The Consequences of Climate Change

An Analysis of the Threats to Adelie Penguins, Polar Bears, and Sockeye Salmon

Hailee Anzisi, Danica Heck, & Caitlin Rillo

Wildlife Management
Dr. Catherine Tredick
Introduction of the Issue

The vast, multifaceted scale of climate change presents a host of challenges to

wildlife management teams worldwide. It’s far-reaching and often unpredictable effects
send ripples through ecosystems, compromising their natural integrity by altering their
dynamics at a rate too rapid for many species to successfully adapt. Ideal remediation
for climate change as a whole would demand the cooperation of every individual on the
planet. In reality, remediation is delivered on a case-by-case basis and, in terms of
wildlife management, is accomplished by making the most of limited resources,
manpower, and budgets, and requires the efforts of stakeholders who are tied directly to
that issue.
Habitat degradation caused by climate change is a major contributing factor to
the problems species face. Melting ice caps, rising sea levels, and warmer air and water
temperatures threaten the ability of environments to support wildlife (WWF 2018). The
West Antarctic Peninsula (WAP) is amongst the most rapidly warming places on this
Earth with sea temperatures getting warmer. This leads to more precipitation, which is
bad for penguins as they lay their eggs on the ground where there can be no presence
of puddles. This is contributing to a rapid decline in their population levels.
Sockeye salmon are also at risk for diminishing numbers due to reduced habitat
quality and they share the threat of altered precipitation. Increased melting of the snow
that feeds their river systems is predicted to not only melt earlier, but eventually turn into
rainfall. This would reduce summer flow levels and increase winter flows into their
freshwater habitats. Summer flow level reduction could further raise water
temperatures, contributing to overall degradation, while the force of increased winter
flow may harm nesting sites, damaging both eggs and juveniles (IUCN 2009). Their
migratory route is also under threat. As with any anadromous fish, these salmon utilize
both freshwater and marine habitats in order to complete their life cycle. Warmer water
temperatures can complicate their journey; there is evidence of areas so warm that they
act as thermal barriers to salmon, and the fish must divert their path to swim around it.
This can result in delayed spawning, or a prevention of spawning altogether (IUCN
2009).
This habitat degradation also affects the polar bears; similar to the salmon, the
polar bears are greatly affected by the warmer waters. Polar bears are known as
“marine mammals” meaning they do not live in the water but get all their food from
aquatic life. Preferring to live on the continental shelf, with the rising climate ice will
prematurely break forcing the polar bears inland with less opportunities to hunt for food
(Hunter et al. 2010).
The effects of climate change alter the availability of food sources for species
across the globe (WWF 2018). Any decrease in a species’ food source will negatively
impact the population’s ability to sustain itself, as starvation and loss of individuals
leaves less opportunities for reproduction to replace those that are lost. It is also
possible for access to food supplies to be cut off. This is especially true for the polar
bear. The rising temperatures are forcing the polar bears inland, this cuts off their food
source of seals, salmon and other aquatic life causing them to die from starvation and
malnutrition. Not being able to hunt as efficiently, polar bears have been shown to result
to cannibalism to survive (Hunter et al. 2010).
Sockeye salmon are suffering not from a lack of access, but a matter of timing.
As juveniles, sockeye salmon journey from freshwater spawning grounds to saltwater
growing grounds, where they will reach sexual maturity. This seaward migration
generally coincides with planktonic blooms, a vital food source for the salmon. As
warmer temperatures spur early sockeye salmon hatching and accelerated
development, they are prompted to premature arrival in the marine waters at abnormally
young ages, before the plankton can reach a population level to adequately sustain
them (ADF&G 2018; Healey 2011; IUCN 2009; Tillotson & Quinn 2016).
Adelie penguins are facing a direct threat to their food supply. Rising annual
average temperatures causes a decrease in the amount of ice that is present in this
region and greatly affects the fish and krill population that feed off phytoplankton
(Cimino et al. 2012). In certain places like the WAP, fish populations have severely
diminished, causing A ​ délie penguins to rely on krill as the main source of their diet.
Unfortunately, as sea temperatures rise, the krill populations become less readily
available to the penguins. There is a change in tides due to the warming of the water,
which impacts the krill distribution and therefore the behavior of the penguins (Cimino et
al. 2012).
Research has proven climate change to be an antagonist in the development and
health of wildlife species. For example, the growth and life cycle of salmon is dependent
upon water temperatures, following natural seasonal patterns. Temperature cues them
physiologically on when to hatch, how fast to grow, and as to when they need to make
their journey to and from the sea (ADF&G 2018; Healey 2011; IUCN 2009; Tillotson &
Quinn 2016). These alterations in growth patterns will follow them throughout their
lifetime, with adverse effects increasing with each life stage, greatly compromising
survival. It has been documented that early-hatched juveniles will travel seaward an
entire year earlier than had they not been affected by warmer water temperatures.
Since they are lacking an entire year’s worth of body size growth, their smaller size
leaves them more vulnerable to predation. So even those who survive the decreased
krill food supply are further compromised (Healey 2011; Tillotson & Quinn 2016). As for
the travel back, aged adults face exacerbations on stressors already in place. They are
nearing their end of life stage during this time and, as a result, suffer a compromised
immune system which makes them more susceptible to disease. Additionally, they do
not eat during this time, so their energy reserves must last them the entire way, and this
is often not the case (USFWS 2018; Nature’s Great Events). The length and arduous
nature of the journey heightens mortality risk, as fatigue sets in from the high-energy
cost of battling upstream currents and waterfalls, and predation becomes more
prevalent in the narrower waters (Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) 2018;
IUCN 2009). Navigating waters of increased temperatures also forces hearts to beat
harder in an effort to supply enough oxygen to meet the higher energy demands
(Brodbeck 2017).
The growth and life cycle of the polar bear is also taking a negative turn with the
rising temperatures. It has been shown that the ice is prematurely breaking and
refreezing; this is negatively impacting the polar bears as it forces them to travel farther
for food, adds stress, as well as lowers reproductive rates (Molnar et al. 2014).
Traveling further to find food has the polar bear starving. In the wild a healthy polar bear
can weigh 800-1,300lbs(WWF 2018). When seeing the polar bears today, it can be
seen that the bears are much thinner and not as healthy as they once were. The long
travel for food forces the polar bears to use fat reserves for energy to make these long
trips, this causing higher risks of death and injury (Hunter et al. 2010). With this it is
predicted that the polar bears will be extinct 45 years from 2007 (Hunter et al. 2010).
The decrease in the population of krill plays a significant role on the overall
health of Adélie penguins and ultimately on their ability to reproduce healthy and viable
offspring. ​Chicks with a high body mass at fledging age have enhanced post-fledging
survival rates and higher rates of recruitment into the population of breeding individuals
due to larger energy reserves. Energy reserves playing a key role as a defense against
environmental and energetic stressors (Cimino et al. 2014). A significant difference is
found between the amount of immature krill available to adult penguins for feeding and
chick fledging mass (CFM).

Adélie Penguins

Climate change has been a major issues for Adélie penguins for as long the
species has been in existence. Adélie penguins live in Antarctica but prefer a climate
that is more mild and therefore thrive best during “warmer periods.” Geological records
have shown that as temperatures get colder and glaciers expand across Antarctica, this
species of penguin begins to decolonize and stray away from the locations in which they
breed (Roberts 2016). Current research conducted by the University of Delaware, now
suggests that these “warmer periods” are becoming too frequent are in fact no longer
good for the colonies of the Adélie penguin. Cimino et al. 2016 approximates that by
year 2060, 60% of the Adélie population will have declined.
Adélie penguins are a great species to study when conducting research
on the effects of climate change, as they are a species that breeds across the entire
continent of Antarctica. Although the species is currently listed under “least concern” by
the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the rapid decline in population of this species
is occurring along the West Antarctic Peninsula (WAP) whereas in other parts of the
continent, the population of this species remains stable or is increasing (IUCN 2017).
This occurrence makes much sense as the WAP is amongst the most rapidly warming
places on this Earth (Cimino et al. 2016). ​Rising annual average temperatures causes a
decrease in the amount of ice that is present in this region and greatly affects the fish
and krill population (Cimino et al. 2012). Studies suggest that climate change is
detrimental to the Adélie penguin species, which is a key indicator species of the
ecosystem in which they live.
Management methods proposed by Melissa Gises suggest that measuring
breeding success in Adélie penguin should be done with minimal human disturbance
(Giese 1996). Research indicates that nest checking for scientific purposes and human
disturbance of any kind leads to a significant decline in hatching success (Giese 1996).
However, scientists have been tracking penguins under the sea, on land, and even from
satellites in outer space to gain a better understanding of the effects climate change is
having on the WAP (Messmore 2012). A common practice done by research groups
such as the Polar Oceans Research Group is to attach tracking devices to the penguins
in order to better understand their foraging patterns. These practices greatly affect the
animals as they must be captured and marked and the markings must be appropriate in
order to prevent altered mobility and diving patterns. In a study done by Nimon et al.
1996, the heart rate of Adélie penguins was monitored in the presence of humans and
resulted in a resting heart rate 77% higher than normal resting heart rate, indicating that
even the presence of humans can deeply distress this animal (Nimon et al. 1996).
Because of this I feel that the negative effects of tracking these specific penguins for the
purpose of gaining a better understanding about their foraging and swimming patterns
greatly outweigh the overall knowledge that is gained from this management method.
With what very little information is gained by the practice of putting satellite trackers and
markers on these birds, I feel it is best to turn to other methods of management and
stray away from direct human contact with the species.
The international Convention for the Conservation of Marine Living
Resources (CCAMLR) Ecosystem Monitoring Program is a long term study on Adélie
penguins that has been running by Australian scientists on ​Béchervaise Island (67°35'S,
62°48'E) since 1990. Their main goal is to manage the human harvest of krill so that the
penguins and the Antarctic Ecosystem are not adversely affected. This program studies
the population and human harvest rate of krill but the information works towards
answering questions about the feeding range of this species of penguin, what the
normal levels of breeding success and food consumption are amongst this species, how
much variation amongst diet and breeding success from year to year, and how much
krill can be fished without adversely affecting this ecosystem and species (​Australian
Antarctic Division 2012). The information gained from this program in turn, aids in the
management of krill fishery and helps protect humans from overfishing the main food
source of Adélie penguins. This method is done through long-term monitoring which can
become expensive due to the program needing to be funded for a large number of
years. Expense is always a large challenge when it comes to long-term monitoring
however, this method answers many key questions and is therefore very beneficial to
gaining a better understanding about this penguin species and the overall effect that
human harvest of krill has on the ecosystem.
Another type of management that involves human interaction with penguins is
relocation to refuge areas. Refugia is the most recommended method for protecting the
declining populations of Adélie penguins. An area of land that is protected and has a
mild climate that is neither too warm nor too cold where animals could survive periods of
adverse climate. It is suggested that this species of penguin may possibly find refuge in
places such as the Amunden and Eastern Antarctica as they are areas that have been
glacial refuges in the past (Cimino et al. 2016). It is important that current management
methods focus on conserving the areas listed above that may become a refuges to
these penguins in the near future. This can be done by establishing fishing restrictions
in these areas because penguins spend the upwards of 75% of their time in the water, a
problem of overfishing needs to be reduced. Overfishing is killing their main source of
food and if these refuge areas are going to be used in order to save the Adélie penguin
population, then they must have an abundance of fish and krill to sustain themselves on
(Borborogu 2014). I find this method to be the most promising but also the most difficult
because it requires the management of human activity. It is very difficult to establish
fishing restrictions and to get people to follow them when economic benefits more often
than not, outweigh the choices made by individuals when it comes to the conservation
of resources. As we saw in the God Squad case in class, it was not that people did not
care about the survival of the Northern Spotted Owl, it was that the economic stability of
the community was dependent on the timber industry and the harvest of trees that made
up the home range of the species.
Furthermore, this issue is important because the effects of Antarctica
warming trickles down to all of the continents of the world. The WAP in particular is
experiencing warmer than normal sea temperatures and doing so at a higher rate than
any other area during the same time period (Robert 2016). This information is alarming
because rising sea temperatures leads to changes in tide patterns, making rougher
seas and potentially causing more dangerous and intense storms. This fact should be
relatable to every single person that lives on this planet, as changes in sea level,
temperatures, and intensity of storms affects everyone detrimentally. Not only are
penguins an attractive animal that many people find to be cute and find emotion for, but
it is an essential recycler that is needed to provide nutrients for the grounds of its home,
Antarctica. Not known to many, Antarctica has a very brief summer season in which
green moss grows in abundance. This vegetation relies very heavily on the nitrogen
found in fossilized poop of penguins in order to grow (Oskin 2012). Studying this moss
is important because it is a key indicator of the effects of climate change and well as the
status of the penguins that live in the region. The moss grows on abandoned Adélie
penguin colonies where penguin poop is in abundance. The color of the moss indicates
the stress level of the moss due to environmental factors. High winds due to the ozone
hole cause increased rates of water evaporation, leaving little for the moss to live on
and therefore turning the moss red and brown and eventually killing them (Oskin 2012).
However most recently, warmer global temperatures have been a driving force in
Antarctica becoming a greener continent.
Although there is still much research to be done in order to create a
management plan that is most effective for the survival and increase in Adélie penguin
populations, the most essential methods include relocating this species to parts of the
continent that are not experiencing rapid warming and most important educating people
on the issue. Education is key to bring to light just how important penguins are to our
ecosystem as a whole and that only human actions are going make a big difference in
how quickly this species declines. Further research must be done to understand the
complexities of this very large and variable continent which is vital to all ecosystems on
this earth.

Polar Bears
 Since 1973 there has been conservation efforts to help repopulate the
polar bear population (Clark et al. 2010). As time goes on the climate continues to
change, this causes the conservation methods to become more complex. The biggest
issue when conserving polar bears is conserving their habitat, because of this, polar
bear conservation now takes the interest of social, economic, political, as well as
ecological stakeholder’s (Clark et al. 2010). With this many stakeholders it is becomes
very difficult to come to a solid consensus of what will become of these bears. Many
emotions as well as biases will be put into what should be done for the polar bears, that
in my opinion it can make the conservation more complex.
The issue with climate change has become increasingly difficult over the
years, this is due to the lack of information on the topic, as well as lack of tools. Studies
have been done in the arctic from 1932-2002, which show no significant signs of climate
change (Dyck et al. 2007). With this information it leads people to believe that global
warming is not real. However, the polar bears are a very strong fact as to how and why
global warming is such a pressing matter. With the polar bears as well as its habitat, it is
difficult to make a prediction on how their population as well as habitat will become in
the coming years. That is why it is extremely important to take adaptive management
efforts now to gauge how the population as well as habitat will react in the future.
Adaptive measurements is a tool we will use to try to lower the amount of uncertainty
we having for the future populations on polar bears. For the polar bears this means we
will try out different management tools such as relocation, or even supplemental feeding
to see how the population will react. This gives us information on how the population
reacts so we can predict how they will react and withstand future situations.
Polar bears are considered marine mammals, this means they are not
aquatic, but gain all their food from aquatic life. With the rising climate, this causes the
sea-ice to prematurely break, this shows a correlation to the declining health as well as
poor reproductive characteristics of the polar bear (Dyck et al. 2007). With the ice
breaking they can no longer travel, as well as no longer able to hunt for these aquatic
animals such as seals. Polar bears prefer to live as well as hunt on the continental shelf,
as the ice retreats they are pushed onto the land. This causes the polar bears to travel
further for food as well as adds stress, with this stress comes malnutrition, cannibalism,
lower reproductive rates, land denning as well as overall reduced body conditions
(Hunter et al. 2010). With the polar bear becoming listed as endangered, this has
prompted a complete overview of the population as well as predictions of future effects
on the species to adapt to how we conserve those (Hunter et al. 2010). With the
population of polar bears being affected by the ice prematurely breaking this is a major
reason this species needs the recognition. So many people on this earth view rising
climates as “fake” or “irrelevant to us” when it is relevant to us as well as the other
animals living on this planet. The polar bears are a prime example on why we must
conserve their population as well as the arctic.
With more investigation as the polar bear is listed, it is shown that an
estimated 45 years from 2007, the polar bear will become extinct (Hunter et al. 2010).
That means that from this year 2018, we have 34 years left to make the change to help
save this species. This species is a key indicator species as they show how the
environment is doing. As the climate rises and food becomes scarce you will see it in
their declining body conditions. Another reason we must save the polar bear is because
it benefits us humans, with this species comes many benefits, before becoming listed it
was a sport to hunt polar bears, they used the fur for coats to trade, as well as its meat
for food. With hunting these animals come hunting licenses, this draws in money for
their conservation, so with the extinction of this animal comes with a loss of money
coming into the state for conservation purposes.
Some major issues with the polar bear conservation is the climate change. The
main problem affecting the polar bears is the greenhouse gases causing the sea ice to
prematurely melt. There is also a pattern of when the ice breaks up as well as
refreezes, this is off due to the climate change which has significantly impacted the
polar bears in a negative way (Molnar et al. 2014). Finding a solution to fix this can
become very costly as well as hard to take the plan into effect. With this comes the idea
that the planet must work together. The polar bears conservation methods come at a
price, of which no one would like to pay. This is why we must join together to work
together. The specie becoming endangered costs more money to conserve them than it
would to just have everyone change their everyday life. Many people are very stubborn
and will not want to change their daily habits. With this mentality it the conservation of
the polar bear habitat will become nearly impossible.
Studies have shown that from greenhouse gas emissions, the rising
temperatures can lead to having some parts of the year with little ice, to have entire
years with little to no ice (Molnar et al. 2014). ​Norway, Russia, United States, Canada,
and Greenland all have regions with polar bears in them, however none have a plan to
adapt and help save the bears due to the fact they are dying rapidly from malnutrition
due to lack of food (Stirling & Derocher 2012). This is extremely surprising, as well as
deadly. With no plan we have no way to move forward and predict the future for the
polar bears. That is why conservation efforts is such a major role with this species, but
with so many stakeholders in this, it becomes more complex to decide on a solid plan to
tackle this conservation.
The overall goal of the conservation efforts of the polar bears is to
maximize the population enough to be able to maintain a natural or at least semi-natural
regulating population in which we have little human interaction. With this comes
uncertainty, we can speculate how the species will react, but we cannot truly predict
what will become of them in the following years.
One management tactic could be to monitor the bears alongside the
environment. With this method we can see how the environment changes as a way to
detect the problems early on to help the population before it is too late. This will benefit
the polar bears with the early detection, it will become easier to determine how to help
the bears to avoid any further decline in their population. With the ice prematurely
breaking we can detect when ice will begin to break to be able to step in and help the
polar bears when necessary. While early detection is needed, this can be paired with
stricter laws. In some areas harvesting of these bears is still an issue which is also
causing a decline in the population (​Molnar et al. 2014​). With this comes stricter laws
against hunting these polar bears, due to the fact that the polar bear population is no
longer as sustainable as it once was, so measures must be taken to stop this harvest to
limit one fact affecting the polar bears. With early detection as well as stricter hunting
laws this can be a very beneficial way to help the population. The only drawbacks to this
plan is the costs. With early detection, it takes a lot of man power to supervise such a
wide spread population. As well as with hunting it is very difficult to enforce these laws
with anything other than a fine for killing a polar bear. This is why these management
tactics should be used in pairs to fill in gaps one management tactic lacks to make a
stronger conservation method. In my opinion, this is the most practical method to use
when conserving the polar bears. This is because it is helping the bears when needed,
but not helping them 24/7 to where the population depends on it.
Other ways that can help the polar bear population is supplemental feeding as
well a diversionary feeding. With supplemental feeding, this is feeding individuals to
keep them sustained during periods of insufficient food sources. Next is diversionary
feeding, this tool is to use food to draw the bears away from towns and any place
inhabited by people, this reduces the human bear conflict (​Molnar et al. 2014​). The
reason we have diversionary feeding is due to the drawbacks of supplemental feeding.
This brought the bears closer to towns causing humans to be more at risk of coming
into contact with the bears. Both however, are short term goals with some drawbacks.
Both increase human-bear conflict, this can cause high mortality if the humans are not
careful, attacks can occur. Also disease and parasitism can occur with these plans as
well. When coming into contact with a carcass or a polar bear there then becomes the
issue of transmitting diseases or parasites harming either the bear of the human.
Some other conservation tactics that can be used in pair with supplemental
feeding is relocation, or rescuing the bears, putting them in sanctuaries. Relocation has
shown to work only when the populations cause for decline is removed (Fischer &
Lindenmayer 2000). This can be beneficial when pairing with the supplemental feeding,
it can help sustain the population for a short period of time. This will give the bears
enough energy so once they are relocated to an areas with more sustainable food they
have the strength to hunt. With rescuing the polar bears and placing them into a
sanctuary, this can be used as a way to rehabilitate some of the population enough until
they are able to be re-entered into the wild. One major drawback with this it that it can
help part of the population but can be very costly as well. Another problem is that there
is not enough sanctuaries to help the entire population, just portions of it. With this it is
not a guarantee that the polar bears will be able to sustain themselves in the wild
without our help. While both of these plans are very efficient in helping the polar bears
now, it is not a long term solution. I believe that these plans can cause the bears to
become too dependent on humans, and cause the populations to decline more once the
feeding is stopped or the polar bears are released from these sanctuaries.
Overall, the polar bear population is in a serious decline with extinction nearing. It
is our duty as humans to help this endangered species. It is easiest when the world
works together to save a species rather than ecologists, and wildlife managers battling
this alone. The polar bears are not the first species to become extinct due to the
populations lack of knowledge on conservation. The longer the public stays in the dark
on these animals the longer we spend money wasting on conservation tactics that will
not permanently sustain the polar bears population. That is why I believe it is most
important that we must work together to stop another species from extinction.
 Sockeye Salmon

The number of documented trends caused by climatic changes in the ocean and
Pacific Northwest waters have evidently been impacting sockeye salmon. But to what
extent is more difficult to gauge because of fluctuating population levels in stocks from
year to year. These fluctuations make it difficult to determine the impact on the
population as a whole; some stocks remain under ideal levels, while some exceed them
(Tillotson & Quinn 2016). Regardless, the effects of altered behavior and numbers in
this salmon species have already been felt by wildlife and humans alike, especially in
Alaska and British Columbia, where they are environmentally and economically
significant.
The sockeye salmon is one of five species that comprise the “Pacific salmon”
group, the others of which are king, pink, chum, and coho (WWF 2018). The importance
of these species to the environment is undeniable. As I now understand the magnitude
of their influence on the temperate rainforest ecosystem of the Pacific Northwest, I see
their decline as a dire situation. Bald eagles, grey wolves, grizzly bears, and many other
wildlife rely on the run of adult salmon returning to spawn as a primary source of
nutrition. In particular for grizzly bears emerging from hibernation, weak and
malnourished, their survival hinges on them (Nature’s Great Events 2009). And there is
a critical service the salmon provide that is essentially responsible for the ecosystem’s
very existence. In consuming these fish, predators give to the surrounding forest
valuable nutrient cycling: they scatter salmon carcasses around, which act as fertilizer
for the soil due to their richness in nitrogen and phosphorous. It is understood that these
salmon carcasses are responsible for 80% of the nitrogen used by the forest (Nature’s
Great Events 2018). Without this, the ecosystem as we know it now could collapse, or
at the very least, become heavily reduced as it withers from the lack of nutrients it has
evolved to depend on. Economically, we as humans would also suffer.
Fisheries in the Pacific Northwest, most notably those of Bristol Bay in Alaska
and Fraser River in British Columbia, make up a billion dollar industry, and a significant
portion of that is maintained by the population stocks of Pacific salmon; sockeye salmon
in particular are prized for its taste and health benefits. Alaskan fisheries alone employ
tens of thousands of people and are the driving source of economy for those local
communities (Resource Development Council 2018). Any enduring drop in salmon
abundance would have long-term negative impacts on fisheries, their workers and
surrounding communities. There are also indigenous peoples who depend on sockeye
salmon in particular for subsistence. The St’at’imc people of British Columbia are one
example; their method of preservation involves a drying process that relies on weather
patterns of the seasons. A survey conducted among these people shed light on their
concerns that the loss of these salmon would be a loss of their culture and way of life,
and they have already begun to feel the consequences of lower populations (Jacob, et.
al. 2009).
Economic value as a commercial fish has provided the sockeye salmon with
management and conservation efforts for decades, falling under the protection of
general fisheries management policies, such as the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries
Conservation & Management Act of 1967 and those of Pacific salmon as whole, like the
Pacific Salmon Treaty of 1985 (NOAA 2018; Pacific Salmon Commission 2016).
Ensuring maximum sustained yield and avoiding overexploitation of sockeye and other
salmon species has been a key goal for many years (NOAA 2018; ADF&G 2018). This
is done mainly by adaptive harvest management. A major recurring goal and challenge
is determining the size of stock populations so that they are not overharvested. One
way this is accomplished is by tracking the adult salmon on their return run to spawning
grounds at certain checkpoints along their routes to determine health and numbers.
Fisheries are opened and closed based on that data and the performance of the
individual fishery according to the judgment of fishery managers operating with
authorities such as the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G 2018). The
counts themselves are generally done at structures which as weirs, which are small
dams that temporarily prevent the salmon from moving so that a tally may be taken.
Catch and escapement are other important components; catch is defined by the amount
of salmon that are harvested, and escapement is the amount of salmon that are allowed
to return to breeding grounds to spawn. Considering both allows estimations of future
populations, and predictions of how many can be sustainably harvested (NPAFC 2016).
Of course, these are subject to human error and require cooperation between multiple
countries as salmon do not discriminate between borderlines. These are valuable tools
in preserving the numbers we have now, but taken alone, they will prove to be
ineffective in the long-term as the biggest threat sockeye and other salmon face is loss
of habitat.
Habitat lays the foundation for how many of a species can be supported within it,
and climate change has the potential to dramatically degrade it. Therefore, habitat
restoration and preservation are the driving forces behind current sockeye salmon
management, as well as protecting potential future habitats and encouraging further
colonization by sockeye and other Pacific salmon (Healey, M. 2011). A poor
understanding of climate change’s effects on marine systems is a major roadblock, so
there is little available headway that has been made in terms of that. Freshwater
ecosystems are much more understood, and efforts are currently being made to
maintain what is available. While sockeye salmon as a whole is currently listed as a
species of least concern under the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red
List, two stock populations are protected under the Endangered Species Act (IUCN
2018; USFWS 2018). These are the endangered Snake River stock of Oregon and
Washington, listed in 1992, and the threatened Ozette Lake stock of Washington, listed
in 1999. As is required by the Endangered Species Act, the National Marine Fisheries
Service developed a recovery plan for the Ozette Lake stock. Habitat restoration efforts
include sediment reduction, hydrologic restoration, and large woody debris restoration.
The latter is particularly important, as it can influence the former two. Initially, it was
thought that the removal of downed trees would help fish populations and reduce
flooding. But this flooding was an important component to sockeye salmon survivability;
by flooding, streams were able to periodically overflow in floodplains, dispersing
nutrients to enrich soils that strengthened the overall health of the ecosystem. Lack of
sufficient debris in the water also contributes to raised water temperatures as there is
nothing else that can provide sufficient shade. Predator risk is also heightened because
sources for cover are diminished as well. The physical presence of the downed debris
not only raises water levels which encourages critical flooding, it provides areas of
shade to cool off in and contributes to a lower temperature throughout the area, and
hiding areas to avoid and escape predators. It also helps filter sediment so nesting
areas for eggs are cleaned by this process, and they can also assist water flow in areas
to reduce sediment buildup. Another aspect is removing invasive plants that do a
subpar job of protecting soil and bank integrity and replacing them with native plants
that do. This would avoid erosion as well (NMFS 2016). This is, without a doubt, the
most critical area for preserving sockeye salmon, and this must be our main focus. On
non-private lands, this would not be difficult to implement; simply allowing fallen trees to
remain where they are or identifying strategic areas to place them would not be as
costly as hatcheries and transportation methods, and would have greater long-term
benefits. However, for private lands, cooperation with landowners can be an issue.
Conservation easements are generally the best method, but that relies on voluntary
participation (NMFS 2016). Regardless of the challenges, I think this has to be our
focus. Because even if we have the numbers to maintain current populations, habitat
degradation will inevitably continue if little is done to prevent or reverse it, and those
salmon will no longer be able to support themselves. One method to combat these
falling populations has been hatcheries.
Hatchery fish have been used to supplement wild salmon populations and there
has been substantial success with these efforts. A prime example is the hatchery stocks
of the Columbia Basin; 80% of the salmon and steelhead there are raised in hatcheries
(USFWS 2018). But there is an issue of food competition for sockeye salmon with
hatchery-raised populations that has already been observed in Fraser River of British
Columbia. While out at sea, pink salmon are more voracious and generalist eaters than
sockeye salmon and so contribute to a lack of available food for the sockeye. In the
presence of these competitors, sockeye grow slower and stay at a smaller size which
reduces female fecundity. Abundance in these hatchery-raised pinks - of which there
are nearly one and a half billion released annually - has been tied to the decline of
nearly forty sockeye salmon populations. It is predicted that Fraser River sockeye
salmon in particular will be reduced by 67% should these increases continue. Alaska
and Russia are the primary sources of hatchery-released fish, but they have not
performed their actions cooperatively (Shore 2015). In order to combat this, it is vital for
there to be an agreement between these two countries, like what was done with the
Pacific Salmon Treaty between the United States and Canada. Because of results like
these, I personally think hatchery-raised fish are the wrong answer for sockeye salmon,
especially if there is no headway made for cooperation in the near future. And as for
sockeye salmon raised in hatcheries, a very recent example in Idaho demonstrates the
loss that can occur. The $13.5 billion hatchery was built to supplement the Snake River
sockeye salmon population: the goal was to release 1 million smolts and the
expectation was 5,000 would survive to return to reproduce. But just last year, only 162
returned to spawn. Differences in water chemistry is suspected to be the main culprit.
Water at the hatchery contains high dissolved mineral concentrations, but water along
their migration route to the sea is not. This difference between “hard” and “soft” water
places an additional aggravation on their adjustment from freshwater overall to the salt
water of the ocean (Ridler 2017). These initial losses are considered normal when new
hatcheries are opened, as unexpected and unintended problems arise. But the cost,
manpower, and resources used in the process are enormous. This is proof in the
importance of habitat; the amount of salmon we release into the wild is irrelevant if they
cannot adjust to the changes their environments present them. In terms of restoring
populations, this is not the solution that we need.
Transportation has been used as a management tactic to help migrating fish
populations have a higher success rate in reaching their destination. For the sockeye
salmon, juveniles are captured and transported on boats or trucks further downstream.
This has been used to help populations conserve energy that would have been
expended diverted their route around a dam. However, research has shown this has
repercussions for them as adults; without the experience of making the full journey to
the sea - like learning environmental signals that would cue them along the way - they
lose their ability to find their way back to their hatching grounds to spawn. This reduces
survivability and reproduction rates, as adults, without the knowledge of learned
environmental cues to guide them, get confused on their return and will turn
downstream instead of upstream, a phenomenon referred to as “fallback” (Ecological
Society of America 2008). While the success of this method is variable for juveniles, I
suggest that it is possible for this to be done with adults returning to spawning grounds
in order to avoid the thermal barriers that can delay or completely derail their migration.
I think sockeye salmon’s significance as economically valuable fish will allow
them to be prioritized in wildlife management. While harvesting practices are beneficial
for sustaining the populations we have now, habitat degradation will only continue to get
worse. Hatchery supplementation, in some ways, is a useful Band-Aid for now but in the
long-run, it will not matter how many salmon we release into the environment if habitat
continues to become unsuitable. Transportation is a similar situation; even if we
consider use of it as a method for helping them around thermal barriers, wherever we
bring them will not matter in the end if it is in a poor state. While the species as a whole
is still not considered threatened or endangered, it is only a matter of time before more
and more stocks drop along the coast and both the environment and our economy will
suffer the consequences.

Further Research

When looking at studies of the polar bears, sockeye salmon, as well as

the Adélie penguins, climate change is the main factor that is affecting their population.
While these species are a prime example of the rising climate in the Arctic and
Antarctic, there is not much known on the exact route to take to help conserve these
animals and their habitats with the rising climates (Dyck et al. 2007). Further research is
needed to be done on the exact routes of rising greenhouse gases, as well as effective
ways to combat these climate changes. Additional research is needed for polar bears.
At the moment polar bears are surviving while being supplementary fed by humans, or
being rehabilitated in sanctuaries, further research is needed to determine ways to have
polar bears live sustainably on their own with little to no human interactions. With the
changing climate it is making living sustainably harder, as well as making reproduction
more difficult.(Hunter et al. 2010). Sockeye salmon are in a similar situation as the
threats they face from climate change negatively impact survival rates and subsequently
their rate of reproduction as lower numbers leave fewer to spawn. Another challenge
with protecting sockeye salmon populations is correctly determining what those
population numbers are (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2014). The most effective
way to handle this is utilizing adaptive management techniques wherein continuous
research and monitoring is put into place on populations to keep data as current and
accurate as possible. Keeping track of numbers is vital in keeping our management
practices up to date. Additional research is needed regarding the ways in which marine
systems react to climate change, as our current understanding of this is poor and would
be a valuable piece to the puzzle in minimizing detriment to sockeye salmon, as well as
polar bears and Adelie penguins. More research should be done to estimate how
greatly reproduction is affecting these species as well as the long term effects.

Research question​: At what rate are the populations of Adélie penguins, polar
bears, and sockeye salmon decreasing due to climate change?

Hypothesis​: As climate change continues to melt the ice cover and increase the
water temperatures of the Arctic and the Antarctic, populations of adelie penguins, polar
bears, and sockeye salmon will decrease at an accelerating rate.

Methodology​: We will conduct a multiple-year study following localized

populations of each species - polar bear and sockeye salmon - in order to develop
cohort life tables to track survivorship. Using capture-mark-recapture methods, we will
estimate initial, and subsequently annual, counts of these populations. In order to best
evaluate the status of each population, we will track density-dependent index
responses, such as annual survivability, reproduction rates, growth rates for all three,
and additionally sequence of fat mobilization for polar bears and body size for Adelie
penguins.
For the methodoloy og Adélie penguins, we will conduct study that does not
involve capture-mark-recapture of Adélie penguins due to the adverse affects but rather
focuses on methods like (CCAMLR) Ecosystem Monitoring Program, focusing on
human harvesting of krill in order to compromise regulations preventing overfishing.
Also Creating Refugia in areas that are less vulnerable to climate change and
implementing regulations to preserve the food sources and human impact on the habitat
in these areas so that this species can be translocated to these protected areas when
their natural habitat is no longer suitable.
 Concerning polar bears and sockeye salmon, our focus would be on Canadian
populations. For the polar bears, mark and recapture would consist of going into the
field and sedating the bears. Once sedated we will check its overall condition, attach a
radio collar, and track it for the remaining year. Capture-mark-recapture for sockeye
salmon will be conducted in the Fraser River stocks of British Columbia. Seining will be
used to catch, count, measure, and mark juveniles leaving each year, as well as how
many of those return to spawn. This process will be repeated to determine overall
population levels and reproduction rates. The Jolly-Seber estimator will be used to
calculate results and determine estimations each year.
In addition to this, habitat parameters known to be impacted by climate change
(such as snow and ice cap melt and warmer water temperatures) will be measured to
assess how an increase in degradation influences survival. For the species of Adélie
penguin, futther research must be done that focuses on population trends, species
ecology and how climate changes and human disturbances affect the overall well being
of the species.

Implications​: Our research findings will offer up-to-date insight on how the
enduring and worsening effects of climate change, in particular the melting of sea ice
and warming of water temperatures, may affect the rate at which we lose our
populations of adelie penguins, polar bears, and sockeye salmon. Understanding how
fast these populations are dropping will serve to better inform what steps and tactics
need to be prioritized in management strategies so that we can effectively prevent
further losses and restore numbers.
 Bibliography

Alaska Department of Fish & Game. Sockeye Salmon. Available from

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=sockeyesalmon.management

Australian Antarctic Division. Adelie Penguins. Available from

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/wildlife/animals/penguins/adelie-penguins

Australian Antarctic Division. 2012. CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Program (CEMP).

Available from
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/wildlife/animals/penguins/adelie-penguins/
ecosystem-monitoring-program-cemp
Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition. Climate change and the Arctic. Available from
https://www.asoc.org/advocacy/climate-change-and-the-antarctic

Borboroglu PG. 2014. Penguin health equals ocean health. [internet] Smithsonian
National Museum of Natural History. [cited 2018 Apr 18]. Available from
http://ocean.si.edu/blog/penguin-health-equals-ocean-health

Brodbeck, A. 2017. Climate is changing - and so are salmon. The Scope. Available from
http://www.psc.org/about-us/history-purpose/pacific-salmon-treaty/

Casselman, A. 2009. Grizzly details: salmon collapse could be bad news for bears. The
Scientific American. Available from
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/salmon-collapse-bad-news-for-bears/

Casselman, A. 2011. Upstream battle: what is killing off the Fraser River’s sockeye
salmon? The Scientific American. Available from
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-killing-off-fraser-river-sockeye-salmon

Cimino M., W.R. Fraser, D.L. Patterson-Fraser, V.S. Saba, M.J. Oliver. 2014.
Large-scale climate and local weather drive interannual variability in Adélie penguin
chick fledgin mass. Marine Ecology Progress Series (513): 253-268

Clark, DA., S. G. Clark, M. Dowsley, L. Foote, T. S. Jung, R. H. Lemelin. 2010. It’s not
just about bears: a problem-solving workshop on aboriginal peoples, polar bears, and
human dignity. InfoNorth 63(1): 124-127.
Dyck MG., W. Soon, R.K. Baydack, D.R. Legates, S. Baliunas, T.F. Ball, L.O. Hancock.
2007. Polar bears of the western Hudson Bay and climate change: Are warming spring
air temperatures the “ultimate” survival control factor? Ecological Complexity (4): 73-84.

Ecological Society of America. 2008. Transporting young salmon to help them avoid
dams hinders adult migration. Science Daily. Available from
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081205113934.htm

Fischer, J. D.B. Lindenmayer. 2000. Assessment of the published results of animal

relocations. Biology Conservation (96): 1-11.

Healey, M. 2011. The cumulative impacts of climate change on Fraser River sockeye
salmon (oncorhynchus nerka) and implications for management. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 68(4): 718-737.

Hunter, C., H. Caswell, M. Runge, E. Regehr, S. Amstrup, I Stirling. 2010. Climate

change threatens polar bear populations: a stochastic demographic analysis. Ecological
Society of America (91): 2883-2897.

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2008. Salmon and climate
change: fish in hot water. The IUCN Red List of Threatened and Endangered Species.

Jacob, C.; T. McDaniels; S. Hinch. 2009. Indigenous culture and adaptation to climate
change: sockeye salmon and the St’at’imc people. Mitigation, Adaptation, Strategy, and
Global Change 15: 859-876. DOI 10.1007/s11027-010-9244-z
Molnar P., A. Derocher, G. Thiemann, M. Lewis. 2014. Predicting survival, reproduction
and abundance of polar bears under climate change. Biological Conservation
(143):1612-1622.

Messmore T. 2012. Penguins provide window into shifting Antarctic ecosystem.

Available from http://www1.udel.edu/udaily/2012/jan/oliver-penguins-011812.html

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2016. Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon
Recovery Plan Summary: keys to understanding. Available from:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/nov/17/experts-idaho-hatchery-built-to-save-sa
lmon-is-kil/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2018. Magnuson-Stevens

Fisheries Conservation & Management Act. Available from
http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/whatwedo/msa/magnuson_stevens_act.html
Nimon A. J., R.C. Schroter, and R.K. Oxenham. 1996. Artificial Eggs: Measuring heart
rate and effects of disturbance in nesting penguins. Physiology & Behavior (60):
1019-1022
Nature’s Great Events. 2009. The Great Salmon Run. B. Leith. United Kingdom. BBC
Natural History Unit.

North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC). 2016. Salmon Escapement.

Available from http://www.npafc.org/new/science_escapement.html

Oskin B. 2012. Antarctic moss lives off penguin poop. [internet] Live Science; [cited
2018 Apr 18]. Available from
https://www.livescience.com/22396-penguin-poop-fuels-moss.html

Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2014. Salmon. Available from

https://www.pcouncil.org/salmon/background/

Pacific Salmon Commission. 2016. The Pacific Salmon Treaty. Available from
http://www.psc.org/about-us/history-purpose/pacific-salmon-treaty/

Resource Development Council. 2018. Alaska’s Fishing Industry. Available from

http://www.akrdc.org/fisheries

Ridler, K. 2017. Experts: Idaho hatchery built to save salmon is killing them. The
Spokesman. Available from
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/nov/17/experts-idaho-hatchery-built-to-save-sa
lmon-is-kil/

Robert KB. 2016. Climate change may shrink Adelie penguin range by end of century.
[internet]. Global Climate Change. [cited 2018 Apr 18]. Available from
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2462/climate-change-may-shrink-adelie-penguin-range-b
y-end-of-century/

Shore, R. 2015. B.C. wild sockeye salmon population hurt by hatchery pinks: study
finds. Times Colonist. Available from
http://www.timescolonist.com/business/b-c-wild-sockeye-salmon-population-hurt-by-hat
chery-pinks-study-finds-1.1813534

Stirling I., A. Derocher. 2012. Effects of climate warming on polar bears: a review of the
evidence. Global Change Biology(9): 2694

Tillotson, M. D.; T. P. Quinn. 2016. Beyond correlation in the detection of climate

change impacts: testing a mechanistic hypothesis for climatic influence on sockeye
salmon (oncorhynchus nerka) productivity. PLOS ONE 1-24.
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0154356

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2017. Pygoscelis adeliae. Available from
http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22697758/0
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018. Salmon of the West. Available from
https://www.fws.gov/salmonofthewest/fws.htm

World Wildlife Fund (WWF). 2018. Species - pacific salmon. Available from
https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/pacific-salmon

World Wildlife Fund (WWF). 2018. Species- Polar Bears. Available from
https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/polar-bear

Earth Observatory. 2018. NASA. Global Warming. Available from

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php