DOCSLIB.ORG

THE OFFICIAL Magazine of the OCEANOGRAPHY SOCIETY

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

OceThe Officiala MaganZineog of the Oceanographyra Spocietyhy CITATION Fraser, W.R., D.L. Patterson-Fraser, C.A. Ribic, O. Schofield, and H. Ducklow. 2013. A nonmarine source of variability in Adélie penguin demography. Oceanography 26(3):207–209, http:// dx.doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2013.64. DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2013.64 COPYRIGHT This article has been published inOceanography , Volume 26, Number 3, a quarterly journal of The Oceanography Society. Copyright 2013 by The Oceanography Society. All rights reserved. USAGE Permission is granted to copy this article for use in teaching and research. Republication, systematic reproduction, or collective redistribution of any portion of this article by photocopy machine, reposting, or other means is permitted only with the approval of The Oceanography Society. Send all correspondence to: [email protected] or The Oceanography Society, PO Box 1931, Rockville, MD 20849-1931, USA. downloaded from http://www.tos.org/oceanography SPECIAL IssUE ON CoASTAL LoNG TERM ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH A Nonmarine Source of Variability in Adélie Penguin Demography BY WILLIAM R. FRASER, DONNA L. PATTERsoN-FRASER, CHRISTINE A. RIBIC, OSCAR SCHofIELD, AND HUGH DUCKLow A primary research objective of the Palmer Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) program has been to identify and understand the factors that regulate the demography of Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae). In this context, our work has been focused on variability in the marine environment on which this species depends for virtually all aspects of its life history (Ainley, 2002). As we show here, however, there are patterns evident in the population dynamics of Adélie penguins that are better explained by variability in breeding habitat quality rather than by variability in the marine populations, only four remain, as the a plausible explanation for the patterns system. Interactions between the geo- Litchfield Island population went extinct observed in Figure 1b. morphology of the terrestrial environ- in 2007. This event is remarkable, as the Snowfall in our primary study areas ment that, in turn, affect patterns of snow island’s paleoecological record indicates on the five islands accumulates dispro- deposition, drive breeding habitat quality. this population has been in existence for portionately on landscapes with a south- Our seabird research in the Palmer at least 500 years (Emslie et al., 1998). west exposure, where higher numbers of LTER region has historically focused It is also noteworthy that both radio recently abandoned and extinct colonies on five island rookeries (Figure 1a). At and satellite telemetry data show that also occur. These patterns are the result the inception of investigations in 1974, these five, now four, island populations of wind scour during storm events, they hosted 15,202 breeding pairs of have overlapping foraging ranges over where predominant northeast winds Adélie penguins (Ducklow et al., 2013, the Palmer Deep Canyon during the shift snow loads from north- to south- in this issue). During the 2011/2012 breeding season. The canyon is a nearby facing landscapes (Fraser and Patterson, field season, these same rookeries hosted (~ 15 km) bathymetric feature long 1997). This pattern leads us to hypoth- 2,411 breeding pairs—an 83% decrease thought to be important to the forag- esize that island geomorphology plays a in abundance relative to original esti- ing ecology of this species (Fraser and strong role in determining breeding hab- mates. As Figure 1b shows, changes Trivelpiece, 1996; Fraser and Hofmann, itat quality (classified as optimal versus in these populations have not been 2003; Oliver et al., 2012; Schofield et al., suboptimal after Patterson et al., 2003). symmetrical, but instead appear to be 2013, in this issue). Variability in the Following this rationale, we expanded island-specific. Most noteworthy among abundance and availability of marine previously developed hillshade models these changes is that, of the five original prey cannot subsequently be regarded as (cf. Patterson et al., 2003) to include our Oceanography | September 2013 207 ab 100 S Humble Palmer 90 CH R Station CO R 64°46’ Litchield 80 HU M Torgersen LI T 70 TO R 64°47’S Christine 60 Cormorant 50 64°48’S Palmer Deep 40 Canyon 30 64°49’S Breeding Population (% Change) 20 64°50’S 10 0 64°12’W 64°9’W 64°6’W 64°3’W 64°0’W 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Figure 1. (a) Palmer Station, Antarctica, and vicinity showing the Palmer Deep Canyon and the five island populations of Adélie penguins. Island color shad- ing from dark to light blue reflects an increasing percent of island-specific suboptimal penguin breeding habitat. (b) The islands’ respective population trends (breeding pairs/year) since the inception of the Palmer LTER in 1991. To visually compare the trends, breeding pairs/year were standardized as (breeding pairs in year i/breeding pairs in 1991) x 100. HUM = Humble Island. TOR = Torgersen Island. COR = Cormorant Island. CHR = Christine Island. LIT = Litchfield Island. Year denotes the austral field season, thus 1991 = 1991/1992 field season. five primary island study sites in order to allowed us to highlight and thus calcu- (chicks crèched per pair) would seem assess the relationship between island- late the areal proportion of suboptimal to offer a mechanistic explanation to specific breeding habitat quality and cor- habitat (i.e., having a southwest aspect account for these results, this was not responding penguin population trends where snow is most likely to accumulate) observed. Thus, while there is a highly (changes in breeding pairs per year). present on each of the islands of interest. significant relationship between island Hillshade models are cartographic tools As Table 1 shows, habitat suitability habitat quality and breeding success that use elevation data and an illumina- varies by island, with the proportion of (F = 7.7, df1,2 = 4, 95, P < 0.0001), it is tion source (the convention is a default suboptimal habitat being greatest for only Litchfield Island that shows a sig- direction and angle of the sun above the Litchfield Island (89.5%) and least for nificantly lower value; there were no horizon) to produce three-dimensional Humble Island (44.2%). Importantly, differences in long-term breeding suc- shaded relief maps that highlight inter- the slope of the population trend was cess among the other islands despite actions among elevation, slope, and related to the amount of suboptimal significant differences in their rates of aspect. In this study, elevation data also habitat (Poisson regression, interaction population decrease. informed our hillshade models, but we term = –0.31, P < 0.0001); specifically, Precipitation has been increasing for substituted the predominant direction populations decrease faster as the areal decades over the region that constitutes of winds during storm events (north- extent of suboptimal habitat increases. much of the Palmer LTER sampling grid east) for the “illumination” source. This Although variability in breeding success (Turner et al., 2005), suggesting that our observations may be due at least in part William R. Fraser ([email protected]) is President and Lead Investigator, Polar Oceans to a threshold effect, that is, a change in Research Group, Sheridan, MT, USA. Donna L. Patterson-Fraser is a scientist with the the dynamics associated with the depo- Polar Oceans Research Group, Sheridan, MT, USA. Christine A. Ribic is Unit Leader, sition and persistence of snow across US Geological Survey, Wisconsin Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of these island landscapes. Litchfield Island Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA. Oscar Schofield is Professor, Coastal Ocean Observation exhibits the greatest amount of sub- Laboratory, Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, School of Environmental and optimal habitat, the lowest breeding suc- Biological Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. Hugh Ducklow is cess, and steepest decrease in the Adélie Professor, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, NY, USA. penguin breeding population during the 208 Oceanography | Vol. 26, No. 3 study period. However, as previously Programs, to W. Fraser as PI or Co-PI in Anvers Island, Antarctic Peninsula. Antarctic Science 10:257–268, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ noted, the paleoecological record indi- the following awards: 9011927, 9320115, S0954102098000352. cates that Adélie penguins have occupied 9505596, 9632763, 0130525, 0217282, Fraser, W.R., and E.H. Hofmann. 2003. A preda- tor’s perspective on causal links between this island for at least 500 years (Emslie and 0823101. Additional financial climate change, physical forcing and eco- et al., 1998), implying not only that a assistance was provided by the Detroit system response. Marine Ecology Progress Series 265:1–15. shift has occurred in breeding habitat Zoological Society. We are also grateful Fraser, W.R., and D.L. Patterson. 1997. Human quality (from optimal to suboptimal as for the assistance provided by Palmer disturbance and long-term changes in Adélie a function of increasing precipitation), Station personnel and the more than Penguin populations: A natural experi- ment at Palmer Station, Antarctic Peninsula. but that this shift was both abrupt and 35 students and technicians who have Pp. 445–452 in Antarctic Communities: Species, relatively recent. If this is the case, we assisted the data collection effort over the Structure and Survival. Proceedings of the VI SCAR Biology Symposium, B. Battaglia, would predict that the Cormorant Island years, and for the leadership given our J. Valencia, D.W.H. Walton, eds, Cambridge penguin population will be extinct next, field teams by Brent Houston, Eric Holm, University Press. Fraser, W.R., and W.Z. Trivelpiece. 1996. Factors as its landscape-habitat dynamics appear Peter Duley, Matt Irinaga, Peter Horne, controlling the distribution of seabirds: Winter- similarly vulnerable to a threshold effect Brett Pickering, Heidi Geisz, Chris summer heterogeneity in the distribution of Adélie penguin populations.
Recommended publications
  • Antarctic Primer

    Antarctic Primer

    Antarctic Primer By Nigel Sitwell, Tom Ritchie & Gary Miller By Nigel Sitwell, Tom Ritchie & Gary Miller Designed by: Olivia Young, Aurora Expeditions October 2018 Cover image © I.Tortosa Morgan Suite 12, Level 2 35 Buckingham Street Surry Hills, Sydney NSW 2010, Australia To anyone who goes to the Antarctic, there is a tremendous appeal, an unparalleled combination of grandeur, beauty, vastness, loneliness, and malevolence —all of which sound terribly melodramatic — but which truly convey the actual feeling of Antarctica. Where else in the world are all of these descriptions really true? —Captain T.L.M. Sunter, ‘The Antarctic Century Newsletter ANTARCTIC PRIMER 2018 | 3 CONTENTS I. CONSERVING ANTARCTICA Guidance for Visitors to the Antarctic Antarctica’s Historic Heritage South Georgia Biosecurity II. THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT Antarctica The Southern Ocean The Continent Climate Atmospheric Phenomena The Ozone Hole Climate Change Sea Ice The Antarctic Ice Cap Icebergs A Short Glossary of Ice Terms III. THE BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT Life in Antarctica Adapting to the Cold The Kingdom of Krill IV. THE WILDLIFE Antarctic Squids Antarctic Fishes Antarctic Birds Antarctic Seals Antarctic Whales 4 AURORA EXPEDITIONS | Pioneering expedition travel to the heart of nature. CONTENTS V. EXPLORERS AND SCIENTISTS The Exploration of Antarctica The Antarctic Treaty VI. PLACES YOU MAY VISIT South Shetland Islands Antarctic Peninsula Weddell Sea South Orkney Islands South Georgia The Falkland Islands South Sandwich Islands The Historic Ross Sea Sector Commonwealth Bay VII. FURTHER READING VIII. WILDLIFE CHECKLISTS ANTARCTIC PRIMER 2018 | 5 Adélie penguins in the Antarctic Peninsula I. CONSERVING ANTARCTICA Antarctica is the largest wilderness area on earth, a place that must be preserved in its present, virtually pristine state.
  • Federal Register/Vol. 84, No. 78/Tuesday, April 23, 2019/Rules

    Federal Register/Vol. 84, No. 78/Tuesday, April 23, 2019/Rules

    Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 78 / Tuesday, April 23, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 16791 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require Agricultural commodities, Pesticides SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The any special considerations under and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, as Executive Order 12898, entitled requirements. amended (‘‘ACA’’) (16 U.S.C. 2401, et ‘‘Federal Actions to Address Dated: April 12, 2019. seq.) implements the Protocol on Environmental Justice in Minority Environmental Protection to the Richard P. Keigwin, Jr., Populations and Low-Income Antarctic Treaty (‘‘the Protocol’’). Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. Annex V contains provisions for the 1994). Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is protection of specially designated areas Since tolerances and exemptions that amended as follows: specially managed areas and historic are established on the basis of a petition sites and monuments. Section 2405 of under FFDCA section 408(d), such as PART 180—[AMENDED] title 16 of the ACA directs the Director the tolerance exemption in this action, of the National Science Foundation to ■ do not require the issuance of a 1. The authority citation for part 180 issue such regulations as are necessary proposed rule, the requirements of the continues to read as follows: and appropriate to implement Annex V Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. to the Protocol. et seq.) do not apply. ■ 2. Add § 180.1365 to subpart D to read The Antarctic Treaty Parties, which This action directly regulates growers, as follows: includes the United States, periodically food processors, food handlers, and food adopt measures to establish, consolidate retailers, not States or tribes.
  • Antarctic Treaty Handbook

    Antarctic Treaty Handbook

    Annex Proposed Renumbering of Antarctic Protected Areas Existing SPA’s Existing Site Proposed Year Annex V No. New Site Management Plan No. Adopted ‘Taylor Rookery 1 101 1992 Rookery Islands 2 102 1992 Ardery Island and Odbert Island 3 103 1992 Sabrina Island 4 104 Beaufort Island 5 105 Cape Crozier [redesignated as SSSI no.4] - - Cape Hallet 7 106 Dion Islands 8 107 Green Island 9 108 Byers Peninsula [redesignated as SSSI no. 6] - - Cape Shireff [redesignated as SSSI no. 32] - - Fildes Peninsula [redesignated as SSSI no.5] - - Moe Island 13 109 1995 Lynch Island 14 110 Southern Powell Island 15 111 1995 Coppermine Peninsula 16 112 Litchfield Island 17 113 North Coronation Island 18 114 Lagotellerie Island 19 115 New College Valley 20 116 1992 Avian Island (was SSSI no. 30) 21 117 ‘Cryptogram Ridge’ 22 118 Forlidas and Davis Valley Ponds 23 119 Pointe-Geologic Archipelago 24 120 1995 Cape Royds 1 121 Arrival Heights 2 122 Barwick Valley 3 123 Cape Crozier (was SPA no. 6) 4 124 Fildes Peninsula (was SPA no. 12) 5 125 Byers Peninsula (was SPA no. 10) 6 126 Haswell Island 7 127 Western Shore of Admiralty Bay 8 128 Rothera Point 9 129 Caughley Beach 10 116 1995 ‘Tramway Ridge’ 11 130 Canada Glacier 12 131 Potter Peninsula 13 132 Existing SPA’s Existing Site Proposed Year Annex V No. New Site Management Plan No. Adopted Harmony Point 14 133 Cierva Point 15 134 North-east Bailey Peninsula 16 135 Clark Peninsula 17 136 North-west White Island 18 137 Linnaeus Terrace 19 138 Biscoe Point 20 139 Parts of Deception Island 21 140 ‘Yukidori Valley’ 22 141 Svarthmaren 23 142 Summit of Mount Melbourne 24 118 ‘Marine Plain’ 25 143 Chile Bay 26 144 Port Foster 27 145 South Bay 28 146 Ablation Point 29 147 Avian Island [redesignated as SPA no.
  • A New High-Latitude Record for the Macaroni Penguin (Eudyptes Chrysolophus) at Avian Island, Antarctica

    A New High-Latitude Record for the Macaroni Penguin (Eudyptes Chrysolophus) at Avian Island, Antarctica

    Polar Biol DOI 10.1007/s00300-010-0795-y SHORT NOTE A new high-latitude record for the macaroni penguin (Eudyptes chrysolophus) at Avian Island, Antarctica K. B. Gorman • E. S. Erdmann • B. C. Pickering • P. J. Horne • J. R. Blum • H. M. Lucas • D. L. Patterson-Fraser • W. R. Fraser Received: 11 December 2009 / Revised: 10 March 2010 / Accepted: 13 March 2010 Ó Springer-Verlag 2010 Abstract On 20 and 22 January 2007, we observed observations are important for developing a better under- macaroni penguins (Eudyptes chrysolophus) on Avian standing of the natural history of the species along the Island, Antarctica, approximately 1° south of the Antarctic WAP. Circle along the Western Antarctic Peninsula (WAP) near Adelaide Island, a new high-latitude observational record Keywords Bio-geographic range shift Á for the species within this region of the continent. Addi- Climate warming Á Eudyptes chrysolophus Á tionally, we report several extra-limital sightings of mac- Western Antarctic Peninsula Á Vagrancy aroni penguins over the last decade at relatively lower latitudes along the WAP near Anvers Island, including observations of breeding attempts. Although vagrancy Introduction cannot be ruled out as a possible causal factor in our observations, we hypothesize that a climate-induced shift The macaroni penguin (Eudyptes chrysolophus) is cir- in the species’ bio-geographic range may be in progress. In cumpolar and sub-Antarctic in its breeding distribution this context, our observations are similar to the well-doc- (Parmelee 1992; Williams 1995). Breeding populations in umented range shifts and eventual establishment of the core of the species range occur on islands near the breeding populations by other sub-Antarctic penguin spe- Antarctic convergence in the southwest Atlantic and south cies along the WAP, over the last three decades, in Indian sectors of the Southern Ocean such as South response to regional climate warming.
  • Litchfield Island, Arthur Harbor Anvers Island, Palmer Archipelago

    Litchfield Island, Arthur Harbor Anvers Island, Palmer Archipelago

    Measure 4 (2009) – Annex Management Plan for Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 113 LITCHFIELD ISLAND, ARTHUR HARBOR ANVERS ISLAND, PALMER ARCHIPELAGO Introduction Litchfield Island lies within Arthur Harbor, SW Anvers Island, at 64°46'S, 64°06'W. Approximate area: 2.7km2. Designation on the grounds that Litchfield Island, together with its littoral zone, possesses an unusually high collection of marine and terrestrial life, is unique amongst the neighboring islands as a breeding place for six species of native birds and provides an outstanding example of the natural ecological system of the Antarctic Peninsula area. In addition, Litchfield Island possesses rich growths of vegetation and has the most varied topography and the greatest diversity of terrestrial habitats of the islands in Arthur Harbor. Proposed by the United States of America. Adopted through Recommendation VIII-1 (1975, SPA No. 17); renamed and renumbered by Decision 1 (2002); original management plan adopted through Measure 2 (2004). 1. Description of values to be protected Litchfield Island (Latitude 64°46'S, Longitude 64°06'W, 2.7km2), Arthur Harbor, Anvers Island, Antarctic Peninsula was originally designated as a Specially Protected Area through Recommendation VIII-1 (1975, SPA No. 17) after a proposal by the United States of America. It was designated on the grounds that “Litchfield Island, together with its littoral, possesses an unusually high collection of marine and terrestrial life, is unique amongst the neighboring islands as a breeding place for six species of native birds and provides an outstanding example of the natural ecological system of the Antarctic Peninsula area”. The current management plan reaffirms the original reasons for designation associated with the bird communities.
  • 7555-01 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Notice of Permit

    7555-01 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Notice of Permit

    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 06/26/2020 and available online at federalregister.gov/d/2020-13780, and on govinfo.gov 7555-01 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 AGENCY: National Science Foundation. ACTION: Notice of Permit Applications Received. SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of permit applications received to conduct activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act in the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of permit applications received. DATES: Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or views with respect to this permit application by [Insert 30 days from date of publication in the Federal Register]. This application may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit Office, address below. ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, at the above address, 703-292-8030, or [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-541, 45 CFR 670), as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas a requiring special protection. The regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic Specially Protected Areas.
  • Measure 3 (2009) Annex a Management Plan for Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 104 SABRINA ISLAND, NORTHERN ROSS SEA, ANTA

    Measure 3 (2009) Annex a Management Plan for Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 104 SABRINA ISLAND, NORTHERN ROSS SEA, ANTA

    Measure 3 (2009) Annex A Management Plan For Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 104 SABRINA ISLAND, NORTHERN ROSS SEA, ANTARCTICA Introduction Sabrina Island, in the Balleny Archipelago, was originally designated as SPA No. 4 in Recommendation IV-4 (1966) on the grounds that “The Balleny Islands, as the most northerly Antarctic land in the Ross Sea region, support fauna and flora which reflect many circumpolar distributions at this latitude and that Sabrina Island in particular provides a representative sample of such fauna and flora.” 1. Description of values to be protected Sabrina Island has outstanding environmental and scientific value. It is a representative sample of the Balleny Islands which is the only oceanic archipelago located within the main Antarctic Coastal Current. (Peter I Island, some 4000km away, is the only other oceanic island in the Current). As such, they provide important resting and breeding habitat for seabird and seal species (see Tables 1 and 2), and are significant in circumpolar distributions of a variety of species. Being isolated and prone to difficult weather and ice conditions, the Islands have had very little human disturbance. The Islands are the only known breeding site for chinstrap penguins (Pygoscelis antarctica) between Bouvetoya and Peter I Islands (a span of 264° longitude). The chinstrap nests occur within Adélie penguin (Pygoscelis adeliae) colonies. Adélies and chinstraps have very different breeding ranges and there are few sites where the species coexist. Sabrina Island’s Adélie colony is of particular importance because it is the largest in the archipelago (and has the majority of the chinstrap pairs), and because it is growing very rapidly.
  • National Science Foundation § 670.29

    National Science Foundation § 670.29

    National Science Foundation § 670.29 the unique natural ecological system ASPA 115 Lagotellerie Island, Mar- in that area; and guerite Bay, Graham Land (c) Where a management plan exists, ASPA 116 New College Valley, information demonstrating the consist- Caughley Beach, Cape Bird, Ross Is- ency of the proposed actions with the land management plan. ASPA 117 Avian Island, Marguerite Bay, Antarctic Peninsula § 670.29 Designation of Antarctic Spe- ASPA 118 Summit of Mount Mel- cially Protected Areas, Specially bourne, Victoria Land Managed Areas and Historic Sites ASPA 119 Davis Valley and Forlidas and Monuments. Pond, Dufek Massif, Pensacola Moun- (a) The following areas have been tains designated by the Antarctic Treaty ASPA 120 Pointe-Geologie Parties for special protection and are Archipelego, Terre Adelie hereby designated as Antarctic Spe- ASPA 121 Cape Royds, Ross Island cially Protected Areas (ASPA). The ASPA 122 Arrival Heights, Hut Point Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, as Peninsula, Ross Island amended, prohibits, unless authorized ASPA 123 Barwick and Balham Val- by a permit, any person from entering leys, Southern Victoria Land or engaging in activities within an ASPA 124 Cape Crozier, Ross Island ASPA. Detailed maps and descriptions ASPA 125 Fildes Peninsula, King of the sites and complete management George Island (25 de Mayo) plans can be obtained from the Na- ASPA 126 Byers Peninsula, Living- tional Science Foundation, Office of ston Island, South Shetland Islands Polar Programs, National Science ASPA 127 Haswell Island Foundation, Room 755, 4201 Wilson ASPA 128 Western shore of Admiralty Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230. Bay, King George Island, South Shet- ASPA 101 Taylor Rookery, Mac.
  • Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 175/Friday, September 9, 2016

    Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 175/Friday, September 9, 2016

    Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 175 / Friday, September 9, 2016 / Notices 62543 banding. The principal avian predators ASPA 132, Potter Peninsula, King Division of Polar Programs, National of the penguins (skuas, gulls, giant George Island, South Shetland Islands Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson petrels and sheathbills) are also ASPA 133, Harmony Point, Nelson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230. monitored and, when possible, adults Island, South Shetland Island FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: and chicks will be banded, weighed and ASPA 134, Cierva Point Offshore Nature McGinn, ACA Permit Officer, at measured for behavioral and Islands, Danco Coast, Antarctic the above address or ACApermits@ demographic studies. In addition, the Peninsula nsf.gov or (703) 292–7149. applicant may census, band and ASPA 139, Biscoe Point, Anvers Island SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The measure cape petrels and blue-eyed ASPA 140, Shores of Port Foster, National Science Foundation, as shags. The applicant may collect Deception Island, South Shetland directed by the Antarctic Conservation samples of penguin and skua blood from Islands Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95–541), as adults of each species. The number of ASPA 144, Chile Bay amended by the Antarctic Science, takes per annum of each avian species ASPA 145, Port Foster, Deception Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, will be as follows: chinstrap penguin, Island, South Shetland Islands ASPA 146, South Bay, Doumer Island, has developed regulations for the 3320; Adelie penguin, 2880; Gentoo Palmer Archipelago establishment of a permit system for penguin, 3020; brown skua, 600; south ASPA 148, Mount Flora, Hope Bay, various activities in Antarctica and polar skua, 600; giant petrel, 600; kelp Antarctic Peninsula designation of certain animals and gull, 100; blue-eyed shag, 150; snowy ASPA 149, Cape Shirreff, Livingston certain geographic areas a requiring sheathbill, 45; cape petrel, 200.
  • 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.
  • Management Plan of Proposed

    Management Plan of Proposed

    Management Plan of proposed MULTIPLE-USE PLANNING AREA, SOUTHWEST ANVERS ISLAND AND VICINITY 11 Management Plan 1. Site Description The Southwest Anvers Island Multiple-use Planning Area encompasses approximately 1,535 square kilometres (Figure 1). This rectangular area lies between latitudes 64°41'30"S and 65°S and longitudes 63°40'W and 64°35'W. Palmer Station (64°46'S, 64°03'W) is located on Garage Point on the southwest side of Anvers Island. Immediately adjacent to the station is Arthur Harbor and Biscoe Bay to the southeast, Hero Inlet and Bonaparte Point to the south, and the Marr Ice Piedmont sloping upward north and east from Garage Point and covering Anvers Island. Torgersen Island, at the mouth of Arthur Harbor and about one kilometre from Garage Point, is the closest island to the station. Within a 5.5 kilometre radius of Palmer Station are two exposed, prominent points on Anvers Island (Norsel Point and Bonaparte Point) and groups of islands that extend to the edge of the Bismarck Strait to the southeast (Figure 2). These islands have a diverse topography which extends into the intertidal and subtidal zones surrounding and linking the islands. Other island groups in the area are Dream Island (9 kilometres northwest), the Joubin Islands (17 kilometres west), and the Wauwermans Islands (15 kilometres southeast) near the southern end of Gerlache Strait and Neumayer Channel (Figures 1 and 2). The area includes Specially Protected Area No. 17 (Litchfield Island) and Site of Special Scientific Interest No. 20 (Biscoe Point). Palmer Station serves as the base for scientific research and associated logistic operations conducted in the western Antarctic Peninsula and Palmer Archipelago by the United States Antarctic Program (USAF) and collaborators from a number of other Antarctic Treaty Parties.
  • Native Terrestrial Invertebrate Fauna from the Northern Antarctic Peninsula

    Native Terrestrial Invertebrate Fauna from the Northern Antarctic Peninsula

    86 (1) · April 2014 pp. 1–14 Supplementary Material Native terrestrial invertebrate fauna from the northern Antarctic Peninsula: new records, state of current knowledge and ecological preferences – Summary of a German federal study David J. Russell1*, Karin Hohberg1, Mikhail Potapov2, Alexander Bruckner3, Volker Otte1 and Axel Christian 1 Senckenberg Museum of Natural History Görlitz, Postfach 300 154, 02806 Görlitz, Germany 2 Moscow Pedagogical State University, Mnevniki Street, 123308 Moscow, Russia 3 University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor Mendel-Straße 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria * Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected] Received 27 February 2014 | Accepted 8 March 2014 Published online at www.soil-organisms.de 1 April 2014 | Printed version 15 April 2014 Supplementary Material Table S1. Average values of the substrate parameters of the investigated sites measured in the individual study years. For a statistical analysis and further information, see Russell et al. (2013). Vegetation cover is given as an average of all plots of the categories: 1 = cover up to 25 %, 2 = 25–50 %, 3 = 50–<100 %, 4 = 100 %. For the specific plant societies, see Russell et al. (2013). ‘Organic Material (%)’ represents the mass loss at ignition (500°C for 2 hours). Organic Material Substrate Texture (%) (%) tot org C Jahr cover Vegetation (°C) Temperature Soil (%) Soil Moisture pH Organic Material (%) N Site C/N Coarse Gravel (%) Medium Gravel (%) Fine Gravel (%) Coarse Sand (%) Medium Sand (%) Fine Sand (%) Clay/Silt (%)