synthesis delivering 21st century antarctic and …...collective international planning has a long...

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.


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.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.



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.



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.



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




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




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




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




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.




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




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.




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




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.




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

synthesis delivering 21st century antarctic and …...collective international planning has a long...

Documents