Arctic marine mammals (AMMs) are icons of climate change, largely because of their close association with sea ice. However, neither a circumpolar assessment of AMM status nor a standardized metric of sea ice habitat change is available. We summarized available data on abundance and trend for each AMM species and recognized subpopulation. We also examined species diversity, the extent of human use, and temporal trends in sea ice habitat for 12 regions of the Arctic by calculating the dates of spring sea ice retreat and fall sea ice advance from satellite data (1979–2013). Estimates of AMM abundance varied greatly in quality, and few studies were long enough for trend analysis. Of the AMM subpopulations, 78% (61 of 78) are legally harvested for subsistence purposes. Changes in sea ice phenology have been profound. In all regions except the Bering Sea, the duration of the summer (i.e., reduced ice) period increased by 5–10 weeks and by >20 weeks in the Barents Sea between 1979 and 2013. In light of generally poor data, the importance of human use, and forecasted environmental changes in the 21st century, we recommend the following for effective AMM conservation: maintain and improve comanagement by local, federal, and international partners; recognize spatial and temporal variability in AMM subpopulation response to climate change; implement monitoring programs with clear goals; mitigate cumulative impacts of increased human activity; and recognize the limits of current protected species legislation.

The annual return of beluga whales, Delphinapterus leucas, to traditional seasonal locations across the Arctic may involve migratory culture, while the convergence of discrete summering aggregations on common wintering grounds may facilitate outbreeding. Natal philopatry and cultural inheritance, however, has been difficult to assess as earlier studies were of too short a duration, while genetic analyses of breeding patterns, especially across the beluga’s Pacific range, have been hampered by inadequate sampling and sparse information on wintering areas. Using a much expanded sample and genetic marker set comprising 1,647 whales, spanning more than two decades and encompassing all major coastal summering aggregations in the Pacific Ocean, we found evolutionary-level divergence among three geographic regions: the Gulf of Alaska, the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas, and the Sea of Okhotsk (Φst = 0.11–0.32, Rst = 0.09–0.13), and likely demographic independence of (Fst-mtDNA = 0.02–0.66), and in many cases limited gene flow (Fst-nDNA = 0.0–0.02; K = 5–6) among, summering groups within regions. Assignment tests identified few immigrants within summering aggregations, linked migrating groups to specific summering areas, and found that some migratory corridors comprise whales from multiple subpopulations (PBAYES = 0.31:0.69). Further, dispersal is male-biased and substantial numbers of closely related whales congregate together at coastal summering areas. Stable patterns of heterogeneity between areas and consistently high proportions (~20%) of close kin (including parent-offspring) sampled up to 20 years apart within areas (G = 0.2–2.9, p>0.5) is the first direct evidence of natal philopatry to migration destinations in belugas. Using recent satellite telemetry findings on belugas we found that the spatial proximity of winter ranges has a greater influence on the degree of both individual and genetic exchange than summer ranges (rwinter-Fst-mtDNA = 0.9, rsummer-Fst-nDNA = 0.1). These findings indicate widespread natal philopatry to summering aggregation and entire migratory circuits, and provide compelling evidence that migratory culture and kinship helps maintain demographically discrete beluga stocks that can overlap in time and space.

At least five populations (stocks) of beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) are thought to winter in the Being Sea, including the Bristol Bay, Eastern Bering Sea (Norton Sound), Anadyr, Eastern Chukchi Sea, and Eastern Beaufort Sea (Mackenzie) populations. Belugas from each population have been tagged with satellite‐linked transmitters, allowing us to describe their winter (January–March) distribution. The objectives of this paper were to determine: (1) If each population winters in the Bering Sea, and if so, where? (2) Do populations return to the same area each year (i.e., are wintering areas traditional)? (3) To what extent do the winter ranges of different populations overlap? Tagged belugas from all five populations either remained in, or moved into, the Bering Sea and spent the winter there. Each population wintered in a different part of the Bering Sea and populations with multiple years of data (four of five) returned to the same regions in multiple years. When data were available from two populations that overlapped in the same year, they did not occupy the shared area at the same time. Although our sample sizes were small, the evidence suggests belugas from different populations have traditional winter ranges that are mostly exclusive to each population.

Although most eastern North Pacific (ENP) gray whales feed in the Bering, Beaufort, and Chukchi Seas during summer and fall, a small number of individuals, referred to as the Pacific Coast Feeding Group (PCFG), show intra-and interseasonal fidelity to feeding areas from northern California through southeastern Alaska. We used both mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and 12 microsatellite markers to assess whether stock structure exists among feeding grounds used by ENP gray whales. Significant mtDNA differentiation was found when samples representing the PCFG (n = 71) were compared with samples (n = 103) collected from animals feeding further north (F ST = 0.012, P = 0.0045). No significant nuclear differences were 1

Evolutionary explanations for mammalian sociality typically center on inclusive-fitness benefits of associating and cooperating with close kin, or close maternal kin as in some whale societies, including killer and sperm whales. Their matrilineal structure has strongly influenced the thinking about social structure in less well-studied cetaceans, including beluga whales. in a cross-sectional study of group structure and kinship we found that belugas formed a limited number of distinct group types, consistently observed across populations and habitats. certain behaviours were associated with group type, but group membership was often dynamic. MtDNA-microsatellite profiling combined with relatedness and network analysis revealed, contrary to predictions, that most social groupings were not predominantly organized around close maternal relatives. they comprised both kin and non-kin, many group members were paternal rather than maternal relatives, and unrelated adult males often traveled together. the evolutionary mechanisms that shape beluga societies are likely complex; fitness benefits may be achieved through reciprocity, mutualism and kin selection. At the largest scales these societies are communities comprising all ages and both sexes where multiple social learning pathways involving kin and non-kin can foster the emergence of cultures. We explore the implications of these findings for species management and the evolution of menopause. Interpreting gregarious behaviour in terms of cooperative strategies that maximize individual fitness, Hamilton 1 developed the theory of kin selection. This theory uses the concept of inclusive fitness to explain the evolution of social organization and cooperation where individuals indirectly enhance their fitness through positive effects on the reproduction of relatives. However, individuals can also derive benefits from associations with unrelated individuals where cooperation is conditional on the behaviour of the companion (i.e., reciprocity 2,3), always yields the highest benefit (i.e., mutualism 4,5) or results in shared fitness advantages from helping increase group size (i.e., group augmentation 6,7) which, for example, could lead to more effective group defense. In fluid aggregations, such as herds or flocks, benefits to the individual alone (e.g., reducing personal predation risk at the expense of other group members) may drive the tendency to associate with conspecifics 8,9. Thus, resolving the genetic relationships among group members is central to understanding the advantages of group living, the emergence of cooperative behaviour, and the evolution of social organization. The recent re-emergence of arguments for group selection theory, where kinship plays a minor role in social evolution 10,11 , and the debate these arguments have elicited 12 , as well as the growing evidence for culture in non-primate species 13-15 (defined as the acquisition or inheritance of knowledge or behaviours from conspecifics through social learning 13), has further heightened the intere...