Antarctica Braces for Influx of Invasive Species

 This post was originally published on the National Geographic Ocean Views blog.

Antarctica and the Southern Ocean may seem very far away from civilization, but they are at great risk of losing their unique qualities due to human activities. Warmer temperatures and human visitation are increasing the likelihood that invasive species can take up residence in the Antarctic, and potentially cause major changes. Two studies have found evidence of invasions both on land (from a midge) and at sea (from crabs). The remoteness of the Antarctic can no longer protect it from potentially destructive invaders. Forget about The Thing – the scariest alien invaders in the Antarctic come from our own planet.

Concern about a possible crab invasion of Antarctica began in 2007, when ecologist Sven Thatje saw a few king crabs on the outer continental slope of the Antarctic Peninsula. Their presence raised immediate alarms. Unlike more famous invaders like lionfish or brown tree snakes, crabs have yet to gain notoriety as ecosystem destroyers. But in the Antarctic, cold water has long kept out crustaceans like crabs and lobsters, which cannot survive at temperatures below 1°C (just under 34°F). The result is that many seafloor creatures in the Southern Ocean today have not evolved the same defenses against crushing claws as species in other regions. So the discovery of Neolithodes yaldwyni, a species of king crab, by a submersible surveying shallower areas closer to the Antarctic Peninsula (one of the fastest warming areas in the world) was unwelcome news. This indicates that the crabs are more firmly established, and have become truly invasive. The researchers who discovered the crabs estimate that there are 1.5 million crabs in the Palmer Deep. As warming of ocean water increases, the range of these crabs will expand further.

On land, researchers have also recently found evidence of unwelcome invaders that could make life very difficult for native species. This time, the invading species is the midge Eretmoptera murphyi, and they appear to be speeding up the rate at which decay occurs in Antarctic soil. The midge hails from the sub-Antarctic South Georgia Island, but the ecosystem on that island is very different from the one on the Antarctic Peninsula, where the midge has now established itself. Decay in peninsular soil is “not very active,” according to Peter Convey, one of the scientists who discovered the presence of the midge, so the insect will introduce a new process to the ecosystem. Unfortunately for the peninsula, though its ecosystem is composed of different species, the midge can still survive in its climate. Although one tiny insect might not seem to be very disruptive on a continent without many terrestrial species, it has been well established that many Antarctic species are highly vulnerable to disturbances, so introducing a new ecosystem process could introduce a major shift.

Unlike the crab invasion, however, the midge invasion and other invasions of land species can be slowed or prevented by following strict rules that reduce the possibility that species can tag along with humans visiting different areas of the Antarctic. Even so, it’s virtually impossible to eliminate the transfer of invasive species entirely. In the sea, it will be very difficult to slow down the global warming that allows new species to colonize the Southern Ocean, so we will have to wait and see if a crustacean-generated apocalypse occurs for Antarctica’s unique seafloor communities. The presence of these invaders, it seems, only further indicates that humans have impacted the environment in virtually every place on earth, with possibly disastrous results for the world’s biodiversity.

The growing problem of invasive species is yet another reason to designate marine protected areas (MPAs) in Antarctica as soon as possible. By restricting some types of human activities, MPAs provide reference areas that can be compared with areas where activities aren’t restricted, thus helping scientists understand what ecosystem changes are caused by invasive species or climate change versus those caused by fishing or pollution. MPAs can also minimize some human-induced stressors on threatened ecosystems. Unfortunately, MPAs can’t keep king crabs out, but they can help scientists obtain a better grasp on the seismic changes taking place in the frozen south.

Ozone hole over Antarctica makes it rain in the tropics

In everything is connected news this week, researchers have determined that the ozone hole over the Antarctica causes increased rainfall in the tropics. This research confirms earlier research demonstrating that the ozone hole can lead to stronger storms in the Southern Hemisphere. On the positive side, the ozone hole should be gone within a few decades. But now comes the complicated part of incorporating these findings into climate change projections - apparently the IPCC hasn't accounted for the ozone hole in its predictions.

The Ups and Downs of Krill

A story released this week notes that there was an unusual krill bonanza in the West Antarctic Peninsula area in 2009, leading to (naturally) a sharp increase in the number of humpback whales usually seen in the area. The region where the whales were feeding usually has a lot more sea ice at the time of year scientists studied the krill and their whale groupies, but since the Peninsula is getting warmer, there wasn't as much sea ice as usual. That means that whales could access the area and feed on krill normally covered by sea ice. Does this mean warming is good for whales? Unfortunately, no:

"The lack of sea ice is good news for the whales in the short term, providing them with all-you-can-eat feasts as the krill migrate vertically toward the bay's surface each night. But it is bad news in the long term for both species, and for everything else in the Southern Ocean that depends on krill," says Ari S. Friedlaender, co-principal investigator on the project and a research scientist at Duke.

Another bonus, according to Rodolfo Werner (who works with Pew on the Antarctic Krill Conservation Project, which ASOC also works on) is that researchers were able to gather information on how much krill the whales were eating. Information of this kind is sorely needed to regulate krill fishing in a way that protects whales, seals, penguins, and other krill predators.

Enjoy the good eating while you can, whales! We humans are busily working on making sure the climate keeps heating up.

A Better Understanding of Climate Change

According to the Alfred Wegner Institute (AWI) for Polar and Marine Research, there may be more to long-standing theories regarding ice ages and climate change. In a recent submission to the journal Nature, three scientists from AWI’s working group “Dynamics of the Palaeoclimate” show new findings on the linkage between long-term changes in the global climate and natural insolation.

Analyzing temperature reconstructions based on ice cores removed from Antarctica, the AWI scientists took into account, for the first time, that winter temperatures have a greater influence than the summer temperatures in the recorded signal in the ice cores. Including this factor allows scientists to reconstruct temperature changes isolated to the southern hemisphere.

So what? Up to now, there has been no proven linkage between climate activity in the northern hemisphere and that of the southern hemisphere. Scientists originally postulated that temperature and climate change varied greatly with the constant slow change of the earth’s axis. This new data allows scientists to gain a better understanding of the effects of long-term physical mechanisms that influence the alterations of ice ages and warm periods.

The new data from ice cores has been corroborated by marine sediments, which also display similar seasonal shifts. According to the AWI physicists, these new high quality data and climate models may provide insights into the dynamics of climate change. This will allow us to better gage how the Earth’s climate change cycles have worked in the past and what we may expect into the future. The AWI scientists note however that they did not bring to account any possible anthropogenic climate change catalysts, in their study.

Martha T. Muse Prize

Nominations recently opened up for the Martha T. Muse Prize for Science and Policy in Antarctica. This honor is awarded to individuals who show clear potential for sustained and significant contributions that enhance our understanding of Antarctic issues and promote Antarctica’s preservation.

Last year’s winner, Helen Amanda Fricker, was recognized for her work with iceberg calving and basal melting and freezing, which has major global climate change implications. She is also known for her work with the hydrology of Antarctica’s subglacial lake systems. Steven Chown, the first prize-winner, was recognized for his research on the effects on Antarctica from humans, climate change and invasive species.

You can learn more about the prize here.

Better Understanding the Implications of Ice Melt in the Antarctic

Surprisingly, as of late, issues concerning ice berg ‘calving’ have not played a major role in producing sea-level rise estimates as a result of climate change. Calving is the release or breaking off of a mass of ice from a glacier, ice berg, or other large ice formations. Thanks to the efforts of Dr. Jeremy Bassis and his colleagues, the role of calving will be better understood.

Dr. Bassis, of the University of Chicago’s Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences, says that “Current models cannot predict about half of the sea ice balance." It appears that even though calving is connected with the speed-up of the ice-retreat process, the scientific community remains unclear as far as to what extent.

Bassis and his colleagues are working on a statistical methodology that allows them to predict the average iceberg calving rate and what different icy regions can expect in the years and decades to come as a result of climate change. Through this we should be able to have a better of idea of what icy areas will experience the greatest amount of melt, in the years to come, and we will have a more accurate picture of the global implications.

In a nutshell, as predictions state that sea level could rise anywhere from four inches to two and a half feet over the next hundred or so years, Bassis is working to narrow that wide margin, by better understanding calving’s contribution to sea level rise. With so much of the world’s population living near the coast, this is an imperative avenue of study.

Everybody loves Adelies

Adelie penguins are increasingly seen as indicators of climate change. A new grant from the U.S. National Science Foundation will contribute to the body of knowledge on Adelies and how their foraging opportunities might be affected by warming weather. If you want to learn more about the current evidence on how global warming is already affecting Adelie penguins, go here!

New penguin species added to endangered species list

The Center for Biological Diversity has claimed a victory in its quest to have the U.S. government add penguins to the endangered species list. The government finally decided to list five penguin species - the Humboldt penguin, the yellow-eyed penguin, the white flippered penguin, the fiordland penguin, and the erect-crested penguin - this week. CBD hoped to get more penguin species listed in an attempt to force the Obama administration to focus on climate change, which the CBD lists as the primary threat to penguins. What does this mean for the protected species, none of which obviously live anywhere near U.S. territory? Well, for starters, all U.S. operations in areas where these penguins live are covered - so a fishing boat will have to make sure its gear doesn't harm penguins, for example.

Though this is good news for those penguins, the continuing unwillingness of many governments, including the U.S., to address climate change is nothing short of depressing. It's a shame that people have to come up with creative ways to force officials to take real actions against climate change. Electric cars are great, but where's our Cool Biz? Will governments ever get real with people and admit that we all have to start making significant changes and investments towards a more sustainable future? No one's being asked to live in a yurt, but we can't continue our current lifestyle. The easy way is cutting emissions and paying higher taxes now, or maybe trying the radical Japanese option of wearing lighter clothing when it's hot outside so we can give the air conditioner a break. The hard way is waiting until Bangladesh is underwater and all the penguins are dead.

"Does anyone wish to address the comma?"

ASOC just returned from the two-week long Antarctic Treaty meeting in Punta del Este, Uruguay. The results of the meeting from our perspective were mixed. On a positive note, Parties affirmed the importance of climate change to the Antarctic by agreeing to make climate change a major agenda item, and expressed support for the planned network of Marine Protected Areas in the Southern Ocean. However, they failed to make much progress on regulating bioprospecting and tourism or working with the IMO to develop a Polar Code. You can read all about it in our press release.

However, the lack of progress across the board is not really surprising to anyone who attended the meeting. All too often the only issues Parties seem capable of discussing and subsequently agreeing on (many issues come up but little concrete action is taken) are the minor grammatical ones as referenced in the title of this post, which is an actual quote from the meeting. Of course some issues are going to be contentious, and I don't expect Parties to swoop in and take care of all issues within a few days, but it seems that there is a disappointing lack of enthusiasm for difficult work. Ignoring problems won't make them go away.

A bellwether for climate change

Scientist Joseph Torres is providing dispatches from Antarctica, where he's studying the disappearance of the Antarctic silverfish and the resulting effect on other animals. The decline is thought to be due to global warming. Silverfish are like krill in that many animals eat them (see a graphic of the silverfish's role in the food web here). Dr. Torres thinks that the fish are a bellwether for climate change - if silverfish go, other parts of the food web may be next. TampaBay.com has put together a very thorough overview of this issue and you should definitely check out the site.

Bill Gates in Antarctica

According to his Twitter, Bill Gates just returned from a trip to Antarctica with his son and his father. From his website, it looks as if he really enjoyed the scenery, but he also reflected on how climate change is affecting the Antarctic. Gates has been thinking about climate change for a while now, from the looks of things. It's good that he got a chance to see Antarctica and understand what's at stake for the continent in the climate change debate. As countries bicker over who's responsible for mitigating carbon emissions, it may fall to outsiders to develop real solutions. Although the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation doesn't focus on global warming right now, I'm glad it's on their radar.

No good news on ocean acidification

An Antarctic marine biologist at the University of Alabama - Birmingham is talking up his research on how the increased levels of carbon dioxide that cause climate change are also bad for the oceans, specifically because of ocean acidification. One project showed that it took as little as five weeks in an acidified environment for the shells of some Antarctic invertebrates to start thinning out. Dr. McClintock warns that because the Southern Ocean is a large carbon dioxide sink, ocean acidification is a particularly serious problem for Antarctic organisms.

Below is a video about the research:

Oceans Reveal Further Impacts of Climate Change, Says UAB Expert from uabnews on Vimeo.

Congratulations to Dr. Steven Chown...

We would like to congratulate Prof Steven Chown from Stellenbosch University in South Africa, the recipient of the Martha T. Muse Prize for Science and Policy in Antarctica, for his outstanding work on the study of invasive alien species and the effects of climate change and human interactions in the region.

Prof. Chown has been studying Antarctica and sub-Antarctic ecology for the better part of twenty years. He and his team have not only demonstrated that substantial numbers of seeds actually enter the region, but also that many of them are from species typically known to be invasive elsewhere on the planet. They have also been able to demonstrate how simple interventions concerning proper warehousing, cleaning of clothing and different shipping routes can greatly reduce the risks and problems associated with the transfer of invasive species to the region.

The Martha T. Muse prize brings him well-earned recognition and an award of $100,000. We wish him the best in continuing his research on this most important issue so we may keep Antarctica unspoiled.

Prince Albert to Receive Revelle Prize

ASOC is pleased to be a community partner with this year's Roger Revelle Prize of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, which will honor Prince Albert of Monaco. The Prince is a highly visible supporter of climate change research who has worked hard to raise awareness of polar environmental issues. Last year, he hosted marine scientists in Monaco, who produced the Monaco Declaration calling for dramatic emissions reductions to prevent further acidification of the ocean, which threatens species critical to marine ecosystems. Prince Albert is truly a leader in this arena, and we wish other world leaders would take their cues from him. Learn more about the Revelle Prize here.

Separating fact from fiction on Antarctic melting

Climate change is a big deal. It's all over the news. But sometimes too much coverage is a bad thing. Take this press release: West Antarctic ice sheet may not be losing ice as fast as once thought. If you actually read the article, you'll see that while the rate is slower, the ice sheet is still losing ice and contributing to sea-level rise. If you just see the headline, you might think that this is once again evidence that scientists have been getting all worked up over global warming for no reason. Too bad most people don't have the patience to try to sort out all the details, or read the full story. If you're not one of those people, I suggest you listen to today's Diane Rehm show, on which geophysicist Henry N. Pollack (segment available online soon if not already) really broke it down on climate change, even repeating my favorite argument that an unusually cool summer, or even a really warm winter does not disprove or prove climate change is occurring. It's the averages that are important. Also that the whole "hey, I'll enjoy being able to grow bananas in Michigan" crowd needs to realize that not everyone will be so lucky, especially not the millions of people who will lose their homes.

How will animals respond to climate change?

One of the more difficult problems associated with climate change is trying to predict what will happen to animal species when temperatures increase. It is expected that there will be winners and losers. As with so many environmental issues, however, predictions about which species will prevail and which will struggle are useful almost more to humans than to the species themselves. Disruptions of ecosystems can cause enormous headaches for humans - think of zebra mussel infestations, suburban deer invasions, fire ant population increases. So although Antarctica is rather remote, a recent study examining the response of elephant seals to the a previous warming period in earth's history provides some interesting background for scientists to use in predicting how other species might fare in a warmer world. Thanks to the generous folks over at PLoS Genetics, you can read the entire article online if you choose.

The main findings of the study, which examined DNA from old elephant seal carcasses found on the Victoria Land Coast (VLC) in the Ross Sea (hooray for Antarctic weather and its remarkable preservation qualities), were that when the VLC became ice-free about 8,000 years ago, elephant seals quickly moved to the area from Macquarie Island. When the ice returned, some went back, but all departed from the Ross Sea. The researchers examined changes in mitochondrial DNA to determine changes in population diversity. Genetic diversity expanded quickly (within a few generations) after the a colony was established on the VLC. The implications for this are that species that are highly mobile, as elephant seals are, can respond quickly to changing habitat situations. Other species that are less mobile will probably not fare as well in the face of climate change. Their findings will be useful for researchers who try to predict how various species will react to climate change, and use those findings to develop conservation plans.

Also, it's pretty frickin' cool that they got so much usable DNA from 8,000 year old elephant seal remains.

More News on Antarctic Melting

see more Fail Blog

The picture above technically has nothing to do with climate change, but it did remind me that I wanted to link to yet another story about the rate of Antarctica's melting. One day we're hearing that the melt is probably going to be less than predicted earlier. The next, it appears that the continent is melting faster than thought. According to a presentation at a conference hosted by the New Zealand government's Antarctic program by researcher Peter Barrett, the current rate of melting is not only outpacing predictions, it is also increasing. Unfortunately, Dr. Barrett additionally reported that based on his team's research, keeping the global rise in temperature to two degrees celsius by keeping carbon dioxide concentrations below 450 parts per million may be unrealistic. Ice cores show that the global temperature was three degrees warmer when carbon dioxide concentrations were below 400 ppm.

Back to the picture: it reminds me of the continued obstinancy over climate change even when compelling evidence is right there. How many times will scientists have to present data like Dr. Barrett's before concrete action is achieved? When climate change worsens, it seems unlikely that it will sneak up on us as adorably as this penguin. Will we be as blind as the photographer? [Yes, I know he's probably taking pictures of other penguins, but the fact remains that he's likely completely unaware that one of his desired subjects has sauntered up behind him.]

Don't Buy that Beachfront Property Just Yet

Numerous reports on a recent revision to the amount of sea level rise expected to result when the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) melts included predictable headlines trumpeting this good news. Except, well, the estimate was revised down from 5-6 meters to 3.3 meters. As Reuters reports, 1.5 meters alone would displace millions of people in Bangladesh. Additionally, under this model, sea levels around North America would rise the most, causing problems for cities such as New York, Washington, and San Francisco. Hooray?

It appears that the revised estimates represent not a brighter future, but slightly less catastrophic future. As someone who would prefer a no-catastrophe future, I can't say that this news is as reassuring as some headlines would suggest. The Telegraph (UK) headlined its article "West Antarctic ice sheet collapse 'exaggerated', scientists say," and conveniently left out quotes from the leader of the team that developed the new estimates in which he noted that even a 1-2 meter rise would be "very, very serious." The problem with presenting new information about climate change as "good" just because it less dire is that it overlooks the fact that even small climate disruptions are going to have major impacts on human life. Scientists keep saying that climate change is serious for a reason. They might need to edit some conclusions from time to time, but that doesn't mean that global warming is just going to mean a slightly longer summer. Just ask a farmer who got too much rain at the wrong time and faces a drastically diminished crop yield. Whether it's one meter or six, the fact that formerly solid ice has suddenly started melting should worry us all.

Trends in Antarctic Ice

Recently, the news that the area of sea ice around Antarctica had increased was trumpeted as proof that climate change isn't happening. This kind of response is fairly typical, but it bears repeating that one single study or factor cannot prove or disprove the existence of global warming. In this case, researchers from the British Antarctic Survey and NASA determined that the ozone hole led to the increased ice. Lack of ozone results in more wind coming off the continent and cooling the ocean, and then more ice. So no victory here for climate change deniers.

The ozone hole will no doubt continue to shrink, thanks to the global ban on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and conditions will return to normal, meaning the effects of climate change will be more obvious. But try telling that to Dimitri Zinchenko, a Russian Antarctic sea captain who asserts that his personal experience with the ice over the past few years does not lead him to believe in climate change. Certainly Captain Zinchenko is telling the truth about what he's seen, but again, one set of observations does not give the entire story about a complex phenomenon such as climate change. The effects of climate change will be and have been varied and unpredictable. The main problem is that global systems are being disrupted. Regardless of whether these disruptions are of the classic, ice-melting, thermometer-busting kind we've come to associate with climate change, they can have serious impacts on ecosystems and human systems.

So when you hear about Antarctic ice in the news, don't be confused when the news isn't all melting and sea rise and cities underwater oh my. There may be far less dramatic changes that are also slowly adding to the growing pile of evidence in favor of an anthropogenically warming world.

Reflections on Climate Change, Consensus, and Icebergs

As a first-time attendee of an Antarctic Treaty Meeting, I was often simultaneously exasperated and enlightened. Exasperated because of the frequent long discussions on what seemed to be minor points, enlightened because now I better understand why international bodies have reputations for being do-nothings. After one long, borderline hostile debate, an interesting idea proposed by one Treaty party had been stripped, at least from our organization's point of view, of all meaning - to the point where other consultative parties more or less openly mocked the outcome. It was only later that I got a vague idea about why the idea had been so problematic to some Treaty parties, and even then the reasons seemed far less critical than the strenuousness of their objections led me to believe.

The idea at hand (I can't say too much about the exact details since the debates are not necessarily on the record) was not even suggested as a Resolution, which is binding. This was merely the first step in a fairly tentative consideration of an emerging, but ultimately minor, issue. Before it had even been studied, some Parties were worried about an outcome unfavorable to them. Now imagine the foot-dragging that must occur in similar fora that address issues with extremely broad ramifications, such as climate change. After seeing the painful process of developing an international consensus (and among less than thirty countries!) up close, I understand, if not approve of, the lack of action at the UN and similar bodies. When the climate change conference in Copenhagen rolls around this December, try not to only be angry at countries that hold up progress. Show support for the countries who are striving for progress. Believe me, they are just as frustrated as you are. Probably more.

All this is a roundabout way of saying that Copenhagen is probably going to be a fairly difficult process, even though the impact of climate change grows by the day. The European Space Agency (ESA) has been releasing excellent images of the continuing breakup of the Wilkins Ice Shelf in Antarctica. Earlier this month, the land bridge connecting the shelf to an island collapsed, and now the ice shelf has become more destabilized, with icebergs beginning to calve. The danger with the continued breakup of the ice shelf is not that the icebergs will have any appreciable impact on sea level, but that ice shelves typically hold back glaciers and land ice. In the absence of the shelf, these other kinds of ice slide towards the ocean faster, and they can raise sea level. Many in the environmental community reacted to news about the Wilkins Ice Shelf with a hope that the unfortunate event would at least spur governments to take more decisive action. We'll see in December whether it will be business as usual or if goverments can put aside some of their differences and work a bit more cooperatively.