(C) PLOS One
This story was originally published by PLOS One and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



A call to strengthen international collaboration to assess climate change effects in polar regions [1]

['Clare B. Gaffey', 'Graduate School Of Geography', 'Clark University', 'Worcester', 'Massachusetts', 'United States Of America', 'Department Of Environmental Studies', 'College Of The Holy Cross', 'Narissa Bax', 'Pinngortitaleriffik']

Date: 2024-12

Climate change is exerting complex and transformative effects in the Arctic and Antarctic; regions that are essential to global climate, biodiversity, and sustainable futures. Given the polar regions’ roles in Earth’s system, a robust, coordinated, and innovative strategy to monitor and manage climate change effects is needed. Insufficient baseline data, inconsistent international collaboration, and short-term financing are obstacles to effectively monitor these changes. This hinders our understanding of biodiversity shifts, their implications for food security, and climate change mitigation. Confronting the impacts of climate change will require interdisciplinary collaboration and genuine participation of nations, including Indigenous communities. This sentiment includes facilitating international cooperation to address scientific objectives despite political tensions. Additional recommendations include establishing regular international requirements to track progress based on available science, optimizing the use of existing infrastructure and resources, enhancing data sharing practices, and securing long-term financing to sustain research. While the existing pan-Antarctic and pan-Arctic initiatives present useful strategies, these initiatives are not a silver bullet. They do, however, provide a starting point for further work. Ultimately, by building upon existing initiatives and harnessing their successful components, we can address limitations of short-term or fragmented studies. We outline tools and data resources for polar research, examples of existing collaborative efforts to build upon, and Indigenous knowledge systems that provide valuable resources for this undertaking.

This paper outlines the necessity of a globally collaborative research strategy to better understand and respond to climate change at polar latitudes. A goal of this article is to build on global community responses to the task of climate and environmental monitoring through transparent data sharing mechanisms. We argue for increasing devoted resources to polar research to expand current efforts and the adoption of longer-term funding cycles that promote sustained monitoring programs capable of maintaining critical time series datasets as well as employment continuity for a specialized workforce. We advocate for the inclusion of a wide range of stakeholders within this workforce, including historically and currently marginalized groups (e.g. Indigenous knowledge holders) in order to address the complex challenges of polar research and ensure continued vitality and innovation. We highlight several international networks that currently serve as conduits for science diplomacy to extend beyond territorial rights and countries’ self-interest and define specific measures to build on national scientific infrastructure. International networks, which include early career researchers, and the integration of social and human sciences with environmental and ecological sciences offer links between critical components of the science–policy interface [ 20 , 30 , 31 ].

In an idealistic view, the primacy of scientific research is paramount; however, the current political landscape reveals science as a multi-purpose vehicle not only for the pursuit of knowledge but also significantly leveraged for military strategies, national security, and resource exploration [ 23 – 25 ]. If climate research were conducted without these competing interests, the priority would shift towards a concentrated effort on understanding and mitigating climate change, ensuring that global climate policies and strategies are directly informed by unbiased scientific findings. Scientific exploration is not only beneficial to those directly inhabiting these regions, such as Arctic Peoples, but for the broader global community. For example, understanding sea ice dynamics and water column temperatures is essential for accurate Arctic and Antarctic climate models to predict future global climate scenarios [ 21 , 26 ]. Ultimately, science diplomacy defined by the strategic use of scientific collaborations among nations to address shared challenges, strengthen international partnerships, and inform foreign policy decisions, should be a key component of any effort to increase cooperation [ 27 ]. Despite their geographic differences, science diplomacy and scientific research serve as foundational elements for cooperation in both polar regions [ 20 , 28 , 29 ].

The polar regions are spaces with diverse but often competing interests [ 16 , 18 ]. The Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), centered on the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, which entered into force in 1961, prohibits any military activity, mineral mining, and nuclear testing, and is primarily recognized as a hub for scientific endeavors [ 19 ]. However, emerging influences such as geopolitical interests, national economic priorities, and drivers such as polar tourism and fisheries pose compounding challenges [ 19 – 22 ]. Unlike the Antarctic, the Arctic relies on the Arctic Council and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea frameworks for governance and has witnessed escalating geopolitical attention due to its potential for resource extraction and the opening of new shipping routes. The recent geopolitical instabilities, particularly Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, have posed challenges to polar governance leading to the disruption of Arctic Council activities [ 20 ].

Addressing the complex, multifaceted challenges of polar regions require an approach that encompasses ecological, climatological, socio-economic, and cultural dimensions [ 2 , 11 , 12 ]. A critical aspect of this approach involves acknowledging and addressing the historical dominance of a ’western, privileged, white, male’ perspective [ 13 ], the domination by foreign powers over territories and people (colonialism), and more subtle control, often economic, over some countries after formal colonialism ends (neocolonialism) [ 14 ]. Such factors manifest in contemporary scientific practices through "parachute" and "helicopter" science, where researchers from dominant cultures or nations conduct studies in less privileged communities, including Indigenous territories, without genuine collaboration or benefit sharing, thus perpetuating historical patterns of exclusion and exploitation [ 15 ]. Indigenous communities are deeply connected to polar and subpolar ecosystems and therefore possess invaluable perspectives for developing effective adaptive strategies [ 16 ]. Such involvement also enriches the global dialogue on climate change, emphasizing the need for conflict resolution and culturally sensitive solutions for the sustainable use of resources for economic growth, improved livelihoods, and ecosystem health (e.g. the Blue Economy [ 17 ]).

In just 25 years, a significant proportion of the Antarctic ice shelf mass has decreased, primarily due to ocean-driven basal melting and calving [ 4 , 5 ]. The observed reduction of the cryosphere and the rapid warming in the Arctic and Antarctic are critical not only for their role in deregulating the climate system, global thermohaline circulation, and sea level [ 6 ], but also for their impacts on ecological and human systems. Reductions in polar sea ice and the depletion of the cryosphere in general have direct consequences on local populations in the Arctic, such as loss to resource access, reduced personal safety, and impaired physical health. Broader consequences include profound ecological and ecosystemic issues in both marine and terrestrial wildlife, such as trophodynamic alterations, physiological impairments, disruptions in food-web functioning, and the carbon cycle [ 7 – 10 ].

Challenges and opportunities in monitoring climate change in polar regions

This section highlights existing internationally collaborative groups, logistic and data structures, and financial limitations of polar research. Current networks serve as stepping stones towards sustained collaborations to promote synergistic data collections to strengthen the precision of climate models, and secure research partnerships that enhance global unity. These collaborations can further bridge the gap between public education and the implementation of climate mitigation strategies, ensuring that scientific findings have a direct impact on public perspective, policy, and action.

Data Polar regions are logistically challenging to study, and this has historically limited the amount of data available and the locations where data is accessible for continuous monitoring. This often translates into limited and patchy baseline datasets, if available at all. Due to issues related to coordination and the deployment of infrastructure and technology, the high latitudes remain some of the most poorly observed regions on the planet [32]. Without national infrastructure to support exploration in many locations, limited sampling capacity hinders our understanding of the current state of these ecosystems and the rate at which they are changing. This, in turn, can impair our grasp of biodiversity shifts, implications for food security, and climate change mitigation strategies. The emergence of satellite remote sensing in the late 20th century has alleviated several observation gaps for sea surface, atmospheric, cryospheric, and terrestrial monitoring. Open access data records from the initial campaigns have been perpetuated through continued public support for scientific satellite missions such as the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration ICESat-2 launched in 2018, and the upcoming European Space Agency Arctic Weather Satellite mission to provide frequent coverage for improved nowcasting and numerical weather predictions. Still, continued support is needed to build and maintain satellite infrastructure to fill critical observation gaps, such as multi-angular polarimetric sensors designed for ocean color applications [33]. To this end, the European Commission established the Copernicus Polar Task Force in 2022 to determine the future direction of the Earth observation component of the European Union’s Space Programme [34]. However, even in the context of the European Union, the Copernicus Polar Task Force recommended greater political collaboration across borders for alleviating restricted data access and sharing in polar regions [35]. Numerous national research programs have enabled continued oceanographic expeditions, often even on an annual basis. These expeditions involve a range of scientific disciplines, leading to comprehensive studies that cover various aspects of polar environments. However, these efforts are conducted mainly by individual national projects and often confined to specific regions or species of interest, which results in significant data gaps in less prioritized or less accessible areas. A prominent gap stems from the summer-time restriction of traditional shipboard observations, limiting the understanding of seasonal progression and year-round variability. Advances and increased usage of autonomous platforms have led to significant improvements [36], though existing gaps still prevent a clear understanding of climate change effects in polar regions. New monitoring technologies such as aerial unmanned systems have also gained traction in polar research in recent years [37, 38]. Still, baseline data required from beneath the sea surface are lacking for many areas. For some coastal ecosystems, dive programs since the 1980s have provided insight into remote locations such as the East Antarctic fjords [39], and increasingly the use of both manned and unmanned submersibles are used to document marine biodiversity [40]. Additionally, the non-conventional usage of Argo floats in grounded mode can be effective for oceanographic observations in polar seas. Equipped with an ice-avoidance function and programmed to ground (or park) on the seabed between profiles, these platforms can obtain measurements under sea ice [41–43] and ice shelves [44]. An increase of such winter-time observations and especially the ones sampled close to or in ice-shelf cavities is necessary to gain insight into crucial ice-ocean interactions like heat transport and basal melting [45]. Systematic deployment of sustained moorings and other long-term platforms, autonomous instruments and dedicated deep-sea, under-ice and year-round observational programs are needed to address this critical data gap. Another opportunity lies in the deployment of Deep Argo floats improving deep-ocean sampling coverage [46]. These profiling platforms have the potential to close the data gap for depths over 2000 m, giving unprecedented insight into the production and export of bottom waters [47] which are the driving force of the global overturning circulation, regulating climate through ventilation of the abyssal ocean and sequestration of anthropogenic heat and carbon from the atmosphere. For the program to be sustainable however, the implementation of the Deep Argo array must rely on the long-term commitments of international Argo partners and the production capacity of float and sensor manufacturers [46]. Specific initiatives such as the Synoptic Arctic Survey [48] are attempting to fill regional baseline data deficiency gaps. The Synoptic Arctic Survey is an international collaboration with the specific goal of providing unique baseline data to define the present state of the Arctic Ocean with the intention to repeat oceanographic surveys in coming decades. The program acknowledges, however, that this survey will not address all ongoing transformations but must be combined with additional field campaign efforts [48]. In the Southern hemisphere, Antarctic biodiversity provides several ecosystem services including carbon sequestration [49]. Interests in understanding species distribution, mechanisms driving spatial patterns of Antarctic species, as well as significance of underexplored taxons is rapidly growing. Efforts have been made to provide a baseline inventory by the Register of Antarctic Species (RAS) which provides a comprehensive list of Latin and common names of more than 12,600 marine and terrestrial species in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean [50]. In the north, the Arctic Register of Marine Species (ARMS) includes all multicellular animals and is currently being updated with the addition of marine plants and information on the habitat and habitat preferences of marine species [51]. Both taxonomic experts and database managers contribute to the development and maintenance of such databases in international collaborative efforts [52, 53]. Genetic data, when combined with specimens in RAS and ARMS, has been shown to significantly improve accuracy in biodiversity research. This is particularly important given the high number of misidentified species in databases, the abundance of cryptic and unidentified species in scientific institutions and natural history museums, and the global decline in taxonomic expertise [54]. Advances in genome sequencing and biogeochemistry have led to new applications that enhance our understanding of biological patterns and environmental records of species. These developments significantly increase the usability of global genetics databases such as GenBank for polar research [55].

Common data repositories and cloud-based tools There are several data depositories designed for polar specific datasets (Table 1). Data sources, types, and formats distributed among depositories depend on several factors, including established data sharing policies outlined by funding agencies and governments. The Arctic Data Committee established by the Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks (SAON), has attempted a draft map to organize data repositories for polar ecosystem data (https://arcticdc.org/products/data-ecosystem-map). Still, there is a need for a centralized way to access datasets across the data repositories (such as STAC API) and utilize these in cloud-based workflows. Further, access to cloud-based workflows should be a public service so as to provide access to all researchers, not just ones that have expendable funds available. This is essential for an equity as well as educational approach because it is extremely likely that students and early career researchers will lack access to cloud-based technologies if fees are required for entry. Becoming comfortable with this new technology will take users time to learn and make mistakes in an iterative process. If cloud-based tools and access to cloud-based datasets, or hosting personal datasets online is costly, this will disincentivize upcoming researchers in utilizing such resources and acquiring skills and workflows to effectively scale their research. In fact, it is the ability to scale research that will alleviate disparities in trying to connect disjointed, unstandardized, small-scale studies towards a holistic perspective on environmental conditions through the connection of diverse studies. PPT PowerPoint slide

PNG larger image

TIFF original image Download: Table 1. Major polar repositories for public data and metadata. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000495.t001 The databases in Table 1 are operated by various public and private institutions. An initial proposal is to ensure that data collection is standardized so that data from various sources can be easily compared. Following open-access policies for datasets as well as collection protocols can facilitate standardization and increase the impact of research. Understandably, data sharing sparks concerns on copyright infringement and stolen intellectual property, which need to be resolved through framework and consortium agreements between partners, as sometimes already exists between certain players (for example, data pooled between European Union countries). To strengthen our capacity to conduct meta-analyses and big data-type analyses of polar environments, it is advisable to generalize data exchanges and establish IT gateways between the different data repository systems already in place. Ideally, we should end up with a centralized, global database used by all those involved in polar research, and across disciplines. Such initiatives have already been successful in other areas of research, such as biodiversity (GBIF-the Global Biodiversity Information Facility or the World Bank’s Global Species Database) or genetics (Barcode of Life Data System-BOLD). This could be best achieved through an international agreement overseen by an internationally recognized institution. Scientific collaborations that already exist in the Arctic and Antarctic could be well-suited to initiate the construction of future joint data sets with appropriate support.

Expanding geographic scope of field observations Oceanographic data collection is concentrated in near-coast North American and European sectors of the Arctic Ocean. There is a deficit of observations in the Central Arctic as well as in the East Siberian, Laptev, Kara Seas, and Eastern Chukchi Sea [56–58]. Ongoing transformations of the Arctic Ocean involving Atlantification of seawater [59], shifts in primary production in the Eurasian Basin [60] and phytoplankton phenology in response to sea ice changes [61] influence ecosystem structure throughout the Arctic. While it is essential to maintain continuous measurements in current locations, there are many areas that still lack baseline observations as previously described. The dearth of observations is true for the Arctic marine environment as well as terrestrial environments which has led to biased and incomplete understanding in Arctic climate change [62, 63]. For example, several studies corroborate the tundra region of Alaska to be a consistent net carbon source while the boreal region was either net carbon neutral or a sink depending on the year. However, similar detailed evidence does not exist for Siberia which contains the largest reservoir of permafrost [64]. This insight is incredibly important, especially in the context of tall shrub and tree expansion into tundra ecotones in Siberia [65]. Current knowledge on Arctic change on variables such as annual mean air temperature, permafrost temperature, total precipitation, snow depth, vegetation biomass, soil carbon, net primary productivity, and heterotrophic respiration is already biased due to dependence on relatively few research stations scattered across the Arctic without an optimal statistically determined sampling design [62, 66]. Consistent monitoring of these variables and others across the pan-Arctic region is needed for a more comprehensive and less biased understanding of Arctic change. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has prompted ongoing international withdrawal from cooperative polar research [67]. The current conflict marks the first time since the Falklands War that two Antarctic Treaty parties are engaged in active conflict. During the 44th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) in Berlin in 2022, the ongoing war led to heightened diplomatic tensions, with strong condemnation of Russia. This unprecedented situation highlighted the challenge of addressing external conflicts within the ATS and associated bodies and institutions such as the ATCM, the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP), and the Standing Committee on Antarctic Logistics and Operations (SCALOP). The conflict raises critical questions about the mechanisms available for managing such issues in future meetings, ensuring the Treaty’s commitment to peaceful diplomacy, and maintaining the spirit of international scientific collaboration in the Antarctic region [19]. Since the invasion of Ukraine, Russia has been excluded from the Arctic Council, a high-level intergovernmental forum that promotes cooperation and coordination of Arctic monitoring and development [67]. The Arctic Council was founded in a post-Cold War vision of Arctic and sub-Arctic peace. Among foreign ministries, the Arctic Council is unique in that it is the only international group that includes Indigenous leaders as equal stakeholders [67]. Based on its founding values and progressive structure, it is critical for the organization to prioritize scientific progress over current geopolitical tensions. Further, Russia’s Arctic Ambassador, Nikolay Korchnov, has hinted at the option of Russia withdrawing from the Arctic Council completely. Without Russia’s involvement, the effectiveness of the Arctic Council could be severely hindered [68]. While climate change continues to shape the Russian Arctic in ways unknown to the global community but entirely relevant to it, hard-earned partnerships that enabled environmental monitoring and response will be difficult to reestablish. Addressing this conflict is vital for preserving the unique cooperative environment that the ATS and Arctic Council has fostered for decades. There have also been significant effects on funding decisions, exchange programs, international research expeditions and other fieldwork and travel including for scientific conference participation [69]. Russia contains over half of the Arctic Ocean coastline. Without cooperation with Russian scientists and safe access to Russian territories, including their exclusive economic zone stretching 200 nautical miles from the coast, we cannot hope to have a clear understanding of Arctic changes as a system. The pressure to resolve the constraints on data and resource sharing for scientific objectives is intensified by the fact that a lack of data from Russia may render Arctic climate forecasting “meaningless” [70]. Additionally, the conflict has disrupted Ukraine’s Antarctic research program, threatening the continuity of a long-term temperature dataset [71] which should be supported by cooperative international programs in the near term.

Arctic scientific collaborations Another significant challenge is international collaboration at the scale needed. A number of international bodies have formed in support of this research effort. For example, the European Union Arctic PASSION program [72], a consortium including partners from 17 countries, was formed to address fragmented components of current Arctic observation systems and expand and improve capacity. Successful components of Arctic PASSION include their work to increase interoperability and accessibility of application-ready Arctic environmental data for science, policy, and business and their efforts to increase retroactive observations of local conditions through Indigenous and local knowledge. However, funding for Arctic PASSION will conclude in 2025 [72]. While Arctic PASSION was funded by the European Union, many Arctic observation programs source their resources from various regional, national, and international funding agencies as well as private donors [73]. The absence of consistent, sustained international collaboration and dedicated funds can lead to gaps in monitoring efforts, making it difficult to get a comprehensive picture of the changes occurring in these regions over time. Still, there are several examples of international feats in polar science. The Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) was the largest Arctic science expedition in history, and an example of a successful international research initiative. In September 2019-October 2020, the German research icebreaker Polarstern spent a year drifting trapped in Central Arctic Sea ice to collect datasets related to the ice, ocean, atmosphere, biogeochemistry, and ecosystems. Experts from more than 80 institutions spanning 20 countries participated in or contributed to the $150 million expedition. A notable design in the MOSAiC program was its initiative to make all data collected freely available to the public beginning January 2023, less than three years following the end of the field collections. The data are hosted on various data repositories dependent on funding agency requirements, including those listed within Table 1. An example of a more enduring Arctic monitoring program is the Distributed Biological Observatory (DBO; https://dbo.cbl.umces.edu). Beginning as a pilot program by the Pacific Arctic Group in 2010, the DBO has developed into an internationally coordinated network of defined observation sites where researchers conduct long-term monitoring of key environmental and biological parameters [74]. The DBO’s design facilitates the integration and comparison of data across different sites and over time, offering an invaluable framework for detecting and understanding regional changes in ecosystem health and biodiversity. This collaborative model not only enhances the efficiency of data collection in challenging environments but also fosters international partnerships and data sharing among the scientific community. Owing to the DBO’s adaptable framework and responsiveness to emerging scientific questions that can only be addressed through annual monitoring into a built time series, there are current efforts to develop DBO stations in Baffin Bay, North Atlantic, and the East Siberian Sea.

Consensus collaboration in the Southern Ocean The establishment of the Antarctic Treaty and later, the ATS define Antarctica’s history of collaborative efforts. However, collaborative efforts in Antarctica preceded the formation of the ATS span back to earlier International Polar Years (IPYs), including the 1957/58 International Geophysical Year (IGY) [75]. To ensure that Antarctica remains a place for peace and science, 56 states ratified the 1959 Antarctic Treaty. Over time, the rights and responsibilities of the ATS and signatory nations have expanded to include environmental protection and conservation measures, and there are calls to expand the focus further in light of climate change, especially in relation to the Southern Ocean Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), and climate-smart marine spatial planning [76, 77]. The CCAMLR convention was formed in response to rising economic interest in Antarctica in 1982 and while CCAMLR takes an ecosystem-based management approach and is precautionary, its focus is sustainable fishing. It is also important to note that CCAMLR has different spatially explicit conservation measures within the ATS that allow for targeted management and protection of specific habitats and ecosystems [78]. A notable success is the Ross Sea MPA, established in 2016, which at the time was the largest MPA in the world, covering 1.55 million km2 [79]. However, given CCAMLR’s role in MPA implementation, they have faced some criticism for developing fisheries rather than implementing biodiversity or climate-change related conservation measures [80]. The main limitation to new MPAs is a lack of consensus decision making, even when MPA proposals are based on multi-year data and scientific advice [81]. For example, Russia and China have consistently obstructed the approval of an East Antarctic MPA in CCAMLR meetings through "decision-making by non-decision-making," thereby impeding consensus rule for over a decade [80]. Given that Antarctica is a shared heritage, it must be managed in a globally fair and inclusive manner. Within the ATS, cooperative mechanisms, equity considerations, global frameworks such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) [49], and the high seas biodiversity treaty have all been suggested to link global participation with the ATS and better address the shared consequences of climate change [76]. Given Antarctica’s unique governance and legal structure, and decades of scientific research on biophysical processes and climate change impacts, the ATS and its treaty nations are well-positioned to develop unique, climate-smart [76], marine protections that benefit many. Effective outreach and synthesis programs. There are currently several notable organizations that serve as networks to promote scientific collaboration, too many to describe each in detail. Prominent examples include the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC; https://iasc.info) that focuses on high northern latitudes and the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR; https://scar.org) in the south. SCAR presented the Antarctic Climate Change and Environment report to the ATCM in 2022, including an ambitious decadal plan [82, 83], and in response to the urgent need for coordinated international research in both Polar Regions, IASC and SCAR are currently collaborating to design the 5th IPY [68]. An IPY marks an international coordinated effort to share research expedition plans, observations, and analyses. Additional organizations including the Association of Polar Early Career Scientists and the World Meteorological Organization among others have also supported IPY initial planning efforts. In the annals of polar research, the IPY represents a significant milestone, exemplifying an extensive community-driven initiative encompassing both polar regions since the first IPY in 1880. This persistence underscores the robustness and adaptability of the IPY organizational structure, providing a compelling example of enduring scientific collaboration. Synthesis and outreach are crucial stages in bringing scientific findings into coherent narratives accessible across a broad range of stakeholders. Synthesis activities amalgamize results from various studies and can lead to more effective research planning. For example, the Synoptic Arctic Survey coordinates international efforts to conduct synchronous, pan-Arctic observations to achieve a more holistic view of Arctic marine ecosystems. Additionally, publications such as IASC’s State of Arctic Science Report and International Conference on Arctic Research Planning (ICARP) provide cohesive synthesis of international Arctic priorities as a roadmap for future research activities. Consistent assessments of observations such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Arctic Report Card provides comprehensive updates on the state of the Arctic system within easy-to-digest chapters suitable for a non-scientific audience. Every few years, the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP; https://www.amap.no/), a working group of the Arctic Council, also publishes a report regarding the state of knowledge on snow, water, ice, and permafrost aimed for policymakers including careful transparency on their assessment of action-orientated recommendations [84]. Beyond data sharing and outreach, international collaborations have been formed to promote sharing of physical assets needed for polar research (Table 2). For example, the Forum of Arctic Operators (FARO; https://faro-arctic.org) is a country membership organization that facilitates dialogue on logistics and operational support for scientific research in the Arctic. Currently, 21 member countries meet annually coinciding with the Arctic Science Summit Week to exchange ideas and updates on operations and infrastructure necessary for Arctic research, including icebreakers and research stations. Successful facility sharing amongst various countries has been achieved through participation in programs such as the International Network for Terrestrial Research and Monitoring in the Arctic (INTERACT; https://eu-interact.org) and Svalbard Integrated Arctic Earth Observing System (SIOS; https://sios-svalbard.org). INTERACT and SIOS support transnational access to foreign research stations through centralized request systems. Continued commitment to these organizations by member states, including expanding inventory of participating shared resources, would promote access to research sites from Arctic and non-Arctic nations. Emphasis should be placed in developing research capacity in areas that are currently data poor to limit the impact of bias on our collective understanding of polar changes [62]. PPT PowerPoint slide

PNG larger image

TIFF original image Download: Table 2. Arctic and Antarctic research stations. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000495.t002

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000495

Published and (C) by PLOS One
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons - Attribution BY 4.0.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/plosone/

You are viewing proxied material from magical.fish. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.