Ecology

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

Most legislation to protect wildlife currently focuses on prohibiting deliberate destruction and excessive exploitation of resources. However, that approach fails to address emerging threats such as climate change. Many species will go extinct long before emissions-reduction schemes are realized.
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests. More

In many conservation projects, women are alone on all-male teams.Credit: Getty

My career in conservation spans more than 20 countries, and workplaces ranging from universities, governments and consultancies to community-based and global non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Currently, I work as the Asia-Pacific director of gender and equity at The Nature Conservancy, one of the largest global conservation NGOs: it has more than 4,000 staff members and is active in more than 80 countries. I am responsible for ensuring that all our endeavours across the Asia-Pacific to address biodiversity loss and the climate crisis are inclusive and equitable.My career has been incredibly diverse: from monitoring saltwater crocodiles (Crocodylus porosus) in northern Australia to working with women on gender-based violence in Papua New Guinea to speaking at international climate meetings. But one theme has remained a constant: gender-based discrimination, which not only holds women back, but holds the world back from addressing the crises of climate change and biodiversity loss.Discrimination is by no means an experience unique to me or just a few women. A review of 230 peer-reviewed articles1, of which I was the lead author, confirmed a sobering truth: women everywhere are excluded from decisions about conservation and natural resources, from small and remote communities in biodiversity hotspots to large conservation organizations themselves. In every country, and in almost every setting and organization, women are routinely disadvantaged in conservation just because they are women.
Collection: Fieldwork
Unconscious bias is normal and natural, and all of us have it: it is how our brains make sense of the world. But when unexamined bias or deliberate discrimination influences decision-making, perpetuates stereotypes and keeps women from reaching their potential, they create rippling negative impacts on society and the future of our planet. Whether gender stereotypes are overtly hostile (such as ‘women are too emotional to lead fieldwork’) or seemingly benign (‘women are naturally good at organizing and supporting the team’ or ‘we need a strong, decisive leader’ — that is, a man), they hold women back in their conservation careers.An uneven playing fieldConservation has historically been a male-dominated profession. Just 3–11% of wildlife rangers are women2, and only 11% of the top-publishing authors in conservation and ecology are women3. A strong masculine culture is often associated with the profession, which can intimidate women. Many women in the sector experience sexual harassment and anxiety about their personal safety — particularly when they are the only woman on a project, which is often the case.Furthermore, women usually pay a heavy price for calling out cultures that are not inclusive. From surveying conservation professionals, I found that nearly 20% of women fear reprisal when speaking out against bias4. Their fears are warranted; many are sidelined or branded as ‘difficult’ or ‘frustrating’ if they draw attention to discrimination or poor behaviour, or try to slow down the decision-making process if it is not inclusive.In my career, I have been told that I wouldn’t be considered for an exciting project because it would be too physically demanding, be unsafe for a woman to be alone in a remote setting or require too much time away from my young family. Decisions that are made on your behalf are infuriating — and can come at both a career cost and a financial cost. Conversely, I have been offered opportunities because I have a masculine, gender-neutral name, and the people in charge assumed that I was a man before they had met me. I was then met with surprise and scepticism when I turned up and they realized that ‘Robyn James’ is a woman. I have always held my own in these situations, but the constant pressure to prove I belonged was exhausting and came at a personal cost5,6.My experiences are those of someone who holds deep and unearned privilege: I am a white cis woman with sufficient income to support my family, and I can speak and write English (the primary language of science) well. These factors increase my opportunities to contribute. Many conservationists and scientists who are women do not have those privileges. Some are also discriminated against owing to racism in a world that favours whiteness, and those who live in places where the cost of education and health care is high, wages are low and basic services such as power and Internet are intermittent face further disadvantages.As an ally and sponsor for women in conservation and science, I am determined to leverage my position to change this. I’m focused on breaking down walls and smashing the glass ceiling for women across the sector.Here are a few ways I am using the power I have to make conservation and science more inclusive. Hopefully these ideas will help others to share their solutions or to be better allies to women.Women are needed as leadersWomen who are conservation and environmental-science graduate students or are at early career stages often tell me that they don’t often see women at senior levels7, and that leaders don’t make them feel included. I am part of an informal group of women in senior positions in conservation, representing several organizations, who attend events for undergraduates and early-career professionals. We aim to share our journeys and to be visible to women who are just starting out. We model diverse leadership styles to show alternatives to masculine ‘command and control’ leadership, which these women might have more often experienced.Women routinely undersell themselves and do not apply for promotions, so we actively encourage our younger peers to apply for positions and support them by providing feedback on CVs and sharing interview techniques, for example. I am also part of a formal mentoring and sponsorship programme to support women — especially those in the lower-income countries — to navigate and excel in systems that are not designed with their success in mind. We work through issues to do with self-esteem and confidence: some women have understandably taken biased attitudes on board, and do not realize that they are worthy of progressing in their careers. I work with them to help them to understand how incredible they really are.

Conservation scientist Robyn James works with women on the Solomon Islands.Credit: Madlyn Ero

At The Nature Conservancy, we have developed a network of more than 50 women who can share their experiences and challenges in a safe supportive environment. We ensure that we work with women to address practical challenges they encounter. These efforts range from dedicated sessions on how to address gender bias in their teams and workplaces, to working through examples of how to make progress on gender equity in the field of conservation, where speaking up might clash with cultural norms or put women at risk of retaliation.Making work more inclusiveMy research with The Nature Conservancy on gender and conservation science publishing has shown that women are vastly under-represented8: less than 2% of authors were women in lower-income countries. The organization subsequently enlisted an experienced, well-published conservation scientist to work with women across the Asia-Pacific and support them in the publishing process, from developing research ideas to submitting final publications. I ensure my own published research includes authors with diverse perspectives. For example, for the three publications that were part of my PhD research1,4,8, 86% (19) of the authors are women, of which 68% (13) are first-time authors, 47% (9) are women of colour and 5 (26%) are in lower-income countries. This demonstrates that intentional efforts make a difference.Even the wording of job descriptions can exclude women. Language inherently has gendered associations, so including words such as confident, decisive, strong and outspoken in job postings has been found to attract men and deter women from applying. Many of my colleagues have felt intimidated by the tone of conservation job advertisements, which seem to be written for men. At The Nature Conservancy, we check our job descriptions and organizational plans and strategies for gendered language using a gender decoder, a tool that assesses text for masculine-coded language that could unconsciously discourage women from applying or keep women from feeling engaged with a work programme or strategy. (You can see what the decoder finds in this article here).Wherever patriarchy is deeply entrenched, men are often favoured for higher education and technical training — and women miss out. Many conservation roles have standard and mandatory educational and technical qualifications, so women are often automatically excluded from even being able to apply for a role they could otherwise be suited for.Changes in the fieldMy leadership team and I have worked to address some of the systems and processes that might inadvertently disadvantage women. For example, in the Solomon Islands, an archipelago in the south Pacific, marine conservation and research roles that require a scuba licence immediately exclude many women in the country from applying, because almost none have access to scuba training given that men are generally prioritized for training and development opportunities. In most places where The Nature Conservancy works, our employees will only ever need a mask and snorkel. Therefore, a small change in the job description means that many more women can apply. Adjusting our standard mandatory requirements has led to some fantastic women successfully applying and becoming high-performing members of our conservation teams. We now carefully omit any technical requirements that are not essential to a role or that can be easily obtained through on-the-job training.We ensure women are included in the teams that develop and implement workplace health and safety protocols, and have broadened our definition of workplace health and safety to include psychological safety and protection from gender-based violence (including sexual harassment). We worked with experienced professionals in this area to develop organization-wide guidance for our staff and partners. We also develop tailored plans depending on the country we are in to specifically address safety for women. For example, in Papua New Guinea, some women on our teams made it clear that it was unsafe for them to travel home after dark on public transport. In this country, more than two-thirds of women have experienced violence. We commissioned an official work vehicle to take staff home after hours.We ensure women have basic field equipment that is suitable for them. We provide women’s sizes in all protective gear: everything from gloves for fire protection to life jackets. This is organized before a trip or fieldwork takes place.We are also implementing protocols to ensure our conservation teams are diverse and that women are not on their own among all-male research groups. This is not only safer for women, but has repeatedly led to better conservation outcomes: the women notice things that have previously been missed. For example, in Mongolia, women in herding communities are often unable to attend important research meetings about grassland management because there is no access to toilets or because training sessions are held at times when they have caring obligations. The women on the project noticed this, and worked with the herders to ensure the infrastructure was adequate and the schedule was adjusted so that they could participate and share their unique perspectives on improving grassland conservation.Women benefit from more women being in the sector. From early-career to senior positions, representation matters. But this alone is not enough. Historically male-dominated sectors, such as conservation, that now have a relatively equal gender balance in undergraduate courses need to push for cultural change as well. This is the most difficult part of my role: challenging male leaders and systems that are not designed for women to succeed.Although we need to listen and respond to the needs of women, this is never something that should be the burden of women alone to fix. Strong leadership across our sector that prioritizes gender equity and inclusion in conservation, and provides resources to achieve it, is crucial.Women will thrive in conservation science if we keep pushing to move from equality to inclusion. Inclusion means not only that women are present, but that workplaces and programmes are designed and tailored with and for them. We shouldn’t be surprised or blame women when they don’t succeed in conservation and science workplaces and programmes that are still not actively including them. Women make up more than 50% of the population; we need to have a say in the future of our planet! More