Polar Biology

, Volume 38, Issue 7, pp 1035–1047 | Cite as

Diet of female polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea of Alaska: evidence for an emerging alternative foraging strategy in response to environmental change

  • M. C. RogersEmail author
  • E. Peacock
  • K. Simac
  • M. B. O’Dell
  • J. M. Welker
Original Paper


Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) diet may become more variable in some Arctic regions due to climate warming and altered sea ice habitat. We surveyed carbon and nitrogen stable isotope profiles of five polar bear tissues sampled from adult females in the Southern Beaufort Sea of Alaska in order to assess inter-tissue isotopic variability and to determine whether any dietary shifts are occurring in this population. We did not detect any significant shifts from historical means in population-level tissue stable isotope values. A number of sectioned hair samples, however, were significantly depleted in 15N relative to the mean. We hypothesized that lower hair δ15N values were due to the consumption of bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) tissue. Telemetry data showed that polar bears with 15N-depleted hair sections were located on multiple dates near known subsistence-harvested bowhead whale bone piles and had spent 90 % of the prior year within 50 km of the shore. Bears with hair section δ15N values at or above the mean spent no time near bowhead whale bone piles and less than half of the year nearshore. An isotopic mixing model estimation of diet proportions determined that bowhead whale comprised approximately 50–70 % of fall diet for bears with lower hair δ15N values. We conclude that these results offer emergent evidence of an alternative foraging strategy within this population: ‘coastal’ bears, which remain near to shore for much of the year and use bowhead whale bone piles when they are present. In contrast, ‘pelagic’ bears follow a more typical strategy and forage widely on sea ice for seals.


Alaska Arctic Bowhead whale Foraging ecology Polar bear Stable isotopes Telemetry 



This work is part of the US Geological Survey’s Changing Arctic Ecosystem Initiative and is supported by funding from the Wildlife Program of the USGS Ecosystem Mission Area. Additional support was provided by the USGS Climate and Land Use Change Mission Area, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the Bureau of Land Management, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The analyses were made possible in part by a National Science Foundation Major Research Instrumentation award (0953271) to J. Welker that assisted in establishing the University of Alaska Anchorage Stable Isotope Laboratory. Naomi Bargmann provided vital assistance in the sample analysis. We thank George Durner and Anthony Pagano for their significant contributions to fieldwork and data management associated with polar bear sampling and PTT deployment, and Todd Atwood and Øystein Wiig for providing constructive comments on a previous version of the manuscript. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Government.


  1. Amstrup SC (2003) The Polar Bear—Ursus maritimus. In: Feldhamer GA, Thompson BC, Chapman JA (eds) Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and conservation. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 587–610Google Scholar
  2. Amstrup SC, Gardner C (1994) Polar bear maternity denning in the Beaufort Sea. J Wildl Manag 58:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amstrup SC, McDonald TL, Stirling I (2001) Polar bears in the Beaufort Sea: a 30-year mark-recapture case history. J Agric Biol Exp Stat 6:221–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amstrup SC, McDonald TL, Durner GM (2004) Using satellite radiotelemetry data to delineate and manage wildlife populations. Wildl Soc Bull 32:661–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bentzen TW, Follmann EH, Amstrup SC, York GS, Wooller MJ, O’Hara TM (2007) Variation in winter diet of southern Beaufort Sea polar bears inferred from stable isotope analysis. Can J Zool 85:596–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Best RC (1985) Digestibility of ringed seals by the polar bear. Can J Zool 63:1033–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cardona-Marek T, Knott KK, Meyer BE, O’Hara TM (2009) Mercury concentrations in southern Beaufort Sea polar bears: variation based on stable isotopes of carbon and nitrogen. Environ Toxicol Chem 28:1416–1424PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caut S, Angulo E, Courchamp F (2009) Variation in discrimination factors (Δ15N and Δ13C): the effect of diet isotopic values and applications for diet reconstruction. J Appl Ecol 46:443–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cherry SG, Derocher AE, Hobson KA, Stirling I, Thiemann GW (2011) Quantifying dietary pathways of proteins and lipids to tissues of a marine predator. J Appl Ecol 48:373–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Durner GM, Amstrup SC, Fischbach AS (2003) Habitat charachteristics of polar bear terrestrial maternal den sites in northern Alaska. Arctic 56:55–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Durner GM, Douglas DC, Nielson RM, Amstrup SC, McDonald TL, Stirling I, Mauritzen M, Born EW, Wiig Ø, DeWeaver E, Serreze MC, Belikov SE, Holland MM, Maslanik J, Aars J, Bailey DA, Derocher AE (2009) Predicting 21st-century polar bear habitat distribution from global climate models. Ecol Monogr 79:25–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Felicetti LA, Schwartz CC, Rye RO, Haroldson MA, Gunther KA, Phillips DL, Robbins CT (2003) Use of sulfur and nitrogen stable isotopes to determine the importance of whitebark pine nuts to yellowstone grizzly bears. Can J Zool 770:763–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gill ID, Helfield JM (2012) Alternative foraging strategies among bears fishing for salmon: a test of the dominance hypothesis. Can J Zool 90:766–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gleason JS, Rode KD (2009) Polar bear distribution and habitat association reflect long-term changes in fall sea ice conditions in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Arctic 62:405–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Herreman J, Peacock E (2013) Polar bear use of a persistent food subsidy: insights from non-invasive genetic sampling in Alaska. Ursus 24:148–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hilderbrand GV, Farley SD, Robbins CT, Hanley TA, Titus K, Servheen C (1996) Use of stable isotopes to determine diets of living and extinct bears. Can J Zool 74:2080–2088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hobson KA (1999) Tracing origins and migration of wildlife using stable isotopes: a review. Oecologia 120:314–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hobson K, Bond A (2012) Extending an indicator: year-round information on seabird trophic ecology from multiple-tissue stable-isotope analyses. Mar Ecol Progr Ser 461:233–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hobson KA, Welch HE (1992) Determination of trophic relationships within a high Arctic marine food web using δ13C and δ15N analysis. Mar Ecol Progr Ser 84:9–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hobson KA, Alisauskas RT, Clark RG (1993) Stable-nitrogen isotope enrichment in avian tissues due to fasting and nutritional stress: implications for isotopic analyses of diet. Condor 95:388–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hobson KA, Stirling I, Andriashek DS (2009) Isotopic homogeneity of breath CO2 from fasting and berry-eating polar bears: implications for tracing reliance on terrestrial foods in a changing Arctic. Can J Zool 87:50–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hoekstra PF, Dehn LA, George JC, Solomon KR, Muir DC, O’Hara TM (2002) Trophic ecology of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) compared with that of other arctic marine biota as interpreted from carbon-, nitrogen-, and sulfur-isotope signatures. Can J Zool 80:223–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hopkins JB, Koch PL, Schwartz CC, Ferguson JM, Greenleaf SS, Kalinowski ST (2012) Stable isotopes to detect food-conditioned bears and to evaluate human-bear management. J Wildl Manag 76:703–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Horton TW, Blum JD, Xie Z, Hren M, Chamberlain CP (2009) Stable isotope food web analysis and mercury biomagnification in polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Polar Res 28:443–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jones ES, Heard DC, Gillingham MP (2006) Temporal variation in stable carbon and nitrogen isotopes of grizzly bear guardhair and underfur. Wildl Soc Bull 34:1320–1325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Koch PL (2007) Isotopic study of the biology of modern and fossil vertebrates. In: Michener R, Lajtha K (eds) Stable isotopes in ecology and environmental science, 2nd edn. Blackwell Publishing, BostonGoogle Scholar
  27. Kurle CM, Worthy GAJ (2002) Stable nitrogen and carbon isotope ratios in multiple tissues of northern fur seal Callorhinus ursinus: implications for dietary and migratory reconstructions. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 236:289–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McKinney MA, Peacock E, Letcher RJ (2009) Sea ice-associated diet change increases the levels of chlorinated and brominated contaminants in polar bears. Environ Sci Technol 43:4334–4339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McLaughlin RL, Ferguson MM, Noakes DLG (1999) Adaptive peaks and alternative foraging tactics in brook charr: evidence of short-term divergent selection for sitting-and-waiting and actively searching. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 45:386–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mizukami RN, Goto M, Izumiyama S, Yoh M, Ogura N, Hayashi H (2005) Temporal diet changes recorded by stable isotopes in Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus) hair. Isot Environ Health Stud 41:87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Parnell AC, Inger R, Bearhop S, Jackson AL (2010) Source partitioning using stable isotopes: coping with too much variation. PLoS ONE 5:1–5Google Scholar
  32. Peacock E, Laake J, Laidre KL, Born EW, Atkinson SN (2012) The utility of harvest recoveries of marked individuals to assess polar bear (Ursus maritimus) survival. Arctic 65:391–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peacock E, Taylor MK, Laake J, Stirling I (2013) Population ecology of polar bears in Davis Strait, Canada and Greenland. J Wildl Manag 77:463–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Polischuk SC, Hobson KA, Ramsay MA (2001) Use of stable-carbon and -nitrogen isotopes to assess weaning and fasting in female polar bears and their cubs. Can J Zool 79:499–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ramsay MA, Hobson KA (1991) Polar bears make little use of terrestrial food webs: evidence from stable-carbon isotope analysis. Oecologia 86:598–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Regehr EV, Lunn NJ, Amstrup SC, Stirling I (2007) Effects of earlier sea ice breakup on survival and population size of polar bears in western Hudson Bay. J Wildl Manag 71:2673–2683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Regehr EV, Hunter CM, Caswell H, Amstrup SC, Stirling I (2010) Survival and breeding of polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea in relation to sea ice. J Anim Ecol 79(1):117–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rode KD, Amstrup SC, Regehr EV (2010) Reduced body size and cub recruitment in polar bears associated with sea ice decline. Ecol Appl 20:768–782PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rode KD, Peacock E, Taylor MK, Stirling I, Born EW, Laidre KL, Wiig Ø (2012) A tale of two polar bear populations (Ursus maritimus): ice habitat, harvest, and body condition. Popul Ecol 54:3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rode KD, Regehr EV, Douglas DC, Durner G, Derocher AE, Thiemann GW, Budge S (2014) Variation in the response of an Arctic top predator experienceing habitat loss: feeding and reproductive ecology of two polar bear populations. Glob Chang Biol 20(1):76–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schliebe S, Rode KD, Gleason JS, Wilder J, Proffitt K, Evans TJ, Miller S (2008) Effects of sea ice extent and food availability on spatial and temporal distribution of polar bears during the fall open-water period in the southern Beaufort Sea. Polar Biol 31:999–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stirling I, Spencer C, Andriashek D (1989) Immobilization of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) with Telazol in the Canadian Arctic. J Wildl Dis 25:159–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stirling I, Lunn NJ, Iacozza J (1999) Long-term trends in the population ecology of polar bears in western Hudson Bay in relation to climatic change. Arctic 52:294–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stirling I, McDonald TL, Richardson ES, Regehr EV, Amstrup SC (2011) Polar bear population status in the northern Beaufort Sea, Canada, 1971–2006. Ecol Appl 21:859–876PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tinker MT, Costa DP, Estes JA, Wieringa N (2007) Individual dietary specialization and dive behaviour in the California sea otter: using archival time-depth data to detect alternative foraging strategies. Deep-Sea Res Part II 54:330–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vongraven D, Aars J, Amstrup SC, Atkinson SN, Belikov S, Born EW, DeBruyn T, Derocher AE, Gill M, Lunn NJ, Obbard ME, Omelak J, Ovsyanikov NG, Peacock E, Richardson E, Sahanatien V, Stirling I, Wiig Ø (2012) A circumpolar monitoring framework for polar bears. Ursus Monogr Ser 23:1–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Weimerskirch H, Cherel Y, Cuenot-chaillet F, Ridoux V (1997) Alternative foraging strategies and resource allocation by male and female wandering albatrosses. Ecology 78:2051–2063CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. C. Rogers
    • 1
    Email author
  • E. Peacock
    • 2
  • K. Simac
    • 2
  • M. B. O’Dell
    • 1
    • 3
  • J. M. Welker
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Environment and Natural Resources InstituteUniversity of Alaska AnchorageAnchorageUSA
  2. 2.US Geological Survey, Alaska Science CenterAnchorageUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of Alaska AnchorageAnchorageUSA
  4. 4.University Center in SvalbardLongyearbyenNorway

Personalised recommendations