# Contrasting interannual changes in phytoplankton productivity and community structure in the coastal Canadian Arctic Ocean

Marjolaine Blais, Mathieu Ardyna, Michel Gosselin, Dany Dumont, Simon Bélanger, Jean-Éric Tremblay, Yves Gratton, Christian Marchese, Michel Poulin

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## ► To cite this version:

Marjolaine Blais, Mathieu Ardyna, Michel Gosselin, Dany Dumont, Simon Bélanger, et al.. Contrast-ing interannual changes in phytoplankton productivity and community structure in the coastal Cana-dian Arctic Ocean. Limnology and Oceanography, 2017, 62 (6), pp.2480-2497. 10.1002/lno.10581 . hal-03502947

HAL Id: hal-03502947

https://hal.science/hal-03502947v1

Submitted on 21 Jul 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-entific research documents, whether they are pub-lished or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
# Contrasting interannual changes in phytoplankton productivity and community structure in the coastal Canadian Arctic Ocean

Marjolaine Blais,<fnref n="1" /> Mathieu Ardyna ID,<fnref n="2" />,<fnref n="3" /> Michel Gosselin ID,<fnref n="1" />* Dany Dumont,<fnref n="1" /> Simon Bélanger,<fnref n="4" /> Jean-Éric Tremblay,<fnref n="2" /> Yves Gratton,<fnref n="5" /> Christian Marchese,<fnref n="4" /> Michel Poulin<fnref n="6" />

## Abstract

The rapid physical changes affecting the Arctic Ocean alter the growth conditions of primary producers. In this context, a crucial question is whether these changes will affect the composition of phytoplankton communities, augment their productivity, and eventually enhance food webs. We combined satellite and model products with in situ datasets collected during fall and provide new insights into the response of phytoplankton biomass and production in the Canadian Arctic by comparing an interior shelf (Beaufort Sea) and an outflow shelf (Baffin Bay). Correlation analysis was used to distinguish between seasonal and interannual variability and revealed that most biological variables are responding to the interannual pressures of climate change. In southeast Beaufort Sea, a change in phytoplankton community composition occurred, with a significant increase in diatoms from 2% (2002) to 37% (2010–2011) of the total protist abundance. In 2011, photosynthetic picoeukaryotes were twice as abundant as in 2002. For these two phytoplankton groups, abundance was correlated with the duration of the open-water period, which also increased and affected vertical stratification and sea-surface temperature. In contrast, there was a sharp decline in centric diatom abundance as well as in phytoplankton biomass and production in northern Baffin Bay over the years considered. These decreases were linked to changes in seasonal progression and sea-ice dynamics through their impacts on vertical stratification and freshwater input. Overall, our results highlight the importance of stratification and the duration of the open-water period in shaping phytoplankton regimes—either oligotrophic or eutrophic—in marine waters of the Canadian Arctic.

In the Arctic Ocean, it is generally accepted that phytoplankton are limited by light prior to the onset of vernal blooms and become limited by nutrients, mainly dissolved inorganic nitrogen, later during the productive season (Tremblay and Gagnon 2009). However, as the sea-ice cover shrinks and freshwater runoff to the Arctic Ocean increases, changes in stratification are drastically altering the balance between light and nutrient availability (Peterson et al. 2006; Kwok et al. 2009). These changes could affect the whole

marine ecosystem from the bottom up by triggering drastic changes in the productivity, biomass, and assemblage composition of phytoplankton. In this context, one of the most crucial questions is whether or not these changes will translate into enhanced phytoplankton production and, eventually, higher ecosystem productivity (Tremblay et al. 2015). The Arctic Ocean receives inflows from the Atlantic and Pacific oceans as well as a large input of freshwater from large rivers and less saline water from the Pacific. The Arctic domain has been divided into inflow, interior, and outflow shelves based on water mass properties (Carmack et al. 2006; Williams and Carmack 2015). Due to this spatial heterogeneity, the response of phytoplankton communities will likely not be the same throughout the Arctic Ocean (Carmack et al. 2006). Numerous factors, including the assemblage

<footnote n="1">¹Institut des sciences de la mer de Rimouski, Université du Québec à Rimouski, Rimouski, Québec, Canada</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Takuvik Joint International Laboratory, Laval University (Canada) - CNRS (France), Département de biologie and Québec-Océan, Université Laval, Québec, Québec, Canada</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, INSU-CNRS, Laboratoire d'Océanographie de Villefranche, Villefranche-sur-mer, France</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴Département de biologie, chimie et géographie and BORÉAS, Université du Québec à Rimouski, Rimouski, Québec, Canada</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵Centre Eau, Terre et Environnement, Institut national de la recherche scientifique, Québec, Québec, Canada</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶Recherche et collections, Musée canadien de la nature, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada</footnote>

<footnote>*Correspondence: michel_gosselin@uqar.ca</footnote>

<footnote>This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.</footnote>
composition and the size structure of phytoplankton communities in specific regions of the Arctic Ocean, must be taken into account when predicting future scenarios.

Several studies have sought to track possible synoptic changes in Arctic primary production with different methodological approaches, sometimes obtaining contrasting results (see Babin et al. 2015). Using a worldwide dataset of chlorophyll *a* (Chl *a*) concentrations and water transparency measurements (from Secchi disk), Boyce et al. (2010) showed an overall decrease of phytoplankton biomass in the global ocean over the last century. However, three out of four global coupled carbon cycle climate models showed a reverse situation for the upcoming century, with an expected rise in primary production for the Arctic Ocean (Steinacher et al. 2010). The primary production rise was mostly explained by the deepening of the mixed layer depth, while the model associated with a decrease in primary production showed a reduction of the mixed layer depth. These models mostly agree with both Arrigo and van Dijken (2015), who showed a global 30% increase in primary production from 1998 to 2012 in the Arctic Ocean using remote sensing, and with the satellite-based model of Bélanger et al. (2013). However, this latter study reported that some of the most productive Arctic regions, such as the North Water Polynya (NOW, northern Baffin Bay), have seen their productivity decrease dramatically over the last decade. More recently, Marchese et al. (2017) showed a decrease in phytoplankton bloom amplitude over the 1998–2014 period. Numerical models of the Arctic Ocean still lack validation with in situ time series and rely mainly on the assimilation of satellite observations (Forest et al. 2011; Dupont 2012; Babin et al. 2015). While allowing for a broad spatial and temporal coverage of the Arctic Ocean, satellite observations provide much less detail than field studies at the local scale, especially in the ice-covered Arctic. Satellite-derived observations are limited to the surface and do not include the contribution of under-ice algae (Mundy et al. 2009; Arrigo et al. 2012) or the subsurface chlorophyll maximum (SCM), a common feature in the Arctic Ocean (Martin et al. 2010). These limitations result in a variable and sometimes large underestimation of primary production at different stages of seasonal development (spring bloom for under-ice algae and post-bloom for the SCM in late summer – early fall; see Arrigo and van Dijken 2011; Ardyna et al. 2013). Moreover, the identification of phytoplankton functional types (PFTs) by satellites is still under development and has not been validated in polar seas (Stuart et al. 2000; Nair et al. 2008; Devred et al. 2011; IOCCG 2014, 2015; Rousseaux and Gregg 2015). Information on PFTs is essential to assess the ecological role of phytoplankton communities in biogeochemical cycles and the potential transfer of carbon toward the food chain or export to the deep sea. In this context, field studies are thus essential to support model and remote sensing studies, and to corroborate large temporal trends.

To our knowledge, very few field studies have investigated interannual trends in phytoplankton biomass, productivity, and community composition in specific sectors of the Arctic Ocean, especially during fall (Wassmann et al. 2011; Gallinat et al. 2015), when satellite data are no longer available or valid due to low solar elevation (see details in IOCCG 2015). The recent study of Bergeron and Tremblay (2014) used changes in nutrient inventories to document shifts in net community production for the southeast Beaufort Sea and Baffin Bay but did not address associated changes in total primary production or phytoplankton community composition. These authors found a 1.6-fold increase in nitrate consumption in Beaufort Sea and a 65% decrease of nitrate consumption in Baffin Bay, reflecting the different physical and biological settings highlighted more than a decade ago during the International North Water Polynya Study (NOW; Deming et al. 2002) and the Canadian Arctic Shelf Exchange Study (CASES; Vincent and Pedrós-Alió 2008). The long-held view for these two regions is one of a highly stratified, low-nutrient, oligotrophic system characterized by low productivity and flagellate dominance on the Canadian Beaufort Shelf, and a highly mixed, high-nutrient eutrophic system based mostly on large-sized algal cells, namely diatoms, in northern Baffin Bay (Booth et al. 2002; Carmack and Macdonald 2002; Klein et al. 2002; Tremblay et al. 2002; Ardyna et al. 2011). This view needs to be re-assessed in light of ongoing climate change and the results of Bergeron and Tremblay (2014).

In combination with the NOW (1999) and CASES (2002–2003) datasets, we used data from the ArcticNet field program (2006–2011) to investigate interannual changes in the production, biomass, size structure, abundance, and taxonomic composition of the phytoplankton community in these two contrasting regions during fall in order to assess the influence of environmental factors on phytoplankton communities in the context of current climate change. Furthermore, we aimed to provide a better understanding of phytoplankton dynamics and trends that can be expected across the Arctic by comparing two different environments: an interior shelf and an outflow shelf of the Arctic Ocean.

## Methods

### Study area and sampling design

Sampling was performed at recurrent stations in the southeast Beaufort Sea and northern Baffin Bay during six fall campaigns between 2006 and 2011 onboard the CCGS Amundsen as part of the ArcticNet program. To augment the dataset, we used data collected during the NOW project in fall 1999 in northern Baffin Bay (Mostajir et al. 2001; Booth et al. 2002; Klein et al. 2002) and during the CASES project in fall 2002 and 2003 in southeast Beaufort Sea (Brugel et al. 2009). During these early expeditions, water column sampling of environmental and biological variables was very similar to the sampling done during the ArcticNet program (see Klein et al. 2002; Brugel et al. 2009 for details). Sampling
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** (a) Location of stations sampled and (b) the sampling periods during fall from 1999 to 2011 in southeastern Beaufort Sea and northern Baffin Bay, Canadian Arctic Ocean.</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Overview of chemical and biological variables collected during the study in Beaufort Sea (upper rows) and Baffin Bay (lower rows). Samples were collected at optical depths when a light profile was done prior to water collection; otherwise, samples were collected at fixed depths.</caption><thead><tr><th>Optical depth (%):</th><th>95</th><th>50</th><th>30</th><th>15</th><th>5</th><th>1</th><th>0.2</th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr><tr><th>Fixed Depth (m):</th><th>2</th><th>5</th><th>10</th><th>20</th><th>30</th><th>40</th><th>50</th><th>Z<sub>scm</sub></th><th>75</th><th>100</th></tr><tr><th>Year</th><th>Sampling date</th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="10" style="text-align: center; font-style: italic;">Beaufort Sea</td></tr><tr><td>2002</td><td>23 Sep–14 Oct</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B, A, T</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, B</td><td>N, B</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>30 Sep–13 Oct</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B, A, T</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, B</td><td>N, B</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>29 Sep–09 Oct</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B, A, T</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, B</td><td>N, B</td></tr><tr><td>2009</td><td>12 Oct–15 Oct</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B, A, T</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, B</td><td>N, B</td></tr><tr><td>2010</td><td>30 Sep–08 Oct</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B, A, T</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, B</td><td>N, B</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>26 Sep–02 Oct</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B, A, T</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, B</td><td>N, B</td></tr><tr><td colspan="10" style="text-align: center; font-style: italic;">Baffin Bay</td></tr><tr><td>1999</td><td>18 Sep–20 Sep</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B, A, T</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, B</td><td>N, B</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>16 Sep–18 Sep</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B, A, T</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, B</td><td>N, B</td></tr><tr><td>2007</td><td>29 Sep–03 Oct</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B, A, T</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, B</td><td>N, B</td></tr><tr><td>2008</td><td>12 Sep–15 Sep</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B, A, T</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, B</td><td>N, B</td></tr><tr><td>2010</td><td>15 Oct–17 Oct</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B, A, T</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, B</td><td>N, B</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>18 Oct</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B, A, T</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, P, B</td><td>N, B</td><td>N, B</td></tr></tbody></table>

N, nutrients; P, primary production; B, chlorophyll a biomass; A, cell abundance; T, taxonomy.

station locations and dates from 1999 to 2011 are shown in Fig. 1.

At most stations, a vertical profile of the downwelling photosynthetically active radiation (PAR, 400–700 nm) was performed with a PNF-300 radiometer (Biospherical Instruments) to determine the diffuse attenuation coefficient ($K_d$) and the depth of the euphotic zone ($Z_{eu}$: 0.2% of surface irradiance, as in Tremblay et al. 2009). When meteorological conditions did not allow deployment of the radiometer, a Secchi disk was used to estimate $K_d$ and $Z_{eu}$ values. Incident downwelling PAR was measured at 10 min intervals from the beginning to the end of each expedition with a LI-COR LI-190 SA cosine-corrected flat sensor placed on the ship's fore-deck and protected from shading.

At each station, water samples were collected with a rosette sampler equipped with 24 12 L Niskin-type bottles (OceanTest Equipment). A Sea-Bird 911plus recorded profiles of conductivity, temperature, and depth (CTD), and was equipped with a nitrate sensor (ISUS V2, Atlantic), a chlorophyll fluorometer (SeaPoint), and a PAR sensor (QSP-2300, Biospherical Instruments). At most stations, water was collected at seven optical depths (ca. 95%, 50%, 30%, 15%, 5%, 1%, and 0.2% of surface water irradiance), at the depth of the SCM ($Z_{s cm}$), and at two depths in the aphotic zone (75 m and 100 m). When light profiles or Secchi disk depth were not available prior to water sampling, optical depths were replaced by fixed depths (2 m, 5 m, 10 m, 20 m, 30 m, 40 m, 50 m), and $K_d$ and $Z_{eu}$ were determined afterwards from the CTD's PAR sensor. Water subsamples for the determination of nutrient

concentrations and the measurement of biological variables were transferred into dark acid-washed bottles and processed immediately after collection. See Table 1 for an overview of sample collection. Nitrate plus nitrite ($NO_3 + NO_2$), phosphate ($PO_4$), and silicic acid ($Si(OH)_4$) concentrations were measured immediately after sampling using a Bran-Luebbe 3 autoanalyzer (adapted from Grasshoff et al. 1999).

## Phytoplankton productivity, biomass, and community

At selected stations, primary production was estimated using the $^{14}$C-uptake method and 24 h simulated in situ deck incubations (Knap et al. 1996; Ardyna et al. 2011). Subsamples were filtered onto Whatman GF/F glass-fiber filters (total particulate primary production, $\ge$0.7 $\mu$m, $P_T$) and 5 $\mu$m Nuclepore polycarbonate membrane filters (primary production by large cells, $\ge$5 $\mu$m, $P_L$). As an index of phytoplankton biomass, $Chl a$ concentrations were measured. Subsamples of water collected at every depth were size-fractionated onto Whatman GF/F filters (total phytoplankton biomass, $\ge$0.7 $\mu$m, $B_T$) and 5 $\mu$m Nuclepore polycarbonate membrane filters (biomass of large cells, $\ge$5 $\mu$m, $B_L$). Subsamples were also filtered onto 20 $\mu$m silk mesh to determine the presence of aggregates or colonial cells. Fluorometric measurements of $Chl a$ concentrations were performed using a Turner Designs fluorometer 10-AU following the acidification method of Parsons et al. (1984). Biomass and production due to phytoplankton cells <5 $\mu$m are referred to as $B_S$ and $P_S$, respectively.

Pico- ($\le$ 2 $\mu$m) and nanophytoplankton (2–20 $\mu$m) cell abundances were determined at each station in the surface
waters. Duplicate subsamples were fixed with Grade I glutaraldehyde (Sigma) to a final concentration of 0.1%, quick-frozen in liquid nitrogen, and stored at -80°C until analysis. Cell counts were performed using an EPICS ALTRA flow cytometer (Beckman Coulter) equipped with a 488 nm laser (15 mW output). Microspheres (1 µm or 2 µm, Fluoresbrite plain YG, Polysciences) were added to each sample as an internal standard. Picocyanobacteria and photosynthetic eukaryotes were distinguished by their difference in orange fluorescence from chlorophyll (675 ± 10 nm). Pico- and nanophytoplankton were discriminated based on forward scatter calibration with known-sized microspheres (Tremblay et al. 2009). Samples for the identification and enumeration of protists > 2 µm in the surface waters were preserved in acidic Lugol's solution (final concentration of 0.4%; Parsons et al. 1984) and stored in the dark at 4°C until analysis. Cell identification was carried out to the lowest possible taxonomic rank using an inverted microscope (Wild Herbrugg or Zeiss Axiovert 10) in accordance with Lund et al. (1958). The main taxonomic references used to identify the protist cells were Tomas (1997) and Bérard-Therriault et al. (1999).

## Satellite and model products

To complement and/or validate our in situ measurements, we also used a wide array of satellite and model products. Daily incident downwelling irradiance data 3 d prior to the sampling day were estimated and averaged ($E_{3d}$) in Beaufort Sea and Baffin Bay using the model described in Laliberté et al. (2016). Briefly, the model employs a precomputed Look-Up-Table (LUT) generated using radiative transfer simulations. The LUT associates spectral irradiance reaching the surface with a given set of input parameters derived from satellite observations (passive microwaves and optical remote sensing), namely solar zenith angle, cloud optical thickness, cloud fraction, and ozone concentration. Estimates of PAR from the LUT were computed with respect to station position at a 3 h time interval corresponding to the atmospheric data time resolution of the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP). Atmospheric inputs from ISCCP available for the 1999–2009 period have a 280 km grid resolution and were bi-linearly interpolated at station locations. For 2010 and 2011, a cloud climatology computed from the ISCCP time series (1984–2009) was used as input to the PAR model. This model has been recently validated with in situ PAR measurements collected onboard during various field campaigns in the Canadian Arctic (with an accuracy of 30%; see Laliberté et al. 2016). Finally, irradiance was averaged over 3 d ($E_{3d}$) prior to sampling.

Subsurface PAR and surface Chl a estimates for the whole year were obtained with a 4 km resolution from the European Space Agency's GlobColour project (http://www.glob-colour.info) to confirm observed trends in northern Baffin Bay. Daily composite Chl a concentrations using standard Case 1 water algorithms (O'Reilly et al. 2000; Maritorena

et al. 2010) were averaged over the productive period (i.e., from the end of May to early September).

Surface wind velocities were obtained from the NCEP-NARR Reanalysis 1 (National Center for Environmental Prediction/North American Regional Reanalysis) gridded dataset (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.narr.html) and were used to calculate the along-shelf component of wind velocity in Beaufort Sea. Data at 10 m were squared as an index of wind stress, noted u-wind as in Tremblay et al. (2011), and averaged from mid-September to mid-October.

Daily sea-ice cover extents were obtained from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) and the Special Sensor Microwave Imager Sounder (SSMIS) (Cavalieri et al. 1996; Maslanik and Stroeve 1999). All valid pixels within a radius of 16–40 km around each station location were averaged daily for each sampling year. The dates (day of year, DOY) of the beginning (OWS) and end (OWE) of the open-water season (defined as five consecutive days with ice cover < 20% and > 20% respectively, as in Ferland et al. 2011), as well as its duration (OWD), were determined. The 20% threshold allows the removal of most atmospheric interferences with the microwave signal that erroneously suggest a small amount of ice (Parkinson and Cavalieri 2008). The presence or absence of the ice bridge in Nares Strait was determined from a visual analysis of ice charts produced by the Canadian Ice Service (CIS) and the Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut (DMI). In these charts, ice properties such as concentration, stage of development, and form of ice are used to define regions or polygons of homogeneous characteristics (Environment Canada 2005). The ice bridge, when present, appears clearly as a concave line joining Ellesmere Island and Greenland near the constriction point between the two land masses.

## Calculation and statistical analyses

The surface mixed layer depth ($Z_m$) was estimated as the depth at which the gradient in density ($\sigma_t$) between two successive depths was > 0.03 kg m$^{-4}$ (threshold gradient method: Thomson and Fine 2003; Tremblay et al. 2009). The strength of water column stratification was determined using a stratification index ($\Delta\sigma_t$), which was defined as the difference in $\sigma_t$ between 80 m and 5 m, as in Tremblay et al. (2009). As another indicator of water column stratification, the highest Brunt-Väisälä frequency ($N^2$) in the upper 100 m of the water column was also recorded. Temperature ($T_m$), salinity ($S_m$), and $NO_3 + NO_2 + PO_4$, and $Si(OH)_4$ concentrations were averaged over $Z_m$. The freshwater inventory in $Z_{eu}$ (FWI$_{eu}$) was defined as the integrated salinity fraction below a reference salinity of 34.8 ($S_{ref}$; McPhee et al. 2009) from the equation:

$$FWI (m) = \int_{0}^{Z_{eu}} [(S_{ref} - S_{Z_{eu}})/S_{ref}] dz \quad (1)$$

as previously used in Lapoussière et al. (2013).
Spearman's rank correlations ($r_s$) were used to detect monotonic trends over time (i.e., gradual increase or decrease during fall and over the entire sampling period) in environmental and biological variables. This test was also used to assess relationships between two variables. When no trend over years was detected, one-way analysis of variance by ranks (Kruskal-Wallis test; Zar 1999) was performed to seek year-to-year variability in some environmental and biological variables. ANOVAs were completed by a multiple comparison test using rank sums (Dunn's test). Pearson's linear regressions ($r$) were used to determine temporal trends in satellite-derived PAR and Chl a. Statistical tests were performed with the R-3.2.3 and JMP Pro 12.0.1 software packages.

## Results and discussion

### Interannual changes in southeast Beaufort Sea

In southeast Beaufort Sea, there were significant increases in the salinity and temperature of the surface mixed layer from 2002 to 2011 (Tables 2, 3). The significant decreases of the stratification index ($\Delta\sigma_t$) from 6.5 kg m⁻³ to 2.7 kg m⁻³ and of the Brunt-Väisälä frequency ($N^2$) from 0.011 s⁻² to 0.003 s⁻² over the last decade were better correlated with changes in salinity than with water temperature (Tables 2, 3). Peralta-Ferriz and Woodgate (2015) confirmed a general increase in the salinity of the surface mixed layer in Beaufort Sea from 1979 to 2012. This rise in salinity was not expected, considering the general backdrop of increased freshwater discharge from rivers and glacier melt (Peterson et al. 2002, 2006), and is likely due to deep-water intrusion into the surface layers. In 2010–2011, the open-water season lasted about four times longer than in 2002–2003 due to a combination of earlier ice break up and later ice growth (Table 4). In addition, the along-shelf component of wind stress on the sea surface increased with time (Fig. 2). A change was also observed in the average wind direction, which shifted from westerly in 2002 and 2003 to easterly thereafter, thereby increasing the transport of sea ice away from the sampling region (Figs. 1, 2). Easterly winds along the coast of Beaufort Sea, such as those observed in 2010–2011 (Fig. 2), favor upwelling events (Williams et al. 2006; Williams and Carmack 2008), especially considering the delayed onset of fast-ice cover during these 2 yr (Table 4).

Over the same period, $B_T$ generally varied between 17 mg Chl a m⁻² and 28 mg Chl a m⁻², but it increased to 53 mg Chl a m⁻² in 2010 (Fig. 3a). Variability in Chl a biomass between years was mostly due to the SCM since Chl a concentration stayed quite stable in surface waters (Fig. 4a). Similarly, $P_T$ showed great variability between years, being lowest in 2009 (28 mg C m⁻² d⁻¹) and highest in 2010 (164 mg C m⁻² d⁻¹; Fig. 3c). Using satellite imagery, Arrigo and van Dijken (2015) observed an increase of ca. 5% yr⁻¹ in the annual net primary production of Beaufort Sea from

<table><caption>**Table 2.** Environmental variables (mean and SE in parentheses) in Beaufort Sea (upper panel) and Baffin Bay (lower panel) during fall from 2002 or 1999 to 2011. Nutrients are averaged over $Z_m$.</caption><thead><tr><th>Year</th><th>n</th><th>Z<sub>eu</sub><br>(m)</th><th>Z<sub>m</sub><br>(m)</th><th>Z<sub>scm</sub><br>(m)</th><th>S<sub>m</sub><br>(psu)</th><th>T<sub>m</sub><br>(°C)</th><th>Δσ<sub>t</sub><br>(kg m<sup>-3</sup>)</th><th>N<sup>2</sup><br>(s<sup>-2</sup>)</th><th>FW<sub>eu</sub><br>(m)</th><th>E<sub>3d</sub><br>(mol quanta<br>m<sup>-2</sup> d<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>(NO<sub>3</sub> + NO<sub>2</sub>)<sub>m</sub><br>(μmol L<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>(Si(OH)<sub>4</sub>)<sub>m</sub><br>(μmol L<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>(PO<sub>4</sub>)<sub>m</sub><br>(μmol L<sup>-1</sup>)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="14" style="text-align: center; font-style: italic;">Beaufort Sea</td></tr><tr><td>2002</td><td>37</td><td>54.8 (3.7)</td><td>8.9 (0.7)</td><td>10.4 (3.3)</td><td>23.9 (0.4)</td><td>-0.7 (0.1)</td><td>6.5 (0.3)</td><td>0.0110 (0.0008)</td><td>8.6 (0.4)</td><td>6.1 (0.4)</td><td>0.54 (0.08)</td><td>6.48 (0.52)</td><td>0.43 (0.03)</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>10</td><td>66.2 (6.5)</td><td>8.6 (2.1)</td><td>13.0 (3.3)</td><td>25.3 (0.6)</td><td>-1.0 (0.1)</td><td>5.3 (0.3)</td><td>0.0076 (0.0007)</td><td>9.9 (0.9)</td><td>4.4 (0.5)</td><td>0.25 (0.04)</td><td>5.10 (0.86)</td><td>0.55 (0.05)</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>10</td><td>58.9 (6.5)</td><td>11.8 (1.5)</td><td>24.6 (6.9)</td><td>28.3 (0.7)</td><td>1.2 (0.5)</td><td>3.5 (0.6)</td><td>0.0043 (0.0008)</td><td>7.2 (1.0)</td><td>4.9 (0.4)</td><td>0.77 (0.46)</td><td>5.40 (1.52)</td><td>0.67 (0.10)</td></tr><tr><td>2009</td><td>3</td><td>71.0 (6.8)</td><td>19.3 (4.8)</td><td>24.0 (8.6)</td><td>28.7 (0.4)</td><td>0.1 (0.1)</td><td>3.0 (0.2)</td><td>0.0037 (0.0006)</td><td>8.6 (1.3)</td><td>3.4 (0.1)</td><td>0.33 (0.09)</td><td>3.14 (0.67)</td><td>0.55 (0.08)</td></tr><tr><td>2010</td><td>5</td><td>68.7 (5.1)</td><td>22.6 (3.0)</td><td>41.6 (4.6)</td><td>30.1 (0.1)</td><td>3.1 (0.2)</td><td>2.1 (0.1)</td><td>0.0024 (0.0004)</td><td>7.2 (0.7)</td><td>6.5 (0.4)</td><td>0.40 (0.11)</td><td>1.80 (0.13)</td><td>0.70 (0.02)</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>9</td><td>60.9 (6.6)</td><td>9.7 (1.8)</td><td>22.2 (3.8)</td><td>29.3 (0.4)</td><td>2.8 (0.5)</td><td>2.7 (0.3)</td><td>0.0028 (0.0003)</td><td>6.7 (1.0)</td><td>8.0 (0.2)</td><td>0.61 (0.15)</td><td>2.63 (0.42)</td><td>0.63 (0.03)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="14" style="text-align: center; font-style: italic;">Baffin Bay</td></tr><tr><td>1999</td><td>7</td><td>47.0 (2.2)</td><td>21.1 (3.0)</td><td>21.0 (2.9)</td><td>31.5 (0.4)</td><td>0.0 (0.4)</td><td>1.4 (0.2)</td><td>0.0014 (0.0001)</td><td>3.8 (0.5)</td><td>6.6 (0.2)</td><td>0.77 (0.19)</td><td>1.67 (0.16)</td><td>0.34 (0.09)</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>3</td><td>55.9 (7.5)</td><td>27.0 (11.6)</td><td>17.0 (5.7)</td><td>32.1 (0.4)</td><td>0.9 (0.7)</td><td>1.0 (0.1)</td><td>0.0011 (0.0006)</td><td>3.8 (1.0)</td><td>8.6 (0.1)</td><td>1.06 (0.63)</td><td>2.20 (0.89)</td><td>0.44 (0.09)</td></tr><tr><td>2007</td><td>5</td><td>62.3 (9.1)</td><td>20.0 (4.8)</td><td>23.8 (10.4)</td><td>31.7 (0.6)</td><td>-1.0 (0.3)</td><td>1.0 (0.1)</td><td>0.0010 (0.0002)</td><td>4.9 (1.5)</td><td>3.1 (0.1)</td><td>2.86 (1.10)</td><td>3.56 (1.17)</td><td>0.95 (0.20)</td></tr><tr><td>2008</td><td>4</td><td>62.9 (7.9)</td><td>17.8 (3.0)</td><td>21.3 (5.5)</td><td>30.7 (0.6)</td><td>2.0 (1.0)</td><td>2.2 (0.2)</td><td>0.0019 (0.0006)</td><td>5.2 (0.6)</td><td>7.9 (0.4)</td><td>0.70 (0.23)</td><td>0.69 (0.22)</td><td>0.31 (0.11)</td></tr><tr><td>2010</td><td>4</td><td>78.2 (7.0)</td><td>16.3 (4.6)</td><td>27.5 (11.1)</td><td>31.1 (0.7)</td><td>-1.4 (0.2)</td><td>1.6 (0.3)</td><td>0.0011 (0.0003)</td><td>5.8 (1.6)</td><td>0.8 (0.1)</td><td>3.65 (0.93)</td><td>5.18 (0.95)</td><td>0.76 (0.06)</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>1</td><td>60.4</td><td>12.0</td><td>7.0</td><td>32.6</td><td>-1.8</td><td>0.8</td><td>0.0006</td><td>3.0</td><td>0.7</td><td>4.18</td><td>4.20</td><td>0.57</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 3.** Spearman's rank correlation coefficients between environmental variables measured in Beaufort Sea (lower half-panel) and in Baffin Bay (shaded upper half-panel). Bold indicates significance at the *p* < 0.05 level.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Year</th><th>DOY</th><th>S<sub>m</sub></th><th>T<sub>m</sub></th><th>Δσ<sub>t</sub></th><th>N<sup>2</sup></th><th>FWI<sub>eu</sub></th><th>E<sub>3d</sub></th><th>(NO<sub>3</sub> + NO<sub>2</sub>)<sub>m</sub></th><th>(Si(OH)<sub>4</sub>)<sub>m</sub></th><th>(PO<sub>4</sub>)<sub>m</sub></th><th>OWS</th><th>OWE</th><th>OWD</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Year</td><td></td><td>0.39</td><td>-0.10</td><td>-0.39</td><td>0.15</td><td>-0.17</td><td>0.25</td><td><strong>-0.45</strong></td><td><strong>0.46</strong></td><td>0.27</td><td>0.40</td><td>-0.16</td><td><strong>0.56</strong></td><td><strong>0.41</strong></td></tr><tr><td>DOY</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.16</td><td><strong>-0.76</strong></td><td>-0.33</td><td>-0.34</td><td>-0.06</td><td><strong>-0.92</strong></td><td><strong>0.58</strong></td><td><strong>0.75</strong></td><td><strong>0.61</strong></td><td>0.25</td><td>0.34</td><td>-0.08</td></tr><tr><td>S<sub>m</sub></td><td><strong>0.78</strong></td><td>0.13</td><td>0.31</td><td><strong>-0.85</strong></td><td>-0.38</td><td><strong>-0.90</strong></td><td>-0.00</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.22</td><td>-0.27</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.32</td><td>0.27</td></tr><tr><td>T<sub>m</sub></td><td><strong>0.63</strong></td><td><strong>-0.43</strong></td><td><strong>0.36</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td><strong>-0.42</strong></td><td><strong>0.85</strong></td><td>-0.36</td><td><strong>-0.56</strong></td><td><strong>-0.81</strong></td><td>-0.25</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.36</td></tr><tr><td>Δσ<sub>t</sub></td><td><strong>-0.76</strong></td><td>-0.05</td><td><strong>-0.96</strong></td><td><strong>-0.35</strong></td><td></td><td><strong>0.62</strong></td><td><strong>0.68</strong></td><td>0.15</td><td>-0.27</td><td>-0.38</td><td>0.07</td><td>-0.10</td><td>-0.12</td><td>-0.05</td></tr><tr><td>N<sup>2</sup></td><td><strong>-0.78</strong></td><td>-0.11</td><td><strong>-0.81</strong></td><td><strong>-0.40</strong></td><td><strong>0.79</strong></td><td></td><td>0.15</td><td>0.25</td><td>-0.34</td><td><strong>-0.47</strong></td><td>-0.20</td><td>0.19</td><td>-0.05</td><td>-0.20</td></tr><tr><td>FWI<sub>eu</sub></td><td>-0.22</td><td>-0.07</td><td><strong>-0.35</strong></td><td>-0.15</td><td><strong>0.35</strong></td><td>0.15</td><td></td><td>-0.09</td><td>-0.03</td><td>-0.05</td><td>0.40</td><td>-0.02</td><td>-0.26</td><td>-0.23</td></tr><tr><td>E<sub>3d</sub></td><td>0.04</td><td><strong>-0.95</strong></td><td>-0.04</td><td><strong>0.44</strong></td><td>-0.04</td><td>-0.01</td><td>0.00</td><td><strong>-0.51</strong></td><td><strong>-0.65</strong></td><td><strong>-0.74</strong></td><td>-0.17</td><td>-0.26</td><td>0.10</td></tr><tr><td>(NO<sub>3</sub> + NO<sub>2</sub>)<sub>m</sub></td><td>0.40</td><td>-0.15</td><td><strong>0.46</strong></td><td>-0.07</td><td><strong>-0.47</strong></td><td>-0.36</td><td><strong>-0.49</strong></td><td>0.26</td><td><strong>0.56</strong></td><td><strong>0.46</strong></td><td>0.05</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.14</td></tr><tr><td>(Si(OH)<sub>4</sub>)<sub>m</sub></td><td><strong>-0.42</strong></td><td>0.25</td><td>-0.08</td><td><strong>-0.72</strong></td><td>0.06</td><td>0.10</td><td>-0.25</td><td>-0.24</td><td>0.07</td><td><strong>0.51</strong></td><td>-0.11</td><td>0.22</td><td>0.14</td></tr><tr><td>(PO<sub>4</sub>)<sub>m</sub></td><td><strong>0.47</strong></td><td>-0.17</td><td><strong>0.81</strong></td><td>0.00</td><td><strong>-0.85</strong></td><td><strong>-0.48</strong></td><td><strong>-0.62</strong></td><td>0.27</td><td><strong>0.42</strong></td><td>-0.09</td><td>-0.02</td><td>0.19</td><td>-0.01</td></tr><tr><td>OWS</td><td><strong>-0.73</strong></td><td>-0.04</td><td><strong>-0.57</strong></td><td><strong>-0.55</strong></td><td><strong>0.59</strong></td><td><strong>0.55</strong></td><td><strong>0.32</strong></td><td>0.00</td><td>-0.36</td><td><strong>0.45</strong></td><td>-0.35</td><td></td><td><strong>-0.15</strong></td><td><strong>-0.78</strong></td></tr><tr><td>OWE</td><td><strong>0.81</strong></td><td>0.22</td><td><strong>0.71</strong></td><td><strong>0.61</strong></td><td><strong>-0.67</strong></td><td><strong>-0.64</strong></td><td><strong>-0.38</strong></td><td>-0.15</td><td>-0.17</td><td><strong>-0.51</strong></td><td>0.18</td><td><strong>-0.75</strong></td><td></td><td><strong>0.68</strong></td></tr><tr><td>OWD</td><td><strong>0.81</strong></td><td>0.13</td><td><strong>0.68</strong></td><td><strong>0.66</strong></td><td><strong>-0.65</strong></td><td><strong>-0.65</strong></td><td><strong>-0.42</strong></td><td>-0.04</td><td>0.26</td><td><strong>-0.55</strong></td><td>0.34</td><td><strong>-0.88</strong></td><td><strong>0.94</strong></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 4.** Sea-ice conditions in Beaufort Sea (upper panel) and Baffin Bay (lower panel) for each sampling year. In 2009, no data were available after 24 October; OWE could not be determined, but it was > 297 and OWD was > 101 d.</caption><thead><tr><th>Year</th><th>OWS (DOY)</th><th>OWE (DOY)</th><th>OWD (days)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><em>Beaufort Sea</em></td></tr><tr><td>2002</td><td>241 (5)</td><td>281 (1)</td><td>32 (3)</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>191 (11)</td><td>284 (4)</td><td>55 (12)</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>215 (6)</td><td>305 (2)</td><td>90 (8)</td></tr><tr><td>2009</td><td>196 (1)</td><td>n/a</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>2010</td><td>163 (2)</td><td>319 (1)</td><td>156 (1)</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>162 (7)</td><td>304 (0)</td><td>139 (7)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><em>Baffin Bay</em></td></tr><tr><td>1999</td><td>175 (4)</td><td>282 (5)</td><td>107 (5)</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>154 (12)</td><td>293 (13)</td><td>139 (10)</td></tr><tr><td>2007</td><td>174 (15)</td><td>294 (7)</td><td>118 (21)</td></tr><tr><td>2008</td><td>152 (8)</td><td>293 (6)</td><td>142 (10)</td></tr><tr><td>2010</td><td>166 (4)</td><td>307 (1)</td><td>137 (1)</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>188</td><td>291</td><td>103</td></tr></tbody></table>

1998 to 2012. The model of Forest et al. (2011) and Tremblay et al. (2011) also showed an 80% increase in gross primary production in 2008 compared to 2004 that they attributed to a reduction in ice cover. A similar trend is not evident from our field data. Only fall 2010, when the longest open-water season and among the strongest upwelling-favorable winds were recorded (Table 4; Fig. 2), appears to be unusual, with high Chl *a* biomass and productivity (Fig. 3a,c). $B_L$ accounted for < 45% of the biomass except in 2006 and 2010, when it accounted for 52% and 66% of $B_T$, respectively (Fig. 3a). Small cells dominated primary production

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** Along-shelf wind velocity squared (μ-wind) as an index of surface stress (negative values indicate upwelling-favorable winds) averaged from mid-August to mid-October over our study area in Beaufort Sea for each sampling year. Error bars represent SE.</figcaption></figure>

every year during fall (Fig. 3c). The abundance of photosynthetic picoeukaryotes in surface waters increased nearly twofold over the last decade (Table 5; Fig. 5a) and could be explained by the extended open-water season (Table 4) and the relatively high temperature of the surface mixed layer
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3.** Variations in size-fractionated Chl *a* biomass (left panels) and primary production (P.P.) (right panels) over years during fall in (a, c) Beaufort Sea and (b, d) Baffin Bay. Data were integrated over the euphotic zone (down to 0.2% surface irradiance). In 1999 and 2002, only two size fractions were measured. Values are mean ± 0.5 SE. In (d), the production by large cells is 3.2 mg C m⁻² d⁻¹ for fall 2011.</figcaption></figure>

(Table 2; Li et al. 2009; Tremblay et al. 2009; Morán et al. 2010; Terrado et al. 2012).

Overall, the most striking difference between the beginning and end of the last decade is the change in the phytoplankton community composition. Autotrophic flagellates were the numerically dominant protists (> 2 µm) in 2002, 2003, and 2006 whereas the protist community was more diversified afterwards, with a higher proportion of diatoms (Fig. 5c). In 2010, the community was numerically dominated by centric diatoms (mostly *Leptocylindrus minimus* Gran), which accounted for the large increase in total Chl *a* observed that year (Figs. 3a, 5c). In 2011, the diatom community was mainly composed of the centric diatoms *Leptocylindrus minimus*; *Arcocellulus cornucervis* Hasle, von Stosch and Syvertsen; and *Skeletonema* cf. *costatum* (Greville) Cleve. In 2002, diatoms made up only 2% of the total protist abundance (Fig. 5c), and there was a significant increase in

centric diatom abundance over the years (Table 5). Diatom abundance was positively correlated with $S_m$, $T_m$, and duration of the open-water season, and negatively correlated with $\Delta\sigma_t$ and $N^2$; thus it was clearly associated with the importance of stratification (Table 5). The negative correlation of diatom abundance with $Si(OH)_4$ concentrations, its low concentration in 2010 and 2011, and the fourfold decrease in the molar ratio $Si(OH)_4$ to $NO_3 + NO_2$ in $Z_m$ (Table 2) can be attributed to higher Si consumption by diatoms (Brzezinski 1985).

The high Chl *a* biomass and productivity measured in fall 2010 were mostly due to centric diatoms. Even though they were not highly productive at the time of sampling, as estimated from the contribution of large cells (> 5 µm) to total primary production, their high abundance in early October suggests the occurrence of a fall bloom, prior to our sampling. Enhanced nutrient consumption by phytoplankton
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.** Comparison of the year-to-year variability in Chl *a* concentration in surface waters and at the depth of the subsurface chlorophyll maximum (SCM) in (a) Beaufort Sea and (b) Baffin Bay. Vertical bars are mean ± 0.5 SE.</figcaption></figure>

following upwellings, as shown by Ardyna et al. (2017), likely occurred prior to our field sampling in 2010 and explains the relatively low nutrient concentrations in $Z_m$ measured at our sampling stations (Table 2). Indeed, if sufficient light is available for primary production when surface waters are replenished with nutrients, a fall bloom can occur; this was likely the case in 2010 and 2011 (Fig. 5a,c). This interpretation seems consistent with the 15% increase in the frequency of fall blooms on the Canadian Beaufort Shelf between 1998–2001 and 2007–2012 (Ardyna et al. 2014).

## Interannual changes in northern Baffin Bay

In northern Baffin Bay, the duration of the open-water season increased over the years, but durations were similar in 1999 and 2011 due to a late ice breakup and early ice formation during these 2 yr (Table 4). Satellite images and aerial surveys have shown that an ice bridge has historically formed in Nares Strait around 78.6°N between Ellesmere

Island and Greenland (Fig. 6), with the date of formation being highly variable. Prior to 1994, the ice bridge broke up during week 29.9 ± 3.5 (mid- to late July; Fig. 7). Since 1994, the ice bridge has broken up on average during week 26.3 ± 3.5 (end of June), but there have been some years when the southern Nares Strait ice bridge did not form at all (2007, 2009, and 2010). In 2008, it had broken up by mid-May (week 22), 4–5 weeks earlier than the long-term average (Table 4; Fig. 7).

Without the ice bridge, sea ice drifts southward, thus decreasing the overall ice concentration in southern Nares Strait (mainly in Kennedy Channel, Kane Basin, and Smith Sound) while increasing it in northern Baffin Bay along the coast of Ellesmere Island compared to years when the ice bridge is present (Fig. 6b,c; see also Kwok et al. 2010). This allows light to penetrate much earlier into the water column at these high latitudes and triggers nutrient consumption in the upper ocean before currents carry these waters to our sampling stations at 76°N. The occurrence of an under-ice phytoplankton bloom in the thinner and ponded sea ice would also reduce the quantity of nutrients available for primary production down-current in late spring – early summer (Mundy et al. 2009; Arrigo et al. 2012; Palmer et al. 2014). However, $NO_3 + NO_2$ in $Z_m$ increased over the years in late fall in northern Baffin Bay (Table 3). Ice floes moving south might also result in intermittent shading of the water column, as observed at our sampling latitude (Fig. 6c), and could amplify the significant decrease of $E_{3d}$ observed over the years (Table 3) that was attributed mostly to seasonality (see next section). Interestingly, 2007–2008 and 2010 were associated with the highest $FWI_{eu}$ measured during our study (Table 2). In the absence of an ice bridge, the increased occurrence of ice floes transiting through northern Baffin Bay suggests accrued sea-ice melting and stratification in northern Baffin Bay. Moreover, glacial meltwater from the Greenland Ice Sheet and the flux of fresher water from the Arctic Ocean through Nares Strait (Haine et al. 2015) may further increase freshwater content and stratification. Sea-ice melt could also explain why the temperature was colder by about 2°C in 2010–2011 compared to 1999 (Table 2).

In northern Baffin Bay, $B_T$ diminished drastically and significantly over the years (Table 5), being as high as 99 mg Chl *a* m⁻² in 1999 and as low as 20 mg Chl *a* m⁻² in 2011 (Fig. 3b). The significant decrease in phytoplankton biomass during fall was mostly due to decreased numbers of large cells. $B_L$ dominated the Chl *a* biomass every year until 2011, when it accounted for only 28% of $B_T$ (Fig. 3b). Changes in the $B_L$ contribution to $B_T$ were observed at both the surface and SCM (Fig. 4b). Between 1999 and 2010–2011, a 25-fold decrease was observed for $P_T$, which dropped from 500 mg C m⁻² d⁻¹ to 20 mg C m⁻² d⁻¹ (Fig. 3d). The decrease in production of both small and large phytoplankton cells over the sampled years was also large and significant. The contribution of $P_L$ to $P_T$ ranged between 33% and 58% except in
<table><caption>**Table 5.** Spearman's rank correlation coefficients between environmental and biological variables measured in Beaufort Sea (upper panel) and in Baffin Bay (lower panel). Bold indicates significance at the *p* < 0.05 level.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Year</th><th>DOY</th><th>S<sub>m</sub></th><th>T<sub>m</sub></th><th>Δσ<sub>t</sub></th><th>N<sup>2</sup></th><th>FWI<sub>eu</sub></th><th>E<sub>3d</sub></th><th>(NO<sub>3</sub> + NO<sub>2</sub>)<sub>m</sub></th><th>(Si(OH)<sub>4</sub>)<sub>m</sub></th><th>(PO<sub>4</sub>)<sub>m</sub></th><th>OWS</th><th>OWE</th><th>OWD</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="16" style="text-align:center; font-style:italic;">Beaufort Sea</td></tr><tr><td>B<sub>T</sub></td><td>0.00</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.23</td><td>-0.03</td><td>-0.10</td><td>0.14</td><td>-0.02</td><td>0.00</td><td><strong>-0.48</strong></td><td>0.14</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.18</td></tr><tr><td>B<sub>L</sub> : B<sub>T</sub></td><td><strong>0.70</strong></td><td><strong>0.35</strong></td><td><strong>0.64</strong></td><td><strong>0.34</strong></td><td><strong>-0.59</strong></td><td><strong>-0.59</strong></td><td><strong>-0.34</strong></td><td><strong>-0.33</strong></td><td>0.22</td><td>-0.06</td><td><strong>0.45</strong></td><td><strong>-0.62</strong></td><td><strong>0.72</strong></td><td><strong>0.68</strong></td></tr><tr><td>P<sub>T</sub></td><td>0.17</td><td>-0.27</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.22</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.25</td><td>-0.40</td><td>0.34</td><td>-0.22</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.21</td></tr><tr><td>P<sub>L</sub> : P<sub>T</sub></td><td>0.00</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.07</td><td>-0.12</td><td>-0.15</td><td>-0.08</td><td>-0.16</td><td>-0.10</td><td>-0.08</td><td>0.02</td><td>-0.06</td><td>0.34</td><td>0.11</td></tr><tr><td>Total Euk</td><td><strong>0.36</strong></td><td>-0.10</td><td>0.14</td><td><strong>0.40</strong></td><td>-0.12</td><td>-0.11</td><td><strong>-0.28</strong></td><td>0.13</td><td>0.09</td><td>-0.21</td><td>0.01</td><td><strong>-0.30</strong></td><td><strong>0.30</strong></td><td><strong>0.40</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Pico-Euk</td><td><strong>0.40</strong></td><td>-0.15</td><td>0.15</td><td><strong>0.44</strong></td><td>-0.13</td><td>-0.16</td><td>-0.23</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.05</td><td>-0.23</td><td>-0.05</td><td><strong>-0.32</strong></td><td><strong>0.31</strong></td><td><strong>0.40</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Nano-Euk</td><td>-0.11</td><td>0.16</td><td>-0.09</td><td>-0.12</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.20</td><td><strong>-0.34</strong></td><td>-0.17</td><td>0.41</td><td><strong>0.57</strong></td><td>0.29</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.04</td></tr><tr><td>C. diatoms</td><td><strong>0.76</strong></td><td>0.01</td><td><strong>0.71</strong></td><td><strong>0.60</strong></td><td><strong>-0.66</strong></td><td><strong>-0.68</strong></td><td>-0.37</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.14</td><td><strong>-0.47</strong></td><td>0.43</td><td><strong>-0.64</strong></td><td><strong>0.71</strong></td><td><strong>0.80</strong></td></tr><tr><td>A. flagellates</td><td>-0.36</td><td>0.07</td><td>-0.32</td><td>-0.11</td><td>0.31</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.05</td><td>-0.13</td><td><strong>-0.45</strong></td><td>0.38</td><td>-0.13</td><td>0.37</td><td>-0.18</td><td>-0.35</td></tr><tr><td colspan="16" style="text-align:center; font-style:italic;">Baffin Bay</td></tr><tr><td>B<sub>T</sub></td><td><strong>-0.69</strong></td><td>-0.14</td><td><strong>0.44</strong></td><td>0.30</td><td><strong>-0.42</strong></td><td>-0.08</td><td><strong>-0.55</strong></td><td>0.24</td><td>-0.29</td><td>0.10</td><td>-0.24</td><td>-0.21</td><td>-0.12</td><td>0.14</td></tr><tr><td>B<sub>L</sub> : B<sub>T</sub></td><td><strong>-0.42</strong></td><td>0.28</td><td>0.17</td><td>-0.12</td><td>-0.15</td><td>-0.06</td><td>-0.29</td><td>-0.25</td><td>-0.03</td><td>0.38</td><td>0.18</td><td>-0.07</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.04</td></tr><tr><td>P<sub>T</sub></td><td><strong>-0.81</strong></td><td>-0.47</td><td>0.16</td><td><strong>0.65</strong></td><td>0.04</td><td>0.20</td><td>-0.40</td><td><strong>0.56</strong></td><td>-0.29</td><td>-0.37</td><td>-0.44</td><td>-0.20</td><td>-0.18</td><td>0.12</td></tr><tr><td>P<sub>L</sub> : P<sub>T</sub></td><td>-0.32</td><td>-0.22</td><td>-0.03</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.13</td><td>-0.15</td><td>0.17</td><td>-0.31</td><td>-0.07</td><td>0.19</td><td>-0.43</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.53</td></tr><tr><td>Total Euk</td><td>0.10</td><td>-0.13</td><td><strong>0.74</strong></td><td><strong>0.47</strong></td><td>-0.37</td><td>-0.02</td><td><strong>-0.74</strong></td><td>0.18</td><td>0.06</td><td>-0.03</td><td>-0.39</td><td>-0.24</td><td>0.41</td><td><strong>0.49</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Pico-Euk</td><td>0.34</td><td>-0.02</td><td><strong>0.64</strong></td><td>0.33</td><td>-0.31</td><td>-0.07</td><td><strong>-0.58</strong></td><td>0.09</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.01</td><td>-0.25</td><td>-0.22</td><td><strong>0.59</strong></td><td><strong>0.56</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Nano-Euk</td><td><strong>-0.53</strong></td><td>-0.19</td><td><strong>0.61</strong></td><td>0.42</td><td><strong>-0.52</strong></td><td>-0.22</td><td><strong>-0.76</strong></td><td>0.24</td><td>-0.16</td><td>-0.03</td><td>-0.35</td><td>-0.28</td><td>-0.19</td><td>0.21</td></tr><tr><td>C. diatoms</td><td><strong>-0.65</strong></td><td>-0.47</td><td><strong>0.61</strong></td><td><strong>0.84</strong></td><td>-0.42</td><td>-0.17</td><td><strong>-0.69</strong></td><td><strong>0.56</strong></td><td>-0.24</td><td>-0.13</td><td>-0.46</td><td><strong>-0.54</strong></td><td>0.08</td><td><strong>0.56</strong></td></tr><tr><td>A. flagellates</td><td>-0.19</td><td>-0.44</td><td>0.32</td><td><strong>0.60</strong></td><td>0.10</td><td>0.50</td><td>-0.49</td><td>0.30</td><td>-0.33</td><td>-0.49</td><td>-0.29</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.37</td><td>0.13</td></tr></tbody></table>

2011, when it was 15% (Fig. 3d). Satellite studies have also shown a strong decrease in productivity in Baffin Bay over the last decade throughout the productive period (Arrigo and van Dijken 2011, 2015; Bélanger et al. 2013).

The total abundance of eukaryotic cells < 20 µm did not change significantly over years, but there was a major change in the community size structure (Table 5; Fig. 5b,d). Indeed, there was a significant decrease of photosynthetic nanoeukaryote abundance in the surface waters over the study period (Table 5), and their lowest abundance was recorded in 2010 (Fig. 5b). This decrease seems to be balanced by a general (but not significant) increase in photosynthetic picoeukaryotes over the same period (Table 5; Fig. 5b). Total protist abundance (> 2 µm) exhibited a significant decline, with values being nearly fivefold higher in 2006 than in 2011 (Fig. 5d). Early in the study period, centric diatoms accounted for > 50% of the total protist abundance but represented only 10% of total abundance in 2011. The other major group in 1999 was flagellated cells (mostly prymnesiophytes, dinoflagellates, and dictyochophytes; Mostajir et al. 2001; Booth et al. 2002). In 1999, the centric diatom *Chaetoceros gelidus* Chamnansinp, Li, Lundholm and Moestrup, which had been previously misidentified as *Chaetoceros socialis* Lauder (see Chamnansinp et al. 2013; Balzano et al. 2017), was the most common species in northern Baffin Bay, with abundances ranging from 1.4 to 4.3 × 10⁶ cells L⁻¹ (Booth et al. 2002). In 2006 and 2007, the protist community

was still dominated by centric diatom taxa, mostly *Chaetoceros* spp. (≤ 20 µm), *Leptocylindrus danicus* Cleve, and *C. gelidus*. The decrease in centric diatoms from 2006 to 2011 was significant (Table 5). In 1999, the phytoplankton community was similar to the southeast Beaufort Sea community of recent years in terms of dominant taxonomic groups (Fig. 5c,d). In 2010–2011, however, the phytoplankton community > 2 µm in northern Baffin Bay was numerically dominated by flagellated cells (mostly unidentified flagellates, dinoflagellates, and prymnesiophytes) and a relatively high abundance of photosynthetic picoeukaryotes (presumably the prasinophyte *Micromonas* Manton and Parke; Lovejoy et al. 2007). This type of community is usually typical of a light-limited system in late fall (Simo-Matchim et al. 2016). The community composition, the abundance of nutrients, and the lack of SCM (Table 2; Fig. 4b) suggest that an early fall bloom did not occur prior to our sampling. Increased stratification due to freshwater accumulation likely dampened the occurrence of diatom-dominated fall blooms in recent years, as has been widely observed in the Arctic Ocean (Ardyna et al. 2014).

Centric diatom and photosynthethic nanoeukaryote abundances were negatively correlated with FWI<sub>eu</sub> and positively correlated with S<sub>m</sub> (Table 5); these observations point to ice changes and related alterations in stratification as major players in shaping the fall phytoplankton assemblage in northern Baffin Bay. Consequently, the variability in biomass and production as well as the change in the taxonomic
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5.** Variations in the abundance of photosynthetic pico- and nanoeukaryotes (left panels) and of different protist groups (right panels) during fall in the surface waters of (a, c) Beaufort Sea and (b, d) Baffin Bay. Bars and vertical lines represent mean and 0.5 SE of total protist cell abundance. The autotrophic flagellate group includes chrysophytes, cryptophytes, dictyochophytes, euglenophytes, prasinophytes, prymnesiophytes, raphidophytes, and unidentified flagellates. The heterotrophic flagellate group comprises taxa such as *Telonema* spp., *Leucocryptos marina* (Braarud) Butcher, and *Meringosphaera mediterranea* Lohmann, along with choanoflagellates. "Others" are unidentified cells. *: Total protist abundance is not available for Baffin Bay in 1999. However, the abundance of the dominant centric diatom *Chaetoceros gelidus* in the euphotic zone ranged from 1.4 to 4.3 × 10⁶ cells L⁻¹ at our sampling site (Booth et al. 2002). Some pico- and nanophytoplankton abundance data in Baffin Bay in fall 1999 are from Mostajir et al. (2001). Note that *C. gelidus* was misidentified as *Chaetoceros socialis* Lauder in Mostajir et al. (2001) and Booth et al. (2002).</figcaption></figure>

composition of the phytoplankton community reported here for the fall period can be attributed mostly to a decrease in irradiance (discussed in the next section) that was amplified by increased ice transport and to stronger vertical stratification. The decrease in irradiance was likely high enough that it hampered nutrient consumption, and this explains why relatively high nutrient concentrations were measured at the time of sampling. Moreover, these low-light and stratified conditions apparently favor the development of small phytoplankton cells and increase the importance of the microbial food web (Cushing 1989; Li et al. 2009; Yamamoto-Kawai et al. 2009; McLaughlin and Carmack 2010), which relies on recycled nitrogen sources rather than NO₃.

## Seasonal variability in southeast Beaufort Sea and northern Baffin Bay

Given the logistical constraints inherent to oceanographic work in remote Arctic regions, sampling did not systematically occur at the exact same period every year. The sampling period consistently occurred during fall (Fig. 1b) and within a 3-week window for the southeast Beaufort Sea (23 September–15 October; 2002–2011) and a 5-week window for northern Baffin Bay (12 September–18 October; 1999–2011). This methodological limitation might create spurious interannual trends or conceal real ones if seasonality was the dominant factor controlling biological variables. We therefore attempted to highlight the influence of variable sampling dates on our results, and this task was further
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6.** (a) MODIS image of the North Water Polynya on 23 April 2002, when the ice bridge was present. (b, c) Measurements of solar radiative energy (× 10⁹ J m⁻²) incident at the ocean's surface, below the ice and assuming the ice is opaque, that were collected from 01 January to 30 September. These values were averaged over years during which (b) the ice bridge in southern Nares Strait formed and (c) it did not form (1990, 1993, 1995, 2007, and 2009) over the 1979–2009 period. Sea-ice concentration data were taken from the EUMETSAT Ocean and Sea Ice Satellite Application Facility (OSI-SAF) Global sea-ice concentration reprocessing dataset 1978–2009 and are available at http://osisaf.met.no. In (b, c), the lowest values are associated with persistent and recurrent landfast ice regions.</figcaption></figure>

complicated by the short time series that does not encompass a pre-industrial baseline. Irradiance, temperature, stratification, and nutrient supply would all covary with sampling date (DOY) if seasonality was the dominant factor shaping the ecosystem every fall. In order to test if differences in sampling time could be associated with different stages of the seasonal progression, we computed rank correlations between DOY and all environmental and biological variables collected during the study (Tables 3, 5).

In Beaufort Sea, there was no directional shift in sampling DOY with the years, implying that the time of sampling did not create spurious interannual trends in the data but might conceal real trends (Table 3). E₃d and T_m were the only physical variables that significantly correlated with sampling date, and the contribution of phytoplankton > 5 µm to total Chl a biomass (B_L : B_T) was the only biological variable correlated with E₃d (Tables 3, 5). These relationships reflect the decrease in incident irradiance and water temperature as well as the increase in the contribution of large cells to the total Chl a biomass as the season progressed. The year 2010 had the highest B_L : B_T ratio, but not the highest E₃d (Table 2), meaning that other environmental variables that are not subordinated to seasonal transitions, such as upwellings, played an important role in driving the observed differences in physical and biological variables between years.

For Baffin Bay, sampling occurred over a larger seasonal window than in Beaufort Sea (Fig. 1b), and sampling DOY possibly had a greater influence on the results. In 2010 and 2011, sampling occurred later than in the previous years and drove a positive but not significant correlation (p = 0.06)

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 7.** Break-up date of the ice bridge in Nares Strait over the 1968–2014 period as assessed by the Canadian Ice Service (CIS, circles) and the Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut (DMI, crosses). The black tick marks on top of the graph correspond to years during which an ice bridge formed while gray zones indicate years during which it did not. The vertical bar indicates variability of the de-trended signal (2σ = 3.46 weeks).</figcaption></figure>

between DOY and sampling year (Fig. 1b; Table 3). E₃d and T_m decreased while the availability of nutrients, mostly NO₃ + NO₂, increased with DOY and over the years (Tables 2, 3). The decrease in incident irradiance and water temperature along with the increase in nutrient concentrations reveal the seasonal progression. However, most biological variables were not significantly correlated with DOY and were presumably affected by environmental forcing that superseded seasonality (Table 5). Interannual changes in the phytoplankton community cannot be detected using a
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 8.** Annual changes in average surface Chl *a* (black) and integrated subsurface photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) (light gray) in Baffin Bay from 1998 to 2014. Data are derived from satellite observations (GlobColour) for the period between the end of May and early September.</figcaption></figure>

biological variable that responds primarily to changes in irra-
diance, temperature, or nutrient availability. This was the
case for P<sub>T</sub>, but all other biological variables were rather cor-
related with other variables such as salinity, freshwater
inventory, or open-water duration (Table 5), confirming that
changes in ice dynamics and the vertical stability of the
water column were also responsible for the observed changes
in phytoplankton community structure.

Even so, it is tempting to relate the large decrease in phy-
toplankton biomass and production during fall uniquely to
the large decrease of near-surface PAR over the years in
northern Baffin Bay. Irradiance is a key factor shaping the
size structure of phytoplankton communities, with large cells
performing better than small ones at high light intensities
(Pesant et al. 1996). Since nutrients were quite abundant in
the surface waters during fall 2010–2011 (Table 2), irradiance
was likely the limiting factor. Seasonal variations in incident
PAR certainly explain some of the reported biological vari-
ability (Table 5). However, the decrease in phytoplankton
biomass and production for a 5-week time difference seems
fairly large to be only due to seasonality in irradiance (Fig.
3b,d). Based on satellite observations, surface Chl *a* biomass
and near-surface PAR data averaged or integrated for our spe-
cific study area over the whole productive period (i.e., from
the end of May to early September) independently con-
firmed that major and significant declines in biomass and
PAR occurred during the last 15 yr in northern Baffin Bay
(Fig. 8). In addition, seasonal variations in incident PAR
could not explain the continuous drop in biomass and pro-
duction between 1999, 2006, and 2008, which were all mea-
sured in mid-September.

Despite the limitation in our study due to the sampling
time lag, these correlations suggest that the production and
structure of Arctic phytoplankton in two different environ-
ments—an interior shelf (Beaufort Sea) and an outflow shelf
(Baffin Bay)—are responding to the interannual pressures of
climate change. In addition to seasonal variability, altered
ice dynamics—mostly a reduction in the duration of sea-ice
cover—induced modifications in water column stratification.
It is the phytoplankton assemblage, in terms of size-structure
and taxonomic composition, that is mostly impacted by
these changes in both regions. This suggests that stratifica-
tion does not only control the timing of the spring bloom
(Janout et al. 2016), but also the fall phytoplankton assem-
blage. We now evaluate how ongoing changes may affect
the overall functioning of Arctic marine ecosystems and
assess the pan-Arctic relevance of our regional study.

Food-web implications of an altered phytoplankton
assemblage in the Canadian Arctic Ocean

Previous studies have shown the important role of stratifi-
cation in controlling trophic status in marine Arctic environ-
ments (Ardyna et al. 2011, 2014), and the two regions
studied responded differently to environmental changes. In
southeast Beaufort Sea, this study has shown that, besides
stimulating primary production, upwelling events lead to
the modification of phytoplankton assemblages. With the
ongoing climate change, these events are likely to become
more common during fall, when ice cover formation is
delayed (Ardyna et al. 2011; Forest et al. 2011; Tremblay
et al. 2011; Uchimiya et al. 2016). The resulting phytoplank-
ton community that is dominated by large cells could
enhance carbon export toward higher trophic levels (Søreide
et al. 2010; Bergeron and Tremblay 2014). We hypothesize
that changes in the phytoplankton size structure and taxo-
nomic composition could partly explain the high occurrence
of bowhead whales in our sampling area at the end of
August – early September 2010, when the bloom likely
peaked, compared to 2006–2009 (Citta et al. 2015). Walkusz
et al. (2012) showed that upwelled waters around Cape Bath-
urst in Beaufort Sea consistently provided zooplankton to
the foraging bowhead whales during late summer 2008.
However, data on the interannual variability in zooplankton
abundance in this coastal region are still lacking to corrobo-
rate this hypothesis.

In northern Baffin Bay, sea-surface warming and sea-ice
changes altered spring bloom phenology (Marchese et al.
2017) and likely the nutrient distribution for the entire pro-
ductive period. Our study showed that these changes com-
bined with reduced near-surface irradiance and increased
stratification did not allow the diatom-dominated assemb-
lages to persist throughout fall, and the fall bloom did not
occur in 2010–2011. Food export to higher trophic levels
during fall will likely be greatly limited due to the small size
of the phytoplankton species present (Pesant et al. 1996).
Small cells have low sinking velocities and are normally recycled within the euphotic zone, feeding the microbial food web (Legendre and Rassoulzadegan 1995). These changes are thus likely to hamper the pelagic food web. However, the absence of the ice bridge in Nares Strait (Fig. 2) would lead to more sea ice transiting southwards across Baffin Bay, and there could be an increase in ice-algal aggregates being exported to the sea floor during spring-summer that could feed the benthic food web (Assmy et al. 2013; Brown et al. 2014; Roy et al. 2015).

Overall, at the end of the last decade, water column stratification and phytoplankton size structure and community composition in southeast Beaufort Sea were becoming more like those of northern Baffin Bay in the mid-2000s, when this latter was still considered a eutrophic system (Ardyna et al. 2011). Conversely, northern Baffin Bay has become more of a mesotrophic region in recent years. This will certainly alter the food web in different ways in both regions, but it might not alter the overall productivity of the Canadian Arctic Ocean in the near future.

## Expected interannual variability in phytoplankton communities of the Arctic Ocean

The southeast Beaufort Sea and other interior shelves of the Arctic Ocean (Kara, Laptev, and East Siberian seas) receive high inputs of freshwater, about 80% of the total freshwater input to the Arctic Ocean (Williams and Carmack 2015). Consequently, the high turbidity and haline stratification, which limit surface light availability and nutrient inputs, are responsible for the overall low biological activity in these regions (Sakshaug 2004; Ardyna et al. 2017). Upwellings are thus essential for stimulating phytoplankton productivity in interior shelves, where nutrient-rich Pacific waters subduct below low-nutrient river waters (Williams and Carmack 2015). An analysis of annual time series of surface stress due to wind and ice motion from 1979 to 2011 showed a general increase in upwelling-favorable annual surface-water stress along the interior shelves (Williams and Carmack 2015). Thus, we can hypothesize that the change toward larger cells and increased diatom contribution to total phytoplankton abundance and biomass observed here for the Canadian Beaufort Shelf is likely to occur elsewhere along interior shelves.

Waters coming from the Pacific Ocean circulate through the Arctic Ocean and finally reach the North Atlantic Ocean through the outflow shelves, including Baffin Bay (Michel et al. 2015). The initial physical and chemical properties of incoming Pacific waters are modified across the Arctic Ocean (Tremblay et al. 2015), and the freshwater content of the surface mixed layer increases with sea ice melt as it flows toward the North Atlantic Ocean. With this increase in stratification, Arctic outflow shelves, like the East Greenland Shelf and the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, could experience a decrease in their overall productivity along with a change

in their algal community toward smaller cells, similar to what was observed here. This scenario emphasizes the need to consider inter-regional connectivity when attempting to predict changes in phytoplankton productivity, biomass, and size structure in a specific area.

## Summary and concluding remarks

This study presents a unique in situ dataset collected during fall, a season that is generally neglected in climate change studies (Gallinat et al. 2015) and for which few satellite observations are available. At high latitudes, satellite observations are limited to the period spanning early spring to late summer and provide little information on fall blooms, highlighting the importance of the present data set and in situ studies in general. In this study, the interannual changes in phytoplankton communities were characterized with a level of detail not attainable with remote sensing or numerical approaches. This multi-year dataset is an invaluable tool to verify assumptions and validate the predictions of current numerical models (Forest et al. 2011; Dupont 2012; Babin et al. 2015).

While the time series presented here is among the longest field time series published on Arctic phytoplankton, it is nevertheless relatively short and does not include a pre-industrial baseline (Wassmann et al. 2011), making it difficult to distinguish between long-term effects, year-to-year variability, and cyclic events (Kahru et al. 2010). We thus stress the view that sustained in situ monitoring (at least for several decades) is essential to better assess the ecological and socioeconomic consequences of climate change. More details on the phenology and taxonomic composition of spring and fall phytoplankton blooms in diverse regions of the Arctic will also be necessary to fully understand the consequences of ongoing changes. The contrasting responses described here underscore the diversity, complexity, and connectivity of Arctic marine ecosystems, and emphasize that additional regional studies are necessary to develop a truly pan-Arctic perspective on the sensitivity or resilience of phytoplankton production, biomass, and community composition. Such a perspective is required to understand how environmental changes will affect food webs, potential harvest of living resources, and carbon storage in the Arctic Ocean.

## References

* Ardyna, M., M. Gosselin, C. Michel, M. Poulin, and J.-É. Tremblay. 2011. Environmental forcing of phytoplankton community structure and function in the Canadian High Arctic: Contrasting oligotrophic and eutrophic regions. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. **442**: 37–57. doi:10.3354/meps09378

* Ardyna, M., M. Babin, M. Gosselin, E. Devred, S. Bélanger, A. Matsuoka, and J.-É. Tremblay. 2013. Parameterization of vertical chlorophyll *a* in the Arctic Ocean: Impact of the
subsurface chlorophyll maximum on regional, seasonal, and annual primary production estimates. Biogeosciences **10**: 4383-4404. doi:10.5194/bg-10-4383-2013

Ardyna, M., M. Babin, M. Gosselin, E. Devred, L. Rainville, and J.-É. Tremblay. 2014. Recent Arctic Ocean sea ice loss triggers novel fall phytoplankton blooms. Geophys. Res. Lett. **41**: 6207-6212. doi:10.1002/2014GL061047

Ardyna, M., M. Babin, E. Devred, A. Forest, M. Gosselin, P. Raimbault, and J.-É. Tremblay. 2017. Shelf-basin gradients shape ecological phytoplankton niches and community composition in the coastal Arctic Ocean (Beaufort Sea). Limnol. Oceanogr. doi:10.1002/lno.10554

Arrigo, K. R., and G. L. van Dijken. 2011. Secular trends in Arctic Ocean net primary production. J. Geophys. Res. **116**: C09011. doi:10.1029/2011JC007151

Arrigo, K. R., and others. 2012. Massive phytoplankton blooms under arctic sea ice. Science **336**: 1408. doi: 10.1126/science.1215065

Arrigo, K. R., and G. L. van Dijken. 2015. Continued increases in Arctic Ocean primary production. Prog. Oceanogr. **136**: 60-70. doi:10.1016/j-pocean.2015.05.002

Assmy, P., and others. 2013. Floating ice-algal aggregates below melting arctic sea ice. PLoS One **8**: e76599. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076599

Babin, M., S. Bélanger, I. Ellingsen, A. Forest, V. Le Fouest, T. Lacour, M. Ardyna, and D. Slagstad. 2015. Estimation of primary production in the Arctic Ocean using ocean color remote sensing and coupled physical-biological models: Strengths, limitations and how they compare. Prog. Oceanogr. **139**: 197-220. doi:10.1016/j-pocean.2015.08.008

Balzano, S., I. Percopo, R. Siano, P. Gourvil, M. Chanoine, D. Marie, D. Vaulot, and D. Sarno. 2017. Morphological and genetic diversity of Beaufort Sea diatoms with high contributions from the *Chaetoceros neogracilis* species complex. J. Phycol. **53**: 161-187. doi:10.1111/jpy.12489

Bélanger, S., M. Babin, and J.-É. Tremblay. 2013. Increasing cloudiness in Arctic damps the increase in phytoplankton primary production due to sea ice receding. Biogeosciences **10**: 4087-4101. doi:10.5194/bg-10-4087-2013

Bérard-Therriault, L., M. Poulin, and L. Bossé. 1999. Guide d'identification du phytoplancton marin de l'estuaire et du golfe du Saint-Laurent incluant également certains protozoaires, Publ. spéc. can. sci. halieut. aquat. **128**: 1-387.

Bergeron, M., and J.-É. Tremblay. 2014. Shifts in biological productivity inferred from nutrient drawdown in the southern Beaufort Sea (2003-2011) and northern Baffin Bay (1997-2011), Canadian Arctic. Geophys. Res. Lett. **41**: 3979-3987. doi:10.1002/2014GL059649

Booth, B. C., P. Larouche, S. Bélanger, B. Klein, D. Amiel, and Z. P. Mei. 2002. Dynamics of *Chaetoceros socialis* blooms in the North Water. Deep-Sea Res. Part II **49**: 5003-5025. doi:10.1016/S0967-0645(02)00175-3

Boyce, D. G., R. Lewis, and B. Worm. 2010. Global phytoplankton decline over the past century. Nature **466**: 591-596. doi:10.1038/nature09268

Brown, T. A., S. T. Belt, A. Tatarek, and C. J. Mundy. 2014. Source identification of the Arctic sea ice proxy IP<sub>25</sub>. Nat. Commun. **5**: 4197. doi:10.1038/ncomms5197

Brugel, S., C. Nozais, M. Poulin, J.-É. Tremblay, L. A. Miller, K. G. Simpson, Y. Gratton, and S. Demers. 2009. Phytoplankton biomass and production in the southeastern Beaufort Sea in autumn 2002 and 2003. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. **377**: 63-77. doi:10.3354/meps07808

Brzezinski, M. A. 1985. The Si:C:N ratio of marine diatoms: Interspecific variability and the effect of some environmental variables. J. Phycol. **21**: 347-357. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3646.1985.00347.x

Carmack, E. C., and R. W. Macdonald. 2002. Oceanography of the Canadian shelf of the Beaufort Sea: A setting for marine life. Arctic **55**: 29-45. doi:10.14430/arctic733

Carmack, E. C., D. Barber, J. Christensen, R. Macdonald, B. Rudels, and E. Sakshaug. 2006. Climate variability and physical forcing of the food webs and the carbon budget on panarctic shelves. Prog. Oceanogr. **71**: 145-181. doi: 10.1016/j-pocean.2006.10.005

Cavalieri, D. J., C. Parkinson, P. Gloersen, and H. J. Zwally. 1996. Sea ice concentrations from Nimbus-7 SMMR and DMSP SSM/I passive microwave data, [1998-2007]. Boulder, Colorado USA: National Snow and Ice Data Center. Digital media.

Chamnansinp, A., Y. Li, N. Lundholm, and Ø. Moestrup. 2013. Global diversity of two widespread, colony-forming diatoms of the marine plankton, *Chaetoceros socialis* (syn. *C. radians*) and *Chaetoceros gelidus* sp. nov. J. Phycol. **49**: 1128-1141. doi:10.1111/jpy.12121

Citta, J. J., and others. 2015. Ecological characteristics of core-use areas used by Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort (BCB) bowhead whales, 2006-2012. Prog. Oceanogr. **136**: 201-222. doi:10.1016/j-pocean.2014.08.012

Cushing, D. H. 1989. A difference in structure between ecosystems in strongly stratified waters and in those that are only weakly stratified. J. Plankton Res. **11**: 1-13. doi: 10.1093/plankt/11.1.1

Deming, J. W., L. Fortier, and M. Fukuchi. 2002. The International North Water Polynya Study (NOW): A brief overview. Deep-Sea Res. Part II **49**: 4887-4892. doi:10.1016/S0967-0645(02)00168-6

Devred, E., S. Sathyendranath, V. Stuart, and T. Platt. 2011. A three component classification of phytoplankton absorption spectra: Application to ocean-color data. Remote Sens. Environ. **115**: 2255-2266. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2011.04.025

Dupont, F. 2012. Impact of sea-ice biology on overall primary production in a biophysical model of the pan-Arctic Ocean. J. Geophys. Res. **117**: C00D17. doi:10.1029/2011JC006983
Environment Canada. 2005. MANICE—Manual of standard procedures for observing and reporting ice conditions, revised 9th ed. Canadian Ice Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa.

Ferland, J., M. Gosselin, and M. Starr. 2011. Environmental control of summer primary production in the Hudson Bay system: The role of stratification. J. Mar. Syst. **88**: 385–400. doi:10.1016/j.jmarsys.2011.03.015

Forest, A., and others. 2011. Biogenic carbon flows through the planktonic food web of the Amundsen Gulf (Arctic Ocean): A synthesis of field measurements and inverse modeling analyses. Prog. Oceanogr. **91**: 410–436. doi: 10.1016/j.pocean.2011.05.002

Gallinat, A. S., B. Primack, and D. L. Wagner. 2015. Autumn, the neglected season in climate change research. Trends Ecol. Evol. **3**: 169–176. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2015.01.004

Grasshoff, K., K. Kremling, and M. Ehrhardt. 1999. Methods of seawater analysis, 3rd ed. Wiley-VCH.

Haine, T. W. N., and others. 2015. Arctic freshwater export: Status, mechanisms, and prospects. Glob. Planet. Change **125**: 13–35. doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2014.11.013

IOCCG. 2014. Phytoplankton functional types from space. In S. Sathyendranath [ed.], IOCCG Report Series, No. 15, International Ocean Colour Coordinating Group, Dartmouth, NS, Canada.

IOCCG. 2015. Ocean colour remote sensing of polar seas. In M. Babin, K. Arrigo, S. Bélanger, and M.-H. Forget [eds.], IOCCG Report Series, No. 16, International Ocean Colour Coordinating Group, Dartmouth, NS, Canada.

Janout, M. A., J. Hölemann, A. M. Waite, T. Krumpen, W.-J. von Appen, and F. Martynov. 2016. Sea-ice retreat controls timing of summer plankton blooms in the Eastern Arctic Ocean. Geophys. Res. Lett. **43**: 12493–12501. doi: 10.1002/2016GL071232

Kahru, M., V. Brotas, M. Manzano-Sarabia, and B. G. Mitchell. 2010. Are phytoplankton blooms occurring earlier in the Arctic? Glob. Chang. Biol. **17**: 1733–1739. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02312.x

Klein, B., and others. 2002. Phytoplankton biomass, production and potential export in the North Water. Deep-Sea Res. Part II **49**: 4983–5002. doi:10.1016/S0967-0645(02)00174-1

Knap, A., A. Michaels, A. Close, H. Ducklow, and A. Dickson. 1996. Protocols for the Joint Global Ocean Flux Study (JGOFS) core measurements. JGOFS Rep No. 19. Reprint of the IOC Manuals and Guides No. 29. UNESCO, Bergen, Norway.

Kwok, R., G. F. Cunningham, M. Wensnahan, I. Rigor, H. J. Zwally, and D. Yi. 2009. Thinning and volume loss of the Arctic Ocean sea ice cover: 2003 – 2008. J. Geophys. Res. **114**: C07005. doi:10.1029/2009JC005312

Kwok, R., L. T. Pedersen, P. Gudmandsen, and S. S. Pang. 2010. Large sea ice outflow into the Nares Strait in 2007. Geophys. Res. Lett. **37**: L03502. doi:10.1029/2009GL041872

Laliberté, J., S. Bélanger, and R. Frouin. 2016. Evaluation of satellite-based algorithms to estimate photosynthetically available radiation (PAR) reaching the ocean surface at high northern latitudes. Remote Sens. Environ. **184**: 199–211. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2016.06.014

Lapoussière, A., C. Michel, M. Gosselin, M. Poulin, J. Martin, and J.-É. Tremblay. 2013. Primary production and sinking export during fall in the Hudson Bay system, Canada. Cont. Shelf Res. **52**: 62–72. doi:10.1016/j.csr.2012.10.013

Legendre, L., and F. Rassoulzadegan. 1995. Plankton and nutrient dynamics in marine waters. Ophelia **41**: 153–172. doi:10.1080/00785236.1995.10422042

Li, W. K. W., A. McLaughlin, C. Lovejoy, and E. C. Carmack. 2009. Smallest algae thrive as the Arctic Ocean freshens. Science **326**: 539. doi:10.1126/science.1179798

Lovejoy, C., and others. 2007. Distribution, phylogeny, and growth of cold-adapted picoprasinophytes in arctic seas. J. Phycol. **43**: 78–89. doi:10.1111/j.1529-8817.2006.00310.x

Lund, J. W. G., C. Kipling, and E. D. Le Cren. 1958. The inverted microscope method of estimating algal numbers and the statistical basis of estimations by counting. Hydrobiologia **11**: 143–170. doi:10.1007/BF00007865

Marchese, C., C. Albouy, J.-É. Tremblay, D. Dumont, F. D'Ortenzio, S. Vissault, and S. Bélanger. 2017. Changes in phytoplankton bloom phenology over the North Water (NOW) polynya: A response to changing environmental conditions. Polar Biol. doi:10.1007/s00300-017-2095-2.

Maritorena, S., O. H. F. D'Andon, A. Mangin, and D. A. Siegel. 2010. Merged satellite ocean color data products using a bio-optical model: Characteristics, benefits and issues. Remote Sens. Environ. **114**: 1791–1804. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2010.04.002

Martin, J., and others. 2010. Prevalence, structure and properties of subsurface chlorophyll maxima in Canadian Arctic waters. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. **412**: 69–84. doi:10.3354/meps08666

Maslanik, J., and J. Stroeve. 1999. Updated daily. Near-real-time DMSP SSMIS daily polar gridded sea ice concentrations, Version 1. [2008-2012]. Boulder, Colorado, USA. NASA National Snow and Ice Data Center Distributed Active Archive Center.

McLaughlin, F. A., and E. C. Carmack. 2010. Deepening of the nutricline and chlorophyll maximum in the Canada Basin interior, 2003–2009. Geophys. Res. Lett. **37**: L24602. doi:10.1029/2010GL045459

McPhee, M. G., A. Proshutinsky, J. H. Morison, M. Steele, and M. B. Alkire. 2009. Rapid change in freshwater content of the Arctic Ocean. Geophys. Res. Lett. **36**: L10602. doi:10.1029/2009GL037525

Michel, C., J. Hamilton, E. Hansen, D. Barber, M. Reigstad, J. Iacozza, L. Seuthe, and A. Niemi. 2015. Arctic Ocean outflow shelves in the changing Arctic: A review and perspectives. Prog. Oceanogr. **139**: 66–88. doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2015.08.007
Morán, X. A. G., Á. López-Urrutia, A. Calvo-Diáz, and W. K. W. Li. 2010. Increasing importance of small phytoplankton in a warmer ocean. Glob. Chang. Biol. **16**: 1137–1144. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01960.x

Mostajir, B., and others. 2001. Surface water distribution of pico- and nanophytoplankton in relation to two distinctive water masses in the North Water during fall. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. **23**: 205–212. doi:10.3354/ame023205

Mundy, C. J., and others. 2009. Contribution of under-ice primary production to an ice-edge upwelling phytoplankton bloom in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. Geophys. Res. Lett. **36**: L17601. doi:10.1029/2009GL038837

Nair, A., S. Sathyendranath, T. Platt, J. Morales, V. Stuart, M. H. Forget, and H. Bouman. 2008. Remote sensing of phytoplankton functional types. Remote Sens. Environ. **112**: 3366–3375. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2008.01.021

O'Reilly, J. E., and others. 2000. SeaWiFS Postlaunch calibration and validation analyses, Part 3, p. 3–8. NASA Technical Memorandum 206892.

Palmer, M. A., T. Saenz, and K. R. Arrigo. 2014. Impacts of sea ice retreat, thinning, and melt-pond proliferation on the summer phytoplankton bloom in the Chukchi Sea, Arctic Ocean. Deep-Sea Res. Part II **105**: 85–104. doi: 10.1016/j.dsr2.2014.03.016

Parkinson, C. L., and D. J. Cavalieri. 2008. Arctic sea ice variability and trends, 1979-2006. J. Geophys. Res. **113**: C07003. doi:10.1029/2007JC004558

Parsons, T. R., Y. Maita, and C. M. Lalli. 1984. A manual of chemical and biological methods for seawater analysis. Pergamon Press.

Peralta-Ferriz, C., and R. A. Woodgate. 2015. Seasonal and interannual variability of pan-Arctic surface mixed layer properties from 1979 to 2012 from hydrographic data, and the dominance of stratification for multiyear mixed layer depth shoaling. Prog. Oceanogr. **134**: 19–53. doi: 10.1016/j.pocean.2014.12.00

Pesant, S., L. Legendre, M. Gosselin, R. E. H. Smith, G. Kattner, and R. O. Ramseier. 1996. Size-differential regimes of phytoplankton production in the Northeast Water Polynya (77°-81°N). Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. **142**: 75–86. doi:10.3354/meps142075

Peterson, B. J., M. Holmes, J. W. McClelland, C. J. Vörösmarty, R. B. Lammers, A. I. Shiklomanov, I. A. Shiklomanov, and S. Rahmstorf. 2002. Increasing river discharge to the Arctic Ocean. Science **298**: 2171–2173. doi:10.1126/science.1077445

Peterson, B. J., J. McClelland, R. Curry, R. M. Holmes, J. E. Walsh, and K. Aagaard. 2006. Trajectory shifts in the Arctic and subarctic freshwater cycle. Science **313**: 1061–1066. doi:10.1126/science.1122593

Rousseaux, C. S., and W. W. Gregg. 2015. Recent decadal trends in global phytoplankton composition. Global Biogeochem. Cycles **29**: 1674–1688. doi:10.1002/2015GB005139

Roy, V., K. Iken, M. Gosselin, J.-É. Tremblay, S. Bélanger, and P. Archambault. 2015. Benthic faunal assimilation pathways and depth-related changes in food-web structure across the Canadian Arctic. Deep-Sea Res. Part I **102**: 55–71. doi:10.1016/j.dsr.2015.04.009

Sakshaug, E. 2004. Primary and secondary production in the Arctic Seas, p. 57–81. In R. Stein and R. W. Macdonald [eds.], The organic carbon cycle in the Arctic Ocean. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg.

Simo-Matchim, A.-G., M. Gosselin, M. Blais, Y. Gratton, and J.-É. Tremblay. 2016. Seasonal variations of phytoplankton dynamics in Nunatsiavut fjords (Labrador, Canada) and their relationships with environmental conditions. J. Mar. Syst. **156**: 56–75. doi:10.1016/j.marsys.2015.11.007

Søreide, J. E., E. Leu, J. Berge, M. Graeve, and S. Falk-Petersen. 2010. Timing of blooms, algal food quality and *Calanus glacialis* reproduction and growth in a changing Arctic. Glob. Chang. Biol. **16**: 3154–3163. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02175.x

Steinacher, M., and others. 2010. Projected 21st century decrease in marine productivity: A multi-model analysis. Biogeosciences **7**: 979–1005. doi:10.5194/bg-7-979-2010

Stuart, V., S. Sathyendranath, E. J. H. Head, T. Platt, B. Irwin, and H. Maass. 2000. Bio-optical characteristics of diatom and prymnesiophyte populations in the Labrador Sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. **201**: 91–106. doi:10.3354/meps201091

Terrado, R., K. Scarcella, M. Thaler, W. F. Vincent, and C. Lovejoy. 2012. Small phytoplankton in Arctic seas: Vulnerability to climate change. Biodiversity **14**: 2–18. doi: 10.1080/14888386.2012.704839

Thomson, R. E., and I. V. Fine. 2003. Estimating mixed layer depth from oceanic profile data. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol. **20**: 319–329. doi:10.1175/1520-0426(2003)020 < 0319: EMLDFO>2.0.CO;2

Tomas, C. R. 1997. Identifying marine phytoplankton. Academic Press.

Tremblay, G., C. Belzile, M. Gosselin, M. Poulin, S. Roy, and J.-É. Tremblay. 2009. Late summer phytoplankton distribution along a 3500 km transect in Canadian Arctic waters: Strong numerical dominance by picoeukaryotes. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. **54**: 55–70. doi:10.3354/ame01257

Tremblay, J.-É., Y. Gratton, J. Fauchot, and N. M. Price. 2002. Climatic and oceanic forcing of new, net, and diatom production in the North Water. Deep-Sea Res. Part II **49**: 4927–4946. doi:10.1016/S0967-0645(02)00171-6

Tremblay, J.-É., and J. Gagnon. 2009. The effects of irradiance and nutrient supply on the productivity of Arctic waters: A perspective on climate change, p. 73–94. In J. C. Nihoul and A. G. Kostianoy [eds.], Influence of climate change on the changing Arctic and sub-Arctic conditions. Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop, Springer-Verlag, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9460-6_7
Tremblay, J., and others. 2011. Climate forcing multiplies biological productivity in the coastal Arctic Ocean. Geophys. Res. Lett. **38**: L18604. doi:10.1029/2011GL048825

Tremblay, J.-É., G. Anderson, P. Matrai, P. Coupel, S. Bélanger, C. Michel, and M. Reigstad. 2015. Global and regional drivers of nutrient supply, primary production and CO₂ drawdown in the changing Arctic Ocean. Prog. Oceanogr. **139**: 171–196. doi:10.1016/j-pocean.2015.08.009

Uchimiya, M., C. Motegi, S. Nishino, Y. Kawaguchi, J. Inoue, H. Ogawa, and T. Nagata. 2016. Coupled response of bacterial production to a wind-induced fall phytoplankton bloom and sediment resuspension in the Chukchi Sea Shelf, western Arctic Ocean. Front. Mar. Sci. **3**: 231. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2016.00231

Vincent, W. F., and C. Pedrós-Alió. 2008. Sea ice and life in a river-influenced arctic shelf ecosystems. J. Mar. Syst. **74**: 739–740. doi:10.1016/j.jmarsys.2008.03.003

Walkusz, W., W. J. Williams, L. A. Harwood, S. E. Moore, B. E. Stewart, and S. Kwasniewski. 2012. Composition, biomass and energetic content of biota in the vicinity of feeding bowhead whales (*Balaena mysticetus*) in the Cape Bathurst upwelling region (south eastern Beaufort Sea). Deep-Sea Res. Part I **69**: 25–35. doi:10.1016/j.dsr.2012.05.016

Wassmann, P., C. M. Duarte, S. Agustí, and M. K. Sejr. 2011. Footprints of climate change in the Arctic marine ecosystem. Glob. Chang. Biol. **17**: 1235–1249. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02311.x

Williams, W. J., C. Carmack, K. Shimada, H. Melling, K. Aagaard, R. W. Macdonald, and R. G. Ingram. 2006. Joint effects of wind and ice motion in forcing upwelling in Mackenzie Trough, Beaufort Sea. Cont. Shelf Res. **26**: 2352–2366. doi:10.1016/j.csr.2006.06.012

Williams, W. J., and E. C. Carmack. 2008. Combined effect of wind-forcing and isobath divergence on upwelling at Cape Bathurst, Beaufort Sea. J. Mar. Res. **66**: 645–663. doi: 10.1357/002224008787536808

Williams, W. J., and E. C. Carmack. 2015. The “interior” shelves of the Arctic Ocean: Physical oceanographic setting, climatology and effects of sea-ice retreat on cross-

shelf exchange. Prog. Oceanogr. **139**: 24–41. doi:10.1016/j-pocean.2015.07.008

Yamamoto-Kawai, M., F. A. McLaughlin, E. C. Carmack, S. Nishino, K. Shimada, and N. Kurita. 2009. Surface freshening of the Canada Basin, 2003–2007: River runoff versus sea ice meltwater. J. Geophys. Res. **114**: C00A05. doi: 10.1029/2008JC005000

Zar, J. 1999. Biostatistical analysis, 4th ed. Prentice Hall.

## Acknowledgments

We acknowledge C. Nozais and S. Brugel for sharing data from the CASES project. This study was supported by grants from ArcticNet (Network of Centres of Excellence of Canada) (grant to M.G., D.D., S.B., Y.G., J.-É.T., and M.P.), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) (grants 122198-2012 and 305492-2012 to M.G.; 402257-2013 to D.D.; 355774-2009 to S.B.; 170359-2012 to Y.G.; 2006-SR1-CC-003 to M.G., Y.G., and J.-É.T.), and the Canadian IPY Federal program office (grant 20177 to M.G., Y.G., and J.-É.T.). Partial funding was provided by the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologies (FRQNT) through the Québec-Océan research cluster (grants 125103 and 186795 to M.G., D.D., S.B., Y.G., and J.-É.T.) and by the Canadian Museum of Nature (grant to M.P.). This study was successfully achieved due to the hard work of numerous people, notably J. Ferland, A. Lapoussière, M. Parenteau, M. Simard, and G. Tremblay for sample collection and data analysis; the officers and crew of the CCGS *Amundsen*, S. Gagné, P.-Y. Simard, and others for their technical support on board; D. Boisvert, J. Barrette, M. Chevallier, and other CTD-rosette operators; and P. Guillot for processing the CTD data. We are also indebted to J. Gagnon for nutrient analysis, C. Belzile for flow cytometry analysis, G. Tremblay and S. Lessard for cell identification, L. Devine for linguistic revision, and three anonymous reviewers for thoughtful comments and suggestions that improved the manuscript. This is a contribution to the research programs of ArcticNet, Institut des sciences de la mer de Rimouski, Québec-Océan, and Takuvik.

## Conflict of Interest

None declared.

Submitted 31 March 2016

Revised 31 August 2017; 08 March 2016

Accepted 27 March 2017

Associate editor: Anya Waite