The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Impacts of local human activities on the Antarctic environment
Open accessAbstract
We review the scientific literature, especially from the past decade, on the impacts of human activities on the Antarctic environment. A range of impacts has been identified at a variety of spatial and temporal scales. Chemical contamination and sewage disposal on the continent have been found to be long-lived. Contemporary sewage management practices at many coastal stations are insufficient to prevent local contamination but no introduction of non-indigenous organisms through this route has yet been demonstrated. Human activities, particularly construction and transport, have led to disturbances of flora and fauna. A small number of non-indigenous plant and animal species has become established, mostly on the northern Antarctic Peninsula and southern archipelagos of the Scotia Arc. There is little indication of recovery of overexploited fish stocks, and ramifications of fishing activity on bycatch species and the ecosystem could also be far-reaching. The Antarctic Treaty System and its instruments, in particular the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources and the Environmental Protocol, provide a framework within which management of human activities take place. In the face of the continuing expansion of human activities in Antarctica, a more effective implementation of a wide range of measures is essential, in order to ensure comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment, including its intrinsic, wilderness and scientific values which remains a fundamental principle of the Antarctic Treaty System. These measures include effective environmental impact assessments, long-term monitoring, mitigation measures for non-indigenous species, ecosystem-based management of living resources, and increased regulation of National Antarctic Programmes and tourism activities.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services
Worm, B., Barbier, E. B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J. E., Folke, C., Halpern, B. S., Jackson, J. B. C., Lotze, H. K., Micheli, F., Palumbi, S. R., et al. (2006) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1132294 · Cited by 4,544
Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities
Myers, R. A., & Worm, B. (2003) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature01610 · Cited by 2,969
People in Antarctica ? how much do Ad�lie Penguins Pygoscelis adeliae care?
Wilson, R., Culik, B., Danfeld, R., & Adelung, D. (1991) · Polar Biology · doi:10.1007/bf00239688 · Cited by 112
Cited by
Continent-wide risk assessment for the establishment of nonindigenous species in Antarctica
Chown, S. L., Huiskes, A. H. L., Gremmen, N. J. M., Lee, J. E., Terauds, A., Crosbie, K., Frenot, Y., Hughes, K. A., Imura, S., Kiefer, K., et al. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1119787109 · Cited by 369
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Tin, T., Fleming, Z. L., Hughes, K. A., Ainley, D. G., Convey, P., Moreno, C. A., Pfeiffer, S., Scott, J., & Snape, I.
- Venue
- Antarctic Science
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2008-12-23
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-33
- ISSN
- 0954-1020 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2079
- OpenAlex
- W2124393588
- Cited by
- 520
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 10.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Impacts of local human activities on the Antarctic environment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0954102009001722
- The paper
- Tin, T., Fleming, Z. L., Hughes, K. A., Ainley, D. G., Convey, P., Moreno, C. A., Pfeiffer, S., Scott, J., & Snape, I. (2009). Impacts of local human activities on the Antarctic environment. Antarctic Science. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954102009001722
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.