Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Emergent constraint on Arctic Ocean acidification in the twenty-first century

Nature volume 582, pages 379–383 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The ongoing uptake of anthropogenic carbon by the ocean leads to ocean acidification, a process that results in a reduction in pH and in the saturation state of biogenic calcium carbonate minerals aragonite (Ωarag) and calcite (Ωcalc)1,2. Because of its naturally low Ωarag and Ωcalc (refs. 2,3), the Arctic Ocean is considered the region most susceptible to future acidification and associated ecosystem impacts4,5,6,7. However, the magnitude of projected twenty-first century acidification differs strongly across Earth system models8. Here we identify an emergent multi-model relationship between the simulated present-day density of Arctic Ocean surface waters, used as a proxy for Arctic deep-water formation, and projections of the anthropogenic carbon inventory and coincident acidification. By applying observations of sea surface density, we constrain the end of twenty-first century Arctic Ocean anthropogenic carbon inventory to 9.0 ± 1.6 petagrams of carbon and the basin-averaged Ωarag and Ωcalc to 0.76 ± 0.06 and 1.19 ± 0.09, respectively, under the high-emissions Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 climate scenario. Our results indicate greater regional anthropogenic carbon storage and ocean acidification than previously projected3,8 and increase the probability that large parts of the mesopelagic Arctic Ocean will be undersaturated with respect to calcite by the end of the century. This increased rate of Arctic Ocean acidification, combined with rapidly changing physical and biogeochemical Arctic conditions9,10,11, is likely to exacerbate the impact of climate change on vulnerable Arctic marine ecosystems.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Projections of Arctic Ocean anthropogenic carbon and aragonite saturation state.
Fig. 2: Arctic Ocean surface water density and the anthropogenic carbon inventory.
Fig. 3: Emergent constraints on the projected anthropogenic carbon inventory and future acidification.
Fig. 4: Constrained end-of century Arctic Ocean vertical profiles of Ωcalc and Ωarag.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The Earth system model output used in this study is available via the Earth System Grid Federation (https://esgf-node.ipsl.upmc.fr/projects/esgf-ipsl/). Observations from the World Ocean Atlas 2013 (https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/woa18/) and GLODAPv2 (https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/ocads/oceans/GLODAPv2_2019/) are available via the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The output of ocean-only NEMO-PISCES simulations is freely accessible from the ODATIS-supported centre51.

Code availability

The open-source software Python 2.7 was used for analyses. The module ‘statsmodels’ (https://www.statsmodels.org/stable/index.html) was used for linear regression and the calculation of prediction intervals and the module ‘matplotlib’ (https://matplotlib.org/) was used to create all figures including the maps. The mocsy2.0 routines were used to calculate the ocean carbonate system variables (http://ocmip5.ipsl.jussieu.fr/mocsy/). The Climate Data Operators were used for regridding of CMIP5 model output (https://code.mpimet.mpg.de/projects/cdo/). The code for the NEMO ocean model version 3.2 is available under CeCILL license online (http://www.nemo-ocean.eu).

References

  1. Haugan, P. M. & Drange, H. Effects of CO2 on the ocean environment. Energy Convers. Manage. 37, 1019–1022 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Orr, J. C. et al. Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms. Nature 437, 681–686 (2005).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Steinacher, M., Joos, F., Frolicher, T. L., Plattner, G. K. & Doney, S. C. Imminent ocean acidification in the Arctic projected with the NCAR global coupled carbon cycle-climate model. Biogeosciences 6, 515–533 (2009).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Fabry, V. J., McClintock, J. B., Mathis, J. T. & Grebmeier, J. M. Ocean acidification at high latitudes: the bellweather. Oceanography 22, 160–171 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gattuso, J.-P. & Hansson, L. Ocean Acidification (Oxford Univ. Press, 2011).

  6. Riebesell, U., Gattuso, J. P., Thingstad, T. F. & Middelburg, J. J. Preface “Arctic ocean acidification: pelagic ecosystem and biogeochemical responses during a mesocosm study”. Biogeosciences 10, 5619–5626 (2013).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) AMAP Assessment 2018: Arctic Ocean Acidification 1–187 (AMAP, 2018).

  8. Steiner, N. S., Christian, J. R., Six, K. D., Yamamoto, A. & Yamamoto-Kawai, M. Future ocean acidification in the Canada Basin and surrounding Arctic Ocean from CMIP5 Earth system models. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 119, 332–347 (2014).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kwiatkowski, L. & Orr, J. C. Diverging seasonal extremes for ocean acidification during the twenty-first century. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8, 141–145 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Collins, M. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 1029–1136 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  11. Boé, J., Hall, A. & Qu, X. September sea ice cover in the Arctic Ocean projected to vanish by 2100. Nat. Geosci. 2, 341–343 (2009).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kroeker, K. J., Kordas, R. L., Crim, R. N. & Singh, G. G. Meta-analysis reveals negative yet variable effects of ocean acidification on marine organisms. Ecol. Lett. 13, 1419–1434 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Langdon, C. & Atkinson, M. Effect of elevated \({p}_{{{\rm{CO}}}_{2}}\) on photosynthesis and calcification of corals and interactions with seasonal change in temperature/irradiance and nutrient enrichment. J. Geophys. Res. 110, C09S07 (2005).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bednaršek, N., Tarling, G. A., Bakker, D. C., Fielding, S. & Feely, R. A. Dissolution dominating calcification process in polar pteropods close to the point of aragonite undersaturation. PLoS One 9, e109183 (2014).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Albright, R. et al. Reversal of ocean acidification enhances net coral reef calcification. Nature 531, 362–365 (2016).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Yamamoto-Kawai, M., McLaughlin, F. A., Carmack, E. C., Nishino, S. & Shimada, K. Aragonite undersaturation in the Arctic Ocean: effects of ocean acidification and sea ice melt. Science 326, 1098–1100 (2009).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Riahi, K. et al. RCP 8.5—a scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions. Clim. Change 109, 33–57 (2011).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Feely, R. A., Doney, S. C. & Cooley, S. R. Ocean acidification: present conditions and future changes in a high-CO2 world. Oceanography 22, 36–47 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Terhaar, J., Orr, J. C., Gehlen, M., Ethé, C. & Bopp, L. Model constraints on the anthropogenic carbon budget of the Arctic Ocean. Biogeosciences 16, 2343–2367 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Frölicher, T. L., Rodgers, K., Stock, C. & Cheung, W. W. L. Sources of uncertainties in 21st century projections of potential ocean ecosystem stressors. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 30, 1224–1243 (2016).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kwiatkowski, L. et al. Emergent constraints on projections of declining primary production in the tropical oceans. Nat. Clim. Chang. 7, 355–358 (2017).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Cox, P. et al. Sensitivity of tropical carbon to climate change constrained by carbon dioxide variability. Nature 494, 341–344 (2013).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Eyring, V. et al. Taking climate model evaluation to the next level. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 102–110 (2019).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  24. Lauvset, S. K. et al. A new global interior ocean mapped climatology: the 1°×1° GLODAP version 2. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 8, 325–340 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  25. Boyer, T. P. et al. World Ocean Database 2013 https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/WOD13/ (Silver Spring, 2013).

  26. Rudels, B., Jones, E. P., Anderson, L. G., & Kattner, G. On the intermediate depth waters of the Arctic Ocean. In The Polar Oceans And Their Role In Shaping The Global Environment Vol. 85, 33–46 (AGU, 1994).

  27. Rudels, B., Muench, R. D., Gunn, J., Schauer, U. & Friedrich, H. J. Evolution of the Arctic Ocean boundary current north of the Siberian shelves. J. Mar. Syst. 25, 77–99 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Jeansson, E. et al. The Nordic Seas carbon budget: sources, sinks, and uncertainties. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 25, GB4010 (2011).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Midttun, L. Formation of dense bottom water in the Barents Sea. Deep-Sea Res. 32, 1233–1241 (1985).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  30. Smedsrud, L. H. et al. The role of the Barents Sea in the Arctic climate system. Rev. Geophys. 51, 415–449 (2013).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  31. Berge, J. et al. In the dark: a review of ecosystem processes during polar night. Prog. Oceanogr. 139, 258–271 (2015).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  32. Comeau, S., Jeffree, R., Teyssie, J. L. & Gattuso, J. P. Response of the Arctic pteropod Limacina helicina to projected future environmental conditions. PLoS One 5, e11362 (2010).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Hunt, B. P. V. et al. Pteropods in Southern Ocean ecosystems. Prog. Oceanogr. 78, 193–221 (2008).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  34. Armstrong, J. L. et al. Distribution, size, and interannual, seasonal and diel food habits of northern Gulf of Alaska juvenile pink salmon, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha. Deep Sea Res. II 52, 247–265 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Karnovsky, N. J., Hobson, K. A., Iverson, S. & Hunt, G. L., Jr. Seasonal changes in diets of seabirds in the North Water Polynya: a multiple-indicator approach. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 357, 291–299 (2008).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  36. Kottmeier, D. M., Rokitta, S. D. & Rost, B. H+-driven increase in CO2 uptake and decrease in HCO− 3 uptake explain coccolithophores’ acclimation responses to ocean acidification. Limnol. Oceanogr. 61, 2045–2057 (2016).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Davis, C. V. et al. Ocean acidification compromises a planktic calcifier with implications for global carbon cycling. Sci. Rep. 7, 2225 (2017).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Frommel, A. Y. et al. Severe tissue damage in Atlantic cod larvae under increasing ocean acidification. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2, 42–46 (2012).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Schmidt, M. et al. Differences in neurochemical profiles of two gadid species under ocean warming and acidification. Front. Zool. 14, 49 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Kunz, K. et al. Aerobic capacities and swimming performance of polar cod (Boreogadus saida) under ocean acidification and warming conditions. J. Exp. Biol. 221, 184473 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Bates, N. R. & Mathis, J. T. The Arctic Ocean marine carbon cycle: evaluation of air-sea CO2 exchanges, ocean acidification impacts and potential feedbacks. Biogeosciences 6, 2433–2459 (2009).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Tanhua, T. et al. Ventilation of the Arctic Ocean: mean ages and inventories of anthropogenic CO2 and CFC-11. J. Geophys. Res. 114, C01002 (2009).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Orr, J. C. & Epitalon, J.-M. Improved routines to model the ocean carbonate system: mocsy 2.0. Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 485–499 (2015).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Dickson, A. G., Sabine, C. L. & Christian, J. R. (eds) Guide to Best Practices For Ocean CO 2 Measurements 191 (PICES Special Publication 3, 2007).

  45. Shu, Q., Song, Z. & Qiao, F. Assessment of sea ice simulations in the CMIP5 models. Cryosphere 9, 399–409 (2015).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  46. Shu, Q., Wang, Q., Su, J., Li, X. & Qiao, F. Assessment of the Atlantic water layer in the Arctic Ocean in CMIP5 climate models. Clim. Dyn. 53, 5279–5291 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Aumont, O. & Bopp, L. Globalizing results from ocean in situ iron fertilization studies. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 20, GB2017 (2006).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Brodeau, L., Barnier, B., Treguier, A. M., Penduff, T. & Gulev, S. An ERA40-based atmospheric forcing for global ocean circulation models. Ocean Model. 31, 88–104 (2010).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  49. Xie, J., Raj, R. P., Bertino, L., Samuelsen, A. & Wakamatsu, T. Evaluation of Arctic Ocean surface salinities from SMOS and two CMEMS reanalyses against in situ data sets. Ocean Sci. 15, 1191–1206 (2019).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  50. Wenzel, S., Cox, P. M., Eyring, V. & Friedlingstein, P. Emergent constraints on climate-carbon cycle feedbacks in the CMIP5 Earth system models. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 119, 2013JG002591 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Terhaar, J., Kwiatkowski, L. & Bopp, L. Global Ocean Hind-Cast Simulations With NEMO-PISCES At Varying Resolutions (2°, 0.5°, 0.25°) (SEANOE, 2020).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the H2020 C-CASCADES (grant number 643052), the H2020 CRESCENDO (grant number 641816), the H2020 4C (grant number 821003), the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (grant ANR-18-ERC2-0001-01; CONVINCE), the MTES/FRB Acidoscope project and the ENS-Chanel research chair. We acknowledge the World Climate Research Programme’s Working Group on Coupled Modelling, which is responsible for CMIP. For CMIP the US Department of Energy’s Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison provided coordinating support and led the development of software infrastructure in partnership with the Global Organisation for Earth System Science Portals. We also thank the IPSL modelling group for the software infrastructure, which facilitated CMIP5 analysis, J.-M. Molines, L. Brodeau and B. Barnier for developing the DRAKKAR ORCA05 and ORCA025 global configurations of NEMO and J. Simeon, C. Ethé, M. Gehlen and J. C. Orr for the implementation of NEMO-PISCES within these configurations.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LMD/IPSL, Ecole Normale Supérieure/PSL Université, CNRS, Ecole Polytechnique, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France

    Jens Terhaar, Lester Kwiatkowski & Laurent Bopp

  2. Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    Jens Terhaar

  3. Oeschger Center for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    Jens Terhaar

  4. LOCEAN/IPSL, Sorbonne Université, CNRS, IRD, MNHN, Paris, France

    Lester Kwiatkowski

Authors
  1. Jens Terhaar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lester Kwiatkowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Laurent Bopp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

This study was conceived by all co-authors. J.T. performed the model output analysis and produced the figures, with help from L.K. and L.B. All authors contributed ideas, discussed the results and wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jens Terhaar.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature thanks Leif Anderson, Filippa Fransner, Chad Thackeray and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Fig. 1 Projections and emergent constraints on Arctic Ocean calcite saturation state and pH.

a, c, ESM projections of the twenty-first century Arctic Ocean basin-averaged Ωcalc (a) and basin-averaged pH (c). b, d, Vertical profiles of basin-averaged Ωcalc (b) and pH (d) in 2100 for the 11 ESMs. The GLODAPv2 observational profiles of Ωcalc and pH for 2002, respectively, are marked as black lines in b and d. e, g, The projected Arctic Ocean basin-averaged Ωcalc (e) and basin-averaged pH (g) in 2100 against present-day maximum sea surface density (95th percentile waters) for the ESM ensemble (black dots). Linear regression fits (red dashed lines) and the associated 68% prediction intervals are shown, as are data-based estimates of present-day maximum sea surface density (black dashed lines) with the associated standard deviation (grey shaded area). f, h, Probability density functions for the end-of-century Arctic Ocean basin-averaged Ωcalc (f) and basin-averaged pH (h), before (black) and after (red) the emergent constraint is applied.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Arctic Ocean surface water density.

a–l, Present-day annual-mean sea surface density from the 11 ESMs (a–k) and from World Ocean Atlas 2013 observations (l). Contours delineate regions that contribute to the maximum surface density as defined by the 95th percentile densities.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Arctic Ocean present-day density anomaly and anthropogenic carbon inventory in 2100 against seasonal sea-ice extent, volume of light waters, and number of grid cells in the Arctic Ocean on the native model grid.

a–d, The Arctic Ocean anthropogenic carbon inventory in 2100 against winter sea-ice extent (February and March) (a), summer sea-ice extent (August and September) (b), the volume of light waters (c) and the number of grid cells in the Arctic Ocean (d) on the native model grid for each of the 11 ESMs. e–h, Arctic Ocean present-day maximum surface density anomaly against winter sea-ice extent (e), summer sea-ice extent (f), the volume of light waters (g) and the number of grid cells in the Arctic Ocean (h). The volume of light waters is defined as the volume of water masses with densities below the respective maximum sea surface density (95th percentile waters).

Extended Data Fig. 4 Correlations between projections of the Arctic Ocean anthropogenic carbon inventory and Ωarag, Ωcalc and pH.

a–d, Arctic Ocean basin-averaged Ωarag in 2100 (a), Ωcalc in 2100 (b), pH in 2100 (c) and the anthropogenic carbon inventory in 2002 (d) against the anthropogenic carbon inventory in 2100 for the 11 ESMs.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Emergent constraints on future aragonite saturation state in different depth layers.

The projected end-of-century Arctic Ocean Ωarag, across six depth layers (a–f) plotted against maximum sea surface density (95th percentile waters) for the ESM ensemble (black dots). Linear regression fits (red dashed lines) and the associated 68% prediction intervals are shown, as are data-based estimates of present-day maximum sea surface density (black dashed lines) with the associated standard deviation (grey shaded area).

Extended Data Fig. 6 Emergent constraints on future calcite saturation state in different depth layers.

The projected end-of-century Arctic Ocean Ωcalc, across six depth layers (a–f) plotted against maximum sea surface density (95th percentile waters) for the ESM ensemble (black dots). Linear regression fits (red dashed lines) and the associated 68% prediction intervals are shown, as are data-based estimates of present-day maximum sea surface density (black dashed lines) with the associated standard deviation (grey shaded area).

Extended Data Fig. 7 Emergent constraints on future pH in different depth layers.

The projected end-of-century Arctic Ocean pH, across six depth layers (a–f) plotted against maximum sea surface density (95th percentile waters) for the ESM ensemble (black dots). Linear regression fits (red dashed lines) and the associated 68% prediction intervals are shown, as are data-based estimates of present-day maximum sea surface density (black dashed lines) with the associated standard deviation (grey shaded area). g, Multi-model mean vertical profiles of basin-averaged pH in 2100 (black lines) with the associated standard deviation (n = 11, grey shading). Constrained estimates of pH (red dots) are shown for the six depth layers given in a–f. The constrained estimates are shown at the mid-point of each layer, with error bars representing ±1 standard deviation.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Emergent constraints on future \({{\boldsymbol{p}}}_{{{\rm{CO}}}_{2}}\) in different depth layers.

The projected end-of-century Arctic Ocean \({p}_{{{\rm{CO}}}_{2}}\), across six depth layers (a–f) plotted against maximum sea surface density (95th percentile waters) for the ESM ensemble (black dots). Linear regression fits (red dashed lines) and the associated 68% prediction intervals are shown, as are data-based estimates of present-day maximum sea surface density (black dashed lines) with the associated standard deviation (grey shaded area). g, Multi-model mean vertical profiles of basin-averaged \({p}_{{{\rm{CO}}}_{2}}\) in 2100 (black lines) with the associated standard deviation (n = 11, grey shading). Constrained estimates of \({p}_{{{\rm{CO}}}_{2}}\) (red dots) are shown for the six depth layers given in a–f. The constrained estimates are shown at the mid-point of each layer, with error bars representing ±1 standard deviation.

Extended Data Fig. 9 Internal variability within the context of emergent constraints on the projected anthropogenic carbon inventory.

The projected Arctic Ocean anthropogenic carbon inventory against present-day maximum sea surface density (95th percentile waters) for the ESM ensemble (as shown in Fig. 3). The linear regression fit (red dashed line) and the associated 68% prediction intervals are shown, as are data-based estimates of present-day maximum sea surface density (black dashed lines) with the associated standard deviation (grey shaded area). In addition to the IPSL-CM5A-LR ensemble member used in the main paper and for the regression fit, three additional IPSL-CM5A-LR ensemble members are shown (blue dots).

Extended Data Table 1 The percentage probability of different year-2100 acidification extremes under RCP8.5 in the CMIP5 before and after the application of the maximum surface density emergent constraint
Full size table

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

The supplementary information file includes 2 supplementary tables and 2 supplementary figures. Table S1 shows the CMIP5 Earth System Models used in this study and the corresponding model groups. Table S1 and Figures S1 and S2 show analyses from the ocean-biogeochemical model NEMO-PISCES.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Terhaar, J., Kwiatkowski, L. & Bopp, L. Emergent constraint on Arctic Ocean acidification in the twenty-first century. Nature 582, 379–383 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2360-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2360-3

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing