CCAMLR Science, Volume 23 (2016)
CCAMLR Science was launched in 1994, with the aim of providing mechanism to publicise the science done in CCAMLR and to raise the profile of CCAMLR within the international scientific community. However, a recent reduction in the number of papers submitted to, and published in, the journal has prompted a review of options for its future. CCAMLR Science currently only accepts papers that were originally submitted to CCAMLR’s scientific working groups. When scientists working in those groups were asked for their views on the future of the journal, there was agreement that the journal has an important role to provide an avenue to publish and publicise science done in support of CCAMLR. However, there was also a desire for the journal to provide a place to publish papers ‘which would be difficult to publish in other peer-reviewed journals’. In doing so, the papers would attain a higher status than a working group paper submitted to a meeting and those scientists that make a scientific contribution to the success of CCAMLR would receive recognition.
Clearly, a mechanism already exists to elevate the status of working group papers, through publication in CCAMLR Science or other peer-reviewed journals. However, would publishing papers in CCAMLR Science that might not be suitable for publication in other journals offer a credible vehicle to publicise the science done in support of CCAMLR? A change in policy on peer-review that advocated a lower level of acceptance criteria might risk the journal becoming ‘grey literature’ and make it a less attractive place to publish scholarly work. Such an outcome would surely not be consistent with the original objectives of CCAMLR Science.
An option for the future is to make CCAMLR Science more attractive to scientists to publish CCAMLR-related work. A key element of this would be to increase the number of papers published in the journal, potentially by removing the restriction of considering only those papers submitted to working groups. Such an approach would also require an increase in the marketing and product placement of the journal that would either require an increase in resources devoted to the journal in-house or through an external publishing house.
An alternative approach might be to step back and review the best mechanisms to ‘publicise the science done in CCAMLR and to raise the profile of CCAMLR within the international scientific community’. This may mean a move away from the current journal format, including a change from an annual publication cycle, to focus on special topics, either as occasional publication of CCAMLR Science or by sponsoring topic-related special issues in other relevant journals.
Science remains the foundation for the work of CCAMLR and, notwithstanding the uncertain future for this journal, it is reassuring that the breadth and quality of science that supports CCAMLR is undiminished. Papers that present the cross-disciplinary science used by CCAMLR are published in a range of peer-reviewed journals which is a testament to the quality of that science. ‘Publish or perish’ describes the pressure faced by academics to publish the results of their research to maintain their status (and funding). While the scientists that provide the foundation for CCAMLR may lament the pressure to publish or perish, as long as that pressure exists, those publications will continue to raise the profile of CCAMLR within the international scientific community.
The desire for CCAMLR Science to be both a high-quality peer-reviewed journal and a place to publish papers that might not be easy to publish in other high-quality peer-reviewed journals does present a challenge. As CCAMLR considers how best to communicate the science that underpins its decision-making, the changing processes and platforms for publishing science provide exciting opportunities to review how best to meet such a challenge.
The importance of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in remote sensing is rapidly growing. However, knowledge about their potential impact on wildlife is scant, especially in Antarctica, where they are a new tool used in ecological research and monitoring. In this preliminary study potential effects of wildlife disturbance by fixed-wing UAVs are investigated. In austral summer 2014/15, UAV overflights were conducted in the Adelié penguin (Pygoscelis adeliae) breeding colony at Point. Thomas (Western Shore of Admiralty Bay, King George Island, Antarctica, Subarea 48.1). The impacts of electric and piston engine UAVs flying at 350 m altitude above ground level (AGL) over the colony were compared to the undisturbed colony (control group), and to natural disturbance (skua – Stercorarius sp. flying over nesting penguins). Penguin behaviour was divided into: resting behaviour, comfort behaviour, vigilance/anxiety and aggression. Percentages of birds exhibiting different types of behaviour, time spent on each type of behaviour and number of different types of behaviour displayed by one bird during the observation periods were compared. No differences were found between the control group and overflights by electric UAVs. During the overflight by a UAV powered by piston engine, symptoms of vigilance were observed with penguins looking up and around for a few seconds when the UAV was overhead. Similar symptoms of vigilance were observed when skuas flew (approximately 5 m AGL) over penguin colony without trying to attack nesting birds. No increase in aggressive behaviour was observed during the overflights by either electric or piston engine UAVs. Plans for a systematic monitoring of UAV impact on wildlife, as well as preliminary guidelines for the next field season, were formulated. |
The use of fishing-vessel-based acoustic data has been recognised as an important way to estimate the distribution and relative abundance of Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba), yet the quality and even the utility of the data may be seriously degraded by interference noise due to the lack of synchronisation of the acoustic instruments found on some of the vessels. A simple method to remove significant interference noise was introduced based on relevant virtual variable operators in the existing acoustic data post-processing software. The utility of the method was demonstrated by applying it to the acoustic data at 38, 70 and 120 kHz collected from a Chinese krill fishing vessel. Results show that the interference noise was effectively reduced while structure and echo strength of the krill swarms were retained. The method may provide opportunity to improve the utility of fishing-vessel-based acoustic data for a range of objectives. |
This paper explains the management of the Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) fishery in the Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean, and current knowledge about the state of the regional krill stock. In this region, krill fishing is permitted in an area of approximately 3.5 million km2 which is divided into four subareas (labelled Subareas 48.1 to 48.4) for management and reporting purposes. The effective regional catch limit (or ‘trigger level’), established in 1991, is 0.62 million tonnes year–1, equivalent to ~1% of the regional biomass estimated in 2000. Each subarea has also had its own catch limit, between 0.093 and 0.279 million tonnes year–1, since 2009. There is some evidence for a decline in the abundance of krill in the 1980s, but no evidence of a further decline in recent decades. Local-scale monitoring programs have been established in three of the subareas to monitor krill biomass in survey grids covering between 10 000 and 125 000 km2. Cautious extrapolation from these local monitoring programs provides conservative estimates of the regional biomass in recent years. This suggests that fishing at the trigger level would be equivalent to a long-term exploitation rate (annual catch divided by biomass) of <7%, which is below the 9.3% level considered appropriate to maintain the krill stock and support krill predators. Subarea catch limits exceed 9.3% of conservatively estimated subarea biomass in up to 20% of years due to high variability in krill biomass indices. The actual exploitation rate in each subarea has remained <3% because annual catches have been <50% of the trigger level since 1991. Comparison with the 9.3% reference exploitation rate suggests that current management is precautionary at the regional scale. The subarea catch limits help prevent excessive concentration of catch at the subarea scale. Finer-scale management might be necessary to manage the risk of adverse impacts which might occur as a result of concentrated fishing in sensitive areas or climate change. Frequent assessment of the krill stock will enhance CCAMLR’s ability to manage these risks. Continuing the local monitoring programs will provide valuable information on krill variability, but more information is required on how the monitored biomass relates to biomass at the subarea and regional scales. |