This theme presents the trophic status of the lakes monitored between 2004 and 2025. Trophic levels are used to classify lakes according to their degree of biological productivity; their condition can vary from ultra-oligotrophic to hyper-eutrophic.**This third party metadata element was translated using an automated translation tool (Amazon Translate).**

PURPOSE:To quantify impacts of nutrient and sediment loading to plant and animal communities and the environmental conditions that support them in estuaries of the Southern Gulf of St. LawrenceDESCRIPTION:The MEQ monitoring program is being implemented in 35-40 estuaries in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence (sGSL) to support the development of a MEQ measure (threshold) to promote efforts to address nutrient enrichment in estuaries. The two main indicators included in the monitoring program are dissolved oxygen and eelgrass coverage which are used to assess the trophic status of estuaries within the region. The two factors most important for impacting the trophic status of estuaries are nitrogen loading and water residence time, i.e., water circulation. If water residence time is long and/or nitrogen loading is high, nutrient impacts are likely. A peer-reviewed manuscript has demonstrated that these two factors are predictive of the dissolved oxygen regime in the upper estuary and that publication successfully used dissolved oxygen to ascribe trophic status to estuaries. In a companion paper it was also determined that nitrogen loading was negatively correlated with eelgrass coverage. These two papers form the basis of the MEQ monitoring program (see attached). NOTES ON QUALITY CONTROL:Dissolved oxygen loggers require calibration prior to deployment and are checked for drift after retrieval (though drift isn't anticipated given optical sensor technology). In the event that dissolved oxygen loggers weren't cleared at a frequency sufficient to prevent data errors from occurring these data are removed prior to analysis. Additionally, data must be scrubbed of erroneous measurements which are relatively rare and very apparent. An error code of -888.88 is the primary error for dissolved oxygen loggers. Salinity probes rarely provide erroneous data and when they do it is typically the result of fouling.PHYSICAL SAMPLE DETAILS:Water is sampled bi-weekly to monthly using a Niskin water sampler at a depth of 0.5 m from the water surface, from May-November. Samples are processed in the laboratory in duplicate for chlorophyll a and seston within ~8 hours of being collected.SAMPLING METHODS:For each study estuary, dissolved oxygen is monitored continuously with optical dissolved oxygen loggers in the upper and mid-estuary. Tidal amplitude and salinity (NB and NS only) were also monitored at the upper estuary location only. Depth profiles for other water quality variables are taken at the bi-weekly or monthly scale as well as samples for seston (NB and NS only) and chlorophyll a (a proxy for phytoplankton). These parameters are monitored on a 3-year cycle except for two sites in PE and one site in NB and NS which are monitored annually: West and Wheatley, PE, Cocagne, NB and Pugwash, NS, respectively.Data is collected for eelgrass coverage by a collaborator between June-September, ideally during the same year we collect water quality data.Collaborators include the province of PEI’s Department of Environment, Water and Climate Change and the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence Coalition on Sustainability.USE LIMITATION:To ensure scientific integrity and appropriate use of the data, we would encourage you to contact the data custodian.

PURPOSE:In this study, we examined the structure and function of the Southampton Island marine food web across 149 species of benthic and pelagic invertebrates, fishes, marine mammals and seabirds collected from 2016 to 2019, to provide a baseline for future studies that aim to quantify temporal changes in food web structuring. More specifically,we used a multi-biomarker approach combining stable isotopes and HBIs to: (i) determine the vertical trophic structure of the marine food web, (ii) investigate the contribution of benthic and pelagic-derived prey to the higher trophic level species of the Arctic food web, and (iii) determine the role of ice algae and phytoplankton carbon source use across different trophic levels and compartments (pelagic and benthic). By shedding new light on the functioning of the Southampton Island food web and specifically how the contribution of ice algae and benthic habitat shapes its structure, these results will be relevant to adaptive management and conservation initiatives implemented in response to anthropogenic stressors and climate change. DESCRIPTION:Climate-driven alterations of the marine environment are most rapid in Arctic and subarctic regions, including Hudson Bay in northern Canada, where declining sea ice, warming surface waters and ocean acidification are occurring at alarming rates. These changes are altering primary production patterns that will ultimately cascade up through the food web. Here, we investigated (i) the vertical trophic structure of the Southampton Island marine ecosystem in northern Hudson Bay, (ii) the contribution of benthic and pelagic-derived prey to the higher trophic level species, and (iii) the relative contribution of ice algae and phytoplankton derived carbon in sustaining this ecosystem. For this purpose, we measured bulk stable carbon, nitrogen and sulfur isotope ratios as well as highly branched isoprenoids in samples belonging to 149 taxa, including invertebrates, fishes, seabirds and marine mammals. We found that the benthic invertebrates occupied 4 trophic levels and that the overall trophic system went up to an average trophic position of 4.8. The average δ34S signature of pelagic organisms indicated that they exploit both benthic and pelagic food sources, suggesting there are many interconnections between these compartments in this coastal area. The relatively high sympagic carbon dependence of Arctic marine mammals (53.3 ± 22.2 %) through their consumption of benthic invertebrate prey, confirms the important role of the benthic subweb for sustaining higher trophic level consumers in the coastal pelagic environment. Therefore, a potential decrease in the productivity of ice algae could lead to a profound alteration of the benthic food web and a cascading effect on this Arctic ecosystem.Collaborators:Centre for Earth Observation Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada - R´emi Amiraux, C.J. Mundy, Jens K. Ehn, Z.A. Kuzyk.Quebec-Ocean, Sentinel North and Takuvik, Biology Department, Laval University, Quebec, Quebec, Canada - Marie Pierrejean.Scottish Association for Marine Science, Oban, UK - Thomas A. Brown.Department of Natural Resource Sciences, McGill University, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, Canada - Kyle H. Elliott.Department of Biological Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada - Steven H. Ferguson, Cory J.D. Matthews, Cortney A. Watt, David J. Yurkowski.School of the Environment, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada - Aaron T. Fisk.Science and Technology Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada - Grant Gilchrist.College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK, USA - Katrin Iken.Department of Earth Sciences, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada - Audrey Limoges.Department of Integrative Biology, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada - Oliver P. Love, Wesley R. Ogloff.Department of Arctic Biology, The University Centre in Svalbard, Longyearbyen, Norway - Janne E. Søreide.

Manitoba forest section boundaries for the 2016-2021 Five Year Report on the Status of Forestry.Manitoba forest section boundaries for the 2016-2021 Five Year Report on the Status of Forestry. This dataset is used within the Insights workbook of Manitoba's Five Year Report on the Status of Forestry, 2016 - 2021 story map.

Manitoba green and white zone forest inventory statistics for the 2016-2021 Five Year Report on the Status of Forestry.Manitoba green and white zone forest inventory statistics for the 2016-2021 Five Year Report on the Status of Forestry. This dataset is used within the Insights workbook of Manitoba's Five Year Report on the Status of Forestry, 2016 - 2021 story map.

Manitoba ecozone boundaries for the 2016-2021 Five Year Report on the Status of Forestry.Manitoba ecozone boundaries for the 2016-2021 Five Year Report on the Status of Forestry. This dataset is used within the Insights workbook of Manitoba's Five Year Report on the Status of Forestry, 2016 - 2021 story map.

PURPOSE:These data have been updated following a Canadian Science Advice Secretariat (CSAS) Regional Science Advisory Process. Associated publications are available in the citation section below or will be posted on the Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Science Advisory Schedule as they become available.Determine the stock status of southern Gulf of St. Lawrence Atlantic Cod. DESCRIPTION:The yearly spawning stock biomass estimates of southern Gulf of St. Lawrence Atlantic Cod were obtained using a Statistical Catch-at-Age model as part of the stock assessment to year 2023.The yearly estimates presented come from Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulations. The yearly median estimates are provided, along with uncertainty estimates (2.5th, 25th, 75th and 97.5th percentiles). The values are in thousands of tons of spawning stock biomass. USE LIMITATION:To ensure scientific integrity and appropriate use of the data, we would encourage you to contact the data custodian.

PURPOSE:Understanding and predicting species range shifts is crucial for conservation amid global warming. This study analyzes life-history traits of four seal species (ringed (Pusa hispida Schreber, 1775), bearded (Erignathus barbatus Pallas, 1811), harp (Pagophilus groenlandicus Erxleben, 1777), and harbour (Phoca vitulina Linnaeus, 1758) seals) in the Canadian Arctic using data from Inuit subsistence harvests. Bearded seals are largest, followed by harp seals, harbour seals, and ringed seals. Seasonal blubber depth patterns show minimal variation in bearded seals, whereas harbour and ringed seals accumulate fat in open-water seasons and use it during ice-covered seasons. Endemic Arctic seals (ringed and bearded) exhibit greater longevity and determinate body growth, reaching maximum size by 5 years, while harbour and harp seals grow indeterminately, physically maturing around 10-15 years. Age of maturation varies, with ringed and harbour seals being more sensitive to environmental fluctuations. Most bearded seals reproduce successfully each year, while ringed seals exhibit more variability in their annual reproductive success. Analysis of isoprenoid lipids in liver tissue indicates that ringed and bearded seals rely on ice-algal production, whereas harp and harbour seals depend on open-water phytoplankton production. Bearded seals appear more specialized and potentially face less competition, while harp seals may adapt better to changing habitats. Despite expected range shifts to higher latitudes, all species exhibit tradeoffs, complicating predictions for the evolving Arctic environment. DESCRIPTION:This dataset contains the data reported in Steven H. Ferguson, Jeff W. Higdon, Brent G. Young, Stephen D. Petersen, Cody G. Carlyle, Ellen V. Lea, Caroline C. Sauvé, Doreen Kohlbach, Aaron T. Fisk, Gregory W. Thiemann, Katie R. N. Florko, Derek C. G. Muir, Charmain D. Hamilton, Magali Houde, Enooyaq Sudlovenick, and David J. Yurkowski. 2024. A comparative analysis of life-history features and adaptive strategies of Arctic and subarctic seal species - who will win the climate change challenge? Canadian Journal of Zoology 2024-0093.R1The data set includes species, location, harvest date, sex, age, standard length, girth, fat depth, teste size, parity status, pregnancy status, corpora lutea (n), corpus albicans (n), follicles (n). This dataset includes raw, unfiltered, and unprocessed historical data provided by harvesters that have not been screened for outliers. Individual users should screen the data for their specific use.Cite these data as:Steven H. Ferguson, Jeff W. Higdon, Brent G. Young, Stephen D. Petersen, Cody G. Carlyle, Ellen V. Lea, Caroline C. Sauvé, Doreen Kohlbach, Aaron T. Fisk, Gregory W. Thiemann, Katie R. N. Florko, Derek C. G. Muir, Charmain D. Hamilton, Magali Houde, Enooyaq Sudlovenick, and David J. Yurkowski. 2024. Arctic and Aquatic Research Division, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Winnipeg, MB. https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/ea9ff038-8b16-11ef-8cce-55cc7f028297

A Conservation Unit (CU) is a group of wild Pacific salmon sufficiently isolated from other groups that, if extirpated, is very unlikely to recolonize naturally within an acceptable timeframe, such as a human lifetime or a specified number of salmon generations.Holtby and Ciruna (2007) provided a framework for aggregating the five species of salmon (genus Oncorhynchus) found on Canada’s Pacific coast into species-specific CUs based on three primary characteristics: ecotypology, life history and genetics. The first stage in the description of the Conservation Units is based solely on ecology. The ecotypologies used in this framework include a combined characterization of both freshwater and near-shore marine environments, and is termed “joint adaptive zone”. The second stage of the description involves the use of life history, molecular genetics, and further ecological characterizations to group and partition the first stage units into the final Conservation Units. The result is CUs that are described through the joint application of all three axes. It is important to note that CUs are distinct from other aggregates of Pacific salmon, such as designatable units (DUs) under the Species at Risk Act or management units (MUs).CU Counting Sites:Salmon spawner enumeration data in the Pacific Region is stored and managed in the New Salmon Escapement Database (NuSEDS). The term “escapement” is used to refer to the group of mature salmon that have ‘escaped’ from various sources of exploitation, and returned to freshwater to spawn and reproduce. This data is assigned to a “Counting Site”, which may be a complete watercourse with a marine terminus, a tributary to a larger watercourse, or a defined reach within a watercourse that may or may not encompass the entire population but represents an index of the abundance of that population. CU Status:CUs form the basic unit for assessment under Canada’s Policy for the Conservation of Wild Salmon Policy (WSP) (DFO 2005). The biological status of a CU is evaluated using a number of metrics (Holt et al. 2009; Holt 2009), which indicate a WSP status zone: Red (poor status), Amber (marginal status), or Green (healthy status). A final step then incorporates all metric and status-related information into a final integrated status for each CU, along with expert commentary to support the final status determination (e.g., DFO 2012; DFO 2016). This information is used as inputs to fisheries management processes to help prioritize assessment activities and management actions.Note: CU boundaries were reviewed in 2020-2021 and have been updated from the BC Freshwater Atlas 1:50,000 scale to the BC Freshwater Atlas 1:20,000 scale. The CU boundaries were last updated in March 2023. Please be aware that CUs may be reviewed and are subject to change without notice. Please refer to Conservation Unit Review Requests-Form and Summary for a list of CU review requests that are ongoing or have been finalized.

A Conservation Unit (CU) is a group of wild Pacific salmon sufficiently isolated from other groups that, if extirpated, is very unlikely to recolonize naturally within an acceptable timeframe, such as a human lifetime or a specified number of salmon generations.Holtby and Ciruna (2007) provided a framework for aggregating the five species of salmon (genus Oncorhynchus) found on Canada’s Pacific coast into species-specific CUs based on three primary characteristics: ecotypology, life history and genetics. The first stage in the description of the Conservation Units is based solely on ecology. The ecotypologies used in this framework include a combined characterization of both freshwater and near-shore marine environments, and is termed “joint adaptive zone”. The second stage of the description involves the use of life history, molecular genetics, and further ecological characterizations to group and partition the first stage units into the final Conservation Units. The result is CUs that are described through the joint application of all three axes. It is important to note that CUs are distinct from other aggregates of Pacific salmon, such as designatable units (DUs) under the Species at Risk Act or management units (MUs).CU Counting Sites:Salmon spawner enumeration data in the Pacific Region is stored and managed in the New Salmon Escapement Database (NuSEDS). The term “escapement” is used to refer to the group of mature salmon that have ‘escaped’ from various sources of exploitation, and returned to freshwater to spawn and reproduce. This data is assigned to a “Counting Site”, which may be a complete watercourse with a marine terminus, a tributary to a larger watercourse, or a defined reach within a watercourse that may or may not encompass the entire population but represents an index of the abundance of that population. CU Status:CUs form the basic unit for assessment under Canada’s Policy for the Conservation of Wild Salmon Policy (WSP) (DFO 2005). The biological status of a CU is evaluated using a number of metrics (Holt et al. 2009; Holt 2009), which indicate a WSP status zone: Red (poor status), Amber (marginal status), or Green (healthy status). A final step then incorporates all metric and status-related information into a final integrated status for each CU, along with expert commentary to support the final status determination (e.g., DFO 2012; DFO 2016). This information is used as inputs to fisheries management processes to help prioritize assessment activities and management actions.Note: CU boundaries were reviewed in 2020-2021 and have been updated from the BC Freshwater Atlas 1:50,000 scale to the BC Freshwater Atlas 1:20,000 scale. The CU boundaries were last updated in March 2023. Please be aware that CUs may be reviewed and are subject to change without notice.Please refer to Conservation Unit Review Requests-Form and Summary for a list of CU review requests that are ongoing or have been finalized.