Harmonizing circumpolar monitoring of Arctic fox: benefits, opportunities, challenges and recommendations.

• Published in: Polar Research
• Main Authors: Berteaux, Dominique, Thierry, Anne-Mathilde, Alisauskas, Ray, Angerbjörn, Anders, Buchel, Eric, Doronina, Liliya, Ehrich, Dorothee, Eide, Nina E., Erlandsson, Rasmus, Flagstad, Øystein, Fuglei, Eva, Gilg, Olivier, Goltsman, Mikhail, Henttonen, Heikki, Ims, Rolf A., Killengreen, Siw T., Kondratyev, Alexander, Kruchenkova, Elena, Kruckenberg, Helmut, Kulikova, Olga, Landa, Arild, Lang, Johannes, Menyushina, Irina, Mikhnevich, Julia, Niemimaa, Jukka, Norén, Karin, Ollila, Tuomo, Ovsyanikov, Nikita, Pokrovskaya, Liya, Pokrovsky, Ivan, Rodnikova, Anna, Roth, James D., Sabard, Brigitte, Samelius, Gustaf, Schmidt, Niels M., Sittler, Benoit, Sokolov, Aleksandr A., Sokolova, Natalya A., Stickney, Alice, Unnsteinsdóttir, Ester Rut, White, Paula A.
• Other Authors: Canada Research Chair on Northern Biodiversity, Université du Québec à Rimouski (UQAR)-Centre for Northern Studies, Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Prairie and Northern Wildlife Research Centre, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Department of Zoology Stockholm, Stockholm University, Groupe de Recherche en Ecologie Arctique, Institute of Experimental Pathology (ZMBE), Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster (WWU), Department of Vertebrate Zoology, Lomonosov Moscow State University (MSU), Department of Arctic and Marine Biology, University of Tromsø (UiT), Norwegian Polar Institute, Biogéosciences UMR 6282 Dijon (BGS), Université de Bourgogne (UB)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Natural Resources Institute Finland (LUKE), Institute of Biological Problems of the North (IBPN), Institute for Waterbird and Wetlands Research, Arctic Research Station of Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology, Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences (UB RAS), Working Group for Wildlife Biology, Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen (JLU), Parks and Wildlife, Metsähallitus, Department of Migration and Immuno-ecology, Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, Max-Planck-Gesellschaft-Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Department of Biological Sciences Winnipeg, University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Grimsö Wildlife Research Station, Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU)-Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Arctic Research Centre Aarhus (ARC), Aarhus University Aarhus, Chair for Landscape Management, University of Freiburg Freiburg, Science Center for Arctic Studies, State Organization of Yamal-Nenets Autonomous District, The Icelandic Institute of Natural History, Center for Tropical Research (|os Angeles (CTR), University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), University of California-University of California
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: HAL CCSD 2017
• Subjects: Alopex lagopus; Arctic ecosystems; biodiversity assessment; biodiversity indicator; data management; protocol harmonization; envir; geo; Arctic; Arctic biodiversity; Arctic Council; Arctic Fox; Polar Research; Vulpes lagopus
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1080/17518369.2017.1319602; https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03362305

International audience The biodiversity working group of the Arctic Council has developed pan-Arctic biodiversitymonitoring plans to improve our ability to detect, understand and report on long-termchange in Arctic biodiversity. The Arctic fox (Vulpes lagopus) was identified as a target offuture monitoring because of its circumpolar distribution, ecological importance and relianceon Arctic ecosystems. We provide the first exhaustive survey of contemporary Arctic foxmonitoring programmes, describing 34 projects located in eight countries. Monitored populationscovered equally the four climate zones of the species’ distribution, and there werelarge differences between populations in long-term trends, multi-annual fluctuations, dietcomposition, degree of competition with red fox and human interferences. Den density,number of active dens, number of breeding dens and litter size were assessed in almost allpopulations, while projects varied greatly with respect to monitoring of other variablesindicative of population status, ecosystem state or ecosystem function. We review thebenefits, opportunities and challenges to increased integration of monitoring projects. Weargue that better harmonizing protocols of data collection and data management wouldallow new questions to be addressed while adding tremendous value to individual projects.However, despite many opportunities, challenges remain. We offer six recommendations thatrepresent decisive progress toward a better integration of Arctic fox monitoring projects.Further, our work serves as a template that can be used to integrate monitoring efforts ofother species, thereby providing a key step for future assessments of global biodiversity. 13 pages