Ecology

Warren, M., Hergoualc’h, K., Kauffman, J. B., Murdiyarso, D. & Kolka, R. Carbon Balance Manag. 12, 12 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Garcin, Y. et al. Nature 612, 277–282 (2022).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Leifeld, J. & Menichetti, L. Nature Commun. 9, 1071 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Drösler, M. et al. in 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands (eds Hiraishi, T. et al.) 2.1–2.79 (IPCC, 2013).
Google Scholar 
Wijedasa, L. S. et al. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 4598–4613 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar  More

The future of mobility needs to be electric.Credit: Shutterstock

Worldwide, the planes, trains and automobiles we use to get around pumped around 7.7 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in 2021, one-fifth of all anthropogenic emissions. Some three-quarters of transport emissions came from just one source — the exhausts of road vehicles.Converting road transport to run on green energy would be a huge step towards achieving net zero emissions by mid-century, a change needed if we are to limit global warming to ‘safe’ levels. This is why policymakers have been nudging car makers to accelerate efforts to bring an end to the manufacture of vehicles fitted with an internal combustion engine. It’s a no-brainer. In the European Union, at least, it seemed that the two sides were strapped in, ready to reach that destination by 2035.However, the past few weeks have seen the European Commission embroiled in a row with Germany, Italy and some other EU members over implementation of the 2035 deadline. This has been resolved, but only through a concession to Germany’s powerful automotive industry. New cars with internal combustion engines can continue to be sold after 2035, provided the engines use carbon-neutral fuels instead of diesel, petrol or compressed and liquefied gases. These are climate-damaging moves from a region that has so far led the world in policies for decarbonizing transport.
How the hydrogen revolution can help save the planet — and how it can’t
The problem lies in the phrase ‘carbon-neutral fuels’. These fuels rely either on inputs such as ‘green’ hydrogen, which is made by splitting water using renewable electricity, or on feedstocks such as biomass. The technologies used to make these fuels are inefficient, expensive and untested at scale. Moreover, claims of climate neutrality — based on the idea that the CO2 emitted by their combustion was absorbed relatively recently from the biosphere, or that CO2 produced during their manufacture was prevented from entering the atmosphere — are questionable.The capacity to make green hydrogen is severely limited, and any expansion should be used to power sectors such as heavy industry, for which viable decarbonization alternatives are not yet available. Meanwhile, the use of biomass creates incentives to harvest wood and divert agricultural land to grow energy crops, regardless of the consequences for land as a carbon sink or for biodiversity.It’s clear why some in the automotive industry want to keep the internal combustion engine alive. The idea is attractive to short-sighted policymakers, too, because it reduces the need to plan the roll out of charging infrastructure, to worry about grid capacity, and to teach people the skills to build and maintain different technologies. The research community must be equally clear in underlining why this is a false economy. There is only one proven viable, scalable and technologically ripe scheme for decarbonizing personal road transport. That is electrification.Not all car makers want to delay. Many understand that the transition to electric vehicles will take time, and want to get on with transforming their businesses. They want policy certainty and continuity from governments to allow them to get down to business. Last year’s COP27 climate conference in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, saw the launch of the Accelerating to Zero Coalition to drive the global transition to new electric cars and vans by 2035 in “leading markets”, meaning high-income countries, and globally by 2040. Its more than 200 signatories include 14 car manufacturers, among them household names such as Ford, General Motors, Mercedes-Benz and Volvo Cars, and the governments of more than 40 countries.
Overhyping hydrogen as a fuel risks endangering net-zero goals
But the absentees are also notable. They include some of the world’s most prominent motor manufacturers — Toyota, Volkswagen, Honda, Hyundai and Kia. Also absent are the governments of some of the biggest car-producing countries — China, Japan, South Korea and Germany.If the electric-vehicle transition is further delayed, there are likely to be cascading effects elsewhere that will ultimately put a brake on global decarbonization. The demand for personal powered mobility is increasing in low- and middle-income countries. In Asia alone, cars are projected to account for more than 40% of trips taken in 2050, up from 28% in 2015. On the basis of current trends, there will be three billion cars and vans on the road globally in 2050, up from one billion now — another reason to accelerate the transition to electric vehicles worldwide.For the decarbonization of road transport to occur, the world will need what the Global Fuel Economy Initiative, a partnership on fuel economy and efficiency, called a “radical policy framework” (see go.nature.com/4381wvk). That means the removal of fossil-fuel subsidies and the mobilization of both public and private investment for the development of electric vehicles and their attendant charging infrastructure. It means tying the development of that infrastructure to renewable-energy-generation systems, while ensuring that supply chains are sustainable and providing recycling facilities for battery materials. And it means an international agreement must be reached on standards, so that the introduction of cleaner vehicles in one part of the world doesn’t mean old bangers being shipped off to pollute the environment elsewhere.All of this is doable. But the growing global demand for personal mobility means a truly green transport transition will happen only by addressing another factor. Technological innovation will take us only so far: behavioural change is also needed. Alongside a cogent, evidence-based strategy to develop electric vehicles and displace fossil fuels, we must plan and redesign urban environments around the world to encourage active transport — walking and cycling — rather than driving. That surely is the best route to a cleaner, healthier world. More

They might have been new to fifteenth-century sailors, but primates have been in the Americas for millions of years.Credit: Konrad Wothe/Nature Picture Library

One of my happy childhood memories of growing up in Mexico City is singing along to a favourite ballad of my parents by the Spanish band Mocedades. We enthusiastically repeated, “… this is the new Spain, the one that smells like sugar cane, tobacco and tar, the one that is lazy and has golden skin.” Listening to this song today, I am unsure whether to be flattered or insulted.The term ‘New World’ was first used by the Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci in 1503 while documenting his travels across the Atlantic Ocean. Of course, the land was not ‘new’ to those who already lived there. When Vespucci arrived in what are now named the Americas, there were hundreds of civilizations and a population of around 60.5 million. A century later, 90% of that population was gone — a result of infectious diseases introduced by European settlers and the violence and famines for which they were responsible.
Resources for mid-career scientists
Many of us have learnt the mistakes of the past, but the phrase New World has remained to describe what we call now the American continent. The term has been used in science to describe certain foods (New World crops or New World wine), animal species (New World monkeys) and ecosystems (New World mangroves). Even the global biogeographical classification of provinces of the world by the International Union for Conservation of Nature uses the terms Nearctic or New Arctic (to denote Greenland, Canada, most of the United States and the highlands of Mexico) and Neotropics or New Tropics (covering the rest of Mexico, plus Central and South America and the Caribbean islands). The term has been criticized by literary historians for being historically and geographically inaccurate, but it is still widely used in academia.A world of differenceI am Mexican, and I do not understand why I should label the natural riches of my country on the basis of the subjective perspective of colonizers five centuries ago. I have no familial or cultural connection to Europe, and using the term New World feels offensive. It reminds me of being a child and feeling that Mexico was not as good as Spain, that we were just lazy people with the wrong skin colour. It makes me feel that we cannot find our own worth unless we are validated through the eyes of Europe.
How to include Indigenous researchers and their knowledge
Scientifically, it makes no sense to apply this term to describe a vast area with such variable climate, geomorphology and geological history. It is time to reconsider using it. Not only to improve accuracy in science but to respect and acknowledge the history of the colonized or exterminated cultures. Since I realized this term’s origin, I have avoided its use and suggested that other people do the same. At least once a year, I will review a paper on ‘New World’ species or ‘Neotropical mangroves’. I politely suggest that the authors reconsider this use of language and try another, more accurate term that reflects the climate, location or country of origin. For instance, Caribbean mangroves, fishes of the western Atlantic Ocean, or primates of southeast Brazil are better options.This world is well worth singing about. More

Cocoa crops (Theobroma cacao) continue to drive extensive deforestation in West Africa (see, for example, C. Renier et al. Environ. Res. Lett. 18, 024030; 2023). Their expansion outside protected areas is also increasing deforestation and degradation indirectly, by displacing food production and so forcing communities on the forest fringes to move their food crops into protected forests (E. O. Acheampong et al. Sci. Afr. 5, e00146; 2019).
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests. More

We are facing a global crisis. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, 41% of frog species globally and 57% of the frog species in Ecuador are endangered, owing primarily to chytrid fungus disease, habitat destruction and climate change. One of our emergency tools for protecting endangered frog species is to take frogs from the wild, breed them in the laboratory and release the offspring into their habitats.My job involves working out how to do that. I also describe new frog species in an encyclopaedia of amphibians of Ecuador. So far, we have gathered information on 652 species. There are many more, and many are disappearing before we can describe them.In 2021, one of my collaborators collected members of a new species of harlequin frog (Atelopus sp. nov.) from a recently logged forest. We’re now trying to produce a new population. In this picture, I am measuring the eyes, fingers, legs and other features of this species. I record where and when the frogs are collected, and monitor how their habitat changes over time.We have to know what species exist where, so we can protect them. In Junín, Ecuador, water quality will be affected if planned copper-mining operations are approved. My colleagues have found a critically endangered harlequin-frog species in the area, and a new frog species that lives in a waterfall. We fear that both species will go extinct if the mining goes ahead.Along with community members and others, I presented a legal case to Ecuador’s environment ministry to stop the mining, to protect these frog species. We won the case, but lost on appeal; now, I’m providing scientific information for a new filing.Finding and describing new frog species is a powerful conservation tool because it compels governments to protect them. We don’t want to lose any other species — we have already lost too many. More

Tigchelaar, M. et al. Nature Food 2, 673–682 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Short, R. E. et al. Nature Food 2, 733–741 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Golden, C. D. et al. Nature 598, 315–320 (2021).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hicks, C. C. et al. Nature Food 3, 851–861 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Crona, B. I. et al. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-05737-x (2023).Article 

Google Scholar 
Farmery, A. K. et al. One Earth 4, 28–38 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sigh, S. et al. Food Nutr. Bull. 39, 420–434 (2018).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Larsen, T., Thilsted, S. H., Kongsbak, K. & Hansen, M. Br. J. Nutr. 83, 191–196 (2000).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cashion, T., Le Manach, F., Zeller, D. & Pauly, D. Fish Fish. 18, 837–844 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Teisen, M. N. et al. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 112, 74–83 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Grieve, E. et al. BMC Public Health 23, 405 (2023).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Mamun, A. A. et al. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5, 713140 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar  More

RESEARCH BRIEFINGS
22 March 2023

Since 2008, population densities of shallow-reef fishes, invertebrates and seaweeds around Australia have generally decreased near the northern limits of species’ ranges, and increased near their southern limits. Endemic invertebrates and seaweeds that prefer cold waters showed the steepest declines, and are prevented by deep-ocean barriers from moving south as temperatures rise. More

Many ocean sharks, including the grey reef shark, are endangered as a result of sharp declines in their numbers.Credit: Alexis Rosenfeld/Getty

The United Nations high seas treaty has been a long time coming. Secured earlier this month after almost 20 years of effort, it will be the first international law to offer some protection to the nearly two-thirds of the ocean that is beyond national control. These parts of the ocean currently have few, if any, meaningful safeguards against pollution, overfishing and habitat destruction. The treaty is without doubt a major achievement.Agreed under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, it represents several wins. Among them is the capacity to create marine protected areas through decisions of a conference of the parties to the treaty. It also recognizes that genetic resources of the high seas must benefit all of humanity. Moreover, companies planning commercial activities and organizations considering other large projects (such as potential climate interventions involving the ocean) will need to carry out environmental impact assessments.
UN forges historic deal to protect ocean life: what researchers think
Countries will be permitted to profit from exploiting marine genetic resources, but they must channel a proportion of their profits into a global fund to protect the high seas. Although the details are still to be worked out, high-income countries active in marine genetic research will be asked to contribute proportionately more to the fund.The treaty contains many opportunities for research in ocean science, for building research capacity in low- and middle-income countries, and for improving the evidence available to decision makers. Researchers working with marine genetic resources will need to register their interests with a central clearing house and commit to making data and research outputs open access.Scientists will have an important role in ensuring the treaty’s ultimate success. In part, this will involve gathering or improving the evidence to support the establishment and maintenance of strong marine protected areas and to inform stringent environmental impact assessments. Beyond that, researchers must make every effort to ensure transparency, including declaring the origin and prospective use of any genetic material, and making digital sequence information available through international repositories. This will not only enhance cooperation and capacity-building, but will also help governments to develop their own national regulations and procedures in line with the treaty.There’s also the potential for fresh scientific collaboration — for example, using emerging technologies such as telepresence, whereby scientists can take part in research cruises remotely. Marine scientists travelling to, say, the Pacific Ocean could collect samples under the guidance of colleagues elsewhere in real time. The knowledge gained from such collaborations could lead to the commercialization of new products, benefiting scientists and economies around the world.However, it is important not to overstate the treaty’s potential: notwithstanding its successes, there are deficiencies that the international community, supported by the research community, must now work to remedy.

Rena Lee, president of the high seas treaty conference, concluded proceedings on 3 March with the words “the ship has reached the shore”.Credit: Kena Betancur/AFP/Getty

As the planet warms, the Arctic’s permanent ice cover is melting, and China is planning a shipping route through the Central Arctic Ocean. This could become a regular passageway for shipping between Asia and Europe within a decade. In the Pacific, mining companies are exploring the deep sea bed for metals that they say are needed for the batteries that will power the coming green-energy transition. But these activities won’t face scrutiny under the treaty, because the treaty’s provisions don’t overrule regulations laid down by the authorities that oversee existing high seas activities. These include the International Maritime Organization, which is responsible for shipping; the International Seabed Authority, which oversees deep-sea mining; and some 17 regional fisheries management organizations tasked with regulating fisheries in various parts of the ocean, including Antarctica. Military activities and existing fishing and commercial shipping are, in fact, exempt from the treaty.
Protecting the ocean requires better progress metrics
This means, for example, that the treaty cannot create protected areas in places already covered by fishing agreements, even if that fishing is unsustainable and depleting stocks. This is a gaping hole. The overexploitation of coastal fisheries has made a frontier of the high seas, as fleets travel farther and fish for longer in search of dwindling resources. One outcome is that stocks of some highly migratory species, such as tuna, have dropped precipitously since the 1950s (M. J. Juan-Jordá et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 20650–20655; 2011). By 2018, the Pacific bluefin tuna, for instance, was at 3.3% of 1952 levels (see go.nature.com/3mpimbh). Oceanic sharks and rays have also declined globally by 71% since 1970 (N. Pacoureau et al. Nature 589, 567–571; 2021). Once the treaty becomes law (after it has been ratified in the national parliaments of at least 60 countries), it can demand that proposed ocean activities — such as climate-intervention experiments — are subject to stringent environmental impact assessments. But it cannot do the same for activities already under way.Nor will the treaty end current offshore environmental violations. Farming waste, in the form of excessive nutrients, routinely ends up in rivers and coastal waters. From there, it makes its way to the open ocean, where it results in the formation of dead zones — vast areas devoid of life. Between 2008 and 2019, the number of these zones nearly doubled, from 400 to 700 (see go.nature.com/3mpigh1). So much plastic is now entering our seas that the oceans are thought to contain around 200 million tonnes. Meanwhile, cruise ships legally discharge more than one billion tonnes of raw sewage into international waters every year.Nonetheless, as humanity’s first serious attempt to challenge the carnage that prevails offshore, the high seas treaty is a triumph for diplomacy, particularly at a time when multilateralism is under sustained pressure. At present, just 1% of international waters are protected. That proportion is now set to grow, and this will help to maintain the health of our oceans and stem biodiversity loss. In securing this deal, the international community has given itself a fighting chance of coming good on earlier promises — most recently reiterated under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity — to protect 30% of the ocean by 2030.Full implementation, although some years away, offers scientists a once-in-a-generation opportunity to use their knowledge to support offshore conservation. In redressing our ‘out of sight, out of mind’ relationship with the oceans, the high seas treaty will allow us — supported by a burgeoning research effort — to rethink how we use our ocean commons in ways that benefit the majority. More