Analysis of published scientific research from Deception Island, South Shetland Islands

1 Analysis of published scientific research from Deception Island,2 South Shetland Islands3 PABLO TEJEDO, BERTA GUTIÉRREZ, LUIS R. PERTIERRA and JAVIER BENAYAS

4 Departamento de Ecología, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, C/Darwin 2, Madrid ES-28049, Spain5 [email protected]

6 Abstract: The aim of this study was to develop a methodology to assess the degree of multidisciplinarity7 and international co-operation between scientists working on Deception Island, using techniques based8 on social network analysis. A database was built of the scientific output, as represented by published9 articles, on Deception Island between 1964–2012. From the 173 published articles, the main topics, the

10 temporal trends, the profile of the principal journals, and the contributions made by each country,11 research institution and scientist were obtained. The data presented show a significant role played by12 four of the six nations belonging to the Deception Island Management Group. However, collaborations13 between researchers in different fields was unusual and co-authoring by researchers from different14 countries was relatively low. These results show that there is a need to strengthen international15 co-operation, a highly advisable strategy in Antarctica due to the complexity of logistics and high16 operational costs. Studies such as this may help to identify synergies between institutions and researchers17 from different nations, improving the scientific collaboration in this area of priority for conservation and18 management.

19 Received 6 December 2013, accepted 16 May 2014

20 Key words: ASMANo. 4, social network analysis, Deception Island Management Group, international21 scientific collaboration, Journal Citation Reports, multidisciplinary research

22 Introduction

23 Deception Island (62°57'S, 60°38'W; Fig. 1) is a unique24 place in Antarctica with unusual natural, scientific,25 historical, educational, aesthetic and wilderness values. By26 Antarctic standards, Deception Island has also had a long27 history of human activity, of which scientific research has28 been one of the dominant uses in recent decades. The aim of29 this study was to examine the output of research activities30 that have taken place on or around Deception Island, as31 represented by published scientific articles. This type of32 analysis is of fundamental importance for assessment of the33 level of international co-operation that occurs in Antarctic34 scientific research.

35 Natural setting

36 Deception Island is one of the three known volcanoes in37 the South Shetland Islands. It is a horseshoe-shaped38 basaltic island, with a diameter of 15 km. It has a surface39 area of c. 98.5 km, with 57% permanently covered by ice40 (Smellie et al. 2002). Neptune’s Bellows, a narrow passage41 on the south-east side of the island, enables entry42 of vessels into the flooded caldera, Port Foster, which43 was formed by an explosive eruption c. 10 000 years ago.44 The volcano is active and there have been small-scale45 eruptions during the last 200 years, with recorded46 events during 1906–10 and 1967–70 (Baker et al. 1975).

47There are freshwater and geothermal springs on the island,48as well as several lakes, freshwater pools, streams and a49geothermal lagoon (Downie et al. 2000). The climate is50polar maritime, with a mean annual temperature of51-3ºC (-28ºC to +11ºC) (Smith 1984a, 1984b). Vegetation is52sparse as most volcanic substrata are porous, arid and53unstable (Smith 1984a, 1984b, 1988) but there are more54than 70 species of moss, seven liverworts and 70 lichens on55the island. Many of these species are associated with the56geothermal soils, being unknown or very rare elsewhere57in the Antarctic (Smith 2005). Deception Island also58features the largest known stand of Colobanthus quitensis59(Kunth) Bartl., Antarctic pearlwort, one of only two60flowering plants in the Antarctic (Deception Island61Management Group 2012). The invertebrate fauna is62dominated by terrestrial springtails (Collembola),63mites (Acarina) and freshwater nematodes (Nematoda)64(Downie et al. 2000). There are also freshwater crustacea65(Crustacea), one gastrotrich (Gastrotricha), tardigrades66(Tardigrada), rotifers (Rotifera) and one fly (Diptera)67(Deception Island Management Group 2012). Nine bird68species breed on the island including petrels, Antarctic69cormorants, greater sheathbills (Chionis alba Gmelin),70skuas, gulls and terns (Bó & Copello 2001), along with71the world’s largest colony of chinstrap penguins at72Baily Head (Naveen et al. 2012). There are no breeding73mammals on Deception Island, but Antarctic fur seals74(Arctocephalus gazelle Peters), Weddell seals (Leptonychotes

Antarctic Science page 1 of 16 (2014) © Antarctic Science Ltd 2014 doi:10.1017/S0954102014000455

1

75 weddellii Lesson), crabeater seals (Lobodon carcinophagus76 Hombron & Jacquinot), southern elephant seals (Mirounga77 leonina L.) and leopard seals (Hydrurga leptonyx Blainville)78 are present on the beaches of the inner and outer coasts79 (Deception Island Management Group 2012). Studies of80 flora, fauna and soil microalgal recovery following volcanic81 eruptions make Deception Island one of the best-studied82 sites in the Southern Ocean for biodiversity (Fermani et al.83 2007). An increasing gradient of marine biodiversity has84 been detected from Fumarole Bay to Neptune’s Bellows,85 purportedly reflecting a post-eruption recovery trend86 (Barnes et al. 2008).

87 Human activity

88 There has been human activity on Deception Island since c.89 1820, including exploration, sealing, whaling, aviation,90 scientific research and, more recently, commercial tourism91 (Deception Island Management Group 2012). British and92 American sealers hunted around the island in the early93 19th century, introducing one of the earliest commercial94 activities to the Antarctic (Dibbern 2010). From 1912–31,95 the Norwegian Hektor Whaling Company operated on a96 station in Whalers Bay. In 1944, the British expedition97 Operation Tabarin occupied one of the abandoned98 buildings of the Hektor whaling station, founding the first99 permanent station on the island. Argentina established100 Decepción Station at Fumarole Bay in 1948 and Chile101 founded Pedro Aguirre Cerda Station in PendulumCove in102 1955. The Chilean base was destroyed by the volcanic103 eruption in 1967, while further eruptions in 1969 and 1970104 destroyed many British installations at Whalers Bay by fire105 and mudslides, forcing abandonment. Neither the Chilean106 nor the British programmes returned.107 Over the past 50 years, a number of countries have108 conducted scientific research around Deception Island

109in many areas of natural sciences, including biology,110oceanography, geology and physics (Pertierra et al.1112014). In 2013, there were only two scientific stations112in operation: Decepción Station (Argentina) and the113Spanish Gabriel de Castilla Station (established in 1988),114both stations only open during the summer. The two115stations altogether are used by c. 60 researchers and116support staff annually.117Commercial tourism on Deception Island began in 1966118when the environmentalist Lars-Eric Lindblad visited119the island with his pioneer tourism model combining120sight-seeing with educational lectures. Deception Island121has developed to be one of the most visited tourist122destinations in Antarctica. The majority of commercial123tourists arrive on cruise ships and make landings of several124hours at individual sites. In 2012–13, 24 293 tourists visited125Deception Island at the four main sites of Whalers Bay,126Telefon Bay, Baily Head and Pendulum Cove (similar to127previous seasons; IAATO 2014).

128Management

129Deception Island was formally adopted as Antarctic130Specially Managed Area (ASMA) No. 4 in 2005 at the13128th Antarctic Treaty ConsultativeMeeting (ATCM) under132Measure 3. An ASMA is designated when a number of133activities are being undertaken by several countries and134there is a need for international co-operation to ensure135appropriate environmental management. A management136group is formed to oversee the planning and co-ordination of137activities, prevent conflicts, improve co-operation and138minimize environmental impacts. The Deception Island139Management Group comprises representatives from six140Antarctic Treaty consultative parties: Argentina, Chile,141Norway, Spain, the UK and the USA (Argentina and142Spain, and to a lesser degreeChile,UKandUSAhave active143research on the island; Norway, UK and Chile have historic144interests). There are several Antarctic Specially Protected145Areas (ASPAs), Historic Site and Monuments (HSMs), a146facilities zone and a series of visitors’ guidelines for147Deception Island (Deception Island Management Group1482012). Hektor whaling station is considered to be the most149significant historical whaling site in the Antarctic, and is150listed as HSM No. 71. The abandoned Chilean station at151Pendulum Cove is listed as HSM No. 76. Other protected152areas on the island include ASPA No. 140, comprising 11153terrestrial sites of unique botanical importance, and ASPA154No. 145, comprising two marine sites within Port Foster155where a long-term scientific study is monitoring post-156eruption re-colonization.

157Materials and methods

158Scientific output was measured by the number of scientific159articles published in peer reviewed journals arising from

Fig. 1. Location of Deception Island. Inset map: northernAntarctic Peninsula and offshore islands.

2 PABLO TEJEDO et al.

160 scientific research on or around Deception Island. This161 strategy had multiple advantages: i) the information is162 easily accessible in several public databases, ii) the peer163 review process guarantees, to some degree, the quality164 of included research, and iii) only successful scientific165 activities are incorporated, discarding those that did not166 generate scientific knowledge of interest.

167 Databases

168 Bibliographic search engines were used to identify articles169 using the search string ‘Deception Island Antarctica’. An170 initial list was compiled using Web of Science, Google171 Scholar, Scirus, Combined Antarctic and Cold Regions172 Bibliographies, the databases of the Australian Antarctic173 Data Centre, British Antarctic Survey, the Spanish174 Polar Data Centre and University of Cadiz’s (Spain)175 alphanumeric database with georeferenced bibliography176 for Deception Island (http://simac.uca.es/). Papers were177 filtered using the following criteria: i) published pre-2013,178 ii) published in scientific journals listed in Thomson179 Reuters’ 2011 Journal Citation Reports (JCR), and iii)180 only papers that provided new data about Deception181 Island were kept. Each paper was supplemented by basic182 information including year of publication, journal name,183 authors, full title and summary.184 Once the basic database was compiled, each paper was185 assigned to one of eight topic categories: i) volcanology and186 seismology, ii) terrestrial biodiversity, iii)marine biodiversity,187 iv) geology, geomorphology and stratigraphy, v) limnology188 and microbiology, vi) oceanography, vii) human dimension,

189and viii) glaciology, meteorology and climate. Topics190were defined following analysis of the main issues191addressed in the whole collection of papers. Topic192assignment was based on the objectives and results of193the paper, regardless of the content of the discussion194section. Most of the papers were assigned to a single195category. However, a small fraction (17 articles, 9.8%)196possessed a multidisciplinary design, in which case the197secondary topic was also designated. Exceptionally, one198paper addressed three of the categories. To complete199the categorization process, the methodology sections were200reviewed to distinguish the geographical distribution of201fieldwork. Studies in which research was conducted202in different parts of the island (i.e. more than four sites)203were assigned to a ‘global’ category. A special category204was created to accommodate papers that did not cite the205geographical point of research.206From the database, a list of journals in which the207papers were published was assembled. For each journal, the208following information was obtained from Thomson209Reuters’ JCR: 5-year impact factor, country of publication210and subject categories. For each journal, the total number of211papers and the time period over which these papers were212published was tabulated.213A second database was also compiled, which contained214papers on all Antarctic research activity, spanning2151964–2012 (the same period as the Deception Island216database), in order that comparisons could be made with217regard to the historical evolution of scientific research218on Deception Island. The all Antarctic database was219compiled from searches on the Web of Science’s Science

Table I. Statistics used in the social network analysis.

Indicators

NetworkSize Number of nodes in the networkDensity Proportion of all possible ties that are actually present in the networkCentralization Calculates the extent to which a network is dominated by a few nodes. It compares the network with a theoretical network

of the same size in which one node would play a central role, i.e. a star networkConnectivity Proportion of pairs of nodes that have ties with each otherFragmentation Proportion of pairs of nodes that do not have ties with each other; the inverse of connectivity

ActorsArticles Number of scientific articles published per nodeCollaborations Number of scientific articles in which the node appears with other nodesLinks Number of other nodes to which a node is attached in the networkCentralization Shared degree centrality was used to calculate the contribution of each node to centralization; the degree divided by the

maximum possible degree expressed as a percentageEigenvector Another measure of centrality which calculates a value for each node taking into account the centrality of the nodes it is

connected to; it could be defined as the ‘social power’ of a nodeBetweenness The possibility of a node to act as intermediary in the communication between pairs of nodes; this parameter is greater for

those nodes with a higher number of tiesCloseness Ability of a node to reach all nodes of a network; this parameter is greater for nodes that are in central positions and well

connectedFarness Sum of the lengths of the geodesics to every other vertex; this parameter is greater for those nodes that are loosely connected

and/or in peripheral positions.Farness is not calculated for those actors who do not belong to the principal network (identified by UCINET), as the

distance is infinite

PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH FROM DECEPTION ISLAND 3

220 Citation Index - Expanded (SCI-E) and Social Science221 Citation Index (SSCI). Following the methodology used by222 Dastidar (2007), papers containing terms beginning with223 ‘antarc*’ in the title were selected. Only scientific papers,224 i.e. research articles, reviews and notes, were selected.225 Letters, communications, news items, publishing materials226 and other non-scientific publications were not included.

227 Social network analysis

228 Social network analysis is a tool which generates matrices229 consisting of nodes (which represent individual actors) and230 ties (which represent relationships between the actors). In231 this study, four classes of nodes represent topics, nations,232 institutions and authors. The ties represent scientific233 collaborations. Nations for each scientific article were234 defined using the information provided by authors in the235 affiliation section. Affiliation was also used to identify236 the institution. All co-authors of each scientific article were237 included individually.238 Two specific matrices were created for each class of239 node, one with the number of interactions between pairs240 of nodes and another with only binary data indicating the241 existence of collaborations between nodes (0/1). This was242 necessary as certain analyses are only possible with binary243 data. Statistical analysis was performed usingUCINET 6.85244 (Borgatti et al. 2002). At the network level, five indicators245 were obtained: size, density, centralization, connectivity246 and fragmentation (Table I). At actor/node level, the247 following data were obtained: articles, collaborations,248 links, centralization, eigenvector, betweenness, closeness249 and farness (Table I). These were depicted graphically250 using NetDraw 1.48 (Borgatti 2002). The relative size of the251 points in these diagrams indicates the relative output252 (number of articles) for each node, whereas the lines253 between points indicate collaboration links, and line254 thickness indicates the strength of the interconnections.255 Application of social network analysis to the study of256 scientific output on Deception Island has numerous257 advantages: i) highlighting topics which have been the258 focus of research, ii) determination of the degree of259 multidisciplinarity of research, iii) assessment of the260 internationalism of scientific articles, iv) identification of261 institutions that have been active in improving the scientific262 knowledge of Deception Island, v) identification of the most263 productive researchers, and vi) identification of scientists264 that engage most in collaboration.

265 Results

266 Topics and publication rates

267 The Deception Island database contained 173 articles (see268 supplemental material for a list of the scientific papers in269 the database, found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S095410270 2014000455).

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282Between 1964 (first record) and 2012, the average283publication rate was 3.5 ± 0.36 (standard error) papers284per year. Until the mid-1990s papers were published

Fig. 2. Scientific papers published between 1964–2012 reportingresearch activities that took place on Deception Island.a. Number of papers published per year. b. Number of papersby topic. Darker colour indicates a greater number ofpublications per year, the total number of papers by topic isindicated on the right. c. A comparison of the cumulativescientific publications on Deception Island and on Antarcticaas a whole. The dark blue line indicates the cumulativenumber of scientific papers on Deception Island (left axis).The solid light blue line shows the cumulative number ofscientific papers on Antarctica (right axis) based on searcheson the SCI-E and SSCI databases, the dashed light blue lineshows only the papers featured on the SCI-E database.


285 irregularly (Fig. 2a), since then articles have been286 published annually, often five or more publications per287 year. Publication rates were highest in 2003 (n = 24),288 2012 (n = 17) and 1997 (n = 12). In 2003, a special289 issue on Deception Island was published in Deep-Sea290 Research Part II - Topical Studies in Oceanography,291 which included 15 papers focusing on marine biodiversity292 and oceanography.293 The topic with the highest number of publications294 was volcanology and seismology (n = 48), followed by295 terrestrial biodiversity (n = 41). Terrestrial biodiversity296 included numerous papers dedicated to the singular297 communities of bryophytes and mosses that appear on298 the island, and studies focused on penguins. These topics299 combined represented > 50% of the articles. There were300 25 articles published on marine biodiversity, describing301 the different biological communities living in Port Foster.302 There were 16 papers on geology, geomorphology303 and stratigraphy and on limnology and microbiology.304 Oceanography (n = 13) included the results of various305 oceanographic campaigns conducted by Spanish,306 Argentinean and USA researchers in the waters around307 Deception Island. Studies focused on human presence308 and its impact on the environment (human dimension)309 were less common (n = 9), as were studies dedicated to310 glaciology, meteorology and climate (n = 5).311 Analysis of the temporal trends by topic (Fig. 2b)312 demonstrated that publication of volcanology and313 seismology papers presented peaks: 1997 (n = 4), 2003314 (n = 5), 2009 (n = 4) and 2012 (n = 7). As with most of315 the topics, publications in this category were concentrated316 in the last two decades. During this period, papers317 were also regularly published on terrestrial biodiversity318 with two to three publications per year. The annual319 publication rate for marine biodiversity was generally320 lower. Papers within other topics were also mostly321 published during the last 20 years, but there were322 numerous years in which there were no publications.323 The whole Antarctic database contained 20 688 articles324 published between 1964–2012 (solid light blue line in325 Fig. 2c). The majority of the papers were scientific articles326 (95.4%), followed by notes (2.4%) and reviews (2.2%).327 Publications on social science research (SSCI database)328 represented < 3% (n = 286) of the total number of329 scientific publications. The greatest scientific output was330 in 2012 (996 papers), while in 1964 only 34 scientific331 papers were listed in the Web of Science database. It is332 recognised that the listings for pre-1980 are significantly333 incomplete. The number of scientific publications focused334 on Antarctica has been increasing, the trend can be335 approximated by a sustained model: Y = 18.87 X1.7083,336 r2 = 0.9732 (data shown in Fig. 2c, solid dark blue line).337 In comparison, the accumulated scientific output for338 Deception Island is irregular. The increases in recent339 years produce data that can be approximated by an

340

341

342

343

exponential model described by: Y = 1.2983 e0.1039X

344(r2 = 0.98) (data shown in Fig. 2c, solid light blue line).345The dashed blue line in Fig. 2c shows only the papers346collected in the SCI-E database (20 402 articles),347excluding the social science research papers.

348Study locations

349Most of the articles in the Deception Island database350(n = 130, 75.1%) included information on the geographical351location of the fieldwork (Fig. 3). Within this group, 43352(24.8%) studies conducted fieldwork over the whole island353(more than four sites) and 87 (50.3%) collected data at one354to three specific sites. Port Foster was the most studied355location (n = 29), followed by Vapour Col (n = 28),356Whalers Bay (n = 17), Fumarole Bay (n = 14), the357vicinity of the scientific stations (Gabriel de Castilla358Station n = 12 and Decepción Station n = 11), and359Pendulum Cove (n = 11). These sites were mostly located360inside Port Foster and close to the coastline, facilitating361access from the inner bay. The exception was Vapour Col,362which is the location of a penguin colony outside the363caldera. All of these locations have outstanding values364including thermal anomalies, hot springs, unique plant365communities and, in some cases, historical sites. The366remaining articles (n = 20) were distributed among

Fig. 3. Geographical locations of fieldwork. Of the 173 papers,87 clearly specified the location of the research (somefieldwork was conducted on more than one site), 43 studiesconducted fieldwork over the whole island, and 43 publicationsdid not identify the specific location of the research.


367 Telefon Bay, Crater Lake, Baily Head, Collins Point and368 Costa Recta. Finally, 43 publications (24.8%) did not369 provide specific data regarding the location of fieldwork370 sites.

371 Journal profiles

372 Papers on Deception Island have been published in373 72 journals. Most journals have published one (n = 54,

37475.0%) or two papers (n = 8, 11.1%). The ten journals375with the highest numbers of papers, published 59.5%376of the papers on the database (Table II), indicating377that scientific publications on Deception Island are378concentrated in a few journals (following Bradford’s379Law). The most popular journals were Polar Biology380(n = 35, 20.2%) and Antarctic Science (n = 19, 11.0%).381Journals with the largest number of publications were382typically multidisciplinary and had a 5-year impact

Table II. Journals that have published scientific research articles related to Deception Island.

Journal Articles 5-yearTemporalrange

Country ofpublication Topic(s) of the journal*

Journals with the highest number of articles related to Deception IslandPolar Biology 35 1.692 1987–2012 Germany Biodiversity, Conservation, EcologyAntarctic Science 19 1.627 1990–2012 UK Environmental sciences, Physical

geography, multidisciplinary geosciencesDeep-Sea Research Part II - Topical 17 2.704 1999–2011 USA OceanographyStudies in Oceanography

Journal of Volcanology and 7 2.271 1992–2009 Netherlands Multidisciplinary geosciencesGeothermal Research

Geophysical Journal International 6 2.583 1999–2012 UK Geochemistry & geophysicsJournal of Geophysical Research 6 3.441 1985–2010 USA Multidisciplinary geosciencesPolish Polar Research 4 0.875 1991–2010 Poland Multidisciplinary geosciences, EcologyMarine Geology 3 2.861 1972–2005 Netherlands Multidisciplinary geosciences,

OceanographyPolar Record 3 0.884 2000–2010 UK Ecology, Environmental sciencesGeomorphology 3 2.879 2012 Netherlands Physical geography, multidisciplinary

geosciencesJournals that have published ≥1 article related to Deception Island and have the highest 5-year impact factorsNature 1 36.235 1969 UK Multidisciplinary sciencesPhilosophical Transactions of the 2 7.154 1967–1977 UK BiologyRoyal Society - Biological Sciences

Environmental Microbiology 1 6.151 2012 UK MicrobiologyEarth and Planetary Science Letters 1 4.491 1979 Netherlands Geochemistry & geophysicsApplied and Environmental Microbiology 1 4.453 2010 USA Biotechnology & applied microbiology,

MicrobiologyJournal of Chromatography A 1 4.362 2001 Netherlands Biochemical research methods, Analytical

chemistryGeological Society of America Bulletin 1 4.045 1972 USA Multidisciplinary geosciencesFEMS Microbiology Ecology 1 3.979 2007 UK MicrobiologyOecologia 1 3.888 1998 Germany EcologyGeophysical Research Letters 1 3.759 1997 USA Multidisciplinary geosciences

*According to the JCR database information.

Fig. 4. Network of research topicsfrom Deception Island. Each noderepresents a topic of research,represented by a different colour.Node size indicates the number ofarticles per topic. The linesrepresent the existence of papers inwhich both topics are considered.


TableIII.Indicators

forthetopicnetw

ork.

Networkindicators

Size

8Density

39.3%

Centralization

23.8%

Con

nectivity−

Fragm

entation

100%

−0%

Actorsindicators

Articles

Collabo

ration

sLinks

Centralization

Volcano

logy

andseismolog

y48

Volcano

logy

andseismolog

y10

Volcano

logy

andseismolog

y4

Volcano

logy

andseismolog

y18.2

Terrestrial

biod

iversity

41Ocean

ograph

y9

Hum

andimension

4Hum

andimension

18.2

Marinebiod

iversity

25Hum

andimension

6Marinebiod

iversity

3Ocean

ograph

y13

.6Geology

,geomor.a

ndstratigrap

hy16

Terrestrial

biod

iversity

4Geology

,geomor.a

ndstratigrap

hy3

Geology

,geomor.a

ndstratigrap

hy13

.6

Lim

nology

andmicrobiolog

y16

Geology,g

eomor.a

ndstratigrap

hy4

Ocean

ograph

y3

Marinebiod

iversity

13.6

Ocean

ograph

y13

Marinebiod

iversity

3Terrestrial

biod

iversity

2Lim

nology

andmicrobiolog

y9.1

Hum

andimension

9Lim

nology

andmicrobiolog

y2

Lim

nology

andmicrobiolog

y2

Terrestrial

biod

iversity

9.1

Glaciolog

y,meteorology

and

clim

ate

5Glaciolog

y,meteorology

and

clim

ate

1Glaciolog

y,meteorology

and

clim

ate

1Glaciolog

y,meteorology

and

clim

ate

4.5

Eigenvector

Betweenn

ess

Closeness

Farness

Volcano

logy

andseismolog

y0.508

Volcano

logy

andseismolog

y32.54

Volcano

logy

andseismolog

y70.00

Glaciolog

y,meteorology

and

clim

ate

19

Hum

andimension

0.480

Geology,g

eomor.a

ndstratigrap

hy28

.57

Hum

andimension

63.64

Lim

nology

andmicrobiolog

y16

Ocean

ograph

y0.41

8Hum

andimension

26.98

Ocean

ograph

y58

.33

Terrestrial

biod

iversity

15Marinebiod

iversity

0.37

3Marinebiod

iversity

19.84

Marinebiod

iversity

58.33

Geology

,geomor.a

ndstratigrap

hy13

Geology

,geomor.a

ndstratigrap

hy0.32

7Ocean

ograph

y9.52

Geology

,geomor.a

ndstratigrap

hy53

.85

Ocean

ograph

y12

Terrestrial

biod

iversity

0.21

2Terrestrial

biod

iversity

3.97

Terrestrial

biod

iversity

46.67

Marinebiod

iversity

12Lim

nology

andmicrobiolog

y0.18

6Lim

nology

andmicrobiolog

y2.38

Lim

nology

andmicrobiolog

y43

.75

Hum

andimension

11Glaciolog

y,meteorology

and

clim

ate

0.104

Glaciolog

y,meteorology

and

clim

ate

0.00

Glaciolog

y,meteorology

and

clim

ate

36.84

Volcano

logy

andseismolog

y10


factor of < 3.7. Journals with a 5-year impact factor383 of > 3.7 tended to have published only one article384 on Deception Island, indicating a higher subject

385specialization, with some exceptions (e.g. Nature,386Geological Society of America Bulletin and Geophysical387Research Letters).

388

389

Fig. 5. Nations producing scientific publications based on research from Deception Island. Each node represents the nationality ofthe institutions producing the scientific papers. The size of the node indicates the number of articles per nation. Lines link nationswhere their institutions share authorship of articles. Nations that are part of the Deception Island Management Group arerepresented by coloured nodes.

Table IV. Indicators for the nationality network.

Network indicatorsSize 28Density 12.4%Centralization 30.5%Connectivity − Fragmentation 73.0% − 27.0%Actors indicatorsArticles Collaborations Links CentralizationSpain 87 Spain 41 Spain 11 Spain 11.7USA 31 UK 18 UK 11 UK 11.7UK 30 Argentina 15 Argentina 9 Argentina 9.6Argentina 19 Italy 15 Germany 8 Germany 8.5France 13 France 14 USA 7 USA 7.4Italy 11 Germany 12 Italy 6 Italy 6.4Germany 9 USA 11 Austria 5 Austria 5.3Poland 8 Portugal 6 France 5 France 5.3Australia 3 Austria 5 Portugal 4 Russia 4.3Austria 3 Australia 4 Russia 4 Portugal 3.2

Eigenvector Betweenness Closeness FarnessUK 0.410 Spain 22.60 Spain 18.24 South Korea 199Spain 0.402 UK 20.01 UK 17.88 Poland 179Argentina 0.341 USA 18.64 France 17.53 Hungary 179Germany 0.321 Argentina 13.67 Argentina 17.42 Brazil 179France 0.269 Italy 12.04 Germany 17.42 Japan 177Austria 0.266 Germany 7.00 Austria 17.31 Belgium 176USA 0.251 Japan 6.27 USA 17.20 Czech Republic 176Italy 0.237 France 3.82 Italy 17.09 New Zealand 173Norway 0.189 Austria 2.39 Norway 16.77 Canada 173Russia 0.186 Russia 1.25 Russia 16.77 Netherlands 170


390 Relationships between topics, nationalities, institutions and391 authors

392 The network of topics (Fig. 4) was composed of eight393 nodes, which had c. 40% of the possible ties between pairs394 of nodes (Table III). No single topic acted as a global link395 to all others. As a result, the centralization degree of this396 network was low (23.8%). It had 100% connectivity since397 all agents belong to the network. However, the number of398 collaborations shows that multidisciplinary research was399 limited. In fact, only 10.4% of articles (n = 18) could be400 assigned to two or more categories. The more connected401 topics were volcanology and seismology (n = 4) and402 human dimension (n = 4). Studies in glaciology,403 meteorology and climate, which were low in number404 (n = 5), occupied a peripheral position in the network405 with low connectivity.406 In the network of nationalities (Fig. 5), there were407 28 nodes. Of these, 21 were consultative parties to the408 Antarctic Treaty (Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil,409 Chile, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Italy,410 Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland,411 Russia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, UK and USA),412 four were non-consultative parties (Austria, Canada,

413Hungary and Portugal) and three were not party to414the Antarctic Treaty (Costa Rica, Israel and Mexico).415The density of this network could be considered as low416(12.4%, Table IV), the centralization was limited (30.5%)417and the degree of connectivity was high (73.0%). These418data correspond to a network in which the number of419links between nations was medium–high but where the420number of collaborations was often low, i.e. limited to a421single joint publication. Spain (n = 87), USA (n = 31)422and UK (n = 30) held the highest rank in terms of423number of items. Spain (n = 41) and UK (n = 18)424presented the highest collaboration and centralization425values, and acted as a link between nations that were426not directly related. Chile, Costa Rica, Israel and Sweden427were isolated as they have not collaborated with any428other countries.429The network for the institutions that have generated430publications (Fig. 6) had a high degree of fragmentation431(56.4%, Table V). Of the 124 institutions, 11 had never432collaborated, 12 had collaborated with only one other,433and eight had relationships with three other institutions.434The Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) stood435out in terms of its number of publications (n = 47),436collaborations (n = 74) and links with other nodes

Fig. 6. Institutions participating in the publication of scientific research from Deception Island. Each node represents an institution.The size of the node indicates the number of articles per institution. Lines represent co-authorship between institutions.Institutions from nations that are part of the Deception Island Management Group are represented by coloured nodes:Spain = dark blue, UK = green, Argentina = yellow, USA = light blue, Chile = red, Norway = pink. The institutions with thehighest numbers of publications are numbered: 1 = The Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), 2 = University of Granada,3 = British Antarctic Survey, 4 = National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET), 5 = University of California,6 = University of Alcalá, 7 = University of Buenos Aires, 8 = Spanish Institute of Oceanography, 9 = University of Barcelona,10 = Polish Academy of Science.


Tab

leV.Ind

icatorsfortheinstitutions

netw

ork.

Networkindicators

Size

124

Density

2.8%

Centralization

21.9%

Con

nectivity−

Fragm

entation

43.6%

−56

.4%

Actorsindicators

Articles

Collabo

ration

sLinks

Centralization

CSIC

47CSIC

74CSIC

30CSIC

6.9

Universityof

Grana

da25

Universityof

Grana

da35

British

AntarcticSu

rvey

21British

AntarcticSu

rvey

4.8

British

AntarcticSu

rvey

21Sp

anishInstituteof

Ocean

ograph

y30

Universityof

Bueno

sAires

19Universityof

Bueno

sAires

4.4

CONIC

ET

16Universityof

Barcelona

25Universityof

Barcelona

16Universityof

Barcelona

3.7

Universityof

California

16Universityof

Bueno

sAires

25Auton

omou

sUniversityof

Mad

rid

14Auton

omou

sUniversityof

Mad

rid

3.2

Universityof

Alcalá

11British

AntarcticSu

rvey

22Sp

anishInstituteof

Ocean

ograph

y14

Span

ishInstituteof

Ocean

ograph

y3.2

Universityof

Bueno

sAires

11CONIC

ET

21Universityof

Grana

da14

Universityof

Grana

da3.2

Span

ishInstituteof

Ocean

ograph

y9

Universityof

Alcalá

17CONIC

ET

12CONIC

ET

2.8

Universityof

Barcelona

8Universityof

Seville

16Universityof

Seville

12Universityof

Seville

2.8

PolishAcademyof

Sciences

7Auton

omou

sUniversityof

Mad

rid

14Com

plutense

Universityof

Mad

rid

11Com

plutense

Universityof

Mad

rid

2.5

Eigenvector

Betweenn

ess

Closeness

Farness

CSIC

0.41

9CSIC

18.77

CSIC

2.25

AlfredWegener

Inst.for

Pol.

&Mar.R

es.

1512

9

Auton

omou

sUniversityof

Mad

rid

0.294

British

AntarcticSu

rvey

14.09

Auton

omou

sUniversityof

Mad

rid

2.24

Gyeon

gsan

gNationa

lUniversity

1512

9

Universityof

Barcelona

0.28

2Universityof

Bueno

sAires

7.30

British

AntarcticSu

rvey

2.24

Korea

Ocean

Researchan

dDev.Ins.

1512

9

Span

ishInstituteof

Ocean

ograph

y0.25

8Universityof

Grana

da5.70

Span

ishGeologicalS

urvey

2.24

Lun

dUniversity

1512

9

Universityof

Seville

0.25

0Universityof

Barcelona

5.31

Universityof

Barcelona

2.24

Mon

ashUniversity

1512

9Universityof

Bueno

sAires

0.225

Com

plutense

Universityof

Mad

rid

4.71

ESG

EMAR,L

TD.

2.23

Nat.M

useum

ofNat.H

ist.

Netherlan

ds15

129

British

AntarcticSu

rvey

0.222

Auton

omou

sUniversityof

Mad

rid

4.66

Span

ishInstituteof

Ocean

ograph

y2.23

Scientis.&

Cultural

BioScienceFou

nd.

1512

9

Span

ishGeologicalS

urvey

0.209

CONIC

ET

3.64

Universityof

Alcalá

2.23

Universityof

Santiago

,Chile

15129

Universityof

deGrana

da0.174

Span

ishInstituteof

Ocean

ograph

y3.17

Universityof

Bueno

sAires

2.23

Universityof

Umea

1512

9

Ghent

University

0.17

0Sp

anishGeologicalS

urvey

1.98

Universityof

Grana

da2.23

Universityof

Valencia

1512

9


437 (n = 30). This research centre acts as a bridge between438 different institutions, presenting high centrality and439 connectivity values. Institutions belonging to nations440 that form the Deception Island Management Group441 have a large number of publications, collaborations and442 links (Fig. 6). The isolation of a significant number of443 institutions, which have a low level of collaboration with444 research centres from other countries, is remarkable.445 The networks by author are shown in Figs 7 & 8 (authors446 were assigned to the country in which they usually worked,447 although some researchers had temporary positions in448 other centres while conducting specific research). This449 network was the largest in the study with 400 authors (175450 worked in a Spanish institution) (Table VI). It is also the451 most fragmented (91.5%), with 14 isolated authors, 16 only452 collaborating with one other researcher, 36 working with453 only two colleagues, and 32 forming groups of four authors.454 Five sub-networks have been identified in Figs 7 & 8 by455 letters (A–E); as a result of their large size they have456 been considered as the most important. Sub-net A was457 dominated by USA authors working in oceanography,458 marine biodiversity, and glaciology, meteorology and459 climate. Sub-net B was primarily composed of Spanish460 authors who were investigating terrestrial biodiversity; this461 sub-net included some of the most productive authors,462 many of whom specialized in the study of penguins and463 regularly collaborated with each other. Sub-net C mainly464 consisted of Spanish, British and Argentinean authors that

465specialized in geosciences. Sub-net D was dominated466by Spanish authors dedicated to marine biodiversity and467oceanography. Sub-net E was composed of 23 authors468(within three articles, one of which generated the rosette469structure due to including all of the authors in this470sub-net). Other topics (limnology and microbiology, and471human dimension) tended to appear in sub-nets of smaller472sizes, indicating that these papers were conducted by473scientists who did not collaborate with other research474groups. Only four multidisciplinary scientists were475identified (i.e. researchers with publications on three476different topics). A number of authors (n = 29) had477published research in two topic areas; however, of these,47813 authors had > 75% of papers from, and were therefore479assigned to, a single topic (Fig. 8).

480Discussion

481Difficulties in building the database of scientific papers

482The creation of the scientific publication databases was a483complicated task that highlighted the difficulty of484obtaining a complete database without biases and485errors. Similar studies for Antarctica as a whole have486already faced this problem (Dastidar & Persson 2005,487Dastidar 2007, Aksnes & Hessen 2009, Stefenon et al.4882013). Bibliographic search engines generated lists of489references that had to be carefully screened to avoid

Fig. 7. Co-authorship networks by nationality. An attempt to show the level of interaction between researchers. Each noderepresents a single researcher, and the size of the node indicates the number of publications by each author. The lines representco-authorship. The authors that have published the highest numbers of papers are represented by numbers: 1 = Jesús M. Ibáñez,2 = Javier Almendros, 3 = Juan Moreno, 4 = Juan A. Fargallo, 5 = Andrés Barbosa, 6 = Ana De León, 7 = Edoardo DelPezzo, 8 = John L. Smellie, 9 = Ana Ramos, 10 = Jaime Potti. Letters are used to identify networks cited in the text.


490 inclusion of articles in which Deception Island is491 mentioned but new scientific data are not reported. This492 required manually checking each reference. First, key493 elements were consulted (title, keywords, abstract), and a494 second review of the main text was done for certain495 papers. Despite comparing different databases and496 several reviews focused on Deception Island (Spain497 2010, http://simac.uca.es/, accessed March 2013), we498 assume that some papers will not appear within the final499 list. There is the further problem of the emphases of500 current on-line databases being from 1980 onwards, so501 that coverage of earlier publications is both incomplete502 and patchy.503 Another issue that may generate debate is the focus on504 papers published in indexed journals. This methodology505 may omit numerous scientific research papers and506 may lead to significant bias. However, as many of507 the un-indexed journals are not part of the principal508 bibliographic search engines, inclusion would make it509 almost impossible to close the list of selected references.510 Furthermore, un-indexed journals do not always have a511 peer-review system to ensure the quality of their articles.512 The aim of this study was to identify general trends, and513 this is possible using the list of publications herein.

514Research trends: multidisciplinarity and international515co-operation

516The volcanic nature of Deception Island has prompted517the development of numerous studies on volcanology518and seismology. The biological value of the terrestrial519ecosystems has made terrestrial biodiversity the second520most studied topic. The temporal evolution of the number521of publications within each topic has shown that scientific522output in recent years has increased and diversified523(Fig. 2). This trend is in agreement with other studies for524the Antarctic (Aksnes & Hessen 2009, Stefenon et al.5252013), which attribute this increase to the implementation526of public policies and international initiatives that527support polar research, i.e. the International Polar528Year 2007–09. Although there has been diversification529in research, there are few multidisciplinary works, i.e.530papers dedicated to two or more topics, and reviews are531not abundant. The analysis of the network of authors532shows that there is a lack of interaction between scientists533from different fields (Fig. 8). Multidisciplinarity is not534common practice on Deception Island; this is seen as535a disadvantage since multidisciplinarity can be highly536positive for the progress of scientific knowledge.

Fig. 8. Co-authorship networks by topic. Each researcher is identified by area of specialization. Topics are represented followingthose colours used in Fig. 4: brown = volcanology & seismology, yellow = terrestrial biodiversity, pink = marine biodiversity,orange = geology, geomorphology and stratigraphy, green = limnology and microbiology, light blue = oceanography,purple = human dimension, dark blue = glaciology, meteorology and climate. Authors that had publications in more thanone topic, but specialized in one area (≥ 75% of papers) are represented with a single colour; if a specialization was notclear, both colours are shown. Red nodes represent authors considered multidisciplinary (papers in three or more topics):1 = Jesús M. Ibáñez, 2 = John L. Smellie, 3 = Roberta J. Baldwin, 4 = Henry A. Ruhl. Letters are used to identify networkscited in the text.


537 The Antarctic Treaty encourages international538 co-operation in scientific research. This study shows a539 high level of internationalization in terms of scientific540 output. Scientists from a large number of countries have541 performed research on Deception Island, although the542 scientific articles were dominated by the nations with a543 strong interest in Antarctica, i.e. consultative and non-544 consultative parties to the Antarctic Treaty. Four of the545 six nations that form the Deception Island Management546 Group (Spain, USA, UK and Argentina) have produced547 most of this work. These nations are also notable for their548 collaborations and links with other countries, showing549 active research interests in the area. The other two550 members of the management group, Chile and Norway,551 have mainly historic interests on the island. Spain is the552 most productive and collaborative nation, with the553 highest centrality, serving as a bridge between nations554 that do not collaborate directly. The establishment of the555 Gabriel de Castilla Station (which has been used every556 summer since 1988) has contributed significantly to the557 output of Spanish scientific research. Further analysis of558 the extent of international scientific collaboration reveals559 additional trends. For example, many British and USA560 institutions are not part of the main network. For the561 authors, there is less collaboration between researchers562 from different countries, with many articles being written563 by scientists from a single country. This trend does not564 match the results obtained by Aksnes & Hessen (2009) for

565published papers devoted to both polar regions during the566period 1981–2007. They observed an increase in the567number of internationally co-authored papers in recent568years. 33.5% (n = 58) of publications from Deception569Island were co-authored by contributors from different570countries. This value is similar to that obtained by571Dastidar (2007) for Antarctica as a whole (34.4%), but is572low relative to results obtained by Benayas et al. (2013) on573Byers Peninsula (66%). As shown by Bartneck & Hu574(2010), higher levels of collaboration in multidisciplinary575fields increase the scientific output associated with576each investigation. The analysis of the Deception Island577database shows lower multidisciplinary and international578co-operation than other polar areas, and lower than the579average for all of Antarctica. The results of this study580could be used to improve scientific collaboration on581Deception Island enabling researchers to identify new582working partnerships. It may also identify scientists who583are collaborating with different teams and may be an584asset in a multidisciplinary project.

585Connecting research and management

586The Deception Island database has a wide range of uses,587including supporting the periodic review of the Deception588Island management plan, according to the Protocol on589Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. This590up-to-date and reliable scientific knowledge could be

Table VI. Indicators for the author network.

Network indicatorsSize 400Density 1.4%Centralization 9.0%Connectivity – Fragmentation 8.5% – 91.5%Actors indicatorsArticles Collaborations Links CentralizationJ.M. Ibáñez 21 J.M. Ibáñez 93 J.M. Ibáñez 41 J.M. Ibáñez 1.9J. Almendros 16 J. Almendros 69 J. Almendros 26 J. Almendros 1.2J. Moreno 14 E. del Pezzo 38 A. García 19 A. García 0.9J.A. Fargallo 10 J. Moreno 38 M.J. Prieto 19 M.J. Prieto 0.9A. Barbosa 9 R. Ortiz 37 A. Ramos 18 A. Barbosa 0.8A. de León 9 A. Barbosa 33 M. Canals 18 M. Canals 0.8E. del Pezzo 8 J.A. Fargallo 33 A. Barbosa 17 A. Ramos 0.8J.L. Smellie 7 A. García 29 R. Ortiz 16 E. Gràcia 0.7A. Ramos 7 A. Ramos 26 E. Gràcia 15 R. Ortiz 0.7J. Potti 7 A. de León 25 J. Benzal 15 A. Tassone 0.7

Eigenvector Betweenness Closeness FarnessJ.M. Ibáñez 0.464 J.M. Ibáñez 3.14 J.M. Ibáñez 0.33 E. Brinton 162.4J. Almendros 0.344 A.T. Caselli 2.45 A.T. Caselli 0.33 K.L. Finger 162.4R. Ortiz 0.248 G. Vieira 2.05 R. Pérez-López 0.33 T. Hughes 162.4E. del Pezzo 0.228 J. López-Martínez 1.98 J. Almendros 0.33 M.E. Llames 162.4A. García 0.226 A. García 1.06 A. García 0.33 J.H. Lipps 162.4E. Carmona 0.188 J.L. Smellie 1.02 F. Fernández-Ibáñez 0.33 L.L. Lovell 162.4G. Alguacil 0.167 L. Somoza 1.02 R. Ortiz 0.33 D. Montalti 162.4J. Morales 0.167 J. Marti 0.61 J.J. Martínez-Díaz 0.33 A.W. Townsend 162.4M. la Rocca 0.167 J. Almendros 0.61 J.L. Giner-Robles 0.33 K.D. Trego 162.4M. Abril 0.161 R. Pérez 0.52 C. Paredes 0.33 A. Vinocur 162.4


591 integrated into the management processes. Furthermore,592 the authors network could be used to identify the most593 productive researchers in different topics, and these594 experts could be contacted by the management group595 for consultation on specific issues related to conservation596 or management.597 The recent increase in scientific publications is directly598 related to the increase in researchers on Deception Island599 (Fig. 2; Pertierra et al. 2014). This trend is common to600 Antarctica as a whole (Hughes et al. 2013). However, a601 higher scientific presence could lead to increased pressure602 on Deception Island’s ecosystems, becoming a threat603 for the conservation of this site. To avoid negative604 impacts, it is necessary to keep, respect and, if necessary,605 improve the comprehensive and robust protected area606 system that has been developed for Deception Island. The607 spatial distribution analysis of the research conducted608 on Deception Island (Fig. 3) may serve as a useful609 monitoring tool, by identifying sites that receive greater610 attention from scientists, or areas that are less well studied.611 This information may also be useful in the quantification612 of the environmental footprint of researchers and their613 activities in Antarctica (e.g. Jabour 2009, Summerson614 & Tin 2011, Hughes et al. 2011). Nonetheless, only a615 proportion of the research undertaken in Antarctica will616 generate a publication, therefore, the environmental impact617 of the unpublished work will not be accounted for. Finally,618 the database may be useful to direct future scientific619 research on the island.

620 Strengths and weaknesses of this research and future621 opportunities

622 This study assessed the scientific output, distinguishing623 contributions made by each country, research institution624 and author, thereby generating valuable information that625 can contextualize scientific research carried out on626 Deception Island. The use of statistical parameters from627 the social network analysis method facilitates quantification628 of the relationships between the contributors. These metrics629 go a step further from the qualitative descriptions of social630 network diagrams used in previous studies (Dastidar 2007,631 Benayas et al. 2013). However, the applied methodology632 has some limitations. For example, a single collaboration633 between two actors incorporated them into the same634 network, thereby generating large networks with high635 connectivity but low density. In spite of this, the use of636 statistics at actor and network level enables a comprehensive637 analysis of the data beyond graphical representation. An638 additional problem in a networkwith numerous nodes is the639 inherent difficulty with identification of specific actors. This640 is demonstrated in the institution and author networks641 presented here (Figs 6, 7 & 8).642 The database provides valuable information that can643 be used to orient the direction of further research on

644Deception Island. It would be appropriate to apply this645approach to other Antarctic areas (South Shetland646Islands, Antarctic Peninsula, Ross Sea region, etc.) and647to Antarctica as a whole, expanding the analyses by648Dastidar (2007) and Aksnes & Hessen (2009). The main649obstacles for these new studies would be: i) creating and650screening bibliographic databases and ii) elaboration of651relationship matrices. It is essential to thoroughly review652the output generated by bibliographic search engines,653aiming to avoid inclusion of articles unrelated to the654study area. After selecting the papers, the creation655of relationship tables can be a slow process due to the656complexity of automating this task. The approach657presented here would be best applied for specific658Antarctic sites with a limited volume of published659scientific articles (< 500). The spatial analysis was the660most complex task to develop. The wide variability in the661quality of geographical information provided in the662papers meant that it was necessary to combine several663sources of information to get a result close to reality. It664would be interesting to compare the spatial analysis665results with the information submitted to the Electronic666Information Exchange System (EIES). The EIES is667a database, established in September 2008, for the668collection of all information required in the Treaty, the669Protocol and its Annexes, and the relevant measures670of the ATCM. It includes pre-season information,671describing planned activities for the forthcoming year,672and an annual report, providing an update on activities673undertaken in the preceding year. Although information674exchange is a fundamental principle upon which the675Antarctic Treaty was founded, its use is not yet676widespread (Pertierra & Hughes 2013). However, an677improvement in the effectiveness of current information678exchange practices in the medium term is expected,679enabling the development of this type of analysis.

680Conclusions

681The approach presented in this paper has enabled682quantification of the scientific output of Deception683Island between 1964–2012, thereby assessing the degree684of multidisciplinarity and international co-operation685between scientists. The database enabled identification686of topics that have received the most attention from the687international scientific community. Volcanology and688seismology and terrestrial biodiversity were the topics689with a greatest number of publications, although in recent690years the scientific output has diversified boosting other691themes. Multidisciplinary research is still uncommon,692most of the articles were devoted to a single topic. The693contribution made by each country, research institution694and scientist was also established. Our results show695the significant role of four of the six nations that form696the Deception Island Management Group, with Spain at


697 the forefront of scientific output. Collaboration among698 research centres and scientists was limited. These results699 support the need to strengthen international co-operation700 regarding scientific activity. International co-operation will701 improve information sharing/exchange, enhance research702 in Antarctica, and reduce the environmental impact. It is703 highly desirable to implement similar studies of the704 scientific output associated with key sites in Antarctica in705 order to maximize synergies and collaborations among706 researchers and different nations. The network diagrams707 and statistics obtained with the approach presented here708 identify key players (country, research institution or709 scientist) and give weight to the specific contribution of710 each. Obtaining numerical data to evaluate international711 scientific collaboration is not easy, and identifying who co-712 operates is even more complicated. By using Deception713 Island as a case study, we have demonstrated how to714 approach this issue in an effective way.

715 Acknowledgements

716 This paper is a contribution of several projects supported717 by the Spanish Government (grant No. CGL2007-28761-718 E/ANT, CTM2009-06604-E and CTM2010-11613-E).719 The authors would like to thank Óscar Bermudez720 (Spanish Polar Data Centre) for providing an initial721 database of works developed on Deception Island,722 and Dr Tina Tin for her constructive and helpful723 comments, which contributed to improving this paper.724 Many thanks also for the suggestions by three reviewers725 and the editors.

726 Supplemental material

727 A supplemental list of papers from the database will be728 found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954102014000455.

729 References

730 AKSNES, D.W., HESSEN, D.O. 2009. The structure and development of731 polar research (1981–2007): a publication-based approach. Arctic732 Antarctic and Alpine Research, 41, 155–163.733 BAKER, P.E., MCREATH, I., HARVEY, M.R., ROOBOL, M.J. &734 DAVIES, T.G. 1975. The geology of the South Shetland Islands: V.735 Volcanic evolution of Deception Island. British Antarctic Survey736 Science Reports, 78, 1–80.737 BARNES, D.K.A., LINSE, K., ENDERLEIN, P., SMALE, D., FRASER, K.P.P.738 & BROWN, M. 2008. Marine richness and gradients at Deception739 Island, Antarctica. Antarctic Science, 20, 271–279.740 BARTNECK, C. & HU, J. 2010. The fruits of collaboration in a741 multidisciplinary field. Scientometrics, 85, 41–52.742 BENAYAS, J., PERTIERRA, L., TEJEDO, P., LARA, F., BERMÚDEZ, O.,743 HUGHES, K.A. & QUESADA, A. 2013. A review of scientific research744 trends within ASPA 126 Byers Peninsula, South Shetland Islands,745 Antarctica. Antarctic Science, 25, 128–145.746 BÓ, M.S. & COPELLO, S. 2001. Distribution and abundance of breeding747 birds at Deception Island, South Shetland Islands, Antarctica,748 February to April 2000. Marine Ornithology, 29, 39–42.

749BORGATTI, S.P. 2002. NetDraw software for network visualization.750Lexington, KY: Analytic Technologies.751BORGATTI, S.P., EVERETT, M.G. & FREEMAN, L.C. 2002. UCINET for752Windows: software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA:753Analytic Technologies.754DASTIDAR, P.G. 2007. National and institutional productivity and755collaboration in Antarctic science: an analysis of 25 years of journal756publications (1980–2004). Polar Research, 26, 175–180.757DASTIDAR, P.G. & PERSSON, O. 2005. Mapping the global structure of758Antarctic research vis-à-vis Antarctic Treaty System.Current Science,75989, 1552–1554.760DECEPTION ISLAND MANAGEMENT GROUP. 2012. Deception Island761management package. Available at: http://www.ats.aq/documents/762recatt/Att512_e.pdf. Accessed 23 July 2013.763DIBBERN, J.S. 2010. Fur seals, whales and tourists: a commercial history764of Deception Island, Antarctica. Polar Record, 46, 210–221.765DOWNIE, R.H., CONVEY, P., MCINNES, S.J. & PUGH, P.J.A. 2000. The766non-marine invertebrate fauna of Deception Island (Maritime767Antarctic): a baseline for a comprehensive biodiversity database.768Polar Record, 36, 297–304.769FERMANI, P., MATALONI, G. & VAN DE VIJVER, B. 2007. Soil microalgal770communities on an Antarctic active volcano (Deception Island, South771Shetlands). Polar Biology, 30, 1381–1393.772HUGHES, K.A., PERTIERRA, L.R. & WALTON, D.W.H. 2013. Area773protection in Antarctica: how can conservation and scientific774research goals be managed compatibly? Environmental Science &775Policy, 31, 120–132.776HUGHES, K.A., FRETWELL, P., RAE, J., HOLMES, K. & FLEMING, A.7772011. Untouched Antarctica: mapping a finite and diminishing778environmental resource. Antarctic Science, 23, 537–548.779IAATO (INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ANTARCTICA TOUR OPERATORS).7802014. Tourism statistics. Available at: http://iaato.org/tourism-781statistics. Accessed 24 April 2014.782JABOUR, J. 2009. National Antarctic programs and their impact on783the environment. In KERRY, K.R. & RIDDLE, M., eds. Health of784Antarctic wildlife: a challenge for science and policy. Berlin: Springer,785211–229.786NAVEEN, R., LYNCH, H.J., FORREST, S., MUELLER, T. & POLITO, M. 2012.787First direct, site-wide penguin survey at Deception Island, Antarctica,788suggests significant declines in breeding chinstrap penguins. Polar789Biology, 35, 1879–1888.790PERTIERRA, L.R. & HUGHES, K.A. 2013. Management of Antarctic791Specially Protected Areas: permitting, visitation and information792exchange practices. Antarctic Science, 25, 553–564.793PERTIERRA, L.R., TEJEDO, P. & BENAYAS, J. 2014. Historical794developments, drivers of change, and future scenarios for human795activities on Deception Island. In TIN, T., LIGGET, D., MAHER, P. &796LAMERS, M., eds. Antarctic futures: human engagement with the797Antarctic environment. Dordrecht: Springer, 193–211.798SMELLIE, J.L., LÓPEZ-MARTÍNEZ, J., HEADLAND, R.K., HERNÁNDEZ-799CIFUENTES, F., MAESTRO, A., MILLAR, I.L., REY, J., SERRANO, E.,800SOMOZA, L. & THOMSON, J.W. 2002. Geology and geomorphology of801Deception Island. BASGeomap Series, Sheets 6A and 6B. Cambridge:802British Antarctic Survey, 77 pp.803SMITH, R.I.L. 2005. The thermophilic bryoflora of Deception Island:804unique plant communities as a criterion for designating an Antarctic805Specially Protected Area. Antarctic Science, 17, 17–27.806SMITH, R.I.L. 1988. Botanical survey of Deception Island. British807Antarctic Survey Bulletin, No. 80, 129–136.808SMITH, R.I.L. 1984a. Colonization and recovery by cryptogams809following recent volcanic activity on Deception Island, South810Shetland Islands. British Antarctic Survey Bulletin, No. 62, 25–51.811SMITH, R.I.L. 1984b. Colonization by bryophytes following recent812volcanic activity on an Antarctic Island. Journal of the Hattori813Botanical Laboratory, 56, 53–63.


814 SPAIN. 2010. Revisión del ASMA No. 4 Isla Decepción. Bibliografía815 científica española. Information Paper 115. Antarctic Treaty816 Consultative Meeting XXXIII, Punta del Este, Uruguay, 3–14 May817 2010.818 STEFENON, V.M., ROESCH, L.F.W. & PEREIRA, A.B. 2013. Thirty years of819 Brazilian research in Antarctica: ups, downs and perspectives.820 Scientometrics, 95, 325–331.

821SUMMERSON, R. & TIN, T. 2011. Protection of the wilderness and aesthetic822values of Antarctica: geographical information systems (GIS) as a tool. In823WATSON, A., MURRIETA-SALDIVAR, J. & MCBRIDE, B., eds. Science and824stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values. Ninth World825Wilderness Congress Symposium, Meridá, Mexico, 6–13 November8262009. Proceedings RMRS-P-64. Fort Collins: Department of Agriculture,827US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 178–181.

828


Analysis of published scientific research from Deception Island, South Shetland Islands

Documents

Transcript of Analysis of published scientific research from Deception Island, South Shetland Islands