) Inviolate areas to protect reference sites for future microbiology research in Antarctica

Antarctica is a continent dominated by microbes. A surprisingly large biodiversity of well-adapted microorganisms live permanently in a variety of habitats, ranging from ice-free to permanently frozen areas. Recent studies revealed that some microbial groups exhibit biogeographic patterns, include endemic taxa and have survived in refugia since the formation of the continental ice sheet. Microbial habitats are under constant pressure due to anthropogenic activities which may introduce non-indigenous microorganisms, via bodies, clothing, cargo and food. New ‘entry points‘ for microbial contamination are a consequence of the increase and diversification of tourism and research stations. Climatic changes might furthermore increase the probability of the successful establishment of populations of non-native taxa. The impacts of such introductions are still unknown, and might lead to a loss of the native microbial biodiversity, or its modification, which in turn might affect ecosystem functioning. The recent technical progress in molecular methodologies have generated very sensitive high-throughput analyses and have the potential to describe microbial communities with unprecedented detail. However, we may be losing the pristine Antarctic areas that would enable scientists to study the native microbial flora, its functions and properties. The Protocol on Environmental Protection of the Antarctic Treaty foresees the designation of Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPA) to protect “outstanding environmental, scientific, historic, aesthetic, or wilderness values, any combination of those values, or on-going or planned scientific research” (http://www.ats.aq/e/ep_protected.htm). However, the designation of ASPAs has not followed a systematic planning, and often focused on the conservation of large mammals, birds and/or vegetation and other iconic species. Microorganisms have the handicap of generally being invisible without a microscope and relevant expertise, and require molecular methods for species delineation. Terrestrial habitats are protected in 55 out of the 72 existing ASPAs (in total less than 700 km2). Microalgae are protected in 16 ASPAs, cyanobacteria in 7 and snow microalgae in 3. Only 8 ASPAs mention ‘Microbial habitats’, ‘microbial communities’ or ‘soil and lake microflora’. One tool of the Protocol that could be specifically used to protect microbial habitats is the creation of inviolate areas where a special entry permit is required (inside ASPAs, for example), and quarantine equipment should be worn. These zones could be set aside for future research and after a few decades, they would be unique examples of truly pristine habitats, and representative of the native microbial diversity. Examples of this are ASPA 126, Byers Peninsula, and ASPA 172, Lower Taylor Glacier and Blood Falls. Such an option would require discussions and a consensus among scientists of other disciplines than microbiology to select these regions, and develop careful management protocols of the sites and their vicinity. In addition, gaps in our knowledge should be addressed, like the extent of transportation of microorganisms by natural means (winds, birds...), and the probability of subsequent colonization of new areas by microorganisms coming from other Antarctic regions or from outside Antarctica. Let’s hope that the dialogue between scientists and policy makers will improve the conservation of Antarctic microbial diversity and safeguard the possibility to study these unique communities in the future by the next generation of scientists, with the most advanced techniques of the time.BELDIVA, CCAMBI