Anthropogenic Disturbance at McMurdo, Antarctica

Recently, a study was conducted on how the research facility in Antactica was effecting the environment around the facility. The study, Temporal and Spatial Patterns of Anthropogenic Disturbance at McMurdo was conducted by M.C. Kennicutt, A. Klein, P. Montagna, S. Sweet, T. Wade, T. Palmer, J. Sericano, and G. Denoux. The study looked at the concentrations of Petroleum Hydrocarbons and certain metals in the soil and the surrounding sea floor. The concentrations that were found were due to the research that was already being conducted at the McMurdo's station. The results turned out to show that there were high concentrations in these surface soils and in the sea floor. These conentrations are linked to the research area (sewage drainage and fuel spills --refer to Figure 1). The concentrations do not have much of an affect on the organisms in the soil, although spills that are let out into the sea reduce the quality of the sea floor. The study came to the conclusion that further monitoring should be conducted around the McMurdo science facility.

Figure 1: Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Spills

The primary source of information is the research that was gathered, along with the conclusion and a summary of an experiment that was conducted in the Antarctic. This journal is the primary source of the article Antarctica: Footprints in the Ice, which is the secondary source to this comparison. This article summarizes and interprets the primary source's information in a way that is friendlier to the audience. The two articles have many differences that distinguish from one another, such as the intended reader and the structure of the two articles.

The only similarity that the two articles have is that they address the same topic, although, this is not a bad thing. If both the primary and secondary articles were to be that similar, then the purpose of the secondary article is defeated, which is to summarize, omit certain parts, and turn the primary source into something that is much more reader-friendly. An example of this is that the sample and data collection methods that are explained in the primary source are not even brought up in the secondary article. This is because the majority of people are interested in the subject, not the method or process. Another example is that the primary article uses many scientific terms, such as 'anthropogenic'. The author of the secondary article only uses this word after describing it as 'man-made disturbances', which is essentially what anthropogenic means; derived from man. The level of reading is lowered, therefore, it does not require exstensive knowledge on the subject. The use of chemical names is also omitted for the most part. For example, in the primary source, petroleum hydrocarbons and other kinds of hydrocarbons are mentioned, along with various kinds of metals. The secondary article condenses it to just hydrocarbons and metals. This is because the names of multiple chemicals do not mean anything to the reader. If the author was to name every chemical, the reader may become lost, and then lose interest. To maintain the reader's interest, the author interviewed one of the scientists involved in the experiement.

M. Kennicutt was interviewed, where he further explained the study to the author of the secondary article. This gives the author a much better idea of the study and therefore a much better interpretation, and in doing so, the article they write is much more accurate and has less chance of being misenterpretted. Although, the author does not seem to focus on the actual conclusion of the study; being that further monitoring is required in this area (McMurdo science facility). The author seems to have come to the conclusion that the study shows definite evidence of hydrocarbon pollution, and action is being taken to reduce this.

The two articles have two very different styles. The primary source is a report on an experiment/study, while the secondary source is an article summarizing and explaining that report. The primary source has a definate structure to it. There is an abstract, which is a basic overview of the study, and then there is an introduction, experiemental section (describing the method and the data that was gathered), and then there is a section for results and explanation. In this part of the report, the data is analyzed and conclusions are made. A summary is then given to recap the purpose, results, and conclusion of the report. This primary source of information is meant for publishing, and people who are possibly doing other research or projects on the subject. The secondary article, on the other hand, is a much more condensed version, allowing readers with limited knowledge on the subject to comprehend. There is an introduction, a brief summary, and conclusion. This is all the article needs in order for a casual reader to enjoy (this article is meant for readers with a general interest in the subject).

Written by Oliver Moir

Student ID: 0720140

Work Cited

Primary Source

M.C. Kennicutt, A. Klein, P. Montagna, S.Sweet, T. Wade, T. Palmer, J. Sericano and G. Denoux. (2010) Temporal and Spatial Patterns of Anthropogenic Disturbance at McMurdo. Evironmental Research Letters. Retrieved from http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/3/034010/fulltext

Secondary Source

L. Kalaugher (2010) Antarctica: Footprints in the Ice. Environmentalresearchweb. Retrieved from http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/43778