The presence of two forms of charr distinguished by body size were reported from Bear Island by Klemetsen et al. (1985). The taxon Salvelinus salvelinoinsularis was subsequently associated with the smaller-growing form, and its diet was described as comprising "benthic invertebrates" (Kottelat and Freyhof 2007). A specimen deriving from Lake Ellasjøen was later designated as lectotype, and the larger-growing form was assumed to be conspecific with the congeneric Artic Charr (S. alpinus), which is widespread in northern Europe (Kottelat and Freyhof 2009).

However, recent research has suggested that three forms of charr occur on the island. These consist of a large, partially piscivorous littoral benthivore and a smaller pelagic planktivore which both inhabit a number of lakes, and a small profundal benthivore currently known only from Lake Ellasjøen (Hawley et al. 2016).

For the purposes of this assessment, the latter form is assumed to represent S. salvelinoinsularis, although in most published literature all charr inhabiting Bear Island are considered to represent a single polymorphic subpopulation of S. alpinus.

At the broader scale, there remains considerable uncertainty regarding the evolutionary relationships and taxonomy of the genus Salvelinus (Reist et al. 2013, Taylor 2016, Whiteley et al. 2019).

Members of this genus exhibit bewildering subpopulation-scale ecological and morphological variability throughout their global range. When such divergence occurs within a single lake system, the different sympatric forms are often referred to as “morphs”, “morphotypes”, "ecomorphs" or "ecotypes" (Snorrason et al. 1994, Adams et al. 1998, Knudsen et al. 2006, Klemetsen 2010, Muir et al. 2016).

Some of these subpopulations and sympatric forms have over time been described as nominal species, including at least 15 from North America, around 30 from Europe and 12 from Siberia and the Far East. However, these taxa encompass only a small fraction of charr distribution and diversity, and there exist significant differences in opinion regarding which of them should be considered valid (Savvaitova 1995, Adams and Maitland 2007, Kottelat and Freyhof 2007, Klemetsen 2010, Whiteley et al. 2019).

With the above in mind, there is an emerging consensus that the striking genetic and phenotypic diversity exhibited by members of this genus cannot be adequately represented by a single accepted taxonomic system (Whiteley et al. 2019).

The Red List currently follows the nomenclature provided by Fricke et al. (2024), albeit a species-oriented conservation management approach is unlikely to prove appropriate for members of this genus (Barthelemy et al. 2023; also see 'Conservation').

Global and European regional assessment: Critically Endangered (CR)
EU 27 regional assessment: Not Recorded

The Bear Island Charr has an extremely restricted range (area of occupancy (AOO) c. 4 km²), which meets the threshold for the Critically Endangered category under Criterion B2 (AOO < 10 km²). It is present at a single location where the quality of habitat is estimated to be declining, mostly due to organic pollution. Therefore, this species is assessed as Critically Endangered under Criterion B (B2ab(iii)).

This species is native to the remote Bear Island (no. Bjørnøya), located in the Barents Sea at the southern extremity of the Svalbard Archipelago, Norway. It is currently known only from Lake Ellasjøen in the south of the island (see 'Taxonomic Notes'), the small size of which precludes its accurate depiction on the range map accompanying this assessment.

This species' current population size and trend have not been quantified.

Lake Ellasjøen is a relatively small oligotrophic and monomictic postglacial lake characterised by year-round low water temperatures. It is covered by ice and snow cover for 8.5-9.5 months of the year, and there is significant seasonality in photoperiod plus primary and secondary production. The lake has a steep rocky shoreline and a maximum depth of 34 metres. The resident charr stock is completely landlocked due to the steep nature of the lake's outlet to the sea. There are no aquatic plants with the exception of some scattered submerged mosses.

This species occupies profundal epibenthic habitats, where it feeds predominantly on aquatic invertebrates. It occurs sympatrically with both of the other charr forms recorded on the island (see 'Taxonomic Notes').

The maximum recorded age is 16 years, and sexual maturity is reached at age 6+. The ice-free season begins in late June, and coincides with the annual reproductive period which peaks in August. Unlike most congeners, this species does not appear to develop a pronounced epigamic colour pattern.

With the exception of a staffed meterological station, Bear Island is undeveloped and there are no industrial activities in the vicinity. Nevertheless, the charr resident in Lake Ellasjøen contain some of the highest levels of persistent organic pollutants detected above the Arctic Circle. These contaminants are predominantly transported from the marine environment by seabirds, and deposited into the lake as guano. As a result, the body tissues of charr individuals inhabiting Lake Ellasjøen contain high levels of organohalogenated compounds (OHCs) compared to those from other lakes on the island, and there is evidence to suggest that recruitment and growth rates may be negatively impacted. The highest contaminant levels have been reported in the largest charr individuals.

Warming of the lake due to climate change constitutes an additional ongoing and future threat.

This species is not used or traded.

Bear Island was established as a national nature reserve in 2002.

A series of studies investigating the effects of OHCs on the charr in Lake Ellasjøen have been published, and regular contaminant monitoring has been proposed by researchers.

This species is not currently recognised by the relevant authorities in Norway, where it is treated as a subpopulation of the Arctic Charr (Salvelinus alpinus). The taxonomy of Eurasian charrs is in need of review (see 'Taxonomic Notes'), and it has been widely recommended that their conservation management must be considered independent of their systematic classification. Each subpopulation should therefore be assessed individually, taking into account its evolutionary and genetic significance coupled with the ongoing population trend and threats to result in a priority ranking permitting the effective allocation of conservation resources through the development of site-specific, catchment-scale management plans. Sympatric morphological forms should also be managed separately, depending on their respective habitat preferences, diets and life histories. The abundance trends of many subpopulations remain unknown, and their individual assessments should ideally form the basis of future research efforts in order to ensure appropriate prioritisation. In practice, such efforts should ideally be coordinated at local, national or regional scales.