Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:31:35.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Improving the use of biological data in Antarctic management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2016

Maureen A. Lynch ,
Catherine M. Foley ,
Lesley H. Thorne  and
Heather J. Lynch
Maureen A. Lynch*
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolution, 106 Life Sciences Building, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA
Catherine M. Foley
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolution, 106 Life Sciences Building, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA
Lesley H. Thorne
Affiliation:
School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, 159 Challenger Hall, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA
Heather J. Lynch
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolution, 106 Life Sciences Building, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA
*
maureen.a.lynch@stonybrook.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Antarctic Treaty System requires that the effects of potential human disturbance be evaluated, such as through the development and evaluation of Initial and Comprehensive Environmental Evaluations (IEEs and CEEs), and through the implementation of Management Plans for Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs) and Antarctic Specially Managed Areas (ASMAs). The effectiveness of these management processes hinges on the quality and transparency of the data presented, particularly because independent validation is often difficult or impossible due to the financial and logistical challenges of working in the Antarctic. In a review of these documents and their treatment of wildlife survey data, we find that the basic elements of best data practices are often not followed; biological data are often uncited or out-of-date and rarely include estimates of uncertainty that would allow any subsequent changes in the distribution or abundance of wildlife to be rigorously assessed. We propose a set of data management and use standards for Antarctic biological data to improve the transparency and quality of these evaluations and to facilitate improved assessment of both immediate and long-term impacts of human activities in the Antarctic.

Keywords

Antarctic conservationAntarctic Specially Protected AreasAntarctic Treaty SystemBest Available ScienceComprehensive Environmental EvaluationManagement Plan
Type
Opinion
Information
Antarctic Science , Volume 28 , Issue 6 , December 2016 , pp. 425 - 431
Check for updates
Copyright
© Antarctic Science Ltd 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alfred Wegener Institute . 2004. Rebuild and operation of the wintering station Neumayer III and retrogradation of the present Neumayer Station II Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation draft. Bremerhaven, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research.Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 2005. Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment in Antarctica. Available at http://www.ats.aq/documents/recatt/Att266_e.pdf.Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 2006. Draft Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation of new Indian research base at Larsemann Hills, Antarctica. ATCM XXX working paper 004. Available at http://www.ats.aq/documents/ATCM30/wp/ATCM30_wp004_e.doc.Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 2011a. On the need of constant monitoring of the values of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas and Antarctic Specially Managed Areas. ATCM XXXIV working paper 057. Available at www.ats.aq/documents/ATCM34/wp/ATCM34_wp057_e.doc.Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 2011b. Remote sensing techniques for improved monitoring of environment and climate change in Antarctica. ATCM XXXIV working paper 015 rev.1. Available at www.ats.aq/documents/ATCM34/wp/ATCM34_wp015_e.doc.Google Scholar
ATCM. 2011c. Draft Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation construction and operation of the Jang Bogo Antarctic research station, Terra Nova Bay, Antarctica. ATCM XXXIV working paper 042. Available at www.ats.aq/documents/ATCM34/wp/ATCM34_wp042_e.doc.Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 2012. Penguin monitoring via remote sensing. ATCM XXXV working paper 018. Available at http://www.ats.aq/documents/ATCM35/wp/ATCM35_wp018_e.doc.Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 2013. Remote sensing for monitoring Antarctic Specially Protected Areas: progress on use of multispectral and hyperspectral data for monitoring Antarctic vegetation. ATCM XXXVI information paper 029. Available at http://www.ats.aq/documents/ATCM36/ip/ATCM36_ip029_e.doc.Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 2014a. Informal intersessional discussion on the need of ASPA values monitoring in connection with ASPA Management Plan reviews. ATCM XXXVII working paper 059. Available at http://www.ats.aq/documents/ATCM37/wp/ATCM37_wp059_e.doc.Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 2014b. Draft Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation for the construction and operation of a new Chinese research station, Victoria Land, Antarctica. ATCM XXXVII working paper 016. Available at http://www.ats.aq/documents/ATCM37/wp/ATCM37_wp016_e.doc.Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 2016. Report of the intersessional contact group established to review the guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment in Antarctica. ATCM XXXIX working paper 015. Available at http://www.ats.aq/documents/ATCM39/wp/ATCM39_wp015_e.doc.Google Scholar
Barber-Meyer, S.M., Kooyman, G.L. & Ponganis, P.J. 2007. Estimating the relative abundance of emperor penguins at inaccessible colonies using satellite imagery. Polar Biology, 30, 1565–1570.Google Scholar
Bargagli, R. 2008. Environmental contamination in Antarctic ecosystems. Science of the Total Environment, 400, 212–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bender, N.A., Crosbie, K. & Lynch, H.J. 2016. Patterns of tourism in the Antarctic Peninsula region: a 20-year analysis. Antarctic Science, 28, 10.1017/S0954102016000031.Google Scholar
British Antarctic Survey . 2007. Proposed construction and operation of Halley VI Research Station, and demolition and removal of Halley V Research Station, final Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation. Cambridge: British Antarctic Survey.Google Scholar
Brown, A.L. 1990. Measuring the effect of aircraft noise on sea birds. Environmental International, 16, 587–592.Google Scholar
Burgman, M., Carr, A., Godden, L., Gregory, R., McBride, M., Flander, L. & Maguire, L. 2011. Redefining expertise and improving ecological judgement. Conservation Letters, 4, 81–87.Google Scholar
Chown, S.L., Huiskes, A.H.L., Gremmen, N.J.M., Lee, J.E., Terauds, A., Crosbie, K., Frenot, Y., Hughes, K.A., Imura, S., Kiefer, K., Lebouvier, M., Raymond, B., Tsujimoto, M., Ware, C., van de Vijver, B. & Bergstrom, D.M. 2012. Continent-wide risk assessment for the establishment of nonindigenous species in Antarctica. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 4938–4943.Google Scholar
Clark, W., Mitchell, R., Cash, D. & Alcock, F. 2002. Information as influence: how institutions mediate the impact of scientific assessments on global environmental affairs. Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 7 pp.Google Scholar
Cook, C.N., Inayatullah, S., Burgman, M.A., Sutherland, W.J. & Wintle, B.A. 2014. Strategic foresight: how planning for the unpredictable can improve environmental decision-making. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 29, 531–541.Google Scholar
Cooper, J., Crawford, R.J.M., de Villiers, M.S., Dyer, B.M., Hofmeyr, G.J.G. & Jonker, A. 2009. Disease outbreaks among penguins at sub-Antarctic Marion Island: a conservation concern. Marine Ornithology, 37, 193–196.Google Scholar
Copsey, A.D. 1999. Including best available science in the designation and protection of critical areas under the Growth Management Act. Seattle University Law Review, 23, 97–143.Google Scholar
Croxall, J.P. & Nicol, S. 2004. Management of Southern Ocean fisheries: global forces and future sustainability. Antarctic Science, 16, 569–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curry, C.H., McCarthy, J.S., Darragh, H.M., Wake, R.A., Todhunter, R. & Terris, J. 2002. Could tourist boots act as vectors for disease transmission in Antarctica? Journal of Travel Medicine, 9, 190–193.Google Scholar
Czech Republic . 2004. Draft Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation for Czech scientific station in Antarctica. Prague: Ministry of the Environment of the Czech Republic, 132 pp. Available at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=CB0E3FEFCD5AC2BDC9471E1D79AA1C0A?doi=10.1.1.118.381&rep=rep1&type=pdf.Google Scholar
Doak, D.F. & Cutler, K. 2014. Re-evaluating evidence for past population trends and predicted dynamics of Yellowstone grizzly bears. Conservation Letters, 7, 312–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doremus, H. 2004. The purposes, effects, and future of the Endangered Species Act’s best available science mandate. Environmental Law, 34, 397–450.Google Scholar
Drescher, M., Perera, A.H., Johnson, C.J., Buse, L.J., Drew, C.A. & Burgman, M.A. 2013. Toward rigorous use of expert knowledge in ecological research. Ecosphere, 4, 10.1890/ES12-00415.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frenot, Y., Chown, S.L., Whinam, J., Selkirk, P.M., Convey, P., Skotnicki, M. & Bergstrom, D.M. 2005. Biological invasions in the Antarctic: extent, impacts and implications. Biological Reviews, 80, 45–72.Google Scholar
Fretwell, P.T., LaRue, M.A., Morin, P., Kooyman, G.L., Wienecke, B., Ratcliffe, N., Fox, A.J., Fleming, A.H., Porter, C. & Trathan, P.N. 2012. An emperor penguin population estimate: the first global, synoptic survey of a species from space. PLoS ONE, 7, 10.1371/journal.pone.0033751.Google Scholar
Gerlach, J.D., Williams, L.K. & Forcina, C.E. 2012. Data selection for making biodiversity management decisions: best available science and institutionalized agency norms. Administration & Society, 45, 213–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glicksman, R.L. 2008. Bridging data gaps through modeling and evaluation of surrogates: use of best available science to protect biological diversity under the National Forest Management Act. Indiana Law Journal, 83, 485–527.Google Scholar
Gosselin, F. 2009. Management on the basis of the best scientific data or integration of ecological research within management? Lessons learned from the northern spotted owl saga on the connection between research and management in conservation biology. Biodiversity & Conservation, 18, 777–793.Google Scholar
Kiernan, K. & McConnell, A. 2001. Impacts of geoscience research on the physical environment of the Vestfold Hills, Antarctica. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 48, 767–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, S.L., Schick, R.S., Donovan, C., Booth, C.G., Burgman, M., Thomas, L. & Harwood, J. 2015. An interim framework for assessing the population consequences of disturbance. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 6, 1150–1158.Google Scholar
Knol, A.B., Slottje, P., van der Sluijs, J.P. & Lebret, E. 2010. The use of expert elicitation in environmental health impact assessment: a seven step procedure. Environmental Health, 9, 10.1186/1476-069X-9-19.Google Scholar
LaRue, M.A., Lynch, H.J., Lyver, P.O.B., Barton, K., Ainley, D.G., Pollard, A., Fraser, W.R. & Ballard, G. 2014. A method for estimating colony sizes of Adélie penguins using remote sensing imagery. Polar Biology, 37, 507–517.Google Scholar
Landinfo . 2014. Buying satellite imagery: high resolution satellite imagery pricing info. Landinfo Worldwide Mapping. Available at: http://www.landinfo.com/satellite-imagery-pricing.html.Google Scholar
Lynch, H.J. & LaRue, M.A. 2014. First global census of the Adélie penguin. Auk, 131, 457–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, T.G., Burgman, M.A., Fidler, F., Kuhnert, P.M., Low-Choy, S., McBride, M. & Mengersen, K. 2012. Eliciting expert knowledge in conservation science. Conservation Biology, 26, 29–38.Google Scholar
McMahon, C.R., Howe, H., van den Hoff, J., Alderman, R., Brolsma, H. & Hindell, M.A. 2014. Satellites, the all-seeing eyes in the sky: counting elephant seals from space. PLoS ONE, 9, 10.1371/journal.pone.0092613.Google Scholar
Murray, J.V., Goldizen, A.W., O’Leary, R.A., McAlpine, C.A., Possingham, H.P. & Choy, S.L. 2009. How useful is expert opinion for predicting the distribution of a species within and beyond the region of expertise? A case study using brush-tailed rock-wallabies Petrogale penicillata . Journal of Applied Ecology, 46, 842–851.Google Scholar
Nowacek, D.P., Thorne, L.H., Johnston, D.W. & Tyack, P.L. 2007. Responses of cetaceans to anthropogenic noise. Mammal Review, 37, 81–115.Google Scholar
Pullin, A.S., Knight, T.M., Stone, D.A. & Charman, K. 2004. Do conservation managers use scientific evidence to support their decision-making? Biological Conservation, 119, 245–252.Google Scholar
Pullin, A.S. & Stewart, G.B. 2006. Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology, 20, 1647–1656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ryder, D.S., Tomlinson, M., Gawne, B. & Likens, G.E. 2010. Defining and using ‘best available science’: a policy conundrum for the management of aquatic ecosystems. Marine and Freshwater Research, 61, 821–828.Google Scholar
Stark, J.S., Snape, I. & Riddle, M.J. 2006. Abandoned Antarctic waste disposal sites: monitoring remediation outcomes and limitations at Casey Station. Ecological Management & Restoration, 7, 21–31.Google Scholar
Sutherland, W.J., Pullin, A.S., Dolman, P.M. & Knight, T.M. 2004. The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19, 305–308.Google Scholar
Sullivan, P.J., Acheson, J.M., Angermeier, P.L., Faast, T., Flemma, J., Jones, C.M., Knudsen, E.E., Minello, T.J., Secor, D.H., Wunderlich, R. & Zanetell, B.A. 2006. Defining and implementing best available science for fisheries and environmental science, policy, and management. Fisheries, 31, 460–465.Google Scholar
Tuck, G.N., Polacheck, T. & Bulman, C.M. 2003. Spatio-temporal trends of longline fishing effort in the Southern Ocean and implications for seabird bycatch. Biological Conservation, 114, 1–27.Google Scholar
Van Cleve, F.B, Simenstad, C., Goetz, F. & Mumford, T. 2004. Application of the “best available science” in ecosystem restoration: lessons learned from large-scale restoration project efforts in the USA. Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership Technical Report No. 2004-01. Seattle: Washington Sea Grant Program, University of Washington, 36 pp.Google Scholar
Waluda, C.M., Dunn, M.J., Curtis, M.L. & Fretwell, P.T. 2014. Assessing penguin colony size and distribution using digital mapping and satellite remote sensing. Polar Biology, 37, 1849–1855.Google Scholar
Weimerskirch, H. 2004. Diseases threaten Southern Ocean albatrosses. Polar Biology, 27, 374–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar