The distributions of migratory species in the ocean span local, national and international jurisdictions. Across these ecologically interconnected regions, migratory marine species interact with anthropogenic stressors throughout their lives. Migratory connectivity, the geographical linking of individuals and populations throughout their migratory cycles, influences how spatial and temporal dynamics of stressors affect migratory animals and scale up to influence population abundance, distribution and species persistence. Population declines of many migratory marine species have led to calls for connectivity knowledge, especially insights from animal tracking studies, to be more systematically and synthetically incorporated into decision-making. Inclusion of migratory connectivity in the design of conservation and management measures is critical to ensure they are appropriate for the level of risk associated with various degrees of connectivity. Three mechanisms exist to incorporate migratory connectivity into international marine policy which guides conservation implementation: site-selection criteria, network design criteria and policy recommendations. Here, we review the concept of migratory connectivity and its use in international policy, and describe the Migratory Connectivity in the Ocean system, a migratory connectivity evidence-base for the ocean. We propose that without such collaboration focused on migratory connectivity, efforts to effectively conserve these critical species across jurisdictions will have limited effect.

Building on earlier work identifying Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) for cetaceans in U.S. waters (BIA I), we describe the methodology and structured expert elicitation principles used in the “BIA II” effort to update existing BIAs, identify and delineate new BIAs, and score BIAs for 25 cetacean species, stocks, or populations in seven U.S. regions. BIAs represent areas and times in which cetaceans are known to concentrate for activities related to reproduction, feeding, and migration, as well as known ranges of small and resident populations. In this BIA II effort, regional cetacean experts identified the full extent of any BIAs in or adjacent to U.S. waters, based on scientific research, Indigenous knowledge, local knowledge, and community science. The new BIA scoring and labeling system improves the utility and interpretability of the BIAs by designating an overall Importance Score that considers both (1) the intensity and characteristics underlying an area’s identification as a BIA; and (2) the quantity, quality, and type of information, and associated uncertainties upon which the BIA delineation and scoring depend. Each BIA is also scored for boundary uncertainty and spatiotemporal variability (dynamic, ephemeral, or static). BIAs are region-, species-, and time-specific, and may be hierarchically structured where detailed information is available to support different scores across a BIA. BIAs are compilations of the best available science and have no inherent regulatory authority. BIAs may be used by international, federal, state, local, or Tribal entities and the public to support planning and marine mammal impact assessments, and to inform the development of conservation and mitigation measures, where appropriate under existing authorities. Information provided online for each BIA includes: (1) a BIA map; (2) BIA scores and label; (3) a metadata table detailing the data, assumptions, and logic used to delineate, score, and label the BIA; and (4) a list of references used in the assessment. Regional manuscripts present maps and scores for the BIAs, by region, and narratives summarizing the rationale and information upon which several representative BIAs are based. We conclude with a comparison of BIA II to similar international efforts and recommendations for improving future BIA assessments.

Aim: Understanding the spatial ecology of animal movements is a critical element in conserving long-lived, highly mobile marine species. Analyzing networks developed from movements of six sea turtle species reveals marine connectivity and can help prioritize conservation efforts. Location: Global.Methods: We collated telemetry data from 1235 individuals and reviewed the literature to determine our dataset's representativeness. We used the telemetry data to develop spatial networks at different scales to examine areas, connections, and their geographic arrangement. We used graph theory metrics to compare networks across regions and species and to identify the role of important areas and connections.Results: Relevant literature and citations for data used in this study had very little overlap. Network analysis showed that sampling effort influenced network structure, and the arrangement of areas and connections for most networks was complex.However, important areas and connections identified by graph theory metrics can be different than areas of high data density. For the global network, marine regions in the Mediterranean had high closeness, while links with high betweenness among marine regions in the South Atlantic were critical for maintaining connectivity. Comparisons among species-specific networks showed that functional connectivity was related to movement ecology, resulting in networks composed of different areas and links.Main conclusions: Network analysis identified the structure and functional connectivity of the sea turtles in our sample at multiple scales. These network characteristics could help guide the coordination of management strategies for wide-ranging animals throughout their geographic extent. Most networks had complex structures that can contribute to greater robustness but may be more difficult to manage changes when compared to simpler forms. Area-based conservation measures would benefit sea turtle populations when directed toward areas with high closeness dominating network function. Promoting seascape connectivity of links with high betweenness would decrease network vulnerability.

No abstract

We delineated and scored Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) in the Arctic region. The Arctic region extends from the Bering Strait to the Chukchi Sea, Beaufort Sea, Amundsen Gulf, and Viscount Melville Sound. This NOAA-led effort uses structured elicitation principles to build upon the first version of NOAA BIAs (BIA I) for cetaceans. In addition to narratives, maps, and metadata tables, BIA II products incorporated a scoring and labeling system to improve their utility and interpretability. BIAs are compilations of the best available science and have no inherent regulatory authority. They have been used by NOAA, other federal agencies, and the public to support marine spatial planning and marine mammal impact assessments, and to inform the development of conservation measures for cetaceans. Supporting evidence for Arctic BIA II came from data derived from aerial-, land-, and vessel-based surveys; satellite telemetry; passive acoustic monitoring; Indigenous knowledge; photo-identification; aboriginal subsistence harvests, including catch and sighting locations and stomach contents; and prey studies. BIAs were identified for bowhead (Balaena mysticetus), gray (Eschrichtius robustus), humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae), fin (Balaenoptera physalus), and beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) whales. In total, 44 BIAs were delineated and scored for the Arctic, including 12 reproduction, 24 feeding, and 8 migration BIAs. BIAs were identified in all months except January-March. Fifteen candidate areas did not have sufficient information to delineate as BIAs and were added to a watch list for future consideration in the BIA process. Some BIAs were transboundary between the Arctic region and the Aleutian Islands-Bering Sea region. Several BIAs were transnational, extending into territorial waters of Russia (in the Chukchi Sea) and Canada (in the Beaufort Sea), and a few BIAs were delineated in international waters.