DOCSLIB.ORG

Warsaw, Poland, 6 to 17 July 2015)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Annex 6 Report of the Working Group on Ecosystem Monitoring and Management (Warsaw, Poland, 6 to 17 July 2015) Content Page Opening of the meeting ...................................................................... 219 Adoption of the agenda and organisation of the meeting ............................... 219 The krill-centric ecosystem and issues related to management of the krill fishery ............................................................................. 220 Issues for the present ....................................................................... 220 Fishing activities ........................................................................ 220 Krill Fishery Report ................................................................. 220 Redevelopment of the CCAMLR database ........................................ 221 Green weight estimation ............................................................ 222 Fishery notifications ................................................................. 222 Fishing gear library .................................................................. 224 Scientific observation ................................................................... 224 Krill biology, ecology and management .............................................. 227 Role of fish in the ecosystem ........................................................... 232 Feedback management (FBM) ......................................................... 234 Submitted approaches ............................................................... 237 FBM in Subarea 48.1 ............................................................. 237 Development of FBM in Subarea 48.2 ......................................... 239 A general approach to FBM at the SSMU scale ............................... 241 General ............................................................................ 243 General considerations for management of the krill fishery ..................... 244 State of the krill-based food web at present .................................... 244 Precautionary requirements for predators at SSMU-scales ................... 248 Using existing data and monitoring ............................................. 249 Further development of at-sea monitoring and CEMP sites .................. 250 Structured fishing to further FBM .............................................. 253 Implementation of FBM ......................................................... 253 Future work plan to progress stage 2 ............................................... 253 Current state of the krill-based ecosystem and the fishery .................... 254 Stage 2 subdivision of catch and/or update of trigger level ................... 256 Precautionary requirements for predators at SSMU scales ................... 256 Krill surveys and CEMP in stage 2 ............................................. 256 General ............................................................................ 258 CEMP and WG-EMM-STAPP ........................................................ 259 CEMP data submission .............................................................. 259 New methods and tools for CEMP .............................................. 259 CEMP monitoring in Area 48 ................................................... 262 Spatial correlation of CEMP parameters ....................................... 264 Standardisation ................................................................... 264 WG-EMM-STAPP .................................................................. 266 Integrated assessment model ........................................................... 266 Collection of fishing vessel acoustic data ............................................. 267 Scientific surveys undertaken from fishing vessels ............................... 269 217 Proposals for future krill surveys ................................................... 270 Multinational coordination ............................................................. 271 Spatial management .......................................................................... 273 Marine protected areas (MPAs) ........................................................... 273 MPA Planning Domain 1 (Western Antarctic Peninsula and southern Scotia Sea) .............................................................. 273 MPA Planning Domains 3 and 4 (Weddell Sea) ...................................... 276 Approaches to MPA planning in the boundary region between Domains 1 and 3 ..................................................... 279 Archiving of background information and data layers used in MPA planning processes ..................................................... 280 Vulnerable marine ecosystems ............................................................ 282 Advice to the Scientific Committee and its working groups............................ 283 Future work ................................................................................... 284 Streamlining the work of the Scientific Committee and its working groups .......... 284 Joint workshops ............................................................................. 285 Workshop reports ........................................................................... 286 Climate change ............................................................................. 286 Understanding CCAMLR’s approach to management .................................. 287 FBM ......................................................................................... 287 Three-year work plan ................................................................... 287 Other business ................................................................................ 287 The CCAMLR Scientific Scholarship Scheme .......................................... 287 CEMP Special Fund ........................................................................ 288 The Antarctic Wildlife Research Fund ................................................... 289 CCAMLR Science ........................................................................... 290 WG-EMM Convener ....................................................................... 290 Author affiliation of working group papers .............................................. 290 GEF proposal ............................................................................... 291 CCAMLR website .......................................................................... 291 Adoption of the report and close of the meeting ......................................... 291 References ..................................................................................... 292 Tables ........................................................................................... 295 Appendix A: List of Participants ...................................................... 300 Appendix B: Agenda .................................................................. 305 Appendix C: List of Documents....................................................... 306 218 Report of the Working Group on Ecosystem Monitoring and Management (Warsaw, Poland, 6 to 17 July 2015) Opening of the meeting 1.1 The 2015 meeting of WG-EMM was held at the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Warsaw, Poland, from 6 to 17 July 2015. The meeting was convened by Dr S. Kawaguchi (Australia). The meeting was opened by Dr M. Kaniewska-Krolak (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development) and Prof. P. Jonczyk (Institute of Biochemistry and Biophysics, PAS) who welcomed the Working Group to Warsaw. 1.2 Dr Kawaguchi welcomed participants (Appendix A) and reviewed the current work of WG-EMM. He also outlined the meeting’s agenda that focused on the krill-centric ecosystem and issues related to the development of the feedback management (FBM) of the krill fishery. Adoption of the agenda and organisation of the meeting 1.3 The Working Group discussed the provisional agenda. While there was no specific agenda item dealing with climate change, WG-EMM reiterated the importance of climate change in its work. The Working Group agreed to note the discussion points that were relevant to climate change for further consideration by the Scientific Committee. The agenda was adopted (Appendix B). Subgroups were formed to address detailed aspects of the agenda. 1.4 Documents submitted to the meeting are listed in Appendix C. While the report has few references to the contributions of individuals and co-authors, the Working Group thanked all authors of papers for their valuable contributions to the work presented to the meeting. 1.5 In this report, paragraphs that provide advice to the Scientific Committee and its other working groups have been highlighted; these paragraphs are listed in Item 4. 1.6 The report was prepared by T. Brey (Germany), A. Constable (Australia), R. Currey (New Zealand), C. Darby (UK), O.R. Godø (Norway), S. Grant and S. Hill (UK), B. Krafft (Norway), J. Melbourne-Thomas (Australia), D. Ramm, K. Reid and L. Robinson (Secretariat), C. Reiss (USA), M. Santos (Argentina), C. Southwell (Australia), P. Trathan and J. Watkins (UK) and G. Watters (USA). 219 The krill-centric ecosystem and issues related to management of the krill fishery Issues for the present Fishing activities Krill Fishery Report 2.1 The Working Group reviewed the draft krill fishery report (WG-EMM-15/30) noting that: (i) in 2013/14: (a) 12 vessels fished in Subareas 48.1, 48.2 and 48.3 (b) Subarea 48.1 was closed on 17 May 2014 when the catch of krill in that
Recommended publications
  • Final Report of the Thirty-Second Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting

    Final Report of the Thirty-Second Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting

    Final Report of the Thirty-second Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting ANTARCTIC TREATY CONSULTATIVE MEETING Final Report of the Thirty-second Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting Baltimore, United States 6–17 April 2009 Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty Buenos Aires 2009 Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (32nd : 2009 : Baltimore) Final Report of the Thirtieth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting. Baltimore, United States, 6–17 April 2009. Buenos Aires : Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty, 2009. 292 p. ISBN 978-987-1515-08-0 1. International law – Environmental issues. 2. Antarctic Treaty system. 3. Environmental law – Antarctica. 4. Environmental protection – Antarctica. DDC 341.762 5 ISBN 978-987-1515-08-0 Contents VOLUME 1 (in hardcopy and CD) Acronyms and Abbreviations 11 PART I. FINAL REPORT 13 1. Final Report 15 2. CEP XII Report 85 3. Appendices 159 Declaration on the 50th Anniversary of the Antarctic Treaty 161 Declaration on the International Polar Year and Polar Science 163 Preliminary Agenda for ATCM XXXIII 165 PART II. MEASURES, DECISIONS AND RESOLUTIONS 167 1. Measures 169 Measure 1 (2009): ASMA No 3 – Cape Denison, Commonwealth Bay, George V Land, East Antarctica 171 Measure 2 (2009): ASMA No 7 – South-west Anvers Island and Palmer Basin 173 Measure 3 (2009): ASPA No 104 – Sabrina Island, Balleny Islands 175 Measure 4 (2009): ASPA No 113 – Litchfi eld Island, Arthur Harbour, Anvers Island, Palmer Archipelago 177 Measure 5 (2009): ASPA No 121 – Cape Royds, Ross Island 179 Measure 6 (2009): ASPA No 125 – Fildes Peninsula,
  • Pw-Zoom” – the Uav of Warsaw University of Technology

    Pw-Zoom” – the Uav of Warsaw University of Technology

    ARCHIVEOFMECHANICALENGINEERING VOL. LXIV 2017 Number 1 DOI: 10.1515/meceng-2017-0003 Key words: UAV, unmanned aircraft, photogrammetry mission, orthophotomaps MIROSŁAW RODZEWICZ,1 DOMINIK GŁOWACKI,1 JAROSŁAW HAJDUK2 SOME DYNAMIC ASPECTS OF PHOTOGRAMMETRY MISSIONS PERFORMED BY “PW-ZOOM” – THE UAV OF WARSAW UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY The article presents the analyses of the flights carried out the by the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) named PW-ZOOM used to perform a photogrammetric mission and monitoring of fauna in Antarctic areas. The analyses focus on the deviations of the optical axis of the photo-camera which occurred during photogrammetric flights carried out on the same route but during several Antarctic expeditions performed in subsequent years (2014 and 2015). The results were subjected to correlation tests with weather conditions (wind speed and variability). The basis for these analyses are the data from the onboard signal recorder integrated with an autopilot. 1. Introduction MONICA is the acronym for the Polish-Norwegian project funded by the Norway Grants programme entitled „Monitoring the impact of climate change on Antarctic ecosystems”. The project is carried out under the patronage of the Na- tional Centre for Research and Development and involves three partner institutions: the Polish Academy of Sciences, the Warsaw University of Technology, and the Norwegian Northern Research Institute. The objective of the project was to study the impact of climate change on the Antarctic ecosystem and biodiversity by moni- toring penguin populations, which are the bio-indicator of the abundance of marine waters in the Antarctic region [1] (Fig.1), and performing photogrammetric work on the selected areas called the ASPA (Antarctic Special Protected Areas ASPA 128 and ASPA 151) on King George Island, the largest of the South Shetland Islands (Fig.2).
  • List of Place-Names in Antarctica Introduced by Poland in 1978-1990

    List of Place-Names in Antarctica Introduced by Poland in 1978-1990

    POLISH POLAR RESEARCH 13 3-4 273-302 1992 List of place-names in Antarctica introduced by Poland in 1978-1990 The place-names listed here in alphabetical order, have been introduced to the areas of King George Island and parts of Nelson Island (West Antarctica), and the surroundings of A. B. Dobrowolski Station at Bunger Hills (East Antarctica) as the result of Polish activities in these regions during the period of 1977-1990. The place-names connected with the activities of the Polish H. Arctowski Station have been* published by Birkenmajer (1980, 1984) and Tokarski (1981). Some of them were used on the Polish maps: 1:50,000 Admiralty Bay and 1:5,000 Lions Rump. The sheet reference is to the maps 1:200,000 scale, British Antarctic Territory, South Shetland Islands, published in 1968: King George Island (sheet W 62 58) and Bridgeman Island (Sheet W 62 56). The place-names connected with the activities of the Polish A. B. Dobrowolski Station have been published by Battke (1985) and used on the map 1:5,000 Antarctic Territory — Bunger Oasis. Agat Point. 6211'30" S, 58'26" W (King George Island) Small basaltic promontory with numerous agates (hence the name), immediately north of Staszek Cove. Admiralty Bay. Sheet W 62 58. Polish name: Przylądek Agat (Birkenmajer, 1980) Ambona. 62"09'30" S, 58°29' W (King George Island) Small rock ledge, 85 m a. s. 1. {ambona, Pol. = pulpit), above Arctowski Station, Admiralty Bay, Sheet W 62 58 (Birkenmajer, 1980). Andrzej Ridge. 62"02' S, 58° 13' W (King George Island) Ridge in Rose Peak massif, Arctowski Mountains.
  • Monitoring Penguin Colonies in the Antarctic Using Remote Sensing Data Final Report

    Monitoring Penguin Colonies in the Antarctic Using Remote Sensing Data Final Report

    TEXTE 30 /2017 Monitoring penguin colonies in the Antarctic using remote sensing data Final Report TEXTE 30/2017 Environmental Research of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety Project No. (FKZ) 3713 12 101 Report No. (UBA-FB) 002498/ENG Monitoring penguin colonies in the Antarctic using remote sensing data by Osama Mustafa, Jan Esefeld, Hannes Grämer, Jakob Maercker, Marie-Charlott Rümmler, Martin Senf, Christian Pfeifer ThINK - Thuringian Institute for Sustainability and Climate Protection, Jena Hans-Ulrich Peter Polar & Bird Ecology Group, Institute of Ecology, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena On behalf of the German Environment Agency Imprint Publisher: Umweltbundesamt Wörlitzer Platz 1 06844 Dessau-Roßlau Tel: +49 340-2103-0 Fax: +49 340-2103-2285 [email protected] Internet: www.umweltbundesamt.de /umweltbundesamt.de /umweltbundesamt Study performed by: ThINK - Thuringian Institute for Sustainability and Climate Protection Leutragraben 1 07743 Jena Germany Study completed in: March 2017 Edited by: Section II 2.8 Protection of the Arctic and Antarctic Fritz Hertel Publication as pdf: http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen ISSN 1862-4804 Dessau-Roßlau, May 2017 The Project underlying this report was supported with funding from the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear safety under project number FKZ 3713 12 101. The responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the author(s). Monitoring penguin colonies in the Antarctic using remote sensing data Abstract In the context of the already observed population changes at specific time intervals and the shift in penguin breeding sites because of global warming and the fluctuations in availability of food, full-scale monitoring of Antarctic penguins seems reasonable.
  • Polskie Nazwy Obiektów Podmorskich I Z Obszaru Antarktyki Nazwy „Umykające” Definicjom Egzonimu I Endonimu

    Polskie Nazwy Obiektów Podmorskich I Z Obszaru Antarktyki Nazwy „Umykające” Definicjom Egzonimu I Endonimu

    GRUPA EKSPERTÓW ONZ DS. NAZW GEOGRAFICZNYCH (UNGEGN) 10 Sesja Grupy roboczej UNGEGN ds. egzonimów Tainach, Austria, 28-30 kwiecień 2010 Polskie nazwy obiektów podmorskich i z obszaru Antarktyki Nazwy „umykające” definicjom egzonimu i endonimu Maciej Zych, Komisja Standaryzacji Nazw Geograficznych poza Granicami Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej Polskie nazwy obiektów podmorskich i z obszaru Antarktyki Nazwy „umykające” definicjom egzonimu i endonimu Zgodnie z definicją egzonimu, przyjętą przez UNGEGN w 2007 r. na IX Konferencji ONZ w sprawie Standaryzacji Nazw Geograficznych, jest nim nazwa stosowana w danym języku dla obiektu geograficznego znajdującego się poza obszarem, gdzie ten język jest szeroko używany i różniąca się swoją formą od odpowiedniego endonimu (endonimów) obszaru gdzie znajduje się ten obiekt geograficzny. Jednocześnie przyjęto definicję endonimu, zgodnie z którą jest nim nazwa obiektu geograficznego w języku oficjalnym lub dobrze ugruntowanym występującym na obszarze, gdzie znajduje się ten obiekt1. Tak sformułowane definicje egzonimu i endonimu nie obejmują całego szeregu nazw geograficznych, jednocześnie w wielu przypadkach wprowadzają niejednoznaczność w zaliczeniu danej nazwy do egzonimu lub endonimu. Niejednoznaczność w zaliczeniu niektórych nazw do egzonimu lub endonimu wynika z wprowadzenia do definicji języka dobrze ugruntowanego, który różnie może być rozumiany. Czy język dobrze ugruntowany to język, którym posługuje się ludność zamieszkująca dany obszar od pokoleń, czy jest nim także język współczesnych emigrantów, np. turecki w Niemczech, czy polski w Irlandii? Czy językiem dobrze ugruntowanym będzie język, którym posługuje się duża część społeczeństwa, pomimo, że nie jest to tradycyjny język danego obszaru, np. angielski w Holandii, rosyjski w Izraelu? Czy językiem dobrze ugruntowanym musi na danym terenie mówić znaczny odsetek osób, czy też wystarczy aby mówiła nim ograniczona liczba osób? Np.
  • 2020-2021 Science Planning Summaries

    2020-2021 Science Planning Summaries

    Project Indexes Find information about projects approved for the 2020-2021 USAP field season using the available indexes. Project Web Sites Find more information about 2020-2021 USAP projects by viewing project web sites. More Information Additional information pertaining to the 2020-2021 Field Season. Home Page Station Schedules Air Operations Staffed Field Camps Event Numbering System 2020-2021 USAP Field Season Project Indexes Project Indexes Find information about projects approved for the 2020-2021 USAP field season using the USAP Program Indexes available indexes. Astrophysics and Geospace Sciences Dr. Robert Moore, Program Director Project Web Sites Organisms and Ecosystems Dr. Karla Heidelberg, Program Director Find more information about 2020-2021 USAP projects by Earth Sciences viewing project web sites. Dr. Michael Jackson, Program Director Glaciology Dr. Paul Cutler, Program Director More Information Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences Additional information pertaining Dr. Peter Milne, Program Director to the 2020-2021 Field Season. Integrated System Science Home Page TBD Station Schedules Antarctic Instrumentation & Research Facilities Air Operations Dr. Michael Jackson, Program Director Staffed Field Camps Education and Outreach Event Numbering System Ms. Elizabeth Rom; Program Director USAP Station and Vessel Indexes Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station McMurdo Station Palmer Station RVIB Nathaniel B. Palmer ARSV Laurence M. Gould Special Projects Principal Investigator Index Deploying Team Members Index Institution Index Event Number Index Technical Event Index Other Science Events Project Web Sites 2020-2021 USAP Field Season Project Indexes Project Indexes Find information about projects approved for the 2020-2021 USAP field season using the Project Web Sites available indexes. Principal Investigator/Link Event No.
  • Seabird Colonies As Relevant Sources of Pollutants in Antarctic Ecosystems: Part 1 - Trace Elements C.V.Z

    Seabird Colonies As Relevant Sources of Pollutants in Antarctic Ecosystems: Part 1 - Trace Elements C.V.Z

    Seabird colonies as relevant sources of pollutants in Antarctic ecosystems: Part 1 - Trace elements C.V.Z. Cipro, P. Bustamante, M.V. Petry, R.C. Montone To cite this version: C.V.Z. Cipro, P. Bustamante, M.V. Petry, R.C. Montone. Seabird colonies as relevant sources of pollutants in Antarctic ecosystems: Part 1 - Trace elements. Chemosphere, Elsevier, 2018, 204, pp.535-547. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.02.048. hal-02014986 HAL Id: hal-02014986 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02014986 Submitted on 4 Mar 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Seabird colonies as relevant sources of pollutants in Antarctic ecosystems: Part 1 - Trace elements Cipro, C.V.Z. 1,2*, Bustamante, P.2, Petry, M.V.3 and Montone, R.C.1 1 Laboratório de Química Orgânica Marinha, Instituto Oceanográfico (LabQOM), Universidade de São Paulo, Praça do Oceanográfico n° 191, 05508-120 São Paulo, SP, Brazil 2 Littoral Environnement et Sociétés (LIENSs), UMR 7266, CNRS-Université de La Rochelle, 2 rue Olympe de Gouges 17042 La Rochelle Cedex 01, France 3 Laboratório de Ornitologia e Animais Marinhos, Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, Av.
  • Biparental Care of Chinstrap Penguin: Molecular Sexing and Life History in the South Shetland Islands, Antarctica

    Biparental Care of Chinstrap Penguin: Molecular Sexing and Life History in the South Shetland Islands, Antarctica

    BIPARENTAL CARE OF CHINSTRAP PENGUIN: MOLECULAR SEXING AND LIFE HISTORY IN THE SOUTH SHETLAND ISLANDS, ANTARCTICA Jaqueline Brummelhaus, Victor Hugo Valiati, Maria Virginia Petry Pós Graduação em Biologia, Laboratório de Ornitologia e Animais Marinhos, Laboratório de Biologia Molecular, Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos, São Leopoldo, RS, Brazil Chinstrap penguin breeding season Figure 1: Pygoscelis antarctica Return to Incubation Guard Creche Fledging Introduction breeding stage stage stage stage Pygoscelis antarctica (Figure 1) breeds during the austral summer (Figure 2) in colonies colonies on ice-free areas of coast (sub-Antarctic islands and Antarctic Peninsula). Is a monogamous species and fairly equal parental investment is made ​​by both members of the pair 1, 2, 3. Late October – 30 days after Late February early November hatching – early March We investigated tertiary sex ratio (adult stage) in breeding colonies during guard and creche stages of P. antarctica in King George and Elephant Islands Both parents are in the 2010/2011 breeding season, by molecular sexing. Our goal was to gain Adults remaining at the nest for extended foraging and returning a better insight into behavioral parameters of breeding success for the periods at intervals species. Figure 2: Pygoscelis antarctica breeding season in Antarctica 1,2. Methods Chinstrap penguin adults were sampled while away from their nests at Admiralty Bay (King George Island) (62°05’S; 58°23’W) and Stinker Point (Elephant Island) (61°08’S; 55°07’W), South Shetland Islands, Antarctic, in the 2010/2011 breeding season (Table I). Genomic DNA was isolated from blood samples through standard phenol/chloroform technique and sex identification is determined by chromosomes Z and W (CHD-Z or CHD-W genes )4.
  • Report of the Thirty-Fourth Meeting of the Scientific Committee

    Report of the Thirty-Fourth Meeting of the Scientific Committee

    SC-CAMLR-XXXIV SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE FOR THE CONSERVATION OF ANTARCTIC MARINE LIVING RESOURCES REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH MEETING OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE HOBART, AUSTRALIA 19–23 OCTOBER 2015 CCAMLR PO Box 213 North Hobart 7002 Tasmania Australia _______________________ Telephone: 61 3 6210 1111 Facsimile: 61 3 6224 8766 Email: [email protected] Chair of the Scientific Committee Website: www.ccamlr.org November 2015 ________________________________________________________________________________________ This document is produced in the official languages of the Commission: English, French, Russian and Spanish. Copies are available from the CCAMLR Secretariat at the above address. Abstract This document presents the adopted report of the Thirty-fourth Meeting of the Scientific Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources held in Hobart, Australia, from 19 to 23 October 2015. Reports of meetings and intersessional activities of subsidiary bodies of the Scientific Committee, including the Working Groups on Statistics, Assessments and Modelling; Ecosystem Monitoring and Management; Fish Stock Assessment; and the Subgroup on Acoustic Survey and Analysis Methods, are appended. 1031-2889 Contents Page Opening of the meeting ...................................................................... 1 Adoption of agenda ......................................................................... 2 Chair’s report ............................................................................... 2 Advances in statistics, assessments,
  • Fine-Scale Variation in Microhabitat Conditions Influence Physiology and Metabolism in an Antarctic Insect

    Fine-Scale Variation in Microhabitat Conditions Influence Physiology and Metabolism in an Antarctic Insect

    Fine-scale variation in microhabitat conditions influence physiology and metabolism in an Antarctic insect Drew Evan Spacht ( [email protected] ) The Ohio State University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3651-114X Josiah D. Gantz Hendrix College Jack J Devlin University of Kentucky Eleanor A. McCabe University of Kentucky Richard E. Lee Miami University David L. Denlinger The Ohio State University Nicholas M. Teets University of Kentucky Research Article Keywords: Microclimate, seasonality, Antarctica, physiological ecology, entomology Posted Date: August 3rd, 2021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-642751/v1 License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Read Full License Page 1/17 Abstract Microhabitats with distinct biotic and abiotic properties exist within landscapes, and this microhabitat variation can have dramatic impacts on the phenology and physiology of the organisms occupying them. The Antarctic midge Belgica antarctica inhabits diverse microhabitats along the Western Antarctic Peninsula that vary in macrophyte composition, hygric qualities, nutrient input, and thermal patterns. Here, we compare seasonal physiological changes in ve populations of B. antarctica living in close proximity but in different microhabitats in the vicinity of Palmer Station, Antarctica. Thermal regimes among our sample locations differed in both mean temperature and thermal stability. Between the warmest and coldest sites, seasonal mean temperatures differed by 2.6˚C and degree day accumulations above freezing differed by a factor of 1.7. Larval metabolic and growth rates varied among the sites, and adult emergence occurred at different times. Distinct microhabitats also corresponded with differences in body composition, as lipid and carbohydrate content of larvae differed across sites.
  • Final Report of the Twenty-Ninth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting

    Final Report of the Twenty-Ninth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting

    Final Report of the Twenty-ninth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting ANTARCTIC TREATY CONSULTATIVE MEETING Final Report of the Twenty-ninth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting Edinburgh, United Kingdom 12 – 23 June 2006 Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty Buenos Aires 2006 Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (29th : 2006 : Edinburgh) Final Report of the Twenty-ninth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting. Edinburgh, United Kingdom, 12-23 June 2006. Buenos Aires : Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty, 2006. 564 p. ISBN 987-23163-0-9 1. International law – Environmental issues. 2. Antarctic Treaty System. 3. Environmental law – Antarctica. 4. Environmental protection – Antarctica. DDC 341.762 5 ISBN-10: 987-23163-0-9 ISBN-13: 978-987-23163-0-3 CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations 9 I. FINAL REPORT 11 II. MEASURES, DECISIONS AND RESOLUTIONS 49 A. Measures 51 Measure 1 (2006): Antarctic Specially Protected Areas: Designations and Management Plans 53 Annex A: ASPA No. 116 - New College Valley, Caughley Beach, Cape Bird, Ross Island 57 Annex B: ASPA No. 127 - Haswell Island (Haswell Island and Adjacent Emperor Penguin Rookery on Fast Ice) 69 Annex C: ASPA No. 131 - Canada Glacier, Lake Fryxell, Taylor Valley, Victoria Land 83 Annex D: ASPA No. 134 - Cierva Point and offshore islands, Danco Coast, Antarctic Peninsula 95 Annex E: ASPA No. 136 - Clark Peninsula, Budd Coast, Wilkes Land 105 Annex F: ASPA No. 165 - Edmonson Point, Wood Bay, Ross Sea 119 Annex G: ASPA No. 166 - Port-Martin, Terre Adélie 143 Annex H: ASPA No. 167 - Hawker Island, Vestfold Hills, Ingrid Christensen Coast, Princess Elizabeth Land, East Antarctica 153 Measure 2 (2006): Antarctic Specially Managed Area: Designation and Management Plan: Admiralty Bay, King George Island 167 Annex: Management Plan for ASMA No.
  • Final Report of the Thirty-Eighth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting

    Final Report of the Thirty-Eighth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting

    Final Report of the Thirty-eighth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting ANTARCTIC TREATY CONSULTATIVE MEETING Final Report of the Thirty-eighth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting Sofi a, Bulgaria 1 - 10 June 2015 Volume I Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty Buenos Aires 2015 Published by: Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty Secrétariat du Traité sur l’ Antarctique Секретариат Договора об Антарктике Secretaría del Tratado Antártico Maipú 757, Piso 4 C1006ACI Ciudad Autónoma Buenos Aires - Argentina Tel: +54 11 4320 4260 Fax: +54 11 4320 4253 This book is also available from: www.ats.aq (digital version) and for purchase online. ISSN 2346-9897 ISBN 978-987-1515-98-1 Contents VOLUME I Acronyms and Abbreviations 9 PART I. FINAL REPORT 11 1. Final Report 13 2. CEP XVIII Report 111 3. Appendices 195 Outcomes of the Intersessional Contact Group on Informatiom Exchange Requirements 197 Preliminary Agenda for ATCM XXXIX, Working Groups and Allocation of Items 201 Host Country Communique 203 PART II. MEASURES, DECISIONS AND RESOLUTIONS 205 1. Measures 207 Measure 1 (2015): Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 101 (Taylor Rookery, Mac.Robertson Land): Revised Management Plan 209 Measure 2 (2015): Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 102 (Rookery Islands, Holme Bay, Mac.Robertson Land): Revised Management Plan 211 Measure 3 (2015): Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 103 (Ardery Island and Odbert Island, Budd Coast, Wilkes Land, East Antarctica): Revised Management Plan 213 Measure 4 (2015): Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 104 (Sabrina Island, Balleny Islands): Revised Management Plan 215 Measure 5 (2015): Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 105 (Beaufort Island, McMurdo Sound, Ross Sea): Revised Management Plan 217 Measure 6 (2015): Antarctic Specially Protected Area No.