Status assessment and conservation priorities for a circumpolar raptor: the Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus | Bird Conservation Intern

Status assessment and conservation priorities for a circumpolar raptor: the Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus | Bird Conservation International | Cambridge Core
Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-5vn5w
Total loading time: 0
Render date: 2026-04-23T11:56:57.522Z
Has data issue: false
hasContentIssue false
Journals
Bird Conservation International
Volume 34
Status assessment and conservation priorities for a...
Bird Conservation International
Article contents
Summary
Introduction
Distribution, ecology, and demography
Historical population estimates and trends
Current population dynamics and trend analyses
Main threats
Conservation status and recommendations
Conclusions
Footnotes
References
Status assessment and conservation priorities for a circumpolar raptor: the Snowy Owl
Bubo scandiacus
Part of:
BirdLife Discoveries
Published online by Cambridge University Press:
23 December 2024
R. A. McCabe
[Opens in a new window]
T. Aarvak
[Opens in a new window]
A. Aebischer
K. Bates
J. Bety
[Opens in a new window]
L. Bollache
D. Brinker
C. Driscoll
K. H. Elliott
and
G. Fitzgerald
...Show all authors
Show author details
R. A. McCabe*
Affiliation:
Acopian Center for Conservation Learning, Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association, PA, USA
T. Aarvak
Affiliation:
BirdLife Norway, Trondheim, Norway
A. Aebischer
Affiliation:
Groupe de Recherche en Écologie Arctique, Francheville, France
K. Bates
Affiliation:
Raptor Research Center, Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA
J. Bety
Affiliation:
Université du Québec à Rimouski, Rimouski, QC, Canada
L. Bollache
Affiliation:
Laboratoire Chrono-environnement UMR6249, Université de Bourgogne, France
D. Brinker
Affiliation:
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD, USA
C. Driscoll
Affiliation:
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD, USA
K. H. Elliott
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Department, McGill University, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC, Canada
G. Fitzgerald
Affiliation:
Faculté de Médecine Vétérinaire, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada
M. Fuller
Affiliation:
Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Boise, ID, USA
G. Gauthier
Affiliation:
Département de biologie and Centre Éutdes nordiques, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada
O. Gilg
Affiliation:
Laboratoire Chrono-environnement UMR6249, Université de Bourgogne, France
M. Gousy-Leblanc
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Department, McGill University, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC, Canada
D. Holt
Affiliation:
Owl Research Institute, Charlo, MT, USA
K.-O. Jacobsen
Affiliation:
Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Tromsø, Norway
D. Johnson
Affiliation:
Global Owl Project, USA
O. Kulikova
Affiliation:
Russian Academy of Sciences, Moskva, Russian Federation
J. Lang
Affiliation:
Groupe de Recherche en Écologie Arctique, Francheville, France
N. Lecomte
Affiliation:
Université de Moncton, Moncton, NB, Canada
C. McClure
Affiliation:
The Peregrine Fund, Boise, ID, USA
T. McDonald
Affiliation:
Project SnowyWatch, USA
I. Menyushina
Affiliation:
East Branch of Russian Academy of Science, Russian Federation
E. Miller
Affiliation:
Wildlife Futures Program, Department of Pathobiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
V. V. Morozov
Affiliation:
Russian Scientific Research Institute of Environmental Protection, Russian Federation
I. J. Øien
Affiliation:
BirdLife Norway, Trondheim, Norway
A. Robillard
Affiliation:
Département de biologie and Centre Éutdes nordiques, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada
B. Rolek
Affiliation:
The Peregrine Fund, Boise, ID, USA
B. Sittler
Affiliation:
Groupe de Recherche en Écologie Arctique, Francheville, France
N. Smith
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Audubon, USA
A. Sokolov
Affiliation:
Arctic Research Station, Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology, Ural Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences
N. Sokolova
Affiliation:
Arctic Research Station, Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology, Ural Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences
R. Solheim
Affiliation:
Natural History Museum, University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway
M. Soloviev
Affiliation:
Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moskva, Russian Federation
M. Stoffel
Affiliation:
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada;
S. Weidensaul
Affiliation:
Ned Smith Center for Nature and Art, PA, USA
K. L. Wiebe
Affiliation:
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada;
D. Zazelenchuck
Affiliation:
P.O. Box 39, Kyle, SK, Canada
J. F. Therrien
Affiliation:
Acopian Center for Conservation Learning, Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association, PA, USA
Corresponding author:
R. A. McCabe; Email:
mccabe@hawkmountain.org
Article
Figures
Supplementary materials
Correction
Metrics
Article contents
Summary
Introduction
Distribution, ecology, and demography
Historical population estimates and trends
Current population dynamics and trend analyses
Main threats
Conservation status and recommendations
Conclusions
Footnotes
References
Save PDF (1 mb)
View PDF
[Opens in a new window]
Rights & Permissions
[Opens in a new window]
Summary
The global population and status of Snowy Owls
Bubo scandiacus
are particularly challenging to assess because individuals are irruptive and nomadic, and the breeding range is restricted to the remote circumpolar Arctic tundra. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) uplisted the Snowy Owl to “Vulnerable” in 2017 because the suggested population estimates appeared considerably lower than historical estimates, and it recommended actions to clarify the population size, structure, and trends. Here we present a broad review and status assessment, an effort led by the International Snowy Owl Working Group (ISOWG) and researchers from around the world, to estimate population trends and the current global status of the Snowy Owl. We use long-term breeding data, genetic studies, satellite-GPS tracking, and survival estimates to assess current population trends at several monitoring sites in the Arctic and we review the ecology and threats throughout the Snowy Owl range. An assessment of the available data suggests that current estimates of a worldwide population of 14,000–28,000 breeding adults are plausible. Our assessment of population trends at five long-term monitoring sites suggests that breeding populations of Snowy Owls in the Arctic have decreased by more than 30% over the past three generations and the species should continue to be categorised as Vulnerable under the IUCN Red List Criterion A2. We offer research recommendations to improve our understanding of Snowy Owl biology and future population assessments in a changing world.
Keywords
Arctic
Bubo scandiacus
Irruptive
Monitoring
Population trends
Information
Type
Review Article
Information
Bird Conservation International
Volume 34
, 2024
, e41
DOI:
[Opens in a new window]
Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (
), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of BirdLife International
Introduction
With a continuous rise in human population size and industrial development, threats to ecosystem functioning and biodiversity are magnified by anthropogenic drivers around the globe (Bergmann et al.
Reference Bergmann, Collard, Fabres, Gabrielsen, Provencher and Rochman
2022
; Callaghan et al.
Reference Callaghan, Björn, Chernov, Chapin, Christensen and Huntley
2004
; Ims and Fuglei
Reference Ims and Fuglei
2005
; Luck
Reference Luck
2007
). Although the Arctic is considered one of the last pristine environments on Earth because few humans live there, it is nonetheless affected by human activities such as oil, gas, and mineral extraction (Tolvanen et al.
Reference Tolvanen, Eilu, Juutinen, Kangas, Kivinen and Markovaara-Koivisto
2019
), and transport of pollutants to the Arctic by atmospheric or oceanic currents (Barrie
Reference Barrie
1986
; Macdonald et al.
Reference Macdonald, Barrie, Bidleman, Diamond, Gregor and Semkin
2000
; Zarfl and Matthies
Reference Zarfl and Matthies
2010
). Moreover, most Arctic-nesting birds are migratory and spend the nonbreeding season in temperate or tropical regions where anthropogenic impacts are considerable (Bauer and Hoye
Reference Bauer and Hoye
2014
; Moisan et al.
Reference Moisan, Gravel, Legagneux, Gauthier, Léandri-Breton and Somveille
2023
). Therefore, events occurring in the temperate zone might affect breeding birds and other species living in the Arctic, with carry-over effects on the Arctic environment (Jefferies et al.
Reference Jefferies, Rockwell and Abraham
2004
; Lamarre et al.
Reference Lamarre, Legagneux, Gauthier, Reed and Bêty
2017
).
The Snowy Owl
Bubo scandiacus
, a top predator of the Arctic, is highly dependent on the abundance of small mammals, particularly lemmings (
Lemmus
and
Dictrostonyx
spp.), during the breeding season (Dorogoy
Reference Dorogoy
2017
; Gilg et al.
Reference Gilg, Sittler, Sabard, Hurstel, Sane and Delattre
2006
; Hagen
Reference Hagen
1952
; Portenko
Reference Portenko
1972
; Therrien et al.
Reference Therrien, Gauthier, Pinaud and Bêty
2014b
). Some studies reported fading lemming population cycles and persistent low populations at some Arctic sites (Ims et al.
Reference Ims, Henden and Killengreen
2008
; Kausrud et al.
Reference Kausrud, Mysterud, Steen, Vik, Ostbye and Cazelles
2008
), possibly due to changing climatic conditions, which could negatively affect tundra predators like the Snowy Owl (Schmidt et al.
Reference Schmidt, Ims, Høye, Gilg, Hansen and Hansen
2012
). Food abundance and distribution in time and space determine reproductive success and local breeding densities across its range (Robillard et al.
Reference Robillard, Therrien, Gauthier, Clark and Bêty
2016
), so understanding the impact of humans on the habitat and food resources used by Snowy Owls is imperative for their conservation. The global population of Snowy Owls is particularly difficult to assess because the breeding range is restricted to remote circumpolar Arctic tundra and because individuals range widely during their annual dispersal and exhibit very low site fidelity (Doyle et al.
Reference Doyle, Therrien, Reid, Gauthier and Krebs
2017
; Fuller et al.
Reference Fuller, Holt, Schueck, Berthold, Gwinner and Sonnenschein
2003
; Robillard et al.
Reference Robillard, Gauthier, Therrien and Bêty
2018
; Therrien et al.
Reference Therrien, Gauthier, Pinaud and Bêty
2014b
). Furthermore, movements of individuals are often nomadic (i.e. irregular movement patterns that differ from year to year; Andersson
Reference Andersson
1980
; Teitelbaum and Mueller
Reference Teitelbaum and Mueller
2019
) and/or can be irruptive (i.e. migratory movements that only occur in some years and are linked to a fluctuating food supply; Newton
Reference Newton
2006
Reference Newton
2010
).
This species is classified as “Vulnerable” to extinction by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) global Red List. IUCN assigns species to one of the nine categories of threat based on whether they meet any one of the criteria related to (1) population trend, (2) population size, and (3) structure and geographical range (IUCN
2012
). The Snowy Owl was uplisted from “Least Concern” to “Vulnerable” in 2017 due to “an observed, estimated, inferred or suspected population size reduction of 30% over the last 10 years or three generations” based on reported population declines in North America (Rosenberg et al.
Reference Rosenberg, Kennedy, Dettmers, Ford, Reynolds and Alexander
2016
) and likely in Europe and Russia (BirdLife International
2020
). However, reported population declines were based on relatively informal and potentially biased assessments such as Christmas Bird Counts (National Audubon Society
2020
) and eBird sightings (Fink et al.
Reference Fink, Auer, Johnston, Strimas-Mackey, Robinson and Ligocki
2021
) and they did not quantitatively combine trend estimates from across the species’ range (BirdLife International
2024
). Such methods did not exist until recently (McClure et al.
Reference McClure, Rolek and Fleischer
2023a
Reference McClure, Rolek and Fleischer
; Sherley et al.
Reference Sherley, Winker, Rigby, Kyne, Pollom and Pacoureau
2020
). Further, although there are several long-term and broad-scale efforts to monitor Snowy Owls, the irruptive and nomadic ecology renders quantitative inference of population trends elusive.
This paper is an effort led by the International Snowy Owl Working Group (ISOWG) and researchers around the globe to quantitatively assess population trends and the current global status of the Snowy Owl. Based on the most recent literature we review basic life history traits and population dynamic metrics for the circumpolar population of Snowy Owls. To estimate population abundance and trends we use results from recent ecological and genetic studies and, in particular, breeding data from major monitoring sites across the Arctic. We account for the irruptive and nomadic ecology of this species while combining trends in data collected across its breeding range. Our results are interpreted in the context of the Snowy Owl’s global conservation status. We also assess threats faced by the species and conclude with recommendations to guide conservation efforts.
Distribution, ecology, and demography
The Snowy Owl has a circumpolar breeding distribution that is associated with treeless tundra and valley and plateaus across seven Arctic countries (Cramp and Brooks
Reference Cramp and Brooks
1985
; Holt et al.
Reference Holt, Larson, Smith, Evans, Parmelee and Poole
2020
; Portenko
Reference Portenko
1972
). In an effort to fill in the knowledge gaps from the extant breeding range of the Snowy Owl, we compiled reported nest sites across the circumpolar Arctic over the last 50 years from the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (1990–2018;
= 150 nests), eBird (1971–2022;
= 75 nests), GPS-tagged owls (2016–2021; –
= 19 nests), and nest locations from collaborators and from seven long-term monitoring sites (1987–2020;
= 560 nests) (
Figure 1
). Although uncommon, several long-term studies have or are still monitoring annual breeding density and productivity including sites in Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Fennoscandia, and Russia (
Figure 1
Supplementary material Appendix S1
). In North America, Snowy Owls still regularly breed in Alaska, Nunavut, and the northern parts of Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Québec (Doyle et al.
Reference Doyle, Therrien, Reid, Gauthier and Krebs
2017
; Holt et al.
Reference Holt, Maples, Petersen-Parret, Korti, Seidensticker and Gray
2009
; Miller et al.
Reference Miller, Russell and Gunn
1975
; Therrien et al.
Reference Therrien, Gauthier, Pinaud and Bêty
2014b
). In Greenland, Snowy Owls now seem restricted to breed only in the north-east and very few breeding attempts were recorded in recent decades, associated with irregular lemming population peaks (Gilg et al.
Reference Gilg, Sittler, Sabard, Hurstel, Sane and Delattre
2006
Reference Gilg, Sittler and Hanski
2009
). In Fennoscandia, Snowy Owls regularly bred when lemming peaks were steady, until the late 1980s (Ehrich et al.
Reference Ehrich, Schmidt, Gauthier, Alisauskas, Angerbjörn and Clark
2020
; Jacobsen
Reference Jacobsen
2005
). After a long period without lemming peaks and breeding owls, nests were found again in 2007, 2011, and 2015 (Jacobsen et al.
Reference Jacobsen, Øien, Solheim and Aarvak
2014
; Øien et al.
Reference Øien, Jacobsen, Aarvak, Solheim and Kleven
2016
), but rodent numbers might have collapsed again after the absence of a peak around 2019 (Jacobsen et al.
Reference Jacobsen, Solheim, Øien and Aarvak
2019
). In Russia, Snowy Owls have been recorded breeding from the Yugorsky Peninsula, Novaja Zemlya, and Vaygach Island in north-east Europe to the Taimyr Peninsula in Siberia (Kharitonov et al.
Reference Kharitonov, Volkov, Willems, Van Kleef, Klaassen and Nowak
2008
; Morozov et al.
Reference Morozov, Rosenfeld, Rogova, Golovnyuk, Kirtaev and Kharitonov
2020
) and in eastern Siberia, the Lena delta, Anzhu Islands, and Wrangel Island (Litvin and Baranyuk
Reference Litvin and Baranyuk
1989
; Menyushina
Reference Menyushina
1997
Reference Menyushina and Gruzdev
2007
). The longest running discrete study sites monitoring breeding activities, spanning the last ~30 years, include: Wrangel Island, Russia; Utqiagvik (formerly Barrow), Alaska, USA; Bylot Island, Nunavut, Canada; Fennoscandia; Karupelv Valley, Greenland.
Figure 1.
Snowy Owl
Bubo scandiacus
confirmed breeding sites (red dots) within the known breeding range (grey outline; BirdLife International and Handbook of the Birds of the World
2021
) across the circumpolar Arctic. Breeding sites include nests reported to the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (1990–2018;
= 150), eBird (1971–2022;
= 75), from GPS-tagged owls (2016–2021;
= 19), and nest locations from collaborators and from seven long-term monitoring sites in Russia, USA, Canada, Greenland, and Fennoscandia (1987–2020;
= 560). Graphs show the annual number of Snowy Owl nests (
-axis) found at the five monitoring sites between 1988 and 2020.
During the nonbreeding season, the distribution expands to include the entire breeding range, coastal Arctic Sea ice, and some temperate regions south of the boreal forest and Arctic tundra (Holt et al.
Reference Holt, Larson, Smith, Evans, Parmelee and Poole
2020
; Øien et al.
Reference Øien, Aarvak, Jacobsen and Solheim
2018
; Portenko
Reference Portenko
1972
; Therrien et al.
Reference Therrien, Weidensaul, Brinker, Huy, Miller and Jacobs
2017
).
The Snowy Owl is a nomadic species exhibiting long-distance breeding dispersal annually (Therrien et al.
Reference Therrien, Gauthier, Pinaud and Bêty
2014b
) with unpredictable and highly variable movements when searching for a suitable nesting site (Holt et al.
Reference Holt, Larson, Smith, Evans, Parmelee and Poole
2020
; Therrien et al.
Reference Therrien, Gauthier, Pinaud and Bêty
2014b
; Robillard et al.
Reference Robillard, Gauthier, Therrien and Bêty
2018
). Satellite tracking of Snowy Owls in Canada indicated that individuals cover large distances (
$ \overline{\mathrm{x}}\hskip0.24em $
= 828 ± 600 [SD] km, range 220–2433 km,
= 9 adult females) in spring when prospecting for potential nesting sites with sufficient prey resources (Therrien et al.
Reference Therrien, Gauthier, Pinaud and Bêty
2014b
). After a nesting season, adult Snowy Owls radio-tagged in north-western Alaska flew west, ranging widely in far north-eastern Russia, then wintering proximate to northern Russia coastlines. Ultimately, these individuals returned to Alaska, flying past their previous nesting area and into the north-western Canadian islands for the next breeding season (Fuller et al.
Reference Fuller, Holt, Schueck, Berthold, Gwinner and Sonnenschein
2003
). Satellite-tagged adult Snowy Owls breeding in Norway wandered back and forth between Norway and Russia, sometimes flying as far east as the Taimyr Peninsula in western Siberia during low lemming years, presumably searching for suitable nesting sites (Jacobsen et al.
Reference Jacobsen, Solheim, Øien and Aarvak
2010
Reference Jacobsen, Øien, Solheim and Aarvak
2014
; Øien et al.
Reference Øien, Aarvak, Jacobsen and Solheim
2018
; Solheim et al.
Reference Solheim, Jacobsen and Øien
2008
).
These extensive annual movements and low breeding site fidelity are in line with results from genetic analyses. Marthinsen et al. (
Reference Marthinsen, Wennerberg, Solheim and Lifjeld
2009
) analysed the mitochondrial DNA of Snowy Owls from North America, Fennoscandia, and eastern Russia and found no phylogeographic genetic structure, suggesting a single panmictic population with unrestricted exchange of genetic material. More recently, Gousy-Leblanc et al. (
Reference Gousy-Leblanc, Therrien, Broquet, Rioux, Curt-Grand-Gaudin and Tissot
2023
) investigated genetic differentiation using single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)-based analyses of owls sampled across North America and found high genetic intermixing indicating a single Snowy Owl population within the continent.
Studies in Greenland and Nunavut, Canada, have both shown that Snowy Owls do not attempt to breed unless there is a consistent threshold density of about 2 lemmings/ha at snow melt (Gilg et al.
Reference Gilg, Sittler, Sabard, Hurstel, Sane and Delattre
2006
; Therrien et al.
Reference Therrien, Gauthier, Pinaud and Bêty
2014b
). However, a study in north-western Taimyr, Russia found Snowy Owls started nesting only when lemming abundance reached approximately 11 lemmings/ha (Kharitonov et al.
Reference Kharitonov, Volkov, Willems, Van Kleef, Klaassen and Nowak
2008
). Telemetry studies confirmed little fidelity to a breeding site and revealed that Snowy Owls tend to nest wherever prey is available, regardless of the conditions at their previous breeding site (Doyle et al.
Reference Doyle, Therrien, Reid, Gauthier and Krebs
2017
; Fuller et al.
Reference Fuller, Holt, Schueck, Berthold, Gwinner and Sonnenschein
2003
; Watson
Reference Watson
1957
). For example, Therrien et al. (
Reference Therrien, Gauthier, Pinaud and Bêty
2014b
) found that adult females breeding in the Canadian Arctic dispersed on average 725 ± 517 [SD] km (range: 18–2,224 km,
= 12) between consecutive years, indicating a general lack of site fidelity. However, some Snowy Owls in Norway have appeared on the same breeding grounds as during former lemming peak several years previously (Jacobsen et al
Reference Jacobsen, Øien, Solheim and Aarvak
2011
; Solheim et al
Reference Solheim, Jacobsen and Øien
2008
). These large breeding dispersal distances impose strong limitations on our ability to reliably estimate population size worldwide as detailed below.
The exact age of sexual maturity is mostly unknown, especially in the wild, but Snowy Owls may reach sexual maturity in the first year of life (Holt et al.
Reference Holt, Larson, Smith, Evans, Parmelee and Poole
2020
). Although Snowy Owls are thought to usually start breeding around three or four years old in the wild, one-year-old females were confirmed breeding in Norway in 2011 and 2015 (Solheim et al.
Reference Solheim, Jacobsen, Øien and Aarvak
2018
). Experienced breeding females can apparently breed every year even if they need to move long distances to find a suitable nesting area (Therrien et al.
Reference Therrien, Gauthier and Bêty
2012
).
Long-term nest monitoring suggests there might be core and peripheral breeding populations throughout the Arctic. Breeding densities under good conditions reported by Gilg et al. (
Reference Gilg, Sittler, Sabard, Hurstel, Sane and Delattre
2006
) and Therrien et al. (
Reference Therrien, Gauthier, Korpimaki and Bêty
2014a
Reference Therrien, Gauthier, Pinaud and Bêty
) can be up to 20 nests/100 km
. Falling within the “boom-and-bust” breeding strategy (Newton
Reference Newton
2006
), Snowy Owls lay large clutches (e.g. 5–11 eggs,
$ \overline{x} $
= 7.0 ± 2.1 eggs; Hagen
Reference Hagen
1960
; Holt et al.
Reference Holt, Larson, Smith, Evans, Parmelee and Poole
2020
; Portenko
Reference Portenko
1972
; Therrien et al.
Reference Therrien, Gauthier, Robillard, Lecomte and Bêty
2015
) during years when the abundance of small mammals in the Arctic tundra is high (i.e. “boom” years) (Robillard et al.
Reference Robillard, Therrien, Gauthier, Clark and Bêty
2016
). In a 20-year study investigating the links between lemming abundance and Snowy Owl breeding success on Bylot Island, Therrien et al. (
Reference Therrien, Gauthier, Robillard, Lecomte and Bêty
2015
) reported a high nesting success (96%; proportion of nests where at least one young survived until fledging) during years of high lemming density, similar to findings by Gilg et al. (
Reference Gilg, Sittler, Sabard, Hurstel, Sane and Delattre
2006
) from north-east Greenland.
The Snowy Owl is a regular wintering bird in certain areas of the USA and Canada (Wiebe et al.
Reference Wiebe, Bidwell and McCabe
2023
). Numbers of owls wintering on the Canadian Prairies are relatively stable despite some annual variation (Boxall and Lein
Reference Boxall and Lein
1982
; Kerlinger et al.
Reference Kerlinger, Lein and Sevick
1985
), but much lower and more variable in areas farther south, west, and east, where the species is more irregular and irruptive (Kerlinger and Lein
Reference Kerlinger and Lein
1988
; Kerlinger et al.
Reference Kerlinger, Lein and Sevick
1985
). Many adults remain in the Arctic throughout the winter, exploiting marine environments in ice-covered areas (Fuller et al.
Reference Fuller, Holt, Schueck, Berthold, Gwinner and Sonnenschein
2003
; Øien et al.
Reference Øien, Aarvak, Jacobsen and Solheim
2018
; Robillard et al.
Reference Robillard, Gauthier, Therrien, Fitzgerald, Provencher and Bêty
2017
Reference Robillard, Gauthier, Therrien and Bêty
2018
; Therrien et al.
Reference Therrien, Gauthier and Bêty
2011
). In western North America, many individuals also remain in the Arctic but primarily use alpine non-forest areas (Doyle et al.
Reference Doyle, Therrien, Reid, Gauthier and Krebs
2017
). Thus, Snowy Owls can use a wide variety of habitats (i.e. inland, coastal, oceans, alpine areas) during the nonbreeding season. In addition to the diversity of wintering habitats, there is also a dramatic change in overwintering population composition over time. Indeed, the high reproductive output during a good lemming year (Gilg et al.
Reference Gilg, Sittler, Sabard, Hurstel, Sane and Delattre
2006
; Therrien et al.
Reference Therrien, Gauthier, Korpimaki and Bêty
2014a
) means local individual density can increase dramatically at the end of those breeding seasons. This will cause a large influx of young of the year into the regular and irregular wintering ranges south of the boreal forest and explain the periodic irruptions of the species (Robillard et al.
Reference Robillard, Therrien, Gauthier, Clark and Bêty
2016
; Santonja et al.
Reference Santonja, Mestre, Weidensaul, Brinker, Huy and Smith
2019
).
Based on satellite tracking of 12 adult females marked in the Canadian Arctic, Therrien et al. (
Reference Therrien, Gauthier and Bêty
2012
) found that the survival rate was relatively high over three years (estimated annual survival at 85–92%). Using capture–recapture of owls marked on the Canadian Prairies in winter over 15 years, Heggøy et al. (
Reference Heggøy, Aarvak, Øien, Jacobsen, Solheim and Zazelenchuk
2017
) estimated apparent annual survival of adults (
= 13) at 70.4 ± 8.6%, which is probably biased low by permanent emigration. McCabe et al. (
Reference McCabe, Therrien, Wiebe, Gauthier, Brinker and Weidensaul
2022
) estimated winter survival (4.5 month-long period) at 93% for adult females in temperate regions in North America and 98% for those wintering in the Arctic (
= 144 owl-winters). Survival of owls wintering in the Prairies (94%) was also greater than those wintering in eastern North America (81%) (
= 252 owl-winters), and winter survival estimates of first-year owls in non-irruptive years (100%) were also greater than in irruptive years (52%) (
= 93 owl-winters).
Historical population estimates and trends
Given the high mobility and apparent lack of fidelity to nesting areas, reliable estimates of population size throughout the circumpolar range are hard to obtain with traditional nesting density surveys. Previous population estimates, which were as high as 290,000 individuals worldwide (Rich et al.
Reference Rich, Beardmore, Berlanga, Blancher, Bradstreet and Butcher
2004
) are now considered gross overestimates because they relied on a misconception that Snowy Owls bred regularly and uniformly across their entire breeding range and ignored large-scale annual breeding dispersal movements combined with low breeding site fidelity. An updated range map depicting at a finer scale the boundaries of the Snowy Owl range (i.e. breeding, nonbreeding, pre- and post-breeding migratory seasons) (Fink et al.
Reference Fink, Auer, Johnston, Strimas-Mackey, Robinson and Ligocki
2021
) in North America portrays a more fragmented and restricted range than historical range maps. Other regions throughout the circumpolar Arctic (e.g. inland Greenland, some islands in Nunavut, Canada) are covered by ice caps or devoid of lemmings, suggesting a smaller range than historically presented.
Recently, various approaches were suggested to estimate Snowy Owl population size. Potapov and Sale (
Reference Potapov and Sale
2012
) suggested a “loose boid” approach – estimating the probability of aggregations of Snowy Owls in a particular area and integrating this spatial probability for the entire range. This approach used historical breeding data from the literature, unpublished continental transects and aerial surveys, migration patterns, and observations reported by the Arctic Wader Study Group. With this approach, they estimated 14,000 pairs of Snowy Owls worldwide. Considering that the total global population can fluctuate with good or poor breeding conditions depending on the year, Potapov and Sale (
Reference Potapov and Sale
2012
) suggested that a more conservative population estimate would be half of that estimate (7,000–8,000 pairs). However, many assumptions behind this approach (e.g. size and number of individual boids) remain vague and untested.
In northern Russia, an effort estimated population size based on counts conducted along aerial transects totalling 17,854 km in length in western Siberia in 2019 (Morozov et al.
Reference Morozov, Rosenfeld, Rogova, Golovnyuk, Kirtaev and Kharitonov
2020
). Snowy Owls were detected within a 3,792 km
area along these transects in the Taimyr and Yamal regions with 221 (217 and 4, respectively) individuals counted. Simultaneously, researchers monitored two sites on the ground in Taymir peninsula (130 and 120 km
). Based on the number of owls and nests counted (217 and 9, respectively) over the surveyed area, the authors estimated the current population for the whole Russian Arctic at 14,000 individuals. They also suggested that numbers might have declined since similar counts were conducted in the same region in the mid-1990s.
An alternative approach is to calculate a theoretical carrying capacity of the tundra habitat for breeding owls. Walker et al. (
Reference Walker, Raynolds, Daniels, Einarsson, Elvebakk, Gould, Katenin, Kholod, Markon, Melnikov, Moskalenko, Talbot and Yurtsev
2005
) estimated the size of the non-glaciated Arctic tundra biome at 5,000,000 km
. If we assume (1) that only 20% of this area is suitable for owl nesting, a conservative estimate, and (2) that owls breed only in good lemming years, which have a typical recurrence of about four years (Gauthier et al.
Reference Gauthier, Ehrich, Belke-Brea, Domine, Alisauskas and Clark
2024
), this means that about 250,000 km
of Arctic tundra may offer suitable breeding conditions for owls every year. We can further assume that experienced owls breed every year (Therrien et al.
Reference Therrien, Gauthier and Bêty
2012
) by moving to areas of high lemming abundance (Therrien et al.
Reference Therrien, Gauthier, Pinaud and Bêty
2014b
). Finally, using a mean density of 0.1 pairs/km
in good breeding years (Gilg et al.
Reference Gilg, Sittler, Sabard, Hurstel, Sane and Delattre
2006
; Therrien et al.
Reference Therrien, Gauthier, Pinaud and Bêty
2014b
), we could estimate that up to 25,000 pairs could breed annually worldwide (G. Gauthier, personal communication).
Genetic analyses can also provide information on the effective population size (
, the number of breeding individuals in an idealised population that would maintain genetic variability; Lande and Barrowclough
Reference Lande, Barrowclough and Soulé
1987
) of a species. Based on mitochondrial DNA analyses, Marthinsen et al. (
Reference Marthinsen, Wennerberg, Solheim and Lifjeld
2009
) estimated the maximum effective population at 14,000 females worldwide. More recently, Gousy-Leblanc et al. (
Reference Gousy-Leblanc, Therrien, Broquet, Rioux, Curt-Grand-Gaudin and Tissot
2023
) estimated the current North American effective population to be 15,792 individuals (10,850–28,950; 95% confidence interval (]CI]), using genetic methods based on nuclear SNP.
Butcher and Niven (
Reference Butcher and Niven
2007
) found that Snowy Owls have undergone a small, statistically insignificant decline during the last 40 years in North America by combining data from Breeding Bird Surveys and Christmas Bird Counts. However, because these monitoring schemes cover a limited part of the wintering range of the species, they can likely miss the long-term trends of a nomadic species like the Snowy Owl. In a global analysis of North American bird fauna, Rosenberg et al. (
Reference Rosenberg, Kennedy, Dettmers, Ford, Reynolds and Alexander
2016
) reported a 64% decline of Snowy Owls in North America over the period 1970 to 2014. However, the value is most likely inflated as this analysis may be mixing previous population estimates, which were considered overestimates (see above), with more recent ones. It is however clear that, since the Last Glacial Maximum 20,000 years ago, the North American Snowy Owl population has undergone a slow decline interspaced with accelerated decreases during warming events (Gousy-Leblanc et al.
Reference Gousy-Leblanc, Therrien, Broquet, Rioux, Curt-Grand-Gaudin and Tissot
2023
). Since the genetic analysis used in that study cannot determine the trend in the last hundred years, we still must rely on alternative estimates such as long-term monitoring at their breeding sites (see below).
Current population dynamics and trend analyses
To estimate recent population trends of Snowy Owls, we used count data of nests from five of the seven long-term sites (i.e. Bylot Island Core, Fennoscandia, Karupelv Valley, Utqiagvik, and Wrangel Island) monitored annually (with one exception) during the breeding seasons of 1988–2020 (
Figure 1
Appendix S1
). Two other sites with shorter time-series (Igloolik and Hochstetter Forland) were excluded from the analyses as we required >10 years of monitoring for the trend analysis (see below for details). We assumed that the number of nests counted, instead of individuals, was a good proxy for the IUCN (
2012
) criteria considering each nest needs two mature individuals. We then used these results to assess the status of the species according to IUCN Red List Criteria (IUCN
2012
).
A potential problem of our trend analysis is the cyclical pattern of owl presence at several sites (
Figure 1
), a consequence of the cyclicity in the populations of their main prey species, lemmings (Gauthier et al.
Reference Gauthier, Ehrich, Belke-Brea, Domine, Alisauskas and Clark
2024
). To evaluate whether linear regression models could accurately estimate population trends when ignoring cyclicity, we simulated data and applied generalised linear models (GLMs) within a frequentist framework. Simulations indicated little bias and good coverage by CIs of estimated temporal trends, especially when time-series were >10 years and mean abundance was >0.5 (methods and results are presented in
Appendix S2
). Based on simulation results, we excluded sites not meeting these criteria (Igloolik and Hochstetter Forland).
We analysed Snowy Owl nest count data using a Bayesian hierarchical GLM, adjusting existing methodology (McClure et al.
Reference McClure, Rolek and Fleischer
2023a
Reference McClure, Rolek, Kemp and Wolter
) by implementing various distributional assumptions (Poisson, negative binomial, and zero-inflated Poisson; see detailed methods in
Appendix S3
) to account for an excess of zeros in the counts, which is typical of an irruptive species (
Figure 1
). We retained the distribution with the best goodness-of-fit. To obtain an overall population growth rate (λ) that was informed by these five sites while accounting for population size at each site, we calculated a weighted mean from posterior draws of abundance so that the contribution of each site was proportional to average counts at those sites (McClure et al.
Reference McClure, Rolek and Fleischer
2023a
). Further, we did not need to account for differing areas surveyed among sites because our analysis was concerned with rates of change, not absolute numbers. The areas surveyed within four of the five monitoring sites (Fennoscandia is the exception) remained constant through time allowing us to interpret observed changes in counts as indices of population change. We converted population growth rates to per cent change over three generations using generation times of 8 and 10.7 years (i.e. 24 years and 32 years; see details in
Appendix S3
) to present results in the context of the IUCN Red List Criteria A2 to assess the conservation status of a species (IUCN
2012
). Based on the length of our monitoring and the median annual per cent change detected, our analysis should have a reasonable statistical power according to White (
Reference White
2019
) and Wauchope et al. (
Reference Wauchope, Amano, Sutherland and Johnston
2019
).
Population growth rates averaged over the entire survey period (1988–2020) suggested negative trends (median λ = 0.98, 80% Highest Density Intervals [HDIs] = [0.96, 1.01], probability of direction [pd] = 0.80). Inter-annual population growth rates had significant declines during six years (2005, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2016, and 2018) (
Figure 2
) with 80% HDIs excluding zero. Trends at individual sites were stable except at Utqiagvik, which had a declining population trend (median = -0.73, 80% HDIs = [-1.50, -0.04];
Appendix S4
).
Figure 2.
(A) Proportional weights assigned to each site to estimate the inter-annual population growth rate of Snowy Owls
Bubo scandiacus.
(B) Inter-annual population growth rates (λ) of Snowy Owls combining five long-term monitoring sites (Wrangel Island, Fennoscandia, Karupelv Valley, Bylot Island Core, and Utqiagvik). The median is depicted with a thick blue solid line, while the 80% and 95% highest density prediction intervals are depicted with medium and thin blue lines, respectively. Predictions from each posterior draw are depicted with grey lines (
= 4,000). A horizontal dashed line where λ = 1.0 depicts a stable population. Monitoring data spanned different time intervals for each site; therefore, we weighted these population growth rates so the contribution of each site is proportional to its population size (details in
Appendix S3
).
Population trends expressed as per cent change after three generations showed a significant negative trend using eight-year generations (median = -35.6%, 80% HDIs = [-74.9%, -1.2%], pd = 0.81), and a non-significant trend using 10.7-year generations (median = -41.0%, 80% HDIs = [-84.2%, 3.5%], pd = 0.80). Using eight-year generations, central tendencies of per cent change over three generations such as the mode (-45%) and median (-36%) all suggest that Snowy Owl should be considered Vulnerable according to the IUCN Red List Criteria, despite some uncertainty (
Figure 3
). Sixty-nine per cent of derived posterior draws of per cent change suggested “Near Threatened” status or worse, while 58% suggested “Vulnerable” or worse, and 29% suggested “Endangered” or worse (see Cumulative proportion of draws,
Table 1
). Using 10.7-year generations, central tendencies of per cent change over three generations such as the mode (-54%) and median (-41%) suggest that Snowy Owl should be considered Vulnerable or Endangered according to the IUCN Red List Criteria despite some uncertainty (
Figure 3
). Sixty-nine per cent of derived posterior draws of per cent change suggested Near Threatened status or worse, while 61% suggested Vulnerable or worse, and 38% suggested Endangered or worse (see Cumulative proportion of draws,
Table 1
).
Figure 3.
Per cent change in the number of breeding Snowy Owls
Bubo scandiacus
at five monitoring sites in the Arctic over three generations using two generation times (8 and 10.7 years). Per cent change beginning in (A) 1996 and (B) 1988 as reference years to assess changes over three generations (24 and 32 years, respectively). Black solid lines depict the median, 80% and 95% highest density intervals (HDIs), and thin grey lines depict predictive posterior draws from the model (
= 4,000). (C) and (D) depict the total per cent change over three generations (1996–2020). The caterpillar plot depicts the median (point), 80% and 95% HDIs (vertical lines), and the grey polygon depicts density of estimates. Colours (dark green to red) illustrate IUCN Red List Criteria A2.
Table 1.
Proportion of draws associated with different percentages of change in the number of breeding Snowy Owls
Bubo scandiacus
over three generations (1996–2020) at five monitoring sites in the Arctic. “Proportion of draws within” contains the proportion of posterior draws (
= 4,000) falling within each interval of IUCN Listing Criteria (“IUCN criteria”). “Cumulative proportion of draws” contains the cumulative sum of draws within each criterion and worse. “Per cent change criteria” describes IUCN Red List Criteria of per cent change over three generations. Square brackets indicate a value is included in the interval for IUCN criteria, while round parenthesis indicate the value is not included.
To evaluate the robustness of analyses to trends at individual sites, we omitted data from Utqiagvik, the only site with a significant decline. Trends were largely consistent with analyses presented here. Central tendencies of per cent change (median = -16% and mode = -41%) continued to suggest declines (
Appendix S4
). We implemented another analysis to evaluate robustness by including data from all sites with a random effect for site. This analysis largely agreed with those presented here suggesting declines (median = -25% and mode = -36%,
Appendix S4
. Combined, these two analyses demonstrate that results presented here are somewhat robust to the inclusion or exclusion of sites.
Main threats
Main potential threats to the Snowy Owl include: (a) climate change; (b) change in the abundance of prey species; (c) anthropogenic development and disturbance on the breeding and wintering areas; (d) anthropogenic mortality; (e) exposure to contaminants in the environment. We briefly address each of those separately below.
Mild winter temperatures and extended rainy periods associated with climate change will likely alter snow cover, stability of the microclimate during the breeding season, and plant growth, thereby negatively affecting the population cycles of lemmings and other rodents, the main food source of Snowy Owls during breeding (Domine et al.
Reference Domine, Gauthier, Vionnet, Fauteux, Dumont and Barrère
2018
; Gilg et al.
Reference Gilg, Sittler and Hanski
2009
; Kausrud et al.
Reference Kausrud, Mysterud, Steen, Vik, Ostbye and Cazelles
2008
; Kharitonov et al.
Reference Kharitonov, Bublichenko, Korkina, Volkov, Morozov and Sharikov
2005
). Therefore, a collapse in lemming populations would have a devastating effect on Snowy Owl reproduction, as reported in some regions of Greenland and Fennoscandia (Jacobsen et al.
Reference Jacobsen, Solheim, Øien and Aarvak
2019
; Schmidt et al.
Reference Schmidt, Ims, Høye, Gilg, Hansen and Hansen
2012
). However, while local and short-term cycle collapses can occur, there is yet little evidence that lemming population fluctuations have dampened globally across the Arctic or that populations are decreasing (Ehrich et al.
Reference Ehrich, Schmidt, Gauthier, Alisauskas, Angerbjörn and Clark
2020
; Gauthier et al.
Reference Gauthier, Ehrich, Belke-Brea, Domine, Alisauskas and Clark
2024
). Milder and wetter climates in the Arctic could increase the risk for detrimental black fly attacks on nestlings and breeding females in the low Arctic tundra (Lamarre et al.
Reference Lamarre, Legagneux, Franke, Casajus, Currie and Berteaux
2018
; Solheim et al.
Reference Solheim, Jacobsen, Øien, Aarvak and Polojärvi
2013
). Snowy Owls have also been documented hunting at the flow edge during the breeding season (N. Lecomte, personal communication) and along open channels in the sea ice during the nonbreeding season where large concentrations of waterfowl overwinter (Fuller et al.
Reference Fuller, Holt, Schueck, Berthold, Gwinner and Sonnenschein
2003
; Gilchrist and Robertson
Reference Gilchrist and Robertson
2000
; Hagen
Reference Hagen
1952
; Therrien et al.
Reference Therrien, Gauthier and Bêty
2011
). However, the ability for the Snowy Owl to efficiently capture waterfowl may decline if an expansion of these channels, as a result of climate change, disperse prey over a larger area, therefore reducing their concentrations and the availability of perching sites on the ice.
Survival, especially in first-year birds, is often influenced by prey availability and, in winter, the ability to avoid both natural and anthropogenic threats (e.g. disease, collisions with vehicles). Although we lack information to quantify survival rate during the post-fledgling and dispersal stages of juveniles, studies of other owl species provide insight. For example, Rohner and Hunter (
Reference Rohner and Hunter
1996
) found that juvenile survival in Great Horned Owls
Bubo virginianus
in the Yukon, Canada, was just over 40% during the post-fledgling stage, with major causes of death including anaemia (33%), predation (28%), and collision with vehicles (15%). Similarly, fledgling mortality of northern Tawny Owls
Strix aluco
was highest just after leaving the nest and continued until dispersal, with starvation and predation being the primary causes of death (Overskaug et al.
Reference Overskaug, Bolstad, Sunde and Øien
1999
).
Based on necropsies, the main causes of death identified for 383 wintering Snowy Owls in eastern North America were automobile collisions (18%), emaciation (16%), airplane collisions (9%), other types of collisions (8%), disease or parasites (6%), and electrocution (3%) (McCabe et al. (
Reference McCabe, Therrien, Wiebe, Gauthier, Brinker and Weidensaul
2022
). In temperate western Canada, causes of death examined by Kerlinger and Lein (
Reference Kerlinger and Lein
1988
) (
= 76 owls) and Chang and Wiebe (
Reference Chang and Wiebe
2016
) (
= 225 owls) included various collisions with cars, powerlines, airplanes, and unknown objects (66% and 42%, respectively), emaciation (14% and 46%), shooting (13%), electrocution (6%), and entanglement in fishing equipment (<2%). The impact of wind turbines and the risks of collisions associated with these structures is unknown, but Snowy Owls are known to frequently use the highest available point in the terrain to perch and hunt (Solheim et al.
Reference Solheim, Øien, Aarvak and Jacobsen
2021
), so wind turbines could be a potential threat.
Environmental pollutants examined in feathers of breeding birds (
= 5) collected in Finnmark, Norway in 2007 did not reveal elevated levels of pollutants although seven years earlier, analyses of feathers from a male Snowy Owl found dead in Norway showed elevated levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and persistent organic pollutants (POPs) (Jacobsen et al.
Reference Jacobsen, Øien, Solheim and Aarvak
2014
). Nazneen et al. (
Reference Nazneen, Jayakumar, Albeshr, Mahboob, Manzoor, Pandiyan, Krishnappa, Rajeswary and Govindarajan
2022
) found the presence of heavy metals in pellets of five owl species, demonstrating the need for additional studies on the influences of contaminants accumulating in owls and ultimately impacting their health and survival. Miller et al. (
Reference Miller, Driscoll, Davison, Murphy, Bronson and Wack
2015
) conducted gross necropsies from Snowy Owls (
= 68) wintering in the mid-Atlantic USA in 2013–2014 and discovered that a few individuals had internal parasites (e.g. flukes, tapeworms, protozoans) and some individuals had been exposed to anticoagulant rodenticides, organochemicals (PCBs and DDE), and lead. However, the contribution of these factors to death is unknown. It is also reported that most owls turned in for necropsy in North America were in good body condition (Curk et al.
Reference Curk, McDonald, Zazelenchuk, Weidensaul, Brinker and Huy
2018
), and most deaths were human caused (e.g. trauma from automobile and airplane collisions; McCabe et al.
Reference McCabe, Therrien, Wiebe, Gauthier, Brinker and Weidensaul
2022
).
Conservation status and recommendations
The Snowy Owl was uplisted from Least Concern to Vulnerable in October 2017 (BirdLife International
2020
) when increasing evidence (ISOWG
2017
; Marthinsen et al.
Reference Marthinsen, Wennerberg, Solheim and Lifjeld
2009
; Potapov and Sale
Reference Potapov and Sale
2012
) suggested that worldwide populations were considerably lower than previous estimates (i.e. 200,000–300,000 individuals; Rich et al.
Reference Rich, Beardmore, Berlanga, Blancher, Bradstreet and Butcher
2004
). The information summarised in this paper supports current population estimates (e.g. 14,000–28,000 breeding adults worldwide; BirdLife International
2020
).
We suggest that previous reports of a strong recent decline in the Snowy Owl population (e.g. Rosenberg et al.
Reference Rosenberg, Kennedy, Dettmers, Ford, Reynolds and Alexander
2016
) were an overestimation and the trend analysis that we present based on the best data available coming from the breeding ground supports this assertion. Our method formally, quantitatively, and reproducibly combines information from disparate time-series across the breeding range of the species and over a relatively long period (33 years). Unlike previous analyses, our method propagates the uncertainty associated with each population trend into the overall error (assessed by HDIs) associated with the global trend. We can thus estimate with a reasonable level of confidence the probability of the species having declined enough to qualify for each Red List category (
Table 1
). Results of our analysis suggest that breeding populations of Snowy Owls have indeed decreased globally by more than 30% over the past three generations, and therefore the species should continue to be categorised as Vulnerable under the IUCN Red List Criteria A2. However, we recognise the relatively large error associated with our estimates, something that could be improved with more data in the future. We emphasise that Snowy Owl monitoring sites in the Arctic are very scant and many parts of the breeding range (e.g. Siberia) are not well covered, which limits the robustness of the assessment presented here. Considering that genetic evidence suggests a single, panmictic population worldwide (Marthinsen et al.
Reference Marthinsen, Wennerberg, Solheim and Lifjeld
2009
), Snowy Owl conservation must be addressed globally rather than regionally. Moreover, climate warming, changing prey availability, and increased anthropogenic pressure during winter are all factors that have a strong potential to negatively affect future population trends at a global scale.
In light of our current assessment, we make the following recommendations. We need to improve our knowledge on several aspects of Snowy Owl biology including: (a) better estimates of vital rates, especially survival rate in adults (e.g. seasonally) and in juveniles (i.e. nestling survival to fledging period and post-fledging survival) and age at first breeding; (b) improve international cooperation on conservation and research; (c) continue long-term monitoring of abundance on breeding grounds and increase the geographical coverage of monitoring including the far northern parts of their range to fill large gaps worldwide; (d) pursue necropsies of birds found dead and explore emerging methods for diagnostic testing and international sharing of information between pathologists. In addition, future research should incorporate traditional and local knowledge held by Indigenous peoples, including in-person interviews, surveys, and in-the-field participation of hunters, trappers, elders, and others.
Conclusions
Some aspects of the ecology of the Snowy Owl are still unknown (e.g. dispersal behaviour of juveniles, first-year survival, age-specific recruitment rate) and would benefit from additional research. Moreover, combining long-term monitoring of breeding and wintering ground surveys with individual tracking will help to better understand the movement ecology and demography of this elusive species and help link movement to the breeding success and survival probability. When assessing population size and trends, it is essential to consider the irruptive and nomadic behaviour of the species, something that has not received enough attention in the past. Considering the numerous threats faced by the species and uncertainties associated with population size and trends, we believe that the status of Vulnerable species is warranted for the Snowy Owl. Continued collaborative research is necessary for addressing knowledge gaps identified in the biology of the species and assessing future potential threats that could affect this charismatic and emblematic species of the Arctic wilderness.
Supplementary material
The supplementary material for this article can be found at
Acknowledgements
We dedicate this paper to the late G. Bortolotti, one of the founding members of the International Snowy Owl Working Group. We thank the Indigenous Communities across the Arctic for discussions, sharing observations, and allowing us to conduct research on native lands and in their communities; without their support and guidance, most of this data would not have been secured. We thank M. Nitze, F. Normann, R. Blöcher, P. Rapin, and M. Bos with nest searching on Karupelv Valley, all the field crews at the long-term monitoring sites, and all participants of long-term surveys (e.g. Christmas Bird Counts, Arctic Breeding Birds). We thank Project SNOWstorm collaborators and supporters and collaborators of the ISOWG. We are grateful for the valuable suggestions and feedback from S. Oppel, one anonymous reviewer, the Associate Editor A. Margalida and the Editor-in-Chief P. Atkinson. This is Project SNOWstorm contribution number 011 and Hawk Mountain contribution to conservation science number 399. This thorough analysis of the status and population trend of the Snowy Owl emerged from and was identified as a priority by the collaborative work of the ISOWG. JFT, GG, KOJ, OG, BS, JL, IJØ, TA, and RS contributed to the study conception and design. Data preparation and organisation, and analysis were performed by RAM, GG, BR, OK, and JFT. The first draft of the manuscript was written by RAM, GG, BR, and JFT, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. This work was supported by the Norwegian Snowy Owl Group, Project SNOWstorm donors, Hawk Mountain Sanctuary Association supporters including the Marshall–Reynolds Foundation, French Polar Institute (IPEV, Program Interactions-1036), Agence Nationale de la Recherche (Project PACS, grant number ANR-21-CE02-0024), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) (to GG and NL), NSERC Canada Research Chair Program (NL), NSERC Discovery Grant (KLW, grant number 203177), IBPN RAS grant number 123032000020-7 and 124050700005-0 (to OK), Canadian Network of Centres of Excellence ArcticNet (GG), Fonds Québécois de Recherche Nature et Technologies (GG), Polar Knowledge Canada (to GG and NL), Environment and Climate Change Canada (GG), Natural Resources Canada Polar Continental Shelf Program (to GG and NL), and the Garfield Weston Foundation (JFT).
Footnotes
This article was originally published with incorrect author affiliations. The error has been corrected and the online HTML and PDF versions updated.
References
Andersson
M.
1980
).
Nomadism and site tenacity as alternative reproductive tactics in birds
Journal of Animal Ecology
49
175
184
Google Scholar
Barrie
L.A
. (
1986
).
Arctic air pollution: An overview of current knowledge
Atmospheric Environment
20
643
663
Google Scholar
Bauer
S.
and
Hoye
B.J.
2014
).
Migratory animals couple biodiversity and ecosystem functioning worldwide
Science
344
1242552
Google Scholar
PubMed
Bergmann
M.
Collard
F.
Fabres
J.
Gabrielsen
G.W.
Provencher
J.F.
Rochman
C.M.
et al.
2022
).
Plastic pollution in the Arctic
Nature Reviews Earth & Environment
323
337
CrossRef
Google Scholar
BirdLife International
2020
).
Bubo scandiacus.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: e.T22689055A181375387. Available at
(accessed 11 November 2021).
CrossRef
Google Scholar
BirdLife International
2024
). Species Factsheet:
Bubo scandiacus.
Available at
(accessed 2 September 2023).
Google Scholar
BirdLife International and Handbook of the Birds of the World
2021
). Bird Species Distribution Maps of the World. Version 2021.1. Available at
(accessed 11 November 2021).
Google Scholar
Boxall
P.C.
and
Lein
M.R.
1982
).
Feeding ecology of snowy owls (
Nyctea scandiaca
) wintering in southern Alberta
Arctic
35
282
290
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Butcher
G.S.
and
Niven
D.K.
2007
).
Combining Data from the Christmas Bird Count and the Breeding Bird Survey to Determine the Continental Status and Trends of North American Birds
National Audubon Society
Google Scholar
Callaghan
T.V.
Björn
L.O.
Chernov
Y.
Chapin
T.
Christensen
T.R.
Huntley
B.
et al.
2004
).
Effects on the structure of arctic ecosystems in the short-and long-term perspectives
Ambio
33
436
447
CrossRef
Google Scholar
PubMed
Chang
A.M.
and
Wiebe
K.L.
2016
).
Body condition in Snowy Owls wintering on the prairies is greater in females and older individuals and may contribute to sex-biased mortality
The Auk
133
738
746
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Cramp
S.
and
Brooks
D.J.
(eds) (
1985
).
Handbook of the Birds of Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. The Birds of the Western Palearctic
, vol.
Oxford
Oxford University Press
Google Scholar
Curk
T.
McDonald
T.
Zazelenchuk
D.
Weidensaul
S.
Brinker
D.
Huy
S.
et al.
2018
).
Winter irruptive Snowy Owls (
Bubo scandiacus
) in North America are not starving
Canadian Journal of Zoology
96
553
558
Google Scholar
Domine
F.
Gauthier
G.
Vionnet
V.
Fauteux
D.
Dumont
M.
and
Barrère
M.
2018
).
Snow physical properties may be a significant determinant of lemming population dynamics in the high Arctic
Arctic Science
813
826
Google Scholar
Dorogoy
I.V
. (
2017
).
Ornithological findings in Western Chukotka
Russian Ornithological Journal
26
2135
2139
Google Scholar
Doyle
F.I
Therrien
J.F.
Reid
D.G.
Gauthier
G.
and
Krebs
C.J.
2017
).
Seasonal movements of female Snowy Owls breeding in the Western North American Arctic
Journal of Raptor Research
51
428
438
Google Scholar
Ehrich
D.
Schmidt
N.M.
Gauthier
G.
Alisauskas
R.
Angerbjörn
A.
Clark
K.
et al.
2020
).
Documenting lemming population change in the Arctic: Can we detect trends?
Ambio
49
786
800
Google Scholar
PubMed
Fink
D.
Auer
T.
Johnston
A.
Strimas-Mackey
M.
Robinson
O.
Ligocki
S.
et al.
2021
). eBird Status and Trends, Data Version: 2020; Released: 2021.
Ithaca
Cornell Lab of Ornithology
. Available at
Google Scholar
Fuller
M.
Holt
D.
and
Schueck
L.
2003
).
Snowy owl movements: variation on the migration theme
. In
Berthold
P.
Gwinner
E.
and
Sonnenschein
E.
(eds),
Avian Migration
Heidelberg
Springer
, pp.
359
366
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Gauthier
G.
Ehrich
D.
Belke-Brea
M.
Domine
F.
Alisauskas
R.
Clark
K.
et al.
2024
).
Taking the beat of the Arctic: are lemming population cycles changing due to winter climate?
Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences
291
20232361
CrossRef
Google Scholar
PubMed
Gilchrist
H.G.
and
Robertson
G.J.
2000
).
Observations of marine birds and mammals wintering at polynyas and ice edges in the Belcher Islands, Nunavut, Canada
Arctic
53
61
68
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Gilg
O.
Sittler
B.
and
Hanski
I.
2009
).
Climate change and cyclic predator–prey population dynamics in the high Arctic
Global Change Biology
15
2634
2652
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Gilg
O.
Sittler
B.
Sabard
B.
Hurstel
A.
Sane
R.
Delattre
P.
et al.
2006
).
Functional and numerical responses of four lemming predators in high arctic Greenland
Oikos
113
193
216
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Gousy-Leblanc
M.
Therrien
J.F.
Broquet
T.
Rioux
D.
Curt-Grand-Gaudin
N.
Tissot
N.
et al.
2023
).
Long-term population decline of a genetically homogenous continental-wide top Arctic predator
Ibis
165
1251
1266
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Hagen
Y.
1952
).
Birds of Prey and Game Care
Oslo
Gyldendal
Google Scholar
Hagen
Y.
1960
).
Snøugla på Hardangervidda sommeren 1959 [The snowy owl, Nyctea scandiaca on Hardangervidda in the summer of 1959]
Meddr. St. viltunders.
Ser
, pp.
25
Google Scholar
Heggøy
O.
Aarvak
T.
Øien
I.J.
Jacobsen
K.-O.
Solheim
S.
Zazelenchuk
D.
et al.
2017
).
Effects of satellite transmitters on survival in Snowy Owls
Bubo scandiacus
Ornis Norvegica
40
33
38
Google Scholar
Holt
D.
Larson
M.D.
Smith
N.
Evans
D.
and
Parmelee
D.F.
2020
).
Snowy Owl (
Bubo scandiacus
. In
Poole
A.
(ed.),
The Birds of North America
Ithaca
Cornell Lab of Ornithology
Google Scholar
Holt
D.W.
Maples
M.T.
Petersen-Parret
J.L.
Korti
M.
Seidensticker
M.
and
Gray
K.
2009
).
Characteristics of nest mounds used by Snowy Owls in Barrow, Alaska, with conservation and management implications
Ardea
97
555
561
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Ims
R.A.
and
Fuglei
E.V.A.
2005
).
Trophic interaction cycles in tundra ecosystems and the impact of climate change
Bioscience
55
311322
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Ims
R.A.
Henden
J.A.
and
Killengreen
S.T.
2008
).
Collapsing population cycles
Trends in Ecology & Evolution
23
79
86
CrossRef
Google Scholar
PubMed
International Snowy Owl Working Group (ISOWG)
2017
). Present Knowledge and Threats to the Snowy Owl
Bubo scandiacus
in the Circumpolar Arctic. ISOWG, digital document,
67
Google Scholar
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
2012
). IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1,
2nd Edn
Gland/Cambridge
IUCN
Google Scholar
Jacobsen
K.-O.
2005
). Snowy Owl (Bubo scandiacus) in Norway.
Breeding Occurrences in the Period 1968-2005
. NINA Report 84.
Trondheim
Norwegian Institute for Natural Research
. (In Norwegian with English summary)
Google Scholar
Jacobsen
K.-O.
Øien
I.J.
Solheim
R.
and
Aarvak
T.
2011
).
Snowy Owl Population Conditions, Migration Pattern and Habitat Choice
. Annual Report 2011. NINA Report 813.
Trondheim
Norwegian Institute for Natural Research
. (In Norwegian with English summary)
Google Scholar
Jacobsen
K.-O.
Øien
I.J.
Solheim
R.
and
Aarvak
T.
2014
).
Present Knowledge Status and Threat Factors for Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus in Norway
. NINA Report 727.
Trondheim
Norwegian Institute for Natural Research
. (In Norwegian with English summary)
Google Scholar
Jacobsen
K.-O.
Solheim
R.
Øien
I.J.
and
Aarvak
T.
2010
).
Snowy Owl Migration Patterns and Habitat Selection
. Annual Report 2009. NINA Report 561.
Trondheim
Norwegian Institute for Natural Research
. (In Norwegian with English summary)
Google Scholar
Jacobsen
K.-O.
Solheim
R.
Øien
I.J.
and
Aarvak
T.
2019
).
Snowy Owl Ecology and Occurrence in Norway
. Annual Report 2019. NINA Report 1753.
Trondheim
Norwegian Institute for Natural Research
. (In Norwegian with English summary)
Google Scholar
Jefferies
R.
Rockwell
R.
and
Abraham
K.
2004
).
Agricultural food subsidies, migratory connectivity, and large-scale disturbance in arctic coastal systems: a case study
Integrative and Comparative Biology
44
130
139
CrossRef
Google Scholar
PubMed
Kausrud
K.L.
Mysterud
A.
Steen
H.
Vik
J.O.
Ostbye
E.
Cazelles
B.
et al.
2008
).
Linking climate change to lemming cycles
Nature
456
93
97
CrossRef
Google Scholar
PubMed
Kerlinger
P.
and
Lein
M.R.
1988
).
Causes of mortality, fat condition, and weights of wintering Snowy Owls
Journal of Field Ornithology
59
12
Google Scholar
Kerlinger
P.
Lein
M.R.
and
Sevick
B.J.
1985
).
Distribution and population fluctuations of wintering Snowy Owls (
Nyctea scandiaca
) in North America
Canadian Journal of Zoology
63
1829
1834
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Kharitonov
S.P.
Bublichenko
A.G.
and
Korkina
S.A.
2005
).
Breeding ecology of snowy owls in the north-western Taimyr: comparison with the phases of the lemming cycle and spatial population structure
. In
Volkov
S.V.
Morozov
V.V.
and
Sharikov
A.V.
Owls of the Northern Eurasia.
Moscow
, pp.
23
31
. (Translated from Russian)
Google Scholar
Kharitonov
S.P.
Volkov
A.E.
Willems
F.
Van Kleef
H.
Klaassen
R.H.G.
Nowak
D.J.
et al.
2008
).
Brent goose colonies near snowy owls: Inter-nest distances in relation to abundance of lemmings and arctic foxes
Biology Bulletin
35
270
278
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Lamarre
V.
Legagneux
P.
Franke
A.
Casajus
N.
Currie
D.C.
Berteaux
D.
et al.
2018
).
Precipitation and ectoparasitism reduce reproductive success in an arctic-nesting top-predator
Scientific Reports
8530
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Lamarre
J.F.
Legagneux
P.
Gauthier
G.
Reed
E.T.
and
Bêty
J.
2017
).
Predator-mediated negative effects of overabundant snow geese on arctic-nesting shorebirds
Ecosphere
e01788
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Lande
R.
and
Barrowclough
G.F.
1987
).
Effective population size, genetic variation, and their use in population management
. In
Soulé
M.E.
(ed.),
Viable Populations for Conservation
Cambridge
Cambridge University Press
, pp.
87
124
Google Scholar
Litvin
K.E.
and
Baranyuk
V.V.
1989
).
Breeding of the Snowy Owls (
Nyctea scandiaca
) and lemming numbers in Wrangel Island
. In
Birds in Communities of the Tundra Zone
Moscow
Nauka
, pp.
112
128
Google Scholar
Luck
G.W
. (
2007
).
A review of the relationships between human population density and biodiversity
Biological Reviews
82
607
645
Google Scholar
PubMed
Macdonald
R.W.
Barrie
L.A.
Bidleman
T.F.
Diamond
M.L.
Gregor
D.J.
Semkin
R.G.
et al.
2000
).
Contaminants in the Canadian Arctic: 5 years of progress in understanding sources, occurrence and pathways
Science of the Total Environment
254
93
234
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Marthinsen
G.
Wennerberg
L.
Solheim
R.
and
Lifjeld
J.T.
2009
).
No phylogeographic structure in the circumpolar snowy owl (
Bubo scandiacus
Conservation Genetics
10
923
933
Google Scholar
McCabe
R.A.
Therrien
J.F.
Wiebe
K.
Gauthier
G.
Brinker
D.
Weidensaul
S.
et al.
2022
).
Density-dependent winter survival of immatures in an irruptive raptor with pulsed breeding
Oecologia
198
295
306
CrossRef
Google Scholar
McClure
C.J.W.
Rolek
B.W.
and
Fleischer
J.
2023a
).
Composite population trends reveal status of wintering diurnal raptors in the Northwestern USA
Biological Conservation
277
109861
Google Scholar
McClure
C.J.W.
Rolek
B.W.
Kemp
R.
and
Wolter
K.
2023b
).
Combining trends from disparate monitoring programs to inform Red List assessments: The case of the Cape Vulture (
Gyps coprotheres
Biological Conservation
284
110175
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Menyushina
I.E
. (
1997
).
Snowy Owl (
Nyctea scandiaca
) reproduction in relation to lemming population cycles on Wrangel Island
. General Technical Report NC.
Washington
US Department of Agriculture Forest Service
, pp.
572
582
Google Scholar
Menyushina
I.E
. (
2007
).
Changes of reproductive parameters in population of snowy owls (
Nyctea scandiaca
, L.) on Wrangel Island during two lemming population cycles
. In
Gruzdev
A.R.
(ed.)
The
Nature of Wrangel Island: Contemporary Researches.
St
Petersburg
AST
, pp.
32
58
(In Russian)
Google Scholar
Miller
E.A.
Driscoll
C.P.
Davison
S.
Murphy
L.
Bronson
E.
Wack
A.
et al.
2015
).
Snowy Owl (
Bubo scandiacus
) morbidity and mortality investigation in the DOS region in the winters of 2013–2014 and 2014–2015
Delmarva Ornithology
44
12
Google Scholar
Miller
F.L.
Russell
R.H.
and
Gunn
A.
1975
).
Distribution and numbers of snowy owls on Melville, Eglington, and Byam Martin islands, Northwest Territories, Canada
Journal of Raptor Research
60
64
Google Scholar
Moisan
L.
Gravel
D.
Legagneux
P.
Gauthier
G.
Léandri-Breton
D.J.
Somveille
M.
et al.
2023
).
Scaling migrations to communities: An empirical case of migration network in the Arctic
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
10
1077260
Google Scholar
Morozov
V.V.
Rosenfeld
S.B.
Rogova
N.V.
Golovnyuk
V.V.
Kirtaev
G.V.
and
Kharitonov
S.P.
2020
).
What is the number of snowy owls in the Russian Arctic?
Ornithologia
44
18
25
. (In Russian, English summary)
Google Scholar
National Audubon Society
. (
2020
). The Christmas Bird Count Historical Results. Available at
(accessed 24 January 2021).
Google Scholar
Nazneen
S.
Jayakumar
S.
Albeshr
M.F.
Mahboob
S.
Manzoor
I.
Pandiyan
J.
Krishnappa
K.
Rajeswary
M.
and
Govindarajan
N.
(2022).
Analysis of Toxic Heavy Metals in the Pellets of Owls: A Novel Approach for the Evaluation of Environmental Pollutants
Toxics
10
693
Google Scholar
Newton
I.
2006
).
Advances in the study of irruptive migration
Ardea
94
433
460
Google Scholar
Newton
I.
2010
).
Bird Migration
London
Collins
Google Scholar
Øien
I.J.
Aarvak
T.
Jacobsen
K.-O.
and
Solheim
R.
2018
).
Satellite telemetry uncovers important wintering areas for Snowy owls on the Kola peninsula, northwestern Russia
Ornithologia
42
42
49
Google Scholar
Øien
I.J.
Jacobsen
K.-O.
Aarvak
T.
Solheim
R.
and
Kleven
O.
2016
).
Snowy Owl Ecology and Occurrence in Norway in 2015
. Norsk Ornitologisk Forening (NOF)-Report
2016
NOF-Birdlife Norway
Google Scholar
Overskaug
K.
Bolstad
J.P.
Sunde
P.
and
Øien
I.J.
1999
).
Fledgling behavior and survival in northern tawny owls
The Condor
101
169
174
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Portenko
L.A
. (
1972
).
Die Schnee-eule
Die Neue Brehm-Bücherei
Google Scholar
Potapov
E.
and
Sale
R.
2012
).
The Snowy Owl
London
T & AD Poyser
Google Scholar
Rich
T.D.
Beardmore
C.J.
Berlanga
H.
Blancher
P.J.
Bradstreet
M.S.W.
Butcher
G.S.
et al.
2004
).
Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
Ithaca
Cornell Lab of Ornithology
Google Scholar
Robillard
A.
Gauthier
G.
Therrien
J.F.
and
Bêty
J.
2018
).
Wintering space use and site fidelity in a nomadic species, the snowy owl
Journal of Avian Biology
49
e01707
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Robillard
A.
Gauthier
G.
Therrien
J.F.
Fitzgerald
G.
Provencher
J.F.
and
Bêty
J.
2017
).
Variability in stable isotopes of snowy owl feathers and contribution of marine resources to their winter diet
Journal of Avian Biology
48
759
769
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Robillard
A.
Therrien
J.F.
Gauthier
G.
Clark
K.M.
and
Bêty
J.
2016
).
Pulsed resources at tundra breeding sites affect winter irruptions at temperate latitudes of a top predator, the snowy owl
Oecologia
181
423
433
CrossRef
Google Scholar
PubMed
Rohner
C.
and
Hunter
D.B.
1996
).
First-year survival of great horned owls during a peak and decline of the snowshoe hare cycle
Canadian Journal of Zoology
74
1092
1097
Google Scholar
Rosenberg
K.V.
Kennedy
J.A.
Dettmers
R.
Ford
R.P.
Reynolds
D.
Alexander
J.D.
et al.
2016
).
Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plan: 2016 Revision for
Canada and Continental United States
. Partners in Flight Science Committee.
Google Scholar
Santonja
P.
Mestre
I.
Weidensaul
S.
Brinker
D.
Huy
S.
Smith
N.
et al.
2019
).
Age composition of winter irruptive Snowy Owls in North America
Ibis
161
211
215
Google Scholar
Schmidt
N.M.
Ims
R.A.
Høye
T.T.
Gilg
O.
Hansen
L.H.
Hansen
J.
et al.
2012
).
Response of an arctic predator guild to collapsing lemming cycles
Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences
279
4417
4422
Google Scholar
PubMed
Sherley
R.B.
Winker
H.
Rigby
C.L.
Kyne
P.M.
Pollom
R.
Pacoureau
N.
et al.
2020
).
Estimating IUCN Red List population reduction: JARA – A decision-support tool applied to pelagic sharks
Conservation Letters
13
10
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Solheim
R.
Jacobsen
K.-O.
and
Øien
I.J.
2008
).
The migrations of snowy owls: one year, three owls and new knowledge
Vår Fuglefauna
31
102
109
. (In Norwegian)
Google Scholar
Solheim
R.
Jacobsen
K.-O.
Øien
I.J.
and
Aarvak
T.
2018
).
Snowy owls may breed when one year old
Poster presented at the Raptor Research Foundation Annual Meeting, 12–16 November, Skukuza
Kruger National Park, South Africa
Google Scholar
Solheim
R.
Jacobsen
K.-O.
Øien
I.J.
Aarvak
T.
and
Polojärvi
P.
2013
).
Snowy Owl nest failures caused by blackfly attacks on incubating females
Ornis Norvegica
36
Google Scholar
Solheim
R.
Øien
I.J.
Aarvak
T.
and
Jacobsen
K.-O.
2021
).
Snowy Owl (
Bubo scandiacus
) males select the highest vantage points around nests
Airo
29
451
459
Google Scholar
Teitelbaum
C.S.
and
Mueller
T.
2019
).
Beyond migration: causes and consequences of nomadic animal movements
Trends in Ecology & Evolution
34
569
581
Google Scholar
PubMed
Therrien
J.F.
Gauthier
G.
and
Bêty
J.
2011
).
An avian terrestrial predator of the Arctic relies on the marine ecosystem during winter
Journal of Avian Biology
42
363
369
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Therrien
J.F.
Gauthier
G.
and
Bêty
J.
2012
).
Survival and reproduction of adult snowy owls tracked by satellite
The Journal of Wildlife Management
76
1562
1567
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Therrien
J.F.
Gauthier
G.
Korpimaki
E.
and
Bêty
J.
2014a
).
Predation pressure by avian predators suggests summer limitation of small mammal populations in the Canadian Arctic
Ecology
95
56
67
CrossRef
Google Scholar
PubMed
Therrien
J.F.
Gauthier
G.
Pinaud
D.
and
Bêty
J.
2014b
).
Irruptive movements and breeding dispersal of snowy owls: a specialized predator exploiting a pulsed resource
Journal of Avian Biology
45
536
544
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Therrien
J.F.
Gauthier
G.
Robillard
A.
Lecomte
N.
and
Bêty
J.
2015
).
Ecology of Snowy Owls Breeding in Canada
Naturaliste Canadien
139
17
23
(In French)
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Therrien
J.F.
Weidensaul
S.
Brinker
D.
Huy
S.
Miller
T.
Jacobs
E.
et al.
2017
).
Winter use of a highly diverse suite of habitats by irruptive snowy owls
Northeastern Naturalist
24
B81
B89
Google Scholar
Tolvanen
A.
Eilu
P.
Juutinen
A.
Kangas
K.
Kivinen
M.
Markovaara-Koivisto
M.
et al.
2019
).
Mining in the Arctic environment – A review from ecological, socioeconomic and legal perspectives
Journal of Environmental Management
233
832
844
CrossRef
Google Scholar
PubMed
Walker
D.A.
Raynolds
M.K.
Daniels
F.J.A.
Einarsson
E.
Elvebakk
A.
Gould
W.A.
Katenin
A.E.
Kholod
S.D.
Markon
C.J.
Melnikov
E.S.
Moskalenko
N.G.
Talbot
S.S.
and
Yurtsev
B.A.
2005
).
The circumpolar vegetation map
Journal of Vegetation Science
16
267
285
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Watson
A.
1957
).
The behavior, breeding, and food-ecology of the Snowy Owl
Nyctea scandiaca
Ibis
99
419
462
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Wauchope
H.S.
Amano
T.
Sutherland
W.J.
and
Johnston
A.
2019
).
When can we trust population trends? A method for quantifying the effects of sampling interval and duration
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
10
2067
2078
Google Scholar
White
E.R
. (
2019
).
Minimum time required to detect population trends: the need for long-term monitoring programs
BioScience
69
40
46
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Wiebe
K.
Bidwell
M.
and
McCabe
R.
2023
).
Snowy Owls in central North America have regular migration and high philopatry to wintering sites though not always to home ranges
Avian Conservation & Ecology
18
14
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Zarfl
C.
and
Matthies
M.
2010
).
Are marine plastic particles transport vectors for organic pollutants to the Arctic?
Marine Pollution Bulletin
60
1810
1814
CrossRef
Google Scholar
PubMed
Figure 1.
Snowy Owl
Bubo scandiacus
confirmed breeding sites (red dots) within the known breeding range (grey outline; BirdLife International and Handbook of the Birds of the World 2021) across the circumpolar Arctic. Breeding sites include nests reported to the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (1990–2018;
= 150), eBird (1971–2022;
= 75), from GPS-tagged owls (2016–2021;
= 19), and nest locations from collaborators and from seven long-term monitoring sites in Russia, USA, Canada, Greenland, and Fennoscandia (1987–2020;
= 560). Graphs show the annual number of Snowy Owl nests (
-axis) found at the five monitoring sites between 1988 and 2020.
Figure 2.
(A) Proportional weights assigned to each site to estimate the inter-annual population growth rate of Snowy Owls
Bubo scandiacus.
(B) Inter-annual population growth rates (λ) of Snowy Owls combining five long-term monitoring sites (Wrangel Island, Fennoscandia, Karupelv Valley, Bylot Island Core, and Utqiagvik). The median is depicted with a thick blue solid line, while the 80% and 95% highest density prediction intervals are depicted with medium and thin blue lines, respectively. Predictions from each posterior draw are depicted with grey lines (
= 4,000). A horizontal dashed line where λ = 1.0 depicts a stable population. Monitoring data spanned different time intervals for each site; therefore, we weighted these population growth rates so the contribution of each site is proportional to its population size (details in
Appendix S3
).
Figure 3.
Per cent change in the number of breeding Snowy Owls
Bubo scandiacus
at five monitoring sites in the Arctic over three generations using two generation times (8 and 10.7 years). Per cent change beginning in (A) 1996 and (B) 1988 as reference years to assess changes over three generations (24 and 32 years, respectively). Black solid lines depict the median, 80% and 95% highest density intervals (HDIs), and thin grey lines depict predictive posterior draws from the model (
= 4,000). (C) and (D) depict the total per cent change over three generations (1996–2020). The caterpillar plot depicts the median (point), 80% and 95% HDIs (vertical lines), and the grey polygon depicts density of estimates. Colours (dark green to red) illustrate IUCN Red List Criteria A2.
Table 1.
Proportion of draws associated with different percentages of change in the number of breeding Snowy Owls
Bubo scandiacus
over three generations (1996–2020) at five monitoring sites in the Arctic. “Proportion of draws within” contains the proportion of posterior draws (
= 4,000) falling within each interval of IUCN Listing Criteria (“IUCN criteria”). “Cumulative proportion of draws” contains the cumulative sum of draws within each criterion and worse. “Per cent change criteria” describes IUCN Red List Criteria of per cent change over three generations. Square brackets indicate a value is included in the interval for IUCN criteria, while round parenthesis indicate the value is not included.
McCabe et al. supplementary material
McCabe et al. supplementary material
File
230.5 KB
A correction has been issued for this article:
Status assessment and conservation priorities for a circumpolar raptor: the Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus – CORRIGENDUM
R. A. McCabe
[Opens in a new window]
R. A. McCabe
T. Aarvak
[Opens in a new window]
T. Aarvak
A. Aebischer
K. Bates
J. Bety
[Opens in a new window]
J. Bety
L. Bollache
D. Brinker
C. Driscoll
K. H. Elliott
G. Fitzgerald
M. Fuller
G. Gauthier
[Opens in a new window]
G. Gauthier
O. Gilg
M. Gousy-Leblanc
D. Holt
K. O. Jacobsen
[Opens in a new window]
K. O. Jacobsen
D. Johnson
O. Kulikova
J. Lang
[Opens in a new window]
J. Lang
N. Lecomte
C. McClure
[Opens in a new window]
C. McClure
T. McDonald
I. Menyushina
E. Miller
V. V. Morozov
I. J. Øien
[Opens in a new window]
I. J. Øien
A. Robillard
[Opens in a new window]
A. Robillard
B. Rolek
[Opens in a new window]
B. Rolek
B. Sittler
N. Smith
A. Sokolov
N. Sokolova
R. Solheim
[Opens in a new window]
R. Solheim
M. Soloviev
M. Stoffel
S. Weidensaul
K. L. Wiebe
[Opens in a new window]
K. L. Wiebe
D. Zazelenchuck
and
J. F. Therrien
[Opens in a new window]
J. F. Therrien
Bird Conservation International
Volume 35
You have
Access
Open access
Cited by
Linked content
Please note a
has been issued for this article.
Cited by
Loading...
Cited by
Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by
Crossref
Korpimäki, Erkki

Banks, Peter B.
and
Klemola, Tero
2025.
Insights From Observations and Large‐Scale Field Experiments on Vole Population Cycles in Northern Europe: A 40‐Year Study of Predator–Prey Interactions

Ecology and Evolution,
Vol. 15,
Issue. 5,
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Paprocki, Neil

Kidd, Jeff
and
Conway, Courtney J.
2025.
Increased Mortality Rates Caused by Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Virus in a Migratory Raptor

Ecology and Evolution,
Vol. 15,
Issue. 7,
CrossRef
Google Scholar
McCabe, R. A.

Aarvak, T.

Aebischer, A.

Bates, K.

Bety, J.

Bollache, L.

Brinker, D.

Driscoll, C.

Elliott, K. H.

Fitzgerald, G.

Fuller, M.

Gauthier, G.

Gilg, O.

Gousy-Leblanc, M.

Holt, D.

Jacobsen, K. O.

Johnson, D.

Kulikova, O.

Lang, J.

Lecomte, N.

McClure, C.

McDonald, T.

Menyushina, I.

Miller, E.

Morozov, V. V.

Øien, I. J.

Robillard, A.

Rolek, B.

Sittler, B.

Smith, N.

Sokolov, A.

Sokolova, N.

Solheim, R.

Soloviev, M.

Stoffel, M.

Weidensaul, S.

Wiebe, K. L.

Zazelenchuck, D.
and
Therrien, J. F.
2025.
Status assessment and conservation priorities for a circumpolar raptor: the Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus – CORRIGENDUM

Bird Conservation International,
Vol. 35,
Issue. ,
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Zhemchuzhnikov, Mikhail K.

Roslin, Tomas

Coulson, Stephen J.

Bêty, Joël
and
Traveset, Anna
2026.
Assessing the Ecological Network of Svalbard Through Scaled Interaction Strength Data: Insights From a Century of Research

Ecology and Evolution,
Vol. 16,
Issue. 4,
CrossRef
Google Scholar
Google Scholar Citations
View all
Google Scholar citations
for this article.
Cancel
Confirm
Save article to Kindle
To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Find out more about the
Kindle Personal Document Service.
Status assessment and conservation priorities for a circumpolar raptor: the Snowy Owl
Bubo scandiacus
Volume 34
R. A. McCabe
(a1)
T. Aarvak
(a2)
A. Aebischer
(a3)
K. Bates
(a4)
J. Bety
(a5)
L. Bollache
(a6)
D. Brinker
(a7)
C. Driscoll
(a7)
K. H. Elliott
(a8)
G. Fitzgerald
(a9)
M. Fuller
(a10)
G. Gauthier
(a11)
O. Gilg
(a6)
M. Gousy-Leblanc
(a8)
D. Holt
(a12)
K.-O. Jacobsen
(a13)
D. Johnson
(a14)
O. Kulikova
(a15)
J. Lang
(a3)
N. Lecomte
(a16)
C. McClure
(a17)
T. McDonald
(a18)
I. Menyushina
(a19)
E. Miller
(a20)
V. V. Morozov
(a21)
I. J. Øien
(a2)
A. Robillard
(a11)
B. Rolek
(a17)
B. Sittler
(a3)
N. Smith
(a22)
A. Sokolov
(a23)
N. Sokolova
(a23)
R. Solheim
(a24)
M. Soloviev
(a25)
M. Stoffel
(a26)
S. Weidensaul
(a27)
K. L. Wiebe
(a26)
D. Zazelenchuck
(a28)
and
J. F. Therrien
(a1)
DOI:
Save article to Dropbox
To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account.
Find out more about saving content to Dropbox
Status assessment and conservation priorities for a circumpolar raptor: the Snowy Owl
Bubo scandiacus
Volume 34
R. A. McCabe
(a1)
T. Aarvak
(a2)
A. Aebischer
(a3)
K. Bates
(a4)
J. Bety
(a5)
L. Bollache
(a6)
D. Brinker
(a7)
C. Driscoll
(a7)
K. H. Elliott
(a8)
G. Fitzgerald
(a9)
M. Fuller
(a10)
G. Gauthier
(a11)
O. Gilg
(a6)
M. Gousy-Leblanc
(a8)
D. Holt
(a12)
K.-O. Jacobsen
(a13)
D. Johnson
(a14)
O. Kulikova
(a15)
J. Lang
(a3)
N. Lecomte
(a16)
C. McClure
(a17)
T. McDonald
(a18)
I. Menyushina
(a19)
E. Miller
(a20)
V. V. Morozov
(a21)
I. J. Øien
(a2)
A. Robillard
(a11)
B. Rolek
(a17)
B. Sittler
(a3)
N. Smith
(a22)
A. Sokolov
(a23)
N. Sokolova
(a23)
R. Solheim
(a24)
M. Soloviev
(a25)
M. Stoffel
(a26)
S. Weidensaul
(a27)
K. L. Wiebe
(a26)
D. Zazelenchuck
(a28)
and
J. F. Therrien
(a1)
DOI:
Save article to Google Drive
To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account.
Find out more about saving content to Google Drive
Status assessment and conservation priorities for a circumpolar raptor: the Snowy Owl
Bubo scandiacus
Volume 34
R. A. McCabe
(a1)
T. Aarvak
(a2)
A. Aebischer
(a3)
K. Bates
(a4)
J. Bety
(a5)
L. Bollache
(a6)
D. Brinker
(a7)
C. Driscoll
(a7)
K. H. Elliott
(a8)
G. Fitzgerald
(a9)
M. Fuller
(a10)
G. Gauthier
(a11)
O. Gilg
(a6)
M. Gousy-Leblanc
(a8)
D. Holt
(a12)
K.-O. Jacobsen
(a13)
D. Johnson
(a14)
O. Kulikova
(a15)
J. Lang
(a3)
N. Lecomte
(a16)
C. McClure
(a17)
T. McDonald
(a18)
I. Menyushina
(a19)
E. Miller
(a20)
V. V. Morozov
(a21)
I. J. Øien
(a2)
A. Robillard
(a11)
B. Rolek
(a17)
B. Sittler
(a3)
N. Smith
(a22)
A. Sokolov
(a23)
N. Sokolova
(a23)
R. Solheim
(a24)
M. Soloviev
(a25)
M. Stoffel
(a26)
S. Weidensaul
(a27)
K. L. Wiebe
(a26)
D. Zazelenchuck
(a28)
and
J. F. Therrien
(a1)
DOI:
Reply to:
Submit a response