphasis is given to the systems of boundary biotopes at interfaces of different environments: sea/sea ice, sea /river discharge, and sea/land and their associated biological diversity. A.M. Tomilin (Laboratory of GIS methods of AARI) This publication was prepared within the framework of Project RU0127 Russian Arctic Programme «A New Future for the Russian Arctic» funded by WWF Netherlands and of the WWF Barents Sea Ecoregional Program. Atlas of marine and coastal biological diversity of the Russian Arctic

Publication managers — A.O. Kokorin, J.V. Kalinicheva Editor of the English version: Katharine Mann, Heather Clark Design and layout: A.M. Yevseneikin, A.V. Spiridonova, J.V. Kalinicheva Cover design: A.M. Yevseneikin, A.V. Spiridonova Free distribution Cover photos: Filip Sapozhnikov, Paul Nicklen, Valery Maleev, Mikhail Fedyuk, Ken Madsen, Alexander Semenov, Vassily Spiridonov, Maria Gavrilo

Licence MOG03828К Approved for printing 30.03.2011

Font “NewtonC”. Format 60х90/4. Coated paper. Offset printing Conventional printed sheets: 16. 500 copies. Order Printing House: Nemetskaya Fabrika Pechati LTD. ISBN 9785990278622 © WWF Russia, 2011 5, bld. 1, Dobrolyubova Street, Moscow. Contents

Acknowledgements and Abbreviations ...... 4 MAPS Preface and Summary ...... 5 Map 1.1. Seas and coasts of the Russian Arctic ...... 13 Section 1. Introduction ...... 6 Map 2.1. Physiographical regionalization of the Arctic Ocean sector adjacent to Russia ...... 15 1.1. Seas of the Russian Arctic: An Overview S.L.Gorin, V.A.Spiridonov and A.V.Makarov ...... 12 Map 2.2. Biogeographical regionalization of the Eurasian sector of the Arctic Ocean ...... 17 Section 2. Regionalization and biological diversity of seas and coasts of the Russian Arctic ...... 14 Map 2.3. Species diversity of pelagic animals (А) and meiofauna (В) ...... 19 2.1. Physiographical regionalization of the Arctic Ocean sector adjacent to Russia A.N. Ivanov ...... 14 Map 2.4. Diversity of principal groups of macrobenthos ...... 21 2.2. Biogeographical regionalization V.A. Spiridonov...... 16 2.3. Species diversity in the Russian Arctic seas: pelagic and sea ice biota, micro and meiofauna V.A. Spiridonov . . . . . 18 Map 2.5. Species diversity of fish and cyclostomates and marine birds ...... 23 2.4. Macrobenthos: species diversity and groups dominating in the communities V.A. Spiridonov ...... 20 Map 2.6. Provinces of the Arctic Floral Area [after Yurtsev et al., 1978] and the number of 2.5. Species diversity of vertebrate animals V.A. Spiridonov, M.V.Gavrilo and S.E.Belikov ...... 22 marsh vascular plant species associated with them ...... 25 2.6. Regionalization of the Arctic Floral Area and geographical patterns of the marsh flora L.A. Sergienko...... 24 Map 3.1. Maximum and minimum distribution of sea ice in the Eurasian Arctic sector in 2008. Section 3. Habitats and biodiversity of principal boundary zones ...... 26 А: March 2008; B: September 2008 ...... 27 3.1. Sea ice habitats and associated ecosystem M.V. Gavrilo and V.A. Spiridonov...... 26 Map 3.2. Major flaw polynyas (maximum development) of the Russian Arctic ...... 29 3.2. Flaw polynyas A.V. Popov and M.V. Gavrilo...... 28 3.3. Seabirds and most important seabird colonies M.V. Gavrilo ...... 30 Map 3.3. Major sea bird colonies in the Russian Arctic ...... 31 3.4. Sea ice biotopes of the southeastern Barents and the White Seas Yu.V. Krasnov, M.V. Gavrilo and Map 3.4. Most important sea ice biotopes of the eastern Barents and the White Seas ...... 33 V.A. Spiridonov...... 32 3.5. Sea ice biotopes and biodiversity hotspots of the Kara and the northeastern Barents seas M.V. Gavrilo Map 3.5. Flaw polynyas and sea bird colonies of the northeastern Barents and the and A.V. Popov...... 34 Kara Seas ...... 35 3.6. Sea ice biotopes and biodiversity hotspots in the Laptev Sea M.V. Gavrilo. A.V. Popov and V.A. Spiridonov ...... 36 3.7. Sea ice biotopes and biodiversity hotspots in the East Siberian Sea and the waters of Chukotka M.V. Gavrilo Map 3.6. Flaw polynyas (maximum development) and sea bird colonies of the Laptev Sea ...... 37 and A.V. Popov...... 38 Map 3.7. Flaw polynyas, sea bird colonies and migration routes of marine birds in the seas 3.8. Sea shores and formation of habitats of maritime marsh vegetation L.A. Sergienko...... 40 around Chukotka ...... 39 3.9. Marsh biotopes and coastal plant communities of the White, the Barents and the Kara Seas L.A. Sergienko ...... 42 3.10. Marsh biotopes and communities on the coasts of the East Siberian Sea and around the Chukotka Peninsula Map 3.8. Morphogenetic types of the coast in the Russian Arctic [after Kaplin et al.., 1991] ...... 41 L.A. Sergienko and M.V. Gavrilo ...... 44 Map 3.9. Plant communities of maritime marshes on the coasts of the White (A), Barents (B), 3.11. River mouth areas and stocks of anadromous fishes S.L. Gorin, F.I. Lashmanov and V.A. Spirridonov ...... 46 and the Kara (C) Seas ...... 43 Section 4. Specially protected natural areas and other recognized areas of conservation value ...... 48 Map 3.10. Plant communities of maritime marshes and breeding areas of rare coastal bird 4.1. Federal marine and coastal specially protected natural areas V.A. Spiridonov, Yu.V. Krasnov, N.G. Nikolaeva species in Chukotka ...... 45 and M.V. Gavrilo...... 48 Map 3.11. Most important river mouths areas and total allowable catch of anadromous 4.2. Regional coastal specially protected natural areas A.V.Makarov and V.A. Spiridonov ...... 50 4.3. Important Bird Areas E.D. Krasnova...... 52 fishes in the Russian Arctic ...... 47

Map 4.1. Federal marine and coastal protected natural areas in the Russian Arctic ...... 49 Conclusion. Outlines of future marine spatial planning of the Russian Arctic ...... 54 Map 4.2. Regional coastal specially protected natural areas in the Russian Arctic ...... 51 References ...... 57 List of species and other taxa of plants and animals mentioned in the Atlas ...... 62 Map 4.3. Important bird areas in the maritime Russian Arctic ...... 53 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABBREVIATIONS

Completion of the present work would have been impossible without the help of our colleagues, who AARI — Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute gave us lively and constructive feedback on different sections of the Atlas, directed us to important sources of AMAP — Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme of the Arctic Council, an international regional information, generously provided their material (often before publication) and gave the authors moral support: organization aimed at promoting cooperation and sustainable development in the North Polar Regions AO — Autonomous Okrug А.I. Azovsky (Department of Hydrobiology of MSU), A.N. Boltunov (VNIIPriroda), E.S. Chertoprud CAFF — Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna working group of the Arctic Council (Department of Hydrobiology of MSU), A.K. Chtoukine (КЕ – Association, St. Petersburg), S.G. Denisenko FEB RAS — FarEastern Branch of RAS (ZIN RAS), V.V. Elias (WWF Russia), S.A. Gagaev (ZIN RAS), V.V. Khalaman (ZIN RAS), A.O. Kokorin FSS RF — Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (WWF Russia), N.B. Konyukhov (A.N. Severtsov Institute of Problems of Ecology and Evolution of RAS, GEF — Global Environmental Fund IBA — important bird area IPEE), V.G. Krever (WWF Russia), V.O. Mokievsky (IO RAS), A.D. Naumov (ZIN RAS), I.A. Onyfrenya IO RAS — P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanolology of RAS (WWF Russia), V.N. Petrov (Kola Branch of the Biodiversity Conservation Centre), V.V. Petryashov (ZIN IPEE — A.N. Severtsov Institute of Problems of Ecology and Evolution of RAS RAS), G. Polet (WWF Netherlands), O.V. Romanenko (Ancorage, Alyaska), A.S. Shestakov (WWF Arctic MSU — M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University Program), B.I. Sirenko (ZIN RAS), M.S. Stishov (WWF Russia), P.P. Strelkov (Department of Ichtyology and MMBI — Murmansk Marine Biological Institute (MMBI) of the Kola Scientific Centre of RAS Hydrobiology of St. Petersburg State University), O.K. Sutkaitis (WWF Russia), K.A. Zgurovsky (WWF MPA — marine protected area Russia). We express our sincere gratitude to them all. MSP — marine spatial planning NGO — nongovernmental organization Special thanks to Yulia S. Suprunenko and Alexey E. Redkozubov for their invaluable technical help in the PAME — Protection of Arctic Marine Environment working group of the Arctic Council development of this project. PINRO — N.M. Knipovich Polar Research Institute of Fishery and Oceanography RBCU — Russian Bird Conservation Union The data on IBA were provided by the RBCU. We acknowledge the contribution of V.A. Zubakin, RAS — Russian Academy of Sciences T.V. Sviridova, and S.A. Bukreev with their assistance in the preparation. Roshydromet — Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring We thank the UNDP/GEF project «Strengthening the Marine and Coastal Protected Areas of Russia» SPNA — specially protected natural area UN — United Nations (# 00069210) for the usage of the results of the management effectiveness assessment (Management UNDP — UN Development Program Effectiveness Tracking Tool) of the marine and coastal SPNA of Russia. UNESCO — United Nations Education, Science and Culture Organization The editorial group also thanks the authors who provided their photographs for illustration (see Photo IUCN — World Conservation Union Credits). VNIIPriroda — AllRussian Research Institute for Nature Protection VNIRO — Russian Research Institute of Fishery and Oceanography The preparation of this publication was funded by WWF Netherlands through Project RU0127 Russian WSBS MSU — N.A. Pertsov White Sea Biological Station of Moscow State University Arctic Programme «A New Future for the Russian Arctic» and by the WWF Barents Sea Ecoregional Program. WWF — WWF, The Conservation Organization ZIN RAS — Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Science

4 PREFACE SUMMARY

The growing interest in the Arctic is natural. diversity, spatial structure, complexity of temporal Today the Arctic is entering a new climatic particular focus on the biotope systems and related Some people view it as a treasure trove of resources dynamics and the value of the services that these period and a new phase of economic development. biodiversity components) which may serve as a basis waiting to be discovered, others are concerned about ecosystems provide. It is important to intelligently Experts believe lighter sea ice conditions will for the design of MPAs and marine spatial planning. the Arctic’s sensitivity to climate change. In 2008, locate industrial facilities and economic activity (e.g. facilitate the development of largescale industrial Several experts from the Russian Academy of Science the President of Russia approved the «Fundamentals shipping) on the shelf and in the coastal zone of the projects, especially hydrocarbon development and institutes, Moscow University, the Arctic and of the State Policy in the Arctic for the Period Before Arctic seas. Otherwise, all intentions to exploit the transportation. The areas slated for development will Antarctic Research Institute (AARI) and the Federal 2020 and a Longer Perspective» [Fundamentals.., natural resources of the Arctic would bear likely include those areas of the Arctic seas and coast Agency of Fishery contributed to the assessment. 2008], while in late 2009 the Climate Doctrine of the unacceptable risks not only to countries and where wildlife is concentrated — ecological The material is presented in an Atlas form. Russian Federation was adopted [Climate corporations implementing the projects, but also to «hotspots». In particular, increasing pressure is The Atlas includes maps demonstrating the Doctrine.., 2009]. Now its implementation plan is in their neighbors in the Arctic realm, and in some cases expected on flaw polynyas (stretches of open water schemes of physiographical and biogeographical progress. In this document the Arctic is considered far beyond. One of the instruments of risk mitigation surrounded by pack ice and fast ice) which are regionalization, species diversity in particular from scientific, economic, and conservation is marine spatial planning, or functional zoning. In natural shipping lanes along the Northern Sea route. taxonomic groups of the Arctic biota, and perspectives. Our knowledge of climate change is still order to design and implement this practice (and thus Access to previously remote corners of the Arctic is distribution of existing federal and regional specially incomplete, but there is no doubt that global ensure biodiversity and ecosystem conservation), the increasing, making increased tourism — often self protected natural areas. Particular attention is paid processes influence the Arctic and that the condition most valuable areas must be chosen and governed by described «ecotourism» — in the area, possible. to the systems of boundary biotopes at interfaces of of this region influences the Earth’s climate. special protection and management regimes. This No one can predict how the combination of climate different environments: sea/sea ice, sea/river document — an Atlas of the biological diversity of the change and economic activity will impact the discharge, and sea/land and their associated After the disastrous BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill in seas and coasts of the Russian Arctic — is an ecosystems of the Arctic seas. However, there is a way biological diversity. In the concluding part of the the spring of 2010, optimism on the feasibility of important step in this process. to mitigate consequences of the climate present work recommendations are made to marine environmentally safe exploitation of the hydrocarbon transformation and the increasing anthropogenic environment protection, marine biodiversity resources on the continental shelf began to fade. The We hope that this publication will be used by impact using marine spatial planning instruments conservation and organization of marine resources spill revealed gaps in the industry’s international decisionmakers in Arctic policy, participants in (we propose to translate this globally accepted term use (on the basis of the adopted scheme of regulation and cast doubts on the ability of countries international consultations and symposia on Arctic into the Russian language as «functional zoning of physiographical regionalization). These and corporations to respond to such catastrophes in a issues, officials from state agencies dealing with marine areas»). Marine spatial planning has its recommendations may serve as a basis for the timely and effective manner. environmental issues, natural resource use and terrestrial analogy in Russia which is called development of an integral system of marine spatial transport development in the Arctic, managers from At the same time, largescale plans of industrial «territorial planning». One of the instruments of such planning for the Arctic waters under Russian resource extraction and transport companies and development in environmentally sensitive regions, planning is marine protected areas (MPAs). jurisdiction. scientists. We hope the Atlas will stimulate the such as the Arctic seas and coasts, are still in the Naturally, marine spatial planning (or functional interest of a wide audience of people who care about works. Proponents believe that changing climate zoning) does not restrict itself to the creation of the future of one of the least developed — and most conditions and sea ice regime will facilitate this MPAs. It comprises a broad range of instruments, wonderful — regions of the world. development. However, before extensive intrusion some of which are already present in Russian into the Arctic marine ecosystems occurs, it is Igor Chestin, legislation. The aim of this project organized by important to have a full understanding of the Director of WWF Russia WWF Russia is to present biodiversity data (with

5 Section 1 INTRODUCTION

he Arctic has one of the most sensitive climate extraction and transportation of hydrocarbon and Table I1. Anthropogenic threats to marine ecosystems and potential role of marine and coastal reserves in their mitigation T systems on our planet. Global anthropogenic mineral resources creates serious environmental and prevention (compiled by V.O. Mokievsky) impacts have recently caused interferences in the problems and threats for biological diversity Possibility of marine reserves oscillations of the Arctic climate [Alekseev, 2004]. [Problems of the Northern Sea Route, 2006; Larcen Kinds of threats The report prepared by Roshydromet [Evaluation.., et al., 2003; Spiridonov, 2006; Bambulyak, Frantzen, to mitigate a threat 2008] reviews a broad range of factors involved in 2009]. BP’s April 2010 oil rig catastrophe starkly climate transformation and the consequences of illustrated the risk associated with offshore oil Harvesting of marine impact on harvested species + these changes. The cause of some effects are known, extraction and the difficulty of stemming damages. organisms (fishery, hunting) but in many cases our knowledge is insufficient Locations likely to be developed include areas of the impact on associated species + (—) [ACIA, 2005; Anisimov et al., 2007; Ramstorf, Arctic seas and coast where wildlife is concentrated, Schellnhuber, 2008; Frolov et al., 2006, 2009; which may be called nodes of ecosystems and Impact on environment + Sommerkorn, Hamilton, 2008; Sommerkorn, biodiversity hotspots. In particular, increasing All kinds of pollution — (+) Hassol, 2009]. Shore abrasion and the decrease of the pressure is expected on flaw polynyas (which develop summer sea ice cover and perennial sea ice massifs in the Arctic seas in winter and spring). Polynyas are Invasions of alien species — (?) lead to significant changes in the marine and coastal natural shipping lanes along the Northern Sea Route. Arctic ecosystems. Increasing water temperature No one can predict how the synergy of climate Direct extermination, transformation and alteration of biotopes + throughout the world ocean, rising sea levels and the change and increased economic activity will impact increasing acidification of marine waters portends the ecosystems of the Arctic seas. However, the Mariculture + (—) larger scale changes [IPCC, 2007]. Given the present impact may be mitigated with the use of marine uncertainty of climate forecasts and our insufficient spatial planning (Fig. I1) similar to territorial Disturbance + understanding of causal relationships, a cautious planning on land. An important component of the Tourism + approach in Arctic activities is called for. Therefore marine spatial planning process is the establishment when planning environmental protection and of marine protected natural areas (MPAs). + good possibility; — very slim possibility; ? issue requires further investigation biodiversity conservation measures, we must factor in Climate change has always affected the inhabitants the possibility of unfavorable developments and of our planet. Today, nobody can say with certainty nature is allowed to fend for itself — where species, beluga whales (or white whales, Delphinapterus adverse effects of synergies between climate that the mammoth was doomed to extinction when populations and their communities can thrive and leucas). The animals apparently were commonly transformation and anthropogenic impacts. the periglacial steppe turned to tundra and taiga adjust to changing conditions, at times, perhaps, with hunted by inhabitants of the White Sea coast about As the Arctic enters a new phase of economic [Markova, 2008], but most scientists agree that man the aid of humans. 6000 years BCE, at the time of the Holocene development, many industry analysts believe that had a role in the disappearance of the giants The adaptive potential of living organisms to temperature maximum [Lobanova, 2008]. At that commercial activities will be facilitated by the new [Tikhonov, 2005]. Imagine for a moment that 15 to 20 climatic changes is significant. Petroglyphs from time the Arctic and Subarctic were much warmer. sea ice conditions. Further development of the thousand years ago an expansive preserve for Karelia have preserved for millennia the images of During the more severe conditions of the Little Ice mammoths and associated organisms Summer sea ice in the Laptev Sea1 had been created. Perhaps in the Urals, where recent paleoecological studies Land Marine mammals Sea [Markova, 2008] indicate the last Spatial planning characteristic assemblages of periglacial protected zones mammals lived; or in Chukotka and schemes Fishery marine Wrangel Island, where the most recent remnants of mammoths (between 3.7 protected zones and 8 thousand years ago) [Vartanyan et Protected areas al., 1993; Tikhonov, 2005] have been found. With a secure habitat and Priority Zones with protection from hunting and wildfires, Legislation and measures special shipping perhaps the mammoth would be here to protect Econet areas with us today. This is a fantasy, of of OSRP* regulation course, but it illustrates one of the most corridors important tasks that protected natural areas perform: to provide places free of Coastal zone negative anthropogenic impact where Fig. I1. Diagram illustrating legally possible options for SPNA, territorial spatial planning and marine spatial planning in Russia. (* Oil spills response plans)

6 Age (140 to 400 years ago), beluga whales were again leads to increased mortality of calves. A solution to historically developed in Russia and therefore in the hunted, now by the Pomors. This shows that these the problem could be the designation of this haulout English texts we prefer to use its transliteration. Arctic animals, common now in the White Sea, are site as a natural protected area and changing, if Currently, there are no zapovedniks in the Russian adaptable to different climatic regimes. To a possible, the landing schedule during the walruses’ Arctic established specifically for protection of considerable extent, this population is maintained by haulingout season. marine ecosystems. Offshore areas of existing reproductive aggregations in Onega Bay and other In many cases, the creation of marine and coastal zapovedniks are just outposts of the terrestrial core areas. Specialists of the IO RAS who have studied reserves may be the only way to protect a unique parts. Although it is widely recognized that new belugas there for many years believe that the current natural system or entity [Mokievsky, 2009a]. No Arctic zapovedniks must be created, their planning destabilization of climate may negatively impact the doubt, marine protected areas can not solve all the process, consultations with stakeholders, official population. This will be due to increasing winds and problems. They are unlikely to prevent such approval, and implementation are parts of a unfavorable sea ice conditions. However, the anthropogenic impacts as transboundary pollution, complicated and expensive process. Thus the priority situation may turn worse due to human disturbance. eutrophication, and invasions of alien species. These in the development of this kind of SPNA in the Uncontrolled tourism, unregulated whale watching, threats can be neutralized only at very extensive and maritime Arctic should be best given to the widescale use of motor boats and the accessibility of fully protected areas at a scale of hundreds thousands institutional strengthening and expansion of pre most areas of Onega Bay to visitors may become the square kilometers [Mokievsky, 2009a]. However, with existing zapovedniks. main risk factors for the entire beluga whale proper monitoring, even smaller areas are useful for The other category of SPNA, the national park, is population [V.M. Belkovich, pers. comm.]. This risk the early identification of the effects of pollution and well suited to the goals of biological diversity can be considerably mitigated if a protection regime the arrival of alien species. Fortunately conservation in those Arctic regions where tourism is introduced while beluga whales adapt to climatic anthropogenic pressure in the Arctic is not yet development is expected or is ongoing. The major 3 changes. overwhelming, and there are limited activities which difficulty associated with the development of national Beluga whales, Franz Josef Land Another Arctic inhabitant, the walrus (Odobenus require regulation (Table I1). parks is the necessity of significant investment in Walruses, Chukchi Sea 4 rosmarus), exemplifies a second aspect of adaptive infrastructure. Creation of an Arctic national park conservation. The life of these animals is greatly will require comprehensive planning and preparation influenced by sea ice conditions on shallow shelves of Types of specially protected marine and of model management plans in the near future. the Arctic seas, and they respond with great coastal natural areas in the Russian Arctic The regime of a biosphere polygon is appropriate sensitivity to climatic variation. Current changes in for large marine areas. A biosphere polygon should be sea ice cover force walruses to change their seasonal Which kinds of protected natural areas are best managed by a neighboring zapovednik which has a migration routes, and their new haulout locations suited to conserving Arctic ecosystems and species? status of a UNESCO biosphere reserve, or has been are sometimes very close to human settlements. What is the legislative basis for their creation? In the nominated for this status. A marine biosphere reserve Recently a new walrus haulout was established near documents of many international organizations, may encompass a large area, i.e. a large marine bay or the landing area of the airport in Ryrkarpiy village. concepts such as «marine protected areas» exist; in another naturally bordered part of the sea and extend Aircraft noise causes panic amongst walruses that Russia’s context this corresponds to the areas, either to tens of thousands square kilometers. The zones of coastal or marine, where a strict protection, buffer zones with lesser restrictions, Beluga whales on petroglyphs of Zalavruga, White Sea 2 protection regime is introduced in zones of various kinds of use and biosphere polygons accordance with the Federal Law on within the reserve make possible a coverage of series «Specially Protected Natural of communities which replace each other along the Areas», or SNPA. As internal depth gradient and in accordance to distribution of marine waters, the territorial sea, water masses and oceanographic fronts, sea ice square kilometers, as, for example, in the Franz the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), regime, or in a more complicated pattern — if several Josef Land zakaznik. This makes them a particularly and the continental shelf are under factors are in effect simultaneously and their convenient method of marine biota conservation. the federal jurisdiction in the gradients are noncoherent [Mokievsky, 2009a]. The Such an area is sufficient to protect most species Russian Federation, many kinds of protected area of such a scale will be sufficient for within bottom communities because this scale fits SPNAs at sea should be established development of all stages of benthic animals having a the natural scale of stable populations of at the federal level. Regional SPNAs pelagic larva, maintenance of life cycles of coastal macrobenthic organisms and a spatial range of which aim to protect marine and plankton species and providing appropriate benthic ecosystems [Mokievsky, 2009a]. It is worth coastal biodiversity may be conditions for various life history stages of migrating noting that these larger areas ranging from hundreds organized on the seacoast. fishes, sea birds and marine mammals, or protection to tens thousands square kilometers are more cost The most widespread type of the of their feeding and breeding grounds. effective because a correlation between the size of federal SNPA in the Russian Arctic The category of a federal zakaznik, or nature reserves and the expenses of their maintenance is no is a state natural zapovednik (a monument, usually does not require special longer valid at this scale [Balmford et al., 2004]. Russian word meaning «strictly measures to demarcate the marine area if not A nature monument of the federal rank is a protected reserve»). This term refers considering the shore parcel. Zakazniks may include relatively rare category. However it may be to a particular type of SPNA marine areas up to tens or hundreds thousands particularly useful to emphasize the special status of

7 unique marine natural entities, i.e. those which fit Marine spatial planning or functional zoning Table I2. Definition, characteristics and steps of marine spatial planning according to guidelines prepared by the the criteria of the UNESCO Convention of marine areas International Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO (Ehler, Douvere, 2009) Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage [UNESCO, 2008] although may If done properly, spatial planning on land DEFINITION CHARACTERISTICS STEPS not necessarily be listed in the Convention’s list. The facilitates the sustainable development and monitoring of particular marine nature monuments maintenance of a region’s natural resources. Marine spatial planning (MSP) Ecosystem approach: necessary (1) Identifying needs and may be addressed by scientific institutions and Specially protected natural areas often play a role of is a public process of analyzing balance of environmental, implementing organizations. core areas in the spatial organization of the territory. and allocating the spatial and economical, social and cultural universities that are conducting research there — (2) Obtaining financial temporal distribution of human targets of sustainable especially if this function is delegated to them The Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation support. officially and necessary budget or grant funds are (adopted in 2004) requires that a uniform system of activities in marine areas to development provided for this purpose. Finally, for the territorial planning has to be developed in the achieve ecological, economic, (3) Preliminary planning. and social objectives that are conservation of valuable natural entities in the Russian Federation by 2010, including three levels of (4) Stakeholders involvement. usually specified through a Integrity: breaking sectoral sea/land boundary zone, regional SPNAs or their plans, namely the federal, the regional and the political process barriers and independence of (5) Identification and analysis combination with other forms of spatial protection municipal. General plans of municipalities, e.g. bureaucratic hierarchy of present conditions. may serve as an appropriate tool. villages, towns and urban districts, are working Marine reserves cannot perform their protective documents of the territorial planning. They also (6) Identification and analysis function if their borders and the principal regime include entities of the federal and the subfederal Local and regional peculiarities of future conditions. as a basis requirements are not shown on navigation maps and status, in particular specially protected natural areas, (7) Preparation and approval information on them is not communicated in the water protection zones and fish protection zones. of management plan for regular Notices to Seafarers. To control compliance They justify functional zoning of the territory and spatially planned marine areas. Adaptability with the requirements, remote observation methods local land use schemes, which may include local (8) Implementation of the plan should be developed, such as vessel monitoring protected areas as well. Territorial planning on land and its control. systems and the tracking of hydrocarbon slicks on the has its internationally recognized analog at sea, Strategic orientation for sea surface using remote sensing and other satellite which international organizations and some national tomorrow (9) Monitoring and borne and aircraftborne methods. It is necessary to policies call marine spatial planning. [Ehler, performance evaluation. coordinate research programs and the analysis of Douvere, 2009]. In Russia, no such term has been (10) Adaptive change of Stakeholders involvement results of scientific expeditions. This of course does officially coined for marine areas and they are largely management. not do away with the need for traditional direct out of the territorial planning system. We propose to inspections within an MPA using the facilities of the translate the notion of marine spatial planning to the Coast Guard (The Border Service of the Federal Russian language (not literally, but using some provision to designate fishery refuge zones, which are adoption of the Law of the Russian Federation «On Security Service), Roshydromet, shipping facilities of equivalent term) and speak about «functional zoning a relatively new form of spatial protection (Article Fishery and Protection of Aquatic Bioresources», the Northern Sea Route, platforms of research of marine waters». Our country is still far from the 49). They differ from usual areas of restricted fishery new rules have come in force which regulate only expeditions, touristic cruises and educational organization of marine spatial planning as an open by a provision to regulate not only fishing activity, but fishery in the vicinity of haulouts, but neither projects. process which is based on the ecosystem approach, also other kinds of industrial (potentially including visiting them nor flights over, contrary to the previous recognized by the civil society and oil and gas development on the continental shelf), regulations. In order to solve the problem of the 5 Polynya's edge involves all stakeholders, and overcomes agricultural and touristic activities which may be protection of existing haulouts, other former marine sectoral barriers (Table I2). However, harmful to aquatic biological resources. mammal protection zones, and new haulouts arising without developing such a process, The advantages of this protection measure may be in the present climatic situation, the status of marine sustainable development in Russia is not demonstrated using walruses’ haulouts as an mammal protection zone should be officially re achievable. Some legislative basis for example. Pacific walruses (Odobenus rosmarus established. In Soviet times, the protection of haul designating marine zones with divergens) are traditionally treated as aquatic outs as well as special measures to protect the sea ice particular functional specificity biological resources and are managed by the federal whelping areas of the harp seal (Pagophilus nevertheless exists, and we briefly fishery authority. In Chukotka they play a pivotal role groenladicus) from adverse impacts of shipping were discuss this below. in sustaining livelihoods of the indigenous population adopted. In 2009, following the population decline of In Russia there are a number of and maintaining a traditional hunting activity as a this species related to changes in the winter sea ice regulatory measures related to aquatic component of the historical and cultural heritage of conditions in the White Sea, Russia’s Ministry of biological resources, e.g. a permanent our country. Areas of haulouts and feeding grounds Transport reconfirmed this regulation. or a temporary closure (or restriction) of walruses, other pinnipeds and cetaceans originally Fishery refuge zones are potential instruments for of a fishery in particular areas came under the legal coverage of the 1986 «Rules for the protection of most important spawning grounds introduced according to the basinscale harvesting and protection of marine mammals» and feeding areas of commercial fish and invertebrate fishing rules. The Federal Law «On approved by the Ministry of Fishery Industry of species. They are particularly needed in the estuarine Fishery and Protection of Aquatic Bio USSR. Now they still hold a protected status, but the areas of the Arctic rivers, where highly valuable fish Resources» (# 166 FZ) contains a regulatory regime has been changed. Following the stocks are exposed to various anthropogenic threats.

8 directorates have already been arise from this integration. The integrative planning coastal zone makes it possible to draw boundaries of organized and have been shown to system will facilitate the development of strategies the large floral and faunal regions on the map (see be very effective. Another option is and plans for the conservation and rehabilitation of 2.2; 2.6). This may help to identify particular seas to form a partnership with NGOs, particular species, communities and biotopes. where MPAs should be designated, but for planning which are motivated to help protect networks of marine reserves within particular seas regional SPNAs; that model is these biogeographical regions are too extensive. commonly used worldwide [Dudley Biological diversity and the foundations of Thus, smaller biogeographical subdivisions (of the et al., 2010]. In Russia such cases marine conservation planning scale of tens and hundreds thousands of square are still relatively rare, but the kilometers), which are inhabited by faunal and biotic existing ones have proved to be In order to plan the usage of the marine space and complexes [Mironov, 1990] fit better to this purpose effective. The NGO Sakhalin resources in the Russian Arctic wisely, basic [Mokievsky, 2009a]. Another possible way of Environment Watch performs information on the environment, key elements of regionalizing and designating representative MPAs public oversight for the control of biological diversity and the historically developed incorporates the data on taxonomic diversity, e.g. the the protection of the Vostochnyi network of protected areas is badly needed. The number of species and higher rank taxa. regional zakaznik on the eastern present Atlas, which we introduce to the readers, is Unfortunately our knowledge of species composition Atlantic walfish (Anarchias lupus), White Sea6 coast of Sakhalin, while the Polar an attempt to merge necessary data. Until now, these and taxonomic diversity is insufficient for most of the Bear Patrol teams supported by biodiversity data have been either scattered in Arctic seas. Reliable inventories of animal and plant These zones will potentially regulate economic WWF Russia provide stewardship of the walruses’ various publications (often inaccessible, especially to species (not to mention fungi and microorganisms) activities in the areas of active marine fishing where haulouts on Cape Vankarem (Chukotka), which has the nonRussian audience), or unpublished. We aim are only available at the scale of particular seas, not the developing infrastructure of the oil and gas sector been designated a nature monument. to present this in a convenient form that most smaller areas. The third direction of regionalization, threaten aquatic biological resources and their readers can access. ecogeographical, should take into account the data environment. The material presented in the Atlas supports the on the distribution of particular communities and Special conservation measures are required for the Development of marine conservation view that an existing network of marine protected ecosystems. protection of sea ice biotopes in flaw polynyas, which facilities and marine resources management areas in the Russian Arctic does not systematically A wellknown scheme of ecogeographical are critically important for maintaining marine into an integrative system of planning cover the polar marine biodiversity. This network was regionalization of the world Ocean [Longhurst, 1998] biodiversity. The development of standards for future built up historically without an attempt to include the places all the Russian Arctic seas into a Boreal Polar marine activities in the polynya areas should address As an Arctic country, Russia faces a serious diversity of marine biotopes and ecosystems in a province that masks significant differences between guidelines for shipping, and marine geological and challenge. It must protect marine biological diversity larger scale, and MPAs are very unevenly distributed their ecosystems. The specificity of marine biological geophysical reconnaissance, regulation for shipping of the seas and coast in the Russian Arctic in an age throughout the entire Russian Arctic sector (see 4.1). diversity is tightly connected to the shelf and the accident prevention, strict control of shipbased of rapid and unpredictable climate change. The sizes of coastal and marine protected areas only coastal geomorphology, climate, water circulation, pollution, oil spill response plans, and the Furthermore our country is required to fulfill its to small extent correspond to the criteria of spatial and the physical and chemical properties of the water minimization of disturbance to marine mammals and international commitments imposed by the UN scale of protection [Mokievsky, 2009a]. Planning and column. Using these factors, we propose a new sea birds. This is possible if a special law on the Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982), the evaluation of the representativeness of MPAs should version of physiographical regionalization which protection of the sea, a concept a long time in Convention on Biological Diversity (1992), the take into account biogeographical regionalization. A forms the basis of the present Atlas. Such schemes discussion, is finally adopted. All measures Ramsar Convention (1971) and other international combination of distribution ranges of particular may be further developed into ecogeographical introduced with regard to shipping should be made in agreements. In order to do this Russia needs to taxonomic groups living in the Arctic seas and the classification and regionalization systems. agreement with the International Maritime integrate sectoral regulations (e.g. aquatic parts of Marine lake Mogilnoe, the nature monument 7 Organization [for details see Kalentchenko, 2008]. SPNAs, fishery refuge zones and zone with fishery Federal protected natural areas at sea and regional restrictions, and regions with special shipping protected areas on the coast have the potential for regulations) into a system of marine spatial planning significant synergy and the strengthening of their (or functional zoning – see Fig. I1). The objectives capacities. Zapovedniks and national parks can form of this system should be the protection of the marine the core areas of biosphere reserves, with regional environment from anthropogenic degradation, the SPNAs and fishery refuge zones constituting their maintenance of the productive capacity of buffer areas. Regional legislation is fully capable of ecosystems and their services, the protection and providing protection for key coastal zone biotopes sustainable use of biological and recreational such as maritime marsh massifs, sea bird colonies and resources, the conservation of unique natural entities marine mammal haulouts by establishing SPNAs. in the sea and coastal zones, and the monitoring of Often, lack of staff is one of the disadvantages of the processes in marine ecosystems. Ecosystembased regional protection natural areas. This, however, can management plans similar to the one adopted several be overcome by the creation of regional directorates years ago by the Parliament of Norway for the responsible for the protection and management of Norwegian part of the Barents Sea [Report of the SPNAs. In some of Russia’s Arctic regions, such Government to the Storting, 2006] are expected to

9 Priority biotopes and sea. With the rhythm of the tides, the coastline of Table I3. Valued biodiversity objects associated with particular biotopes seas and oceans rise and fall twice daily. Laidas – Marine biodiversity is unevenly distributed. Some zones mostly covered with expansive swampy BIOTOPES / VALUED BIOLOGICAL OBJECTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 components of landscapes/seascapes, for example meadows (marshes) periodically flooded by the tide or large river mouths, frontal zones, marine shallows pileup and whose vegetation is well adapted to "Watten" coasts Х Х Х and underwater banks, create particularly favorable excesses of salt — are characteristic along the coasts of conditions for marine organisms. As a result, key the northern seas. They are associated with built up Marsh massifs Х Х Х Х Х Х Х Х areas which greatly contribute to general biodiversity accumulated, silty or sandy banks with extensive Tombolo and spits Х Х Х Х Х (sometimes called «biodiversity hotspots») are drainage, where a wide variety of conditions can be formed. The structure of marine biodiversity in the observed. Coastal laidas are unique transitional zones Insular coasts Х Russian Arctic is to greater extent determined by the between the sea and the coastal tundra and the systems of marine and coastal biotopes. We use here communities built on permafrost. Massifs of maritime Coastal cliffs Х Х a broadened interpretation of the «biotope» notion marshes support an important canal of the carbon that integrates various environmental factors of extraction from the atmosphere [Dudley et al., 2010] Mouth areas, estuaries of rivers Х Х Х Х ? Х Х Х Х Х abiotic and biotic environment — [Olenin, 2004; and its burial, and thus has the potential to lessen the Olenin, Ducrotoy, 2006]. Table I3 demonstrates greenhouse effect. Many ecosystem services of salt Highly productive shallows, lagoons and inlets Х Х Х Х Х Х Х Х Х Х interrelations of the biotopic and biological diversity marshes in the Arctic are not yet studied in detail. components. This biotope contains the breeding habitats of shore Meromictic lakes and other relict waterbodies ? Х In the Arctic seas, a considerable part of important birds and waterfowl and provides shelter for their biotopes and, consequently components of migration stopover and molting aggregations (more Flaw polynyas ? Х Х Х Х Х Х Х Х biodiversity, is linked to the contact zones: sea/ land details in 3.9 – 3.10). The laida zone includes (coastal zone), sea/continental waters (river lagoons, marshes, dunes and marginal parts of the Marginal ice zone Х Х Х Х Х Х Х Х mouths/estuaries), water/ice (polynyas, marginal ice tundra which are influenced by the tides and zone), and the contact points between water masses surge/pileups. The dynamics of maritime marsh Sea ice massifs Х Х of different origin (oceanographic fronts). communities are governed by the processes of shore Zones of oceanographical fronts Х Х Х Х Х Х Х formation and abrasion [Sergienko, 2008]. In a time of climate change and increasing winds, laida shores Upwelling zones Х Х Х Х Х Х Sensitive boundary zones are washed out. A concurrent alteration of the Chukchi Sea shores is a spectacular example. A Underwater mountains and banks Х Х Х Х ? Х Laidas and marshes. Climate change first and further rise in sea levels will accelerate that process, foremost affects boundary zones, where interaction and may lead to the salinization of the lagoons, the 1 — aggregations, colonies of benthic animals; 2 — patches of high biomass of benthic organisms; 3 — breeding and between contrasting physical elements is most destruction of some of the spits, which serve as spawning grounds of vertebrates; 4 — feeding grounds of aquatic organisms; 5 — haulouts of marine mammals; pronounced — especially the boundary between land important habitats for birds and marine mammals, 6 — whelping areas of marine mammals; 7 — wintering aggregations of aquatic organisms and sea birds; 8 — wintering places and the eventual washout of the of sea birds and waterfowl; 9 — breeding aggregations of marine and aquatic birds (colonies); 10 — moulting aggregations Steller's eiders (Polysticta stelleri) 8 of sea birds and marine mammals; 11 — migration routes and stopovers; 12 — habitats of rare and endangered / specially barriers. As a result lagoons may protected species. be transformed into open inlets, Sign X — indicates that these biological phenomena are associated with particular biotope or landscape. while aquatic birds and marine Sign ? — association is possible but not investigated mammals may lose their habitats. Thus, the formation of communities of coastal vegetation oil can spread into the tundra along the network of regimes of discharge, timing of ice freeze up and ice will regress to earlier stages, which laida canals. However, the adaptive potential of drift, and the strength of floods. The contact zone may have far reaching and as yet ecosystems of the land/sea interface may be between riverine and marine environments are also unpredictable consequences for strengthened if protected natural areas are very sensitive to human impact, including dam the entire ecosystem of the coastal established in the most important laida massifs and construction and river discharge regulation, zone. human impact is thus minimized  or even removed. watershed pollution and the extraction of water and Oil and gas development in the River mouths areas. River mouth areas and biological resources. Arctic may create another estuaries of large Arctic rivers are very important Flaw polynyas. Another boundary biotope is the problem. If oil spills at sea wetlands, hosting unique habitats of anadromous and polynya, where the level of interaction between (caused by tanker or oil rig semianadromous fishes and providing areas where ocean and atmosphere is highest. Polynyas are accidents) reach the laida shore, shore birds and waterfowl aggregate in huge numbers sustained areas of open water among or bordering or oil from smaller leaks (for details see 3.11). Ecosystems of river deltas and stationary bodies of ice. They have unique features, accumulates, it will stay in the estuaries in the river/sea contact zone are highly and are of great significance to the biological and laida zone for years. Even worse, sensitive to climate changes. This impacts first of all physical processes of the Arctic seas, serving as a

10 kind of a «window» for marine organisms (more located south of the Arctic Circle. When adopting et al., 2009; Stiansen et al., 2009]. Working on the details in 3.2 – 3.7). this approach in Russia, a significant portion of the present Atlas, we relied on the wealth of data in Climate change may influence the size of White Sea falls out of the Arctic. The national previous publications. However the scale of this polynyas, but they will persist until the winter sea oceanographic and geographical traditions consider assessment is broader than its predecessors — this cover is developed in the Arctic. In today’s warming the White Sea as a marginal sea of the Arctic Ocean. work covers the entire Russian Arctic. Furthermore environment, more accessible ice conditions makes In the present Atlas we consider this basin as a part of we consistently focus our attention on the systems of flaw polynas attractive for navigation and the Arctic as it has numerous oceanographic, boundary biotopes and interfaces such as the sea ice commercial development of the Arctic. A high biogeographical, and ecological links to the polar biotopes, the sea/land transitional zone and the priority for marine spatial planning and organization seas and coasts. It is also tightly connected to the estuarine systems. Because of this concept, the reader of marine use in the Arctic should be the Arctic in historical, economical and sociocultural does not find maps reflecting experts’ assessment of establishment of special rules for environmental and aspects. The Bering Sea also belongs to a huge region marine mammals distribution, similar to those biodiversity conservation in the use of polynyas. of the North Pacific which is adjacent to the Arctic. presented in the Atlas of the Northern Sea Route, The above three boundary biotopes systems will be Generally agreeing with the Arctic Council regarding although their elaborated electronic versions will be considered in the section 3 of the Atlas. Another the inclusion of the Bering Sea into Arctic, we discuss available in the near future. Also we intentionally are contact zone, the system of oceanographic fronts, is in the present Atlas only the Bering Sea waters of the not concentrating on those components of biological very dynamic — a fact that complicates mapping for Chukotka Peninsula, and mention the Gulf of diversity of the Barents Sea that are associated with the entire Russian Arctic seas. While the study of Anadyr, the Karaginsky and Olyutorsky Bays only in pelagic biological productivity, plankton and fishery Arctic frontal systems is in progress, presentation of some aspects. resources — they are comprehensively treated in a general schemes and maps of the fronts with high series of reviews and atlases [Matishov et al., 2000; ecosystem significance may be expected in the future. Larsen et al., 2003; Stiansen, Filin,2008; Arneberg et Previous projects and sources of data al., 2009; Stiansen et al., 2009]. Finally, this project only indirectly refers to such important component Objects of naturalcultural heritage When preparing this Atlas we were not the first who of the Arctic coastal biodiversity as waterbirds that tried to outline the foundations of the marine are assessed in several important publications In the context of the general problems of marine conservation planning in the Russian Arctic. A [Important Bird Areas, 2000, 2006; Krivenko, spatial planning, objects of naturalcultural heritage number of maps related to biological diversity were Vinogradov, 2001]. make up an important category which should not be included in the Atlas of the Arctic [1985]. In the early For characterization of the Russian Arctic seas the overlooked. These are, first of all, the remnants of 1990s the Atlas «Oceanographic conditions and most important publications such as «Soviet Arctic» the marine cultural landscape/seascape which are biological productivity of the White Sea» [Atlas, [1970] and «The seas» [Zalogin, Kosarev, 1999] were still possible to find in Chukotka [Bogoslovskaya et 1991] was published. This work was an important step extensively used. The physiographical regionalization al., 2007], on the White Sea coast [Bernshtam, 1978; towards developing standards for generalization of scheme was developed specially for this publication Plyusnin, 2003; Loginov, 2008] and in some other spatial data with the final purpose of achieving by A.N. Ivanov, while the schemes of biogeographical places. Areas which have been investigated by ecosystem based management. Unfortunately, due to regionalization proposed by several authors were marine scientists for many years, e.g. areas of marine the small number of printed copies and the political combined and briefly summarized. The species research stations, need special attention. These upheaval at the time, this atlas has not received the diversity assessments for the Russian Arctic seas were Horned puffins (Fratercula corniculata), Chukotka 9 include Dalnie Zelentsy on the Murmansk Coast, attention it deserved. Since that time none of the provided by the current publications of the and the biological stations of the Moscow, St. Russian Arctic seas has been analyzed in such a way Zoologizal Institute of RAS [Sirenko, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2006, 2007; Gavrilo et al., 1998; Gavrilo, Petersburg and the Kazan’ Universities and the while «The Conservation Atlas of the Russian part of 2010; and some data of the other institutions]. Bakken, 2000 and others]. The distribution of Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of the Gulf of Finland» [Pogrebov, Sagitov, 2006] came Sea ice biotopes were described on the basis of morphogenetic shore types was adopted from the Sciences on the White Sea coast [Fokin et al., 2006; to press: this publication is structured similarly to the extensive datasets collected over several decades of classic general works of the national school of coastal Khlebovich, 2007; Krasnova, 2008]. White Sea Atlas [1991]. Another publication, the Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute. geomorphology [Kaplin et al., 1991]. The maritime «Dynamic environmental Atlas of the Northern Sea Recognition of the flaw polynyas as one of the marsh vegetation data are part of the current general Route» [Brude et al., 1998] prepared by a group of phenomena critically important for the Arctic marine work conducted by L.A. Sergienko [2008]. How we define the Arctic? Russian and Norwegian experts, presented the data biodiversity was to a large extent inspired by The data on specially protected natural areas are on marine biological diversity of this part of the observations, ideas, and concepts by V.N. Kupetsky based predominately on the review produced by the Which polar and subpolar areas should and Arctic. In 2001 WWF organized the process of the [1958, 1959] and V.F. Zakharov [1996] arising from VNIIPriroda [Zabelina et al., 2006]; the borders of should not be included in the Arctic is to a large biodiversity assessment of the Barents Sea ecoregion; the legendary presatellite era of the sea ice aerial SPNAs were digitized by the Biodiversity extent agreed upon. The Arctic Council and in the final report experts identified priority regions reconnaissance. Conservation Center, the Transparent World Non associated scientific committees and groups (CAFF, for introducing conservation and special Information on the sea bird colonies, areas of their commercial Partnership and WWF Russia using the AMAP, PAME) draw the Arctic boundary generally management regimes [Larsen et al., 2003]. The most molting aggregations, wintering grounds and material provided by the Russian Ministry of Natural along the Arctic Circle, adding the coasts of the updated multidisciplinary review of the Barents Sea migration stopover comes from the extensive data sets Resources and Environment [Cartographic base.., Norwegian and the Bering Seas, and Iceland with environment and ecosystems was prepared by a large resulted from Kandalakshskiy State Zapovednik, 2002–2010]. Other sources of information are surrounding seas to the Arctic — most of them being group of experts from Russia and Norway [Ardeberg MMBI, and the AARI [Bianki, 1991; Krasnov et al., referred to in the respective sections of the work.

11 1.1. SEAS OF THE RUSSIAN ARCTIC: AN OVERVIEW S.L.Gorin, V.A.Spiridonov and A.V.Makarov

he Arctic coast of Russia is bordered by the of 200–400 m as they spread out along the shelf Table. 11. Some characteristics of the Russian Arctic seas T Barents, Kara, Laptev, EastSiberian and trenches to the Kara, Laptev and EastSiberian seas. Area within state Share of water (%) Chukchi shelf seas, and by the semilandlocked Pacific waters are present at lower depths in the Average Continental Area* maritime border and within state maritime White Sea. All these seas are part of the Arctic Ocean Chukchi Sea and, partly, in the EastSiberian Sea. Sea depth* coastline length** km2 EEZ of Russian border and EEZ of (Map 1.1; Table 11). The Bering Sea is part of the Most of the relatively warm and fresh water of m km Federation**, km2 Pacific Ocean. To the north, these seas are influenced riverine origin spreads out over the subsurface layers Russian Federation by the Arctic Ocean, while the westernmost Barents of the Kara, Laptev and EastSiberian seas; in all Sea is closely connected to the Atlantic (via the these seas, freshwater can be observed at relatively Barents 1 424 000 222 3 735,57 1 042 647,33 73,2 Norwegian Sea) and the easternmost Chukchi Sea long distances from the river mouths. From the Kara waters mingle with the Pacific Ocean. The to the EastSiberian Sea, surface waters spread out in White 90 100 67 3 117,38 91 012,17 100,0 boundaries of the Eurasian Arctic Seas are delineated an easterly direction along the continental coast, by conventional borders or by the islands and while in the northern part of the seas, water circulates Kara 883 000 111 9 220,13 887 398,39 100,0 archipelagos. To the north of the Eurasian Arctic in the opposite direction. Water circulation patterns Seas is the Arctic Basin, a deep sea divided into a in the Barents and White Seas are more complex. Laptev 662 000 533 6 029,12 639 891,40 96,7 series of secondary basins by underwater ridges. All Because of global water circulation patterns, the the Eurasian Arctic seas have similar origins: they westernmost Barents Sea and the easternmost EastSiberian 913 000 54 1 826,02 821 389,72 90,0 were created by flooding of the continental margins Chukchi Sea are fed by higher salinity warmer waters during the modern postglacial geological era. The than the central Arctic seas. In the shallow coastal Chukchi 595 000 71 1 402,32 350 382,37 58,9 mountains and ridges that were not submerged zone the water column is homogenous; in most became the islands and peninsulas that rise above the regions of the Arctic seas the waters are stratified in * after Zalogin, Kosarev, 1999 surface of the waters. Most of the Eurasian sea area summer, while in the winter there is mixing at greater ** original calculations using ArcGIS (and in some cases entire seas) is located on the depths and towards to bottom of the seas. The Kara continental shelf where the water depth rarely and the Laptev seas have the most severe sea ice caused by winds and surge are significant and often deserts and subarctic tundra dominate in the insular exceeds 200 m. regimes, with the Barents Sea affected to a lesser exceed (to the east of the Barents Sea) tidal landscapes [Litvin, Lymarev, 2003]. However the Most of the waters that make up the Shelf Seas are extent. variations. Sea level changes caused by river geomorphology and location of the islands in Arctic surface waters, which sources include rivers Sea level variations in the coastal areas of the discharge are particularly pronounced in the White particular climate zones and subzones, the flowing from the land into the sea mixed with oceanic Arctic seas are the result of the combined effects of Sea and near the mouths of large rivers. oceanographic regime of the adjacent waters and the waters from the Atlantic, Pacific and the Arctic tides, swash and river discharge [Zalogin, Kosarev, The oceanographic regime which is a feature of the history of human exploitation have combined to Oceans [Zalogin, Kosarev, 1999]. The northern areas 1999]. Tides are highest in the Barents and White large, deep, landpenetrating bays [Varanger Fjord, create specific conditions which make insular of all the Eurasian Arctic seas are dominated by the Seas (magnitudes of up to 3–4 m and 7–8 m Kola Bay, Chyosha Bay (Chyoshskaya Guba), systems valuable for biodiversity conservation in the cold waters of the Arctic Ocean. Relatively warm respectively), while in the Kara Sea, tidal magnitude Pechora Bay (Pechorskaya Guba), and Kaipudyr Bay Arctic. saline Atlantic waters, spread by surface currents, never exceeds 1m. In the other seas tidal variations (Khaipudyrskaya Guba) in the Barents Sea; The total area of Arctic marine waters under cover the whole of the Barents Sea and sink to depths are usually less than 0.3–0.5 m. Sea level variations Kandalaksha, Onega, Dvina and Mezen Bays in the Russian jurisdiction (excluding the Bering Sea) White Sea; Baidara Bay (Baidaratskaya Guba), Gulf amounts to about 3,832,700 km2 and includes White Sea in winter 10 of Ob (Obskaya Guba) and the Gulf of Yenisei in the internal marine waters (for example the White Sea), Kara Sea; Khatanga and Anabar Bays in the Laptev the territorial sea and the Exclusive Economic Zone Sea; Chaun Bay (Chaunskaya Guba) in the East (EEZ). The Russian Federation has a sovereign right Siberian Sea; Kolyuchin Bay (Kolyuchinskaya Guba) to introduce or propose various spatial planning in the Chukchi Sea; and the Gulf of Anadyr in the measures for nature conservation in all these zones Bering Sea] has high specificity and is in some cases and on the legally demarcated continental shelf (see unique. Introduction for details). Interaction of the seabed topography and Russia has prepared an application to the UN sediments, the water masses of the seas, and the Commission on Limits of Continental Shelf to Arctic Ocean, along with the coastal landscapes have extend its sovereignty over the seabed of the resulted in a hierarchical system of biotopes which Lomonosov and the Mendeleev underwater ranges are home to communities of organisms and provide and extending to the foot of the ridges. As part of this the basis for the life and function of these ecosystems. application to extend its sovereignty over this Arctic The composition of species, along with the marine area, it has to outline special commitments abundance and productive potential of their for environmental protection in the Arctic Ocean populations, are to large extent determined by the Basin and pledge to carry out regular work aimed at properties of the marine and coastal biotopes. monitoring the marine environment in the deep sea The islands of the Russian Arctic seas are areas, which are essential for the health and exclusively of the continental shelf type. Arctic livelihoods of marine Arctic ecosystems..

12 Map 1.1. Seas and coasts of the Russian Arctic

Scale 1 : 16,000,000

Compiled by A.V. Makarov Source: National Atlas of Russia, Roskartographia [2004–2009]

13 Section 2 REGIONALIZATION AND BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY OF SEAS AND COASTS OF THE RUSSIAN ARCTIC

2.1. PHYSIOGRAPHICAL REGIONALIZATION OF THE ARCTIC OCEAN SECTOR ADJACENT TO RUSSIA A.N. Ivanov

aps or schemes for physiographical and ocean basins, (2) megastructure of the ocean floor, oceanographic conditions and distribution of the Because of the special regime which characterizes Mbiogeographical regionalization provide a basis (3) sea basin, (4) climatic zone, and (5) marine biota. All provinces can be tentatively divided the White Sea, including its complex and long for assessing the representativeness and biological geomorphology of seabed and coasts. into two groups based on geomorphologic factors. coastline, and the presence of geomorphologically diversity of the seascape within existing and proposed Level One refers to the Arctic Ocean in general. The first group of provinces is located in the coastal separated parts, regionalization of the White Sea has protected areas. For the purposes of this study we Despite being the world’s smallest ocean (which zone of sea basins and includes large bays and coasts been defined according to yet another scheme have used a scheme for physiographical leads some oceanographers to categorize it as a sea of of different types (3.8). The second group of (Map 2.1). It is based on two approaches: a regionalization originally developed for the Arctic the Atlantic, i.e., the Arctic Mediterranean), it has provinces is found in open stretches of sea basins. In traditional approach based on the first hydrographic Ocean. traditionally been considered by Russian these areas, because of the singularly broad sea shelf, descriptions of the White Sea by M.F. Reinike in There are two main methods for undertaking oceanographers as a separate entity. the defining features of the central portions of sea 1827–1832 and the approach based on specificity of physiographical regionalization of the world’s Level Two of the regionalization corresponds to basins include significant depths of the seabed and a the oceanographic regime of different parts of the oceans. The first, the deductive method, analyses major megastructures of the oceanic floor. The lack of processes/properties of seascapes sea [Naumov, 2006] (3.4). general differentiation factors of the world’s oceans secondorder physiographical boundary in the Arctic characteristic of coastal zones. relying on existing schemes of vertical, latitudinal Ocean is the division between the underwater edge of 11 and azonal divisions. To do so, it usually applies the the continent and the Arctic Basin associated with Coast of Chukchi Sea border overlay technique. This involves the deepest central portion of the ocean. superimposing a series of maps with matching Level Three of the regionalization corresponds to contours over one another. Special attention is given physiographic realms – azonal units associated with to the analysis of factors that play a leading role in the sea basins at underwater continental margins. Sea partitioning of regions and factors sensitive to basins are distinguished by their sizes, depth, shape of changes in environmental conditions. basin, and the degree of isolation from the world’s The second, the inductive regionalization method, oceans. The following basins have been identified: involves using existing landscape contours as they Barents Sea, White Sea, Kara Sea, Chukchi Sea, and have been mapped and, based on these, identifying the LaptevEast Siberian Sea. The latter includes two the larger physiographical units. Using this method, seas that are usually considered separately. For the every next (higher in rank) unit is identified by purposes of this study we have considered them as a studying the regular distribution patterns of simpler single sea basin. It is worth noting that some natural units. The inductive approach makes regionalization schemes also do consider the two as a extensive use of geostatistical analysis [Grant et al., single sea [Geomorphological regionalization, 1980; 2006; Snelder et al., 2006] and appears to be a more Lymarev, 2002]. advanced methodology; however its application is Level Four corresponds to physiographic regions — limited by the lack of existing high resolution zonal units distinguished within sea basins by seascape data. For this reason, in this study, we use latitudinal climatic differences. The Arctic zone the deductive method as the chosen method of includes the northern portions of all the sea basins. regionalization. Our approach is based on earlier The Subarctic zone covers a larger area and includes work performed for the seas of the Russian Far East southern portions of marginal seas of the Arctic [Ivanov, 2003]. Ocean. The Cold Temperate zone can only be traced The physiographical regionalization of the Arctic in the White Sea and a small portion of the Barents Ocean adjacent to Russia is based on geographical Sea west of the Kola Bay. information: schemes of water circulation, Level Five of the regionalization corresponds to geomorphological and climatic division, and fine provinces – portions of sea basins within one climatic scale maps of physiographical regionalization. The zone that are distinguished by their geomorphology. divisions have been arrived at simultaneous and equal Characteristics of provinces include similarities in accounting of zonal and azonal factors and their geological structure, direction and amplitude of regularities in the partitioning of the geographic recent crustal motions, and combinations of seabed space (Map 2.1). topography forms that are only typical for the given Levels of classification. A 5level system of province. It is assumed that, at this level, the seabed taxonomic units is used and corresponds to: (1) topography becomes a very important factor affecting

14 Map 2.1. Physiographical regionalization of the Arctic Ocean sector adjacent to Russia

Scale 1 : 16,000,000

Compiled by A.N. Ivanov

15 2.2. BIOGEOGRAPHICAL REGIONALIZATION V.A. Spiridonov

ioregionalization may be based on the Shallow Water Region, most of the Barents Sea biogeographical regions identified by particular O3 — Atlantic Boreal Area; B distribution ranges of certain taxa or entire represents a transitional zone. The eastern Chukchi authors, it is more common to find similarities O4 — Bering Subarea of Pacific Boreal Area; groups of flora and fauna. This approach is called Sea is part of the Shelf PeriPacific Region [Jirkov, between certain combinations of physiographic biotic biogeography [Starobogatov, 1982]. The 2001; Map 2.2. B: P1–P6]. The central Barents Sea provinces with larger biogeographical regions. regionalization based on the distribution of the resulting demarcated areas in the Arctic seas is considered as a large transition zone also in the A representative network of MPAs should cover the benthic and benthopelagic Mysidacea [Petryashov , mainly comprise two or three large regions. These biogeography of the Arctic fishes [Andriashev, major biogeographical regions and the most 2009] M1 — Eurasian District of Arctic Province of Arcto are further subdivided and the final hierarchy Shaposhnikova, 1985]. characteristic physiographical ones. In order to Atlantic Area; depends on the group of organisms under The boundary of Bogdanov’s [1990] Arctic Area establish an MPA representing a large M2 — Amerasian District of Arctic Province of consideration. (based on studies of distribution of the gastropod biogeographical region it should not be placed at a ArctoAtlantic Area; For example, using amphipods Caprelloidea as subfamily, the Oenopotinae) coincides in the transitional zone (such as most of the Barents Sea M3 — EastGreenland District of Arctic Province of her reference species for biogeographical Barents Sea with the boundary of the Arctic and the East Siberian Sea). Rather it should be ArctoAtlantic Area; regionalization, S.V. Vassilenko [1974] defined the Subarea as defined by O.G. Kussakin [1979]. The designated within a large region not crossed by M4 — White SeaBarents District of Scandinawian Arctic Area as including all the seas of the Arctic boundary between two of Bogdanov’s [1990] Arctic biogeographical boundaries and encompassing Province of ArctoAtlantic Area; Ocean except for parts of the Barents Sea and the provinces, the West Siberian and the Chukchi several physiographical provinces. M5 — West Barents District of Scandinawian White Sea, which she defined as belonging to a American, passes further east of the New Siberian Current climate transformation may lead to Province of ArctoAtlantic Area; transitional zone (Map 2.2. A: C1–C). Similarly Islands (Map 2.2.A: O1–O4). The latter province rapid dispersal of marine organisms from the North M6 — Norwegian District of Scandinawian Province O.G. Kussakin [1979] in his regionalization scheme meets the Beringian Province of the Pacific Boreal Pacific [Vermej, Roopnarine, 2008] and the North of ArctoAtlantic Area; based on isopod crustaceans (Map 2.2. A: I1–I2), Area to the north of the Bering Strait. This Atlantic — as it has been already observed in the M7 — Pacific Boreal Area; treats most of the Russian Arctic seas as a single subdivision is similar to the scheme derived by Barents and the northern Kara Seas [Anisimova et Arctic Subarea of the ArctoAtlantic Area with the K.N. Nesis [1982] from the distribution patters of al., 2008; Kantor et al., 2008]. In order to monitor regionalization based on the distribution of the western/central Barents and the White Sea Cephalopoda. Like Jirkov [2001] he does not use these possible biodiversity changes, monitoring Amphipoda Gammaridea [Gurjanova, 1951] belonging to the separate Atlantic Boreal Subarea the «Arctic vs. Boreal» opposition and considers polygons (associated with the research stations and A1 — Deep Sea Arctic Area; (Map 2.2.A). Other authors have identified other five provinces within the Russian Arctic Seas: the existing or proposed MPAs) should be established A2 — Boreal Area; subdivisions within the boundaries of their Arctic Celtic Province, extending to the coastal waters of within large biogeographical regions but close to A3 — White SeaSpitsbergen (Svalbard) Province Area, Subarea or Province (Maps 2.2. A and B). the Kola Peninsula; the PeriAtlantic province, some presentday biogeographical boundaries: in of Arctic Shelf Area; Using amphipod crustaceans as her species of occupying most of the Barents Sea; the West the Franz Josef Land area, in the vicinity of A4 — Siberian Province of Arctic Shelf Area; reference, E.F. Gurjanova [1951] defined the south Siberian, covering the northern Barents Sea, the transitional zones of the Barents and the East A5 — ChukchiAmerican Province of Arctic Shelf Area; western Barents Sea as being part of the Boreal Kara Sea, and most of the Laptev Sea; the Siberian Seas, or within such biogeographical Area, while she considered that the other Russian Chukotka–Canadian Province, including the enclaves as the White Sea. regionalization based on the distribution of Arctic seas were part of the Arctic Area comprising EastSiberian, part of the Chukchi sea and the Bivalvia [Filatova, 1957] of several provinces (Map 2.2.B: A1 – A5). Arctic waters of North America; the Bering Strait B1 — High Arctic Abyssal PolarGreenland Province Z.A. Filatova [1957], who studied the distribution and the adjacent waters of Chukchi and the Bering CONVENTIONS TO MAP 2.2 A and 2.2 B of Arctic Area; of bivalve molluscs, recognized the boundary seas belong to the PeriPacific Province. B2 — NorwegianMurmansk Province of Boreal between the Arctic Area and the Boreal Area as Like Kussakin [1979], V.V. Petryashov [2009] Area; following Norway’s shelf break to Bear Island and recognizes (using benthopelagic mysids as his regionalization based on the distribution of B2a — Coastal enclave of Norwegian  Murmansk  then following the Kola Peninsula and the internal reference) the ArctoAtlantic Area which includes, Isopoda [Kussakin, 1979] White Sea Province of Boreal Area; White Sea coasts: all these coastal areas host boreal in particular the Arctic Province. He further I1 — Arctic Subarea of ArctoAtlantic Area; B3 — Barents Province of Arctic Area; fauna. In the Pacific, the Bering Strait marks the divides this province into zoogeographical I2 — Celtic Province of Atlantic Boreal Subarea, B4 — Eurasian Bathyal Province of Arctic Area; boundary between Arctic and Boreal fauna districts: longitudinal boundaries between them ArctoAtlantic Area; B5 — Siberian White Sea Province of Arctic Area distribution. are located, in particular, in the Barents and the I3 — Bering province of Aleutian Subarea, Pacific (with enclaves); I.A. Jirkov’s [2001] approach, based on the EastSiberian Sea (Map 2.2.A: M1–M7). Thus Boreal Area; B6 — Siberian Brackish Water province of Arctic distribution of polychaets, does not use the «Arctic several latitudinal biogeographical boundaries Area; regionalization based on the distribution of vs. Boreal» opposition. However, what he defines as cross the East Siberian Sea. Additionally B7 — Chukchi Sea Province of Arctic Area; amphipod families Caprellidae and Paracercopidae the Shelf Arctic Region is similar to the region A.B. Dilman [2009] demonstrated the presence of a B8 — Alaska and ChuckotkaBering Provinces of [Vassilenko, 1974] defined by Z.A. Filatova as the High Arctic broad transitional zone in this sea using the Boreal Area; C1 — Arctic Area; Sublittoral Subarea, while the region he defines as the distribution of sea stars as a reference. The Kara, C2 — Atlantic Boreal Bathyal Area; regionalization based on the distribution of Deep Water Arctic Region corresponds to that the Laptev and the southeastern and the north C3 —Aleutian Province of Upper Boreal Aleut Polychaeta [Jirkov, 2001] defined by Filatova as the Eurasian Arctic Bathyal eastern Barents Sea are more homogenous from the Kamchatka Subarea, Pacific Boreal Area; P1 — Deep Sea High Arctic Region; and the Arctic Abyssal Provinces. According to faunal standpoint. P2 — Deep Sea Norwegian Region; I.A. Jirkov’s classification, while the southwestern A comparison of the physiographical provinces regionalization based on the distribution of the P3 — Arctic Shelf Region; Barents Sea belongs to the Shelf PeriAtlantic considered in 2.1 and the biogeographical provinces gastropod subfamily Oenopotinae [Bogdanov, 1990] P4 — Shelf PeriAtlantic Region; Region, and the coastal areas of the Kola Peninsula reveals certain similarities. While some O1 — West Siberian Province of Arctic Area; P5 — Shelf PeriPacific Region; and the White Sea are combined in the Scandinavian physiographical provinces match specific O2 — ChukchiAlaska Province of Arctic Area; P6 — Shallow Water Scandinavian Region.

16 Map 2.2. Biogeographical regionalization of the Eurasian sector of the Arctic Ocean

Schemes of biogeographical regionalization are based on distribution of different taxonomic groups of invertebrates; A and В: schemes, which recognize (А) and those which do not recognize (В) deepwater Arctic regions

A

State border of the Russian Federation Boundary of the polar domains of the Russian Federation

Depth scale (metres)

Scale 1 : 22,000,000

B

State border of the Russian Federation Boundary of the polar domains of the Russian Federation

Depth scale (metres)

Scale 1 : 22,000,000

Compiled by A.V. Makarov and V.A. Spiridonov. 17 2.3. SPECIES DIVERSITY IN THE RUSSIAN ARCTIC SEAS: PELAGIC AND SEA ICE BIOTA, MICRO– MEIOFAUNA V.A. Spiridonov

ifferent realms and biotopes may significantly longstanding efforts of the ZIN RAN [Sirenko, 1998; Table 2–1. Number of sea ice diatom species (bold), ratiocentric to pennate forms — (bold italic in brackets) in particular Ddiffer in their «carrying capacity» for taxonomic 2001, 2010; Petryashov et al., 2004]. Arctic seas and similarity coefficients (%) between sea ice diatom floras in different seas (values above the main diagonal of the diversity. Inventorying species and comparing the In particular, there are not many species of table) [Ilyash, Zhitina, 2009] species diversity for geographical areas and biotopes metazoans (and unicellular but relatively large is a very common method used to describe the radiolarians) living as zooplankton. The water diversity of life. Unfortunately, the biota of Russian column fauna of the Barents Sea is the richest and Arctic Seas is still not clearly understood, and this most diverse; it is enriched by the presence of Region Kara White Laptev Barents method must be used with caution. Atlantic species carried on the ocean currents Chukchi

There are not many updated lists of algae species (Map 2.3.A). The Barents Sea is one of the most Arctic Basin East Siberian for all the Arctic Seas. Below (Table 21) is the most widely studied areas in the Arctic. The White Sea, recent update for diatom algae species living in the with its smaller surface area, decreased salinity and 272 White Sea 0,48 0,71 0,57 0,49 0,52 0,55 sea ice and partly entering the water column when seasonal temperature contrasts is home to fewer (0,42) the ice melts [Ilyash, Zhitina, 2009]. The White Sea planktonic species (about half as many). Further appears to be the most species rich, and the Kara Sea east, the number of species living in the water column 250 Barents Sea 0,61 0,47 0,45 0,47 0,55 is the most species poor. That said, the sea ice diatom also decreases in comparison to the Barents Sea, (0,33) floras of these two seas are very similar, unlike the reaching its lowest levels in the East Siberian Sea. flora of the White and Barents Seas. East of the Species numbers rise again in the Chukchi Sea, as 57 Kara Sea 0,56 0,48 0,58 0,50 Barents Sea the pattern of similarity between floras North Pacific species enter through the Bering Strait. (0,36) generally follows the dominant directions of sea ice This may be partly explained by the fact that many drift [Ilyash, Zhitina, 2009]. oceanic pelagic animals are unable to tolerate the 180 Laptev Sea 0,73 0,73 0,52 The diversity of animal species of the Russian shallow water conditions of the Siberian seas which (0,20) Arctic Seas is better documented thanks to the are strongly influenced by river runoff. In the shallow waters calanoid copepods become the 150 Medusa Cyanea сapillata 12 East Siberian Sea 0,84 0,48 numerically dominant species. The plankton fauna of (0,15) the deepwater Central Arctic Basin is much richer in species diversity (Map 2.3.A). Copepods also 241 Chukchi Sea 0,52 dominate there, but the species composition is (0,19) different. The spaces between sediment particles and sea ice crystals are inhabited by microfauna. These 209 Arctic Basin are organisms of less than 100μ, mostly unicellular. (0,25) The study of the diversity of microfauna is fragmentary: for example for benthic ciliates (Ciliata) the greatest species number (282) has been recorded available: 185 species [A.I. Azovsky, L.A. Garlitska, In particular, it is anticipated that a new species of in the White Sea. In the Barents Sea there are 260 E.S. Chertoprud, pers. comm.]. the deep living giant protists Komokida (related to species; in the Kara Sea, where some time ago only East of the Barents Sea there is a drastic decrease Foraminiphera), which according to preliminary few species were recorded, is now known to have 125 in the number of species from the Kara through the data dominate in benthos in the North Pole, will be species. No reliable data exist for other Russian Laptev Sea to the EastSiberian Sea with a slight discovered in the Arctic Basin [O.A. Kamenskaya, Arctic seas [A.I. Azovsky et al., in press]. increase in the Chukchi Sea. However, while taxa pers.comm.]. The diversity of several taxonomic groups composition in the Kara Harpacticoid crustacean Ectinosoma 13 belonging to meiofauna, i.e. animals less than 1 mm Sea is similar to that in [Mokievsky, 2009], is shown in Map 2.3.B. Again, the Barents Sea, in the the fauna of the Barents Sea appears to be the Laptev, EastSiberian, richest. In the White Sea more seems to be known and Chukchi Seas and in about nematodes and related taxa and harpacticoid the deep Arctic Basin, copepods than in other parts of the Arctic seas. certain groups (i.e. However, even here the inventory is far from ciliates, nematodes) are complete. For example, at the time of publication of practically not studied the check list for the Arctic Seas there were only 112 and foraminipherans are known species of harpacticoid copepods in the considered the most White Sea [Sirenko, 2001]. Following only a few species rich group. A years of active research by marine biological stations complete inventory of the the number rose to more than 150 [Kornev, Arctic micro and Chertoprud, 2008]. Now, even greater estimates are meiofauna is still needed.

18 Map 2.3 Species diversity of pelagic animals (А) and meiofauna (В)

Compiled by A.V. Makarov and V.A. Spiridonov A Sources: Sirenko [2001] with additions from Petryashov et al. [2004], Kornev, Chertoprud [2008], Sirenko [2010], A.I. Azovsky, L.A. Garlitska, E.S. Chertoprud [pers. comm.]

99 Total number of species State border of the Russian Federation Taxonomic composition Boundary of the polar domains of the Russian Federation Boundary of the Arctic seas Calanoida Radiolaria Euphausiacea Scyphozoa Depth scale (metres) Hyperiidea Ctenophora Chaetognata Rotifera Appendiculariae Cladocera Scale 1 : 20,000,000

B

State border of the Russian Federation Boundary of the polar domains 99 Total number of species of the Russian Federation Boundary of the Arctic seas Taxonomic composition Depth scale (metres) Foraminifera Nemathelminthes Tardigrada Scale 1 : 20,000,000 Harpacticoida

19 2.4. MACROBENTHOS: SPECIES DIVERSITY AND GROUPS DOMINATING IN THE COMMUNITIES V.A. Spiridonov

he species of micro and meio and macrofauna Islands, Chaun Bay and coastal shallows of the Tinhabiting seabed habitats have very different life Chukchi Sea), where a limited set of the red, brown histories; it would be safe to say that they inhabit very and the green algae species is recorded (Zinova, different worlds [Mokievsky, 2009b]. Contrary to 1985). micro and meiobenthos (2.3), which, despite their The Barents Sea appears to have the highest ecological importance are known only to specialists, diversity of taxonomic groups of macrobenthic macrobenthic species which inhabit the seabed are animals and is home to about twice or more of the widely known among the public at large. They are number of species compared to each of the other seas also better studied so the data on species numbers (Map 2.4.A). Polychaets, gastropods and amphipods summarized for the Arctic seas may better reflect real are the most speciesrich groups. In the White Sea, patterns of biodiversity distribution. all taxa are represented by smaller numbers of species Seaweed is an important component of the but their shares are similar to those in the Barents macrobenthos. Macrophytes grow in a very narrow Sea. Thus K.M. Derjugin’s [1928] early assessment range of depths ranging from 0 to a maximum of 30 that this constitutes the «negative characteristics» of m. In most Arctic seas this range is even smaller. the White Sea fauna makes sense. These differences However, the importance of the macrophyte belt as can probably be explained by the relatively recent a biotope system [Zenkevich, 1963] and production formation of the White Sea (it is about 14,000 years zone [Romankevich, Vetrov, 2001] cannot be old) and severe conditions in the Gorlo, the strait underestimated. The Barents and White Seas have connecting its outer and the inner parts which has the greatest number of seaweed species on account existed for at least the last 6,000 years since the of the variety of seashore types and relatively milder maximum temperatures of the Holocene era climate conditions. These are the only seas where [Naumov, 2006; Solyanko et al., 2010]. vascular plants, e.g. Zostera marina, grow. The The Kara Sea also has a lower number of species number of macrophyte species decreases towards in comparison to the Barents Sea. The share of the Siberian seas and increases in the Chukchi Sea speciesrich groups such as polychaets and [Zenkevich, 1963; Vinogradova, 1990]. A amphipods among its entire fauna is higher than in continuous and species rich belt of macrophytes off the Barents Sea. This may indicate the existence of the Kola coast and in the White Sea changes to incomplete inventories of many other groups rather isolated patches of seaweed communities further than a real pattern. The percentage of amphipods is east (in some parts of the southeastern Barents Sea, even greater in the Laptev Sea which has a lower the southwestern coast of Yuzhnyy Island of the total number of species than the Kara Sea. Until Novaya Zemlya, the coastal zone of New Siberian recently, studies of the fauna in the Laptev Sea were Benthic community dominated by ophiurans 15 limited. However in the last two decades, further Amphipod Anonyx nugax 14 studies have been conducted and the known number shallows (Map 2.4 A). The Central Arctic Basin Chaetopteridae. And at the lower depths of the of species has nearly doubled [Sirenko, 1998; 2001]. appears now to be the area of the least species continental slope (2000–2500 m) deep water Arctic The EastSiberian Sea appears now to be the poorest richness and diversity. species including holothurians Kolga hyalina, in terms of macrobenthic animal species numbers. The distribution of the different types of Elpidia glacialis and sea urchins Pourtalesia This is because many species of the Atlantic origin macrobenthic communities [Sirenko, 1998] shown jeffreysii are common. Some of the differences in the that are moved around by deep waters do not spread in Map 2.4.B demonstrates characteristic patterns distribution of benthic community types in the far west of the Laptev / East Siberian Sea boundary which are related to different shelf zones. Areas Barents Sea from this circumcontinental pattern can [Dilman, 2009]. At the same time there are some adjacent to estuaries of big rivers in the Siberian seas be explained by the complex topography of the areas, i.e. Chaun Bay, where species of Pacific origin are populated by estuarine species where bivalves seabed and the strong influence of the Atlantic waters and their communities (usually living in warmer Portlandia aestuariorum and Cyrtodaria kurriana [Sirenko, 1998]. waters) have persisted since the temperature maxima and some crustaceans dominate. Further offshore, Schemes similar to 2.4 B can be used (along with were recorded in the geological past [Golikov et al., throughout the Russian Arctic seas, there is a range of biogeographical regionalization maps, e.g. 2.2) to 1994]. In the Chukchi Sea the presence of Pacific communities dominated by the other bivalves select representative candidate areas for monitoring species is remarkable. According to the most recent (Map 2.4.B). At the outer shelf and upper and protection of marine ecosystems. data [Sirenko, 2010] its species richness is relatively continental slope (600–700 m) a zone of Physiographical provinces (2.1) associated with high. One peculiar characteristic of the Chukchi Sea communities dominated by ophiurans can be archipelagos and bays (characterized by specific fauna is the increased share of species of bryozoans observed (Map 2.4.B). Further north, at depths of oceanographic regime and complex seabed and other groups of sessile feeding on suspended between 700–2000 m, benthic communities are topography) are of particular importance for organic matter (seston). This may be a result of the dominated mostly by polychaets from various encompassing the maximum diversity of benthic high productivity observed in the Chukchi Sea families, in particular Maldanidae and biotope within the MPA network.

20 Map 2.4. Diversity of principal groups of macrobenthos

2.4 А. Species diversity of principal taxonomic groups of macrobenthos Compiled by A.V. Makarov and V.A. Spiridonov A

Source: 2.4 А Sirenko [2001] with additions from Petryashov et al. [2004], Anisimova et al. [2008], Frolova [2009], Lyubina, Sayapin [2009] and Sirenko [2010] 2.4 B Sirenko [1998]

1185 Total number of species Taxonomic composition

Porifera Other Mollusca Echinodermata State border of the Russian Federation Cnidaria Benthic Amphipoda Bryozoa Boundary of the polar domains of the Russian Federation Polychaeta Isopoda Ascidiacea Boundary of the Arctic seas Gastropoda Ostracoda Other groups Depth scale (metres) Bivalvia Other Crustacea

2.4 B. Distribution of major types of macrobenthic communities in Russian Arctic seas and Arctic basin Scale 1 : 20,000,000 B

Communities with domination by

estuarine species (Portladia aestuariorum, Cyrtodaria kurriana, Rhizomolgula globularis, Saduria entomon)

bivalves (Tridonta borealis, T. montagui, Macoma calcarea, Nuculana pernula, N. radiata, Leionucula belotti, L. inflata, Portlandia arctica, P. siligua, Astarte crenata, Yoldia hyperborea, Ciliatocardium ciliatum)

ophiurans (Ophiocten sericeum, Ophiocantha bidentata, Ophiopleura borealis and others)

polychaets (Maldanidae, Chaetopteridae State border of the Russian Federation and others) Boundary of the polar domains of the Russian Federation holothurians and sea urchins (Elpidia Boundary of the Arctic seas glacialis, Kolga hyalina, Pourtalesia jeffreisi)

Scale 1 : 20,000,000 Sipunculida

21 2.5. SPECIES DIVERSITY OF VERTEBRATE ANIMALS V.A. Spiridonov, M.V.Gavrilo and S.E.Belikov

here are significantly fewer vertebrate animal areas. Anadromous species, such as salmon and some Table 22. Occurrence of marine mammal species in the Russian Arctic seas and the Arctic Basin Tspecies in the Arctic seas than invertebrate populations of Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) and (based on Belikov et al., 1998; Artukhin, Burkanov, 1999; Burdin et al., 2009; Lukin, Ognetov, 2009; Stiansen et al., 2009). species. Yet in the eyes of the public, fish, sea birds Arctic cisco (Coregonus autumnalis), breed in fresh C — common; R — rare; VR — very rare; ABS — absent. and marine mammals are the iconic species most water but spend most of their lifecycle at sea often Areas: Bar. — Barents Sea (Russian part); Wh. — White Sea; Lapt. — Laptev Sea; ESib. — East Siberian Sea; Chuk. — Chukchi Sea; and AB — Arctic Basin. often associated with Arctic fauna. Vertebrates are at migrating over great distances. Semianadromous the top of the food web and act as links between fishes, such as whitefish (Coregonidae) and smelt, Area Species different realms. For example, polar cod Osmerus spp. (which also breed in fresh water) spend Bar. Wh. Kara Lapt. ESib. Chuk. AB (Boreogadus saida) juveniles feed on the organisms part of their life in estuarine and coastal marine that inhabit the sea ice/water interface and channel waters of low salinity. In addition, the estuarine Cetacea organic matter and energy from the seaice waters of the Arctic seas are also populated by several Bowhead Whale Balaena mysticetus VR ABS VR VR VR C ABS ecosystem to the ecosystems of the water column freshwater species (Map 2.5 A). Gray Whale Eschrichtius robustus ABS ABS ABS ABS C C ABS (3.1). Anadromous fishes transfer oceanic biological Species richness is at its most dense in the Barents Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae R VR ABS ABS ABS R ABS production to watershed ecosystems; colonial birds Sea and decreases gradually as we move towards the Little Picked Whale C R VR ABS ABS R ABS feeding at sea create specific ornithogenic landscapes East Siberian Sea. The East Siberian Sea is home to Balaenoptera acutorostrata around their nesting places [Breslina, 1987]. In the approximately 10 times fewer marine species than the Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus VR ABS ABS ABS ABS ABS ABS overwhelming majority of cases, aquatic biological Barents Sea. This low species count is not simply the Finback Whale Balaenoptera physalus R VR ABS ABS ABS R ABS resources exploited by humans in the Arctic consist result of a lack of investigation but reflects the harsh Bottlenosed Dolphin Tursiops truncatus R ABS ABS ABS ABS ABS ABS largely of vertebrate animals whose usage goes far living conditions in the Siberian shelf waters. Whitesided Dolphin Lagenorhynchus acutus R ABS ABS ABS ABS ABS ABS beyond fisheries, hunting, and collecting sea bird However, a group of anadromous and semi fluff. For example, population composition and anadromous fish are nonetheless flourishing in the Whitebeaked Dolphin L.albirostris C VR ABS ABS ABS ABS ABS dynamics of colonial sea birds reflect the availability Siberian waters where they provides up to 90% of Bottlehead Hyperoodon ampullatus R VR ABS ABS ABS ABS ABS of food resources in marine ecosystems over vast fishery landing. That said, the East Siberian is home Common Dolphin Delphinus delphis VR ABS ABS ABS ABS ABS ABS areas adjacent to their colonies [Krasnov et al., to a greater diversity of species that the Laptev Sea. Killer Whale Orcinus orca C R ABS ABS VR R R 1995]. This makes them one of the best indicators for The scorpion fishes (Cottidae) is the most species Pilot Whale Globicephala melas R ABS ABS ABS ABS ABS ABS monitoring ecosystem health. rich group among the Eurasian seas’ marine fish Phocoena phocoena C R ABS ABS ABS ABS ABS Map 2.5 A illustrates patterns of fish and fauna. Among this species, the fourhorn sculpin Dall's Porpoise Phocoenoides dalli ABS ABS ABS ABS ABS VR ABS cyclostomates species diversity in the Arctic seas. All (Myoxocephalus quadricornis) is a species of major North Pacific giant Whale Berardius bairdi ABS ABS ABS ABS ABS VR ABS these species can be divided into three ecological ecological importance as is the Arctic cisco which groups. Marine species live and reproduce in preys intensively on juvenile sculpin during its Beluga Whale Delphinapterus leucas C C C C C C R characteristically saline environments and do not summer feeding period in the coastal marine waters Narwhale Monodon monoceros R ABS R VR R VR ОБ usually occur in brackish water conditions — [Gurjanova, 1970]. Cachalot Physeter macrocephalus R ABS ABS ABS ABS ABS ABS although there may be some exceptions, for example, Water birds constitute a large ecological group Pinnipedia some species of plaice enter river mouths and migrate and include taxonomically and phylogenetically Walrus Odobenus rosmarus C R C C C C R up to tens of kilometres upstream in tidal estuarine distant families. Marine birds include true sea birds Harp (Greenland) Seal C C R ABS ABS ABS ABS which only forage at sea and nest Pagophilus groenlandicus Narwals 16 primarily in colonies (obligate Ringed Seal Phoca hispida* C C C C C C R colonial birds including many Bearded Seal Erignathus barbatus C C C C C C ABS species of the Alcidae but also Ribbon Seal Histriophoca fasciata ABS ABS ABS ABS ABS R ABS from other families). There are Common Seal Phoca vitullina C R ABS ABS ABS ABS ABS also facultative colonial birds and an ecologically distinct Spotted Seal Phoca largha ABS ABS ABS ABS ABS C ABS group of sea ducks. The latter Gray Seal Halichoerus gripus R R ABS ABS ABS ABS ABS can be divided into two distinct Crested Seal Cystophora cristata C VR VR VR VR ABS ABS groups, fisheating species and Carnivora those feeding on benthic Polar Bear Ursus maritimus C** ABS C C C C R animals. In addition to these, * sometimes this species is referred as Pusa hispida; other waterbirds, including ** in the northern part of the sea waders are also found in maritime coastal habitats, especially during auks, puffins, gulls, cormorants, fulmars, and species are common: gulls, cormorants, gannets, the nonbreeding season (4.3). gannets) and diving ducks nesting on the coasts of and the northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis, the Map 2.5 B shows changes in particular seas of the Russian Arctic. As with many only Arctic member of the tubenosed birds, species’ number of marine other taxonomic groups, the greatest numbers are Procellariiformes, the genuine inhabitants of the colonial birds (mainly murres, found in the Barents Sea where some Atlantic oceanic waters). The total number of species

22 Map 2.5. Species diversity of fishes, cyclostomates and marine birds

decreases in the White and the Kara Seas and remains low in the Laptev and East Siberian Seas; it A increases then in the Chukchi Sea where some Pacific Alcids nest (see 3.3). Among sea ducks, only eiders are genuine sea birds. All eiders use land for nesting and rearing broods only; the common eider (Somateria mollissima) then moves immediately to the sea with its brood. Eiders prey mainly on benthic invertebrates and use coastal shallows for summer feeding. Chukotka is known for the diversity of its Groups of fishes and number eiders. All four species of eider can be found in of species Chukotka: the Pacific subspecies of the common 85 Total number of species of fishes and cyclostomates eider (Somateria mollissima vnigrum), the king 22 Number of species by groups eider (S. spectabilis), the spectacled eider Marine (S. fischeri), and the Steller's eider (Polysticta Anadromous and semianadromous stelleri). Freshwater Two main orders of marine mammals that can be State border of the Russian observed in the Arctic are pinnipeds and cetaceans. Federation The polar bear (Ursus maritimus), the iconic Boundary of the polar domains symbol of the Arctic, can also be considered a of the Russian Federation marine animal as it spends most of its life wandering Boundary of the Arctic seas on the drifting ice and obtaining its prey from the Scale 1 : 22,000,000 sea. Most pinnipeds maintain a connection to the shore where they breed, nurse pups and moult; however some seal species, i.e. harp seal (Pagophilus groenlandicus) and ribbon seal B (Histriophoca fasciata), use seaice biotopes for these important functions. Although cetaceans live permanently in the marine environment, some species also maintain close connections to the shore. For example, beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) form reproductive aggregations close to the shore where they give birth to calves, nurse juveniles, socialize and mate. The migration routes of the East Pacific population of grey whales Groups of birds and number (Eschrichtius robustus) follow the shores: these of species animals migrate over distances of thousands of 21 Total number of species of marine kilometres from their wintering grounds off the birds California coast to the feeding grounds in the 9 Number of bird species by groups Chukchi and the East Siberian seas. Colonial The Barents Sea is the richest in marine mammal Facultative colonial species; their numbers then decrease towards the Sea ducks White Sea and further east (especially the number of State border of the Russian Federation cetaceans) and increase again in the Chukchi Sea Boundary of the polar domains (Table 22). The Arctic Basin is the most species of the Russian Federation poor. That said, it is nonetheless home to important Boundary of the Arctic seas populations of narwhal (Monodon monoceros), a Scale 1 : 22,000,000 unique marine mammal species found in the Arctic. Its separate taxonomic identity and exclusive Compiled by: 2.5 А — V.A. Spiridonov and A.V. Makarov occurrence in the highlatitude Arctic region points 2.5 B — M.V. Gavrilo to a long evolutionary history in the polar Sources of data: 2.5 А — Andriashev, Chernova, 1994; Reshetnikov, 2002; Karamushko, 2007, 2009; environment. 2.5 B — number of species nesting on the coasts of particular seas summarized by M.V. Gavrilo using the data of different authors

23 2.6. REGIONALIZATION OF ARCTIC FLORAL AREA AND GEOGRAPHICAL PATTERNS OF MARSH FLORA L.A. Sergienko

he strategy of Arctic biodiversity conservation marshes is the lack of latitudinal pattern in their Tshould take into account floral diversity and distribution (azonality): plant species occurring on floral regionalization. Currently, B.A. Yurtsev’s et al. the Arctic shores to a greater extent respond to the [1978] scheme of regionalization is viewed as the absence or presence of specific environmental most developed one. The data on the distribution of conditions rather than to summer temperatures plant species, including endemics and edificators [Sergienko, 2008]. Only small numbers of (environmentally transforming species, «ecosystem circumpolar species occur on marshes throughout engineers») made it possible to recognize the Arctic the entire Arctic. These are mostly grasses and sedges Floral Area as an entity. By applying the universal which rapidly build up a dense turf, i.e. creeping criterion of relationships between plant species and alkali grass (Puccinellia phryganodes), Ramensk's summer temperatures, the authors defined the sedge (Carex ramenskii), Hoppner's sedge (Carex longitudinal sectors of the Arctic on the unified basis subspathacea), slender spikerush (Eleocharis (Map 2.6). In Yurtsev’s scheme, floral and uniglumis), and dicotyledons producing rapidly geobotanical approaches are synthesized [but see a growing sprouts or with pillowlike modes of the critique for such approach by Yu. I. Chernov, 1984]; growth, i.e. Pacific silverweed (Potentilla egedii), thanks to this, the regionalization scheme can be salt marsh starwort (Stellaria humifusa), sea sandwort applied to the Arctic maritime marsh zone. (Honckenya peploides), oyster plant (Mertensia The coastal zone is the area where the land and sea maritima) [Shamsutdinov et al., 2000; Elven, 2007; meet and interact. The middle part of this zone, i.e. Sergienko, 2008]. the surf and the tidal zone, is alternately covered by Taxonomic composition of the marsh flora differs water and then exposed to the air. Large accumulative between the sectors of the Russian Arctic and the formations, i.e. bars and spits, create shoreward provinces of the Arctic Floral Area. The formation of barriers against which fine suspended material the core of the halophilic flora is the result of specific sediments are deposited thereby creating mudflats. phases in the Holocene development of the Arctic These mudflats transform into salt marshes coastline. Given that the sectoral division of Arctic structured by complex systems of tidal stream beds Floral Area presented in Map 2.6 also takes into and inhabited by specific plant communities. account the temperature regime, it would not be Plant species associated with the coastal marshes surprising to observe that warmer sectors, i.e. the and growing on salty maritime soils constitute the nearAtlantic and the nearPacific provinces, are littoralhalophytic floral assemblage. An important richer in maritime plant species than the cooler Maritime meadow on the coast of the Barents Sea 18 characteristic of the floral assemblages of Arctic salt sectors. The greatest species number is found in the KaninPechora subprovince of Barents Sea ado not belong to the Arctic Floral Area. capillaries), and Pojarkova’s wort (Salicornia Pojarkova's wort (Salicornia pojarkovae) 17 the European–West Siberian According to a widely accepted geobotanical pojarkovae) dominate on the muddy tidal flats of the Province (52) and in the regionalization scheme [Lavrenko, Isachenko, Pomorskiy, Onezhskiy, Zimniy, and Abramovskiy Southern Chukotka subprovince 1976], the Kola coast of the Barents Sea belongs to coasts of the White Sea and on the southern shores of of the Chukotka Province (57). the Circumpolar Tundra Area (EastEuropean the Kanin Peninsula. Arctic Atlantic species Gradients of the number of subprovince of the EuropeanWest Siberian Tundra Puccinellia coarctata dominate on primary marshes maritime species (Map 2.6) are Province), while the White Sea coast is part of the in the Gorlo of the White Sea. also conditioned by the varying Eurasian Taiga Area (KolaPechora and Valday Mudflats of the Severnaya Dvina delta area are age of the coastline. Nearly the Onega subprovinces of the North European Taiga particularly rich in species. This can be explained by entire lowland contemporary Provinces). The marsh flora of the White Sea coast the significant freshening of the water (salinity less coastal zone between Novaya includes about 70 species of vascular plants. The than 14 ppt), thus most of the species are associated Zemlya and Wrangel Island was main species forming plant communities are turf with mid and lowsaline soils. Some of them (Carex under ice during the last ice age. producing sedges (Carex spp.) and alkali grasses recta, С. раleacea, С. salina, Spergularia marina, The differentiation of the Arctic (Puccinellia spp.). A specific feature in the formation Bolbochoenus maritimus, Blysmus rufus) are found flora in general and the maritime of maritime plant communities on the White Sea on the northeastern frontier of the distributional flora in particular took place coast is the pioneer role played by the succession of range. mostly in the Beringian and the vegetation present on the salt marshes and which On the high rocky shores of the Kola Coast of the Barents sectors, and finally belong to the Atlantic European species sea aster Barents Sea, muddy tidal flats occur only in the resulted in their greater species’ (Tripolium vulgare), sea plantain (Plantago maritima), mouths of small rivers. Here Arctic circumpolar richness. seaside arrowgrass (Triglochin maritimum). European species dominate: in particular Hoppner's sedge, In the strict sense, the White species such as Atriplex lapponica, subpolar plantain creeping alkali grass, marsh cinquefoil, and salt Sea and the Kola coast of the (Plantago subpolaris), alkali grass (Puccinellia marsh starwort.

24 Map 2.6. Provinces of the Arctic Floral Area [after Yurtsev et al., 1978] and the number of marsh vascular plant species associated with them

Provinces and subprovinces Boundaries 34 — Number of maritime marsh species (both obligatory and facultative ) in different I — EuropeanWest Siberian II — East Siberian III — Chukotka Abyssal depths of the Arctic Basin subprovinces of the Arctic Floral Area I A — KaninPechora II A — Taymyr III A — Continental Chukotka Arctic Floral Area State border of the Provinces I B — UralNovaya Zemlya II B — AnabarOlenek III B — Bering SeaChukotka Russian Federation Boundary of the polar domains — YamalGydan — YanaKolyma — Southern Chukotka Subprovinces I C II C III C of the Russian Federation II D — Kharaulakh Scale 1 : 16,000,000

Compiled by L.A. Sergienko and M.A. Shroeders

25 Section 3 HABITATS AND BIODIVERSITY OF PRINCIPAL BOUNDARY ZONES

3.1. SEA ICE HABITATS AND ASSOCIATED ECOSYSTEM M.V. Gavrilo and V.A. Spiridonov

n the winter (November to April or even May) seas of the Siberian shelf varies greatly, the multiyear I most of the Arctic seas (White, Kara, Laptev, East variation of ice concentration in the Kara, the Laptev Siberian, Chukchi) and the Arctic Basin are covered and the East Siberian Sea exceeds 80%. by dense ice (Maps 3.1). Immovable fast ice forms on Following the current climate trends the sea ice coastal shallows; seaward of the fast ice edge; ice floes cover of the Arctic seas has been gradually decreasing are in constant motion due to currents and winds. in the 20th and early 21st centuries. Along with this The prevailing direction of sea ice drift – determined trend, quasicyclic variation (periods of about 60, 10 by the TransArctic Current from the Bering Strait to and 20 years) are observed [Frolov et al., 2007; 2009]. the North Atlantic, was first observed by Fridjof In the Barents and the Kara seas the longterm cycles Nansen and inspired him to reach the North Pole on of approximately 60 years period dominate. In the a vessel frozen into the drifting ice. Laptev, East Siberian and the Chukchi Seas ice In the other Arctic and Subarctic seas ice cover is coverage shows a greater variation, and 60year cycles less developed. The southern and the western Barents are less frequently experienced there. In recent Sea are influenced by warm currents from the decades when the Arctic entered the warm period the Atlantic, with the result being about one third of the decrease of sea ice coverage became particularly sea area remains icefree. The summer season in the pronounced (Fig. 3.1.1). Between 1998 and 2008, the Juvenile polar cod under sea ice 20 Russian Arctic seas lasts from about July to area of sea ice in September (which is the month of September. During this period the ice cover melts the annual sea ice minimum extent) in the entire In the polar seas, the following sea ice biotopes polar cod (Boreogadus saida) is the most and diminishes in both extent and thickness. While in Arctic decreased by 36%, while in the Siberian seas can be observed [Kupetsky, 1961]: oceanic pack ice important link to seabirds and marine mammals summer most of the Barents Sea, the White Sea and along the Northern Sea Route a decrease of 87% was massifs; drifting sea ice and ice massifs of marginal [Klumov, 1937]. the Bering Sea are ice free, other seas of the Russian observed [Alekseev et al., 2009]. As a result, the seas; fast ice; flaw polynyas and leads, a system of Under stable climate conditions, multiyear sea Arctic retain some ice cover. The Arctic Basin summer ice edge tends to move further north from leads above the continental slope. The ice edge zone ice represents a persistent ecological system with a remains generally icecovered all year round; this is the coast. That said, some coastal areas do retain ice can be added to this classification. In some areas of stable species composition [Melnikov, 1989]. By how multiyear ice is created. Sea ice coverage in the massifs in the summer. Thus, in spite of the the Russian Arctic seas, large ice massifs form and contrast, seasonal ice is a dependent, temporally considerable ice retreat in 2007, the Vilkitsky Strait may persist throughout the year. The Taymyr, the unstable ecosystem which lifecycle is determined by a Usual thickness of sea ice at present (40 cm) 19 remained covered by drifting ice of the Taymyr ice Ayon and the Wrangel massifs are the most number of environmental factors, temperature being massif in the summer. important obstacles to ship traffic along the the most significant [Melnikov, 2008]. The decrease While the summer sea ice coverage rapidly Northern Sea Route [Problems of Northern Sea in multiyear sea ice coverage may influence the decreases, in winter the decrease is much less Route, 2006]. Generally, the water column in the diversity and distribution patterns of specific sea ice pronounced (Map 3.1). However, the composition of areas of permanently or longterm ice coverage is biota, which still have to be documented in much sea ice is changing: there is less multiyear ice, while not productive, thus the key factor of biological greater detail than are currently known. The the share of thin oneyear ice is increasing (Maps 3.1 productivity in the ice seas is the biota living in the adaptation potential of sea ice biota to climate A,C; Fig. 3.1.2). According to measurements made ice itself. changes remains unknown. However, observations of on board R.V. «Akademik Fedorov» and nuclear ice Specific sea ice microflora consists of bacteria, sea icespecific forms of marine nematodes indicate breakers between 1977 and 2005, mean thickness of flagellates and sea ice diatoms producing organic that in the seasonally icecovered White Sea these the ice in August decreased by 40 cm (23%), while matter (see 2.3); micro and meiofauna includes species survive the icefree seasons thanks to some as the same decrease was observed between 1987 and mostly representatives of ciliates, foraminipherans, yet unknown mechanism [Tschesunov, 2006]. Thus, 2006 in the month of May. The cause of the decrease harpacticoids [Melnikov, 1989]; and nematodes the White Sea, with its marine scientific bases acts as was a diminishing share of perennial ice [Frolov et (which dominate in biomass) [Tschesunov, 2006]. an important research area where the various al., 2009]. According to the forecast of AARI, which Most of the animals feed on bacteria, ice algae, adaptations of the sea ice biota to changing climate takes into account climatic cycles and actual trends, other protists and fungi; while some nematode can be studied and understood. Other priority areas in the 21st century we can expect this oscillating species are predators at the top of the food chain in from a research and especially a conservation (rather than linear) pattern of sea ice cover in the the highly specific sea ice ecosystem. This food standpoint, are the ice massifs such as Taymyr massif, Arctic seas [Frolov et al., 2009] to continue. chain is further complicated by sea iceassociated where the multiyear sea ice ecosystem will in all However, other forecasts indicate that a trend of (sympagic) amphipods and other crustaceans likelihood survive in the future, even though the decreasing sea ice will in general dominate in the 21st living at the ice/water interface and which obtain current general trend towards declining multiyear century [Evaluation.., 2008; Katzov et al., 2008] their food from ice biota and their predators. The sea ice is continuing.

26 Map 3.1. Maximum amd minimum distribution of sea ice in the Eurasian Arctic sector in 2008. А: March; B: September

A Sea Ice Area, million sq. km Sea Ice Area, million

Year Fig. 3.1.1. Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area (data provided by the Analysis of ice situation by satellite images National Snow and Ice Data Centre — NSIDC: NASA SMMR and SSMI). Free of ice water area First year ice (30–200 cm) Source: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ State border of the Russian Federation Fast ice Multiyear ice having at least one summer melting Boundary of the polar domains of the Russian Federation Fresh ice (0–30 cm) Noninvestigated regions Scale 1 : 22,000,000

B

5 and more years (winters) 4 years (winters) 3 years (winters) Sea Ice Area, million sq. km Ices remained from previous winter (2nd year) Ices of the current winter (1st year)

Year Fig. 3.1.2. Ice Age Distribution in the Northern Hemisphere in March (Week 11) between 1985 and 2010. Source: http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/14/exclusivescientiststrack Analysis of ice situation by satellite images sharpdropinoldestthickestarcticseaice State border of the Free of ice water area Ice cover is between 1/10 and 6/10 of the region's Russian Federation area Fast ice Boundary of the polar domains Ice cover is between 7/10 of the Russian Federation Noninvestigated regions and 10/10 of the region's Source: Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute (AARI) Scale 1 : 22,000,000 area (see. http://www.aari.ru for archive and current information).

27 3.2. FLAW POLYNYAS A.V. Popov and M.V. Gavrilo

olynyas are the characteristic feature of the on the surrounding atmosphere and the ocean. This PArctic seascape. These extensive areas of open impact may be observed over various time scales, water, with new unstable ice up to 30 cm thick are from several days to years. It is safe to say that the regularly formed in the winter season between shore polynya is both a cause and a consequence of fast ice and close pack ice. Some authors [i.e. complex interactions between the atmosphere and Zakharov, 1966, 1996] also include in their definition the ocean in particular coastal areas. of polynyas areas covered by young sea ice up to a The passage of winds over the sea surface leading to thickness of 50–70 cm. In the current study the the development of polynyas also results in intensive maximum ice thickness in polynyas is fixed at less heat transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere. As a than 30 cm. Some polynyas extend to hundreds of result, a large volume of new ice is produced and kilometres with a width often ranging from a dozen to transported to the lee side of the polynya. At the same many hundred kilometres. In some areas they are time, polynyas also facilitate processes including open for a short time and do not spread significantly. increase of the salinity of surface water and the In other areas the probability of their occurrence is development of convection. Polynyas play a key role very high. Their lifetime is typically several months, in the formation and melting of sea ice: in the cold while their surface area can be as large as about season they build up a zone of active ice production. 105 km2. The stability of polynyas is traditionally V.F. Zakharov called polynyas «ice factories», assessed using monthly average frequency of highlighting the fact that up to 70% of the total occurrence: those with a frequency of 75% and above volume of sea ice developing in the Arctic seas may be are called stationary polynyas, those with a frequency produced in polynyas. In the spring and the summer, of 50–74% are stable polynyas, and those which polynyas accumulate heat and become centres of frequency is less than 50% are episodic ones. seasonal sea ice decay [Zakharov, 1966, 1996]. Flaw polynyas are a remarkable natural Recurring (and quasirecurring) polynyas are of phenomenon. Opening up the water surface among particular value for ecosystem processes and for Monuments left by ancient whalers of Chukotka who used polynyas resources 22 the polar sea ice under severe frost is a unique process maintaining biological diversity in the Arctic in itself. The polynya is formed as a result of specific [Kupetsky, 1958, 1959; Brown, Nettleship, 1981]. [Deming et al., 2002; Ringuette et al., 2002]. Benthic and made use of the two principal characteristics atmospheric processes, in particular regular winds Because of their biological importance polynyas are communities in the areas of flaw polynyas are also of recurring polynyas: the presence of open water pushing drifting ice offshore. Other factors besides also considered life oases in the icecovered seas. characterized by increased biomass and species in winter and the abundance of seabirds and the wind, either upwelling of the warm Atlantic The unusually early and long (for the Arctic) diversity [Antipova, Semenov, 1989; Sirenko et al., marine mammals. The location of ancient and waters or convective heat transfer in the polynyas, vegetation season in polynyas contributes to 1995; Gukov, 1999; Petryashov et al., 2004] because contemporary settlements of indigenous people and likely are not of principal importance in the process increased biological productivity, positively impacts of the enrichment of the near bottom layers and the routes used for early exploratory expeditions of flaw polynyas development. seasonal development of most abundant zooplankton sediments with organic matter. It is not surprising closely match the distribution of polynyas. The full From the moment of its formation until its species, and supports sustainable top predator that the largest seabird colonies in the high Arctic are complement of characteristics of recurring polynyas complete closure, a polynya has a very strong impact populations (fish, seabirds and marine mammals) associated with polynyas (see 3.3; 3.4–3.6), and that makes them an Arctic archetype. This reinforces walruses, beluga whales and bowhead whales often their role in the early evolution of the Arctic geo and Small polynya in the Barents Sea 21 spend winter in or near them. Seabirds migrate to ecosystems. their breeding grounds along polynyas at a time when the surrounding sea is covered with dense ice. Polynyas play a particularly important role in the Polynyas of the Siberian shelf recruitment of polar cod (Boreogadus saida), which is a key food item for most of the top predators in the Between the 1930s and the 1970s data on polynyas high Arctic ecosystems. If polynyas open up early, came mostly from aerial ice reconnaissance. The polar cod could start spawning as early as January. shortcomings of these data included incomplete Open water provides the firstfeeding larvae with the coverage of polynya areas and overly long intervals minimum light necessary to detect and capture between observations. Relatively reliable information plankton prey and thereby obtain better nutrition. only became available with the onset of the satellite Thus they grow to larger prewinter sizes and provide era when images could be obtained every few days protection against predators. On the whole, years throughout the entire cold period. The principal with welldeveloped polynyas tend to be dataset used for polynyas characterization is based on characterized by the highest levels of polar cod the satellite data of 1978–2008. According to their recruitment [Bouchard, Fortier, 2008]. location flaw polynyas showed at Map 3.2 bear For millennia, indigenous Arctic peoples, and names which are conventionally [Zakharov, 1996] more recently the first polar explorers, have observed abbreviated.

28 Map 3.2. Major flaw polynyas of the Russian Arctic

Flaw polynyas mainly in the western parts of the seas (with high probability of simultanous occurrence) A

Polynyas

SFJLP — Southern Franz Josef Land

NNZP — Northern Novozemelskaya

SNZP — Southern Novozemelskaya

AP — Amderminskaya

ESZP — Eastern Severozemelskaya

NETP — Northeastern Taymyrskaya

ETP — Eastern Taymyrskaya

AYP — Ayonskaya

NWP — Northern Wrangelevskaya

WCP — Western Chukotskaya

ECP — Eastern Chukotskaya

Fast ice State border of the Russian Federation Polynyas boundaries Boundary of the polar domains of the Russian Federation Scale 1 : 22,000,000

Flaw polynyas mainly in the eastern parts of seas (with high probability of simultanous occurrence) B These maps show maximum development of polynyas. In nature all polynyas never reach maximum development simultaneously.

Polynyas

YP — Yamalskaya

OYP — Ob'Yeniseiskaya

CKP — Central Karskaya

WSZP — Western Severozemelskaya

ALP — AnabarLenskaya

WNSP — Western Novosibirskaya

NNSP — Northern Novosibirskaya

ENSP(W) — Eastern Novosibirskaya (west)

ENSP(E) — Eastern Novosibirskaya (east)

State border of the Fast ice Russian Federation Polynyas boundaries Boundary of the polar domains of the Russian Federation

Scale 1 : 22,000,000 Compiled by A.V. Popov

29 3.3. SEABIRDS AND MOST IMPORTANT SEABIRD COLONIES M.V. Gavrilo

ea birds are an important link between marine It is currently generally accepted that seabird zone of the drifting ice edge per se generally provide Sand coastal ecosystems, especially in the Arctic. colonies (Map 3.3) are associated with marine areas favourable conditions for primary producers (ice Distribution of their colonies is influenced by of high biological productivity while their specific algae and phytoplankton), zooplankton, sympagic favourable combinations of biotope characteristics, distribution is determined by regional oceanographic animals such as amphipods and planktivorous fish, the degree of protection from predators and available patterns. The location of foraging areas is also foremost polar cod (Boreogadus saida). All the above food resources. The latter is the most important influenced by hydrological factors and seabed areas are also known for their high concentration of factor. Although the characteristics of coastal topography. Hotspots of high biological productivity seabirds [Mehlum, 1997; Decker et al., 1998; biotopes are not a determining factor of the correspond to various frontal zones and are supported Krasnov et al., 2007]. The degree of association of distribution of seabird colonies, they may play a by intensified vertical water circulation, which seabirds with sea ice biotopes depends on situations limiting role. Most Arctic colonial seabirds nest on transfers nutrient supplies from deep waters to the in cryopelagic communities; most probably the coastal rocky outcrops; this offers them protection surface layers. The Polar Front zone is most abundance of particular species is higher in the from predators, such as polar foxes (Alopex significant in the Arctic seas; it is formed at the central marginal zone of the multiyear ice. The ivory gull lagopus). Along the Russian Arctic coastline (from Barents Sea where the Atlantic and the Arctic waters (Pagophila eburnea), the species most closely Cape Kanin Nos to the western Chukotka) most of meet. Due to its high biological productivity and associated with sea ice, is listed in the Red Data Book the rocky biotopes that offer appropriate nesting concentrating effect on zooplankton and fishes, it also of the Russian Federation and the IUCN Red List. habitats for obligate colonial species are located on provides favourable feeding conditions for sea birds Its distribution range does not extend beyond ice the islands, while the plain continental coasts tend to during the nonbreeding period. The position of the filled waters throughout the entire annual cycle. be used by facultative colonial and noncolonial sea Polar Front fluctuates seasonally and interannually, In general, all large colonies of seabirds as well as birds and waders. with the greatest variation taking place in the eastern spring migration routes and staging areas in the A section of seabird bazaar (rookery), the Barents Sea 23 Barents Sea near Novaya Zemlya. northern Barents Sea and the seas of the Siberian In the west, the topography of the shelf are located close to flaw polynya systems seabed adjacent to Spitsbergen [Kupetsky, 1959] (see 3.5 to 3.7. for details). (Svalbard) and Medvezhii (Bear) During the breeding period, the most important Island contributes towards sites for sea birds nesting on the coast are marine stabilizing the Polar Front. The areas within foraging areas of breeding colonies. To frontal zone, created at the area provide chicks with necessary feed even the «most of contact between the Arctic pelagic» bird species need to find sufficient resources and the Pacific waters, is less at a distance of less than 100 km from nesting pronounced. Another zone grounds. During the nonbreeding period the associated with intensified distribution of many species also corresponds to Common guillemot (Uria aalge) 24 vertical circulation is located zones of increased biological production but is not along the continental shelf break. limited at this time by the proximity of land. are rich in AtlanticBoreal species: great cormorant Frontal zones which form at the In general, seabirds are found throughout the (Phalacrocorax carbo), European shag (P. aristotelis), boundaries where river discharge Arctic Ocean, but the largest colonies are restricted puffin (Fratercula arctica) and razorbill (Alca spreads out into the sea (common to the Barents and the Bering seas sectors, while the torda). Here, the dominant species is the common from the eastern Barents Sea to Siberian region (where pelagic ecosystems are guillemot (Uria aalge), which outnumbers the the EastSiberian seas) are less generally less productive) has qualitatively and Bruenich guillemot. The sea bird communities of the important for seabirds. Seabirds quantitatively impoverished seabird populations western Chukotka and Wrangel Island are of associated with pelagic (Map 3.3). Looking at species composition, the transient type, here some seabird species that are ecosystems generally avoid the seabird colonies of the Russian Arctic can be divided more commonly found in the north Pacific nest: the areas of river discharge per into three principal types [Uspensky, 1959]: Arctic, pelagic cormorant (Phalacrocorax pelagicus), Sea ice plays a special role in AtlanticBoreal, and PacificBoreal. Arctictype horned puffin (Fratercula corniculata) and tufted the life of the Arctic marine biota, colonies are dominated by Bruennich's guillemot puffin (Lunda cirrhata). However they are not and, in particular of seabirds. (Uria lomvia) and kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) and numerous, and the colonies are still dominated by the Among the sea ice biotopes distinguished by the presence of glaucous gull (Larus Bruehnich guillemots and the kittiwakes. The identified by Kupetsky [1961], hyperboreus). This type of colonies is common in Pacific Boreal type colonies (with considerable (see 3.1) ice massifs and fast ice the northern and eastern Barents Sea islands (Franz contribution of the North Pacific species) are prevent seabirds from accessing Josef Land, Novaya Zemlya) and in most seas of the common on the Arctic coast of the Eastern Chukotka food, which is typically obtained Siberian shelf. In the more severe conditions such as and the Bering Sea coast. There the major role of from open water habitats. The those found in the Kara Sea and the northwestern Bruehnich guillemots and kittiwakes remains marginal ice zone, which includes Laptev Sea, there are no Bruehnich guillemots and a unchanged, but the share of Pacific species increases polynyas, other areas of low ice highArctic species, the little auk (Alle alle), typically (Map 3.7) while in the Bering Sea the dominance concentration, leads, and the dominates. The colonies of the southern Barents Sea shifts to auklets (Aethia spp.).

30 Map 3.3. Major sea bird colonies in the Russian Arctic

Numbers in colonies (pairs) State border of the Russian Federation More than 200,000 100 000 – 200 000 50 000 – 100 000 10 000 – 50 000 1000– 10 000 Unknown number Boundary of the polar domains of the Russian Federation Scale 1 : 16,000,000

Compiled by M.V. Gavrilo Sources: Gavrilo [1998], Konyukov et al. [1998], Bakken [2000]

31 3.4. SEA ICE BIOTOPES OF THE SOUTHEASTERN BARENTS AND THE WHITE SEAS Yu.V. Krasnov, M.V. Gavrilo and V.A. Spiridonov

bout onethird of the Barents Sea does not al., 2009] and the downward flux of phytodetritus they migrate towards the area bounded by the formed off the Terskiy Coast and in the Onega and Afreeze in winter because of the warming impact [Denisenko, Titov, 2003]. In these areas increased oceanographical fronts at the Novaya Zemlya Trench Dvina Bays (Map 3.4 B). Smaller polynyas are of the North Atlantic Current. Seasonal ice cover in biomass of zooplankton, including euphausiids and the Karskie Vorota Strait [Gavrilo et al., 1998]. located in the Kandalaksha and the Mezen’ bays. the northern and the eastern Barents Sea usually (krill), is often observed resulting in high After hatching, most young Bruennich's guillemots Coastal and flaw polynyas form nodes of the White builds up from September onwards. Multiyear concentrations of immediate predators, primarily leave their hatching grounds and migrate to the sea Sea ecosystem. Polynyas along the Terskiy Coast variability of the seaice area follows the variability of polar cod (Boreogadus saida) [Borkin, 1995], as bird bazaars of Novaya Zemlya [Krasnov et al., 2002]. serve as wintering grounds for sea ducks which feed hydrometeorological features; maximum seaice well as in organisms of higher trophic levels, i.e. Many thousands of sea duck flocks occur at mainly on the blue mussels which develop in dense extent can vary over several hundreds of kilometres piscivorous fishes, sea birds and marine mammals. the Pechora Sea shallows during their moulting beds at depths ranging from 2 to 15 m under the from year to year. In the 20th century, the icecovered Benthic life in the marginal ice zone is also rich. and staging in late summer and autumn. This influence of strong tidal currents [Gurjanova, 1948; area of the sea in April (the month with maximum ice The area of high benthic biomass coincides with phenomenon could be a result of the extraordinary Milyutin, Sokolov, 2006]. In the mostly icefree cover development) ranged between 25 and 92% the area with a 20% seaice concentration along richness of the available benthos food in the coastal shallows stretching from the mouth of Strelna River [Zubakin et al., 2007]. the «Spitsbergen (Svalbard) — Medvezhii (Bear) zone, in particular the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) to Sviatoi Nos Cape, three species of eider spend the The northeastern Barents Sea has the most severe Island — Novaya Zemlya — southeastern Barents beds [Kucheruk et al., 2003; Sukhotin et al., 2008]. winter [Krasnov et al., 2004]. The common eider, ice conditions; these are described in subsection 3.5 Sea» line [Denisenko, Titov, 2003; Denisenko, 2008]. With the onset of the seaice season most sea birds which is most characteristic of this area, ranges more along with details of the seaice conditions in the Bruennich's guillemots (Uria lomvia), black migrate to the Kola Peninsula coast and the or less continuously along the Kola Peninsula coast, Kara Sea. In this chapter we will confine our review guillemots (Cepphus grille), and little auk (Alle alle) Norwegian shores of the Barents Sea [Krasnov et al., while the king eider (Somateria spectabilis) and to the seaice biotopes of the southern and the can be found in winter in the marginal ice zone in the 2002; Krasnov, 2004]. Ice floes drifting over the Steller's eider congregate in several spots where their eastern Barents Sea, the three homogenous sea ice central Barents Sea. However, detailed information shallows of the Pechora Sea and the KaninKolguev colonies can grow to more than a thousand regions: the Kola, the Pechora and the Novaya on their abundance and distribution is very scarce area provide a winter biotope for the Pechora individuals (Map 3.4 B). The polynyas off the Terskiy Zemlya regions [Mironov, 1996]. Sea ice coverage in [Krasnov et al., 2007]. Some populations of little auk population of Atlantic walrus (Odobenus rosmarus coast are the most important wintering ground for these regions, especially in the Pechora region, plays can be found in the marginal ice zone in the eastern rosmarus) and pagophylous seals: ringed (Phoca the king eider in the entire European North of a significant role in maintaining the Arctic Barents Sea [Krasnov et al., 2002] but the bulk of hispida) and bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus). Russia. This area on the coast of Kola Peninsula is appearance of the Barents Sea ecosystems. Landfast Bruehnich guillemots and kittiwakes (Rissa Walruses feed on the abundant benthic animals, the only one in the Russian Arctic where Steller's sea ice in the Barents Sea is generally weakly tridactyla) only migrate there in the latter half of the especially bivalves which build up significant biomass eider (a globally endangered species listed in the developed, similarly, there are few flaw polynyas; winter. Sea birds are known to forage in the region [Kucheruk et al., 2003; Denisenko et al., 2003; IUCN Red List) occurs yearround [Krasnov et al., narrow leads and youngice zones are characteristic during the prebreeding season and then move slowly Gavrilo et al., 2000]. 2004, 2006]. Along with eiders, glaucous gulls and of the southeastern Barents Sea (Pechora Sea) and to the colonies on the west coast of Novaya Zemlya Ice cover of the White Sea is entirely seasonal and black guillemots also winter; in February they are the west coast of Novaya Zemlya. The marginal ice (3.3). The spring migration of ducks follows the the seaice regime is very dynamic and variable. joined by other seagull species: herring gull (Larus zone is the most important from the biological network of polynyas and leads of the Pechora Sea. It Landfast ice builds up in the bays and inlets, however argentatus), great blackbacked gull (L. marinus) standpoint (Map 3.4 А). This zone often coincides starts already in April [Krasnov et al., 2007]. the landfast ice zone is rarely wide, usually less than and kittiwakes. The distribution pattern of wintering with oceanographical fronts where physical and In summer in the Pechora Sea, sea birds can be 1 km. Given the length and complexity of the birds in the polynyas of the Terskiy Coast depends on biological mechanisms support high primary found in high concentrations in the marginal ice zone coastline the landfast ice is very uneven. The first seaice conditions and may considerably change production [Romankevich, Vetrov, 2001; Stiansen et (if it is present); once the ice has completely melted stable ice forms in the Mezen’ river mouth as early as from year to year. In periods of heavy ice most of the in October; with the latest freezing period observed in sea birds migrate to the northwestern part of Wintering of eiders off the Kola Peninsula 25 the highly dynamic areas off the Terskiy Coast. The Voronka (the outermost part of the White Sea) and to entire sea is usually icefree again by late May. The the Murmansk Coast (Map 3.4 B). open White Sea is a zone of drifting ice which makes Large aggregations of wintering common eiders are up about 90% of the total seaice cover. The thickness observed annually in the productive coastal shallows of of the drifting ice usually ranges between 35 and the Onega Bay, which house high benthic biomass 40 cm; in severe winters it can reach as much as 1.5 m [Naumov, 2001], and in the inner part of the [Zalogin, Kosarev, 1999]. An important feature of the Kandalksha Bay. The presence of polynyas in these seaice regime of the White Sea is the regular export areas allows yearround maintenance of the endemic of the ice floes to the Barents Sea. The riverine White Sea population of common eider [Bianki, 1991]. discharge of Severnaya Dvina and the pattern of The distribution and abundance of eiders in particular mesoscale water circulation combine to create so polynyas vary from year to year depending on the sea called spiral eddies; this is a prerequisite for the conditions [Shkliarevich, 1979]. However, even in the formation of large and stable ice floes in the Basin and most severe winters most of the local population of the Gorlo of the White Sea. These ice habitats attract eiders do not leave the White Sea. The wintering of sea harp seals which arrive in February and March from ducks in the White Sea and off the Kola Peninsula the Barents Sea and the adjacent NorthEast Atlantic Coast is a unique natural phenomena which is a result to breed and moult [Melentyev, Chernook, 2009]. of different aspects of ecosystem functioning. This Water circulation and winds create a dynamic phenomenon requires regular study and special system of polynyas. The most stable polynyas are programmes for monitoring and protection.

32 Map 3.4. Most importnat sea ice biotopes of the eastern Barents and the White Seas

3.4. A — Sea ice edge in the Barents Sea, multiyear mean position of ice formation zones from 3.4. B — Wintering and molting areas of eiders and the area of whelping aggregations of harp seal September to April off Kolla Peninsula coast and in the White Sea A B

Ice formation zone by months 08–09 09–10 10–11 11–12 12–01 01–02 02–03 03–04

Boundaries of the ice formation zones Wintering areas Wintering areas of eiders State border of the Russian Federation Molting concentrations: State border of the Russian Boundary of the polar domains of the Federation King Eider Steller's Eider Russian Federation Boundary of the polar domains Boundary of area of whelping aggregations of Scale 1 : 9,000,000 of the Russian Federation Harp seal Scale 1 : 4,000,000

Sources: 3.4. A — Johannessen et al. [2007]. 3.4. B — wintering areas of eiders — data by Yu.V. Krasnov and M.V. Gavrilo; whelping areas — Mitibaeva et al. [1991] 33 3.5. SEA ICE BIOTOPES AND BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOTS OF THE KARA AND THE NORTHEASTERN BARENTS SEAS M.V. Gavrilo and A.V. Popov

n this subsection the uniform ice regions of the area, in some parts of the straits and sounds of this rosmarus), bowhead whales I northeastern Barents Sea (the Franz Josef and archipelago ice is normally thinner than in the (Balaena mysticetus), ringed the Kara regions), known for its severe sea ice regime adjacent areas and leads sometimes last through the seals (Phoca hispida), bearded [Mironov, 1996] are considered along with the Kara winter [Abramov, Zubakin, 1994]. seals (Erignathus barbatus) Sea. At the northern periphery of these regions and The monthly average frequency of polynya and the seals’ predator, the polar the entire Kara Sea, sea ice usually persists during the occurrence varies considerably between particular bear (Ursus maritimus) [Belikov entire summer. At the boundary with the Arctic areas, seasons and years. In general, the multiyear et al., 2002]. Sea birds (little auks, Basin, sea ice formation tends to start as early as late mean frequency of polynya occurrence between Alle alle and black guillemots, August or early September [Mironov et al., 2008]: the November and May ranges between 7 and 100%. At Cepphus grylle) are present in straits of Franz Josef Land freeze first with new ice the present time, only the Ob’Yeniseiskaya and the the polynyas and leads of the developing among the ice floes remaining from the Central Karskaya polynyas are recurrent (with a Franz Josef Land archipelago as previous year in the northern Kara Sea. Because of frequency of 75% and higher). For a few months of early as February and early the skerres off West Taymyr and numerous widely the year the Northern Novozemelskaya polynya and March; they are joined later by separated islands, extensive landfast ice is the Western Severozemlskaya polynya are classed ivory (Pagophila eburnea) and developing in the northeastern Kara Sea. In the as stable polynyas, even if for most of the year glaucous (Larus hyperboreus) southwestern Kara Sea landfast ice is well they recur with a high frequency. The Southern gulls and Bruennich's guillemots developed in large bays and inlets of the continental Novozemelskaya, the Amderminskaya and the (Uria lomvia). Fulmars (Fulmarus coast. Fast ice covers all the straits of Franz Josef Yamalskaya polynyas are episodic in November. In glacialis) and kittiwakes (Rissa Land, but along the Novaya Zemlya shore the fast ice December they become stable polynyas and for the tridactyla) are later migrants to belt is relatively narrow [Map 3.5]. rest of the year they are considered recurrent their nesting colonies at the Bowhead whales in the Franz Josef Land polynya 27 Welldeveloped landfast ice provides favourable polynyas. The Southern Franz Josef polynya belongs archipelago. habitats for successful reproduction of ringed seals to the stable polynyas group throughout the year The heavy ice conditions and mainly low and plain the king eider (Somateria spectabilis) flies at a low (Phoca hispida), whose breeding grounds are located except in November when it must be included in the coasts of the Kara Sea limit nesting possibilities for height to the west in flocks, which include up to a along the Kara Sea continental coast. In general, the episodic polynyas group. colonial birds such as Bruehnich’s guillemots. The thousand individuals. In October and November population density of ringed seals in the south The formation of flaw polynyas in the Kara Sea is the only large colony of this species is located on the aggregations of longtailed ducks (Clangula hyemalis) eastern Kara Sea falls is at its highest in the Western result of a combination of the influence of the Barents northeastern coast of Novaya Zemlya in the area have been observed in the southwestern Kara Sea. Arctic area [Belikov et al., 1998]. Sea Depression of the Icelandic Low and the North influenced by the Atlantic water mass and close to the Severe winter conditions restrict wintering Eleven flaw polynyas have been identified in the Atlantic cyclones which influence the eastern Barents Northern Novozemelskaya polynya (Map 3.5). Post possibilities for seabirds in the Kara Sea: small numbers region (Map 3.5) [Zakharov, 1996]. The icefree and Kara Seas. Their size varies between years and shows breeding aggregations are formed also in the of Bruehnich’s and black guillemots, little auks, and water was observed from the northern tip of Novaya the multiyear trend for an increase (Fig. 3.5.1). southwestern part of Kara Sea, which is influenced by glaucous gulls have been observed in winter in small Zemlya by participants of Willem Barents’ expedition Compared to today, the percentage of stationary the Barents Sea waters in late summer and autumn. polynyas of the Matochkin Shar Strait, in the Cape who spent the winter of 1596–1597 in the Ice polynyas between 1936 and 1970 was considerably lower There kittiwakes, Bruennich's guillemots from the Zhelaniya area, and to the east of the Karskie Vorota Harbour (Ledynaya Gavan') [Kupetsky, 1959]. In with most polynyas coming under the episodic and Novaya Zemlya colonies, and also fulmars and Strait. Solitary glaucous gulls occur in winter also in the addition to the polynyas in the Franz Josef Land stable categories [Gudkovich et al., 1972; Zakharov, glaucous gulls are foraging [Krasnov et al., 2007]. Sea area of the Ob’Yenisei shallow [Krasnov et al., 2007]. 1996]. For example, the southeastern ice biotopes of the Kara Sea ice are much more In spring, the polynyas of the southwestern Kara Eastern coast of Novaya Zemlya, Kara Sea 26 polynya of Franz Josef Land, all the important for maintaining sea birds habitats and Sea become the migration route and the staging area polynyas off Novaya Zemlya, and the marine mammal populations than the open waters. for sea ducks. The first to arrive are the king eider, Western Severozemelskaya polynya were Thus highest densities of foraging sea birds are common scoter (Melanitta nigra) and longtailed for the most part episodic and were only observed in the marginal ice zone and among the drift ducks flying from their East Atlantic wintering considered stable for short periods of the ice in the northeastern Kara Sea [Decker et al., grounds to the nesting areas on the Yamal and year (there was only one stationary 1998; Gavrilo, 2009, 2010]. Numerous and abundant Taymyr coasts [Krasnov et al., 2007; unpublished polynya). This change in the frequency of colonies of the ivory gull (Pagophila eburnea) strike data of AARI]. Flocks of common scoter enter the polynya formation and the increase of a unique sea bird population profile of the Kara Sea. southwestern Kara Sea via the straits of Kara Gate linear size is a result of the largescale This species is Redlisted in Russia and IUCN. The (Karskie Vorota), Yugorskiy Shar and Matochkin transformation of atmospheric circulation ivory gull is the most icedependent Arctic sea bird Shar beginning in midApril [Krasnov et al., 2007]. taking place throughout the entire and its largest worldwide colonies are located on The Kara Sea polynyas are also known for their large Northern Hemisphere. The polynyas islands in the northeastern Kara Sea. populations of marine mammals. In winter and spring surrounding Franz Josef Land and the Beginning in midsummer, the mass migration of a number of ringed seals, bearded seals, polar bears and system of leads in the sounds of this marine ducks proceeds in several pulses across the beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) can be observed archipelago sustain local populations of Kara Sea waters adjacent to the mainland. In July in the polynyas of the western Kara Sea [Belikov et al., icedependent marine mammals year only males migrate to their moulting grounds, while 1998; Belikov, Boltunov, 2002]. Walruses commonly round. They are the wintering grounds for in September and October groups of different age and occur in polynyas to the west of Yamal as early as in Atlantic walruses (Odobenus rosmarus sex take flight. Without stopping in the western part, March and April [Vorontsov et al., 2007].

34 Map 3.5. Flaw polynyas and sea bird colonies of the northeastern Barents and the Kara Seas

Polynyas 12 Sea birds colonies SFJLP — Southern Franz Josef Land Numbers in colonies (pairs) NNZP — Northern Novozemelskaya WSZP — Western Severozemelskaya 100 000 – 200 000 SNZP — Southern Novozemelskaya AP — Amderminskaya YP — Yamalskaya 50 000 – 100 000 OYP — Ob'Yeniseiskaya CKP — Central Karskaya 10 000 – 50 000 1000– 10 000 Flaw polynyas Unknown number Fast ice Dominant species Polynyas boundaries Fulmar Zakazniks Little Auk Brunnich's Guillemot Zapovedniks Kittiwake

National park 2 — Number of species breeding "Russian Arctic" in a colony

Scale 1 : 3,000,000

Map shows the possible development of polynyas in March (based on high areas for each of the polynyas over the period between 2000 and 2007) Area, sq. km

Year Fig. 3.5.1. Changes in the winterspring total area of the ObYenisei Polynya between 1978 and 2007 (based on satellite data).

Compiled by A.V. Popov and M.V. Gavrilo. Sources: Popov A.V. and Gavrilo M.V., Boundaries of the zapovedniks and zakazniks after: Scale 1 : 8,000,000 [Cartographic base.., 2002–2010]

35 3.6. SEA ICE BIOTOPES AND BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOTS IN THE LAPTEV SEA M.V. Gavrilo, A.V. Popov and V.A. Spiridonov

he Laptev Sea is icecovered for nearly nine At present six flaw polynyas have been identified in May) and the Eastern Taymyrskaya polynyas Tmonths of the year, from October to June. The the Laptev Sea (Map 3.6) [Zakharov, 1966, 1996]. (in April and May) have now become stable. northwestern portion of the sea has a more severe ice The monthly mean frequency of occurrence of the Flaw polynyas of the Laptev Sea and their regime, with the Taymyr ice massif persisting during Laptev polynyas is high over the entire cold period spatialtemporal interannual variability are the summer season. The most extensive landfast ice (57 to 100%). As a result, all these polynyas are a product of the interaction of processes forms in the southeastern portion of the sea, classed as either recurring or stable depending on the associated with three atmospheric centres: between the Lena Delta and the western New month. In November the frequency of occurrence is the Icelandic Low, and the Arctic and the Siberian (Novosibirsky) Islands, where the local generally lower than in other months and all polynyas Siberian High. Deepening of the Icelandic Yanskiy ice massif can be observed in the summer are considered stable. The most frequently occurring Low intensifies the Atlantic cyclones which season [Observations.., 2009]. In cold seasons fast ice polynyas (not less than 6570%) are those which are get their energy from the Kara Sea polynyas, can survive the summer in the straits and fjords along developing in the south and east of the Laptev Sea cross the Taymyr Peninsula and form a wind the eastern shores of the Severnaya Zemlya (Great Siberian Polynya). The AnabarLenskaya and system which facilitates the development of Archipelago. The Laptev Sea polynyas system has the Western Novosibirskaya polynyas are least stable polynyas in the western Laptev Sea. been known about for more than two centuries. Its in early winter, while in February their frequency of Strengthening of the Arctic Hight leads to eastern part, the Great Siberian Polynya, was occurrence reaches its maximum (96–100%) as does the development of polynyas in the eastern discovered by Yakov Sannikov, a Siberian fur trader in the frequency of occurrence of the Western New Laptev Sea. 1810, while the contours of this open water area were Siberian polynya which peaks in April. The frequency The Laptev Sea polynyas have long been first mapped by Matvey Gedenstrom in 1811. Later of occurrence of the Northern Novosibirskaya considered biodiversity hotspots. However, Ivory gull in the breeding colony. Domashniy Island, Severnaya Zemlya 29 this polynya was studied by Peter Anjou, Ferdinand polynya is minimal in January; this polynya becomes in contrast to data on plankton organisms von Wrangel, and Alexander Kolchak. According to the most frequent (96%) in April. The Eastern [i.e. Abramova, 1996; Kosobokova et al., 1998; they reach their nesting grounds on the tundra Kupetsky [1959], the particular features of this Severozemelskaya polynya appears generally less Timofeev, 2002; Abramova, Tuschling, 2005] and on [Solovieva, 1999]. Bruennich’s guillemots, kittiwakes polynya gave rise to two mutually excluding legends: frequently than the others. benthos [Sirenko et al., 1995; Gukov, 1999; and pomarine skuas (Stercorarius pomarinus) can the story of the Sannikov Land and the story of the A Comparison of the characteristics of the Laptev Petryashov et al., 2004], data on the quantitative also be seen migrating westwards above the existence of the Open Polar Sea. According to these Sea polynyas during the period 1936–1970 distribution of fish, seabirds and marine mammals polyanyas. legends some explorers believed the dark vapour [Gudkovich et al., 1972; Zakharov, 1996] with the are scarce. The presence of open water over the shallows in above the polynya to be a remote land while others modern day (Fig. 3.6.1) indicates that the frequency The largest seabird colonies of Severnaya Zemlya winter supports the existence of a regional sedentary thought that the icefree sea extended to the North of occurrence and the numbers of recurring polynyas inhabited by little auks (Alle alle) are located along population of Laptev walruses, often considered as a Pole because they could not see drifting sea ice in the in the last two decades have increased. In particular, the eastern coast of the archipelago and correspond subspecies Odobenus rosmarus laptevi [Chapsky, 1941; huge area of open water. the episodic (30–40%) Eastern Severozemelskaya (in to the Eastern Severnaya Zemlya polynya. Different Belikov et al., 1998; Sokolov et al., 2001]; these are seagull species forage in this polynya during the post included in the Russian and IUCN Red Lists. This Polynya in the Laptev Sea 28 breeding period, including the ivory gulls (Pagophila population winters in the polynyas from East Taymyr eburnea) from the colonies of the entire East to the north of the New Siberian Islands. The latest Atlantic (up to East Greenland) [Gilg et al., 2010]. moleculargenetic studies have failed to prove its A chain of colonies dominated by Bruennich’s isolation from the Pacific subspecies (O. rosmarus guillemots (Uria lomvia) and kittiwakes (Rissa divergens) [Lindquist et al., 2008]. However, the tridactyla) stretches from the Preobrazhenya Island Laptev walrus is indeed a peculiar population differing in the Khatanga Bay via the islands of Stolbovoy and from the neighbouring Pacific populations by the Belkovskiy to the DeLong Islands (New Siberian absence of long seasonal migrations and the location Islands). These colonies are associated with a more of wintering grounds [Gorbunov, Belikov, 1990]. persistent system of polynyas in the south and the Relatively scarce spring sightings of beluga whales east of the Laptev Sea (Map 3.6). All polynyas are (Delphinapterus leucas) have also been observed in used by seabirds as flyways during spring migrations. the Laptev Sea polynyas; in summer, the area of Black guillemots (Cepphus grylle), little auks and gulls polynyas up to the Lena Delta is the range for the can be observed in the Eastern Severozemelskaya mass occurrence of belugas [Belikov et al., 1998, polynya as early as late March and early April, a time 2002; Belikov, Boltunov, 2002]. The system of Laptev when their breeding cliffs are still under snow and Sea polynyas also supports dense populations of ice. This spectacular phenomenon was first noticed ringed seal (Phoca hispida) during the winter and by the first explorers of the Severnaya Zemlya spring seasons [Belikov et al., 1998]. As a result, the archipelago Nikolai Urvantsev [1935] and Georgiy area also attracts the main seal predator: the polar Ushakov [1951] in 1931. The AnabarLenskaya and bear (Ursus maritimus). A high abundance of polar the polynyas off New Siberian Islands serve as spring bears has been observed in the Laptev Sea on the ice stopover routes for king eiders (Somateria spectabilis) fringe of the Eastern Taymyrskaya and the Northern and longtailed ducks (Clangula hyemalis) before Novosibirskaya polynyas [Belikov et al., 1998].

36 Map 3. 6. Flaw polynyas and sea bird colonies of the Laptev Sea

Compiled by A.V. Popov and M.V. Gavrilo Sources: Popov A.V. and Gavrilo M.V., Boundaries of the zapovedniks and zakazniks after [Kartographic base.., 2002–2010] Area, sq. km

Year Fig. 3.6.1. Changes in the winterspring total area of the AnabarLenskaya Polynya between 1978 and 2007 (based on satellite data).

Polynyas 12 Sea bird colonies ESZP — Eastern Severozemelskaya Numbers in colonies (pairs) NETP — Northeastern Taymyrskaya ETP — Eastern Taymyrskaya 100 000 – 200 000 ALP — AnabarLenskaya WNSP — Western Novosibirskaya 50 000 – 100 000 NNSP — Northern Novosibirskaya 10 000 – 50 000 1000– 10 000 Flaw polynyas Unknown number

Fast ice Dominant species Polynyas boundaries Little Auk Brunnich's Guillemot Zakazniks Kittiwake

2 — Number of species breeding in Zapovedniks a colony

Map shows the possible development of polynyas in March (based on Scale 1 : 6,000,000 maximum development of the polynyas over the period between 2000 and 2007)

37 3.7. SEA ICE BIOTOPES AND BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOTS IN THE EAST SIBERIAN SEA AND THE WATERS OF CHUKOTKA M.V. Gavrilo and A.V. Popov

he EastSiberian Sea is covered by ice for Strengthening of the Arctic Anticyclone creates a T 8–10 months of the year (from October to wind pattern which facilitates the development of May/June), while the Chukchi Sea, which is the polynyas in the western part of the East Siberian Sea southernmost of the Arctic seas in the strict sense, and, simultaneously, their depression in the eastern has a shorter ice season: it freezes in November. The part of the East Siberian Sea and the Chukchi Sea. Bering Sea lies nearly entirely in the Subarctic zone. Development of polynyas in the Chukchi Sea is The ice cover spreads gradually over the Bering Sea supported by cyclones originating in the Aleutian waters from November onwards; its maximal extent Low. The different and changing year to year in severe winters going as far as 55°N. In general, interactions of the processes originating in these compared to other Arctic seas (and similarly to the centres of atmospheric activity explains the inter Barents Sea), the sea ice regime of the Bering Sea is annual variability of polynyas in the East Siberian subject to the greatest levels of seasonal and inter and the Chukchi seas. During warm years the Arctic annual variability. The sea ice coverage in the mildest Anticyclone weakens and shifts to the Canadian years may be as little as half that during cold years sector of the Arctic; this results in the dominance of [Observations.., 2009]. The most important biotopes a system favouring polynya development in the for maintaining seabird and marine mammal Chukchi Sea. In the winter 2008 the Arctic populations are those associated with polynyas and Anticyclone was again strong and this led to a the ice edge. Three flaw polynyas can be observed in depression of the Chukchi Sea polynyas. No one of the East Siberian Sea with a further four in the the polynyas can be fully classified as recurrent in Russian part of the Chukchi Sea. Of these, the the East Siberian Sea. The monthly mean frequency Eastern Chukotskaya polynya is often referred to as a of polynya occurrence is significant throughout the «lead» on account of its narrow width (Map 3.7) entire cold season of the year but it is on average [Zakharov, 1996]. The Anadyrskaya polynya is lower than in the neighbouring Laptev Sea and located off the south coast of Chukotka; the part of it varies from 41 to 89%. Gray whales (Eschrichtius adjacent to the settlement of Sireniki is also known as robustus) of the CalifornianChukchi population the Sirenikovskaya polynya (Fig. 3.7.1). migrating from their wintering grounds show up The formation of flaw polynyas in the East near the eastern coast of Chukotka in the second Siberian Sea is a result of the interaction between half of May. Most of them move to the Chukchi Sea the Arctic and the Siberian Anticyclones. in June. In this season both gray and bowhead Fig. 3.7.1. Example of winter sea ice conditions in the Bering Strait and the northern Bering Sea showing (Balaena mysticetus) whales development of flaw polynyas and the ice edge off southern Chukotka. Darkblue areas — polynyas, covered by 30 Leads off Chukotka coast use polynyas and leads for nilas; light blue area — open water. Source: AARI. migration. In summer and autumn bowhead whales (Erignathus barbatus) seals and their predators: the The Anadyr’Sireniki polynya located off the forage and travel up to polar bears (Ursus maritimus) [Belikov et al., 1998]. southern coast of the Chukotka Peninsula is the Wrangel Island and along the Shorttailed shearwaters (Puffinus tenuirostris) largest one in the ChukchiBering Sea region Chaunskaya Guba — as far migrating from Tasmania and Western Australia to (Fig.3.7.1). This is also the most wellknown and as the ice edge allows the North Pacific (in the Northern Hemisphere biologically important polynya in the Russian part [Bogoslovskaya et al., 1982; summer) may also go as far as the boundary of of the Bering Sea — a wintering ground for Belikov et al., 2002]; in drifting ice in the region [Gavrilo, 2009]. The system bowhead whales, beluga whales (Delphinapterus particularly favourable years of polynyas and leads along the Chukotka coast leucas), and Pacific walruses [Bogoslovskaya et (when the ice massif to the serves as a spring migration path for seabirds al., 2008; Melentyev, Chernook, 2009]. Several west of Ayon Island breaks including eiders, longtailed ducks (Clangula species of seabird also spend winters there up in summer) bowhead hyemalis) and alcids. The Wrangel Island and East including longtailed ducks, eiders and alcids whales may reach the New Chukotka seabird colonies are characterized not only [Konyukhov et al., 1998]. The Sireniki polynya Siberian Islands [Gavrilo, by their abundance but also by the greater diversity of has been critically important for the development Tretyakov, 2008]. species than those located to their west on the coast and subsistence of the indigenous culture of the In winter, most of the of the Siberian seas. These colonies in the Chukchi marine hunters of Chukotka for more than a Chukotka Peninsula coastal Sea are associated with the transWrangel Island thousand years [Arutyunov et al., 1982; Dinesman zone and the polynyas polynyas and the coastal Eastern Chukotskaya lead, et al., 1996]. All these areas, along with the sea ice adjacent to Wrangel Island respectively. Small groups of wintering Pacific edge in the Bering Sea, are important wintering form the area of high walruses (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) have been grounds for seabirds, in particular ivory (Pagophila concentration of ringed observed in the polynyas adjacent to Wrangel Island eburnea) and Ross gulls (Rhodostethia rosaea), (Phoca hispida) and bearded and off the north coast of Chukotka [Stishov, 2004]. and alcids.

38 Карта 3.7. Flaw polynyas, sea bird colonies and migration routes of marine birds in the seas around Chukotka

Stationary polynyas 12 Sea bird colonies As of the first decade of May Numbers in colonies (pairs) Dominant species 2004 Fulmar AP — Ayonskaya More than 200 000 Kittiwake WCP — Western Chukotskaya ECP — Eastern Chukotskaya Bruennich's Guillemot 100 000 – 200 000 No dominant species As of the second decade of May 2004 50 000 – 100 000 12 — Number of species breeding in NWP — Northern Wrangelevskaya a colony

Fast ice 10 000 – 50 000 Spring migration routes of eiders (King, Common and Polynyas boundaries 1000 – 10 000 Spectacled eiders)

State border of the Russian Boundary of the polar domains Scale 1 : 4,000,000 Federation of the Russian Federation

Compiled by M.V. Gavrilo and A.V. Popov 39 3.8. SEA SHORES AND FORMATION OF HABITATS OF MARITIME MARSH VEGETATION L.A. Sergienko

he area where the sea meets the land is called [Leontiev, 1991]. The composition of the marsh plant Map 3.8 shows the different T sea shore. In the tidal seas the coastline moves communities depends on such abiotic and biotic types of sea coast in the vertically up to twice a day [Leontiev et al., 1975]. factors as tides, water and soil salinity, marine water Russian Arctic classified Thus, it is not so much a line as a zone of greater or temperature, physical properties of the substrate (i.e. according to a morphogenetic lesser width. The area that is under water at high tide maritime soil), soil drainage and aeration, the level of system developed by Russian and is exposed to the air at low tide is known as the underground waters, precipitation and evaporation, specialists [Kaplin et al., 1991; intertidal zone, and often referred to as the littoral and surrounding zonal terrestrial vegetation Pavlidis et al., 1998]. The zone. The average point of the narrow belt of land [Sergienko, 2008]. accumulative coasts with tidal adjacent to the recent coastline where the land has Coastal marshes are divided into two groups: low or flats (sandy or muddy) are been shaped by the sea is called the coast by primary marshes and high or secondary marshes most important as salt marsh geomorphologists, while the zone of recent and past [Chapman, 1960]. The formation of primary marshes habitats. They are found along interaction of the sea and land is called a coastal depends on stabilization of the coast line. Large the coasts of the Barents zone, or poberezhie in Russian. This zone is bordered accumulative structures such as bars and spits make a Sea from Chyosha Bay by elevated marine terraces on the land side and by barrier and fine particles are deposited on the (Chyoshskaya Guba) to ancient submerged coastlines on the water side. coastward side of them. Eventually these build up into Baidara Bay (Baidaratskaya In general, sea coasts can be divided into two muddy flats. These flats are constantly evolving into Guba) and the coasts of classes: the accumulative and the basic ones. A beach salt marshes populated by characteristic plant Chukotka. In the coastal is the simplest accumulative formation; it is formed by communities. Low marshes are far more influenced zones of the White, Barents, the surf. A coastal bar is an underwater or partially by tides and waves than are high marshes. Episodic Kara and Laptev seas, salt Abrasive coast, Kildin Island, Barents Sea 32 drying accumulative formation, which originates and temporary flooding of high or secondary marshes marsh zones composed of from the seaward transport and subsequent influences maritime vegetation to a lesser extent. Thus different sediment types are developing along the VI — Denudation accumulation of sediment particles by tidal currents. arises an opportunity to accumulate organic matter. lower zone of the abrasive tidal coasts. Here rocky, Denudation (10) Coastal bars stretch along the shores to distances of up In contrast to primary marshes, secondary marshes boulder, boulderclay, sandy and sandymuddy, Solifluction (11) to hundreds of kilometres thereby separating lagoons contain all stages of dead and decaying plant matter; nearly flat benches are formed which dry up at low Talus (12) from the sea [Leontiev et al., 1975]. Among the basic the concentration of humus in soil is greater, and the tide and are overrun by salt marsh vegetation. This shores, two further groups can be distinguished: those processes of primary peat formation become possible. marsh vegetation is also found in abundance in the C — Coasts formed by waves coasts little changed by the sea and abrasion coasts. Dense meadow vegetation facilitates accumulation of mouths of all rivers entering the Arctic Ocean where VII — Leveling A cliff is a steep margin of the coast formed by organic particles and prevents abrasion, thus the alluvialdelta coasts are formed. Bay (13) abrasion, while the area seaward of the cliff, flattened stabilizing the coastline [Tseits et al., 2000]. Accumulativebay (14) by waves and surf, is called a bench. The mudflats located in the lower nonvegetated Muddy accumulative coasts with broad tidal flats part of intertidal zone, together with marshes, buffer CONVENTIONS TO MAP 3.8 VIII — Leveled are often occupied by maritime plants that are against the impact of storms on one hand and act as Abrasive (15) resistant to salt substrates. These parcels are called major producers of organic matter on the other hand. A — Coasts formed by tectonic, subaeral erosion and Abrasiveaccumulative (16) marshes, and they are common in the Russian Arctic In salt marshes production greatly exceeds glacial exarationaccumulative processes and little Accumulative (16а) changed by sea waves Lagoon (17) consumption. Most organic 31 With cliff and terrace (18) Delta coast, Yakutia I — Coasts with narrow bays matter produced is either Accumulative with erosion, with sandyboulder transformed locally or transported Fjord (1) beach (18а) ashore during storms thereby Fiard (2) playing an important role in soil Skerry (3) IX — Secondary dissected formation. A smaller proportion is Estuarine (4) Abrasiveaccumulativeinlet (19) transported to the intertidal zone II — Primary flat during the ebb of the water Fault (5) Note: [Burkovsky, 2006]. These salt А, B, C — Types of marine coasts; — Coasts formed by the impact of nonwave marshes provide feeding grounds B I–IX— Subtypes of sea coasts partition ; processes for migrating waders, brent and 1–19 — Main reasons caused by initiate partition of other species of geese. Some III — Potamogenic coastline fifteen species of waterbirds nest Delta (6) almost exclusively in the narrow coastal zone, mostly in marshes. IV — With tidal drying (muddy and sandy) State border of the Russian Federation Thus, this narrow zone (it can Muddy (7) Boundary of the polar domains of the Russian Federation reach widths of several kilometres) V — Termoabrasive Scale 1 : 22,000,000 is one of the most important Termoabrasive (8) biotope systems in the Arctic. Ice (9) Scale of removal 1 : 8,000,000

40 Map 3.8. Morphogenetic types of the coast in the Russian Arctic [after Kaplin et al.., 1991]

Scale 1 : 22,000,000

Scale 1 : 8,000,000

Compiled by L.A. Segienko and M.A. Shroeders. Sources: Kaplin et al. [1991]; Pavlidis et al. [1998]. 41 3.9. MARSH BIOTOPES AND COASTAL PLANT COMMUNITIES OF THE WHITE, THE BARENTS AND THE KARA SEAS L.A. Sergienko

he salt marsh flora of Russia’s European As a result there is little maritime T North is distinguished from that of the vegetation, and that which does grow is remainder of Russia by its spectacular richness (2.6). found mainly on the protected inner Depending on the frequency and duration of shores of the inlets and coves. In the flooding, salt marsh vegetation may be subdivided southeastern Barents Sea (Map 3.9 B) into three groups or levels. The low level «maritime most diverse maritime marsh communities meadows» consist of those plant communities which (resembling the White Sea ones) populate are developing in the lowestlying areas and are the coast of Chyosha Bay (Chyoshskaya flooded at every high tide; the middlelevel Guba). The lowlevel marshes on the communities are those which grow on the more Pechora Sea coast which suffer frequent elevated parts of the coastal terrain and are only and longterm flooding and abrasive flooded during the highest tides or during strong effects of sea ice are usually located along storms; the highlevel meadows are those which are the muddy coasts of the marine inlets and never flooded but receive salt water in the form of salt lakes. Their vegetation cover is splashes [Leskov, 1936; Sergienko, 2008]. essentially homogenous: it consists mostly Marshes are unevenly distributed along the sinuous of a brightgreen, dense but low (2–4 cm) coastline of the White Sea (Map 3.9 A). In the west «carpet» of sprouts of creeping alkali (i.e. Kandalaksha Bay) rocky abrasive and abrasive grass (Puccinellia phryganodes) often accumulative coast dominate, while in the east accompanied by solitary Hoppner's extensive accumulative coastal forms are common. sedges and salt marsh starwort (Stellaria The width of sandy or claysandy tidal flats stretches humifusa). The species are characteristic as far as 2 km (mouths of the rivers Mezen, Chizha, for the northern part of the Nes’). On the Onega Bay coast in the area of Cape Malozemelskaya Tundra between the Lopshen’gsky, dune beaches with widths of up to Kolokolkova Inlet (Guba) and the 0.5 km extend along 200–300 km of coastline. Pechora Bay (Pechorskaya Guba) of a One characteristic of the zone occupied by White vast plain composed of wind transported Sea maritime marsh vegetation is the presence of sands. Vast maritime meadows with three terraces sloping gently towards the sea. The first similar plants are also found on the Salt marshes near Varandey 33 terrace forms the boundary of the marsh zone. The muddy eastern coast of the Kolokolkova plants growing here are sometimes submerged in salt Inlet and extend up to 4 km from the seashore. The reach huge estuarine areas, patches of marsh round. Sandy and muddy beaches on the water front or brackish water for up to 4 hours a day and as a vegetation in the frequently flooded areas of the vegetation occur on the shores of the Gulf of Ob are flooded every day; at low tide small pools cover up result do not form densely growing assemblages. This middlelevel marshes is characterized by simple (Obskaya Guba) and the Yenisei Bay (Map 3.9 C). to 30% of their area. Marsh vegetation is poor; marsh zone is in fact an open muddy substrate with meadow associations, made up mainly of pure On the southwestern coast of the Kara Sea creeping alkali grass is the only dominant species in algal films and separate plants of the pioneer species Hoppner's sedge and Dupontia psilosantha. All the maritime marsh communities are dominated by these communities. The beach continues to a low slender spikerush (Eleocharis uniglumis) or the derivative communities of the middlelevel marshes creeping alkali grass, lesser saltmarsh sedge (Carex plain which is flooded from time to time. Soils in this endemic White Sea species Pojarkova’s wort contain Hoppner's sedge, circumpolar reedgrass glareosa), Hoppner’s sedge, salt marsh starwort, and zone contain not as much water and are relatively (Salicornia pojarkovae) — particularly in the mouths (Calamagrostis deschampsioides), saltmarsh starwort circumpolar reedgrass. In the Kharasavey area on stable. This is a biotope of halophytic sedges of southern rivers, and the sedge Bolbochoenus and marsh cinquefoil (Potentilla egedii). Hoppner’s Yamal Peninsula arrowgrass (Triglochin maritima) communities. A higher zone is flooded only maritimus in northern areas. The most densely sedge also dominates the vegetation on the high has been found, that species is characteristic for the sporadically, at high pileup. There wet low parcels are growing maritime plant assemblages are found in the level marshes along with red fescue (Festuca rubra) Atlantic maritime flora. A band of maritime intermittent with sandy elevations. middle section of the slopes and are dominated by and bog star (Parnassia palustris). Another vegetation with characteristic for the shores of Marsh biotopes of the White, the eastern Barents, species which are adapted to saltwater flooding and characteristic of the highlevel marshes is a thick Baidara Bay (Baidartskaya Guba) distribution and the Kara seas play a tremendous role in the life salination of the soil, first of all Hoppner's sedge moss cover which is absent from most marsh extends along the entire shoreline of MarreSale cycles of waterbirds, especially waders and geese, (Carex subspathacea). The transition from the communities at the middlelevel. Characteristic Peninsula broadening in mouths of small rivers. providing them with food and shelter during middlelevel marshes to highlevel marshes is marked features of the Kara Sea coast are geological The inner part of Obskaya Guba is filled by nearly breeding, molting and migration seasons [Gavrilo et by a local accumulation of turf. The upper level of heterogeneity, allround presence of the coastal fresh or brackish waters (not more than 5–8 ppt); the al., 1998]. marsh zone is an ecotone or transitional area where permafrost and a long lifetime of the landfast ice, shores are occupied by a typical tundra vegetation Marsh biotopes are protected in the Nenetskiy species of local flora resistant to minute salination of which restricts the wave impact on the shore for with some contribution of such salt marsh species as state zapovednik, in the neighboring federal zakaznik the soil can be observed. Maritime marsh vegetation more than half a year. A narrow band of maritime Dupontia psilolantha and pendantgrass (Arctophila of the same name (see 4.1), and also in some regional occupies estuaries of all rivers entering the White Sea vegetation stretches along the elevated abrasive fulva). SPNA (4.2, 4.4). However, the present coverage of and has its own characteristics. coasts of Yamal Peninsula, borders the islands of In Taymyr Peninsula glacial forms of the coastal marshes by SPNAs does not fit the priority of The inlets of the Murmansk coast situated in the Belyi and Shokalsky, and the northern coast of the morphology (both denuded or not transformed by protection appropriate to such an important Barents Sea tend to be characterized by rocky shores. Gydan Peninsula. Wherever the Kara Sea salt water the sea and accumulative ones) are spread nearly all component of coastal biological diversity.

42 Map 3.9. Plant communities of maritime marshes on the coasts of the White (A), Barents (B), and the Kara (C) seas

A B

State border of the Russian Federation Boundary of the polar domains of the Russian Federation Scale 1 : 4,000,000

C

Scale 1 : 4,000,000

12 Composition of plant communities

Salicornia pojarkovae Eleocharis uniglumis + Bolboschoenus maritimus Puccinellia phryganodes Puccinellia maritima Triglochin maritimum + Carex subspathacea Triglochin maritimum + Tripolium vulgare + Plantago maritima Carex glareosa + Potentilla egedii + Agrostis straminea Puccinellia phryganodes + Potentilla egedii + Carex subspathacea Potentilla egedii + Calamagrostis deschampsioides + Arctanthemum hultenii Potentilla egedii + Agrostis straminea + Festuca rubra Calamagrostis deschampsioides + Puccinellia phryganodes + Carex glareosa Leymus arenarius Honckenya oblongifolia + Elytrigia repens + Leymus arenarius Festuca rubra + Leymus arenarius Dupontia psilosantha + Carex subspathacea Carex rariflora Carex subspathacea + Carex rariflora + Carex ursina Scale 1 : 4,000,000 Poa alpigena + Festuca rubra + Honckenya oblongifolia Saxifraga foliolosa + Luzila wahlenbergii + Festuca rubra Carex subspathacea + Carex ursina Compiled by L.A. Sergienko and M.A. Shroeders

43 3.10. MARSH BIOTOPES AND COMMUNITIES ON THE COASTS OF THE EAST SIBERIAN SEA, AND AROUND CHUKOTKA PENINSULA L.A. Sergienko and M.V. Gavrilo

he tidal magnitude in the Laptev Sea is not from the cliffs cover the beaches. In places where the T high (not more than 0.8 m) but storm surge may shore is low and flat the marsh is sparsely covered by be very significant and lead to sea level changes creeping alkali grass, including Hoppner's sedge and within the range of two and even five meters. Small saltmarsh starwort (Stellaria humifusa). However, parcels of marsh vegetation are located in the this vegetation is often scoured by sea ice or destroyed Khatanga Bay, in the Terpyai Tumus coast and the by mud sliding or flowing from steep shores. Yana Delta area. The delta of Lena River, the largest The coast of the largest bay of the EastSiberian delta system on the Arctic Ocean Coast extends to Sea, Chaun Bay (Chaunskaya Guba) is a hilly plain. 28.5 thousand km2. Its eastern part comprises of The shore extends along a belt of 1015 km and is numerous islands and creeks. At the high water exposed to greater or lesser levels of salination season many islands are flooded, and this is followed (depending on the strength of the storms). During by significant accumulation of muddy sediments and the north and northwest stormy winds, salt water changes in the coastline. Even in these harsh extends 10–20 km upstream in the Chaun River conditions maritime grass communities persist on estuary brining with it salt marsh plant species. the shores. The coverage of maritime species is Thanks to several years of research carried out by nonetheless low, and does not exceed 20%. There research station of the Institute of Biological such widespread species as circumpolar reedgrass Problems of the North of the Russian Academy of (Calamagrostis deschampsioides), arrowgrass Sciences, much is known about the composition and (Triglochin maritima), Dupontia psilosantha, salt dynamics of the salt marsh vegetation in the areas marsh starwort (Stellaria humifusa), marsh cinquefoil (Map 3.10). (Potentilla egedei), sea thrift (Armeria maritima), In contrast to most other polar seas, the coast of Arctic Daisy (Arctanthemum arcticum ssp. polare) the Chukchi Sea is bordered by spits and tombolos, are common. which separate variously sized lagoons from the sea. The western part of the EastSiberian Sea coastal Here, smoothened abrasive coasts dominate, while zone is characterized mainly by thermoabrasive purely accumulative coasts are less common. Spoonbilled Sandpiper 34 shores. Large rivers (Indigirka, Kolyma, Alazea, Remarkable capes and bays, which cut deep into Bolshaya Kuropoatochaya, Chukochaya – a branch the land, are rare with the exception of Kolyuchin bars are similar along the entire Chukotka Peninsula flooded maritime plains during the breeding period of the Kolyma delta) carry a large volume of Bay (Kolyuchinskaya Guba). The coastal relief is coastline. On sandy beaches of the southern corresponds to the distribution of the creeping alkali suspended matter to the sea; this explains the poor characterized either by hilly plains or mountain range Chukotka sea sandwort (Honckenya oblongifolia) grass and Hoppner’s sedge communities. These development of marsh vegetation in the open spurs. The coasts of the Anadyr Bay of the Bering Sea forms separate vegetation patches, in the north – on biotopes are very important as feeding grounds for estuaries on the one hand, while also explaining the are more complex and include two large bays, Kresta the De Long Strait coast, in the area of town Billings geese in the summer (Map 3.10). The nesting and significant development of marsh vegetation on the Bay and Anadyrskiy Liman. and on Cape Yakan the dominance shifts to oysterleaf breeding habitats of the endangered spoonbilled shores of the river mouth system as these are The diversity of the morphogenetic coast types that (Mertensia maritima). More densely populated sandpiper (Eurynorhynchus pygmeus), a species protected from wave erosion. The largest marsh areas characterize the Chukotka shoreline determine the patches of sea sandwort, herbs and sedges occur on endemic to Chukotka and Kamchatka and listed in are those surrounding the Chukochya River. The structure and duration of the vegetation that develops acclivous slopes of coastal spits and bars allround in the Red Data Book of the Russian Federation and mouth of the Bolshaya Kuropotochya River is a low upon its landscapes. In most cases, different coastal Chukotka Peninsula. On most elevated parts of sandy the IUCN Red List, are located in the coastal plain composed of easily transported muddy formations are separated by diffuse, indistinct pebble spits of southern Chukotka similar (beach biotopes with the presence of lichens or birchsedge sediment, and characterized by high rates of the borders (Map 3.10). The development of vegetation pea, Lathyrus japonicus ssp. pubescens and seabeach tundras, and in muddy salt marches with maritime coastline retreat (about 1.06 m per year) [Grigoriev, on the muddy salt marsh depends on the salt content, groundsel, Senecio pseudoarnica) multispecies vegetation which provide breeding grounds for birds Kunitsky, 2000]. The result is that the salt marsh soil acidity, flooding regime, sediment properties and closed plant communities are developed. (Map 3.10). communities stay persistently at early stages of accumulation rates, and rock underlying the alluvial Several rare and endangered aquatic birds in While some of the maritime marshes of the Laptev development. The maritime vegetation is made up of soil. The earliest vegetation consists of turf and Chukotka show a clear association with marsh plant Sea are protected by the Ust’Lenskiy Zapovednik communities of Arctic circumpolar species: creeping stolonforming species and creeping alkali grass. communities. For example, the emperor goose and several regional protected areas (4.1–4.2) marsh alkali grass (Puccinellia phryganodes), Hoppner's These are replaced in the upstream estuarine areas of (Chen canagica), a species listed in the Red Data biotopes, those in the East Siberian and Chukchi sedge (Carex subspathacea), marsh cinquefoil, numerous small rivers by Dupontia, which grows Book of the Russian Federation as a rare species with Seas, and the Chukotka section of the Bering Sea are maritime buttercap (Ranunculus tricrenatus), under similar conditions of flooding but in a declining population, breeds in the coastal zone of poorly protected. On Wrangel Island, within the Dupontia psilosantha, and pandantgrass (Arctophila lowersalinity soils. In the north of the Chukotka the Chukotka Peninsula between the Anguema River zapovednik of the same name, salt marshes are found fulva). Peninsula Arctic halophytes are abundant: bear sedge mouth in the east, to Dezhnev Cape and then along only on the north coast where a large sandy bar or a To the east of the Kolyma Delta the coast consists (Carex ursina), Arctic coastal saxifrage (Saxifraga the Bering Sea coast up to Navarin Cape. Nests are spit extends along the shore. In the south, where the of parcels with abrasive cliffs, interspersed with low arctolitoralis). most common on the Vankarem Plain and along the accumulative coast has numerous inlets, marsh accumulative shores with beaches and flats, which The species composition of the vegetation of the coast of Kolyuchin Bay (Kolyuchinskaya Guba); vegetation develops in low places. There are two dry up depending on the wind and surf. There is no coastal sands and the successive patterns of nonbreeding moulting specimens also gather in this enclaves of the regional reserve along the shoreline of vegetation on the abrasive shores because mudslides vegetation on the sandypebble beaches, spits and area. The distribution of emperor geese on these the Chaunskaya Guba.

44 Map 3.10. Plant communities of maritime marshes and breeding grounds of rare coastal bird species in Chukotka

12 Composition of plant communities

Dupontia psilosantha + Carex subspathacea Puccinellia phryganodes Potentilla egedei + Calamagrostis deschampsioides Puccinellia phryganodes + Potentilla egedei+ Carex subspathacea Carex subspathacea + C. ursina Calamagrostis deschampsioides +Puccinellia phryganodes + Carex glareosa Carex rariflora Poacea + Honckenia sp. Salix sp. + Leymus sp.

Principal breeding areas

Spoonbilled Sandpiper

Emperor Goose

State border of the Russian Federation Boundary of the polar domains of the Russian Federation Scale 1 : 4,000,000

Compiled by L.A. Sergienko, M.V. Gavrilo and M.A. Shroeders. 45 3.11. RIVER MOUTH AREAS AND STOCKS OF ANADROMOUS FISHES S.L. Gorin, F.I. Lashmanov and V.A. Spiridonov

xtensive river mouth systems (RMS) are a which has been earlier accumulated in the watersheds which provide little insight into the current status of Sardine cisco and muksun play a major role in the E characteristic feature of the coastal zone of the and estuaries [Makarevich, 2007]. the fish stock. The population of inconnu (Stenodus assemblages of semianadromous fishes of large rivers Russian Arctic seas, with the exception of the Barents In river mouth ecosystems unicellular diatome leucichthys nelma) has also declined. The core of entering the Laptev and the EastSiberian seas. In the Sea, the western part of White Sea and the Chukchi algae that develop on the tidal flats (i.e. the anadromous fish assemblage consists currently of RMS of Lena and Indigirka stocks of Arctic cisco and Sea. RMS are specific geographical entities (see microphytobenthos) play an important role. Along sardine cisco (Coregonus sardinella), whitefish inconnu, although depleted, remain significant. Addendum), which cover the entire area of the with suspended matter transported by the river and (C. lavaretus sensu lato), muksun (C. muksun) and While the first species mostly foraged in marine and river/sea boundary zone and are characterized by a the tides, they provide food to socalled mesobenthos Arctic cisco (C. autumnalis). brackish waters, Lena’s inconnu uses a wide range of specific geomorphology, landscape and hydrological represented mainly by chironomid larvae Gulf of Ob (Obskaya Guba) and the associated habitats for feeding and growth: from the shelf areas regime. They are a product of the processes of (Chironomidae) and olygochaets; these invertebrates Taz River mouth (Tazovskaya Guba) are nursery in the delta to the rivers themselves. Sturgeons are interaction between riverine and marine systems (i.e. are an ideal food for fish, particularly juveniles. Given grounds for juveniles of sturgeons, coregonids also present in the watersheds of the Laptev and the dynamics and mixing of marine and river waters, the broad spectrum and gradients of the (muksun, peled — Coregonus peled, humpback East Siberian Seas, but, in contrast to the RMS of the sedimentation, resuspension and resedimentation environmental conditions which provide optimal whitefish — C. lavaretus pidshian, broad whitefish, Kara Sea where they are semianadromous, of riverine and partly marine suspended matter) feeding grounds for different species and age groups of sardine cisco, Arctic cisco), and smelt (Osmerus sturgeons in the Lena, Yana, Indigirka and Kolyma [Mikhailov, 1997]. The RMSs of the largest rivers in fishes found in RMSs, they constitute a unique mordax dentex). These bays also serve as wintering usually do not leave the rivers [Ruban, 1999]. While the Russian Arctic differ considerably in their biotope system for whole communities of fish grounds for both the juveniles and adults of these the Lena sturgeon populations are in better morphology. In turn this determines specific including freshwater, marine and anadromous species species. The key to life in this huge estuary is river condition, the semianadromous stocks in other characteristics of the river mouth ecosystems (those which mainly inhabit marine or brackish water discharge. Its value determines spatiotemporal watersheds have become greatly depleted. From the including levels of salinity and interannual variation but which migrate upstream to spawn) (2.5). characteristics of the hydrological regime, and in early 1990s the sturgeon populations in the Ob’ and of the hydrological regime. For the most part RMSs Fish faunas of the river mouths differ considerably turn the environmental conditions for all stages of Yenisei declined greatly due to increased poaching in are classical ecotones, i.e transitional zones where from the ones of neighbouring marine areas fish lifecycles: reproduction, foraging/growth postSoviet Russia [Ruban, 1999; data of the marine, brackish water and freshwater species can be [Kudersky, 1987]. It is possible to distinguish between periods, and wintering. More favourable conditions directorate «Zapsibrybvod»]. The Yenisei sturgeon found alongside plants and animals typical of salt anadromous fish species in the strict sense (those that for fish stocks in the Ob’–Irtysh watershed are fishery is now closed while the Ob’ sturgeon has been marsh communities (these are well developed in migrate over great distances at sea) and semi associated with medium and high water discharge. listed in the Red Data Book of the Russian deltas and estuaries of the Arctic rivers; see anadromous (those species that do not usually leave Important factors are the spring flood levels and the Federation. Practically all populations of 3.8–3.10). Ecotone communities are dependent on the seaside of the RMS). The first group includes duration of flooding of the spawning and foraging anadromous and semianadromous fishes are the export of organic matter and recruitment of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), which breeds in areas in river valleys. Along with temperature threatened by illegal catch (most of specialists of the populations from outside the habitat: populations of the rivers of the Barents Sea and the White conditions they determine the effectiveness of state institutions gathering fishery statistics agree that marine and many brackish water species are recruited Sea watersheds, the marine form of Arctic char spawning and egg survival, and the development of real catches may be 2–3 times higher than reported), from the seaside, while freshwater species depend on (Salvelinus alpinus) and the Pacific salmon species: food resources. Interactions of the river flow and dam construction, and watershed pollution. There is the populations in the watershed. The composition of chum (Oncorhynchus keta) and pink (O. gorbuscha) tides play a tremendous role in determining an urgent need to develop plans for stock restoration the flora and fauna follows the salinity gradient and is salmon commonly occurring in the Bering and the distribution patterns and dynamics in Ob'–Taz river and fishery management, where functional zoning of continually changing to form ecoclines [Burkovsky, Chukchi Sea and whose range is currently expanding mouth area. The Ob’–Taz RMS supports the largest the RMS should play a major role. 2006]. An interesting phenomenon was described further west as a result of climate change. Currently stocks of sardine cisco, humpback whitefish, for nearriver seasides and adjacent shelf areas of these species are regularly caught by fishermen in the muksun and smelt. The role of the characteristic the Pechora and the Ob’–Yenisei areas. There mouth of Kolyma River. Pink salmon was introduced polar species, Arctic cisco in this assemblage is Addendum phytoplankton bloom begins in early spring (while in the late 1950s into the White and the Barents Seas relatively unimportant as this fish prefers RMSs with RMS includes the following features: still under the ice). This is explained by the [Berger, 2001] and now this species is entering the higher salinity and does not breed in the Ob’ avalanchine discharge of dead and live organic matter rivers in the western Kara Sea. Semianadromous fish watershed. The area of greatest concentrations of — River mouth — a fragment of the river where winds and tides cause pronounced variations in the water level (outside Atlantic salmon on the spawning migration 35 mostly include whitefish (Coregonidae) and smelts this species is located near Oleniy Island in the Kara but also Siberian sturgeon (Acipenser baerii). Sea, where fisheries exploit the Yenisei stock of of the area of the salinated waters’ expansion); Distribution of total allowable catches (TAC) Arctic cisco, as well as Gydan Bay. — Estuary — a semiclosed system of water bodies within of semianadromous fish, mostly coregonids as The importance of the semianadromous fish the RMS where general mixing of riverine and marine water presented in Map 3.11 may be considered as a proxy stocks of Yenisei and the Yenisei Bay cannot be masses takes place; it is connected to the sea permanently or periodically [Schubel, Pritchard, 1971; Mikhailov et al., for an assessment of the importance of RMS as compared to that of the Ob’–Taz RMS. Muksun, 2009]; biotopes for valued commercial species. In the humpback whitefish, sardine cisco and Arctic cisco — Delta — a coneshaped surface formed by sediment Severnaya Dvina RMS anadromous fish stocks are are the key species here. The Yenisei has experienced deposits at the mouth of the river which has a complex and relatively low. The Atlantic salmon stock in this river lower rates of discharge (about 17% in average years) dynamic hydrographic network branching from a common is very depleted. In the Pechora watershed, previously because of dam construction; this is expected to drop node and is characterized by a specific landscape [Mikhailov, home to the greatest numbers of salmon, the size of further following completion of the Boguchanskaya 1997]; the stock has now declined: commercial quotas for Hydroelectric Power Plant in Angara. The less water — Near river seaside — a part of the sea which is strongly Atlantic salmon in the Pechora River have not been Yenisei brings to the Kara Sea the more changes are influenced by the impact of the river; a distinction can be set for several decades with the result that only so expected in the RMS as well as in the marine made between the semiclosed near river seasides (inside called «scientific» fishery estimates are carried out ecosystems and respective fish stocks. the marine bay) and open ones.

46 Map 3.11. Most important river mouths areas and the total allowable catch of anadromous fishes in the Russian Arctic (20072008)

Fish species 300 — Total Allowable Catch (tons) State border of the Russian Federation

Muksun Sardine cisco Whitefish – Siberian Whitefish (Pydschjan) Sea boundaries of the river mouths areas Boundary of the polar domains of the Russian Federation Boundary of the Arctic seas Arctic cisco Inconnu Smelt Scale 1 : 16,000,000

Compiled by F.I. Lashmanov and A.V. Makarov. Source: Federal Agency of Fishery

47 Section 4 SPECIALLY PROTECTED NATURAL AREAS AND OTHER RECOGNIZED AREAS OF CONSERVATION VALUE

4.1. FEDERAL MARINE AND COASTAL SPECIALLY PROTECTED NATURAL AREAS V.A. Spiridonov, Yu.V. Krasnov, N.G. Nikolaeva and M.V. Gavrilo

rotected natural areas fulfill several important («Ostrov Wrangelya»)), while two zapovedniks Table 41. Federal marine and coastal specially protected natural areas in the Russian Arctic. Size data are mainly from Ptasks. These include creating areas where nature include only buffer maritime zones (Gydanskiy Zabelina et al. (2006). is allowed to provide for itself; where species, and Ust’Lenskiy). Koryakskiy zapovednik, another International status: populations and their communities are allowed to federal strict nature reserve with two marine areas, is RW — Wetland of International Importance (Ramsar site); BR — UNESCO Biosphere Reserve; WH — World Heritage site. thrive free of negative influences; and where they can located in the southwestern Bering Sea. Recently Interna Area Area Marine Year of Total area use their own natural mechanisms to adjust to a new national park, the «Russian Arctic» was Name tional Sea on land at sea buffer zone establi (ha) changing conditions, with minimal intervention from designated in the north of the Novaya Zemlya area. It status (ha) (ha) (ha) shing humans. Zapovedniks are also intended to alert us includes a marine zone extending up to the border of to changes taking place in nature. In Russia the territorial sea (12 nautical miles). In addition to Zapovedniks, or strictly protected reserves (category I IUCN) zapovedniks have traditionally served as research these there are four federal zakazniks (reserves) with stations. Under Russian legislation the internal marine or coastal areas: Franz Josef Land, Nenetskiy, Kara, 1. Great Arctic 3 188 288 980 934 4 169 222 0 1993 marine waters, territorial sea, Exclusive Economic NizhneObskiy and Severozemelskiy, and the Laptev Zone (EEZ) and Continental Shelf all come under Mogilnoe Lake Federal Natural Monument federal jurisdiction. Thus, legally, marine protected (Table 4–1). Federal protected areas include a 2. Gydanskiy Kara 878 174 0 878 174 60 000 1996 areas have federal status. They are regulated by the variety of marine and coastal areas but their Barents, Federal Law «On specially protected natural areas» importance in the context of the general aims of 3. Kandalakshskiy RW 20 947 49 583 70 530 0 1932 White (# 33 FZ of 14 March 1995). marine environment and biodiversity protection The patchwork of federal protected natural areas in differs significantly. 4. Koryakskiy RW Bering 244 156 83 000 327 156 0 1995 the Arctic coastal zone has been shaped by a long The total area of all offshore zones located within history (Map 4.1; Table 41). Perspective planning the federal protected areas in the Arctic Ocean 5. Nenetskiy Barents 131 500 181 900 313 400 242 800 1997 and analysis of the challenges inherent to preserving (excluding the Bering Sea) amounts to 95,583 km2, 1979 marine biological diversity have played no significant which constitutes ca. 2% of the area of Russia’s 6. Taymyrskiy BR Laptev 1 744 910 37 018 1 781 928 0 (1994)* role in its formation. Rather, protected areas were Arctic Seas (internal marine waters, territorial sea created on parcels important for biodiversity and the EEZ). 7. Ust'Lenskiy Laptev 1 433 000 0 1 433 000 1 050 000** 1985 conservation only where it was feasible. Four Arctic Zapovedniks are federal institutions with their own zapovedniks include marine areas (Kandalakshskiy, budgets and staff but limited capacity for maritime 8. Wrangel Island WH Chukchi 795 650 1 430 000 2 225 650 3 240 000 1976 Nenetskiy, Great Arctic, Taymyrskiy, Wrangel Island activities. A 2008 Management Effectiveness Assessment of the Arctic zapovedniks National parks (category II IUCN) 36 Coastal tundra on Dolgiy Island, zapovednik Nenentskiy with emphasis on marine and coastal Barents, 9. "Russian Arctic" 632 090 793 910 1 426 000 0 2009 areas (using the Management Kara Effectiveness Scorecard — METT; maximum score 100) resulted in Zakazniks, or natural reserves (category IVV IUCN) relatively low scores. The indices calculated for specific reserves ranged 10. Franz Josef Land Barents 1 600 000 2 600 000 4 200 000 0 1994 between 29 and 50. For the sake of comparison it is worth noting that 11. Nenetskiy RW Barents 188 500 120 000 308 500 0 1985 zapovedniks located in other parts of Russia which focus on protection of 12. NizhneObskiy RW Kara 128 000 0 128 000 0 1985 marine and brackish water ecosystems, Kara, 13. Severozemelskiy 367 771 53 930 421 701 0 1996 the Far Eastern Marine Biosphere Laptev Zapovednik and the Astrakhanskiy Biosphere Zapovednik, achieved the Nature monuments (category III IUCN) highest scores of 63 and 62 respectively. This indicates that there is much room 14. Mogilnoe Lake Barents 0 17 17 0 1985 for improvement in the effectiveness of existing marine and coastal protected * year of inclusion of the regional SPNA "Bikada" into the zapovednik. areas in the changing Arctic. ** buffer zone includes the New Siberian Islands and the regional resource reserve "LenaDelta" (4.2)

48 Map 4.1. Federal marine and coastal specially protected natural areas in the Russian Arctic

Zapovedniks National Parks Zakazniks Natural Monuments State border of the Russian Federation "Russian Arctic" 1 — Nenetskiy Mogilnoe Lake 1 — Kandalakshskiy 5 — Taymyrskiy Boundary of the polar domains 2 — Nenetskiy 6 — Ust'Lenskiy 2 — Franz Josef Land of the Russian Federation 3 — Gydanskiy 7 — Wrangel Island 3 — NizhneObskiy ("Ostrov Wrangelya") Scale 1 : 16,000,000 4 — Great Arctic 8 — Koryakskiy 4 — Severozemelskiy

Compiled by A.V. Makarov Source: Boudaries of zapovedniks and zakazniks after [Cartographic base.., 2002–2010]

49 4.2. REGIONAL COASTAL SPECIALLY PROTECTED NATURAL AREAS A.V.Makarov and V.A.Spiridonov

ypes of SPNAs and approaches to the planning of Table 42. Coastal regional SPNAs of the Russian Arctic shown on Map 4.2. Tprotected areas differ considerably in the various Order follows WestEast direction. administrative regions of Russian Federation. In the Types of SPNAs (in brackets IUCN category): NR — natural reserve, or zakaznik (IV–V); NM — nature monument (III); NP — Murmansk Oblast’ nature monuments are most nature park (IV); RR — resource reserve (V). Regions: MO — Murmansk Oblast'; RK — Republic of Karelia; AO — Arkhangelsk Oblast'; NAO — Nenets Autonomous common, in the Republic of Karelia zakazniks make District; YaNAO — YamalNenets Autonomous District; KK — Krasnoyarskiy Krai; SYa — Republic SakhaYakutia; up the bulk of protected areas, while in the Republic KAM — Kamchatskiy Krai; ChAO — Chukotka Autonomous District. Sakha – Yakutia the preferred category is a resource Data from Zabelina et al. [2006] with additions of information obtained from the regional administration and the Kola Branch of reserve (Map 4.2; Table 42). Biodiversity Conservation Centre. Nature Park Berengia, occupying most of Chukotka Peninsula is not shown on Map 4.2. The range of natural areas, biotopes and objects under protection is indeed broad. It includes Name Name Map Map # on # on geological nature monuments, natural therapeutic Type Type mud grounds, unique forms of coastal geomorphology, Region Region landscapes or coastal vegetation. A considerable Geological monument near NM MO 31. Omoloi RR SYa 1. Semenovskoe Lake number of protected areas have been established to protect wetlands that contain nodes of migration 2. Sea bird bazaars of Dvorovaya Inlet NM MO 32. Yana Delta RR SYa routes and breeding areas of water birds, i.e. most 3. Guba Ivanovskaya NM MO 33. Buustakh RR SYa of the zakazniks in Karelia, the Arkhangelsk Oblast’ 38 4. Ponoiskiy NR MO 34. Kytalyk RR SYa and several resource reserves in Yakutia [Zabelina Tufted puffin (Lunda cirrhata) et al., 2006]. Some of them support protection of (primarily walruses), and denning areas of polar 5. Waterfall on Chapoma River NM RK 35. Chaigurgino RR SYa internationally important wetlands designated as bears. All these phenomena are spatially explicit and 6. Waterfall on Chavan'ga River NM MO 36. Kurdigino Krestovaya RR SYa Ramsar sites: the Polyarnyi Krug and Kuzova Islands relatively longlived. Salt marshes are very poorly 7. Ametists of Cape Korabl' NM MO 37. Medvezhyi Islands RR SYa zakazniks in the White Sea, the Brekhovskie Islands covered by special protection, for example, the in the Kara Sea and Karaginskiy Island in the Bering Nenentskiy and Chaunskaya Guba zakazniks. 8. Flyorites of Elokorgovskiy Navolok NM MO 38. KolymaKoren (KolymaDelta) RR SYa Sea. These protected areas are supplemented with Recently marine conservation priorities have been 9. Endoziyes of Verchnyi Navolok Cape NM MO 39. Ayonskiy NM ChAO offshore zones, but the legislative basis for such taken into account when establishing two coastal Medical mud of Palkina inlet of the inclusion is vague. nature monuments in the Murmansk Obslast’: in the 10. White Sea NM MO 40. Pineiveemskiy NM ChAO The regional coastal protected areas network can Ivanovskaya Guba, with biotopes of sea grass (Zostera 11. Granitoids of Mikkov Island NM MO 41. Routanskiy NM ChAO potentially be further expanded with the focus on marina) at the boundary of its distribution range in 12. "Polarnyi Krug" NR RK 42. Chaunskaya Guba NR ChAO marine ecosystem conservation. In doing this the Atlantic, and in the Dvorovaya Guba, where sea particular attention should be given to salt marshes, bird colonies are located. Another example can be 13. Von'gomskiy NR RK 43. Utinyi NM ChAO colonies and areas of water birds in nonbreeding found in Chukotka, where a nature monument was 14. Shoiostrovskiy NR RK 44. Cape Vankarem NM ChAO concentrations (molting and wintering areas, established on Cape Vankarem to protect the walrus 15. Kuzova Islands NR RK 45. Chegitunskiy NM ChAO migration stopovers), haulouts of marine mammals haulout area, which is growing and becoming increasingly important in these times of 16. Sorokskiy NR RK 46. Vostochnyi NM ChAO Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) haulout 37 changing climate. 17. Bog near Nyukhcha Village NR RK 47. Termalnyi NM ChAO In most cases regional protected 18. Planted forest near Lyamtsa village NM AO 48. Mechigmenskiy NM ChAO areas have neither funding nor enforcement staff, and this seriously 19. Unskiy NR AO 49. Klyuchevoi NM ChAO impedes monitoring and management. 20. Dvinskiy NR AO 50. Avtotkuul NR ChAO In some regions the situation is less 21. Mudyugskiy NR AO 51. Bukhta Anastasii NM KAM critical due to recently established directorates of specially protected 22. Belomorskiy NR AO 52. Bogoslova Island NM KAM nature reas which manage all regional 23. Promorskiy NP AO 53. Cape Witgenstein NM KAM nature monuments, zakazniks and 24. Shoinskiy NR NAO 54. Island Kekur Witgensteina NM KAM nature parks. Some coastal protected areas are overseen by scientific 25. Nizhnepechorskiy NR NAO 55. Cape Groznyi NM KAM institutions and NGOs. For example 26. Vaygach NR NAO 56. PotatGytkhyn Lake NM KAM the N.A.Pertsov White Sea Biological 27. Yamalskiy NR YaNAO 57. IlkirGytkhyn Lake NM KAM Station of the Moscow University supports the Polyarnyi Krug zakaznik. 28. Brekhovskie Islands NR KK 58. YuzhnoGlubokaya Inlet NM KAM This is one way to achieve effective 29. TerpeiTumus RR SYa 59. Verkhoturov Island NM KAM monitoring and protection of the 30. Lena Delta (incl. New Siberian RR SYa 60. Karaginskiy Island NR KAM coastal regional protected areas. Islands)

50 Map 4.2. Regional coastal specially protected natural areas in the Russian Arctic

Regional coastal specially protected natural areas: State border of the Russian Federation Scale 1 : 16,000,000 Zakazniks Nature Monuments Nature Park Resource Reserves Boundary of the polar domains of the Russian Federation

Compiled by A.V. Makarov and V.A. Spiridonov. Sources: Zabelina et al. [2006] with additions of the data provided by administrations of Karelia Republic, Chukotka Autonomus District, Arkhangel'sk and Murmansk regions, and the Kola Branch of Biodiversity Conservation Centre. Names of SPNA are given in Table 42.

51 4.3. IMPORTANT BIRD AREAS E.D. Krasnova

mportant Bird Areas (IBAs) are areas that Arctic Important Bird Areas are usually Table 4–3. List of Important Bird Areas in the maritime Russian Arctic I are particularly important for maintaining the extensive territories and parts of marine basins. biological diversity of the birds on our planet. Twothirds of the IBAs extend to more than Code Name Code Name Map Map # on Their identification was initiated by the thousand square kilometres each, occupying a # on international association for the protection of birds total of some 270,000 km2. They include separate and the environment, BirdLife International; in islands and entire archipelagos, small inlets and 1. EURU011Surrounding of Kiesh'yaur Lake 41. ASRU012Lower (Nizhnyaa) Taymyra River the Russian Federation this work has been large marine bays, peninsulas, capes, coastal spits, 2. EURU Ainov Islands 42. ASRU014Lower Leningradskaya River Gusikha River Basin with lower Bol'shaya implemented by the Russian Bird Conservation significant fragments of coastal shallows, 3. EURU010Gavrilovski Archipelago 43. River Union since 1994 [Important Bird Areas.., 2000, extensive deltas of large Siberian rivers and the 4. EURU004Seven Islands 44. ASRU058Preobrazheniya Island 2006]. Only those areas which fit strict quantitative lower streams of mediumsized rivers, and salt and 5. EURU005Coast Belt of Eastern Murmansk 45. ASRU016KharaTumus Peninsula and Norvik Bay criteria approved by BirdLife International may be brackish water lagoons (Table 4–3; Map 4.3). As a recognized as IBAs. For globally endangered bird rule, terrestrial zones of the Arctic IBAs are 6. EURU437Terski Coast 46. ASRU059Anabar species, those areas which are home to the greatest covered by lowland, hilly or mountain tundras, 7. EURU007Ponoiskaya Depression 47. ASRU060TerpyayaTumus Watershed of the rivers Strelna and EURU006 48. ASRU061Olenek (Olenyok) Bay populations of such species are able to acquire IBA with the northernmost ones located within the 8. Varzuga status. For waterbirds forming aggregations, the area of the Arctic deserts. Polar Russia has a 9. EURU008Lapland Biosphere Reserve 49. ASRU062Lana Delta criteria for IBA designation has been set at a plenty of lakes and peatlands; the river network is 10. EURU009Kandalaksha Bay 50. ASRU065Bel'kovskiy Island limit of 1% of the global or European species very dense; most of the country’s polar land is in Solovetski Archipelago and Zjizjginski EURU020 51. ASRU066Kotelnyi Island population. Narrow corridors, which act as the permafrost zone, where only the upper thin 11. Island migration paths for more than 1% of a migrating layer of soil thaws out in summer. 12. EURU018Onega Bay of the White Sea 52. ASRU070Faddevskiy Island species’ population also qualify for IBA status. The majority of Important Bird Areas are 13. EURU270Unskaya Bay (Unskaya Guba) 53. ASRU071Novaya Sibir' Island Another criterion for IBA status is the biomic located in inaccessible places where 14. EURU022Delta of River Severnaya Dvina 54. ASRU068Bol'shoi Lyakhovskiy Island criterion which focuses on protection of sensitive anthropogenic influences are limited to the ecosystems where birds provide an indication of indirect effects of transboundary pollution and 15. EURU034Kanin Peninsula 55. ASRU062Yana Delta and Suruktyakh River the value of ecosystems. In the Arctic one such industrial fishing which influence trophic 16. EURU021TornaShoina watershed 56. ASRU072SangaYuryakh Southern coast of Cheshskaya Bay EURU033 57. ASRU072Kytalyk biome, i.e. the tundra, has been designated. In this conditions. In some areas, poaching is a real 17. (Chyosha Bay, Chyoshskaya Guba) particular biome, an area is designated an IBA if it threat; in some places local people collect eggs 18. EURU436Kolguev Island 58. ASRU074Indigirka Delta includes the habitats of at least five stenotopic thereby negatively impacting upon seabird Russki Zavorot Peninsula and eastern (specialized) species. populations. In the shelf areas hydrocarbon 19. EURU036part of Malozemelskaya tundra 59. ASRU076KremesitSundrun watershed Thanks to the efforts of dozens of exploration, extraction and transportation are Bezymyannaya and Gribovaya Bays and ornithologists, more than 700 IBAs have been becoming a growing threat. Similarly, water 20. EURU025adjoining waters 60. ASRU075Kolyma Delta designated in the last 15 years in Russia; 84 of pollution from industrial sources and agriculture 21. EURU026Arkhangelskaya Bay 61. ASRU078West Chaun Plain them are located in the Arctic (of these, 79 are is a reality in the lower streams of rivers and 22. EURU032River Chernaya 62. ASRU079Chaun Delta marine and coastal — Table 4–3). Sea coast and estuaries. Some IBAs have now become popular 23. EURU031Varandeiskaya Lapta Peninsula 63. ASRU081Billings Cape coastal tundras provide nesting habitats for many tourist destinations, and the increase in the 24. EURU030Vaygach Island 64. ASRU082Wrangle Island bird species which, after breeding season, disperse number of visitors may further disturb the birds. 25 Khaipudyrskaya Bay, islands of over all continents including America, Australia Places with higher concentrations of birds of prey 26. EURU035B. Zelenets, Dolgi, Matveev 65. ASRU087Vankarem Lowland and Kolyuchin Bay Vashutkiny, Padimeyskie and Kharbeiskie and even Antarctica. Several migration paths are the focus of criminal interest on the part of 27. EURU029 66. ASRU091Ichoun and Uelen Lagoons extend along the coastal zone; as these routes individuals involved in the illegal trade of falcons lakes cross entire geographical regions «bottlenecks» and hawks. 28. WSRU000Dvuob'e 67. ASRU092Ratmanova Island are sometimes created at the points where Many Important Bird Areas do not have 29. WSRU000Lower Ob' 68. Mechigmen Bay (Guba) Basins of Schuchya and Khaytayakha populations and species meet. Marine shallows protected natural area status, and only half of the 30. 69. Mechigmen Bay and Getlyagen Lagoon provide safe habitats for large numbers of Arctic IBAs are protected by zapovedniks, rivers waterbirds which moult before migrating from the zakazniks, national and natural parks and natural 31. WSRU000Valley of Yorkutayakha River 70. ASRU090Khalyustkin Cape north and are unable to undertake long journeys at monuments. Among currently unprotected areas 32. WSRU000Lower Yuribey 71. ASRU089Senyavina Strait this stage of their lifecycle. Some seabird species are some very valuable sites which require the 33. WSRU000Upper and Middle Yuribey 72. ASRU088Sireniki Coast spend their entire lives in the Arctic, never leaving urgent establishment of a special protection 34. ASRU001Oleniy Island and Yuratskaya Bay (Guba) 73. ASRU086Meechkyn Spit and adjacent plain polar latitudes. They gather for wintering at the regime (Map 4.3). What these areas require 35. ASRU002Sibiryakova Island 74. ASRU083Kanchalan River Basin sea ice edge and in large polynyas which do not urgently is the development of action plans which 36. ASRU004Brekhovskie Islands 75. ASRU084Lower Anadyr Lowland freeze even during most severe winters. Finally, include strategies for the protection of key bird 37. ASRU005Pur River Basin 76. Beringovski seabird colonies should be mentioned as a symbol species along with targets for economic 38. ASRU006Pyasina Delta 77. Navarin Cape of Arctic wildlife. Seabird colonies occupy development and which factor in the needs of 39. ASRU003Izvestiy TSIK Islands 78. ASRU085Meynypylginsi and Kapylgin lakes suitable rocky shores, mostly on large and small local populations. Nordenshal'da Archipelago Arctic islands. 40. ASRU011(Nordenskjold Archipelago) 79. ASRU080Lebediny Refuge (Markovo Depression)

52 Map 4.3. Importnat bird areas in the maritime Russian Arctic

Important Bird Areas State border of the Russian Federation Scale 1 : 16,000,000 Boundary of the polar domains of the Russian Federation Important Bird Areas. Federal specially protected areas proposed for establishment on the base of Important Bird Areas

Marine and seadependent bird species protected by the Important Bird Areas in the Russian Arctic: Pelagic Cormorant (Phalacrocorax pelagcus), Shag (P. aristotelis), Barnacle Goose (Branta leucopsis), Brent Goose (Branta bernicla), Pintail (Anas acuta), Scaup (Aythya marila), Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), Longtailed Duck (Clangula hyemalis), King Eider (Somateria spectabilis), Common Eider (S. mollissima), Steller's Eider (Polysticta stelleri), Spectacled Eider (S. fischeri), Velvet Scoter (Melanitta nigra), Redbreasted Merganser (Mergus serrator), Whitetailed Eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla), Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), Gyr Falcon (Falco rusticolus), Ringed Plover (Charadrius hiaticula), Wood Sandpiper (Tringa glareola), Terek Sandpiper (Xenus cinereus), Ruff (Philomachus pugnax), Spoonbilled Sandpiper (Eurynorhynchus pygmeus), Temminck's Stint (Calidris temminсkii), Little Stint (С. minuta), Curlew Sandpiper (C. ferruginea), Purple Sandpiper (C. maritima), Dunlin (C. alpina), Rednecked Phalarope (Phalaropus lobatus), Arctic Skua (Stercorarius parasiticus), Longtailed Skua (Stercorarius longicaudus), Great Blackbacked Gull (Larus marinus), Lesser Blackbacked Gull (L. fuscus), Claucous Gull (Larus hyperboreus), Ivory Gull (Pagophila eburnea), Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla), Ross's Gull (Rhodostethia rosea), Arctic Tern (Sterna paradisaea), Little Auk (Alle alle), Rasorbill (Alca torda), Brunnich's Guillemot (Uria lomvia), Common Guillemot (U. aalge), Black Guillemot (Cepphus grylle), Crested Auklet (Aethia cristatella), Least Auklet (A. pusilla), Parakeet Auklet (A. psittacula), Atlantic Puffin (Fratercula arctica). Compiled by E.D. Krasnova Source: Data of the Russian Bird Conservation Union provided by T.V. Sviridova, S.A. Bukreev and E.D. Krasnova with consultations of Yu.V. Krasnov

53 Conclusions OUTLINES OF FUTURE MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING OF THE RUSSIAN ARCTIC

The place of Russia in the northern arena is also determined by its geographic dominance in the circumpolar space, which allows Russia to initiate global northern projects and makes it responsible for understanding the historical role of the North. A.V.Golovnev, “Anthropology of Movement”, 2009

In this Atlas we considered the components of marine biotopic and biological diversity which the authors view as most essential in the era of changing climate and increasing anthropogenic pressures. This first, and no doubt, incomplete review does not settle the matter of how to best assess and conserve marine and coastal biodiversity in the Arctic seas and the coastal zone. We hope that this work will serve as an intermediary step for the preparation of more comprehensive updates, reviews, atlases and interactive information resources dedicated to Arctic biological diversity. We believe that scientific and public discussions and a consultation process for the Arctic marine spatial planning proposal should already be underway. Our material makes its possible to give a preliminary outline of the future marine spatial planning. That proposal calls for the conservation of biological diversity, the protection of Fig. C1. Proposed initial scheme of marine spatial planning for the Russian Arctic seas and adjacent parts of the Arctic Basin 1, 2, 3 — the Arctic Basin zone; 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 20, 22, 24, 29 — marine living resources and the maintenance of zone of extensive natural protected areas; 10 — zone of commercial fishery managed on the ecosystem basis; 7, 11, 30 — White Sea, Chukotka waters — zone of multiple use; 8, 16, 17 — zone of intensive shipping along the Northern Sea Route; 18, 23, 25, 26 — zone of potentially intensive shipping; 14, 19, 21, 27, 28 — zone of scientific exploration and episodic use. marine ecosystem services to be priorities. For For explanations see text. convenience we use the scheme of physiographical regionalization presented in this Atlas (2.1). We do regarding sovereignty over the sea bed in the essential for the functioning of the marine Arctic eastern Barents Sea is the northernmost location for a not imagine that this scheme alone will be used in Lomonosov and Mendeleev ridges areas, this zone ecosystems. A prerequisite for this is the unique largescale interaction between the North Atlantic subsequent stages of the consultation process. has to remain the priority area for scientific research experience and logistical capabilities to perform the and the High Arctic biotas (see schemes of Depending on environmental conditions, and scientific and technical cooperation. The Arctic basic and applied investigations of the Arctic Basin biogeographical regionalization in 2.2). Regular characteristics of biological diversity, contributions to Basin is used (and no doubt will continue to be used) using the «Severnyi Polyus» drifting stations, as well biological and oceanographic studies in the longterm largescale ecosystem processes, the history of for strategic naval purposes, but an increase in as the ship and aircraftbased platforms which our research areas are highly relevant for understanding exploitation and the practice and potential of marine economic activities on a significant scale in the country has acquired. processes in the Arctic ecosystems under the resources usage, marine zones and provinces can be following decades is difficult to imagine, even in a Provinces 4, 5, 6, 13, 20, 22, 24, 29, and partly 12 influence of global climate change. These are areas of grouped in several functional zones (Map 2.1 and rapid warming scenario (apart from a limited (Fig. C1) have to be considered as a zone of extensive high biological diversity associated with flaw polynyas Fig. C1). development of extreme and cruise tourism on the protected natural areas with a priority usage for and the marginal ice zone (3.4 – 3.5); due to The deepwater zone of the Arctic Basin comprises «top of the planet»). As part of the country’s scientific research and monitoring as well as regulated a combination of favorable conditions, the the provinces West Polar Arctic (1), East Polar application to extend its sovereignty over the sea bed polar tourism. Let us discuss in details the archipelago’s coasts are home to numerous sea bird Arctic (2) and the province of continental slope (3). of the Arctic underwater ridges and their bases, characteristics of this zone using the northeastern breeding colonies (3.3, 3.5), haulouts of pinnipeds For the most part this zone does not belong to the Russia has to outline special commitments for Barents Sea — the provinces of the Franz Josef and denning grounds of polar bears. Two federal continental shelf (this notion is used here in the environmental protection in the Arctic Basin and Land (4), of the Northern Novaya Zemlya (5), and SPNAs are located there: the Franz Josef Land juridical sense) of the Russian Federation. Regardless pledge to carry out regular work aimed at monitoring the Northern Barents Sea province (6) as an example. zakaznik, which occupies practically the entire area of of the decision by the UN Commission on the Limits the marine environment in the deep sea areas, and The coastal waters of the Novaya Zemlya archipelago province 4, and the Russian Arctic national park, of Continental Shelf on Russia’s application for identification of sea bed biotopes which are are also partly associated with this area. The north which covers most of province 5 (1.2). Multiaspect

54 resources is lacking, while the expenses for mammals show high sensitivity and clear responses to of the Kola Peninsula and the entire White Sea, reconnaissance and development are exceedingly changing climatic and sea ice conditions [Stishov, which have been used by humans for a century, high. When the very high environmental risks 2004]. As the observation of such responses becomes should receive the status of multiple use zones. The endemic to oil and gas projects in the highest critically important in the changing Arctic, regular Barents Sea coast of the Kola Peninsula and the latitudes are taken into account, the feasibility of monitoring and research to understand these adjacent coastal waters, e.g. the Norwegian such projects becomes very unclear. processes are sorely lacking in the zapovednik. Murmansk (11) and the Kola (7) provinces (an area The provinces of Kara – Severnaya Zemlya (13) The Chukchi Sea shelf may contain (although it is historically known as Murman), are one of the most and Laptev – Severnaya Zemlya (20) include unique not yet confirmed) hydrocarbon resources, which is heavily utilised areas of the Russian Arctic. insular habitats where the ivory gull (Pagophila why the oil and gas sector closely monitors the area. Murmansk, the largest port and transport node of the eburnea) breeds and forages during its autumn Recent reports have been published forecasting a High North, is located there, and military bases migration. The ivory gull is an important symbol of significant increase in the fishery potential of the neighbor coastal fishery and developing aquaculture the Russian Arctic. In the Kara and the Laptev Sea a Chukchi Sea due to rising temperatures [Cheung parcels. Vessel traffic is increasing, and shipping of healthy population of this highlyendangered Arctic et al., 2009]. However, without large scale hydrocarbons along the coast occurs on an species (3.5) exists, while in many other parts of its oceanographic and biological research, all such unprecedented scale. It is expected that these coastal distribution ranges ivory gull populations are conclusions regarding the potential resources of the provinces may become be the scene of events deeply declining [Gavrilo et al., 2007, 2008; Gilchrist et al., Chukchi Sea shelf can not be considered as a basis for impacting the ecosystem. These will be related to 2008]. One can expect that the Severnaya Zemlya plans of future marine use and spatial planning. As a climate change, Atlantic species moving to higher area will retain the highlatitude appearance of World Heritage site and a potential core area of a latitudes and increasing anthropogenic pressure. Due marine and coastal ecosystems — even if the scenario large scale biosphere reserve, the Wrangel Island state to the increase in shipping, the introduction of alien of rapid warming in the Arctic comes to pass [ACIA, zapovednik will have a prominent place in this species is now likely. These invaders will join the 2005]. Thus the protection and monitoring of the program. The Central Barents Sea Province (10) is Kamchatka crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus), biological diversity of this archipelago area are one of the fishery regions of global importance. In the which was intentionally introduced in the south Ukromnaya Inlet, Novaya Zemlya, Kara Sea 39 becoming extremely important for both basic science future it is viewed as a zone of commercial fishery western Barents Sea in the 1960s and now has environmental monitoring (on the basis of the and global conservation. A small part of the managed on the ecosystem basis within the system of abundant and fullyestablished populations. From a Roshydromet network), atmospheric, oceanographic, Severnaya Zemlya Archipelago belongs to the fishery refuge zones. The Shtokman gascondensate biodiversity standpoint (2.2, 3.3, 3.4), the coastal sea ice, ecological and biodiversity studies (on the Severozemelskiy zakaznik, which needs to be field is also located in this area, and should be zone of the Kola Peninsula is one of the most longterm research areas associated with SPNAs) and extended both on land and offshore. The East exploited in these first decades of the 21 st century important areas in the Russian Arctic. Several SPNA management should become the principal Taymyr Province is adjacent to it, and the fast ice and with the most stringent measures to ensure specially protected natural areas are located on activities in the northeastern Barents Sea. Victoria flaw polynyas biotopes of the region are extremely environmental safety. The coastal waters and coasts the Murman coast: parcels of the Kandalakshskiy Island and the adjacent marine areas need to acquire important for maintaining the biological diversity of protection status as well. Ecotourism and the Laptev Sea (3.6). A parcel of the Taymyr Coast of the Gulf of Ob (Obskaya Guba) 40 educational tourism (mostly shipbased) are expected Biosphere Zapovednik with a small marine buffer to become a developing economic activity. A unified zone is located on the eastern coast of the Taymyr tourism management plan for the Northern Barents Penninsula. This marine zone must be expanded, at Sea should be developed using the Russian Arctic least up to the offshore border of polynyas, and national park and the Franz Josef Land Zakaznik as regular research there must be undertaken. the basis (Map 4.1). This plan must apply the best The New Siberian Islands area (province 24) is no world practices, in particular the practice of tourism less valuable in terms of landscape and biological regulation in the Antarctic Treaty area. Current diversity (2.2; 3.6) than the insular areas discussed climatic changes and the general tendency for the above. Additionally the New Siberian Islands are growth of the Barents Sea commercial fish stocks known for their paleontological and archaeological [Arneberg et al., 2009] may shift the zone of intensive sites and monuments of the heroic era of Arctic industrial fishery to the shelf of the Northern Barents explorations. We expect the Islands to soon become a Sea province. The realization of such a scenario in a focus area for polar tour operators. This is why a plan region of such high conservation value may cause far for a national park on the islands with an extensive reaching and unpredictable consequences. Thus a marine zone would be very timely. The national park moratorium for commercial fishery can be considered regime should be well planned to support and an appropriate interim measure until reliable regulate tourism, development and scientific scientific data on the impacts of fishery on research on the New Siberian Islands. fishdependent ecosystem components are obtained. The last area included in the zone of extensive Geologists believe that the Northern Barents Sea natural protected areas is the Southern Chukchi shelf has potential for hydrocarbon development. Province with the coastal ecosystems of the Wrangel However, a robust evaluation of these hydrocarbon Island Zapovednik. There sea birds and marine

55 Zapovednik, Lake Mogilnoe, the federal nature of the Polar Circle (2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.4). The White Sea areas of high biodiversity and monument, some regional coastal protected areas is the cradle of Russia’s marine economy and culture, ecological importance, maritime (see maps 4.1, 4.2), and the establishment of more but today communities of Pomor, the historical marsh biotopes are inadequately SPNAs has been proposed. The coastal zone in this Russian settlers of the White Sea coast, have seen their protected as natural areas (3.9). The area requires more detailed spatial plans, which can local economies, rural coastal society and culture — mouth systems of the largest rivers harmonize multiple uses of marine space and all largely dependent on marine resources — nearly (Pechora, Ob’, and Yenisei) support resources, balance environmental and economical wiped out [Plyusnin, 2004]. Their revival will not be the principal stocks of anadromous priorities and provide information on the adaptability possible without a detailed plan integrating marine and semianadromous fishes of the of the coastal socioecological systems to possible ecosystems and resources management, similar to Russian Arctic (3.11). It is expected climate changes. those which our Norwegian neighbors are developing that special measures will be We refer here to the White Sea as belonging to the for their marine waters and coasts [Report of the developed to protect biodiversity and multiple use zone, which probably merits even more Government to the Storting, 2006]. traditional uses of natural resources detailed spatial planning than the Barents coast of the Another group of provinces is located along the in this zone. These measures will Kola Peninsula. Here port zones are located, both Northern Sea Route, the vigorous development of incorporate the network of marine developing (e.g. Arkhangelsk, Kandalaksha) and which is very much hoped for in today’s Russia and coastal SPNAs, fishery refuge stagnating (e.g. Belomorsk); there are coastal fishery [Problems of the Northern Sea Route, 2006]. The zones, territories of traditional use, grounds, which have centurieslong history, and KaninPechora Province in the southwestern oil spill contingency plans, and zones of developing marine and coastal tourism Barents Sea, and the Baidara and Ob’–Yenisei regulations designed to minimize the (Solovetskie Islands, Karelskiy Coast and some other provinces in the Kara Sea (8, 16, 17) constitute the negative impact of shipping on biota parts of the coast). Tourism is actively developing but zone of intensive shipping along the western segment associated with flaw polynyas and 42 must be regulated with regard to its impact on the of the Northern Sea Route, and the reconnaissance landfast ice. Fishermen's base, Chukotka environment and cultural heritage. and extraction of hydrocarbons (in the Pechora Sea Other provinces (18, 22, 23, 25, 26) are located in of the traditional use of natural resources, the study The ecosystems of the White Sea are tightly and the Yamal area). Vessels are using and will a zone of potentially intensive shipping along the and monitoring of biological diversity, the securing of connected to Arctic ecosystems, and the area may be continue to use flaw polynyas, which play a pivotal eastern segment of the Northern Sea Route the environmental safety of shipping traffic along the viewed as a unique natural laboratory in which Arctic role in maintaining biological diversity and [Problems of the Northern Sea Route, 2006]. Special Northern Sea Route, and the development of biota and environmental conditions are found south ecosystem functions (3.4–3.5). Though they are measures to prevent/minimize the negative impact of ecotourism, educational tourism, and ethno shipping on marine biota associated with flaw tourism. These aims may be achieved by developing Mengirs — monuments of ancient maritime culture, White Sea 41 polynyas and fast ice should be developed and the Beringia national park along with the network of applied in these zones. In spite of a relatively high regional SPNAs and zones of marine mammal number of protected natural areas on the coasts and protection. We also emphasize the need to protect the in coastal waters, including three federal most important flaw polynyas of Chukotka. (zapovedniks – Great Arctic, Taymyrskiy, and Ust’ Shortsighted attitudes woefully undervalue the Lenskiy), and several regional ones, particular seas and coasts of the Russian Arctic — their valuable biotopes lack necessary protection. It is biological diversity, importance in the ecosystem, recommended, therefore, to design and implement traditional use of natural resources, and historical new SPNAs, particularly in maritime marsh biotopes and cultural importance. But when deciding policies and river mouth areas. and making priorities, we would do well to heed the Provinces 14, 19, 21, and 27 are in a zone which is words of Kirill, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. currently used only intermittently for shipping along In August 2010 the Patriarch visited the Svyato the North Sea Route. The resources and biological Preobrazhenskiy Solovetsky Monastery on the White diversity of these provinces require further Sea, a site with a distinguished role in the spiritual, investigation, as do possible scenarios of environment cultural, and political history of Russia; in the realm and ecosystem modifications due to climate change. of natural history, the monastery developed an Finally, the coastal waters of Chukotka should be exemplary system of a selfsufficient marine considered a very special zone of multiple use, which economy and supported the foundation of the first only in some respects is similar to multiple use zones marine biological station in the Russian North off the Kola Peninsula coast and in the White Sea. (1881). While there, the Patriarch said, «It is the Many deposits of mineral resources have been North that in many respects represents the future of discovered on the Chukotka coast [Problems of civilization; here are those treasures that are yet Northern Sea Route, 2006], and plans for the unused and that potential which is yet unspoiled by development of these deposits are equally abundant. Man’s sin». This is the potential of the human spirit Even in cases in which these plans are successfully and the promise of the Arctic — and we all are actualized, priority should be given to the protection responsible for that.

56 References

Abramov V.A., Zubakin V.G. 1994. Ice conditions in Antipova T.V., Semenov V.N. 1989. Benthos of the researches conducted in 1995–1998). Moscow: Brude, O.W., Moe, K.A., Bakken, V., Hansson, R., straits // In: Habitats and ecosystems of Franz Josef Kara Sea. Composition and distribution of benthos in Marine Mammals Council. — Pp. 21–50. (In Russian). Larsen, L.H., Løvеs, S.M., Thomassen, J., Wiig, Ø. Land (archipelago and shelf). Apatity: RAS Kola Sci. southwest areas of the Kara Sea typical seawaters. (eds). 1998. Northern Sea Route Dynamic Berger, V.Ya. 2001. Fishes // In: V.Ya. Berger, Center publ. — Pp. 38–43. (In Russian). Benthos biocenoses of southwest areas of the Kara Environmental Atlas. Norsk Polarinstitut Meddelelser, S.Dahle (eds). White Sea. Ecology and Environment. Sea // In: Ecology and biological resources of the 147: 1–58. Abramova E., Tuschling, K. 2005. A 12year study of St.Petersburg — Tromsø: Derzhavets Publishers. — Kara Sea. Apatity: USSR Academy of Sciences Kola the seasonal and interannual dynamics of Pp. 56–76 Bukreev S.A., Sviridova T.V. (eds). Important Bird mesozooplankton in the Laptev Sea: significance of Sci. Center Publishing.cPp. 127–145. (In Russian). Areas in Russia. Volume 2. Important Bird Areas in Bernshtam T.A. 1978. Pomors: formation of group salinity regime and life cycle patterns // Global and Arneberg P., Korneev O., Titov O., Stiansen J.E. (eds), West Siberia. 2006. Moscow: Russian Bird Planetary Change, 48 (1): 141–164. Filin A., Hansen J.R., Høines Е., Marasaev S. (coeds). and system of management. Leningrad: Nauka. — Conservation Union. — 334 p. (In Russian). 169 p. (In Russian). Abramova Ye.N. 1996. To the study of zooplankton of 2009. Joint NorwegianRussian environmental status Burdin A.M., Filatova O.A., Hoit E. 2009. Marine Novosibirsk shallow waters of the Laptev Sea // 2008 Report on the Barents Sea Ecosystem. Part I — Bianki V.V. 1967. Waders, gulls and guillemots of mammals of Russia. Guidebook. Kirov: Kirov Regional Marine Biology, 22 (2): 8993. (In Russian). Short version. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series, 2009(2). Kandalaksha Bay // In: Proceedings of Kandalaksha Printing House. — 206 p. (In Russian). Bergen: Institute of Marine Research — 22 p. Nature Reserve. Issue 6. Murmansk. Pp. 1–364. (In ACIA, 2005. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Burkovsky I.V. 2006. Marine biogeocenology. Russian). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. — 1042 p. Artyukhin Yu.B., Burkanov V.N. 1999. Marine Organization of communities and ecosystems. birds and mammals of the Far East. Moscow: AST. — Bianki V.V. 1991. 1991. Birds // In: Atlas Moscow: KMK Partnership Publishers. — 286 p. (In Alekseev G.V. (ed.). 2004. Formation and dynamics of 224 p. (In Russian). Russian). contemporary Arctic climate. St. Petersburg: AARI. — “Oceanographic conditions and biological 266 p. (In Russian). Arutyunov S.L., Krupnik I.I., Chlenov M.A. 1982. productivity of the White Sea”. Murmansk: PINRO Chapman V.I. 1960. Salt marshes and salt deserts of “Whale Alley” (Antics of islands in Selyavin’s Strait). Publishers. — Pp. 191–201. (In Russian). the world. N.Y. — 392 p. Alekseev G.V., Pnyushkov A.V., Ivanov N.Ye., Moscow: Nauka. — 175 p. (In Russian). Ashik I.M., Sokolov V.T., Golovin P.N., Bogorodsky Bianki V.V. 1993. Birds of the White Sea Chapsky K. 1941. Marine mammals of Soviet Arctica. P.V. 2009. Integrated estimation of climate changes in Atlas “Oceanographic conditions and biological (Contemporary state, seasonal distribution and Leningrad, Moscow: Glavsevmorput’ Publ. — 187 p. the marine Arctic with using of International Polar Year productivity of the White Sea”. 1991. Murmansk: biology). Scientific report of the Dissertation for the (In Russian). 2007/08 data // Problems of the Arctic and Antarctic, PINRO Publishers. — 115 p. (In Russian). Degree of Doctor of the Biology. St. Petersburg: Chernov Yu.I. 1984. Flora and fauna, vegetation and 81 (1): 7–14. (In Russian). Zoological Institute of RAS. — 49 p. (In Russian). Bakken V. (ed.). 2000. Seabird colony databases of animal population // Zhurnal obschei biologii, 45 (6): Andriashev A.P., Chernova N.V. 1994. Annotated list the Barents Sea region and the Kara Sea // Norsk Bogdanov I.P. 1990. Mollusks of subfamily 732–748. (In Russian). of lampreys and fishes of the Arctic seas and Polarinstitut Rapportserie, 115: 1–78. Oenopotinae (Gastropoda, Pectinibranchia, Turridae) Cheung W.W.L., Lam V.W.Y., Sarmiento J. L., neighboring waters // Voprosy ikhtiologii, 34 (4): of seas of the USSR // Fauna of USSR. Mollusks. V. 5, Balmford, A., Gravestock, P., Hockley, N., et al. Kearney K., Watson R., Zeller D., Pauly D. 2010. 435–456. (In Russian). issue 3. Leningrad: Nauka. — 223 p. (In Russian). 2000. The worldwide costs of marine protected areas, Largescale redistribution of maximum fisheries catch Andriashev A.P., Mukhomediyarov B.F., Pavshtix PNAS, 101 (26): 9694–9697. Bogoslovskaya L., Slugin I., Zagrebin I., Krupnik I. potential in the global ocean under climate change // Ye.A. 1980. On mass aggregations of coldwater Global Change Biology, 16: 24–35. Bambulyak A., Frantzen B. 2009. Oil transport from 2007. Basis of marine mammal hunting. Moscow: pelagic cod fishes in circumpolar Arctic areas // In: the Russian part of the Barents Region. Status per Heritage Institute. — 479 p. (In Russian). Climate Doctrine of the Russian Federation. 2009. Biology of the Central Arctic Basin. Moscow: Nauka. Order of the President of RF from 17.12.2009 — Pp. 196–211. (In Russian). January 2009. The Norwegian Barents Secretariat Bogoslovskaya L., Votrogov L., Krupnik I. 1982. and AkvaplanNiva. — 97 p. The bowhead whale off Chukotka: migrations and No 861rp “On Climate Doctrine of the Russian Andriashev A.P., Shaposhnikova G.Kh. 11985. Federation”. http://www.kremlin.ru/news/6365. (In Belikov S. E. & Boltunov A. N. 2002. Distribution and aboriginal whaling // Reports of the International Marine and freshwater ichthyofauna and Whaling Commission, 32: 391–399 Russian). zoogeographical regionalization (section 25) // In: migrations of cetaceans in the Russian Arctic Decker M.B., Gavrilo M., Mehlum F., Bakken V. Arctic Atlas. Moscow: Main Office of Geodesy and according to observations from aerial ice Borkin I.V. 1995. Ichthyofauna. Arctic cod // In: 1998. Distribution and abundance of birds and marine Cartography under USSR Council of Ministers. — reconnaissance // In: M. P. Heide Jørgensen & Ø. Wiig Habitats and ecosystems of Novaya Zemlya mammals in the Eastern Barents Sea and the Kara 133 p. (In Russian). (eds) Belugas in the North Atlantic and the Russian (archipelago and shelf). Apatity: RAS Kola Sci. Center Sea, late summer 1995 // Norsk Polarinstitut Arctic. Tromsø: The North Atlantic Marine Mammal Publ. – Pp. 121132. (In Russian). Anisimov O.A., Vaughan D.G., Callaghan T.V., Commission. — Pp. 69–86. Meddeleser, 155: 183. Furgal C. Marchant H., Prowse T.D., Vilhjalsson H.H. Bouchard C., Fourtier. 2008. Effects of polynyas on Deming, J., Fortier, L., Fukuchi, M. 2002. The & Walsh J.E. 2007. Polar regions (Arctic and Belikov S., Boltunov A., Belikova T., Belevich T., the hatching season, early growth and survival of international North Water polynya study (NOW): a Antarctic) // In: M.L.Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Gorbunov Yu. 1998. Marine mammals //The polar cod Boreogadus saida in the Laptev Sea. Marine brief overview // DeepSea Research II, 49: Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, C.E.Hanson (eds). distribution of marine mammals in the Northern Sea Ecology Progress Series, 355: 247–256. 4887–4892. Climate Change 2007: impacts, adaptation and Route area // INSROP Working Paper No 118–1998. vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Oslo: The Fridtjof Nansen Institute. — 49 p. Breslina I.P. 1987. Plants and waterfowl of marine Denisenko S.G. 2008. Macrozoobenthos of the islands of Kola Subarctic. Leningrad: Nauka. – 200 p. Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Belikov S.Ye., Boltunov A.N., Gorbunov Yu.A. Barents Sea in conditions of climate change (In Russian). Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge 2002. Seasonal distribution and migrations of whales and anthropogenic impact. Doctor of Science University Press. — Pp. 653–685. of the Russian Arctic based on results of longterm Brown R.G.B, Nettleship D.N. 1981. The biological Dissertation. St. Petersburg: Zoological Institute of RAS. — 520 p. (In Russian). Anisimova N.A., Lyubin P.A., Menis D.T. 2008. observations by aerial ice reconnaissance and drifting significance of polynyas to Arctic colonial sea birds // Benthos // In: B.V. Prishepa (ed). Ecosystem of the stations “North Pole” // In: A.A. Aristov, V.M. In : I. Stirling, H. Cleator (eds). Polynyas in the Denisenko S.G., Denisenko N.V., Lehtonen K.K., Kara Sea. Murmansk: PINRO publishers. — Pp. Belkovich, V.A. Zemskoy, V.A. Vladimirov and I.V. Canadian Arctic. Canadian Wildlife Service Andersin AB., Laine A.O. 2003. Macrozoobenthos of 43–105. (In Russian). Smelova (eds). Marine mammals (Results of Occasional Papers, # 45. Ottawa. — Pp.59–65. the Pechora Sea (SE Barents Sea): community

57 structure and spatial distribution in relation to Frolov I.Ye., Gudkovich Z.M., Karklin V.P., Willem Barents Memorial Symposium. Moscow. — Gudkovich Z.M., Kirillov A.A., Kovalev Ye.G., environmental conditions // Marine Ecology Progress Kovalev Ye.G., Smolyanitsky V.M. 2007. Climate Pp. 87–88. Smetannikova A.V., Spichkin V.A. 1972. Basis for Series, 258: 109–123. changes of ice cover of seas of Eurasian shelf. longterm ice predictions for the Arctic seas. Gavrilo M.V., Strøm H., Volkov A.Ye. 2007. Status of Scientific research in the Arctic. V. 2. St. Petersburg: Leningard: Gydrometeoizdat. — 348 p. (In Russian). Denisenko S.G., Titov O.V. 2003. Distribution of Ivory Gull population at Spitsbergen and islands of AARI. — 136 p. (In Russian). zoobenthos and primary plankton production in the West Arctic: first results of joined RussianNorwegian Gukov A.Yu. 1999. Ecosystems of the Siberian polynya. Barents Sea // Okeanologia, 43 (1): 78–88. (In Frolov S.V., Fedyakov V.Ye., Tretiakov V.Yu, researches // In: Comprehensive study of Moscow: Nauchnyi Mir. — 344 p. (In Russian). Russian). Klein A.E., Alekseev G.V. 2009. New data on changes Spitsbergen nature. Issue 7. Apatity: RAS Kola Sci. Gurjanova Ye.F. 1948. White Sea and its fauna. in ice thickness in the Arctic Basin // Doklady RAN, Center Publ. — Pp. 220–234. (In Russian). Derjugin K.M. 1928. Fauna of the White Sea and Petrozavodsk: Gosizdat KASSR. — 132 p. (In Russian). conditions of its existence. Explorations of the seas of 425 (1): 104–108. (In Russian). Gavrilo M.V., Tretyakov V.Yu. 2008. Observation of Gurjanova Ye.F. 1951. Amphipoda of the seas of USSR, issue 781511 p (in Russian) Frolova Ye.A. 2009. Fauna and ecology of polychaets polar whales (Balaena mysticetus) in the East Siberian USSR and adjacent waters // In: Guidebooks on Dilman A.B. 2009. Biogeography of sea stars of the (Polychaeta) of the Kara Sea. Apatity: RAS Kola Sea in the season of 2007 with abnormally low ice USSR’s fauna published by Zoological Institute of AS North Atlantic and Arctic. Thesis of Candidate Scientific Center Publ. — 141 p. (In Russian). cover // In: Marine mammals of Holarctic. Materials of of USSR, issue 41. Leningrad: Nauka. — 1033 p. (In 5th International conference. Odessa. — Pp. Dissertation of Biological Sciences. Moscow: Institute Fundamentals of the State Policy in the Arctic for the Russian) of Oceanology of RAS. — 24 p. (In Russian). 191–194. (In Russian). Period Before 2020 and a Longer Perspective. 2008. Gurjanova Ye.F. 1970. Peculiarities of the Arctic Dinnesman L.G., Kiseleva N.K., Savinetsky A.B., Endorsed by the President of the RF 18.09.2008, Gavrilo M., M.Ekker, H.Strøm, D.Vongraven. 2000 Ocean fauna and their importance for understanding Khasanov B.F. 1996. Ageold dynamics of coastal (Order 1969). Published in “Rossiiskaya Gazeta” on The Pechora Sea region — a unique pristine of formation history // In: Arctic Ocean and its coast in ecosystems of northeast Chukotka. Moscow. — 30.03.2009. http://www.rg.ru/2009/03/30/arktika environment at risk of oil and gas development // 5th Cainozoe. Leningrad: Gidrometeoizdat. — Pp. 189 p. (In Russian). osnovydok.html. (In Russian). International Conference “Health, safety, 126–161. (In Russian). environment in oil and gas exploration and Gavrilo M. 2007. Russian ice refuge for ivory gulls // Dudley, N., S. Stolton, A. Belokurov, L. Krueger, N. production”, SPE publication # 61498. Ilyash L.V., Zhitina L.S. 2009. Comparative analysis Lopoukhine, K. MacKinnon, T. Sandwith and N. WWF Arctic Bulletin. 2007, issue 2: 15–16. of type composition of marine ices in the Russian Geomorphological regionalization of the USSR Sekhran (editors). 2010. Natural Solutions: Protected Gavrilo M. 2009 Broadscale distribution patterns of Arctic // Zhurnal obschei biologii, 70 (2): 143–154. (In and adjacent seas. 1980. Textbook for high school areas helping people cope with climate change. seabirds and marine mammals in the Russian Arctic Russian). Gland, Switzerland, Washington DC and New York: geography specializations. Moscow: Vysshaya seas under extremelow ice cover conditions of the Ionin A.S., Medvedev V.S., Pavlidis Yu.A. 1987. IUCN/ WCPA, TNC, UNDP, WCS, The World Bank and Shkola. — 343 p. (In Russian). summer seasons 2007–2008 // Arctic Frontiers — Shelf: relief, sediments and their formation. Moscow: WWF. — 130 p. 2009. Abstracts. Arctic marine ecosystems in an era Gilchrist G., Strøm H., Gavrilo M., Mosbech A. Mysl’. — 205 p. (In Russian). Ehler C., Douvere F. 2009. Marine Spatial Planning. A of rapid climate change Arctic Ocean Governance. International Ivory Gull conservation strategy and Ivanov A.N. 2003. Problems of marine reserves step by step approach towards ecosystem based Tromsø. — Pp. 128. action plan. CAFFs Circumpolar Seabird Group. CAFF establishing in Russia // Vestnik Moskovskogo management. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Technical report No 18. September 2008. — 20 p. Gavrilo M. 2010 Increasing importance of the Siberian universiteta, Series Geography, 4: 22–27. (In Russian). Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme. shelf seas for polar marine top predators under Golikov A.N., Gagaev S.Yu., Galtsova V.V. et al. IOC Manual and Guides No. 53, ICAM Dossier No. 6. conditions of the modern warming Arctic // Abstracts 1994. Ecosystems, flora and fauna of Chaunskaya Jirkov I.A. 2001. Polychaets of the Arctic Ocean. Paris: UNESCO. — 92 p. of the International Polar Year Science Conference. Bay of the East Siberian Sea // Explorations of the Moscow: YanusK. — 631 p. (In Russian). Elven R. 2007. Panarctic Flora — Checklist of the Oslo. fauna of the seas, Vol. 47 (55), St. Petersburg: Johannessen, O., Alexandrov, V.Yu., Frolov I.E., Zoological Institute of RAS. — Pp. 4–111. (In Russian). Panarctic Flora (PAF), Vascular plants, Available at: Gavrilo M. Seabird colonies. 1998. In: O.W. Brude et al Sandven, S., Petersson, L.H., Bobylev, L.P., Kloster, http://www.binran.ru/infsys/paflist/index.htm. (eds), Northern Sea Route Dynamic Environmental Golovnev A.V. 2009. Anthropology of Movement. K., Smirnov, V.G., Mironov, Ye.U., Babich, N.G. 2007. Remote sensing of the sea ice in the Northern Sea Evaluation report on climate change and its Atlas. INSROP Working Paper No 99–1998, II–4–10, Yekaterinburg: Institute of History and Archeology, Route. Studies and applications. Chichester: Praxis consequences in Russian Federation. 2008. Oslo: The Fridtjof Nansen Institute. — Pp. 30–31. Ural Branch of RAS. — 495 p. (In Russian). Publishing. — 467 p. Roshydromet, V. 1 Climate change, V.2 Consequences Gavrilo M., Bakken V. 2000. The Kara Sea // In: Gorbunov Yu.A., Belikov S.Ye.1990. Results of from climate changes. http://climate2008.igce.ru. V.Bakken (Ed.) Seabird colony databases of the longterm observations of the Laptev Walrus // In: Kalenchenko M.M. 2009. Legal protection of sea (In Russian). Barents Sea region and the Kara Sea. Norsk Marine mammals. Abstracts of X AllUnion environment. Moscow: Gorodets publishers. — 208 p. (In Russian). Filatova Z.A. 1957. Zoogeographical regionalization Polarinstitutt Rapportserie. Tromso: Norsk conference on marine mammals study, protection of northern seas based on bivalves distribution // Polarinstitutt, N 115. P. 53–78. and rational use. Moscow. — Pp. 79–80. (In Russian). Kantor Yu.I., Rusyaev S.M., Antokhina T.I. 2008. Proceedings of Institute of Oceanology, USSR Gavrilo M., Bakken V., Isaksen K. (Eds.) 1998. The Grant, S., Constable, A., Raymond, B. and Doust, S. Going eastward – climate changes evident from Academy of Sciences, 23: 195–215. (In Russian). distribution, population status and ecology of marine 2006. Bioreginalisation of the Southern Ocean: Report gastropod distribution in the Barents Sea // Ruthenica, 18 (2): 51–54. Fokin S.I., Smirnov A.V., Lajus Yu.A. 2006. Marine birds selected as valued ecosystem components in of Experts Workshop, Hobart, September 2006. WWF biological stations in Russian North (1881–1938). the Northern Sea Route Area. INSROP Working Paper Australia and ACE CRC. — 50p. Kaplin P.A., Leontiev O.K., Lukianova S.A., Moscow: KMK Scientific Partnership Publishers. — No. 123, II.4.2. Oslo: The Fridtjof Nansen Institute. — Nikiforov L.G. 1991. Sea shores. Moscow: Mysl’. — Grigoriev M.N., Kunitsky V.V. 2000. Ice complex of 129 p. (In Russian). 136 p. +Appendix. 479 p. (In Russian). the Yakut Arctic coast as a source of sediments on the Frolov I.E., Gudkovich Z.M., Karklin V.P., Gavrilo M., Decker M.B., Mehlum F., Bakken V. shelf // In: Hydrometeorological and biogeochemical Karamushko O.V. 2007. Species composition and Kovalev E.G., Smolyanitsky V.M. 2009. Climate 1998. Bird distribution in marine habitats in the researches in the Arctic: Proceedings of the Arctic structure of ichthyofauna of the Barents Sea // In: Change in Eurasian Arctic Shelf Seas. Chichester: Pechora Sea during icefree period. — Conserving Regional Center. V. 2. — Part 1. Vladivostok: FarEast G.G. Matishov (ed). Contemporary study of Praxis Publishing. — 164 p. our common heritage of the Arctic. Abstracts of the Branch of RAS, 2000. — Pp. 109–116. (In Russian). ichthyofauna of the Arctic and south seas of European

58 part of Russia Apatity: RAS Kola Sci. Center Publ. — summer of 2003 // Ornithologia. Issue 33. Moscow: Kupetsky V.N. 1961. About marine landscapes of the Lyubina O.S., Sayapin V.V. 2008. Amphipoda Pp. 33–74. (In Russian). MSU publishers. — Pp. 125–137. (In Russian). Arctic // Proceedings of AllUnion Geographical Gammaridea from different geographical areas. Society, 93 (4): 304311. (In Russian). Apatity: RAS Kola Sci. Center Publ. — 181 p. (In Karamushko O.V. 2010. Biodiversity and structure of Krasnov Yu.V., Goryaev Yu.I., Shavykin A.A., Russian). fishes in the Russian Arctic sea communities // In: Nikolaeva N.G., Gavrilo M.V., Chernook V.I. 2002. Kussakin O.G. 1979. Marine brackish water Nature of Arctic seas: contemporary challenges and Atlas of birds of the Pechora Sea: distribution, crustaceous Isopoda of cold and temperate waters of Makarevich P.R. 2007. Plankton algae cenoses in role of science. Abstracts of International scientific number, dynamic, conservation problems. Apatity: North Hemisphere // Guidebooks on fauna USSR estuarine ecosystems. Moscow: Nauka. — 223 p. (In conference, Murmansk, 10–12 March 2010. Apatity: RAS Kola Sci. Center Publ. — 164 p. (In Russian). published by USSR AS Zoological Institute, issue 122. Russian). — 472 p. (In Russian). RAS Kola Sci. Center Publ. — Pp. 99–101. (In Krasnov Yu.V., Goryaev Yu.I., Yezhov A.V. 2007. Markova A.K. 2008. Dynamics of mammal ranges and Russian). Ornithological researches: important areas and Larsen T., Nagoda D., Andersen J.R. (eds). 2003. A their complexes in transition period from Pleistocene Katzov V.M., Alekseev G.V., Pavlova T.V., places of seabird concentrations at the Barents and biodiversity assessment of the Barents Sea Ecoregion. to Early Holocene (<= 24,000 — >=8,000 years ago) Sporyshev P.V., Bekryaev P.V., Govorkova V.A. 2007. Kara seas water areas (along the Northern Sea Route) Contribution of the St. Petersburg Biodiversity // In: A.K. Markova and T. van Kolfshoten (eds). Modeling of the World’s Oceans ice cover evolution in // In: G.G. Matishov (ed). Biology and oceanography workshop 12–13 May 2001 participants. Oslo: WWF Evolution of European ecosystems in transition period the ages // Izvestiya (Proceedings) of RAS. Physics of of the Northern Sea Route: the Barents and Kara Barents Sea Ecoregion Programme. — 151 p. from Pleistocene to Early Holocene (24,000 — 8,000 years ago). Moscow, KMK Partnership Publishing. — atmosphere and ocean, 43 (2): 165–181. (In Russian). seas. Moscow: Nauka. — Pp. 124–129. (In Russian). Lavrenko Ye.M., Isachenko T.I. 1976. Zonal and Pp. 299–312. (In Russian). provincial botanical and geographical division of Khlebovich V.V. 2007. Kartesh and around. Moscow: Krasnov Yu.V., Matishov G.G., Galaktionov K.V., European part of USSR // Proceedings of AllUnion Matishov G., Makarevich P., Timofeev C., Kuznetsov WWF Russia. — 72 p. (In Russian). Savinova T.N. 1995. Colonial seabirds of Murman. St. Petersburg: Nauka. — 226 p. (In Russian). Geographical Society, 108 (6): 469–483. (In Russian). L., Druzhkov N., Larionov V., Golubev V., Zuev A., Klumov S.K. 1937. Arctic cod and its significance for Adrov N., Denisov V., Il’in G., Kuznetsov A., Denisenko Leontiev O.K., Nikiforov L.G., Safianov G.A. 1975. some living processes in the Arctic. Proceedings of Krasnov Yu.V., Strom H., Gavrilo M.V., Shavykin A.A. S., Savinov V., Shavykin A., Smolyar I., Levitus S., Geomorphology of sea shores. Moscow: MSU the USSR Academy of Sciences, Series Biology 1: 2004. Wintering of seabirds in polynyas near the O’Bryan T., Baranova O. 2000. Biological Atlas: publishers. — 336 p. (In Russian). 175–195. (In Russian). Terskiy Coast of the White Sea and at East Murman // plankton of the Barents and Kara seas. World Data Ornithology. Issue 31. Moscow: MSU publishers. — Leskov A.I. 1936. Geobotanical study of maritime Center for Oceanography, Silver Spring International Kondratiev A.Ya. 1998. Red Data Book of the North of Pp. 51–57. (In Russian). meadows of Malozemelsky coast of the Barents Ocean Atlas Series, Volume 2 NOAA Аtlas NESDIS 39. the Russian Far East. Animals. Moscow: TOO “Penta”. Krasnova Ye.D. 2008. Journey at KindoMys. Essays Sea // Botanicheskiy Zhurnal, 21 (1): 96–116. (In (In Russian). — 292 p. (In Russian). Russian). about nature and science of the White Sea biological Mehlum, 1997. Seabird species associations and Konyukhov N.B., Bogoslovskaya L.S., Zvonov B.M., station of M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University. Lindqvist C., Bachmann L., Andersen L. W., affinities to areas covered with sea ice in the northern Van Pelt T.I. 1998. Seabirds of the Chukotka Tula: Grif and K. — 144 p. (In Russian). Born E. W., Arnason U., Kovacs K. M., Lydersen C., Greenland and Barents Seas // Polar Biology, 18: 116 Peninsula, Russia // Arctic, 51 (4): 315–329. Krechmar A.V., Kondratiev A.V. 2006. Anseriformes Abramov A. V., Wiig Ø. 2008. The Laptev Sea walrus — 127. Odobenus rosmarus laptevi: an enigma revisited. Kornev P.N., Chertoprud Ye.S. 2008. Crustaceous of Northeast Asia. Magadan: Northeast Scientific Melentyev, V.V., Chernook, V.I. 2009. Multi Zoologica Scripta, 38: 113–127 Harpacticoida of the White Sea: morphology, Center of FarEastern Branch of RAS. — 458 p. (In spectral satelliteairborne management of ice form systematic, ecology. KMK Partnership Publishing. — Russian). Litvin V.M., Lymarev V.I. 2003. Islands. Moscow: marine mammals and their habitats in the presence of 379 p. (In Russian). Krivenko V.G., Vinogradov V.G. 2001. Contemporary Mysl’. — 287 p. (In Russian). climate change using a «hotspot» approach // In: S.A. Cushman, F. Huetmann (eds). Spatial Kosobokova K.N., Hanssen N, Hirche H.J. 1998. state of waterfowl resources in Russia and problems of Lobanova N.V. 2007. Petroglyphs of old Zalavruga: complexity, informatics, and wildlife conservation. Composition and distribution of zooplankton in the their protection. Moscow: Wetlands International. new data — new view // Archeology, ethnography and Tokyo: Springer. — p. 409–428. Laptev Sea and adjacent Nansen Basin in the summer Available at: http://www.biodat.ru/doc/ducks/. (In anthropology of Eurasia, 1 (29): 127–135. (In 1993 // Polar Biology ,19: 63–76. Russian). Russian). Meleshko V.P., Katzov V.M., Govorkova V.A. Sporyshev P.V., Shkolnik I.M., Shneerov B.Ye. 2008. Krasnov Yu.V. 2004. Some peculiarities of bird Kucheruk N.V., Kotov A.V., Maksimova O.V., Loginov K.K. 2008. Historical and ethnographical Climate of Russia in the XXI century. Part 3. Future distribution at water areas of the Barents and White Pronina O.A., Sapozhnikov F.V., Malykh Ye.A. 2003. peculiarities of Pomor’s village Gridino: past and climate changes calculated with using of ensemble of seas // In: Comprehensive study of the processes, Benthos // In: Ye.A. Romankevich, A.P. Lisitsyn, present // In: A.N. Gromtsev (ed). Rock landscapes of general atmosphere and ocean circulation patterns characteristics and resources of Russian seas of M.Ye. Vinogradov (eds). Pechora Sea. Moscow: Karelian coast of the White Sea: natural peculiarities, CMIP3 // Meteorology and hydrology, 9: 5–21. (In North European basin (project of subprogram “Study More. — Pp. 217–230. (In Russian). economic development, measures to preserve. Russian). of World’s Oceans Nature” of Federal purpose Kudersky L.A. 1987. Commercial fish assemblages in Petrozavodsk: Karelian Scientific Center of RAS. — oriented program “World’s Oceans”). Issue 1. Apatity: large bays and estuaries of North Eurasia // In: Pp. 168–190. (In Russian). Melnikov I.A. 1989. Ecosystem of the Arctic seaice. Moscow: Nauka. — 191 p. (In Russian). RAS Kola Sci. Center Publ. — Pp. 295–307. (In Biological resources of the Arctic and Antarctic. Longhurst A.L. 1998. Ecological geography of the Russian). Moscow: Nauka. — Pp. 171–173. (In Russian). sea. San Diego: Academic Press. — 398 p. Melnikov, I.A. 2008. Recent Arctic seaice ecosystem: dynamics and forecast // Doklady Earth Sciences, Krasnov Yu.V., Barrett R.T. 2000. Seabird monitoring Kupetsky V.N. 1958. Stationary polynyas in freezing Lukin L.R., Ognetov G.N. 2009. Marine mammals of 423A (issue 9): 1516–1519. in the Barents Sea. Proposal of Program // Russian seas // Newsletter of Leningrad University, series the Russian Arctic. Yekaterinburg: Institute of Ornithological Journal. Express issue, 113: 3–22. (In Geology and Geography, 12 (2). (In Russian). Ecological Problems of the North, Ural Branch of RAS. Mikhailov V.N. 1997. River mouths of Russia and Russian). — 221 p. (In Russian). neighboring countries: past, present and future. Kupetsky V.N. 1959. Stationary polynyas in freezing Moscow: GEOS. — 413 p. (In Russian). Krasnov Yu.V., Gavrilo M.V., Strom H., Shavykin A.A. seas // Dissertation of Candidate of Geographical Lymarev V.I. 2002. Domestic researchers of coastal 2006. Number and distribution of birds at coastal water Sciences. Leningrad: Leningrad State University. — zones of oceans and seas. Arkhangelsk: Pomor Mikhailov V.N., Gorin S.L., Mikhailova M.V. 2009. areas of Kola peninsular based on aerial surveys in late 356 p. (In Russian). University. — 268 p. (In Russian). New approach to the identification and classification

59 of the estuaries // Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Olenin S.N. 2004. On a new interpretation of the term Ringuette, M, Fortier, L., Fortier. M., Runge, J. and // In: Red Data Book of the Russian Federation Series Geography, 5: 3–11. (In Russian). “biotope” in marine ecology // In: Ch.M. Nigmatullin others. 2002. Accelerated population development of (animals). Moscow: ACT, Astrel. — Pp. 660–661. (In (ed). Contemporary problems of parasitology, Arctic calanoid copepods in the North Water polynya. Russian). Milyutin D.M., Sokolov V.I. 2006. Density of zoology and ecology. Proceedings of the III DeepSea Research II, 49: 5081–5099. distribution and biomass of mussels in the coastal Solovyeva D.V. 1999. Spring stopover of birds on the International conference in memory of S.S. Shulman. zone of the Kola Peninsular // In: VII AllRussian Romankevich Ye.A., Vetrov A.A. 2001. Carbon cycle Laptev Sea polynya // In Kassens H. et al. (eds) Land Kaliningrad: Kaliningrad State Technological conference on commercial invertebrates. Murmansk, in the Arctic seas of Russia. Moscow: Nauka. — 301 p. Ocean System in the Siberian Arctic. Dynamics and University. — Pp. 304–316. (In Russian). 9–13 October 2006. M.: VNIRO. — 241–242. (In (In Russian). history. Berlin Heidelberg: SpringerVerlag. — Pp. Russian). Olenin S.N., Ducrotoy JP. 2006. The concept of Ruban G.I. 1999. Siberian Sturgeon (species 189–195. biotope in marine ecology and coastal management Mironov A.N. 1990. Faunistic approach to the study of structure and ecology). Moscow: GEOS. — 235 p. (In Solyanko K., Spiridonov V.A., Naumov A.D. 2010. // Marine Pollution Bulletin, 53: 20–29. the present ecosystems // Okeanologia, 30 (6): Russian). Benthic fauna of the Gorlo Strait, White Sea: a first 1006–1012. (In Russian). Overview of hydrometeorological processes in Schubel J.R., Pritchard D.W. 1971. What is an species inventory based on data from three different the Arctic Ocean: 2007. 2008. St. Petersburg: AARI. estuary? Estuarine environment. Washington: decades from the 1920s to 2000s // Marine Mironov Ye.U. 1996. Uniform ice regions of the — 80 p. (In Russian). American Ecological Institute. — 11 p. biodiversity, Dol 10 1007 / s 1252601000659 Barents Sea // Procedings of IAHR’96, August 27–31, 1996, Beijing, China. Vol. 1. — Pp. 361–369. Pavlidis Yu.A., Ionin A.S., Scherbakov F.A. Sergienko L.A. 2008. Flora and vegetation of the Sommerkorn M., Hamilton N. (eds). 2008. Arctic Dunayev N.N., Nikiforov S.L. 1998. The Arctic Shelf. Russian Arctic coasts and neighboring areas. climate impact science – an update since ACIA. Oslo: Mironov Ye.U., Gudkovich Z.M., Karklin V.P. 2008. The Late Quaternary history as a basis for the Petrozavodsk: Petrozavodsk State University publ. — WWF International ArcticProgramme. — 114 p. Seas of Eurasian shelf // In: O.M. Johannessen et al. prediction of development. Moscow: GEOS. — 187 p. 225 p. (In Russian). Sommerkorn M., Hassol, S. (eds). 2009. Arctic (eds). Scientific researches in the Arctic. Volume 3. (In Russian). Remote sensing of the sea ices in the Northern Sea Shamsutdinov Z.Sh., Savchenko I.V., Shamsutdinov Climate Feedbacks: Global implications. WWF Arctic Route: study and application, St. Petersburg: Nauka. Petryashov V.V. 2009. Biogeographical regionalization N.Z. 2000. Halophytes of Russia, their ecological Programme, Oslo, 97 pр. of the Arctic and North Atlantic Ocean based on evaluation and use. Moscow. — 400 p. (In Russian). — Pp. 44–64. (In Russian). Soviet Arctic. 1970. Moscow: Nauka. — 526 p. (In Mysidacea (Crustacea) // Biologia morya, 25 (2): Mitibayaeva O.N., Timoshenko Yu.K., Ognetov G.N. Shkliarevich F.N. 1979. Wintering grounds of Russian). 87–106. (In Russian). Common Eider in the White Sea // In: Ecology and 1991. Marine mammals // In: Atlas “Oceanographic Spiridonov V. 2006. Largescale hydrocarbonrelated Petryashov V.V., Golikov A.A., Shmid M., Rachor E. morphology of eiders in USSR. Moscow: Nauka. — conditions and biological productivity of the White industrial projects in Russia’s coastal regions: The 2004. Macrobenthos of the Laptev Sea shelf. Fauna Pp. 61–67. (In Russian). Sea”. Murmansk: PINRO Publishers. — Pp. 160–166. risks arising from the absence of Strategic and ecosystems of the Laptev Sea and adjacent deep (In Russian). Sirenko B.I. 1998. Marine fauna of the Arctic (based Environmental Assessment // Sibirica, 5(2): 43–76. waters of the Arctic Basin // Explorations of the Fauna on Zoological Institute’s expeditions) // Biologia Mokievsky V.O. 2009a. Marine reserves – theoretical of the Seas. Vol. 54 (62). St. Petersburg: Zoological moray, 24 (6): 341–350. (In Russian). Starobogatov Ya.I. 1982. Problem of the minimal preconditions to the establishing and function // Institute of the RAS. — Pp. 9–26. (In Russian). region in biogeography and its implication for the Biologia Morya , 35 (6): 450–460. (In Russian). Sirenko B.I. 2001. Introduction // In: B.I.Sirenko (ed). faunistic (faunogenetical) marine zoogeography // In: Plusnin Yu.M. 2003. Pomors: population of the White List of species of freeliving invertebrates of Eurasian Marine biogeography. Objects, methods, principles Mokievsky V.O. 2009b. Ecology of marine meiobentos: Sea coasts in the crisis period, 1995–2001. Arctic seas and adjacent deep waters // Explorations of regionalization. Moscow: Nauka. — Pp. 12–17. (In KMK Partnership Publishing. — 286 p. (In Russian). Novosibirsk: Institute of Philosophy and Law, Siberian of the Fauna of the Seas. Vol. 51 (59). St. Petersburg: Russian). National Atlas of Russia in four volumes — Moscow: Branch of RAS. — 143 p. (In Russian). Zoological Institute of RAS. — Pp. 5–10. Stiansen J.E., A.A. Filin A.A. (eds). 2008. Joint Roskartographia, 2004–2009., 500 p. (In Russian). Pogrebov V.B., Sagitov R.A. (eds). 2006. Conservation Sirenko B.I. 2010. The state of study of the Chukchi PINRO/IMR Report on the State of the Barents Sea atlas of Russian part of the Gulf of Finland. St. Sea fauna // In: Fauna and zoogeography of the Naumov A.D. 2001. Benthos // In: V.Ya. Berger, Ecosystem in 2007, with Expected Situation and Peterburg: Tuskarora. — 60 p. (In Russian). Chukchi Sea benthos. V. 2. Study of marine fauna, St. S. Dahle (eds). White Sea. Ecology and Considerations for Management. IMRPINRO Joint Petersburg: Zoological Institute of RAS, in print. (In Environment..St.Petersburg — Tromsø: Derzhavets Problems of the Northern Sea Route. Gramberg Report Series 2008(1). Bergen: Institute of Marine Russian). Publishers. — Pp. 41–53. A.G., Peresypkin V.I. (eds). Moscow: Nauka. — 581 p. Research, 185 p. Sirenko B.I., Petryashov V.V., Rachor E., Hinz A. Naumov A.D. 2006. Bivalve mollusks of the White Sea. (In Russian). 1995. Bottom biocoenoses of the Laptev Sea and Stiansen J.E., Korneev O., Titov O., Arneberg P. Experience of ecological and faunistic analysis // Ramstorf S., Shelnhuber H.J. Global climate adjacent areas. In: RussianGerman Cooperation: (eds), Filin A., Hansen J.R., Høines Е., Marasaev S. Explorations of the fauna of the seas, Vol. 59 (67). St. change: diagnosis, prediction, therapy. M.: OGI. — Laptev Sea system. Berichte zur Polarforschung, 176: (coeds) 2009. Joint NorwegianRussian environmental Petersburg: Zoological Institute of RAS. — Pp. 1–351. 271 p. (In Russian). 211–221. status 2008. Report on the Barents Sea Ecosystem. (In Russian). Part II — Complete report. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Report of the Government to the Storting No. 8. 2006. Snelder, T.H., Leathwik D., Dey K.L., Rowden A.A., Series, 2009(3). Bergen: Institute of Marine Research. Nesis K.N. 1982. Zoogeography of World Ocean: Integrated Management of the Marine Environment of Weatherhead M.A., Fenwick G.D., Francis M.P., — 375 p. comparison of the pelagic zones and regional division the Barents Sea and the Sea Areas off the Lofoten Gorman R.M., Grieve J.M., Hadfield M.G., Hewitt J.E., of the shelf (exemplified be cephalopod distribution) Islands (Management Plan). The Royal Norwegian Richardson K.M., Uddstrom M.J., Zeldis J.R. 2006. Stishov M.S. 2004. Wrangel Island — natural standard // In: Marine Biogeography. Objects, methodology, Ministry of the Environment. Russian translation for Development of an ecologic marine classification in and anomaly. YoshkarOla: Mariel Publishing House. principles of regionalization. Moscow: Nauka. — Pp. information purpose. Oslo. — 178 p. (In Russian). the New Zealand region // Environmental — 596 p. (In Russian). 114–134. (In Russian). Reshetnikov Yu.S. (ed.) 2002. Atlas of freshwater Management, 39: 12–29. Sukhotin A.A., Krasnov Yu.V., Galaktionov K.V. Observations of ice conditions. 2009. St. fishes of Russia. Volume 1. Moscow: Nauka. — 378 p. Sokolov V.Ye., Vishnevskaya T.Yu., Bychkov V.A. 2008. Subtidal populations of the blue mussel Mytilus Petersburg: AARI. — 360 p. (In Russian). (In Russian). 2001. Walrus Odobenus rosmarus, subspecies laptev edulis as key determinants of waterfowl flocks in the

60 southeastern Barents Sea Polar Biology, 31: Vartanyan S., Garutt V., Sher A. 1993. Holocene Map designers Photo credits 1357–1363. dwarf mammoths from Wrangel island in the Siberian Arctic// Nature, 362: 337–340. Sviridova T.V., Zubakin V.A. (eds). Important Bird 2.1 — Kulangiev A.O. Bodil Bluhm & Rolf Gradinger — 20 Areas in Russia. Volume 1. Important Bird Areas in Vasilenko S.V. 1974. Caprellidae of the seas of USSR 2.2 A and B — Makarov A.V. Mikhail Cherkasov — 23 European Russia. 2000. Compiler: T.V. Sviridova. and adjacent waters // In: Guidebooks on fauna of Moscow: Russian Bird Conservation Union. — 702 p. USSR published by USSR AS Zoological Institute. 2.3 A and B — Makarov A.V., Spiridonov V.A. Elena Chertoprud — 13 (In Russian). Issue 107. Leningrad: Nauka. — 288 p. (In Russian). 2.4 A and B — Makarov A.V. Nataliya Chervyakova — 46 Tikhonov A.N. 2005. Mammoth // In: Animal Vermej, G.J., Roopnarine, P.D. 2008. The coming 2.5 A and B — Makarov A.V. Mikhail Fedyuk — 7, 31, 64 biodiversity, issue 3. Zoological Institute of RAS. Arctic invasion // Science, 321 (5890): 780–781. 2.6 — Kulangiev A.O. Maria Gavrilo — 1, 5, 19, 21, 22, 25, 28, 29, 53 Moscow — St. Petersburg: KMK Scientific Vinogradova K.L. 1990. Marine algae of Novosibirsk Partnership publishers. — 90 p. (In Russian). shoal (Laptev Sea) // Explorations of the Fauna of the 3.1 — Makarov A.V. Sergey Golubev — 34 Timofeev S.F. 2002. Euphausiid biomass in the Arctic Seas. Vol. 37(45). St. Petersburg: Zoological Institute of 3.2 A and B — Kulangiev A.O. Yury Goryaev — 8 Ocean // Crustaceana, 79: 157–165. USSR Academy of Sciences. — Pp. 80–88. (In Russian). 3.3 — Kulangiev A.O. Sergey Kiryushkin — 27 Vorontsov A.V., Goryaev Yu.I., Yezhov A.V. 2007. Tomkovich P.S. 2001. Spoonbilled Sandpiper 3.4 A and B — Makarov A.V. Nikolai Konyukhov — 9, 33, 38 Eurynorhynchus pygmeus (Linneus, 1758) // In: Red Results of observations for marine mammals along Data Book of the Russian Federation (animals). the Northern Sea Route // In: G.G. Matishov (ed). 3.5 — Kulangiev A.O. Yury Krasnov — 24, 36, 49, 57 Biology and oceanography of the Northern Sea Moscow: ACT, Astrel. — 504–506. (In Russian). 3.6 — Kulangiev A.O. Alexey Lokhov — 3 Route: the Barents and Kara seas. Moscow: Nauka. Tschesunov A.V. 2006. Biology of marine nematodes. — Pp. 161–172. (In Russian). 3.7 — Kulangiev A.O. Ken Madsen, WWFCanada — 52 Moscow: KMK Scientific Partnership publishers. — 367 p. (In Russian). Yurtsev B.A., Tolmachev A.I., Rebristaya O.V. 3.8 — Kulangiev A.O., Yevseneikin A.M. Valery Maleev — 47 1978. Floristic delimitation and division of the Arctic // Tseits M.A., Dobrynin D.V., Belozerova Ye.A. 3.9 — Kulangiev A.O. Paul Nicklen / National Geographic Stock / In: Arctic floristic region. Leningrad: Nauka. — 9–104. WWFCanada — 16, 35, 48 2000. Structural organization of soils and vegetation (In Russian). 3.10 — Kulangiev A.O. of marshes of the Pomorskiy Coast of the White Sea // Viktor Nikiforov — 4, 11, 29, 31, 37 3.11 — Makarov A.V. In: Ecological functions of soils of Eastern Zabelina N.M., IsayevaPetrova L.S., Korotkov V.N., Denis Orlov — 10 Fennoskandia. Petrozavodsk: Karelian Scientific Nazyrova R.I., Onufrenya I.A., Ochagov D.M. (ed.), 4.1 — Kulangiev A.O. Center of RAS. — 124–132. (In Russian). Potapova N.A. 2006. Marine and coastal strictly Filip Sapozhnikov — 26, 39, 40, 44 protected natural land and water areas (Reference). 4.2 — Makarov A.V. Alexander Semenov — 6, 12, 15, 43, 44 UNESCO 2005. The Operational Guidelines for the Moscow: VNIIPriroda. — 72 p. (In Russian). 4.3 — Makarov A.V. Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Varvara Semenova — 42 Paris: World Heritage Center. — 72 p. (In Russian). Zakharov V.F. 1966. The role of flaw polynyas in hydrochemical and ice regime of the Laptev Sea // Lyudmila Sergienko — 17, 18, 59, 62, 65 Urvantsev N.N. 1935. Two years at Severnaya Okeanologia, 6 (24): 168–179. (In Russian). Zemlya. Leningrad: Glavsevmorput’ publ. — 363 p. (In Vladimir Sertun — 22 Zakharov V.F. 1996. Sea ice in climate system. St. Russian). Vassily A. Spiridonov — 2, 63 Petersburg: Gidrometeoizdat. — 213 p. Ushakov G.A. 1951. On untrodden ground. Moscow Yulia S. Suprunenko — 41 Leningrad: Glavsevmorput’ publ. — 393 p. (In Zalogin B.S., Kosarev A.N. 1999. The seas. Moscow: Mysl’. — 400 p. (In Russian). Michael Türkay — 58, 60, 61 Russian). Zenkevich L.A. 1963. Biology of the seas of USSR. WWFCanon / Sindre Kinnersød — 55 Uspensky S.M. 1959. Colonial nesting seabirds of Moscow: USSR AS publishers. — 739 p. northern and fareastern seas of USSR, their distribution, number and role as plankton and Zinova A.D. 1985. Phytogeographical regionalization benthos consumers // Bulletin of Moscow Society based on bottom true algae (section 23) // In: Arctic of Naturalists. Dept. Biol., 64 (2): 39–52. (In Atlas. Moscow: Main Office of Geodesy and Cartography Russian). under USSR Council of Ministers. — P. 132.

61 LIST OF SPECIES AND OTHER TAXA OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS MENTIONED IN THE ATLAS

Plants Slender spikerush (Eeleocharis uniglumis) — 2.6., 3.9. Echinoderms (Echinodermata) — 2.4. Bowhead Whale (Balaena mysticetus) — 3.6, 3.7. Pojarkova’s wort (Salicornia pojarkovae) — 2.6., 3.9. Isopods (Isopoda) — 2.2. Pomarine Skua (Stercorarius pomarinus) — 3.6. Arctic daisy ( ) — 3.10. Arctanthemum arcticum ssp. Polare Seaside arrowgrass (Triglochin maritima) — 2.6., 3.9., 3.10. Infusoria (Ciliata) — 2.3. Pydschjan, Siberian Whitefish (Coregonus lavaretus Pendantgrass (Arctophila fulva) — 2.6., 3.9. pidshian) — 3.11. Beach pea (Lathyrus japonicus ssp. pubescens) — 3.10. Horned Puffin (Fratercula corniculata) — 3.3 Whiteflowered Thrift (Armeria maritime) — 3.10. Least (Siberian) Cisco, Lake Herring (Coregonus Brunnich’s Guillemot (Uria lomvia) — 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7. sardinella) — 3.11. Sea aster (Tripolium vulgare) — 2.6. Guillemot (Uria aalge) — 3.3. Animals Arctic Cod (Boreogadus saida) — 2.5., 3.1., 3.2., 3.3., 3.5. GrassofParnassus, bog star (Parnassia palustris) — 3.9. Chum salmon, Keta (Oncorhynchus keta) — 3.11. Common (Atlantic) Salmon (Salmo salar) — 3.11. Puccinellia capillaris — 2.6. Pelagic Cormorant (Phalacrocorax. pelagicus) — 3.3. Ringed Seal (Phoca hispida) — 3.5., 3.6., 3.7. Grey Whale (Eschrichtius robustus) — 2.5., 3.7. Creeping alkaligrass (Puccinellia phryganodes) — Great Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) Auklets (Aethia spp.) — 3.3. 2.6., 3.9., 3.10. European Whitefish (Coregonus lavaretus sensu lato) — Shag (Phalacrocorax aristotelis) — 3.3. Smelt (Osmerus spp.) — 2.5. 3.11. Puccinellia coarctata — 2.6., 3.9. Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas) — King crab (Paralithodes camtschaticus) — Conclusion Velvet Scoter (Melanitta nigra) — 3.6. Brown algae (Phaeophyta) — 2.4. Introduction, 2.5., 3.6., 3.7. Ribbon Seal (Histriophoca fasciata) — 2.5. Tufted Puffin (Lunda cirrhata) — 3.3. Small reed (Calamagrostis deschampsioides) — 3.9., 3.10. Scuds (Amphipoda) — 2.2. Spoonbilled Sandpiper (Eurynorhynchus pygmeus) —3.10. Atlantic Puffin (Fratercula arctica) — 3.3. Seaside sandplant (Honckenya peploides) — 2.6. Gastropods (Oenopotinae) — 2.2. Little auk (Alle alle) — 3.3., 3.4., 3.5., 3.6. Ivory Gull (Pagophila eburnea) — 3.3, 3.6, 3.7, Conclusion. Honckenya oblongifolia — 3.9., 3.10. Claucous Gull (Larus hyperboreus) — 3.3., 3.5., 3.6. Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) — 3.5., 3.6, 3.7. Great Blackbacked Gull (Larus marinus) — 3.5. Diatoms (Bacillariophyta) — 2.3., 3.1. Shorttailed Shearwater (Puffinus tenuirostris) — 3.7. Mysidacea —2.2.Ross’s Gull (Rhodostethia rosea) — 3.7. Dupontia psilosantha — 2.6., 3.9., 3.10. Sculpins, Sea scorpions (Cottidae) — 2.5. Polychaets (Polychaeta) — 2.2., 2.3, 2.4. Herring Gull (Larus argentatus) — 3.5. Low chickweed (Stellaria humifusa) — 2.6., 3.9. , 3.10. Sea scorpion (Myoxocephalus quadricornis) — 2.5. Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) — 3.3., 3.4, 3.5., 3.6. , 3.7. Broad (Roundnoses) Whitefish (Coregonus nasus) — 3.11. Green algae (отдел Clorophyta) — 2.4. Copepods (Copepoda, Calanoida) — 2.3. Capelin (Mallotus mallotus) — 2.5. Black Guillemot (Cepphus grylle) — 3.4, 3.5., 3.6., 3.7. Eelgrass (Zostera marina) — 2.4., 4.2. Eider (Somateria mollissima) — 2.5., 3.5., 3.7. Forams (phylum Foraminiphera) — 2.3 Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) — Introduction Saxifrage (Saxifraga arctolitoralis) — 3.10. Eider, Pacific subspecies (Somateria mollissima Appendicularia, class — 2.3. Atlantic Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus) — 3.4., 3.5. Sea clubrush (Bolbochoenus maritimus) — 3.9. vnigrum) — 2.5. Ascidiacea, class — 2.3. Laptev Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus laptevi) — 3.6. Lyme grass (Leymus arenarius) — 3.9. Spectacled Eider (Somateria fischeri) — 2.5. Chaetognatha, phylum — 2.3. Pacific Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) — 3.7 Red algae (Rhodophyta) — 2.4. Steller’s Eider (Polysticta stelleri) — 2.5., 3.4., 3.5. Cladocera, group of orders — 2.3. Amphipoda Caprelloidea —2.2. King Eider (Somateria spectabilis) — 2.5., 3.4., 3.5., 3.7. Seabeach groundsel (Senecio pseudoarnica) — 3.10. Cnidaria, phylum — 2.3. Sea hedgehog (Pourtalesia jeffreysii) — 2.4. Rasorbill (Alca torda) — 3.3. Cinquefoil (Potentilla egedii) — 2.6., 3.9., 3.10. Crustacea, class — 2.3. Sea stars ( ) — 2.2. Copepoda, Harpacticoida — 2.3, 3.1. Asteroidea Saltbush (Atriplex lapponica) — 2.6. Euphausiacea, order — 2.3. Fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) — 2.5., 3.6. Bearded Seal (Erignatus barbatus) — 3.5., 3.6. 3.6., 3.7. Spearwort (Ranunculus tricrenatus) — 3.10. Gastropoda, class — 2.3. Longtailed Duck (Clangula hyemalis) — Oyster plant (Mertensia maritima) — 2.6., 3.10 Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) — 2.5., 3.11. 3.5., 3.6., 3.6.а, 3.7. Hyperiidea, suborder — 2.3. Red fescue (Festuca rubra) — 3.9. Cephalopods (Cephalopoda) — 2.2. Muksun (Coregonus muksun) — 3.11. Komokida, kingdom Protozoa — 2.3. Sheep fescue (Festuca ovina) — 3.9. Sea cucumbers Kolga hyalina, Elpidia glacialis — 2.4. Moss animals (Bryozoa) — 2.4. Mollusca, phylum — 2.3. Pink (Humpback) salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) — Lesser saltmarsh sedge (Carex glareosa) — 3.9. Nemathelmithes, phylum — 2.3. (map) 3.11. Narwhale, Sea Unicorn (Monodon monoceros) — 2.5. Bear sedge (Carex ursina) — 3.10. Ostracoda, class — 2.3. Harp (Greenland) Seal (Pagophilus groenlandicus) — Inconnu, Sheefish (Stenodus leucichthys nelma) — 3.11. Ramensk's sedge (Carex ramenskii) — 2.6. В, 2.5. Nematodes (Nematoda) — 2.3. Porifera, phylum — 2.3. Hoppner's sedge (Carex subspathacea) — 2.6., 3.9., 3.10. Snow Goose (Chen canagica) — 3.10. Arctic cisco (Coregonus autumnalis) — 2.5, 3.11. Radiolaria, phylum — 2.3. Parrya sp. — 2.6. Bivalve mollusks (Bivalvia) — 2.2. Siberian sturgeon (Acipenser baerii) — 3.11. Rotifera, phylum — 2.3. Pleuropogon sp. — 2.6. — 2.4. Bivalve mollusks Portlandia aestuariorum, Cyrtodaria Basket stars Ophiocten sericeum, Ophiopleura borealis, Saduria entomon, Crustacea, order Isopoda Plantain (Plantago subpolaris) — 2.6. kurriana, Tridonta borealis, Nicania montagui, Macoma Ophiocantha bidentata — 2.4. Scyphozoa, class — 2.3. calcarea, Portlandia siliqua, P. arctica, Nuculana radiata, Seaside plantain (Plantago maritima) — 2.6. Peled, Syrok (Coregonus peled) — 3.11. Sipunculida, phylum — 2.4. (map) N. pernula, Leionucula inflata, L. belottii, Astarte crenata, Pursh seepweed (Suaeda maritima) — 2.6. Yoldia hyperborea, Clinocardium ciliatum — 2.4. Polychaets Maldanidae, Chaetopteridae — 2.4. Tardigrada, phylum — 2.3.

62 ANIMALS AND PLANTS

Isopoda (Jaera sp.) 43 Bivalve and gastropod mollusks 44 Seastar (Ctenodiscus crispatus) 45 Amphipod on the ice undersurface 46

Atlantic Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus) 47 Ringed Seal (Phoca hispida) 48 Bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) 49 Pacific Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) 50

Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) 51 Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) 52 Longtailed Duck (Clangula hyemalis) 53 Little auk (Alle alle) 54

63 Herring Gull (Larus argentatus) 55 Fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) 56 King Eider (Somateria spectabilis) 57 Bean Goose (Anser fabalis) 58

Oyster plant (Mertensia maritima) 59 Lyme grass (Leymus arenarius) 60 Seaside sandplant (Honckenya peploides) 61 Seaside plantain (Plantago maritima) 62

Marsh vegetation 63 Sea aster (Tripolium vulgare) 64 Eelgrass (Zostera marina) in the Barents Sea 65 Coastal marsh 66

64