Climate-mediated sea-ice loss is disrupting the foraging ecology of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) across much of their range. As a result, there have been increased reports of polar bears foraging on seabird eggs across parts of their range. Given that polar bears have evolved to hunt seals on ice, they may not be efficient predators of seabird eggs. We investigated polar bears' foraging performance on common eider (Somateria mollissima) eggs on Mitivik Island, Nunavut, Canada to test whether bear decision-making heuristics are consistent with expectations of optimal foraging theory. Using aerial-drones, we recorded multiple foraging bouts over 11 days, and found that as clutches were depleted to completion, bears did not exhibit foraging behaviours matched to resource density. As the season progressed, bears visited fewer nests overall, but marginally increased their visitation to nests that were already empty. Bears did not display different movement modes related to nest density, but became less selective in their choice of clutches to consume. Lastly, bears that capitalized on visual cues of flushing eider hens significantly increased the number of clutches they consumed; however, they did not use this strategy consistently or universally. The foraging behaviours exhibited by polar bears in this study suggest they are inefficient predators of seabird eggs, particularly in the context of matching behaviours to resource density.

Marine megafauna species are affected by a wide range of anthropogenic threats. To evaluate the risk of such threats, species’ vulnerability to each threat must first be determined. We build on the existing threats classification scheme and ranking system of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species by assessing the vulnerability of 256 marine megafauna species to 23 at‐sea threats. The threats we considered included individual fishing gear types, climate‐change‐related subthreats not previously assessed, and threats associated with coastal impacts and maritime disturbances. Our ratings resulted in 70 species having high vulnerability ( v > 0.778 out of 1) to at least 1 threat, primarily drifting longlines, temperature extremes, or fixed gear. These 3 threats were also considered to have the most severe effects (i.e., steepest population declines). Overall, temperature extremes and plastics and other solid waste were rated as affecting the largest proportion of populations. Penguins, pinnipeds, and polar bears had the highest vulnerability to temperature extremes. Bony fishes had the highest vulnerability to drifting longlines and plastics and other solid waste; pelagic cetaceans to 4 maritime disturbance threats; elasmobranchs to 5 fishing threats; and flying birds to drifting longlines and 2 maritime disturbance threats. Sirenians and turtles had the highest vulnerability to at least one threat from all 4 categories. Despite not necessarily having severe effects for most taxonomic groups, temperature extremes were rated among the top threats for all taxa except bony fishes. The vulnerability scores we provide are an important first step in estimating the risk of threats to marine megafauna. Importantly, they help differentiate scope from severity, which is key to identifying threats that should be prioritized for mitigation.

Interspecific foraging associations (IFAs) are biological interactions where two or more species forage in association with each other. Climate‐induced reductions in Arctic sea ice have increased polar bear (Ursus maritimus) foraging in seabird colonies, which creates foraging opportunities for avian predators. We used drone video of bears foraging within a common eider (Somateria mollissima) colony on East Bay Island (Nunavut, Canada) in 2017 to investigate herring gull (Larus argentatus) foraging in association with bears. We recorded nest visitation by gulls followingn = 193 eider flushing events from nests during incubation. The probability of gulls visiting eider nests increased with higher number of gulls present (β = 0.14 ± 0.03 [SE],p < .001) and for nests previously visited by a bear (β = 1.14 ± 0.49 [SE],p < .02). In our model examining the probability of gulls consuming eggs from nests, we failed to detect statistically significant effects for the number of gulls present (β = 0.09 ± 0.05 [SE],p < .07) or for nests previously visited by a bear (β = −0.92 ± 0.71 [SE],p < .19). Gulls preferred to visit nests behind bears (χ² = 18, df = 1,p < .0001), indicating gulls are risk averse in the presence of polar bears. Our study provides novel insights on an Arctic IFA, and we present evidence that gulls capitalize on nests made available due to disturbance associated with foraging bears, as eiders disturbed off their nest allow gulls easier access to eggs. We suggest the IFA between gulls and polar bears is parasitic, as gulls are consuming terrestrial resources which would have eventually been consumed by bears. This finding has implications for estimating the energetic contribution of bird eggs to polar bear summer diets in that the total number of available clutches to consume may be reduced due to avian predators.