Why Less Summer Ice Increases Bear Populations

This image shows the Arctic as observed by the...
This image shows the Arctic as observed by the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS (AMSR-E) aboard NASA’s Aqua satellite on September 16, 2007. The image shows a record sea ice minimum in the Arctic. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Guest essay by Jim Steel, Director Emeritus, San Fransisco State University

“Annual primary production in the Arctic has increased yearly … Should these trends continue, additional loss of ice during Arctic spring could boost productivity >3-fold above 1998–2002 levels” -Dr. Kevin Arrigo, Stanford University

While the Inuit argue it is the time of the most polar bear, CO2 advocates suggest they may soon go extinct, implying the loss of thick, multiyear ice in September is denying the polar bears the icy platform from which they hunt seals. In reality, less summer ice has a negligible effect on normal hunting, but a decisively positive effect on the bears’ main prey. Recent periods of more open water in the summer have undeniably benefitted the whole food chain.

The bears’ most important feeding period extends from March to June when bears binge on breeding ringed seals and their pups. This is the time when hunting on sea ice is most important, but unlike the highly publicized reductions in September ice, the reduction in springtime ice has been quite minor and no respectable models predict the disappearance of winter ice. Without the sun, winter air temperatures range from ‑15°F and ‑52°F and ample ice will always form, providing ringed seals with ample breeding habitat

The Arctic Ocean is relatively poor in nutrients, and benefits greatly from ocean cycles that import nutrients from the Bering Sea and the Atlantic. The intruding warm and nutrient-rich currents also cause less ice, which promotes more photosynthesis. Between 2003 and 2007, productivity in the Arctic Ocean increased by 23% relative to the 1998-2002 average. When phytoplankton increase, zooplankton flourish, treating whales, sea birds and young Arctic cod to a bountiful feast.2 In addition to more food, the warmer surface temperatures stimulate the “cold-blooded” Arctic cod grow faster and bigger, and bigger fish are better able to survive the winter. Fishery scientists have concluded, “at least in the short term, the lengthening of the ice-free season presently observed in Arctic seas could result in improved recruitment and larger populations of Arctic cod.”3

More Arctic cod sustains more ringed seals, harp seals, harbor seals, beluga whales and several species of seabirds. Ringed seals feed intensively on cod in the open waters of summer in order to store the fat needed to survive the winter. Ringed seals suffer when sea ice is slow to break up. In 1992 when breakup of sea ice was delayed by 25 days, the body condition of all ringed seals declined.4 In contrast during the most recent decade with more open water, the number of ringed seal pups in the western Hudson Bay tripled relative to the 1990s.4 With more seal pups the polar bears’ body condition also improved. Polar bear experts observed that recent improvement in the bears’ body condition but never published it.5 Instead papers that try to portray the bears as starving, only report the cycle of decline up to 1999.14

clip_image002

Ringed Seal Biology

Because a larger body size conserves heat more efficiently, animals living in polar regions are typically the largest among related species. (i.e., polar bears and Emperor penguins) Paradoxically, the ringed seal is the smallest yet most abundant of all Arctic seals, and they remain in the Arctic all winter. Both males and females are featherweights (weighing in at about 110-150 pounds) compared to the male Pacific walrus (weighing in at approximately 3500 pounds). The secret to this tiny seal’s success is the relative warmth of the ocean’s water (+28°F or higher). Seals avoid deadly -20°F air temperatures by staying in the water. In fact, for most of the year, ringed seals spend more than 90% of their time swimming, inaccessible to polar bears.6 Even during the winter when seals are tethered to their breathing holes, they never spend more than 20% of the time out of the water. Although all polar bears (except those that are nursing newborn cubs) remain active during the winter hunting on thick winter ice, the bears continue to lose weight because the odds are slim that they will stumble upon a resting seal.

However, the bear’s odds improve mightily during seals’ breeding season. For about 6-8 weeks from late March through May, adult ringed seals spend about 50% of their time hauled out on the ice, giving birth and nursing their pups in lairs just beneath a layer of snow.6 Consequently female polar bears emerge from their maternity dens at just the right time to binge on fat, helpless ringed seal pups.7Researchers reported that one 17-year-old female with three cubs-of-the-year was handled in November 1983 when she weighed just 218 lbs. The following July, she was without cubs, probably pregnant, and weighed 903 lbs, a four-fold weight change in just eight months.8 However her gain may have been even greater, as she likely continued to lose weight from November until March or April when the first seal pups appeared.

After the surviving seal pups are weaned, adult ringed seals seek out ice edges and floes where they can lay in the sun and molt their skin during two weeks of peak sunlight in June. Although not as vulnerable as baby seals, molting seals spend 60% of their time on the ice. Once their molt is complete, ringed seals are swimming in distant open waters from July through October, far from the jaws of most hungry bears. But with the passing of September’s equinox, the sun begins to fade and adult seals return to the coast to stake out their winter territories. And savvy polar bears line the coast in anticipation.

The seals must arrive before the new ice thickens in order to develop a series of breathing holes. When the ice first forms, the seals use their heads to punch open holes in the thin ice. Then as the fast-ice thickens, they must constantly chew and claw at the ice to maintain their breathing holes throughout the winter.

Because seals require thinner ice to create their breathing holes,9 areas dominated by thick multiyear ice always sustain far fewer seals and far fewer bears.14,15 In regions like the northern Canadian Archipelago, winds pile ice against the shoreline. The winds crumple the ice and heave layers of thin ice into piles of thick rubble. The ice rubble resists melting and sets the stage for thicker multiyear ice to increase in the following years. Climate scientists have detected various cycles that alternately drive thick ice out of the Arctic or confine and compress the ice.10 These cycles range from 6 to 20 years and are associated with the North Atlantic Oscillation/Arctic Oscillation.

Since the mid 1990’s, Arctic sea ice has been behaving more like Antarctic sea ice and that has been good news for plankton, cod, seals, and bears. When the Arctic Oscillation swung to a positive phase, thicker multiyear ice was blown out from the Arctic into the north Atlantic.10 As a result the thinner replacement ice now melts more rapidly each summer, and biologically that is highly beneficial. (In the Antarctic, ice is not constrained by continents, and thick multiyear ice is relatively scarce, Although Antarctic sea ice expands much more than Arctic ice, it also melts more rapidly each summer. Still the Antarctic winter sea ice has expanded to its greatest limits during the most recent decades.).

The Deception

In 2012, polar bear experts Ian Stirling and Andrew Derocher (who predicts by the middle of this century, two-thirds of the polar bears will be gone due to rising CO2) published “Effects of climate warming on polar bears: a review of the evidence.”16 To illustrate the importance of ringed seal pups they wrote, “In the mid-1970s and again in the mid-1980s, ringed seal pup productivity plummeted by 80% or more for 2–3 years…. A comparison of the age-specific weights of both male and female polar bears from 1971 to 1973 (productive seal years), to those from 1974 to 1975 (years of seal reproductive failure), demonstrated a significant decline in the latter period.” 16

Without argument, bears always benefit from more seal pups, but Derocher’s retelling of the seals’ decline in a section titled, “Why progressively earlier breakup of the sea ice negatively affects persistence of polar bear subpopulations” was (to be kind) highly deceptive! The seals’ productivity had plummeted because the Arctic had cycled to years of heavy ice, not due to “a progressively earlier break-up. Somehow that critical point escaped peer review.

Instead of directly mentioning the heavy ice connection, they simply referenced Stirling’s 2002 paper. In that paper Stirling contradicted the “review”, “Heavy ice conditions in the mid-1970s and mid-1980s caused significant declines in productivity of ringed seals, each of which lasted about 3 years and caused similar declines in the natality of polar bears and survival of subadults, after which reproductive success and survival of both species increased again.” 7 In 2012, Stirling coauthored another paper with a seal researcher and concluded all declines were caused by heavy ice years. Their paper proposed that “the decline of ringed seal reproductive parameters and pup survival in the 1990s could have been triggered by unusually cold winters and heavy ice conditions that prevailed in Hudson Bay in the early 1990s, through nutritional stress”.7

Located south of the Arctic Circle, the Hudson Bay and Foxe Basin are naturally ice free by the end of every summer, yet these regions host robust bear populations. The lack of ice provides two benefits: it insures ample thin autumn ice required by breeding ringed seals, and it permits the summer immigration of Beluga whales, harp seals, and harbor seals into the bay. Any bear that failed to get its fill of ringed seal pups in the spring, can supplement its diet with these open-water immigrants.

Scientists can estimate a bear’s diet by taking samples of fat from the rump of a (heavily sedated) polar bear. Each prey species has a highly specific combination of essential fats. By analyzing those unique fats, they can tell what the bears have eaten. Using this method scientists have determined that ringed seals provide about 70% of the bear’s diet in the Hudson Bay. The remainder of the diet consists of resident Bearded seals, Harbor seals that typically avoid ice, and Harp seals and Beluga whales that immigrate into the bay only during the open-water season.

Elsewhere the Lancaster Sound population dines on Beluga whales nearly as much as they eat ringed seals. In the summer Belugas also herd cod into shallow embayments but get helplessly stranded when the tide goes out. Belugas are also frequently trapped by rapidly advancing winter ice. In the South Beaufort Sea, ringed seals account for 15% to 70% of the bears’ diet, while Bowhead Whales contribute from 2% to 52%, and Beluga Whales from 1% to 33%, with percentages varying widely amongst individuals.11

In the Davis Strait off the coast of Labrador, polar bears will binge on baby Harp seals that breed on the pack-ice. Harp seals are another conservation success story. Since sustainable hunting regulations were imposed, they increased from less than 2 million in the 1970s to over 5.5 million in the 1990s and the bear population grew accordingly. Contrary to popular global warming theory, Harp Seals are now spreading south. In the 1980s only 5 seals were reported on Sable Island off the coast of Nova Scotia. By 1994 the Harp Seal population had ballooned to over 1100.12

In Foxe Basin just north of the Hudson Bay, ringed seals make up about 50% of the diet. In addition to harbor seals, harp seals and bearded seals, walruses contribute 7% of the bears’ diet. Wherever walruses are abundant, they are preyed upon by bears. Along the Laptev Sea polar bears have been observed making pits behind piles of driftwood, in which they hide and wait for walruses to come ashore. On Wrangle Island the bears wait on ice-free shores, anticipating the traditional walrus haul-outs to feast on the weariest walrus that lumber ashore. Impress by their resilient hunting behavior, researchers have remarked that such varied hunting behavior explains how polar bears have thrived during the past 10,000 years when summer sea ice was much less prevalent than today.13

Literature Cited

  1. Arrigo, K. and van Dijken, G. (2004) Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 31, L08304, doi:10.1029/2003GL018978
  2. Michaud, J., t al. (1996) Feeding success and survivorship of Arctic cod larvae, Boreogadus saida, in the Northeast Water polynya (Greenland Sea). Fisheries Oceanography, vol. 5, p. 120-135.
  3. Fortier, et al. (2006) Survival of Arctic cod larvae (Boreogadus saida) in relation to sea ice and temperature in the Northeast Water Polynya (Greenland Sea). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, vol. 63, p. 1608–1616
  4. Chambellant, M. et al. (2012) Temporal variations in Hudson Bay ringed seal (Phoca hispida) life-history parameters in relation to environment. Journal of Mammalogy, vol. 93, p.267-281.
  5. Dowsley, M. and M. K. Taylor. 2006. Management consultations for the Western Hudson Bay (WH) polar bear population (01-02 December 2005). Government of Nunavut, Department of Environment, Final Wildlife Report: 3, Iqaluit, 55 pp.
  6. Kelly, B., et al. (2010) Seasonal home ranges and fidelity to breeding sites among ringed seals. Polar Biology 33:1095–1109
  7. Stirling, I. (2002)Polar Bears and Seals in the Eastern Beaufort Sea and Amundsen Gulf: A Synthesis of Population Trends and Ecological Relationships over Three Decades. Arctic, vol. 55, p. 59-76
  8. Ramsay, M, and Stirling, I. (1988) Reproductive biology and ecology of female polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Journal of Zoology (London) Series A 214:601–634.
  9. Frost, K. et al. (2004) Factors Affecting the Observed Densities of Ringed Seals, Phoca hispida, in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea, 1996–99. Arctic, vo. 57. P. 115_128.
  10. Rigor, I.G., J.M. Wallace, and R.L. Colony (2002), Response of Sea Ice to the Arctic Oscillation, J. Climate, v. 15, no. 18, pp. 2648 – 2668.
  11. Thiemann,G. et al. (2011) Individual patterns of prey selection and dietary specialization in an Arctic marine carnivore. Oikos, doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.19277.x
  12. Lucas, Z., and Daoust, P. (2002) Large increases of harp seals (Phoca groenlandica) and hooded seals (Cystophora cristata) on Sable Island, Nova Scotia, since 1995. Polar Biology, vol 2, p. 562–568.
  13. Ovsyanikov N.G., and Menyushina I.E. (2008) Specifics of Polar Bears Surviving an Ice Free Season on Wrangel Island in 2007. Marine Mammals of the Holarctic. Odessa, pp. 407-412
  14. Stirling, I. et al. (1999) Long-term Trends in the Population Ecology of Polar Bears in Western Hudson Bay in Relation to Climatic Change. Arctic vol . 52, p. 294-306.
  15. Stirling, I. and Derocher, A. (1990) Factors Affecting the Evolution and Behavioral Ecology of the Modern. Bears: Their Biology and Management, Vol. 8, A Selection of Papers from the Eighth International Conference on Bear Research and Management, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, February 1989 (1990), pp. 189-204.
  16. Stirling, I and Derocher, A. (2012) Effects of climate warming on polar bears: a review of the evidence. Global Change Biology (2012) 18, 2694–2706, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02753.x

Adapted from the chapter The Resilient Polar Bear and 10,000 years of Climate Change in in Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

84 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
AndyG55
July 6, 2013 2:27 pm

Basically..
A bit of Global warming ……is GOOD
Increased CO2 level….. is GOOD
It is a decline in temps and a decline in CO2 levels that will cause the Earth to suffer.
And unfortunately, the former looks like it might be on its way. 🙁

Mike M
July 6, 2013 3:05 pm

Pregnant female polar bears go into pseudo hibernation to birth their cubs over the winter because there is so little food. With dens always on land usually dig into snow banks, a depleted mother and her cubs emerge in the spring with a variable amount of distance to travel to find food near the coastline, (where the food hangs out – not in the middle of the Arctic ocean). The colder it is – the further she has to travel or wait until shore ice begins to break up to enable hunting. That scenario appears to favor the idea that an abnormally colder conditions would have a more deleterious affect on polar bear population than abnormally warmer ones.

Robin Kool
July 6, 2013 3:06 pm

Wow. Great article.
Well researched – logical.
Makes me remember why I love science.

Jimbo
July 6, 2013 3:11 pm

Here is a challenge for the Warmists (or sceptics). What would happen to the Arctic ringed seal populations and polar bear populations if the Arctic was ice-free every mid-September for the next hundred years? It has happened before during Holocene and the polar bears survived. So did the ringed seals.
Ice free Arctic for a millennium or more…
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.08.016
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMPP11A0203F
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/21/3/227
PS, where are the trolls? Where is the gnashing of teeth? Where are the weak pant wetters?

Editor
July 6, 2013 3:12 pm

Curious. The graph of body condition shows decreasing condition during the earlier years when the globe was warming. Together with the text, it shows improving condition in recent years after the warming stopped. The easy interpretation is that bears do indeed do better with cooling. Could be a time lag, of course, but I would be interested in Jim Steel’s comment on that.

John F. Hultquist
July 6, 2013 3:14 pm

The guest essayist Jim Steel may be in need of a hideout far from the Bay Area of San Francisco. We are about 1,000 miles away. If we can be of service, WUWT has the e-mail address.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Spelling of “Fransisco” at the top?!

July 6, 2013 3:15 pm

And if you haven’t seen it yet, I’ve documented the ‘disappearing’ of the negative effects of thick spring ice on polar bears from the scientific literature (perpetrated by Stirling and Derocher, and others) that Jim refers to here, in my latest post at PolarBearScience:
http://polarbearscience.com/2013/07/04/great-polar-bear-red-herring-in-the-southern-beaufort/
regards,
Susan

Jimbo
July 6, 2013 3:21 pm

What is this? Polar bears will eat reindeer? But no, it’s seals and seals all the way down. The ice melts and the pooooooor seals are dooooooomed.
Abstract
“Predation of Svalbard reindeer by polar bears”
Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) are believed to be obligate predators on marine mammals, and particularly, on two species of seals. This paper reports on observations of polar bears preying (n=7) and scavenging (n=6) on Svalbard reindeer (Rangifer tarandus platyrhyncus). Similar to their closest evolutionary ancestor, the brown bear (U. arctos), polar bears are opportunistic and will prey on ungulates. Reindeer are likely of minor importance to the foraging ecology of polar bears in Svalbard, but the observations suggest behavioural plasticity in response to a novel prey item.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s003000000138

Jimbo
July 6, 2013 3:28 pm

Mike Jonas says:
July 6, 2013 at 3:12 pm
Curious. The graph of body condition shows decreasing condition during the earlier years when the globe was warming. Together with the text, it shows improving condition in recent years after the warming stopped. The easy interpretation is that bears do indeed do better with cooling….

That’s right. That is why there numbers are up from 5,000 in the 1950s to over 25,000 today. See my references above and think again. Cod, ringed seals, ocean productivity. Look at the planet from the Equator to the poles. Do you see a pattern among the greening? No?

John F. Hultquist
July 6, 2013 3:29 pm

Mike Jonas says:
July 6, 2013 at 3:12 pm

About your request:
Jim Steel wrote about the ups and downs of the early chart and just prior to, speaking of the change in the ice conditions.
From the post:
“ In that paper Stirling contradicted the “review”, “Heavy ice conditions in the mid-1970s and mid-1980s caused significant declines in productivity of ringed seals, each of which lasted about 3 years and caused similar declines in the natality of polar bears and survival of subadults, after which reproductive success and survival of both species increased again.”
~~~
You Mike, write “when the globe was warming” but it really hasn’t warmed much and the natural variations of winds and water currents are in evidence – or so it seems to me.

Jimbo
July 6, 2013 3:29 pm

Oppps.
That’s right. That is why their numbers….

Jimbo
July 6, 2013 3:33 pm

I am going to bed now. This article does not make comfortable reading for Warmists at all. They want the polar bear population to decline but it’s just not happening. So they speculate about the future, yet the past slaps them about their lying mouths. Their religion would have collapsed a long time ago if it wasn’t for the brazen, bare faced lies and exaggerations.

Jimbo
July 6, 2013 3:34 pm

I should have said: “bear faced lies and exaggerations.” LOL. 🙂

Rhoda R
July 6, 2013 3:49 pm

Jimbo, their religion would have collapsed a long time ago if it weren’t for the political rent-seekers who are making their lunch on AGW.

higley7
July 6, 2013 4:13 pm

First, many polar bear colonies live on rocky shores anyhow because that is where the walrus haul out. And, little known to the enviroweenies, there is the fact that polar bears do NOT need ice to hunt. They have strategies for hunting on ice and off oce, but females largely go out onto the ice to protect their cubs from predators and male polar bears—they spread out and are less at risk.
SO, why are the envirowhiners all about polar bears going extinct? They need it so to further their political agenda and overall goal to get rid of humans or at least curtail all human activities.

milodonharlani
July 6, 2013 4:23 pm

polarbearscience says:
July 6, 2013 at 3:15 pm
Thanks for this, Dr. Crockford, & for all you do.

u.k.(us)
July 6, 2013 5:35 pm

“The Deception”.
Once agreed upon, must not be challenged ?
Hehe 🙂

tz
July 6, 2013 6:14 pm

Liposuction? Perhaps we need to introduce cartesian bears to square with the models.

Scott Scarborough
July 6, 2013 6:43 pm

They had to know that they would be caught in their lies when the polar bear population did exactly what they knew it would under decreased multi-year ice conditions. Were they expecting to continue the lie and have the world believe that the polar bears were dwindling when there are actually record numbers of them? Maybe that was part of the disciplinary review a year of so ago of the ecologist claiming to having seen drowned polar bears. Maybe they were expecting to be able to just pull off the big lie and they found out that some people will not go along with it. So now they look like fools!

July 6, 2013 8:09 pm

I really think that we can’t have it both ways, we can’t on the one hand say that we don’t have to worry because sea ice isn’t shrinking that much. and say that shrinking ice is good for polar bears.

R2Dtoo
July 6, 2013 8:33 pm

I have known and worked with many people in the natural resources field for 50 years. These polar bear specialists are not unlike many others who dedicate their lives to studying one species. The critters become “family” and the emotional attachment can be very strong. Their entire lives revolve around the bears. Continued study, however, requires continued funding, and therein lies the rub. The polarbearscience website is excellent- and it traces some of the political side of the issue, including literally falsifying or failing to report data that showed the increasing populations during recent decades. The folks who bother me the most are the Suzuki NGOs who extorted a lot of money spreading the fear factor for polar bears. Money corrupts!

Jeremy Giels
July 6, 2013 9:24 pm

Sure, Guys, it’s ALL good, the ice melting makes it all better. We’ll just focus on the immediate benefits this has here and now. Keep spewing more CO2 in the atmosphere, produces more melting…how’s the CH4 concentrations up there? Suppose that’s all good too!

RockyRoad
July 6, 2013 9:54 pm

Tom Trevor says:
July 6, 2013 at 8:09 pm

I really think that we can’t have it both ways, we can’t on the one hand say that we don’t have to worry because sea ice isn’t shrinking that much. and say that shrinking ice is good for polar bears.

The polar bear was selected because the catastrophic aspect of “global warming” supposedly matched its plight. Everybody was concerned–so much that “deniers” were threatened with their very lives.
Well, along comes evidence that the polar bear ISN’T endangered, and at the same time global warming has stalled. The Warmistas are striking out on both counts.
But your contention that we can’t have it both ways is interesting: First, worrying about sea ice isn’t going to change a thing, while this study indicates shrinking ice is GOOD for polar bears.
When the ice begins to pile up several miles thick is when I’ll begin to worry about the survival of those magnificent creatures. Until then, we should enjoy having it both ways.

JPeden
July 6, 2013 10:00 pm

Tom Trevor says:
July 6, 2013 at 8:09 pm
“I really think that we can’t have it both ways, we can’t on the one hand say that we don’t have to worry because sea ice isn’t shrinking that much. and say that shrinking ice is good for polar bears.”
Who is the “we” you are referencing? The Warmists are the ones worried about whatever the Arctic ice does. Too little shrinking challenges their last gasp attempt to achieve ½ of an alleged CO2CAGW “success”, while too much shrinking drives them into paroxysms of “we’re all gonna die!” They’re probably not too happy about the versatility real bears exhibit in order to survive and avoid extinction, either, not to mention all that mysterious talk of “food chains”!

TomRude
July 6, 2013 10:51 pm

Jimbo and Susan, thank you for your work!