(Table 1) UK research stations, refuges and major depots between 1944 and 2010
Fuente:
PANGAEA
Salvato in:
| Autori principali: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Natura: | Dataset Open Access |
| Lingua: | en |
| Pubblicazione: |
PANGAEA
2011
|
| Soggetti: | |
| Accesso online: | |
| Tags: |
Aggiungi Tag
Nessun Tag, puoi essere il primo ad aggiungerne!!
|
| _version_ | 1867169082353123328 |
|---|---|
| author | Hughes, Kevin A Fretwell, Peter Rae, James W B Holmes, Keith Fleming, Andrew |
| author_facet | Hughes, Kevin A Fretwell, Peter Rae, James W B Holmes, Keith Fleming, Andrew |
| collection | Datos científicos de ciencias marinas y ambientales |
| contents | Globally, areas categorically known to be free of human visitation are rare, but still exist in Antarctica. Such areas may be among the most pristine locations remaining on Earth and, therefore, be valuable as baselines for future comparisons with localities impacted by human activities, and as sites preserved for scientific research using increasingly sophisticated future technologies. Nevertheless, unvisited areas are becoming increasingly rare as the human footprint expands in Antarctica. Therefore, an understanding of historical and contemporary levels of visitation at locations across Antarctica is essential to a) estimate likely cumulative environmental impact, b) identify regions that may have been impacted by non-native species introductions, and c) inform the future designation of protected areas under the Antarctic Treaty System. Currently, records of Antarctic tourist visits exist, but little detailed information is readily available on the spatial and temporal distribution of national governmental programme activities in Antarctica. Here we describe methods to fulfil this need. Using information within field reports and archive and science databases pertaining to the activities of the United Kingdom as an illustration, we describe the history and trends in its operational footprint in the Antarctic Peninsula since c. 1944. Based on this illustration, we suggest that these methodologies could be applied productively more generally. |
| format | Dataset Open Access |
| id | pangaea_https___doi_org_10_1594_PANGAEA_811465 |
| institution | PANGAEA |
| language | en |
| publishDate | 2011 |
| publisher | PANGAEA |
| record_format | pangaea |
| spellingShingle | (Table 1) UK research stations, refuges and major depots between 1944 and 2010 Hughes, Kevin A Fretwell, Peter Rae, James W B Holmes, Keith Fleming, Andrew Abbreviation; Adelaide_St; Admiralty_Bay_St; Antarctica; Antarctic Peninsula; Anvers_Is_St; Blaiklock_Is_St; Cape_Geddes_St; Cape_Reclus_St; Comment; Damoy_Point_St; Danco_Is_St; Deception_Is_St; Detaille_Is_St; Event label; Faraday_St; Fossil_Bluff_St; Halley_RS; Hope_Bay_St; Horseshoe_Is_St; International Polar Year (2007-2008); IPY; Latitude of event; Livingston_Island_Station; Longitude of event; Number of individuals; Number of years; Orford_Cliff_St; Port_Lockroy_St; Prospect_Point_St; Rasmussen_Hut_St; Research station; Rothera_St; RS; Sandefjord_Bay_St; Signy_RS; Size; Sky_Blu_St; Station label; Status; Stonington_Is_St; View_Point_St Globally, areas categorically known to be free of human visitation are rare, but still exist in Antarctica. Such areas may be among the most pristine locations remaining on Earth and, therefore, be valuable as baselines for future comparisons with localities impacted by human activities, and as sites preserved for scientific research using increasingly sophisticated future technologies. Nevertheless, unvisited areas are becoming increasingly rare as the human footprint expands in Antarctica. Therefore, an understanding of historical and contemporary levels of visitation at locations across Antarctica is essential to a) estimate likely cumulative environmental impact, b) identify regions that may have been impacted by non-native species introductions, and c) inform the future designation of protected areas under the Antarctic Treaty System. Currently, records of Antarctic tourist visits exist, but little detailed information is readily available on the spatial and temporal distribution of national governmental programme activities in Antarctica. Here we describe methods to fulfil this need. Using information within field reports and archive and science databases pertaining to the activities of the United Kingdom as an illustration, we describe the history and trends in its operational footprint in the Antarctic Peninsula since c. 1944. Based on this illustration, we suggest that these methodologies could be applied productively more generally. |
| title | (Table 1) UK research stations, refuges and major depots between 1944 and 2010 |
| topic | Abbreviation; Adelaide_St; Admiralty_Bay_St; Antarctica; Antarctic Peninsula; Anvers_Is_St; Blaiklock_Is_St; Cape_Geddes_St; Cape_Reclus_St; Comment; Damoy_Point_St; Danco_Is_St; Deception_Is_St; Detaille_Is_St; Event label; Faraday_St; Fossil_Bluff_St; Halley_RS; Hope_Bay_St; Horseshoe_Is_St; International Polar Year (2007-2008); IPY; Latitude of event; Livingston_Island_Station; Longitude of event; Number of individuals; Number of years; Orford_Cliff_St; Port_Lockroy_St; Prospect_Point_St; Rasmussen_Hut_St; Research station; Rothera_St; RS; Sandefjord_Bay_St; Signy_RS; Size; Sky_Blu_St; Station label; Status; Stonington_Is_St; View_Point_St |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.811465 |