Given that thousands of humans
reside in Antarctica every year working in research stations, it is unlikely
that the environment is going to remain unchanged. The reason for this is that
humans create waste everywhere they go. Food and sewage waste are created by
the simple act of living in Antarctica, but waste resulting from the research
itself is also one of the main problems. Waste from building materials,
batteries, fuel drums and laboratory chemicals (Aronson et al. 2011) are additional
types of waste that the Antarctic is subjected to. This post will focus of
sewage waste from chemical and human waste, discussing what the effects are.
I find this topic particularly
interesting because in my view, researchers would not want to criticise their work. Much attention and credit goes to the research itself rather than the effects of the process that led to the
discovery. This means that the extent
of the waste problem may not be widely known. However, the waste problem was
recently in the news (The National Geographic, 2014),
where a study discovered that penguins’ tissues were found to be contaminated
by a toxic flame retardant. The contaminants were being passed on by fish. The flame retardant supposedly
came from waste from the McMurdo Station and another New Zealand base.
Chemical and human waste from the McMurdo Research Station
In the 1950s, before the
Montreal Protocol (see my post on the Antarctic Treaty)
and before any regulation, sewage was dumped into Winter Quarters Bay in McMurdo Sound (see figure 1) by
those working in the McMurdo Station (Landis, 1999). The
region earned a reputation to become 'one of the higher toxic concentrations of
any body of water on Earth' (Aronson et al. 2011: 90), which certainly
left a legacy on the environment. Contamination occurred from the disposal of
heavy metals such as zinc and arsenic, polychlorinated biphenyl from abandoned
sites (such as the Wilkes Station, see figure 2), and as mentioned, flame
retardants (Tin et al. 2009).
Figure 1. Winter Quarters Bay in McMurdo Sound. Adapted from University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2005)
Figure 2. Abandoned Wilkes Station
One example of the effect of contamination
from the McMurdo research station is a change in the behaviour of heart urchins.
Lenihan (1992) conducted an experiment in Winter
Quarters Bay. The author compared the burrowing behaviour of heart urchins near the McMurdo station with those
near the Jetty and Cinder Cones stations, which are supposedly uncontaminated. The
results found that 'heart urchins did not burrow into Winter Quarters Bay
bottom sediment' but they did in Jetty and Cinder Cones bottom sediments (ibid:
321). This shows that the behaviour of heart urchins has changed due to contamination.
In particular, urchins are finding the seabed toxic which shows that their
habitats have become unsafe for them. Therefore one key finding from this study
is that contamination has reached the bottom of the seabed. The potential
effects of this can even alter survival rates because if urchins do not reach
the seabed, they are susceptible to predators. Furthermore, some heart urchins
are being killed because of the concentrations of metals found. Biodiversity in
Antarctic oceans, is therefore being threatened by human actions.
A study conducted by Negri et al (2006)
investigated contamination in sediments, bivalves and sponges in McMurdo Sound,
which lies in the same region as the McMurdo Station. Figure 3 is a map
showing where the McMurdo Station is, relative to the sampling sites used in the
study. Metal concentrations were measured in Antarctic soft shell clam, called Laternula elliptica, because they are
largely abundant which means they are good indicators of metal accumulation (ibid).
Sediments extracted from the sponge tissue from the clam found the highest
concentrations of copper, zinc, silver, lead and cadmium (ibid) compared to the
other sites. This shows just how contaminated McMurdo Sound has become due to
anthropogenic activities. Additionally, in the book 'Need for real world assessment of the environmental effects of oil spills in ice-infested marine environments. POAC 81. The 6th international conference on port and ocean engineering under Arctic conditions, Quebec, 27-31 July 1981. Vol. II', Robbilliard and
Busdosh found that the concentration of the soft clam
in Winter Quarters Bay has substantially reduced. This evidence also shows that
these metal substances are harmful to marine life in the Antarctic waters.
Figure 3. Map of McMurdo Sound and Negri et al. (2006)'s sampling sites.
So in summary, while research
centres are an opportunity to find out more about human disturbance in
Antarctica, they also, ironically, contribute to the disturbance as well.
Biodiversity in Antarctica is unique to Antarctica and is being threatened by
research stations’ waste. This effect is exaggerated by the expansion of
research centres across the continent. Above, I mentioned that these studies
represent the legacy of past waste disposal. Since the Antarctic Treaty,
regulations have been implemented to prevent waste and contamination from
affecting this pristine environment. It’s just a shame that past actions are having
long term effects on the marine life in Antarctica. Was the regulation
implemented too late? According to Negri et al., Winter Quarters
Bay may have supported a rich community of benthic organisms prior to pollution
from the McMurdo station, but communities have failed to recover since
regulation was implemented. This indicates that perhaps it may have been.
It is important to stress that
this post is not a criticism of the research undertaken, as written in my previous post, research is immensely valuable. It finds the effects of human activities
and therefore helps find solutions. Rather, this post is a way of analysing the
unintended consequences of the research. As was the case with regulating tourism, I emphasise again that more needs to be done
to regulate waste. Next time, I focus on waste
regulation. The scores for negative human impacts verses positive/ natural
impacts on Antarctica are 6-3.
This is a great summary of your blog. I think your comments about the importance of the indirect impacts is interesting, one which perhaps can be effectively conveyed through media, especially photos as you previously suggested, as it is often easy not to read articles regarding our impacts but photos are difficult to ignore
ReplyDelete