-
Synthesis
Delivering 21st century Antarctic and Southern Ocean scienceM.C.
KENNICUTT II, Y.D. KIM, M. ROGAN-FINNEMORE, S. ANANDAKRISHNAN, S.L.
CHOWN, S. COLWELL,D. COWAN, C. ESCUTIA, Y. FRENOT, J. HALL, D.
LIGGETT, A.J. MCDONALD, U. NIXDORF, M.J. SIEGERT,
J. STOREY, A. WÅHLIN, A. WEATHERWAX, G.S. WILSON, T. WILSON, R.
WOODING, S. ACKLEY,N. BIEBOW, D. BLANKENSHIP, S. BO, J. BAESEMAN,
C.A. CÁRDENAS, J. CASSANO, C. DANHONG,
J. DAÑOBEITIA, J. FRANCIS, J. GULDAHL, G. HASHIDA, L. JIMÉNEZ
CORBALÁN, A. KLEPIKOV, J. LEE,M. LEPPE, F. LIJUN, J.
LÓPEZ-MARTINEZ, M. MEMOLLI, Y. MOTOYOSHI, R. MOUSALLE BUENO,J.
NEGRETE, M.A. OJEDA CÁRDENES, M. PROAÑO SILVA, S. RAMOS-GARCIA, H.
SALA, H. SHIN,
X. SHIJIE, K. SHIRAISHI, T. STOCKINGS, S. TROTTER, D.G. VAUGHAN,
J. VIERA DA UNHA DE MENEZES,V. VLASICH, Q. WEIJIA, J.-G. WINTHER,
H. MILLER, S. RINTOUL and H. YANG*
[email protected]*Author contact information and
contribution are provided in Table S1 in the supplemental material
found at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481.
Abstract: The Antarctic Roadmap Challenges (ARC) project
identified critical requirements to deliver highpriority Antarctic
research in the 21st century. The ARC project addressed the
challenges of enablingtechnologies, facilitating access, providing
logistics and infrastructure, and capitalizing on
internationalco-operation. Technological requirements include: i)
innovative automated in situ observing systems,sensors and
interoperable platforms (including power demands), ii) realistic
and holistic numerical models,iii) enhanced remote sensing and
sensors, iv) expanded sample collection and retrieval technologies,
andv) greater cyber-infrastructure to process ‘big data’
collection, transmission and analyses while promotingdata
accessibility. These technologies must be widely available,
performance and reliability must beimproved and technologies used
elsewheremust be applied to theAntarctic. Considerable Antarctic
researchis field-based, making access to vital geographical targets
essential. Future research will require continent-and ocean-wide
environmentally responsible access to coastal and interior
Antarctica and the SouthernOcean. Year-round access is
indispensable. The cost of future Antarctic science is great but
there areopportunities for all to participate commensurate with
national resources, expertise and interests. The scopeof future
Antarctic research will necessitate enhanced and inventive
interdisciplinary and internationalcollaborations. The full promise
of Antarctic science will only be realized if nations act
together.
Received 19 May 2016, accepted 19 August 2016, first published
online 21 October 2016
Key words: access, future directions, infrastructure, logistics,
technologies
Introduction
While the southern Polar Region of our planet is oftenperceived
as being remote and distant from people’sdaily lives, events there
are frequently reported in themedia attracting wide public
interest. As one of thelargest remaining wildernesses on the
planet, the regioninspires a sense of awe and wonder. In contrast,
thedramatic change being observed instills a foreboding ofwhat the
future holds as our planet rapidly warms.Knowledge to be gained in
Antarctica and the SouthernOcean provides unique insights into some
of society’smost pressing concerns, including, but not limited
to,
climate change (global warming) and ocean acidification,sea
level rise and threats to the planet’s biodiversity(Chown et al.
2015, DeConto & Pollard 2016). Buildingon nearly six decades of
research since the InternationalGeophysical Year 1957–1958 (IGY),
the promise offuture knowledge and insight to be gained by
studyingand understanding the Antarctic region has never
beengreater. Earth System science recognizes that the planetis a
network of interconnected physical and livingsubsystems, and that
perturbations in one region canreverberate throughout, having
consequences for andinvoking responses in, distal regions of the
system. Howthese complex systems will respond in the future to
Antarctic Science 28(6), 407–423 (2016) © Antarctic Science Ltd
2016.This is an Open Accessarticle, distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlikelicence
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), which permits
non-commercial re-use,distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the same Creative Commons licence isincluded and the
original work is properly cited. The written permission of
CambridgeUniversity Press must be obtained for commercial re-use.
doi:10.1017/S0954102016000481
407
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481Downloaded from
https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 12
Jun 2020 at 15:22:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at
mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1017/S0954102016000481&domain=pdfhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/termshttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481https://www.cambridge.org/core
-
human activities is incompletely understood at best andoften
unknown.
Over decades it has become increasingly apparent thatthe
Antarctic is a critically important element of theplanetary system
(Barnes 2015, Summerhayes 2015). TheAntarctic region not only
responds to global change butin many instances is the epicentre
and/or the origin ofimportant processes that control or modulate
globalwater, heat, energy and chemistry budgets. Antarcticaand the
Southern Ocean house one-of-a-kind sediment,rock, ice and fossil
records of the Earth’s history from ‘deeptime’ to recent climate
oscillations that provide a matchlesswindow on the past and
possible futures. The evolution andadaptation of Antarctic
organisms, from the molecular tothe population/ecosystem level, are
unique on the planetand known to be influenced by climate change
overmillionsof years (Chown et al. 2015). It is further known that
a widespectrum of stressors in the region are increasing in
intensityand complexity (Kennicutt et al. 2014, 2015). The
EarthSystem and how it has and will respond to
anthropogenicstressors cannot be fully understood or predicted
withoutoperative understanding of Antarctica and the SouthernOcean,
and their teleconnections to lower latitudes(Thompson et al. 2011).
Understanding change in theAntarctic region, and why it is
happening, is important toinforming the global debate on the
trajectory of Earth’senvironment and how decisions by humans will
affect andalter future outcomes.
In recognition of the growing importance of Antarcticscience and
research in global debates, the internationalcommunity came
together in an unprecedented effort todefine the highest priority
scientific questions that can beuniquely addressed by studying the
region (Kennicutt et al.2014, 2015). The initial step was the
Scientific Committee onAntarctic Research’s (SCAR) Antarctic and
SouthernOcean Science Horizon Scan (the Scan), which identifiedhigh
priority scientific questions that researchers aspire toanswer in
the next 20 years and beyond (Kennicutt et al.2014, 2015). The Scan
was followed by the Council ofManagers of National Antarctic
Programs (COMNAP)Antarctic Roadmap Challenges (ARC) project
designed toexamine the steps necessary to enable the community
toconduct research that will answer high priority
scientificquestions. Both of these exercises widely consulted
theinternational Antarctic community to define a collectivevision
of one possible path to the future and what it will taketo fully
realize the promise of Antarctic research. Theoutcomes of ARC are
reported here as a companion piece tothe ‘Antarctic Science
Roadmap’ (Kennicutt et al. 2015).
The Antarctic and Southern Ocean Science Roadmap
Collective international planning has a long history inAntarctic
science, founded in the Antarctic Treaty of1959 and four
International Polar Years (IPYs). Dating to
the 1800s, IPYs have been planned at 25–50 year
intervals.International co-operation is a cornerstone of
Antarcticscience and reflects the spirit espoused by the
AntarcticTreaty, which sets the geopolitical framework
forconsultative management of the region poleward of 60°S.Over the
years other conventions and agreements haveestablished an
international context for the conduct ofscience in and from
Antarctica and the Southern Ocean.
The most recent IPY 2007–08 laid out a comprehensiveportfolio of
hundreds of programmes and projects thatpromoted international
co-operation, data sharing andoptimal use of science support
activities (Krupnik et al.2011, National Research Council 2012).
However, PolarYears are infrequent. In order to provide a more
regularopportunity for collective international planning a‘horizon
scan’ methodology was adopted, adapted,organized and managed by
SCAR. A horizon scan hasbeen described as ‘… a priority-setting
method thatsystematically searches for opportunities, which are
thenused to articulate a vision for future research directions’.The
horizon scan methods of Sutherland et al. (2011,2013) were
customized to the requirements of Antarcticand Southern Ocean
science, which is region-based andencompasses a wide range of
scientific disciplines andresearch topics. The Scan was designed to
be inclusive,democratic and transparent. The community was
providedthe opportunity to contribute scientific questions and
tonominate experts to attend a retreat. At the retreat,
invitedexperts prioritized themost pressing scientific questions
andidentified critical unknowns. A record of the Scan processand
its outcomes are available in an archive
(http://www.scar.org/horizonscanning).
The goal of the Scan was to systematically identify themost
pressing, highest priority scientific questions that theglobal
science community aspires to answer over the nexttwo decades
(Kennicutt et al. 2014, 2015). The primaryoutput of the Scan was 80
high priority Antarctic scientificquestions from nearly 1000 ideas
generated by thecommunity (Kennicutt et al. 2015). Once
identified,scientific questions were organized into seven
thematicclusters, each containing questions that were
cross-cuttingand interdisciplinary in scope: i) Antarctic
atmosphere andglobal connections, ii) the Southern Ocean and sea
ice in awarming world, iii) the ice sheet and sea level, iv)
thedynamic earth beneath Antarctic ice, v) life on the
precipice,vi) near-Earth space and beyond: eyes on the sky, andvii)
human presence in Antarctica (Kennicutt et al. 2015).
Delivering the science
Defining the highest priority scientific questions was
animportant first step but the value of Antarctic research lies
inanswering the questions thereby producing new knowledge.The
conduct of scientific research in the Antarcticregion requires
substantial and sustained investments by
408 M.C. KENNICUTT et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481Downloaded from
https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 12
Jun 2020 at 15:22:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at
http://www.scar.org/horizonscanninghttp://www.scar.org/horizonscanninghttps://www.cambridge.org/core/termshttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481https://www.cambridge.org/core
-
governments to meet the challenges of conducting researchin a
remote and extreme environment. Effectively navigatingthe
‘Antarctic Science Roadmap’ requires addressing arange of
challenges. The ARC project answers thequestion: ‘How will national
Antarctic programmesmeet the challenges of delivery of Antarctic
science overthe next 20 years?’ As the entities that fund and
supportAntarctic science, national Antarctic programmes facemany
practical and technical issues. The ARC projecttranslates high
priority Antarctic research questions intoactionable requirements
for critical technologies, access,infrastructure and logistics.
Challenges to achieving the ‘Antarctic ScienceRoadmap’ are:
Challenge 1: technology
‘Innovative experimental designs, new applications ofexisting
technology, invention of next-generationtechnologies and
development of novel air-, space- andanimal-borne observing or
logging technologies will beessential’ (Kennicutt et al. 2015).
Historically, science hasbeen advanced by technological
developments; notableis the emergence of aircraft and space-based
technologiesin the 20th century. New designs, instrumentation,
sensortechnologies (from micro- to macro-scale) and
non-contaminating sample-retrieval technologies will continueto be
required as scientists probe ever-more challenginglocations to
answer increasingly difficult questions.In many instances,
technology makes science possible.Technological advances not only
support ongoing sciencebut may also limit what science can be
performed and, insome cases, changes the scientific hypotheses that
can bepostulated (e.g. genomics has revolutionized ecology).
Challenge 2: extraordinary logistics requirements (access)
‘Future research in Antarctica will require expanded,year-round
access to the continent and the SouthernOcean’ (Kennicutt et al.
2015). Antarctic logisticsrequirements are often complex and
challenging. Thegeographical isolation, the extreme
environmentalconditions, the cost and the implementation of policy
andreporting requirements make planning and logisticscomplicated
and demanding on people, resources and time.
Challenge 3: infrastructure
‘Antarctica and the Southern Ocean occupy a vastterritory, much
of which is inaccessible during winter.Even during summer the
conditions prove challenging…infrastructure is essential to
survival and is vital to theconduct of science. Two kinds of
infrastructure canprovide opportunities to advance scientific
research inAntarctica: physical systems infrastructure,
includingtransport, and cyber-infrastructure’ (National
Research
Council 2011a). The modern expansion of Antarcticinfrastructure
began during the IGY. Upgrades,refurbishments and the building of
new stations andfacilities have been implemented in the intervening
years,especially during the IPYs. (For an inventory of
currentpermanent scientific stations in Antarctica see
https://www.comnap.aq/Publications/Comnap%20Publications/comnap_map_edition5_a0_2009-07-24.pdf).
Infrastructureimplies a ‘permanence’ but there are also
numeroustemporary facilities, field camps, laboratories, airstrips,
fuel depots and traverse routes established forfinite periods of
time to support specific activities and/orscience programmes. There
remain vast regions of theAntarctic that are virtually unexplored,
except by space-borne sensors, where humans have never been. There
arescientific questions that will require extensions intoareas not
now occupied or accessible. Environmentalprotection and
conservation remains paramount andminimizing the ‘human footprint’
is a shared goal(Sánchez & McIvor 2007, Sánchez & Njaastad
2014).
Challenge 4: international co-operation
‘Barriers to international collaboration need to beminimized …
mutually beneficial and efficient modelsfor partnerships that share
ideas, data, logistics andfacilities need to be explored’
(Kennicutt et al. 2015). TheScan outcomes highlighted the
ever-increasing need forgreater collaboration and partnerships
between nationsand scientific fields. International
collaboration,interdisciplinary teams, partnerships between the
privateand public sectors, and close co-ordination
betweenscientists and science support personnel remainfundamental
requirements. Global Antarctic interestshave grown beyond the
original twelve Antarcticnations. As of 2016, 41 other countries
have acceded tothe Antarctic Treaty
(http://www.ats.aq/index_e.htm).Scientific advice based on the
knowledge generated byAntarctic research has been and will continue
to beessential to informed decision- and policy-making,conservation
and wise governance.
Challenge 5: human resources
‘The polar science community should take advantage ofthe
opportunity to develop innovative professionaleducation efforts
that build on the interdisciplinary andunique aspects of Antarctic
research’ (National ResearchCouncil 2011a). Concerns have been
raised thatinsufficient numbers of scientists and engineers are
beingproduced by educational systems to meet future
demands(National Research Council 2007). Recently, severalnational
Antarctic programmes noted that they arefinding it increasingly
difficult to recruit and retainpeople with the technical skills
required for winter-over
PRIORITIES FOR FUTURE ANTARCTIC SCIENCE ARE DEFINED 409
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481Downloaded from
https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 12
Jun 2020 at 15:22:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at
https://www.comnap.aq/Publications/Comnap%20Publications/comnap_map_edition5_a0_2009-07-24.pdfhttps://www.comnap.aq/Publications/Comnap%20Publications/comnap_map_edition5_a0_2009-07-24.pdfhttps://www.comnap.aq/Publications/Comnap%20Publications/comnap_map_edition5_a0_2009-07-24.pdfhttp://www.ats.aq/index_e.htmhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/termshttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481https://www.cambridge.org/core
-
and field support positions. Establishing and sustainingstable
funding to retain personnel and meet the needs ofscience and
support is an emergent challenge. Publicawareness, outreach and
education are vital to sustainingthe ‘workforce pipeline’. In
particular, there is growingglobal demand and competition for
specialized skills ininformation, geospatial and communications
technologies.
Challenge 6: energy
‘Science operations in the Antarctic and Southern Oceanare
energy-intensive … new science technologies willrequire energy’
(National Research Council 2011a).Today, most of the energy that
powers Antarctic scienceand support is derived from fossil fuels.
Vessels andaircraft are large users of fuel, and these demands
willinevitably increase given calls for expanded and year-round
access. Energy is required for materials andpersonnel transport,
facilities operations, powering ofinstrumentation and
observatories, and data collection,processing, storage and
transmission. There are concertedefforts to improve energy
efficiency, reduce demandand replace fuel with renewable wind and
solar energy.New and/or improved battery technologies and
moreefficient use of energy in all aspects of Antarctic scienceare
critical requirements for future Antarctic research.
Challenge 7: long-term, sustainable funding
‘No one scientist, programme or even nation can reachthese lofty
aspirations alone, and success will be borne-outby the practical
solutions delivered as we navigate our waytogether into an
uncharted future’ (Kennicutt et al. 2015).The cost of future
Antarctic science and support activitieswill, in all likelihood,
inexorably increase. Defining andexploring ways to enhance
Antarctic science budgets to:i) support international collaborative
projects, ii) long-termobservations and observing networks, iii)
ensure efficientutilization of limited resources and iv) encourage
sharingand exchange of data, samples and information is
critical.Sustained funding is essential to not only maintaining
thecurrent Antarctic community but critical to attracting
andretaining the next generation of participants.
The ARC project addressed Challenges 1, 2, 3 and 4enabling
technologies, access, logistics and infrastructure,and
international co-operation.
Methodology
The goal of ARC was to translate the high priorityAntarctic and
Southern Ocean scientific questionsidentified by the Scan into
technological and operationalrequirements. The ARC project was
designed to providespecificity to the high priority technological,
access,logistic and infrastructure necessities that provide the
greatest scientific return. Effort was made to achieve
aconsensus while prioritizing among the many possibleoptions and
needs. The objective of ARC was tocommunicate to, and raise
awareness among, those whofund and deliver Antarctic science. Two
open onlinesurveys of the community were conducted. Survey
1identified the highest priority technological needs (>
400responses were received). Survey 2 asked the communityto assess
the feasibility and cost of the requirementsidentified in Survey 1
(> 250 responses were received).
Experts were then assembled at a workshop to considera series
ofWhite Papers submitted by a range of Antarcticcommunities, ARC
survey results and summaries fromthe Scan, as well as existing
documents addressing futureAntarctic science directions,
technologies and logisticsrequirements. The 60 workshop
participants includedlogisticians and operations experts,
experienced Antarcticresearchers, policy makers and national
Antarcticprogramme personnel from 22 countries. The workshopwas
organized around the Scan science question clusters.Writing Groups
were assigned co-Leads (one scientist/researcher and one national
Antarctic programme expert)and a scribe to record deliberations.
Writing Groups wereconfigured to maximize expertise, discipline,
gender andgeographical representation.
Each Writing Group was supplied with standardizedforms
containing a series of questions. By answering thequestions, the
Writing Groups methodically identified thehighest priority
technologies including: i) availability andthe current status of
development, ii) where geographicallythe technologies would be
utilized, iii) the temporal scalesand frequencies over which the
technologies might be usedand iv) how broadly applicable the
technologies were foranswering scientific questions. The Writing
Groups alsoconsidered the requirements to deliver the science in
terms offeasibility, cost and scientific benefits.
Writing Groups were asked to identify requirementsthat were
particularly complex, required long-terminvestments to achieve
and/or had associated costs thatrealistically could only be met (or
be best accomplished)by international partnerships. Writing Groups
were alsoasked to identify major trends (changes) in
logistics,access and infrastructure requirements that
willsignificantly impact long-term, strategic alignment
ofinternational capabilities, resources and capacity. In
aconcluding section, the Writing Groups were asked tosummarize the
most important ‘take-home messages’for those that fund and support
Antarctic research.Reports from each Writing Group were reviewed
byexternal experts who had not been at the workshop andwere
subsequently revised to a final version. The finalreports were
analysed to discern high priority needs thatsupport the broadest
swath of the Antarctic communityand have the greatest potential for
optimal scientificreturn.
410 M.C. KENNICUTT et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481Downloaded from
https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 12
Jun 2020 at 15:22:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/termshttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481https://www.cambridge.org/core
-
A record of ARC including: i) survey results,ii) workshop
preparation materials and questionnaires,iii) White Papers, iv)
final Writing Group reports and v)other supporting materials are
archived at https://www.comnap.aq/Projects/SitePages/ARC.aspx, and
the finalWriting Group reports are provided in the
supplementalmaterial found at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481.
Outcomes
Technological requirements are first discussed on a‘scientific
question cluster’ basis followed by considerationof cross-cutting
requirements (Fig. 1).
Antarctic atmosphere and global connections
The highest priority technological advances for
Antarcticatmospheric sciences research are: i) expanded
observingtechnologies capable of autonomous and/or
sustaineddeployment (including adequate power supplies),ii)
improved Earth System Models, iii) enhanced andexpanded remote
sensing capabilities, and iv) connectivitythat allows for real-time
data collection, transfer and
analysis. Advances in Antarctic atmospheric sciences willbe
critically dependent on enhanced exchanges of peopleand information
including better logistical co-ordination,technology transfer and
dissemination, and openavailability and co-ordination of data.
Remote sensingis a particularly critical technology for answering
highpriority atmospheric science questions. The Antarcticcommunity
must therefore engage with national spaceand meteorological
agencies to ensure their needs arerepresented in planning for
future missions.
Continuous and robust sensors on automated weathersystems (AWS)
and unmanned aerial systems (UAS) areneeded for ‘smart’
(unattended) deployment, and need tobe complemented by new sensor
technologies and newobservational platforms (e.g. unmanned aerial
vehicles(UAVs)). Improved and new battery technologies to meetthe
power requirements of autonomous systems are essentialfor
long-term, sustained deployments and enhancedcommunications.
Advances in power technologies willmost probably occur in the
private sector and theAntarctic community must be ready to rapidly
adapt thesetechnologies to applications in Antarctica.
Improvements in numerical models are needed toanswer pressing
atmospheric sciences questions, often
Fig. 1. Summary of online survey results prioritizing
technological advances necessary to answer the highest priority
Antarctic scientificquestions. Technological advances are
categorized on the X-axis from high to highest priority based on
rankings by respondents.On the Y-axis, horizontal lines with arrows
indicate the current status of the technology and, if under
development, the estimatedyears to availability (a ‘+’ at the upper
end of the horizontal lines with arrows indicates that full
development and availability isestimated to be in excess of six
years from 2015). Coloured bar codes indicate which science
clusters ranked the indicated technologyas a priority need (see the
colour key at the top of the figure). Note that coloured bar codes
indicate highest priorities within scientificquestion clusters but
the absence of a cluster does not indicate that the technology is
not applicable, i.e. it did not rise to being highestpriority for
the cluster’s specific scientific questions. Technologies
highlighted by beige boxes include a wide range of associated
orsupporting technologies and therefore a time frame for
development is not indicated as it is highly variable.
PRIORITIES FOR FUTURE ANTARCTIC SCIENCE ARE DEFINED 411
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481Downloaded from
https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 12
Jun 2020 at 15:22:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at
https://www.comnap.aq/Projects/SitePages/ARC.aspxhttps://www.comnap.aq/Projects/SitePages/ARC.aspxhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481https://www.cambridge.org/core/termshttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481https://www.cambridge.org/core
-
requiring improved integration between observationsand models.
Advances in models are closely tied to theavailability of
cyber-infrastructure (e.g. high bandwidth),high-performance
computing and open data. Critically, therange of components
included in Earth SystemModels andtheir interconnections must be
enhanced to provide morerealistic forecasts. More advanced
numerical models areneeded to support ‘system reanalysis’ projects
providinga resource for interdisciplinary science.
Partnershipsbeyond the Antarctic community are essential to
advancemodels including organizations such as the
WorldMeteorological Organization’s Experts on Polar and
HighMountain Observations, Research and Services group, andnational
space and meteorological agencies that areaddressing improvements
in observations, Earth SystemModels and data availability. Enhanced
linkages betweenatmospheric observations, modelling and
operationalforecasting is essential for improving regional and
localweather forecasting, and enabling efficient planning offield
operations. Improved co-ordination of operationalmeteorology
activities among national programmes isespecially needed to
progress sea ice forecasting, for example.
The Southern Ocean and sea ice in a warming world
The highest priority technological requirements needed toadvance
Southern Ocean science are: i) underwater andunder floating ice
navigation and positioning, ii) automatedunderwater vehicles
(AUVs), drones and gliders with greaterrange and capacity, iii)
long-term ice and deep-water capablebuoy networks including
ice-tethered platforms/profilers,sea-ice buoys, drifters and
moorings, iv) autonomousbiological and physical
sensors/observatories, and v) greaterbandwidth and continuity of
data communication fromremote locations (e.g. underwater).
The trend in ocean sciences research, as in most fields,
isgreater automation of measurements. The performanceof AUVs,
gliders, drones, remotely operated vehicles anddrifters continue to
improve. Underwater and under-icenavigation and positioning must be
more accurate foreffective emplacement and tracking of
observingplatforms. Greater automation requires stable and
long-duration power supplies to expand temporal and spatialrange.
Smaller, more powerful batteries combined withminiaturized, energy
efficient and less expensive sensorswill be critical for long-range
autonomous ocean (andatmosphere) sensing platforms. Prototype
technologiesexist but are not widely available.
Ocean moorings can be routinely deployed for abouttwo years at
present. In the future, deployments of fiveyears or longer will be
needed. This requires long lastingpower supplies and stable,
auto-calibrating sensors.Present drifter networks need to be
adapted for use inunder-ice, deep sea and shallow water
environments. Ice-tethered platforms (including ice mass balance
buoys)
capable of longer duration emplacements are needed.Interoperable
unmanned observatory hubs are neededthat support a wide range of
observations (weatherstations, ice radar, ocean measurements cabled
up frommoorings, gliders, AUVs and buoy networks). These hubsmust
be capable of providing power, data collection andtransmission of
data from remote locations via satelliteand/or air links. Cabled
observatories are underdevelopment elsewhere in the world’s oceans
andapplication of these advances to studies in the SouthernOcean
must be pursued
(http://www.interactiveoceans.washington.edu/story/The_Cabled_Component_of_the_NSF_Ocean_Observatories_Initiative).
Satellite-based sensors that provide long-term, year-round
observations are critical for ocean research
(http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/).
Groundtruthing of data collected by satellite- and airbornesensors
is a high priority and will require sustained,year-round access to
the region. Presently, the onlyways to obtain data from surface
waters of Antarcticaduring winter are via satellites, airborne
sensors andinstrumented mammals. Automated collection of grounddata
during winter is important. Ethical, animal-basedtechnologies need
to be more widely available, lessexpensive, disposable and
miniaturized.
Scientific questions relating to palaeoclimate andextreme events
require the retrieval and study of deepsea, coastal and interior
basin sediment records. Existingcore drilling/recovery and sediment
retrieval technologiesare not readily available to Antarctic
scientists due to thehigh cost of operation in the Antarctic
region. Mobile,multi-purpose drilling rigs with advanced sampling,
coring,sample retrieval and sensor array
(down-borehole)technologies are needed.
Increased bandwidth and faster transfer of ‘big datasets’from
Antarctica are critical limitations for future SouthernOcean
research. Data transmission through the ocean is aparticular
challenge. Presently, this is accomplished bycable, sonically
(limited bandwidth) and/or by the release ofdata capsules to the
surface. Enabling real-time or ‘near-real-time’ transfer of data
via satellites and/or high altitudeUAVs offer solutions.
The ice sheet and sea level
The highest priority technological advances that will beneeded
for accomplishing research to answer scientificquestions related to
ice sheets and sea level are: i) process-driven numerical ice sheet
models, ii) subglacial (includingsediment recovery) and englacial
sampling and sensingmethods, iii) combined, multiple geophysical
measurementand sampling of ice including from UAS, iv)
satellitesensors that can collect synoptic operational
measurementsof snow and ice accumulation, and v) improved
AUVs,in-ice observatories and submersible sensors.
412 M.C. KENNICUTT et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481Downloaded from
https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 12
Jun 2020 at 15:22:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at
http://www.interactiveoceans.washington.edu/story/The_Cabled_Component_of_the_NSF_Ocean_Observatories_Initiativehttp://www.interactiveoceans.washington.edu/story/The_Cabled_Component_of_the_NSF_Ocean_Observatories_Initiativehttp://www.interactiveoceans.washington.edu/story/The_Cabled_Component_of_the_NSF_Ocean_Observatories_Initiativehttp://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/https://www.cambridge.org/core/termshttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481https://www.cambridge.org/core
-
Improved predictions of ice sheet change and responseto forcings
are essential (Church et al. 2013). Theintegration of models with a
wide range of in-fieldobservations will be critical to developing
the nextgeneration of ice sheet models capable of describing
andpredicting realistic ice flow. These improved models needto be
an integral element of holistic Earth SystemModels.Model
improvements are mostly hindered by a lack ofobservations of key
processes. A better understanding ofthe influence of bed
topography, ice fabric, basal heatflow, underlying sediments,
temperature and other basicparameters is important for improving
models.Comprehensive and more accurate ice sheet massbalance
measurements are essential. Knowing the flowof ice in vertical
profile in all places, from the interior tothe grounding zone, is
needed to adequately describe thefactors that influence ice sheet
dynamics. Ice sheet modelshave improved considerably but
substantial advances areneeded to better constrain predictions and
to describe the‘real’ flow of ice. The requisite observation
requiresenglacial placement of sensors and observatories,analogous
to AWSs, and may necessitate the use ofdisposable sensor
arrays.
The dynamic earth beneath Antarctic ice
The technologies necessary to address high prioritygeosciences
questions are: i) sensor arrays on thecontinent and in
ice/subglacial boreholes, ii) improvedcapabilities for the
collection of data and samples duringfield surveys (UAS, improved
sampling technologies, andminiaturization and efficient power
designs for sensorsand robotics), and iii) drilling systems for the
collectionand complete recovery of samples of sediment and rockfrom
beneath the ice, the land and the ocean. Many ofthese technologies
exist/or are under development(National Research Council
2011b).
Key for the advancement of geosciences is wideravailability of
existing technologies that allow forregular/repeated collection of
a wide range of samplesand data at a wider range of sites.
Transcontinental arraysof sensors are needed. Other technologies
such assubglacial bedrock/sediment core recovery and remotesensing
sensors need to be developed (Makinson et al.2016). Geophysical
data, sensors and samples will allowfor a better understanding of
the distribution and volumesof greenhouse gases stored in
permafrost and clathrates.Samples of sediment and rock provide
information aboutbiota and ecosystem evolution over Earth’s
history.
Ensuring the standardization of sensor technology andthe
connectivity and interoperability of sensors is a highpriority.
Multi-sensor, multi-tasking observatories andplatform networks that
support integrated experimentsacross disciplinary boundaries will
improve the efficiencyof resource utilization. Sensor networks need
to be
capable of acquiring and transmitting high volumes ofdata and
will require increased bandwidth.
Technology development is important for advancingsubglacial
research. Routine clean, rapid and reliableaccess through thick ice
is required to repeatedly accessthe subglacial environment across
the continent (Siegertet al. 2012). These methodologies must focus
onminimizing environmental impact while maximizingscientific return
without compromising the sites for futurestudy. Portable drills,
sampling devices and supportinglaboratories are needed to establish
a continent-widenetwork of subglacial observatories. Obtaining
andreturning uncontaminated samples (especially forbiological
samples) to the ice surface is essential.
Life on the precipice
The Antarctic life sciences cluster of questions spansmarine to
terrestrial (including subglacial) environmentsand requires studies
of a range of organisms from virusesto marine mammals. High
priority life sciences questionsaddress a wide variety of themes in
biology, ecology andconservation science. Life sciences priority
technologicalrequirements include: i) improved, robust, in situ,
high-resolution ecosystem monitoring sensor arrays (includingthe
ability to automatically calibrate), ii) autonomous,multi-purpose,
continuous and long-term in situ processmonitoring systems and
vehicles (including samplerecovery and return capabilities), iii)
high-performancecomputing capabilities for analysing ‘big data’,iv)
high-volume automated multi-omic instrumentation(including
automated in situmeta-genomic and integratedbioinformatics
analyses), and v) high-volume bandwidthfor data capture and
analysis on- and off-site.
Addressing life sciences questions requires automatedsampling
devices and observatories equipped withimproved and new sensors
that can be deployed onplatforms from ships to UAS to satellites.
Oceanographicconditions must be measured during life sciences
studies onspatial and temporal scales of relevance to biota and
bioticprocesses (Gutt et al. 2015), requiring more
demandingtemporal and spatial sampling regimes than those
utilizedfor the physical sciences. A key requirement will be to
placeobserving and sensing platforms in scientifically
interestingplaces at critical times. For example, rapid response
teamsmight be assembled to respond to opportunistic seasonalevents
that are expected to have profound impacts on thetrajectories of
ecosystems; therefore, flexibility will be key.
Numerical modelling, bioinformatics, ecoinformaticsand
associated approaches will require increasing accessto
high-performance computing (Bersanelli et al. 2016).Accessibility
of such computing, both in the Antarcticand at home institutions,
is essential.
High speed communication via satellite, microwaveand other
technologies will be a significant requirement to
PRIORITIES FOR FUTURE ANTARCTIC SCIENCE ARE DEFINED 413
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481Downloaded from
https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 12
Jun 2020 at 15:22:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/termshttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481https://www.cambridge.org/core
-
deliver future life sciences research.
Communicationscapabilities must reach to ships given their
ongoingsignificance for deep sea work based on data collectionby
AUVs, UAS, buoy networks, drones and gliders.Antarctic researchers
must stay abreast of technologiesdeveloped elsewhere in the world
and be proactive inapplying the latest and most sophisticated
technologies tolife sciences research.
The ‘omic’ approaches (e.g. genomic, transcriptomic,metabolomic)
are critical for future Antarctic life sciencesresearch (Berger et
al. 2013). In situ omic platforms thatallow real-time analysis and
onward transmission of data(rather than samples) will need to be
deployed across arange of geographical sites region-wide.
Life sciences research has a major role to play inAntarctic
conservation efforts, particularly in the marinerealm in support of
the establishment of protected areas,setting of fishing quotas,
ecosystem-based managementschemes, and predicting the response of
ecosystems topast and future resource extraction within the context
of achanging and warming climate (Constable & Doust2009).
Critical to life sciences research is improvedecosystems models
linked to Earth System Models thatconnect environmental drivers to
ecosystem structure andfunction and improving forecasts.
Near-Earth space and beyond: eyes on the sky
The highest priority technological challenges faced inusing
Antarctica as a platform to gaze into space are:i) high bandwidth
networks on- and off-continent capableof continuous, real-time data
transfers, i) energy efficienthigh-performance computing hardware
and advanced dataanalysis techniques, iii) remote/robotic
observatories, andiv) novel, transportable telescope designs (e.g.
segmentedmirrors, off-axis mirrors, lightweight (carbon fibre)
mirrorsand high-precision inertial pointing systems).
There are significant trade-offs between communicationsbandwidth
and capability for on-site data processing. Theformer is dependent
on the infrastructure provided by thenational programmes, while the
latter requires significantadvances in energy efficient
high-performance computinghardware and/or the availability of
enhanced electricalpower. Answers to the questions related to the
DarkUniverse and extra-terrestrial life will require thedeployment
of optical/infrared telescopes to the interior ofAntarctica.
Engineering risks for large telescopes will needto be addressed
through a series of pathfinder experiments.
Science activities in the Antarctic also support the
highlatitude observations needed to understand fundamentalaspects
of coupling between the solar wind and Earth’satmosphere,
ionosphere and magnetosphere. The vastgeographical regions in both
hemispheres provide accessto a broad range of geophysical phenomena
spanningmagnetic and geographical latitudes from the
sub-auroral
zone to the polar caps at altitudes from the troposphere
tonear-Earth space. While the Northern Hemisphere isrelatively well
instrumented with regards to near-Earthspace observations, the
southern Polar Region is not,primarily because of the extreme
Antarctic climate andthe lack of manned facilities with
infrastructure. Thesituation in the Southern Hemisphere is changing
with thedevelopment of technologies that support
autonomousmeasurement systems that can be deployed in
remotelocations and operate unattended for long periods of timein
severe environments.
Human presence in Antarctica
Research addressing the human dimensions of theAntarctic
encompasses a diverse set of questions thatintegrates the life
sciences and a range of social sciencesand humanities disciplines,
including anthropology,economics, history, human geography, law,
politicalsciences and social psychology. The integration ofmethods
of inquiry from such a wide range of disciplinesrequires the
availability of technologies including:i) advanced data analysis
techniques (e.g. high-performancecomputing and greater bandwidth),
ii) improved ecosystemmodels, iii) improved sampling and handling
technologies,iv) better sensing and surveillance technologies
(includingautonomous tracking devices for vessels, landings,
landvehicles and scientific expeditions), and v) ‘smart’ imagingand
recording technologies.
High-performance computing for advanced modellingboth in the
life and social sciences is a key requirement.Better sensors and
broader deployment, both in space andtime, of sensors including
robotic and automatedsampling will be required to understand
impacts. Inmarine environments, automated systems forunderstanding
impacts will be essential, coupled withinformation on the scope and
extent of resourceextraction (Xu et al. 2014). Sensing,
surveillance andtracking systems are needed to provide information
onthe movements of vehicles of all kinds and to understandvisitor
access to various sites. Coherent and systematicmapping of legacies
(e.g. building remains and artefacts)in the Antarctic is essential.
Open access to informationabout human activities in the Antarctic
based on acceptedcodes of practice need to be more widely
applied.
Cross-cutting technologies
There are technological requirements that are commonacross
science themes and disciplines including: i) advancedobserving
systems, sensors and platforms (including air-and satellite-borne
sensors) that allow greater spatial andtemporal coverage, ii)
improved models, iii) enhancedsampling technologies, iv) ‘big data’
issues includingcollection, transmission, computational power for
analyses
414 M.C. KENNICUTT et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481Downloaded from
https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 12
Jun 2020 at 15:22:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/termshttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481https://www.cambridge.org/core
-
and synthesis, and accessibility, and v) improved, moreaccurate
coupled numerical models of all types (Fig. 1).
Observing systems and sensors include a wide range
oftechnologies from those used within the solid Earth tothose used
sub- and within-ice to those used on satellites,balloons, aircraft
and animals. The critical environmentalproperties and/or variables
to be sensed are highlydependent on the scientific questions being
asked andhave been widely discussed by various communities
(e.g.delineation of key variables; State of the
EnvironmentCommittee 2011). Due to the broad demands,
next-generation observatory platforms will need to be capableof
supporting a diverse array of sensors that addressmultiple
scientific objectives and allow for synopticcollection of data.
Improved observing platforms andtechnologies must be capable of
operating autonomouslyand sustainable for long-term (months to
years)deployment continent- and ocean-wide at all times ofthe year.
Multi-purpose systems and vehicles that arecapable of continuous
and long-term monitoring of in situprocesses that can collect and
return samples for groundtruth are needed. Deployable automated
sensortechnologies will also need to collect data at finertemporal
and spatial scales than currently available.Improved power supplies
and usage are a centralchallenge that cross-cut a variety of
technologicalpriorities and it is probable that such advances
willcome from beyond the Antarctic community. Improvedsatellite
remote sensing is also needed to provide synopticregion-wide
observations. Almost all scientific disciplinesand themes will
greatly benefit from a broader range ofsensing capabilities and in
many instances the requiredspatial and temporal coverage can only
be provided byspace- and/or airborne instrumentation.
There has been, and will continue to be, a need for awide
variety of sample collections and measurements atdiverse locations
during all times of the year.Improvement and development of
sample-retrievaltechnologies will be critical for future research.
All typesof samples are needed including ice, rock, sediment,water,
air and biological specimens from bacteria to largeanimals to
flora. There is a need for non-contaminatingsampling technologies
that recover pristine samples,eliminating artefacts due to sample
collection, handling,storage and transport. In some instances,
recovery andmaintenance of samples at in situ conditions
(e.g.temperature and pressure) may be desirable and/orrequired to
ensure the integrity of sample properties. Inother cases, on-site
sample processing and analysis maybe the only choice. Development
of sample-retrievaltechnologies that can complement and be
performed byobservatory platforms will be needed. Because of
theexpense of sample collection, international repositoriesand
archives need to be expanded to facilitate andmaximize the use of
samples, and to preserve samples
either for analyses that are not yet feasible or for
variablesthat may become of interest in the future.
Data accessibility and sharing is a universal need
ininternational science. Many of the anticipated advances
intechnology will result in ‘big data’. Access to
greatercomputational power and speed will be critical for
futureAntarctic research. A continued emphasis on data
sharing,distribution and standards is fundamental to modern
EarthSystem science. Better and more integrated platforms
forhigh-performance computing to handle the rapidly growing‘big
data’ requirements are needed and must be made morewidely
available. Such computing capabilities underpinmodelling,
experimental designs, automated data and imageanalysis, and
bioinformatics. There are major challengesassociated with producing
and handling ‘big data’ andadequate bandwidth and transfer rates
(including transferunder water) are among these. Technologies
currently usedin the private sector such as Google search and
machinelearning algorithms, GIS applications, targeted marketingand
medical data utilization are adept at collecting andanalysing ‘big
data’ and these technologies need to beadapted for use in Antarctic
science.
An integrated system science approach is crucial toimproving
modelling and forecasting capabilities acrossall disciplines and
topics. Improved Earth SystemModelsare needed for weather and
climate modelling and datareanalyses, process-driven numerical
modelling isessential for predicting the behaviour of all
Antarcticphysical systems (ice sheets, atmosphere, ocean and
seaice) and improved ecosystem models are needed to testhypotheses,
design experiments and inform conservationmanagement (e.g. Hay et
al. 2015). Holistic,interconnected models of all system components
will beessential. Modelling non-linear relationships andthreshold
responses remains a challenge to predictivecapabilities. Historical
records are essential forhindcasting and model testing.
The status of technologies
Once identified and prioritized, technologies wereassessed as to
whether they were available or underdevelopment (Fig. 1). If the
latter, an assessment wasmade as to when they would be available:
i) in the short-term (1–3 years), ii) the medium-term (3–6 years),
oriii) the long-term (6–9+ years) (Fig. 1). These analysesindicate
where resources might best be invested forgreatest scientific
return and highlight opportunities forpartnerships.
A number of technologies were determined to becurrently
available but only available to relatively fewscientists. Other
technologies are currently available butwould be improved by
refinement (i.e. data transmissionin terms of bandwidth and
real-time capabilities, datacollection equipment and analysis
techniques, and
PRIORITIES FOR FUTURE ANTARCTIC SCIENCE ARE DEFINED 415
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481Downloaded from
https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 12
Jun 2020 at 15:22:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/termshttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481https://www.cambridge.org/core
-
autonomous/robotic vehicles of various types). In
otherinstances, technologies that do not exist are required, suchas
power systems to improve the range and duration ofobservatory
deployments, advanced computing andnovel sensors. Many technologies
are under continualimprovement and advances will incrementally
occur overa number of years (e.g. accessing and sampling
thesubglacial environment). Integrated technologies
andinteroperable platforms that serve multiple purposes andsupport
varied applications are essential in order tooptimize investments.
Improved numerical modelling wasa high priority for all thematic
groups. Numerical modelsophistication, comprehensiveness and
realism offorecasts is highly variable. Major hurdles
facingmodelling include: i) coupling models of various kindsand ii)
availability and assimilation of data for testing.Advances in a
number of technological areas will mostprobably come from outside
of the Antarctic sciencecommunity and the challenge is applying
them to thesouthern Polar Regions (e.g. multi-omics
platforms,computing capabilities and information technologies,and
autonomous vehicles and robotics).
Several factors impact technology usage includingavailability,
the need for improvements and the rapidityof application of
technologies available elsewhere toAntarctic science. The pace of
technological advancementis determined by the magnitude and rate of
investment,and the ability and desire to co-ordinate and focus
effortsand resources on high priority needs. Many high
priorityneeds were similar across disciplines and scientific
topicssuggesting that concerted community-wide efforts willbe most
effective in achieving technological objectives(Fig. 1).
Access, logistics and infrastructure
Historically, field-based research has been a mainstay
andnecessity for the conduct of Antarctic research.
Physicalpresence continues to be an essential expression ofnational
geopolitical interests in the region and this isunlikely to change
in the future. While automation andremote sensing are finding wide
applications, in situobservations and sampling by scientists ‘on
the ground’will remain an indispensable feature of
Antarcticresearch. As such, the emplacement and provisioning
ofscientist and support personnel in the region will continueto be
a major financial cost and driver of priorities fornational
Antarctic programmes.
Geographical access, logistics and infrastructurerequirements
are intrinsically intertwined. The desire toaccess geographical
locations is frequently balancedagainst the capabilities and cost
to provide the logisticsand infrastructure support necessary for
the safe conductof research. High priority scientific questions
will requirethe support of research activities in locations that
may not
be best served by or be geographically close to
existingpermanent stations. Flexibility, versatility,
adaptabilityand interoperability will be essential to efficiently
meet thedemands of future Antarctic research.
Geographical access has spatial and temporalcomponents that can
often be critical limiting factors inconducting research. To date,
the preponderance ofobservations and measurements have been made
duringthe summer due to the difficult operating environmentduring
other times of the year. This status quo will evolvewith greater
automation and improvements in remotesensing capabilities; however,
expanded year-roundphysical access will remain a major challenge.
There is aparticularly critical need for life sciences research
toexpand studies year-round. Plans are underway to expanddeployment
seasons, and teams have been successfullydeployed beyond the
traditional summer months.Answering many of the most pressing
scientificquestions will require continent- and ocean-wide
accessyear-round. This has profound implications for decisionsabout
future configurations and capabilities of logisticalsupport and
infrastructure.
Science conducted far from permanent stations willrequire
greater automation of deployable observatoriesand platforms, the
development of modular andrelocatable laboratories/facilities,
temporary stations andexpeditionary-style field programmes.
Portable devices todrill ice and rock, core sediments, collect
samples andaccess sub-ice environments will be needed. In
someinstances, on-site laboratories will be required to
preserveand/or analyse samples for ephemeral properties. Real-time
production and analysis of data will allow for decisionmaking and
‘on the fly’ designing of experiments.Temporary or permanent land
stations and integratedtraverse and aviation capabilities are
needed for repeatedaccess to the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS)
and theinterior of Antarctica to emplace and maintainobservatories.
Ice sheet and sea level observatories willneed to be deployed at
multiple, geographically disparatesites and established as
long-term multi-year monitoringstations. Antarctic geosciences
research will requirecontinental-scale synoptic observations from
sensornetworks and integrated drilling/sampling and
surveyingcampaigns to define patterns in crust and mantle
structure,geothermal heat flux, isostatic adjustment and
dynamictopography, and rates of geomorphological change.Temporary
stations will be needed to deploy mobile,remote field parties and
camps capable of supportingremotely operated sensors and rovers.
The development ofenhanced inland/plateau traverse capabilities is
essentialfor astronomy and near-Earth space science.
Expanded ship-time will be needed to provide year-round access
to the Southern Ocean, the sea-ice zone andcoastal regions.
Multidisciplinary cruises to collectsynoptic measurements are
essential. The availability
416 M.C. KENNICUTT et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481Downloaded from
https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 12
Jun 2020 at 15:22:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/termshttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481https://www.cambridge.org/core
-
of ice-breakers is indispensable for high-resolutionbathymetry
mapping and deep sea drilling in ice-coveredareas, to provide
access to coastal research sites and forthe provision of logistical
support for interior stations andexpeditionary field campaigns.
There is a critical need forincreased spatial and temporal access
to the deep sea.Interoperable underwater docking ports are
envisionedthat will extend the range and utilization of AUVs,
glidersand moorings. Docking stations must be capable of
datacollection and transmission, and the provision of power
tosensors and observatories. These technologies are beingdeveloped
and tested elsewhere in the world’s oceans andadaptation to the
Antarctic is essential (e.g. the Juan deFuca Ridge).
Logistic hubs operated by multiple nations are neededto support
air transport, ground traverses and fuel depotsto incrementally
expand geographical access and reach.These will allow research in
the deep continental interiorand remote coastal areas, in which
sensor deployments,surveys, and drilling and sampling activities
can takeplace. Logistics hubs must be scalable, and may
betemporary, according to the science requirements. Suchhubs will
need to support a variety of transport modesincluding ski-equipped
aircraft, helicopters, UAS andground traverse capabilities.
Consideration should begiven to strategic placement of essential
laboratory
equipment around the continent and at sea, and thecreation of
shared analytical facilities possibly underinternational
management.
Geographical areas of high scientific interest
Coastal areas (including beneath floating and grounded ice),the
interior of Antarctica (including deep field camps) andthe Southern
Ocean are areas high current scientific interestfor a wide variety
of reasons (Fig. 2). One mechanismto improve efficiency would be
the establishment ofmultinational ‘super sites’ for integrated
studies.
Advances in atmospheric sciences research will requireintensive
spatial and temporal observations across theregion including an
expansion into areas of the SouthernOcean, the WAIS, difficult to
access interior parts of EastAntarctica and the sea-ice zone.
Opportunistic access toall areas throughout the year should be
capitalized on tomake a wide range of atmospheric measurements.
Datacollected from the sea-ice zone is particularly importantfor
understanding interactions between the cryosphereand
atmosphere.
Areas of high interest for ocean research include theRoss Sea
sector, coastal West Antarctica, Prydz Bay,Totten Glacier, the
Amundsen Sea, the Weddell Seasector and sub-Antarctic islands.
Access needs stretch
Fig. 2. Summary of survey results highlighting areas of the
Antarctic region requiring greater access to answer the highest
priorityscientific questions. Colour coded bars indicate the
Antarctic areas that need to be accessed to answer high priority
scientificquestions in specific areas of scientific interest (see
colour code at the top of the figure). Note that the absence of a
scientific clusterin the bar code does not indicate that these
areas are not of interest, i.e. areas may be of interest but did
not rise to the highestpriority. An overarching conclusion is that
year-round, and continent- and ocean-wide access will be essential
for advancingAntarctic science in the future. Current areas of
Antarctica experiencing accelerating environmental change are of
high interestand areas of high scientific interest will evolve as
scientific questions advance.
PRIORITIES FOR FUTURE ANTARCTIC SCIENCE ARE DEFINED 417
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481Downloaded from
https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 12
Jun 2020 at 15:22:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/termshttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481https://www.cambridge.org/core
-
from the deep ocean, across the continental shelf, to near-shore
environments (including ice shelf cavities). Thehighest priority
access requirements for ocean researchare: i) winter/year-round
access to the continental margin/shelf edge, including polynyas,
ii) access beneath floatingice (sea ice and ice shelves), iii)
circum-Antarcticcoverage, iv) access to the deep sea, and v)
year-roundaccess to near-shore coastal areas. A challenge for
oceanresearch is year-round access (in particular, winter
access)requiring research-capable ice-breakers. Placement
ofsemi-permanent ocean and sea-ice observatories is also
apriority.
High priority regional and glaciological targets for icesheet
and sea level research are those which areparticularly vulnerable
to change. These regions areeither currently contributing to sea
level rise or are likelyto do so in coming decades. Marine ice
sheets (those partsof the ice that are grounded below sea level)
and theassociated grounding zones are regarded as mostvulnerable to
rapid and irreversible change. Currentareas of high interest to sea
level research are: i) theAmundsen Sea Embayment (Thwaites Glacier
System)and other sectors in West Antarctica (e.g. Joughin et
al.2014), ii) marine margins to the interior of East and
WestAntarctica (including grounding zones, e.g. TottenGlacier in
East Antarctica; Aitken et al. 2016), iii) thedeep
interior/Antarctic Plateau (where deep time recordsof past change
in ice cores are held; e.g. Vance et al. 2016),iv) coastal islands
and ice rises (that buttress grounded ice;e.g. Matsuoka et al.
2015), v) basins that influence theenhanced flow of ice and contain
sedimentary records(e.g. Siegert et al. 2016), vi) ice shelf
cavities and systems(that buttress grounded ice; e.g. Greenbaum et
al. 2015),and vii) ice stream shear margins (Schroeder et al.
2016)that dictate the size and location of ice streams and
whererecords of ice sheet change are likely to be
recovered.Thwaites Glacier and its surrounding grounded ice
andglaciers, ice shelves and the Amundsen Sea are
currentlyundergoing rapid change and are high priorities for
study.Marine ice sheets are linked to the interior reservoirs ofthe
Antarctic ice sheet and understanding theircontribution to sea
level will require access to centralAntarctica. The distribution of
subglacial sedimentarybasins and subglacial water influences the
flow andstability of the ice sheet. Therefore, these basins
andwater accumulations are high priority targets for access.These
basins may also contain unprecedented records ofpast climate
changes that will improve our understandingof the response of the
ice to climate forcings, the evolutionand response of the interior
of the continent during pastwarming periods and provide valuable
retrospectivetesting of climate model reliability.
Subglacialaccumulations of water are expected to contain
uniquemicrobiological assemblages that have evolved under arange of
extreme environmental conditions.
The stability and configuration of ice shelves that fringemarine
ice sheets are important controls on the potentialcontribution of
grounded ice to sea level change.Understanding ice shelves and the
adjacent groundinglines requires access to a complex and dynamic
region ofsea ice and icebergs on the one hand and crevasses on
theother. Access to this part of the system is critical and
willrequire technological innovation and significant
logisticaleffort. In a similar manner, lateral shear margins
ofglaciers (which separate rapidly from slow flowing ice) arepoorly
understood features of the ice sheet that needstudy. These areas
are difficult to access because ofcrevasses but technologies
similar to those proposed forgrounding zones and ice shelves are
applicable.
Access to the deep interior of the continent, especiallyin East
Antarctica, is a high priority for studyingsupercontinent
evolution. Access to West Antarctica is apriority for studying
volcanism and its impact on the icesheet. There is a critical need
to visit interior sites to studyrock exposures, deploy sensor
networks, conductairborne and other field surveys, and explore
subglacialenvironments. Remote sensor networks need to bedeployed,
and sediment and bedrock beneath the icesheet need to be sampled.
Expanded airborne andgeophysical surveys need to be conducted.
Access beneath the ice sheet continent-wide is a highpriority to
advance understanding of Antarctic glaciologyand geology.
Describing the subglacial geology of EastAntarctica’s interior is
essential to understandingsupercontinent evolution, and interior
subglacial basinsmay contain unique climate records. Many of the
largestaccumulations of subglacial water are located in
thecontinental interior (> 400 subglacial lakes have
beenidentified to date). It is now known that theseaccumulations
have unique and variable historiessuggesting that microbiological
life in the lakes may behighly variable in structure and function
havingresponded to differing evolutionary and
environmentalforcings. Groundwater (i.e. water beneath the
ice–bedinterface) is a particularly understudied area of
research(Christoffersen et al. 2014). Observatories need to
bedeployed in a wide range of subglacial environments toadvance
research objectives.
Access to coastal Antarctica, including the ice margins,is
needed for collection of outcrop samples. The WestAntarctic coast,
particularly around the AmundsenEmbayment and Marie Byrd Land, are
mostlyunknown. Access to the Southern Ocean from the coastto the
deep sea is required to collect sediment and rockrecords of climate
history, to study ice–oceaninteractions, and to decipher the
tectonic evolution ofAntarctica/Gondwana. The Amundsen Sea
Embayment,Wilkes Land, Ross Sea and Scotia Arc are key areas
ofstudy for the marine geology community. Networks andsurveys over
West Antarctica are needed to investigate
418 M.C. KENNICUTT et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481Downloaded from
https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 12
Jun 2020 at 15:22:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/termshttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481https://www.cambridge.org/core
-
the role of volcanism on evolving lithosphere, changingclimate
and ice sheet dynamics. Recent indication of theinstability of the
WAIS has major implications forpossible future abrupt changes in
global sea level.Continued participation in the International
OceanDiscovery Program (IODP) will be important forSouthern Ocean
researchers’ access to drillingtechnologies, down-borehole
observations and retrievalof unique sedimentary samples.
Life sciences researchers will require access to allregions of
the Antarctic continent, the Southern Oceanand sub-Antarctic
islands. Current areas of high interestfor life sciences
researchers are coastal regions adjacent toterrestrial Antarctica,
sub-Antarctic islands and the deepsea. Improved deep sea access is
a high priority. Reliableaccess to terrestrial, freshwater and
marine environmentsis a pressing need to increase understanding of
the rangeand diversity of Antarctic biota.
Antarctica is a unique place for observations of thenear-Earth
space and beyond, and access requirementsare related to: i) optimum
placement of observatories,such as at South Pole Station, ii)
locations to launch highaltitude balloons, and iii) high plateau
locations distantfrom disturbances. The ability to reach these
remoteareas (e.g. the high plateau), communications (e.g.
widebandwidth and continuous communication) and energysupplies for
observatories to generate the tens of kilowatts
of power needed for operation are high priorityrequirements.
Understanding anthropogenic change relative to otherchange
requires access to high-impact (e.g. along theAntarctic Peninsula)
and pristine sites to understand theways in which changing patterns
of activity in Antarcticaare impacting the environment and how
successfulconservation efforts are in managing these impacts.
The cost of Antarctic science
There is a wide range in the human and financialresources that
national Antarctic programmes invest inAntarctic science and
support. While the overall expenseof the requirements to realize
the full potential ofAntarctic science in the next two decades is
great, thereis a role for all interested parties to participate in
waysthat are commensurate with available resources, expertiseand
national interests (Fig. 3). Even the largest nationalAntarctic
programmes will, by necessity, set priorities andconcentrate on
those advancements judged to support thewidest scientific community
while offering the greatestscientific return on investment. No one
country orprogramme has the wherewithal to simultaneouslypursue all
aspects of the Antarctic Science Roadmap.
A wide range of opportunities are available with widelydiffering
estimates of cost, depending on the scope of the
Fig. 3. Summary of survey results indicating qualitative
estimates of the cost to develop and make available a range of high
prioritytechnologies judged to be essential to answering the
highest priority Antarctic scientific questions. Horizontal bars
with arrowsindicate a range of possible costs which will be
dependent on the scope and objectives of the development work
undertaken.Costs will ultimately depend on finer delineation of the
work involved by experts and these estimates are only provided as
ageneral guide to the order of magnitude of the investment that may
be involved. The survey results indicate a wide range
ofopportunities for investments in Antarctic science technologies
commensurate with available resources and national interests.
PRIORITIES FOR FUTURE ANTARCTIC SCIENCE ARE DEFINED 419
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481Downloaded from
https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 12
Jun 2020 at 15:22:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/termshttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481https://www.cambridge.org/core
-
activity undertaken (Fig. 3). At the lower end of the
costspectrum (tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands ofUS
dollars) is data analysis and modelling. At the higherend of the
cost spectrum (tens of millions to hundreds ofmillions of US
dollars) is permanent infrastructure suchas ships, stations and
satellite missions. Partnerships,sharing of facilities and
technologies, and co-ordinationof efforts will be essential for
maximizing return oninvestments. Development of high-cost
technologies mayrequire pooling of resources for greatest effect
andpartnerships may be most effective in establishing high-demand
infrastructure and instrumentation in the region.There are a number
of proven and successful models forcountries to pool resources to
accomplish shared objectivesand interests (e.g. IODP, International
Partnerships in IceCore Sciences, Antarctic Geological Drilling,
aircraft (e.g.Dronning Maud Land Air Network), and
astronomyinstrumentation and facilities).
Technological advances in many instances will beincremental,
building on what others have accomplished,thus contributing to a
larger effort may be most cost-effective. An example is the
development of sensors (herebroadly defined) where advances could
be accomplished bymodest, targeted investments in specific
technologies thatonce developed are thenwidely shared.Model
developmentis often incremental and advances can be made
byindividual scientists contributing to a larger goal
withco-ordination then being centrally important. These
costestimates suggest that there are abundant opportunities thatare
scalable to the resources available, allowing countriesand
scientists to participate individually or as members
ofinternational teams.
International co-operation
International collaborations, sharing of knowledge anddata,
co-ordination of logistics, advancement of enablingtechnologies,
optimizing the utilization of infrastructureand partnerships are
cost-efficient and indispensable if thefull promise of Antarctic
and Southern Ocean science is tobe achieved. There is wide
recognition that the breadth anddepth of Antarctic research make
many of the wished-foroutcomes beyond the capabilities of
individual researchersand projects, and often nations. The reality
of finite andlimited budgets and the necessity to bring talent
andexpertise to bear, regardless of location, are importantreasons
for working together for mutual benefit andgreatest effect.
There is much value to be gained through co-ordinationand
collaboration between disciplines. Infrastructure andlogistics
designed for one objective (e.g. sub-sea icemarine water surveys)
must be adapted and broadenedto accomplish other objectives (e.g.
biological surveys).Co-ordination with national space and
meteorologicalagencies and the remote sensing community is vital
for
improving and creating new satellite sensors, applicationsand
observations, and increasing spatial and temporalcoverage.
Co-operation among national providers is key toaccomplish ‘big
science’ and for expanding access to remoteregions year-round.
Improved co-ordination of Antarcticscience interest with non-polar
commercial andgovernmental organizations will be critical to
developingand applying new technologies. Enhanced
collaborationswill encourage data sharing and wider access to
stations,logistics and operational activities.
It will be important to engage skills, capabilities
andcapacities across national programmes, particularly inregard to
fast-developing and technology-intensiveresearch, through
researcher exchange programmes andcapacity building. ‘Super sites’
of high scientific interestare recommended as locations where the
communitycomes together to establish transdisciplinary projects
andprogrammes. These sites would create synergy and
becost-effective by measuring and observing a wide range
ofvariables within synoptic and holistic study designs.Related to
this is the creation of logistics hubs andinteroperable nodes that
could support a range of sensorsand provide the necessary
cyber-infrastructure forcommunications and data collection and
transmission.In some instances, international management may be
thebest choice.
In this context, international organizations, such asSCAR
promoting and co-ordinating scientific research,COMNAP
co-ordinating operations and the AntarcticTreaty’s Committee on
Environmental Protectionleading environmental protection,
conservation and dataexchange efforts, will play important
roles.
An important emerging trend over the last two decadesis regional
alliances of national Antarctic programmes(e.g. Red de
Administradores de Programas AntárticosLatino Americanos the
network of managers of the Latin-American Antarctic programmes and
the Asian Forumfor Polar Science). These alliances promote
regional-based partnerships that share values and cultures,
andoften allow scientists to communicate in their
nativelanguage.
Conclusions
At the dawn of the 21st century, Antarctic and SouthernOcean
science has never been more important and relevantto pressing
global debates about the future of Earth.Therefore, it is important
to consider how to maximizeAntarctic research returns and knowledge
production. Thiswill require prioritization, collaboration and
sharing ofresults and resources. Critical understanding of the
EarthSystem can only be, or is best, advanced bymore integratedand
holistic studies of the Antarctic region and its role inplanetary
processes. The window on the past preserved inAntarctic ice,
sediment and rock records, and observations
420 M.C. KENNICUTT et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481Downloaded from
https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 12
Jun 2020 at 15:22:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/termshttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481https://www.cambridge.org/core
-
of ongoing changes will permit more constrained, accurateand
realistic forecasts of future planetary trajectories.Important
issues that are poised for major advances inunderstanding include:
i) couplings between atmospheric,oceanic and land processes, ii)
ice sheet flow behaviour anddynamics, iii) the forces that modulate
planetary ice, water,heat and chemical budgets, iv) the controls on
sea level,v) lithosphere and planetary evolution, vi) the
interplayof evolution, physical forcings, and adaptation
andfunctioning, biochemistry and structure of livingorganisms and
ecosystems, vii) the drivers of biodiversity,viii) the impact and
origins of anthropogenic perturbations,and ix) cosmology.
As has been true in the past, it can be expected
thattechnological advances will profoundly affect the
nature,conduct and scope of future Antarctic science, and thepace
of technological change has never been greater. In alllikelihood
the research conducted in the Antarctic in20 years will be
considerably different than it was in the20th century. The
challenge is to apply the comingadvances in instrumentation and
sensors, automation,remote sensing and information technologies,
and theemerging trends in ‘big data’ collection, analysis
andtransmission to Antarctic science. A recurring andunderpinning
guiding principle is to achieve the wished-for outcomes within a
framework of environmentalstewardship. Future decisions must
carefully consider theprobable impact of planned actions on the
environment andhow these impacts can be minimized through
efficiencies,innovative approaches and prevention. The
preservationand conservation of societal, aesthetic and scientific
valuesin the region will be best served by a goal of ‘doing
noharm’. The question is, will the Antarctic community beprepared
and visionary in keeping pace with thisunprecedented
transformation?
To accomplish the ambitious ‘Antarctic ScienceRoadmap’, the
collection of a wide and diverse set ofobservations, samples and
data from environments thatspan the southern Polar Region will be
required. Highpriority Antarctic science questions will be best
answeredby programmes and projects that are interdisciplinary
inscope, international in participation, and continent-
andocean-wide in reach. The mix of future Antarctic scienceprojects
and programmes will need to include focusedprojects that address
important unknowns with targetedprocess studies and censuses in a
wide variety of virtuallyunstudied environments. New ways must be
developed toobserve and quantify a wide range of physical and
livingsystem attributes on finer spatial and temporal scales
in4-dimensions and at high frequencies. Increasingly
theseobservations and sensors will need to be automated anddeployed
for long durations enabling year-round datacollections. Once
observations, samples and data arecollected, a wide range of
cyber-infrastructure, informationand geospatial analysis
technologies will be needed to
retrieve, process, synthesize, preserve and transmit data(e.g.
from remote locations on the continent, in situinstruments, remote
sensors and observatories, and onships). Energy delivery
technologies will be needed toextend capabilities to allow
year-round and multi-yeardeployments of automated sensors and
integratedobserving platforms. The challenges facing the handling
ofthe ‘big data’ that will be generated are many includingadequate
cyber-infrastructure and high-performancecomputing analysis,
synthesis and the assimilation ofobservations and data into
models.
The promise of future knowledge and insights to begained by
research in and from the Antarctic, and how itboth reflects and
affects global changes, will only berealized if the challenges of
improvements in anddevelopment of new technologies, facilitation of
accessacross the region year-round, and provision of the
requisitelogistical support and infrastructure can be addressed.
Theexpansive, community vision of the future expressed in
theAntarctic and SouthernOceanHorizon Scan and the ARCproject can
only be realized if the growing global family ofAntarctic nations
acts together.
Acknowledgements
The authors recognize the financial support that made theScan
and ARC possible. The Council of Managers ofNational Antarctic
Programs (COMNAP), the TinkerFoundation and the Scientific
Committee on AntarcticResearch (SCAR) provided the majority of the
fundingfor this project including the costs of travel
andparticipation of invited, non-COMNAP workshopattendees. In-kind
support was provided by manyCOMNAP-Member national Antarctic
programmesincluding Dirección Nacional del Antártico
(DNA,Argentina), Australian Antarctic Division (AAD,Australia),
Programa Antártico Brasileiro (PROANTAR,Brazil), Instituto
Antártico Chileno (INACH, Chile), PolarResearch Institute of China
(PRIC, China), InstitutoAntártico Ecuatoriano (INAE, Ecuador),
Institut PolaireFrançais Paul Emile Victor (IPEV, France),
AlfredWegener Institute (AWI, Germany), National Institute ofPolar
Research (NIPR, Japan), Korea Polar ResearchInstitute (KOPRI,
Republic of Korea), Antarctica NewZealand (New Zealand), Arctic and
Antarctic ResearchInstitute (AARI, Russia), Spanish Polar Committee
(CPE,Spain), British Antarctic Survey (BAS, UK), and the USNational
Science Foundation (NSF, USA). The support ofthe COMNAP
Secretariat, the SCAR Secretariat, and thestaff at the Norwegian
Polar Institute who hosted theworkshop is gratefully recognized.
The authors thankseventeen reviewers for their constructive
comments thatimproved the Writing Group reports. Finally, thank you
tothose who provided topicalWhite Papers for consideration.The
authors also thank two anonymous reviewers.
PRIORITIES FOR FUTURE ANTARCTIC SCIENCE ARE DEFINED 421
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481Downloaded from
https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 12
Jun 2020 at 15:22:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/termshttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481https://www.cambridge.org/core
-
Supplemental material
Author contact information and contribution, and thefinal
Writing Group reports will be found at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954102016000481.
References
AITKEN, A.R.A., ROBERTS, J.L., VAN OMMEN, T.D., YOUNG,
D.A.,GOLLEDGE,N.R., GREENBAUM, J.S., BLANKENSHIP, D.D. &
SIEGERT,M.J.2016. Repeated large-scale retreat and advance of
Totten Glacierindicated by inland bed erosion. Nature, 533,
385–389.
BARNES, D.K.A. 2015. Antarctic sea ice losses drive gains in
benthiccarbon drawdown. Current Biology, 25, R789–R790.
BERGER, B., PENG, J. & SINGH, M. 2013. Computational
solutions foromics data. Nature Reviews Genetics, 14, 333–346.
BERSANELLI, M., MOSCA, E., REMONDINI, D., GIAMPIERI, E., SALA,
C.,CATSELLANI, G. & MILANESI, L. 2016. Methods for the
integration ofmulti-omics data: mathematical aspects. BMC
Bioinformatics, 17,10.1186/s12859-015-0857-9.
CHURCH, J.A., CLARK, P.U., CAZENAVE, A., GREGORY, J.M.,
JEVREJEVA, S.,LEVERMANN, A., MERRIFIELD, M.A., MILNE, G.A., NEREM,
R.S.,NUNN, P.D., PAYNE, A.J., PFEFFER, W.T., STAMMER, D.
&UNNIKRISHNAN, A.S. 2013. Sea level change. In STOCKER,
T.F.,QIN, D., PLATTNER, G.-K., TIGNOR, M., ALLEN, S.K., BOSCHUNG,
J.,NAUELS, A., XIA, Y., BEX, V. & MIDGLEY, P.M., eds. Climate
change2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to theFifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on ClimateChange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1137–1216.
CHOWN, S.L., CLARKE, A., FRASER, C.I., CARY, S.C., MOON, K.L.
&MCGEOCH, M.A. 2015. The changing form of Antarctic
biodiversity.Nature, 522, 427–434.
CHRISTOFFERSEN, P., BOUGAMONT, M., CARTER, S.P., FRICKER, H.A.
&TULACZYK, S. 2014. Significant groundwater contribution to
Antarcticice streams hydrologic budget. Geophysical Research
Letters, 41,2003–2010.
CONSTABLE, A.J. & DOUST, S. 2009. Southern Ocean Sentinel –
aninternational program to assess climate change impacts on
marineecosystems: report of an international Workshop, Hobart,
April 2009ACE CRC, Commonwealth of Australia, and WWF-Australia.
http://awsassets.wwf.org.au/downloads/mo005_southern_ocean_sentinel_1apr09.pdf.
Accessed 31 May 2016.
DECONTO, R.M. & POLLARD, D. 2016. Contribution of Antarctica
topast and future sea-level rise. Nature, 531, 591–597.
GREENBAUM, J.S., BLANKENSHIP, D.D., YOUNG, D.A., RICHTER,
T.G.,ROBERTS, J.L., AITKEN, A.R.A., LEGRESY, B., SCHROEDER,
D.M.,WARNER, R.C., VAN OMMEN, T.D. & SIEGERT, M.J. 2015.
Oceanaccess to a cavity beneath Totten Glacier in East Antarctica.
NatureGeoscience, 8, 294–298.
GUTT, J., BERTLER, N., BRACEGIRDLE, T., BUSCHMANN, A., COMISO,
J.,HOSIE, G., ISLA, E., SCHLOSS, I.R., SMITH, C.R., TOURNADRE, J.
&XAVIER, J.C. 2015. The Southern Ocean ecosystem under
multipleclimate stresses – an integrated circumpolar assessment.
GlobalChange Biology, 21, 1434–1453.
HAY, C.C., MORROW, E., KOPP, R.E. & MITROVICA, J.X.
2015.Probabilistic reanalysis of twentieth-century sea-level rise.
Nature,517, 481–484.
JOUGHIN, I., SMITH, B.E. & MEDLEY, B. 2014. Marine ice sheet
collapsepotentially under way for the Thwaites Glacier basin,
WestAntarctica. Science, 344, 735–738.
KENNICUTT, M.C., CHOWN, S.L., CASSANO, J.J., LIGGETT, D.,
MASSOM, R.,PECK, L.S., RINTOUL, S.R., STOREY, J.W.V., VAUGHAN,
D.G.,WILSON, T.J. & SUTHERLAND, W.J. 2014. Polar research:
sixpriorities for Antarctic science. Nature, 512, 23–25.
KENNICUTT, M.C., CHOWN, S.L. CASSANO, J.J. & 72 OTHERS.
2015.A roadmap for Antarctic and Southern Ocean science for the
nexttwo decades and beyond. Antarctic Science, 27, 3–18.
KRUPNIK, I., ALLISON, I., BELL, R., CUTLER, P., HIK,
D.,LÓPEZ-MARTÍNEZ, J., RACHOLD, V., SARUKHANIAN, E.
&SUMMERHAYES, C. eds. 2011. Understanding Earth’s polar
challenges:International Polar Year 2007–2008. Edmonton, AB: CCI
Press,Canadian Circumpolar Institute, 719 pp.
MAKINSON, K., PEARCE, D., HODGSON, D.A., BENTLEY,M.J., SMITH,
A.M.,TRANTER, M., ROSE, M., ROSS, N., MOWLEM, M., PARNELL, J.
&SIEGERT, M.J. 2016. Clean subglacial access: prospects for
future deephot-water drilling. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society,A374, 10.1098/rsta.2014.0304.
MATSUOKA, K., HINDMARSH, R.C.A., MOHOLDT, G., BENTLEY,
M.J.,PRITCHARD, H.D., BROWN, J., CONWAY, H., DREWS, R.,DURAND, G.,
GOLDBERG, D., HATTERMANN, T., KINGSLAKE, J.,LENAERTS, J.T.M.,
MARTIN, C., MULVANEY, R., NICHOLLS, K.W.,PATTYN, F., ROSS, N.,
SCAMBOS, T.&WHITEHOUSE, P.L. 2015. Antarcticice rises and
rumples: their properties and significance for ice-sheetdynamics
and evolution. Earth-Science Reviews, 150, 724–945.
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL. 200