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.

Data-driven reconstruction reveals large-scale ocean circulation control on coastal sea level

Abstract

Understanding historical and projected coastal sea-level change is limited because the impact of large-scale ocean dynamics is not well constrained. Here, we use a global set of tide-gauge records over nine regions to analyse the relationship between coastal sea-level variability and open-ocean steric height, related to density fluctuations. Interannual-to-decadal sea-level variability follows open-ocean steric height variations along many coastlines. We extract their common modes of variability and reconstruct coastal sterodynamic sea level, which is due to ocean density and circulation changes, based on steric height observations. Our reconstruction, tested in Earth system models, explains up to 91% of coastal sea-level variability. Combined with barystatic components related to ocean mass change and vertical land motion, the reconstruction also permits closure of the coastal sea-level budget since 1960. We find ocean circulation has dominated coastal sea-level budgets over the past six decades, reinforcing its importance in near-term predictions and coastal planning.

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

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Relative roles of ocean-bottom pressure and steric components for coastal SDSL.
Fig. 2: Origin and reconstruction of coastal SDSL changes.
Fig. 3: Coastal sea-level budget over 1950 to 2012.
Fig. 4: Scaling of local and global SDSL.

Data availability

The tide-gauge data used in this study is publicly available from the Permanent Service of Mean Sea Level (https://www.psmsl.org/), while the budget components at individual locations are accessible from ref. 4 and/or from the cited literature in Methods. The vertical land motion estimates at each location are available from the corresponding author upon request. The budget components for the nine regions are available as medians with confidence intervals via GitHub and Zenodo79. All CMIP5 and CMIP6 models are available under https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/search/cmip5/ and https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/search/cmip6/, respectively.

Code availability

The code to perform the EOF approach (together with an example dataset) is available from the GitHub/Zenodo webpage of the corresponding author79. Codes for the production of the figures are available from the corresponding author upon request.

References

  1. Dieng, H. B., Cazenave, A., Meyssignac, B. & Ablain, M. New estimate of the current rate of sea level rise from a sea level budget approach. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 3744–3751 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cazenave, A. et al. Global sea-level budget 1993–present. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 10, 1551–1590 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Vishwakarma, B. D. et al. Sea level budgets should account for ocean bottom deformation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2019GL086492 (2020).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Frederikse, T. et al. The cause of sea-level rise since 1900. Nature 584, 393–397 (2020).

  5. Church, J. A. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) Ch. 13 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  6. Rietbroek, R. et al. Revisiting the contemporary sea-level budget on global and regional scales. Proc Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 1504–1509 (2016).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Royston, S. et al. Can we resolve the basin-scale sea level trend budget from GRACE ocean mass. J. Geophys. Res. 125, e2019JC015535 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Frederikse, T., Jevrejeva, S., Riva, R. E. M. & Dangendorf, S. A consistent sea-level reconstruction and its budget on basin and global scales over 1958–2014. J. Clim. 31, 1267–1280 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gregory, J. M. et al. Concepts and terminology for sea level: mean, variability and change, both local and global. Surv. Geophys. 40, 1251–1289 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Wöppelmann, G. & Marcos, M. Vertical land motion as a key to understanding sea level change and variability. Rev. Geophys. 54, 64–92 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Marzeion, B., Jarosch, A. H. & Hofer, M. Past and future sea-level change from the surface mass balance of glaciers. Cryosphere 6, 1295–1322 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bingham, R. J. & Hughes, C. W. Local diagnostics to estimate density-induced sea level variations over topography and along the coastlines. J. Geophys. Res. 117, C01013 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chafik, L. et al. North Atlantic ocean circulation and decadal sea level change during the altimetry era. Sci. Rep. 9, 1041 (2019).

  14. Köhl, A. & Stammer, D. Decadal sea level changes in the 50-year GECCO ocean synthesis. J. Clim. 21, 1876–1890 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Landerer, F. W., Jungclaus, J. H. & Marotzke, J. Ocean bottom pressure changes lead to a decrease in the length-of-day in a warming climate. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L06307 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hsieh, W. W. & Bryan, K. Redistribution of sea level rise associated with enhanced greenhouse warming: a simple model study. Clim. Dynam. 12, 535–544 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hughes, C. W. et al. Sea level and the role of coastally trapped waves in mediating the influence of the open ocean on the coast. Surv. Geophys. 40, 1467–1492 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Miller, L. & Douglas, B. C. Mass and volume contributions to twentieth-century global sea level rise. Nature 428, 406–409 (2004).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Storto, A. et al. Ocean reanalyses: recent advances and unsolved challenges. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 418 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Chepurin, G. A., Carton, J. A. & Leuliette, E. Sea level in ocean reanalyses and tide gauges. J. Geophys. Res. 119, 147–155 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Piecuch, C. G., Dangendorf, S., Ponte, R. M. & Marcos, M. Annual sea level changes along the North American Northeast Coast: influence of local winds and barotropic motion. J. Clim. 29, 4801–4816 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Frederikse, T. et al. Closing the sea level budget on a regional scale: trends and variability on the Northwestern European continental shelf. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 864–872 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Frederikse, T., Simon, K., Riva, R. E. M. & Katsman, C. The sea-level budget along the Northwest Atlantic coast: GIA, mass changes, and large-scale ocean dynamics. J. Geophys. Res. 122, 5486–5501 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Cheng, L. et al. Improved estimates of ocean heat content from 1960 to 2015. Sci. Adv. 3, e1601545 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Volkov, D. L. et al. Teleconnection between the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation and sea level in the Mediterranean Sea. J. Clim. 32, 935–955 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Calafat, F. M., Chambers, D. P. & Tsimplis, M. N. Mechanisms of decadal sea level variability in the eastern North Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea. J. Geophys. Res. 117, C09022 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Dangendorf, S. et al. Mean sea level variability in the North Sea: processes and implications. J. Geophys. Res. 119, 6820–6841 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hermans, T. et al. Drivers of interannual sea level variability on the northwestern European Shelf. J. Geophys. Res. 125, e2020JC016325 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Thompson, P. R., Merrifield, M. A., Wells, J. A. & Change, C. M. Wind-driven coastal sea level variability in the Northeast Pacific. J. Clim. 27, 4733–4751 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Chelton, D. B. & Davis, R. E. Monthly mean sea level variability along the west coast of North America. J. Phys. Oceangr. 12, 757–783 (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ezer, T. Regional differences in sea level rise between the Mid-Atlantic Bight and the South Atlantic Bight: is the Gulf Stream to blame? Earth’s Future 7, 771–783 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Roussenaov, V. M., Williams, R. G., Hughes, C. W. & Bingham, R. J. Boundary wave communication of bottom pressure and overturning changes for the North Atlantic. J. Geophys. Res. 113, C08042 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Domingues, R., Goni, G., Baringer, M. & Volkov, D. What caused the accelerated sea level changes along the U.S. east coast during 2010–2015? Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 367–376 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Volkov, D. L., Lee, S. K., Domgingues, R., Zhang, H. & Goes, M. Interannual sea level variability along the southeastern seaboard of the United States in relation to gyre-scale heat-divergence in the North Atlantic. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 7481–7490 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ezer, T., Atkinson, L. P., Corlett, W. B. & Blanco, J. L. Gulf Stream’s induced sea level rise and variability along the US mid-Atlantic coast. J. Geophys. Res. 118, 685–697 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Merrifield, M. A. A shift in western tropical Pacific sea level trends during the 1990s. J. Clim. 24, 4126–4138 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Feng, M., Li, Y. & Meyers, G. Multidecadal variations of Fremantle sea level: footprint of climate variability in the tropical Pacific. Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L16302 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Schwarzkopf, F. U. & Böning, C. W. Contribution of Pacific wind stress to multi decadal variations in upper-ocean heat content and sea level in the tropical south Indian Ocean. J. Geophys. Res. 38, L12602 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Sasaki, Y. N. Decadal sea level variability in the South Pacific in a global eddy-resolving ocean model hindcast. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 38, 1731–1746 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hamlington, B. D. et al. Origin of interannual variability in global mean sea level. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 13983–13990 (2020).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Dangendorf, S. et al. Detecting anthropogenic footprints in sea level rise. Nat. Commun. 6, 7849 (2015).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Piecuch, C. G., Calafat, F. M., Dangendorf, S. & Jorda, G. The ability of barotropic models to simulate historical mean sea level changes from coastal tide gauge data. Surv. Geophys. 40, 1399–1435 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Sasaki, Y. N., Minobe, S. & Miura, Y. Decadal sea-level variability along the coast of Japan in response to ocean-circulation changes. J. Geophys. Res. 119, 266–275 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Calafat, F. M. et al. Coherent modulation of the sea-level annual cycle in the United States by Atlantic Rossby waves. Nat. Commun. 9, 2571 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Bromirski, P. D., Miller, A. J., Flick, R. E. & Auad, G. Dynamical suppression of sea level rise along the Pacific coast of North America: indications for imminent acceleration. J. Geophys. Res. 116, C07005 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Hamlington, B. D. et al. Uncovering an anthropogenic sea-level signal in the Pacific Ocean. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 782–785 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Tinker, J. et al. Dynamical downscaling of unforced interannual sea-level variability in the North-West European shelf seas. Clim. Dynam. 55, 2207–2236 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Hermans, T. et al. Improving sea-level projections on the Northwerstern European shelf using dynamical downscaling. Clim. Dynam. 54, 1987–2011 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Holgate, S. J. et al. New data systems and products at the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level. J. Coast. Res. 29, 493–504 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Dangendorf, S. et al. Persistent acceleration in global sea-level rise since the 1960s. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 705–710 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Hay, C. C., Morrow, E. D., Kopp, R. E. & Mitrovica, J. X. On the robustness of Bayesian fingerprinting estimates of global sea level change. J. Clim. 30, 3025–3038 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Dangendorf, S. et al. Reassessment of 20th century global mean sea level rise. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 5946–5951 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Calafat, F. M., Chambers, D. P. & Tsimplis, M. N. On the ability of global sea level reconstructions to determine trends and variability. J. Geophys. Res. 119, 1572–1592 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Kopp, R. et al. Probabilistic 21st and 22nd century sea-level projections at a global network of tide-gauge sites. Earth’s Future 2, 383–406 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Kleinherenbrink, M., Riva, R. E. M. & Frederikse, T. A comparison of methods to estimate vertical land motion from GNSS and altimetry at tide gauge stations. Ocean Sci. 14, 187–204 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Kjeldsen, K. K. Spatial and temporal distribution of mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet since AD 1900. Nature 528, 396–400 (2015).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Adhikari, S. et al. What drives 20th century polar motion? Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 502, 126–132 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. The Imbie team. Mass balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2017. Nature 558, 219–222 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Bamber, J. L., Westaway, R. M., Marzeion, B. & Wouters, B. The land ice contribution to sea level during the satellite era. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063008 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Mouginot, J. et al. Forty-six years of Greenland ice sheet mass balance from 1972 to 2018. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 9239–9244 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Parkes, D. & Marzeion, B. Twentieth-century contribution to sea-level rise from unchartered glaciers. Nature 563, 551–554 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Humphrey, V. & Gudmundsson, L. GRACE-REC: a reconstruction of climate-driven water storage changes over the last century. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 11, 1153–1170 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Chao, B. F., Wu, Y. & Li, Y. S. Impact of artificial reservoir water impoundment on global sea level. Science 320, 212–214 (2008).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Döll, P. et al. Global-scale assessment of groundwater depletion and related groundwater abstractions: combining hydrological modelling with information from well observations and GRACE satellites. Water Resour. Res. 50, 5698–5720 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Wada, Y. et al. Fate of water pumped from underground and contribution to sea-level rise. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 777–780 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Compo, G. P. et al. The twentieth century reanalysis project. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 137, 1–28 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Cheng, L. et al. Improved estimates of changes in upper ocean salinity and the hydrological cycle. J. Clim. 33, 10357–10381 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  68. McDougall, T. J. & Barker, P. M. Getting started with TEOS-10 and the Gibbs Seawater (GSW) Oceanographic Toolbox (TEOS-10, 2011).

  69. Ishii, M. et al. Accuracy of global upper ocean heat content estimation expected from present observational data sets. SOLA 13, 163–167 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  70. Good, S. A., Martin, M. J. & Rayner, N. A. EN4: quality-controlled ocean temperature and salinity profiles and monthly objective analyses with uncertainty estimates. J. Geophys. Res. 118, 6704–6716 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Levitus, S. et al. Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  72. Gouretski, V. & Reseghetti, F. On depth and temperature biases in bathythermograph data: development of a new correction scheme based on analysis of a global ocean database. Deep Sea Res. I 57, 812–833 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Camargo, M. L., Riva, R. E. M., Hermans, T. H. J. & Slangen, A. B. A. Exploring sources of uncertainty in steric sea-level change estimates. J. Geophys. Res. 125, e2020JC016551 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  74. Smith, T. M., Arkin, P. A. & Sapiano, M. R. P. Reconstruction of near-global annual precipitation using correlations with sea surface temperature and sea level pressure. J. Geophys. Res. 114, D12107 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, G. A. & Meehl, G. A. An overview of CMIP5 models and the experiment design. Bull. Am. Meteor. Soc. 93, 485–498 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  76. Voldoire, A. CNRM-CERFACS CNRM-CM6-HR model output prepared for CMIP6 HighResMIP (Earth System Grid Federation, 2020); https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.1387

  77. Von Storch, H. & Zwiers, F. W. Statistical Analysis in Climate Research (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1999).

  78. Moore, J. C., Grinsted, A. & Jevrejeva, S. New tools for analyzing time series relationships and trends. EOS 86, 226–232 (2005).

  79. Dangendorf, S. Coastal Sterodynamic Sea Level (Zenodo, 2021); https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4658214

  80. Giese, B. S., Seidel, H. F., Compo, G. C. & Sardeshmukh, P. D. An ensemble of ocean reanalyses for 1815–2013 with sparse observational input. J. Geophys. Res. 121, 6891–6910 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  81. Giese, B. S. & Ray, S. El Nino variability in simple ocean data assimilation (SODA) 1871–2008. J. Geophys. Res. 116, C02024 (2011).

  82. Balmaseda, M. A., Mogensen, K. & Weaver, A. T. Evaluation of the ECMWF ocean reanalysis system ORAS4. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 139, 1132–1161 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  83. De Boisseson, E., Balmaseda, M. A. & Mayer, M. Ocean heat content variability in an ensemble of twentieth century ocean reanalyses. Clim. Dynam. 50, 3783–3798 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

S.D. acknowledges the NASA grant no. 80NSSC20K1241, a visiting fellowship from the Stockholm University and the University of Siegen for funding a research stay at Jet Propulsion Laboratory. L.C. is funded by the Swedish Space Agency through the FiNNESS project (Dnr 133/17). We acknowledge C. Piecuch for providing critical comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. We acknowledge the World Climate Research Programme’s Working Group on Coupled Modelling, which is responsible for CMIP, and we thank the climate modelling groups (listed in Supplementary Table 2 of this paper) for producing and making available their model output. For CMIP, the US Department of Energy’s Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison provides coordinating support and led development of software infrastructure in partnership with the Global Organization for Earth System Science Portals.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

S.D. designed and performed the research and wrote the first draft of the paper. T.F. contributed budget and ESM datasets to the study. B.H. helped in the design of the EOF technique. All authors shared ideas and contributed to the writing of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sönke Dangendorf.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Climate Change thanks Jesus Gomez-Enri 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

Extended Data Fig. 1 Performance of ocean reanalysis in simulating SDSL variability and trends.

Shown are linear trends of SDSL as simulated by the a SODAsi.378, b SODA 2.2.480, c ORA S481, d ORA20C82,83, and e GECCO214 reanalysis over the common period from 1960 to 2012. For all reanalysis systems, the model internal global average has been replaced by ref. 24. In b and d, data is only available until 2008 and 2009, respectively. Grey dots show the 89 tide-gauge locations used in this study. f Linear trends in SDSLTG from the virtual stations of the nine coastal regions (grey bars) are compared to trends calculated from SDSL as simulated by the five ocean reanalysis systems (nearest-neighbour series). d, Correlations between detrended SDSLTG and SDSL from the five ocean reanalysis systems. The grey shadings separate the different regions from each other.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Tide-gauge coherence and virtual stations for each region.

a, Cross-Correlation matrix for the 89 tide-gauge records ordered by region. Black boxes mark the locations of the selected tide-gauge records for each region. b, The observed tide-gauge records (corrected for vertical land motion; coloured lines) together with the virtual station for each region (thick black line) that has been built based on gap-filled records (see Methods). The percentage of total data availability in each region is given in brackets.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Origin of coastal SDSL changes.

Spatial correlation patterns between the SDSL residuals at tide gauges (SDSLTG, grey dots) and steric height24 from the open ocean used to assemble Fig. 1a but for each of the nine coastal regions separately. Only significant correlations (P ≤ 0.05) are shown. a, North Sea, b NW Atlantic north of Cape Hatteras, c NW Atlantic south of Cape Hatteras, d NE Pacific, e Hawaii, f Japan Sea, g West Australia, h New Zealand, and i West Pacific.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Reconstruction of coastal SDSL changes.

Extension of Fig. 2b illustrating the reconstruction of SDSLEOF in observations (top) and in validation experiments with ESMs (here illustrated by the CNRM-CM6-1-HR, bottom) for each of the nine coastal regions. a, North Sea, b Northwest Atlantic north of Cape Hatteras, c Northwest Atlantic south of Cape Hatteras, d Northeast Pacific, e Hawaii, f Japan Sea, g West Australia, h New Zealand, and i West Pacific.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Linear trends in steric height and comparison of different observational products.

Shown are the linear trends in steric height calculated over the upper 2000m for different gridded observational products. a, ref. 24 and 67, b ref. 68, c EN469 with ref. 70 corrections, and d EN4 with ref. 71 corrections. The grey dots mark the locations of tide-gauge records used in this study. e, Linear trends for the SDSLEOF reconstructions in each region using the four different data products (grey bars = ref. 24 and67; blue = ref. 68; turquoise = EN469 with ref. 70 corrections; yellow = EN469 with ref. 71 corrections. f, Same as e but showing the correlation between SDSLEOF based on the different products and SDSLTG.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Validation of the vertical land motion (VLM) correction.

Comparison between observed trends (after the removal of barystatic gravitation, rotation and deformation terms) and residual VLM plus Glacial Isostatic Adjustment from the difference between tide gauges and the hybrid reconstruction from ref. 50 as well as the observed trends and residual VLM from Global Navigation Satellite System plus Glacial Isostatic Adjustment and the difference between tide-gauge and satellite altimetry as calculated by ref. 4 (Fred).

Extended Data Fig. 7 Validation of the EOF approach.

a, Shown are the time series of SDSLEOF based on reconstructions using principal components that have been calculated and regressed on the steric height from the open-ocean over the entire 1960 to 2012 period (and as used in the main paper) as well as those based on principal components that have been calculated (and regressed on the steric height from the open-ocean) over the period from 1980–2012. The grey shading marks the corresponding validation period from 1960–1979. b, The corresponding linear trends of SDSLEOF over the common period from 1960–2012. Shadings and error bars represent the 95% confidence intervals.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Data

Supplementary Tables 1 and 2.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dangendorf, S., Frederikse, T., Chafik, L. et al. Data-driven reconstruction reveals large-scale ocean circulation control on coastal sea level. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 514–520 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01046-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01046-1

This article is cited by

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