Antarctic Conservation/Management Flashcards
Hughes and Grant, 2017?
How can antarctica’s protected area system evolve to better protect the continents values under a muti party system?
ASPA designation has decreased
Protected areas work by limiting usage and visitors
But only effective if proactive management and monitoring
Engagement by more parties in ASPA development may increase education and enforcement
Almost all ASPAs located within claimant territories- consequence of history and logistics
Move to ASPA proposal by multiple parties- fully collaborative system with better coverage
Conservation is an overarching goal, but a gap in evaluation of environmental values worthy of protection- has lead to a patchy distribution of PAs
Terauds and Lee, 2016
How can the ACBRs be updated to include all ice free areas and proved evidence based foundation for conservation of biodiversity?
Added a 16th ACBR, increased total ACBR area to cover all ice free area
Different community composition across all ACBRs
4 ACBRs have no area protection
5 ACBRS have no protection for biodiversity
South Victoria land (MDV) has the highest protection of only 4.3% area
Shaw, et Al. 2014
How well does the exiting protected area system represent biodiversity and what are the risks for biological invasion?
1.5% of ice free area is designated as protected for biodiversity
Mean ACBR protected area =1%, none have >10%
Comparing to global, Antarctica lies in the lowest quartile for total % protection, mean protected area of each eco region/ACBR, and # of eco regions with 10% protection
Protected area status reflects management intent not outcome
Globally, 13% of area is protected, Antarctica only 1.5%
Protected areas close to sites of human activity
Antarctica should not be left out of CBD and global assessments
Chown et al, 2017
What is the state of Antarctic and southern ocean biodiversity and conservation and can we assess its progress with the Aichi targets?
Biodiversity prospects are similar to the rest of the planet in terms of CBD/strategic plans goals
Area protection alone may be insufficient if the PA system is not ecologically representative or effectively managed
Antarctica is considered a gold standard for conservation, not living up to that
Development of strategy and action plan for Antarctica would deliver road map and improve outlook
Coetzee, et Al. 2017
What is the progress and challenges of the establishment of PAs in terrestrial Antarctica?
ASPA network fails to capture biodiversity network and not resilient to threats
Network doesn’t include 5/16 ACBRs and no ACBR has >10% coverage
Expanding ASPAs needed- parties can direct and restrict the extent of human activity and its impacts
No clear set of objectives for biodiversity from stakeholders
SCP could help this
Continual assessment as things change is critical to SCP process
Critical for impact evaluations to be built into management plans
Wauchope et Al., 2019
How is the antarctic biodiversity covered/protected in the current PA system?
44% of species (not microbes) occurs within ASPAs, 52% of those are within one ASPA
Uneven ASPA protection across eco regions
Bias in ASPAs towards protecting easily detectable and charismatic species over less visible
Lack of representativeness of PAs at regional and species level
This provides foundation for systematic development of area protection via ATS
Leihy, et Al. 2019
How much of Antarctica can still be considered pristine wilderness and how does this overlap with biodiversity features?
~99% wilderness
Most non-wilderness areas are near research stations, ice free areas and coastal sites
Largest PA <0.2% of negligible impacted wilderness
High value wilderness is most pristine or most biodiverse
Inviolate wilderness does not capture any sites of high biodiversity
Antarctic wilderness is most of continent, but excludes much of its important biodiversity
Many high biodiversity sites not well represented in negligibly impacted wilderness
Fragmented set of pristine, inviolate areas free from human presence
Strong case for inclusion and planning of ASPAs
Rintoul, et Al. 2018
What is the fate of Antarctica under 2 scenarios and what are the choices that affect it?
High emissions - air temp +3C, collapse of ice shelves, sea level rise, exploited marine resources, shifts in community structure, increase in terrestrial vegetation and invasive species, increased humans with slowed PA establishment and failed management
low emissions - similar physical environment to today, some declines in species but mostly steady, focus on value of indigenous resources and improved conservation, protocol on tourism regulation and declaration of new PAs
High emissions, widespread and rapid change with global consequences
Actions can be taken now to slow environmental change, increase resilience and reduce risk
Wehi, et Al. 2021
How can the ATS be reimagined with an indigenous Māori framework to center connectedness, human and nonhuman Kim, responsibility and reciprocity?
Māori may be first humans to set eyes on the continent - Hui te Rangiora and crew + later explorers were observing and recording changes and physical environment, naming areas of risk, and predicting disturbance
Politics of Antarctica are rooted in discovery and sovereignty - tabula rasa
Antarctica is no longer uncharted and pristine
Critical to acknowledge the human-nature relationships that have been established and actively manage future impacts
Kaitiakitanga - Māori framework that centers responsibility and reciprocity
Māori recognize intrinsic link between well-being of people and land/water, have an inter generational responsibility to ensure reciprocal and sustainable relationship with Antarctica
Convey, et Al. 2010
What is the current knowledge of Antarctic terrestrial biodiversity and what are the challenges it faces with climate change and human presence?
3 biogeography zones: sub, mastitis and continental antarctic
Originally thought that most terrestrial buoys were recent colonist but data is inconsistent with this
Nematodes and present fauna almost entirely endemic
Degree and timescale of isolation for microbes similar to macrobiota
Climate change can lead to: increase local and long distance colonization, local population expansion, increased terrestrial biodiversity biomass and complexity, more complex ecosystem structure, switch from dominance of physical to biological factors driving ecosystem processes
But it’s all more complex than that with interactions!
Biodiversity and research stations occur in same ice free areas
Potential for transfer of biota between locations in Antarctica as people visit multiple locations
Data is skewed to few number of locations
Changes in some native ecosystems already apparent, limited to specific ecosystems, communities or species
Need more attention on importance of direct human impacts on ecosystem structure and function
Zeglin, et Al. 2009
What are the patterns of microbes activity in the MDV and the main drivers of its distribution?
Microbe activity higher in hydrologic margins vs. upland
Microbes activity in souls with higher connectivity to water body may be promoted by higher nutrient flux rates
Streams margins more activity than lakes, flowing water delivers more material over time
EC and OM are best predictors of activity
Rates of activity are typical of alkaline desert souls
Water availability promotes higher microbe mediated nutrient turnover related to pH, EC, OM
Activity could be completed constrained by geochem factors as well as hydrologic
Hawes et Al. 2021
How can lentil systems in the MDV be classified in order to determine areas that are distinctive or representative of ecological characteristics for management requirements?
Summer open water systems most susceptible to changes in meteorological conditions
Larger bodies of water have more complex planktonic structures not in smaller systems
Endorheic systems highly sensitive to climate variability that might affect hanges in water level
Contaminants can accumulate in endorheic systems
Frozen systems mean contaminants would not directly affect chem and biodiversity, but drilling is a high risk
Kettles are greatest risk of NNS colonization
Convey, et Al. 2014
How does spatial variation in physical and biological environmental properties drive Antarctic biodiversity?
Soils in MDV indicate the even in LGM antarctic terrestrial environment was not completely covered by ice
Antarctic biodiversity primarily driven by abiotic factors: soil chem and water availability
Temp has indirect effects on microbes by effecting rate of snow and ice melt and eventually soil moisture
Lake biological activity influenced by ice phenology: thickness, transparency, duration
Margin of snowbanks can be “greenhouse” zone with lichens, mosses, microbes active from regular moisture
Lakes in glaciers have a microbe aquatic ecosystem that influences biogeochemistry and nutrients on glaciers
Lichens grow 100x slower in MDV than maritime Antarctic
Major environmental drivers in terrestrial system: photoperiod, period of snow/ice cover, duration of presence of free water
Clear indication if historical legacy
Species that form current assemblages are ones that have survived glacial cycles and some that have overcome barriers
Isolation of system and sensitivity of species make it important place to study ecosystem response to climate change
Chown et Al. 2015
What advances have been made in understanding Antarctic biodiversity? How well is the region performing compared to Aichi targets?
Glaciation, differential diversification and isolation may have shaped evolution of southern biota
Lichens and mosses comparatively species rich in Antarctica
Terrestrial groups wel represented: tardigrades, nematodes, mites and springtails
Microbe diversity higher than first thought
Life exists below antarctic ice sheets
Energy availability and primary production detriment variation in species richness
Other factors are temp, surface area, heterogeneity
Region most likely doing poor in all targets but 8 and 9 (pollution and invasive species)
Inadequate knowledge of terrestrial diversity in many areas
Risks if non indigenous species at continent and local scales
Increase in water and carbon from warmer wetter summers could alter biodiversity in ice free
Absence of national collaboration to achieve region wide conservation objectives
Chown, et al., 2012
What are the threats facing ATS, and how can decision makes address these challenges?
regional warming, ocean acidification, changes in sea ice are most immediate conservation threats
Climate change elevates risk of nonindigenous species –> exacerbated with tourism and research
Human activity - increased risk of pollution
Activities adjacent to PAs may reduce the values they protect
CEP has yet to adopt conservation planning approach
With climate change, antarctic resource extraction will become more feasible –> Nations outside the ATS are not bound by its provisions
Scientific community can help with challenges by investigating and making outcomes more accessible to policy makes
Action to adapt and mitigate consequences must be taken by all visitors and NAPs
