Search

Your search keyword '"Julia Mikhnevich"' showing total 2 results
Start Over Author "Julia Mikhnevich"
2 results on '"Julia Mikhnevich"'

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

Author

Dominique Berteaux, Anne-Mathilde Thierry, Ray Alisauskas, Anders Angerbjörn, Eric Buchel, Liliya Doronina, Dorothee Ehrich, Nina E. Eide, Rasmus Erlandsson, Øystein Flagstad, Eva Fuglei, Olivier Gilg, Mikhail Goltsman, Heikki Henttonen, Rolf A. Ims, Siw T. Killengreen, Alexander Kondratyev, Elena Kruchenkova, Helmut Kruckenberg, Olga Kulikova, Arild Landa, Johannes Lang, Irina Menyushina, Julia Mikhnevich, Jukka Niemimaa, Karin Norén, Tuomo Ollila, Nikita Ovsyanikov, Liya Pokrovskaya, Ivan Pokrovsky, Anna Rodnikova, James D. Roth, Brigitte Sabard, Gustaf Samelius, Niels M. Schmidt, Benoit Sittler, Aleksandr A. Sokolov, Natalya A. Sokolova, Alice Stickney, Ester Rut Unnsteinsdóttir, and Paula A. White

Subjects
Alopex lagopus, Arctic ecosystems, biodiversity assessment, biodiversity indicator, data management, protocol harmonization, Environmental sciences, GE1-350, Oceanography, GC1-1581
Abstract

The biodiversity working group of the Arctic Council has developed pan-Arctic biodiversity monitoring plans to improve our ability to detect, understand and report on long-term change in Arctic biodiversity. The Arctic fox (Vulpes lagopus) was identified as a target of future monitoring because of its circumpolar distribution, ecological importance and reliance on Arctic ecosystems. We provide the first exhaustive survey of contemporary Arctic fox monitoring programmes, describing 34 projects located in eight countries. Monitored populations covered equally the four climate zones of the species’ distribution, and there were large differences between populations in long-term trends, multi-annual fluctuations, diet composition, 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 all populations, while projects varied greatly with respect to monitoring of other variables indicative of population status, ecosystem state or ecosystem function. We review the benefits, opportunities and challenges to increased integration of monitoring projects. We argue that better harmonizing protocols of data collection and data management would allow new questions to be addressed while adding tremendous value to individual projects. However, despite many opportunities, challenges remain. We offer six recommendations that represent 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 of other species, thereby providing a key step for future assessments of global biodiversity.

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

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

Author

Gustaf Samelius, Alexander Kondratyev, Natalya A. Sokolova, Ester Rut Unnsteinsdóttir, Arild Landa, Alice A. Stickney, Niels Martin Schmidt, Brigitte Sabard, Tuomo Ollila, Rasmus Erlandsson, Rolf A. Ims, Heikki Henttonen, Olivier Gilg, Liliya Doronina, Jukka Niemimaa, James D. Roth, Aleksandr Sokolov, Dorothee Ehrich, Liya Pokrovskaya, Eva Fuglei, Siw Turid Killengreen, Benoît Sittler, Helmut Kruckenberg, Nina E. Eide, Anna Y. Rodnikova, Elena Kruchenkova, Anders Angerbjörn, Øystein Flagstad, Anne-Mathilde Thierry, Nikita Ovsyanikov, Johannes Lang, Karin Norén, Paula A. White, M. E. Goltsman, Eric Buchel, Ivan Pokrovsky, Dominique Berteaux, Irina E. Menyushina, Olga Kulikova, Ray T. Alisauskas, Julia Mikhnevich, 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), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Université de Bourgogne (UB)-AgroSup Dijon - Institut National Supérieur des Sciences Agronomiques, de l'Alimentation et de l'Environnement, 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), and University of California-University of California

Subjects
VDP::Mathematics and natural science: 400::Zoology and botany: 480::Ecology: 488, 0106 biological sciences, Vulpes, media_common.quotation_subject, Biodiversity, Distribution (economics), Matematikk og Naturvitenskap: 400::Zoologiske og botaniske fag: 480 [VDP], Oceanography, 010603 evolutionary biology, 01 natural sciences, Competition (biology), VDP::Matematikk og Naturvitenskap: 400::Zoologiske og botaniske fag: 480::Økologi: 488, lcsh:Oceanography, biology.animal, Earth and Planetary Sciences (miscellaneous), Environmental Chemistry, Arctic fox, lcsh:GC1-1581, 14. Life underwater, lcsh:Environmental sciences, General Environmental Science, media_common, biodiversity indicator, lcsh:GE1-350, biology, Ecology, business.industry, Arctic ecosystems, 010604 marine biology & hydrobiology, Circumpolar star, 15. Life on land, biology.organism_classification, Alopex lagopus, biodiversity assessment, Arctic, 13. Climate action, Lagopus, data management, [SDE.BE]Environmental Sciences/Biodiversity and Ecology, business, protocol harmonization
Abstract

Source at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17518369.2017.1319602 The biodiversity working group of the Arctic Council has developed pan-Arctic biodiversity monitoring plans to improve our ability to detect, understand and report on long-term change in Arctic biodiversity. The Arctic fox (Vulpes lagopus) was identified as a target of future monitoring because of its circumpolar distribution, ecological importance and reliance on Arctic ecosystems. We provide the first exhaustive survey of contemporary Arctic fox monitoring programmes, describing 34 projects located in eight countries. Monitored populations covered equally the four climate zones of the species’ distribution, and there were large differences between populations in long-term trends, multi-annual fluctuations, diet composition, 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 all populations, while projects varied greatly with respect to monitoring of other variables indicative of population status, ecosystem state or ecosystem function. We review the benefits, opportunities and challenges to increased integration of monitoring projects. We argue that better harmonizing protocols of data collection and data management would allow new questions to be addressed while adding tremendous value to individual projects. However, despite many opportunities, challenges remain. We offer six recommendations that represent 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 of other species, thereby providing a key step for future assessments of global biodiversity.

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results