Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-78bd46657c-2z7pd Total loading time: 0.491 Render date: 2021-05-09T08:12:56.931Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Conflicting science requirements impact on rare moss conservation measures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2017

Luis R. Pertierra
Affiliation:
Departmento de Biogeografía y Cambio Global, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (MNCN), C/ de José Gutiérrez Abascal, 2, 28006 Madrid, Spain
Francisco Lara
Affiliation:
Departmento de Biología (Botánica), Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Calle Darwin 2, 28049 Madrid, Spain
Javier Benayas
Affiliation:
Departmento de Ecología, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Calle Darwin 2, 28049 Madrid, Spain
Ronald I. Lewis-Smith
Affiliation:
Centre for Antarctic Plant Ecology and Diversity, Moffat DG10 9LB, UK
Kevin A. Hughes
Affiliation:
British Antarctic Survey, NERC, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ET, UK
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

The Antarctic Treaty recognizes the outstanding scientific values of the Antarctic environment through the designation of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs) that have rigorous management plans specific to each site. Deception Island has the largest concentration of rare bryophyte species and communities in Antarctica, while also offering substantial opportunities for research in a range of scientific disciplines due to its volcanic nature. As a result, conflicts between research interests and conservation goals may arise. On the summit ridge of Caliente Hill severe trampling damage to the moss assemblages growing in association with localized geothermal activity was observed. The range of species affected included the entire known population of Schistidium deceptionense, an endemic moss known only from this site, as well as other very rare Antarctic mosses (Ditrichum ditrichoideum, Bryum orbiculatifolium, Bucklandiella subcrispipila, Pohlia wahlenbergii and Dicranella hookeri). A photomapping study was undertaken to characterize further the status of the site and monitor changes within it. Increased awareness, co-ordination of activities and a spatial zoning within the site could help mitigate damage from permitted activities. Nevertheless, prioritization of longer term conservation goals over short-term research interests may ultimately be necessary where local human impact cannot be managed by other means.

Type
Biological Sciences
Copyright
© Antarctic Science Ltd 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 2005. Measure 3. Management package for Antarctic Specially Managed Area No. 4. Deception Island, South Shetland Islands. Final report of the twenty-eighth ATCM, Stockholm, Sweden, 6–17 July 2005. Available at www.ats.aq.Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 2012. Measure 8. Management plan for Antarctic Specially Protected Area No. 140. Parts of Deception Island, South Shetland Islands. Final report of the thirty-fifth ATCM, Hobart, Australia, 11–20 June 2012. Available at www.ats.aq.Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 2014a. Developing general guidelines for operating in geothermal environments. ATCM XXXVII IP042. Available at www.ats.aq.Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 2014b. Proposal to afford greater protection to an extremely restricted endemic plant on Caliente Hill (ASPA 140 – sub-site C), Deception Island. ATCM XXXVII IP058. Available at www.ats.aq.Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 2015. Update of the status of the rare moss formations on Caliente Hill (ASPA 140 – site C). ATCM XXXVIII IP069. Available at www.ats.aq.Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 2016. SCAR code of conduct for activities within terrestrial geothermal environments in Antarctica. ATCM XXXIX WP023. Available at www.ats.aq.Google Scholar
Convey, P. & Lewis Smith, R.I. 2006. Geothermal bryophyte habitats in the South Sandwich Islands, Maritime Antarctic. Journal of Vegetation Science, 17, 529538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Convey, P., Smith, R.I.L., Hodgson, D.A. & Peat, H.J. 2000. The flora of the South Sandwich Islands, with particular reference to the influence of geothermal heating. Journal of Biogeography, 27, 12791295.CrossRefGoogle 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. 2012a. 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, 49384943.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chown, S.L., Lee, J.E., Hughes, K.A., Barnes, J., Barrett, P.J., Bergstrom, D.M., Convey, P., Cowan, D.A., Crosbie, K., Dyer, G., Frenot, Y., Grant, S.M., Herr, D., Kennicutt, I.I., Lamers, M.C., Murray, A., Possingham, H.P., Reid, K., Riddle, M., Ryan, M.J., Sanson, L., Shaw, J.D, Sparrow, M.D., Summerhayes, C., Terauds, A. & Wall, D.H. 2012b. Challenges to the future conservation of the Antarctic. Science, 337, 158159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dibbern, J.S. 2010. Fur seals, whales and tourists, a commercial history of Deception Island. Polar Record, 46, 210221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, L.T., Ah-Peng, C., Aleffi, M. & 35 others. 2017. New national and regional bryophyte records, 50. Journal of Bryology, 39, 99114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, C.I., Terauds, A., Smellie, J., Convey, P. & Chown, S.L. 2014. Geothermal activity helps life survive glacial cycles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111, 56345639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, K.A., Pertierra, L.R. & Walton, D.W.H. 2013. Area protection in Antarctica: how can conservation and scientific research goals be managed compatibly? Environmental Science & Policy, 31, 120132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, K.A., Ireland, L.C., Convey, P. & Flemming, A.H. 2016. Assessing the effectiveness of specially protected areas for conservation of Antarctica’s botanical diversity. Biological Conservation, 30, 113120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, K.A., Fretwell, P., Rae, J., Holmes, K. & Fleming, A.H. 2011. Untouched Antarctica: mapping a finite and diminishing environmental resource. Antarctic Science, 23, 537548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature). 2011. Guidelines for using the IUCN Red List categories and criteria. Version 9.0. Available at: http://cmsdocs.s3.amazonaws.com/RedListGuidelines.pdf.Google Scholar
Lewis Smith, R.I. 1984. Colonization and recovery by cryptogams following recent volcanic activity on Deception Island, South Shetland Islands. British Antarctic Survey Bulletin, No. 62, 2551.Google Scholar
Lewis Smith, R.I. 1994. Environmental-geographic basis for the protected area system. In Lewis Smith, R.I., Walton, D.W.H. & Dingwall, P.R., eds. Developing the Antarctic protected area system. Gland and Cambridge: IUCN, 2736.Google Scholar
Medina, N.G., Draper, I. & Lara, F. 2011. Biogeography of mosses and allies: does size matter? In Fontaneto, D., ed. Biogeography of microscopic organisms. Is everything small everywhere? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 209233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milyutina, I.A., Goryunov, D.V. & Ignatov, M.S. 2010. The phylogeny of Schistidium (Bryophyta, Grimmiaceae) based on the primary and secondary structure of nuclear rDNA internal transcribed spacers. Molekuliarnaia Biologiia, 44, 883897.Google Scholar
Ochyra, R., Bednarek-Ochyra, H. & Smith, R.I.L. 2003. Schistidium deceptionense, a new moss species from the South Shetland Islands, Antarctica. Bryologist, 106, 569574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ochyra, R., Bednarek-Ochyra, H. & Smith, R.I.L. 2008a. New and rare moss species from the Antarctic. Nova Hedwigia, 87, 457477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ochyra, R., Lewis-Smith, R.I. & Berdnarek-Ochyra, H. 2008b. The illustrated moss flora of Antarctica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 704 pp.Google Scholar
Patiño, J., Medina, R., Vanderpoorten, A., González-Mancebo, J.M., Werner, O., Devos, N., Mateo, R.G., Lara, F. & Ros, R.M. 2013. Origin and fate of single-island endemic moss Orthotrichum handiense . Journal of Biogeography, 40, 857868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pertierra, L.R. & Hughes, K.A. 2013. Management of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas: permitting, visitation and information exchange practices. Antarctic Science, 25, 553564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pertierra, L.R., Tejedo, P. & Benayas, J. 2014. Historical developments, drivers of change and future scenarios in Deception Island. In Tin, T., Lamers, M., Maher, P. & Liggert, P., eds. Antarctic futures. Dordrecht: Springer, 193211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pertierra, L.R., Hughes, K.A., Vega, G.C. & Olalla-Tarraga, M.A. 2017. High resolution spatial mapping of human footprint and its implications for the strategic conservation of avifauna. PLoS One, 10.1371/journal.pone.0168280.Google Scholar
Pertierra, L.R., Lara, F., Tejedo, P., Quesada, A. & Benayas, J. 2013. Rapid denudation processes in cryptogamic communities from Maritime Antarctica subjected to human trampling. Antarctic Science, 25, 318328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, J.D., Terauds, A., Riddle, M.J., Possingham, H.P. & Chown, S.L. 2014. Antarctica’s protected areas are inadequate, unrepresentative, and at risk. PLoS Biology, 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001888.Google Scholar
Smith, R.I.L. 1984. Colonization by bryophytes following recent volcanic activity on an Antarctic island. Journal of the Hattori Botanical Laboratory, 56, 5363.Google Scholar
Smith, R.I.L. 2000. Plants of extreme habitats in Antarctica. Bibliotheca Lichenologica, 75, 405419.Google Scholar
Smith, R.I.L. 2005. The thermophilic bryoflora of Deception Island: unique plant communities as a criterion for designating an Antarctic Specially Protected Area. Antarctic Science, 17, 1727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R.I.L. & Richardson, M. 2011. Fuegian plants in Antarctica: natural or anthropogenically assisted immigrants? Biological Invasions, 13, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tejedo, P., Pertierra, L.R., Benayas, J., Convey, P., Justel, A. & Quesada, A. 2012. Trampling on Maritime Antarctica: can soil ecosystems be effectively protected through existing codes of conduct? Polar Research, 31, 10.3402/polar.v31i0.10888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terauds, A., Chown, S.L., Morgan, F., Peat, H.J., Watts, D.J., Keys, H., Convey, P. & Bergstrom, D.M. 2012. Conservation biogeography of the Antarctic. Diversity and Distributions, 18, 726741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Conflicting science requirements impact on rare moss conservation measures
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Conflicting science requirements impact on rare moss conservation measures
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Conflicting science requirements impact on rare moss conservation measures
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *