Recent Development in Multi-national Marine Ecosystem Surveys along the Antarctic Peninsula

From an ecological point of view, the western part of the Atlantic sector is one of the most productive areas in the Southern Ocean. Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) and krill-dependent predators such as fish, seals, and birds are abundant there, and most krill fisheries have operated in this area since 1970s. The hottest issues for the proper management of krill resources nowadays are to determine total biomass in this area, and to identify environmental forces controlling stock fluctuation. This paper reviews and collates information on ongoing oceanographic activities in the Antarctic Peninsula region concerning these issues. To delineate the status and function of Antarctic krill population in Antarctic marine ecosystems, multinational researches along the Antarctic Peninsula area have been developing recently. Four member states of CCAMLR (Japan, Russia, UK, and USA) had conducted acoustic surveys in January-February 2000 (socalled CCAMLR-2000 survey), and krill standing stock at 120 kHz was estimated to be 44.29 million metric tonnes in the western Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean. On the other hand, the Southern Ocean GLOBEC (SO-GLOBEC) Programme has prepared a serial winter survey to examine the factors that govern krill survivorship and distribution in relation to shelf circulation processes. Ship-based surveys using ice-breakers are being conducted by three nations (Germany, UK, and USA) around the Marguerite Bay during the austral fall and winter 2001 and 2002. In addition to these two large-scale surveys, some CCAMLR members have carried out joint oceanographic surveys near the South Shetland Islands to detect ecosystem changes since 1994. Especially from December 1999 to February 2000, in conjunction with CCAMLR-2000 survey, four nations (Japan, Korea, Peru, and USA) conducted acoustic surveys to produce time-series information on krill distribution and biomass near the South Shetland areas. Though the aims of each program and the approach to solve the scientific questions were different each other, the results from each program fill the gaps between programs. Further cooperation and exchange in these activities could be beneficial to each program.