Arctic Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Structure 

Data Analysis and Synthesis

Principal Investigator: Seth L. Danielson and Katrin B. Iken1

1 College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks

December 2023

Final Report

OCS Study BOEM 2023-070
Excerpt from Chukchi ecosystem painting by Klara Maisch.

Contact Information: 

uaf-cmi@alaska.edu 

https://www.uaf.edu/cfos/research/cmi

 

This study was funded by the University of Alaska Coastal Marine Institute and the U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Alaska OCS Region (cooperative agreement 

M20AC10010). This report, OCS Study BOEM 2023-070, is available electronically from 

https://www.boem.gov/akpubs

The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be 

interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the U.S. Government. Mention of trade names or 

commercial products does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

Citation: Danielson, S.L., and K.B. Iken, 2023. Arctic Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Structure Data 

Analysis and Synthesis. Coastal Marine Institute Final Report #BOEM 2023-070. University of Alaska 

Fairbanks, Fairbanks AK. [Award #M20AC10010] 
i

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................... I

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................................... I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1

BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 

OBJECTIVES................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 

2.0 THE WORKSHOP .................................................................................................................................... 5

PARTICIPATION........................................................................................................................................................................... 5 

APPROACH ................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 

TOPICS OF PRESENTATIONS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................. 6 

3.0 CONCEPTUAL MODELS .......................................................................................................................... 8

PATHWAYS TO IMPROVED CONCEPTUAL MODELS .......................................................................................................... 9 

EMERGING THEMES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH.................................................................................................................10

4.0 RESEARCH AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NEEDS .......................................................................... 13

RESEARCH NEEDS ...................................................................................................................................................................13

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NEEDS .....................................................................................................................................13

5.0 OUTREACH ........................................................................................................................................... 16

OUTREACH GOALS AND APPROACH..................................................................................................................................16

OUTREACH BOOKLET.............................................................................................................................................................16

6.0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................................................... 26

7.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 27

8.0 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................... 1

APPENDIX A: ARCTIC SYNTHESIS WORKSHOP AGENDA.......................................................................................... A-1 

APPENDIX B: SLIDES PRESENTED BY WORKSHOP ATTENDEES.............................................................................. B-1 

List of Figures

Figure 1: True-color Satellite Image of the Chukchi Sea Showing the Location of AMBON Survey 

Stations (red circles) and the CEO Mooring Array (blue star) ................................................... 1

Figure 2: Illustration of the Mooring Array and Ecosystem at the CEO Site ............................................. 3

Figure 3: Meeting Participants ................................................................................................................... 5

Figure 4: Example Conceptual Model of Wassmann et al. (2020) ............................................................. 8

Figure 5: Starting Point Conceptual Model of the Chukchi Sea Ecosystem under Present and Future 

Climate Scenarios ....................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 6: Draft Conceptual Model Schematics Provided by S. Gonzalez at the Workshop .................... 11

Figure 7: Published Conceptual Model of the NE Chukchi Sea Annual Cycle of Water Masses, Light, 

Sea ice, Phytoplankton, and Polar Cod in Contrasting Cool (a) and Warm (b) Years ............. 12

Figures 8-16 (below): Cover Page, Project Pages and Back Page of Outreach Booklet ...................... 17
ES-1

Executive Summary

This project convened the “Arctic Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Structure Data Analysis & 

Synthesis” scientific workshop. The overarching goal of the workshop was to foster dialogue 

amongst disciplinary specialists with the intent to advance our ability to integrate scientific 

understanding of ecosystem dynamics and biodiversity. We helped raise awareness amongst 

attendees of the broad variety of data that are available to foster new synthetic analyses, and we 

discussed potential fruitful pathways for future field and desktop studies. Discussion time was also 

devoted to improving and/or creating new conceptual models of the functioning of the Chukchi 

Sea marine ecosystem, and to the various management agency applications and agency needs. We 

identified a need for outreach products that can convey information about the scientific research to 

residents of the Chukchi Sea coastal communities, students, the general public, and others. 

The major deliverable product that was produced following the workshop is a multipage, glossyformat outreach booklet that describes objectives, methods, and recent results from a number of 

long-running research programs and projects, including the Arctic Marine Biodiversity 

Observation Network (AMBON), the Chukchi Ecosystem Observatory (CEO), the Distributed 

Biological Observatory (DBO), the WhaleGlider project, and the Alaska Arctic Observation and 

Knowledge Hub (AAOKH). 

The workshop contributions and summaries in this report provide a roadmap for future priority 

studies that would improve our ability to monitor, manage, and understand the Arctic marine 

system. These include, but are not limited to: 

• questions and studies that seek to better understand the balance of top-down versus 

bottom-up controls in the face of changing environmental conditions; 

• the need to better understand seasonality and the importance and roles of different 

biogeographical domains across the Chukchi; and 

• the need to advance our models from purely biomass-based approaches to approaches that 

also consider biodiversity in all of its forms, including species diversity, isotopic diversity, 

trophic niche structure, and functional diversity. 

The workshop, which took place in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic in October 2021, was the 

first hybrid remote/in-person event that most attendees had participated in since the start of the 

global health emergency. With lively discussion through the room during the sessions, coffee 

breaks and shared meals, the meeting demonstrated benefits of the resumption of in-person 

meetings. These benefits included connecting with colleagues on a personal level, the emergence 

of organic discussions that seldom arise in online format meetings, and the benefits of having early 

career scientists directly meet and work with more senior scientists and program managers.
1

1.0 Introduction

Background

The Arctic Marine Biodiversity Observation Network (AMBON) and the Chukchi Ecosystem 

Observatory (CEO) programs in the Chukchi Sea are efforts to build and continue 

multidisciplinary time series observations of an Arctic shelf to better understand change through 

time. The two efforts are operationally and scientifically complementary, with AMBON focused 

on spatially extensive open-water season, vessel-based sampling of the water column and 

seafloor, and CEO focused on subsurface moorings that record data year-round. This report 

describes results of a joint AMBON-CEO synthesis and data analysis meeting for the purpose of 

undertaking new data syntheses, brainstorming, refining our conceptual understanding of the 

system, and developing synthesis products suitable for distribution to the public and

policymakers. 

Figure 1: True-color Satellite Image of the Chukchi Sea Showing the Location of AMBON 

Survey Stations (red circles) and the CEO Mooring Array (blue star)

Note: MODIS satellite image of 22 July 2012 is courtesy of NASA/Worldview.
2

AMBON (2015) and the CEO (2014) were both initiated near the end of the 2008–2015 period 

of oil exploration in the northeast Chukchi Sea (Figure 1), with the appreciation that responsible 

resource development in the marine environment dictates a need for comprehensive baseline 

studies. With information from these efforts, resource managers are better able to balance the 

potential impacts of proposed industrial activities with identified affected populations and 

habitat regions. Although oil exploration activity in the NE Chukchi Sea has been discontinued 

by executive order (Obama, 2016), the changing Arctic environment (e.g., Danielson et al., 

2020) and potential offshore industrial activity in the Beaufort Sea suggest that increasing 

Chukchi vessel traffic and other industry-related activities will continue to demand the attention 

of marine operators, resource managers, and first responders. Hence, the AMBON and CEO 

programs remain relevant to environmental stewardship in the Arctic.

The goal of the Arctic Marine Biodiversity Observing Network (AMBON) project is to build an 

operational marine biodiversity observation network (MBON) for the US Chukchi Sea

continental shelf that can also contribute to a prototype network being developed nationally. The 

program employs a spatially extensive, transect-based survey design to cover regions of inflow and 

outflow of the Chukchi Sea and different water masses, from coastal to mid-shelf. The AMBON has

four main goals: (1) To close current gaps in taxonomic and spatial coverage in biodiversity 

observation on the Chukchi shelf, (2) to integrate with past and ongoing research programs on 

the US Arctic shelf into an Arctic biodiversity observation network, (3) to demonstrate at a 

regional level how an MBON could be developed in other regions and ecosystems, and (4) to 

link with appropriate programs on a pan-Arctic basis. AMBON aims to develop a sustainable 

model of continuous biodiversity observation with a cross-disciplinary and multitrophic level, 

multispecies approach including all levels of diversity from genomic to organismal to ecosystem.

The AMBON project is funded through a National Ocean Partnership Program with ongoing and/or 

past contributions from Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), National Oceanographic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Shell Industry, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the 

Office of Naval Research (ONR). 

The Chukchi Ecosystem Observatory (CEO) is a cluster of subsurface moorings on the northeast 

side of the AMBON survey region that record with high temporal resolution throughout the 

year, including the under-sampled and poorly understood seasons when sea ice typically inhibits 

ship-based sampling. The moorings capture physical, nutrient and carbonate chemistry, 

particulate, microbial, phytoplankton, zooplankton, fisheries, and marine mammal data sets, 

thereby providing an unprecedented view into the mechanistic workings of the Chukchi shelf 

ecosystem. With over five years of continuous measurements, the CEO has established itself as 

one of the premier Arctic multidisciplinary datasets. This highly instrumented mooring’s 

payload is unique for the Alaskan Arctic, and rare for any continental shelf. The CEO is funded 

by a consortium that includes agency, academic, and industry partners, including the North 

Pacific Research Board (NPRB) and the Alaska Ocean Observing System (AOOS), with 

participation by scientists from the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), the University of 

Washington, the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, and Amundsen 

Science.

Arctic regions are expected to strongly reflect the impacts of an altered climate. The shelf region 

where the CEO is deployed is well situated to monitor the state of ocean acidification, changes 

to nutrient and carbon cycles, and how changing wind, wave, and ice affect the regional 

oceanography. Our datasets include biogeochemical model validation data and inform our 
3

understanding of the marine carbon pump and shelf-basin exchanges. AMBON fills taxonomic 

(microbes, nano- to microplankton, benthic infauna, epibenthos, fishes, seabirds, and mammals),

functional (food web structure, biological traits approach, sediment and water column 

characteristics), and spatial (coastal to middle shelf) gaps of other field programs by sampling at

full ecosystem scale and linking to oceanographic observing systems. The AMBON efforts

extend much-needed spatially explicit, coincident lower trophic and upper trophic level time

series that extend across both the pelagic and benthic realms, which are essential for detecting

any trends in the Arctic ecosystem. Due to the extremely high seasonal and interannual 

variability, and because climate changes in this system are accelerated compared to elsewhere in

the nation, only long-term datasets can provide the basis to distinguish the “noise” of natural

variability and regular cycles from the directional change driven by climate changes or other 

stressors. The Arctic is experiencing the most dramatic temperature increases of all oceans

(Overland et al., 2019; Previdi et al., 2021), leading to significant alterations of marine

ecosystem structure and function (Huntington et al., 2020). The importance of the Arctic Ocean

to global climate and ecosystem processes and the speed at which climate changes are already 

occurring in the Arctic elevate the urgency for coordinated observations of Arctic marine 

biodiversity. 

Figure 2: Illustration of the Mooring Array and Ecosystem at the CEO Site

Note: Ecosystem components and the observing platforms include: (A) Mooring array, (B) brine rejection, (C) 

dark winter, (D) sea ice algae bloom, (E) receding sea ice, (F) phytoplankton bloom, (G) stratification, (H) 

vertical gradient of nutrients and inorganic carbon, (I) sinking particulate organic matter, (J) rich benthic 

ecosystem, (K) foraging walrus, (L) Arctic cod, (M) storm-induced mixing, (N) senescent planktonic 

ecosystem, (O) research vessel Sikuliaq, and (P) glider. Reproduced from Hauri et al. (2018). Watercolor 

painting by Fairbanks, Alaska, artist Klara Maisch.

Communicating amongst both scientific and nontechnical audiences about biodiversity and 

ecosystem structure in the context of environmental change can be facilitated through use of 

conceptual models that capture key aspects of systems under consideration. One conceptual 

depiction of the Chukchi Sea ecosystem in the vicinity of the CEO mooring site (Figure 2) 
4

schematically suggests the importance of change in time in this region, with aspects of both 

diurnal and seasonal fluctuations. This artist’s rendering explicitly and representationally 

captures many important factors that together comprise the regional habitat, species 

assemblages, and driving forces that comprise the region’s unique character. For example, 

Figure 2 depicts the annual cycle of dark-to-light-to-dark, and also suggests the diurnal vertical 

migration of zooplankton that is triggered by light illumination intensity. Turbulent mixing 

induced by ice keels and wind-driven waves fosters resuspension and injection of nutrients into 

the euphotic zone. The biological productivity and carbon cycling in the water column is a 

companion to benthic feeding marine mammals and rich seafloor ecosystem. From seasonality 

of planktonic species in the water column (Lalande et al., 2020) to spatial distributions of 

seabirds (Kuletz et al., 2015, 2019), fishes, benthic organisms, and microbes (Iken et al., 2019), 

the combination of the CEO and AMBON programs has much to offer toward further refining

our understanding of the ecosystem represented in Figure 2. 

Objectives

As a synthesis effort, this project did not test mechanistic hypotheses but instead applied an 

inquiry-based approach to improve our collective understanding of ecosystem functioning in the 

context of a changing climate and ocean conditions. As such, our prime objectives were to:

• Advance our understanding of the Chukchi Sea ecosystem by enabling combined 

analyses of summer season, station-based measurements with year-round mooring-based 

observations. 

• Review existing conceptual models and update or develop a new conceptual model that 

describes the evolving ecological functioning of the Chukchi shelf. 

• Identify gaps in knowledge and future research needs. 
5

2.0 The Workshop

Participation

The major activity of this project was a multiday workshop that was held in hybrid mode in 

Anchorage, Alaska, 26–28 October 2021. The proposal was written prior to the COVID-19 

pandemic, and at the time of the workshop vaccines were readily available, and all participants 

were vaccinated. This event was the first in-person gathering that most who attended the meeting 

had participated in following the start of the COVID health emergency. Our meeting safety 

protocols included mask-wearing by all participants except while eating and a guidance for 

participants to follow low-risk activities for the two weeks prior to the meeting. We are happy to 

report that no COVID cases were reported amongst participants during or just after the 

workshop. Twenty-four participants joined the workshop in total, with 18 in-person and 6 

remotely via Zoom online. A few people joined virtually or in-person for only part of the first or 

last day of the workshop. Attendees included BOEM and AOOS personnel (e.g., Molly 

McCammon, Sheyna Wisdom, Cathy Coon, Christina Bonsell). 

Figure 3: Meeting Participants

Note: (left to right) Savannah Sandy, Laura Sutton, Lee Cooper, Sue Moore, Jackie Grebmeier, Tyler Hennon, 

Rachel Potter, Seth Danielson, Russ Hopcroft, Catherine Lalande, Franz Mueter, Katrin Iken, Matt 

Galaska, and Leandra Sousa. Online participants included Claudine Hauri, Laurie Juranek, Silvana 

Gonzalez, Maria Kavanaugh, and Kathy Kuletz.

While the original proposal focused solely on the AMBON and CEO programs, due to the 

breadth of data collected by the DBO program and the tight linkages between all three, we also 

brought representatives from this program into the planning and participation of the workshop. In 

preparation for the meeting, we asked that participants consider a few topics from each person’s 

disciplinary perspective: linking time series and spatial data; building on other recent field efforts 

and analyses; assessing ecosystem and biodiversity change in time; and policy and management 

implications and recommendations. We also asked that participants identify standard and new or 

underutilized data streams that could facilitate future analyses.
6

Approach

One goal of the workshop was to trigger future productivity in the form of papers, proposals, or 

outreach products. We have a few examples of student papers and theses that benefitted from the 

workshop (e.g., Gonzalez et al., 2023; Sandy, 2022), and ideas from the workshop were 

incorporated into proposals that were shortly thereafter (December 2021) submitted to the North 

Pacific Research Board (NPRB) Arctic Integrated Ecosystem Research Program (AIERP) call 

for synthesis proposals. Participants at the workshop were part of both major funded proposals of 

the program (one led by NOAA, one led by UAF), and those authors had the benefit of the 

workshop to help focus some ideas. In addition, the workshop also helped us refine ideas for 

outreach products, such as newly created glossy fliers that will be combined into a multipage 

booklet describing a number of long-running research programs that study ecosystems, 

biodiversity, and the governing processes. 

Following the in-depth workshop discussions of the above focused topics on Day 1 and the 

breakout brainstorming sessions of Day 2, we were able to then take a step back on Day 3 and 

consider the whole of the content previously presented, which included discussion of 

mechanistic effects on system, biology, and temporal effects. From a systems point of view, we 

reframed our discussion from the vantage point of biophysical interactions that fall into 

categories of (1) macroecology and its regulation, (2) environmental drivers and mechanistic 

regulation pathways, and (3) factors that relate (1) and (2). Macroecology regulation includes 

factors such as the food demands and prey availability that feed into energetics considerations; 

species-species interactions; behavioral considerations; static habitats; non-static habitats; 

population dynamics; and a variety of spatial-temporal considerations. From a mechanistic 

regulation standpoint, important factors include water temperature and salinity; light; nutrient 

standing stock and fluxes; advection; wind effects; water masses; stratification and mixing; and 

ice. Bridging mechanistic controls and macroecology, we anticipate that biological rates, the 

environmental setting, and the passage of time are all important. Specific controls include, 

pelagic productivity, benthic productivity, the marine carbon pump (including export processes),

weather and climate, and how these change with time and contribute to the habitat conditions. 

Topics of Presentations and Discussion

Each attendee provided one slide that identified a topic (i.e., paper) that they would be notionally 

interested in contributing to or leading, along with a few bullets of main underlying ideas that

could form the basis of a rough outline (see Appendix B). Each presentation was formed as an 

elevator pitch for a cross-disciplinary analysis. We reviewed these presentations for common 

ideas and then as a group selected a few efforts to discuss in greater detail, listed below: 

• Spatial-temporal patterns of pelagic components of the Pacific-Arctic ecosystem

• The role of sea ice presence, draft, and leads

• Pacific-Arctic ecosystem state of the union and trends 

• Bottom-up vs. top-down controls on Pacific-Arctic benthic communities

• Changes in remote and local nutrient supply, and lower trophic level consequences 

• The impact of primary productivity and transport on seabird and marine mammal prey 

availability

• Using eDNA to quantify impacts of climate change to biodiversity

• Downstream implications of Arctic-bound nutrients through Bering Strait 
7

• Bottom-up vs. top-down biological controls 

• Functional trait space: an ecosystem perspective

• Seasonal differences in under-ice aggregations of zooplankton and fish, and water mass 

association

• Late-season productivity and how it contrasts with earlier seasons

• Time series trophic interactions over varying space and time scales

• Changing physical habitats in the Pacific Arctic

• Long-term changes in summer zooplankton communities 

• Mechanisms impacting seabirds during Pacific-Arctic heat waves

• Biogeochemical cycles at the CEO

• Acoustic detections of marine mammals relative to ice extent and water temperature

Following the presentations and associated discussions, we spent time on Day 2 of the 

workshop in a combination of plenary and break-out sessions designed to dive a bit deeper 

into a few key topics. The first of these focused on potential foci for future analyses and 

analytical approaches that might be fruitful, and the discussions identified the following 

potential pathways: 

• Drivers, biological considerations, temporal & spatial variations

• Beyond biomass analyses: change over time of diversity in species, isotopes, trophic 

niche, functional diversity, diversity evenness 

• Machine learning for data processing and analysis tasks 

• Trophic interactions through time 

• Marine mammal responses to altered physical habitat

• Defining eco-regions 

• The need for better and multiple “box models,” including for the benthos 

• Source populations of zooplankton 
8

3.0 Conceptual Models

Day 2 of the workshop also devoted significant time to breakout discussion sessions in which 

participants were encouraged to collaboratively develop one or more conceptual models that 

could help improve our understanding of the Chukchi marine system. 

Figure 4: Example Conceptual Model of Wassmann et al. (2020) 

Note: Shows the effect of latitudinal gradients on the timing and duration of sea ice breakup/freeze-up and openwater conditions, and the magnitude and timing of irradiance, phytoplankton, and ice algae blooms

Naturally, a good conceptual model does not try to represent the whole of reality (if that is the 

goal, just go visit the Chukchi Sea!). Instead, the best conceptual models often clearly identify a 

component of a system that would benefit from an accessible presentation and are able to frame 

the important pieces simply yet adequately. Some conceptual models attempt to explain a single 

idea; others provide insight to contrasting scenarios; and yet other conceptual models allow the 

user to test hypotheses or even assess the outcome of newly formed questions beyond the scope 

of the originator’s vision. For a recent review of conceptual models that target the Arctic Ocean 

system, see Wassmann et al. (2020). A number of examples of conceptual models were shown to 

the group (focused primarily—but not exclusively—on various Arctic scenarios) as a means to 

engender some discussion about potential improvements, shortcomings in existing models, 

alternate approaches, or fully new models with fresh applications. 

Factors considered (by the workshop attendees) important to capture for improving existing 

models or creating new conceptual models include: 

• Adapting existing models to Pacific Arctic subregions 

• Advective, light cycles, ice, water masses, nutrient levels
9

• Seasonality

• Present vs. past and future ecosystem states

• Simple, with differences between scenarios readily apparent

• Timing match/mismatch between ecosystem components (e.g., predatory/prey 

interactions, timing of spring bloom and zooplankton consumers) 

• Atmospheric forcing: advection & mixing 

• Inshore vs. offshore 

• Some approaches require new analyses

• Designing models for hypothesis testing 

Figure 5: Starting Point Conceptual Model of the Chukchi Sea Ecosystem under Present 

and Future Climate Scenarios

Note: Provided by Sue Moore

Pathways to improved conceptual models

Aggregate suggestions for improving conceptual models of the Chukchi Sea ecosystem include 

the following points. 

• Regional parsing of Chukchi Sea

o 4 regions: southern, northeastern, inshore, offshore

o Boundaries: north Bering, northern Chukchi shelf break 

o Potential data streams (for each region)

 SeaScapes (multiparameter identification ocean habitat types of water mass and 

persistent biogeochemical features using model and satellite-derived 

measurements)

 Acoustics

 Satellite information
10

 Moorings 

 Sampling

o Potential data streams for different ecosystem components

 Phytoplankton

 Zooplankton

 Seabirds

 Fish

 Benthos

o Analysis of each model “box” and how it changes over time, and how changes in one 

box might be related to another box

o Decadally averaged analysis to reduce “noise”?

• Regional analysis: extend beyond the focal DBO lines using all available data

o Coarse comparison of relationships between boxes in the model

o Seasonal evolution of each region: identify gaps in data (there will be many)

o Include acoustic data

• Identify where the model is being applied geographically and temporally

o The unique regions of Barrow Canyon and Hanna Shoal

• Time lags of advection, sea ice extent

o Analyze “downstream” effects

o Apply analysis to other datasets (e.g., seabirds)

• Modify the model to incorporate entire Arctic system 

• Identify source populations of important species

• Make the benthos box more closely related to zooplankton instead of being separate 

• Use larval ecology to inform connections 

Emerging Themes for Future Research

Reconvening in plenary, we identified a number of emerging themes and research questions that 

may be important to follow up on in the future. Some of the proposed ideas will require a 

significant analysis effort that is well beyond the scope of this project. The identified topics 

include the following: 

• We have in hand now a variety of conceptual models describing how the system has 

changed (or will change). How well can we support the conceptual models with data? 

• What is the role of food quality? 

• What is the role of predation? 

• How should conceptual models include biodiversity? 

o We could try to expand from models based on biomass into models that include: 

 Species diversity

 Isotopic diversity 

 Trophic niche structure 

 Functional diversity

 Diversity evenness vs. dominant species 

 How these all change over time
11

• How should our conceptual models address important regional differences? 

• What is the role of top-down versus bottom-up changes in the Chukchi Sea marine 

ecosystem in light of the massive recently observed environmental changes and the 

associated changes in species distributions? 

• Revisit shifts between a benthic- and pelagic-dominated system. Can we support the 

conceptual model with real data?

o Model built on biomass, not diversity

o Food quality might be a factor; smaller size plankton rather than fewer plankton? 

o Update model to include diversity? 

o Model may miss advection, timing

o Discussion of phytoplankton and zooplankton size analysis 

o Consider: predation pressure, harmful algal blooms (HABs) 

• SeaScapes may be used as a basis for conceptual modeling

o Relating drivers to resolved responses will be important 

o Some satellite data limitations when sun angle is low

During the workshop, participant Dr. S. Gonzalez presented two draft conceptual models (Figure 

6), which were subsequently refined and then published (Figure 7; Gonzalez et al., 2023). This 

conceptual model incorporates aspects of the biological realm (polar cod, ice algae, 

phytoplankton) in addition to the physical environment year-round based on CEO data, and 

focuses on a data-informed understanding of biological and environmental differences between 

years with late season vs. early season ice retreat.

Figure 6: Draft Conceptual Model Schematics Provided by S. Gonzalez at the Workshop 
12

Figure 7: Published Conceptual Model of the NE Chukchi Sea Annual Cycle of Water 

Masses, Light, Sea ice, Phytoplankton, and Polar Cod in Contrasting Cool (a) and Warm 

(b) Years

Note: Reprinted from Gonzalez et al. (2023).

 
13

4.0 Research and Resource Management Needs

Research Needs 

A lively discussion about research needs is summarized below. A few comments about the 

importance of the first bullet point are required for context, given the changing geopolitical 

relationships between 2021 and 2023. 

The global geopolitical situation has evolved even in the last two years as a result of the COVID19 pandemic and other factors, such as the Russian war in Ukraine. Science can be one of those 

bridging components of society that maintain human connections even in the face of political 

turmoil. Although our federal agency partners may not be able to join in cross-border scientific 

collaboration during this period of Russian isolationism, as academic scientists we should do our 

part to ensure that scientific advances and data collections do not suffer due to political factors 

that may change with elections and political upheaval. In context of the 12 June 2022 guidance 

on scientific collaboration from the White House, we note that federal employees and agencies 

are disallowed from cross-border collaboration and transfer of research funds but that: “Nongovernment institutions should make their own determinations regarding how to proceed with 

contact and collaboration between the United States and Russian scientific communities, in 

furtherance of an open exchange of ideas within the international science and technology 

community.” The need for the comments below made at the meeting with respect to research 

needs and cross-border engagements have not diminished, but the landscape for ethical 

engagements even at scientific levels has unquestionably changed. 

• Russian–US data for the Chukchi Sea 

o Reengage and collaborate with Russian scientists

• There is a lack of surveys and sampling for larger fish in the Chukchi 

• We should assemble an understanding of high-resolution seasonal patterns (involving the 

CEO data, perhaps), particularly with regard to the lower biological trophic levels

• Need for under-ice sampling of fish and plankton, nutrients and chemistry 

• Undertake a cost-benefit analysis for improving/extending existing mooring arrays 

o Strategizing about places to add ecosystem observatories/components to help fill in 

gaps between existing ones 

o Need to identify locations of greatest need

o Must consider optimization of mooring turnaround logistics 

Resource Management Needs

To gain insight into the needs of resource managers (some agency personnel stopped by and 

connected by Zoom on Day 3 of the workshop), we heard from participants and management 

agency personnel about the need for a variety of specific information products and issues that 

require additional scientific data. 

There was a general appreciation that management information needs are changing between 

industry, conservation, subsistence interests as fishery stocks move north. Resource managers 

and others need to nimbly shift boundaries as habitats change. There is potential utility of 

dashboards and user groups; many information products can fill multiple needs. There will very 
14

likely need to be more information from regions that are expected to be most impacted by 

industry in the coming years (shipping, oil and gas development, fishing, etc.). 

Discussion in this section of the workshop touched on the following points: 

• Areas of concern include: 

o Vessel traffic, including shipping 

o Fishery bycatch 

o Marine birds and mammals

 Migration routes and timing 

 Increasing anthropogenic noise 

 Ship strikes

o Sensitive areas

 Biologically sensitive

 Susceptible to oil spills

• Increase sampling in the Chukchi Sea 

o Regional subdivisions needed? 

o Modeling approach 

o Determine sampling approaches, e.g.: 

 Transect vs. grid

 Sampling many stations in fewer years or fewer stations every year 

• Forecasting

o Stakeholders are interested in knowing what is going to happen 

o Track multiple stressors

o Provide timelines (“on what timescale is this going to be a problem?”)

• Habitat mapping

o Life-stage specific

o Timing specific—seasonal (e.g., bowhead whale migration) 

o Invasive species

o Species of interest to industry

o Need a dynamic approach to management as habitats change (e.g., borealization) 

• Real-time monitoring is still very much an emerging activity in the Arctic but has 

potential to be operationally useful 

o Cabled arrays to get real-time measurements

o Real-time monitoring for potential entanglements (e.g., whales)

o Monitoring of seabirds is detectable with underwater acoustics 

o Real-time monitoring to determine shifts in habitats, hotspots, etc.

o Utilizing frequent sampling of small stations/lines (e.g., DBO) in concert with larger 

spatial grids (AMBON) to capture spatial shifts

o Disposable vs. retrievable equipment—reduce plastic pollution

• Agencies seek peer-reviewed articles to identify management needs

o An up-to-date bibliography of the region would be useful 

 Include international papers

o Visualizing spatial data across the ecosystem

• Management needs as a topic is a much broader conversation than just one agency’s 

needs
15

o BOEM, USGC, NOAA, USFWS, etc. 

o Importance of partnerships as focus moves away from oil/gas and toward renewable 

energies

 Identifying key habitats (e.g., deep-sea sponges and corals) in areas with potential 

for critical minerals (e.g., the Aleutians) 

 Tidal energy

 Economic impacts/benefits to Arctic communities

o Focus on how to keep information flowing in 
16

5.0 Outreach 

Outreach Goals and Approach

During Day 3 of the workshop, participants discussed options for getting scientific results back 

to the various communities who have interest in the work done by these programs. These include

but are not limited to residents of the coastal communities near and in the study area, marine 

mammal co-management groups, the general public, fishers, grade school teachers and K–12 

students who are occasionally visited by project scientists. 

Comments during this discussion included the following: 

• Pictures and simple charts/conceptual models may be better for a general audience, rather 

than complicated data graphs. 

• How about an “Eyes and Ears on the CEO” type of pamphlet? It is such a special spot. 

• Fliers could help educate the public on what the many acronyms represent. 

• Help people understand why scientists do what they do—elevating the discussion beyond 

the nuts and bolts of a single project helps identify the big picture. 

• There should be a map, and should have pictures because community words for animals, 

etc., might be different. 

• Relate to food/food security if possible. 

• The National Parks “state of change” fliers are well received. 

• Original art and minimal text; less wordy is better. 

• This approach could lend itself to a website where you could hover over things in the art 

to get more information. 

• Make sure people are included in ecosystem representation—local observations; 

Indigenous peoples consider themselves to be a part of the ecosystem. 

• Sidebars to talk about methods with some level of detail.

• Need for two products? One that is simplified and one with a little more research for 

those that are curious about learning more. 

• Would an ecosystem working group be valuable? 

Outreach Booklet

In response to the above comments, the group decided that a set of glossy pamphlets or even a 

small booklet would be a useful outreach tool. We envision that such booklets would be valuable 

for graduate student recruiting efforts at national and regional scientific meetings, and would also 

be a good way for funding-agency personnel to keep tabs on high-level objectives and results 

coming from these programs. In addition to the three lead projects (AMBON, CEO, DBO), we 

have also invited participation by the Alaska Ocean Observing System (AOOS)–funded 

WhaleGlider project in the Chukchi Sea, the Bowhead Whale foraging project (funded by 

BOEM) that is run out of Utqiagvik, NOAA’s EcoFOCI program, and the coastal observers

program Alaska Arctic Observatory and Knowledge Hub (AAOKH). 
17

The booklet format is now largely in place, although not all projects have yet compiled their 

contributions. The draft booklet pages are shown below. 

Figures 8-16 (below): Cover Page, Project Pages and Back Page of Outreach Booklet 
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

6.0 Acknowledgments

We recognize and acknowledge the Iñupiat people upon whose traditional hunting and fishing 

sites we conduct our research. They have graciously allowed us to utilize their coastal waters 

without conflict, waters that are intrinsic to their culture, sustenance, and livelihoods. 

We thank many funding agencies for supporting field operations through the years: the Alaska 

Ocean Observing System, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation, the North Pacific Research 

Board, and the Office of Naval Research. We thank the University of Alaska Coastal Marine 

Institute agreement with the US Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management for supporting and funding this study, especially program manager Christina 

Bonsell for guidance, and Shell Oil for match funding. 

This synthesis project was funded under CMI award M20AC10010. AMBON was funded under 

awards NOPP-NA14NOS0120158 and NOPP-NA19NOS0120198; CEO was funded by NPRBL36 and ONR N000141712274 and N000142012413; DBO was funded under NSF award AON1917469 and NOAA award ARP-CINAR-22309.07; the AOOS Arctic glider and passive 

acoustics at CEO under AOOS award NA16NOS0120027.
27

7.0 References

Danielson, S.L., Ahkinga, O., Ashjian, C., Basyuk, E., Cooper, L.W., Eisner, L., Farley, E., Iken, 

K.B., Grebmeier, J.M., Juranek, L., Khen, G., et al. 2020. Manifestation and consequences of 

warming and altered heat fluxes over the Bering and Chukchi Sea continental shelves. Deep 

Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 177, p. 104781. 

Gonzalez, S., Horne, J.K., Danielson, S.L., Lopez, G., and Segura, A.M. 2023. Temporal 

dynamics and environmental drivers of polar cod (Boreogadus saida) densities in the 

northeast Chukchi Sea. Polar Biology, 46(6), pp. 573-588. 

Hauri, C., Danielson, S., McDonnell, A.M.P., Hopcroft, R.R., Winsor, P., Shipton, P., Leland, 

C., Stafford, K.M., Horne, J.K., Cooper, L.W., Grebmeier, J.M., Mahoney, A.R., Maisch, K., 

McCammon, M., Statscewich, H., Sybrandy, A., and Weingartner, T. 2018. From sea ice to 

seals: A moored marine ecosystem observatory in the Arctic. Ocean Science 14, pp. 1423-

1433. 

Huntington, H.P., Danielson, S.L., Wiese, F.K., Baker, M., Boveng, P., Citta, J.J., De Robertis, 

A., Dickson, D.M.S., Farley, E., George, J.C., Iken, K., Kimmel, D.G., Kuletz, K., Ladd, C., 

Levine, R., Quakenbush, L., Stabeno, P., Stafford, K.M., Stockwell, D., and Wilson, C. 2020. 

Evidence suggests potential transformation of the Pacific Arctic ecosystem is 

underway. Nature Climate Change 10(4), pp. 342-348. 

Iken, K., Mueter, F.J., Grebmeier, J.M., Cooper, L.W., Danielson, S.L., and Bluhm, B.A. 2019. 

Developing an observational design for epibenthos and fish assemblages in the Chukchi Sea. 

Deep-Sea Research II, 162, pp. 180-190. 

Kuletz, K.J., Cushing, D.A., Osnas, E.E., Labunski, E.A., and A.E. Gall. 2019. Representation of 

the Pacific Arctic seabird community within the Distributed Biological Observatory array, 

2007–2015. Deep Sea Research II, 162, pp. 191-210. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2019.04.001 

Kuletz, K.J., Ferguson, M.C, Hurley, B., Gall, A.E., Labunski, E.A., and Morgan, T.C. 2015. 

Seasonal spatial patterns in seabird and marine mammal distribution in the eastern Chukchi 

and western Beaufort seas: Identifying biologically important pelagic areas. Progress in 

Oceanography 136, pp. 175-200. 

Lalande, C., Grebmeier, J.M., Hopcroft, R.R., and Danielson, S.L. 2020. Annual cycle of export 

fluxes of biogenic matter near Hanna Shoal in the northeast Chukchi Sea. Deep Sea Research 

II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 177, p. 104730 

Obama, 2016. Memorandum on Withdrawal of Certain Portions of the United States Arctic 

Outer Continental Shelf From Mineral Leasing, December 20, 2016. Administration of Barak 

Obama.

Overland, J., Dunlea, E., Box, J.E., Corell, R., Forsius, M., Kattsov, V., Olsen, M.S., Pawlak, J., 

Reiersen, L.-O., and Wang, M. 2019. The urgency of Arctic change. Polar Science, 21, pp. 6-

13. 

Previdi, M., Smith, K.L., and Polvani, L.M. 2021. Arctic amplification of climate change: a 

review of underlying mechanisms. Environmental Research Letters, 16(9), p. 093003. 

Sandy, S.J. 2022. Acoustic Detection and Characterization of Sea Ice and Surface Waves in the 

Northeast Chukchi Sea. University of Alaska Fairbanks, MS thesis. 
28

Wassmann, P., Carmack, E.C., Bluhm, B.A., Duarte, C.M., Berge, J., Brown, K., Grebmeier, 

J.M., Holding, J., Kosobokova, K., Kwok, R., Matrai, P., et al. 2020. Towards a unifying 

pan-arctic perspective: A conceptual modelling toolkit. Progress in Oceanography, 189, p. 

102455. 
A-1

8.0 Appendices

Appendix A: Arctic Synthesis Workshop Agenda

Meeting Agenda

Arctic Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Structure Data Analysis & Synthesis

Funded by: Coastal Marine Institute

Location: Endeavor Room, Hotel Captain Cook, Anchorage AK.

Zoom Meeting Link for Plenary Sessions: 

https://alaska.zoom.us/j/81114091122?pwd=bzhxOG1EcWtjVmRSTk43RVNXbWxOZz09

Meeting ID: 811 1409 1122 

Zoom Passcode: N5lth7iH

26 October 2021

Plenary Session with Zoom Link: 8:30 to 12:00 and 1:00 to 1:30

8:30 am Welcome, introductions, comments from funders, meeting plan/objectives 

overview 

9:00 am CEO program and data holdings overview (Seth)

9:15 am AMBON program and data holdings overview (Katrin)

9:30 am DBO program and data holdings overview (Jackie)

9:45 am Other potential data sets of note for this synthesis (Everyone)

10:00 am Morning break

10:15 am Participants present synthesis idea slides (~5 min each)

12:00 pm Asian Lunch (provided)

1:00 pm Plenary session: Identify synthesis group breakouts

1:30 pm Breakout group 

(Individual zoom session set up on the fly with remote participants as needed.)

3:00 pm Afternoon break

3:15 Continued breakout group discussions

Dinner on your own/small groups

27 October 2021

Plenary Session with Zoom Link: 9:00 to 12:00 

9:00 am Recap of day 1, rapporteurs of break-out groups

10:00 am Morning break

10:15 am Plenary discussion with focus on manuscript outlines

12:00 pm Lunch (on your own)

1:30 Continued breakout group discussions 
A-2

3:00 pm Afternoon break

3:15 Continued breakout group discussions

Dinner on your own/small groups

28 October 2021

Plenary Session with Zoom Link: 9:00 to 12:00 and 1:00 to 2:00

9:00 am Recap of day 2, rapporteurs of break-out groups

10:00 am Morning break

10:15 am Discussion: Conceptual model updates/gaps 

11:15 am Discussion: Research/information needs and agency recommendations

12:00 pm Fajita Lunch (provided)

1:00 pm Discussion: Informational flier discussions

2:00 pm Unfinished business

3:00 pm Afternoon break

3:15 pm Meeting wrap-up and action items

End of meeting

Catering: All-day beverage service (coffee, tea, soft drinks, mineral water) with snacks in the 

morning (fruit and granola bars) and afternoon (nuts and cookies). Lunch provided on Tuesday

and Thursday. 
B-1

Appendix B: Slides Presented by Workshop Attendees
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-10

 
B-11

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI)

The DOI protects and manages the Nation's natural resources and cultural 

heritage; provides scientific and other information about those resources; and 

honors the Nation’s trust responsibilities or special commitments to American 

Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities.

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)

BOEM’s mission is to manage development of U.S. Outer Continental Shelf 

energy and mineral resources in an environmentally and economically 

responsible way. 

BOEM Environmental Studies Program

The mission of the Environmental Studies Program is to provide the 

information needed to predict, assess, and manage impacts from offshore 

energy and marine mineral exploration, development, and production activities 

on human, marine, and coastal environments. The proposal, selection, research, 

review, collaboration, production, and dissemination of each of BOEM’s 

Environmental Studies follows the DOI Code of Scientific and Scholarly 

Conduct, in support of a culture of scientific and professional integrity, as set 

out in the DOI Departmental Manual (305 DM 3).