Abstract

Concepts underpinning the planetary boundaries framework are being incorporated into multilateral discussions on sustainability, influencing international environmental policy development. Research underlying the boundaries has primarily focused on terrestrial systems, despite the fundamental role of marine biomes for Earth system function and societal wellbeing, seriously hindering the efficacy of the boundary approach. We explore boundaries from a marine perspective. For each boundary, we show how improved integration of marine systems influences our understanding of the risk of crossing these limits. Better integration of marine systems is essential if planetary boundaries are to inform Earth system governance.

The planet is subject to increasing anthropogenic impacts and is exhibiting global environmental change at an accelerating rate, eroding the natural capital that sustains human wellbeing and prosperity1. The challenge of understanding these large-scale changes and their consequences for human wellbeing led to the development of a set of planetary boundaries by refs 2,3 to guide Earth system governance. These boundaries identify key biophysical limits (Box 1; Table 1); it is proposed that by staying within these limits, humanity may reduce the risk of crossing thresholds that could lead to devastating and potentially irreversible environmental change, ensuring the maintenance of critical ecosystem services2,3.

Table 1 Five steps in the characterization of planetary boundaries defined by ref. 3

The planetary boundaries framework has generated significant research interest, particularly within the Earth systems governance literature, for example ref. 4. Moreover, the ideas underpinning the framework have been incorporated into multilateral discussions and agreements regarding sustainability, such as the Sustainable Development Goals5. This level of engagement suggests that the planetary boundaries narrative has the potential to shape future environmental policy6 and technological innovation7.

Planetary boundaries integrate knowledge across the biophysical sciences and have been intimately linked to analyses of the Great Acceleration (see glossary Supplementary Note 1)1. To date, much of the research literature has focused on terrestrial social–ecological systems, with less emphasis placed on marine systems (Supplementary Note 2; Supplementary Fig. 1). In light of (1) the global spatial dominance of marine ecosystems; (2) the fundamental ecological differences between marine and terrestrial biomes8; (3) the increasing human pressures on the world’s oceans9; and (4) the critical role marine systems play in supporting human wellbeing, particularly in developing nations10, this imbalance seriously hinders the efficacy of the planetary boundaries framework in supporting Earth system governance. Here, we provide guidance for redressing this imbalance. We explore research to support characterization of planetary boundaries for a blue planet. We discuss the ways in which the various boundaries interact, and options for assessing these interactions to provide a more integrated and holistic understanding of global environmental change. Finally, we articulate a research agenda to support implementation of the framework to enhance environmental governance.

Characterizing boundaries for a blue planet

To develop the boundaries for a blue planet, we outline how the existing boundaries3 could be amended through integration of concepts, processes and data that are applicable in marine systems (Fig. 1; Table 2). We highlight the potential implications of including marine systems in relation to our risk of crossing specific boundaries, and where important research gaps exist. Here, we explore four boundaries in more depth, highlighting how broadening integration with marine research has significant implications for boundary characterization: (1) land-system change to show how the scope of a boundary might be expanded to encompass marine systems; (2) biogeochemical flows to explore how additional marine perspectives might support more robust tracking of regional issues in a global boundary; (3) biosphere integrity to highlight a key knowledge gap; and (4) human-appropriated net primary production (HANPP), a new terrestrial boundary proposed by ref. 11 to provide an example of terrestrial–marine integration for a boundary that follows a different strategy to the original boundary framework of ref. 12. Our focus on these boundaries is illustrative but also pragmatic, as we believe modifications could be achieved over relatively short timescales because the necessary datasets or underlying knowledge are already in place.

Fig. 1: Shift in understanding of the uncertainty and risks associated with crossing the planetary boundaries arising from more comprehensive integration of marine systems into the framework.
Fig. 1

Boundary windows that identify zones of uncertainty, and that allow for change and boundary interactions, are likely to be more appropriate than static boundaries. Images surrounding boundaries indicate examples of changes to planetary boundaries to support improved integration of marine systems. Full details of suggested changes are provided in Table 2. Earth surface change boundary represents an expansion of the original land-system change boundary suggested in ref. 3. Figure adapted from ref. 3, AAAS.

Table 2 Boundaries for a blue planet

Land-system change

The land-system change boundary addresses links between habitat and climate3. Vegetation cover mediates climate through carbon storage, and by affecting the transfer of moisture and energy at the Earth’s surface13. Habitat change that shifts vegetation type alters carbon sequestration rates, albedo and evapotranspiration (see glossary Supplementary Note 1), and is likely to drive significant climatic changes, with deforestation — particularly of boreal and tropical forests — estimated to contribute most to these shifts (Table 2)14. However, this boundary and the underlying analyses do not account for the influence of marine biomes on climate, including that of ice, seagrass and mangroves (see ref. 15 for the description of vegetation classification that underpins the land-system change boundary), nor do they account for how ocean–atmosphere coupling may counteract the effect of forest loss on climate14,16.

Today, forests represent about 7% of the Earth’s surface17, and potentially up to 13% historically14, an area matched by continental shelves (6.3%) and a percentage far outweighed by the coverage of marine biomes (70.9%). Critically, just as forest biomes influence regional carbon and energy fluxes14, mangroves and other marine systems are characterized by biogeophyscial processes that influence climate18 (Fig. 2). More importantly, this influence is of sufficient magnitude to warrant consideration in analyses of the impacts of habitat change on climate. For example, several coastal marine habitats have the highest carbon sequestration rates of any habitat on the plant (for example, salt marshes: 218 ± 24 g C m−2 yr−1 (mean ± standard error) versus tropical forests: 4.0 ± 0.5 g C m−2 yr−1)19,20. Furthermore, it is estimated that deforestation is driving emissions of 1.2 Pg CO2 yr−1 (ref. 21), whereas degradation of coastal wetlands (mangroves, seagrasses and marshes) alone is estimated to be driving emissions of 0.12–1.0 Pg CO2 yr−1 (ref. 22), despite these wetlands covering <1% of the Earth’s surface. Similarly, the difference in albedo between boreal forest and grasslands (0.08 versus 0.2) is smaller than the difference between sea ice and open ocean (0.1–0.81 versus 0.07)23,24. In light of the large-scale habitat changes occurring in the coastal environment, modifying the land-system change boundary to incorporate marine systems is likely to significantly influence our understanding of the current risk of experiencing large-scale climatic effects from habitat modification.

Fig. 2: Examples of habitat degradation occurring in marine ecosystems that have the potential to impact on global climate through changes to carbon storage, and transfer of energy and moisture to the atmosphere.
Fig. 2

Note, illustrations of the effect of habitat change on carbon, energy and moisture balance for each ecosystem are not comprehensive; for example, mangrove loss will result in increased emissions as well as reduced evapotranspiration. Credits: mangroves, Everglades National Park, Florida; seagrass, Andre Seale/Alamy Stock Photo; sea ice, NASA/Sinead Farrell; deforestation, Cyril Ruoso/Minden Pictures; turbid shallows, NASA.

Expanding the scope of the land-system change boundary to include marine biomes would require an alteration to the existing control variable (forest cover remaining), or addition of sub-boundaries demarcating the loss of marine habitats. Relative ice cover may be a useful sub-boundary across land and sea. Focusing more specifically on habitats unique to the oceans, due to the wide variety of marine biomes, a control variable such as three-dimensional (3D) structural complexity of the habitat25,26 or area of seabed undisturbed by anthropogenic activities such as seabed mining, coastal hardening or fishing27,28 may be appropriate. Biome-specific boundaries have been set for land-system change; similar biome-specific boundaries could be set for marine systems, for example ‘acceptable’ loss of 3D structure on coral reefs may differ to that considered ‘acceptable’ for kelp forests. Such approaches are already getting attention as part of the European Union Habitats Directive and Marine Strategy Framework Directive29, which has put significant effort into determining appropriate components for its aggregate ‘sea-floor integrity’ index (see glossary Supplementary Note 1)30, and the Integrated Ecosystem Assessment process in the USA31, which includes more than 30 potential habitat indicators. Integrating sub-boundaries on land and in the ocean to produce a coherent ‘Earth surface change’ boundary is likely to prove challenging but represents an essential development in the planetary boundaries framework.

Biogeochemical flows

While some of the boundaries (for example, climate) are linked to global scale tipping points, others represent processes whereby regional scale change accumulates to such a magnitude that there are global consequences (Table 2). The biogeochemical flows boundary, which is expressed as two sub-boundaries (nitrogen (N) and phosphorous (P)), represents such aggregative regional scale effects2. The P boundary explicitly engages with cross-scale issues by incorporating a regional boundary that recognizes heterogeneity in both nutrient inputs and the absorptive capacity of freshwater systems32,33. However, the integration of regional information is inconsistently applied across systems and in relation to N. Currently, the N and P boundaries purely focus on marine system change on the global scale (see Box 1, Table 1 and Table 2)3. Background marine biogeochemical regimes are highly heterogeneous (horizontally and with depth), driving differences in biogeochemical cycling, primary productivity and trophic pathways34,35. These differences cause spatial variability in the vulnerability of marine systems to anthropogenic nutrient flows36, and suggest the need for a more nuanced treatment of this boundary to account for regional marine effects that are consistent with the existing regional treatment of the P boundary in relation to freshwater systems. Importantly, a vast literature exists exploring the biogeochemistry of coastal and oceanic waters that could underpin such an extension to the boundary. For example, data are available on the export of nutrients from watersheds and submarine ground water9,33,37. Furthermore, both ecosystem modelling and empirical research are supporting regionally derived water quality forecasts36 and increased understanding of the variability in nutrient biogeochemistry within the world’s oceans. The implications for altered primary productivity, food web structure, ecosystem function and resilience, and societal wellbeing have also been explored38,39,40. Given that eutrophication is one of the most frequently observed causes of ecosystem regime shifts globally (see glossary Supplementary Note 1; www.regimeshifts.org), it seems that, of all the boundaries, scientists are best placed to provide quantified values for regional marine biogeochemical boundaries.

Accounting for regional marine biogeochemical flows goes beyond simply producing a more comprehensive boundary for human-derived N and P. Within the marine system, the importance of other elements when considering the biogeochemical flows boundary has been recognized3, but not explored further. The marine biogeochemistry literature could inform the addition of other sub-boundaries such as iron (Fe) and silicon (Si). For example, Fe is regionally limiting within marine waters and Fe budgets are significantly impacted by anthropogenic disturbances39,41. Furthermore, regional enrichment patterns of N, P, Si and Fe within marine systems have broader-scale climatic and biodiversity implications42,43. Integration of these different components into the existing framework would help support an improved understanding of how the biogeochemical, climate and biosphere integrity boundaries interact to delimit a ‘safe operating space’ for humanity.

So far, the focus of the biogeochemical boundary has been on bottom-up anthropogenic drivers such as the addition of fertilizers. However, top-down effects such as the influence of fisheries exploitation on biogeochemical cycles are likely to have impacts that are of sufficient magnitude to affect the behaviour of this boundary44. While the indirect aspects of these effects are currently poorly understood, they are, along with the effects of fishing on ecosystem structure and function, a topic of burgeoning interest. Just as with hunting on land, fishing has the potential to influence geochemical cycling by disrupting ecosystem functioning via the removal of key species, the redistribution of relative biomass across trophic levels and the dilution of some nutrient mediating processes45,46. The magnitude of these effects and how they can be mitigated warrant further research and consideration within the existing boundary framework.

Biosphere integrity: functional diversity

The biosphere integrity boundary was identified by ref. 3 as one of the two core planetary boundaries (along with climate change) as it is central to the state of the Earth system — crossing either of these boundaries may shift the Earth into a new state. This boundary focuses on the persistence and functioning of the biosphere. Persistence is underpinned by genetic diversity, whereas function is determined by the diversity of functional traits (Table 2)3. Characterizing the functional diversity sub-boundary has proved to be particularly challenging because of the lack of a suitable control variable47. The biodiversity intactness index (BII), which estimates the proportion of biodiversity found in intact ecosystems that remains within a corresponding human-impacted ecosystem, was presented as a stopgap measure. Recently, BII has been estimated for terrestrial systems, using modelled intact area biodiversity as a baseline3,48. Yet, there have been no studies estimating BII for marine systems. There is potential to broaden the coverage of BII studies to include the world’s oceans using marine wilderness baselines (for example, ref. 49). However, this may prove challenging for less well studied marine ecosystems, and species-level metrics such as BII are only indirectly linked to function. As a result, we suggest directing efforts towards developing a more appropriate control variable using a trait-based metric that is more closely tied to the functions provided by communities47,50. Size- and trait-based modelling of marine communities suggests one potentially robust avenue for exploring trends in the functional composition of communities from the Holocene into the Anthropocene51. Such an approach has three key advantages: (1) it allows estimation of undisturbed baseline states that are not reliant on wilderness areas that may be subject to anthropogenic disturbance, and as such, are not representative of ‘Holocene-like’ conditions48,52; (2) the relative lack of focus on describing species within marine systems may prove problematic when attempting to estimate biodiversity change using empirical observations alone53; and (3) recent integration of a range of traits into size-based modelling explicitly allows for estimation of changes in function, historically and in response to future anthropogenic impacts54.

Modelling changes in the functioning of ecosystems is an important step, but there is also the need to choose specific indicators for the control variable to monitor changes empirically. This is a complex undertaking, but simulation testing, such as in fisheries indicator research, could be used to understand which are the most informative indicators, to gain insights into current status, trends and thresholds in function55,56. For example, ecosystem models have been used in simulations to test the efficacy of a range of indicators in the context of the effects of fishing and ecosystem state. The models are used to represent the ecosystem and its perturbation (for example, fishing pressure and climate change scenarios) and to generate ‘data’. Indicators estimated from these data are then compared against the trajectories in the ecosystem model to see how well they capture the true levels of change55.

Regardless of the control variable used, accounting for marine systems in the functional diversity sub-boundary is likely to have significant consequences for our understanding of the current state of play. A previous study48 estimated that nearly 60% of terrestrial systems have crossed the proposed functional diversity boundary to some degree, based on BII. Accounting for marine biomes, which dominate the Earth’s surface, may give a very different picture.

HANPP

Since the publication of the initial framework, HANPP has been proposed as a new strategy that could potentially replace a number of the original boundaries because it is relatively straightforward to measure and integrates many of the other interacting boundaries; primary production is influenced by habitat type, climatic conditions, availability of carbon dioxide, nutrients and freshwater, and in turn supports biosphere integrity11. The studies proposing HANPP as a boundary have focused purely on terrestrial systems11,57, despite marine and terrestrial primary production being approximately equal in magnitude58, research suggesting that similar proportions of productivity flow to fisheries on continental shelves as is appropriated by humans on land59,60, and the oceans being comparable to land as a carbon sink61. However, it should be noted that the productivity estimates focus on slightly different characterizations of primary productivity, for example marine estimates focus on surface waters and do not account for spatial variability in the vertical patterns in primary productivity. Furthermore, terrestrial estimates represent biomass accumulation, whereas those in the ocean represent new production. If HANPP is to be used as a replacement, integrative planetary boundary, addition of marine productivity is key and is achievable with existing knowledge (Supplementary Note 3), although further work will be needed to harmonize terrestrial and marine estimates to ensure they represent equivalent metrics. Nonetheless, preliminary mapping of terrestrial and marine HANPP highlights the highly heterogeneous distribution of society’s appropriation of primary productivity; the regions of least concern, such as the open ocean, and the regions where limits are being approached both on land and in the sea, for example Southeast Asia (Fig. 3; Supplementary Note 3). Where fisheries catches are approaching productivity limits, the problem is likely to be exacerbated by climate change62. Moreover, some of the geo-engineering solutions proposed as technological options for addressing climate change involve the direct modification of marine ecosystems and production, for example via ocean fertilization63, highlighting that planetary boundaries in the oceans may face large and increasingly pressing challenges.

Fig. 3: Global distribution of HANPP presented as percentage of net primary production (NPP) used.
Fig. 3

Data represent average values from 1998 to 2002. Terrestrial data sourced from ref. 60. Details of methods provided in Supplementary Note 3.

Understanding boundary interactions

The planetary boundaries encompass some that represent structural changes that impact important processes (for example, land-system change that impacts climate), whereas others represent the processes themselves (for example, climate)64. This dual nature of the boundaries was initially a pragmatic approach, but it also highlights the close coupling of Earth systems. The consequence is that the different boundaries cannot be viewed in isolation. Boundary interactions drive considerable uncertainty regarding the direction, scale and rate of change likely to be observed in Earth systems, and the potential reversibility of any undesirable changes65,66. Thus, the modifications we have suggested to the framework need to be explored against the backdrop of these interactions. Highlighting this need may seem redundant, but, while the issue of boundary interaction has been discussed (38% of papers reviewed in Supplementary Note 2), it has rarely been dealt with explicitly (but see ref. 66). As a result, we suggest that modifying the boundaries to more comprehensively account for marine ecosystems should not simply mean setting new, static boundary values. Rather, the planetary boundaries framework as a whole might be better served by boundary ‘windows’ that cover a range of possible values. Such an approach allows for uncertainty around the behaviour of individual boundaries and their interactions with each other, as these influence where boundaries should be best placed to avoid undesirable changes to the Earth system66. Furthermore, it builds on the delineation of a zone of uncertainty around each boundary2. A previous study66 explores how boundary windows might work in relation to interactions between the climate change and land-system change boundaries. This slightly more reflexive version of the planetary boundaries framework does not preclude effective management; rather, it is more in-line with a precautionary approach due to the high uncertainty surrounding the behaviour of Earth system processes67. Moreover, it is directly in-line with adaptive management processes best suited to acting under uncertainty66, where actions and targets are updated as new information becomes available68.

Exploring boundary interactions and uncertainty will be largely reliant on systems modelling that accurately captures biophysical–human feedbacks69. There is a growing suite of ecosystem models arising from both aquatic and terrestrial disciplines, which provide robust ways of investigating the importance of different biophysical processes, and their non-linear interactions and feedbacks across scales70,71. Model ensembles (see glossary Supplementary Note 1) allow for comparisons among model outputs72, providing a powerful approach to explore risk in relation to boundary dynamics, how human responses can modify those dynamics, and our likelihood of crossing interacting boundaries. Management strategy evaluation, a tool initially developed for fisheries management73, is now being used much more widely to explore virtual worlds under a range of different scenarios74. The modelling challenges going forward are many (for example, handling uncertainty, improved capacity to represent cross-scale processes, provision of pragmatic approaches that can be applied with fewer resources), but among the greatest is the inclusion of human influences, and how they have added to the interconnected nature and interdependency of the boundaries.

Marine boundaries and governance

The global environmental governance challenges presented by the planetary boundaries concepts are well documented4, but have been seldom explored specifically for marine systems (Supplementary Fig. 1). Critically, including marine biomes within the framework exacerbates these challenges, as governance necessarily must account for both sovereign and common-pool resources. Furthermore, monitoring and enforcement within the high seas presents a unique set of governance challenges not experienced in terrestrial biomes75. Thus, accounting for broad-scale marine habitat change in an ‘Earth surface change’ boundary and enforcing policies to counteract these changes across remote ocean areas, is likely to be both difficult and contested. As such, we posit that increased integration of marine biomes into the planetary boundary concept may present larger and more immediate challenges to Earth systems governance than currently realized.

Responding successfully to the full suite of unique marine-specific challenges outlined here will require complementary efforts across multiple jurisdictions. This will be best achieved through collaborative, global, multi-actor governance networks that promote collective action, foster learning and nurture trust among diverse stakeholders5. Such participatory governance approaches will also allow decision-makers to capitalize on scale-specific knowledge (for example, local or cultural knowledge), so as to match governance responses to the scale of a problem76. In combination, these attributes enhance societies’ ability to respond adaptively to disturbances across multiple spatial scales77. The successful implementation of such networked approaches to governance will, however, require new and innovative institutional arrangements that actively foster participation and collaboration among stakeholders, and manage power imbalances among different actors78. Research is needed to explore the optimal institutional design for supporting the assessment and integration of planetary boundaries into global environmental governance initiatives.

The changing nature of the planetary boundaries, coupled with high degrees of uncertainty and boundary interactions, also necessitates innovative and forward-looking approaches to governance that allow decision-makers to be proactive in anticipation of global environmental change. In this regard, the emerging concept of ‘anticipatory governance’ may prove important79. Initially developed in the field of technology, anticipatory governance is defined as ‘a broad-based capacity extended through society that can act on a variety of inputs to actively steer society towards desired outcomes’80. This is achieved via stakeholder-inclusive foresight activities, such as scenario development, which allow participants to envision plausible futures, contingencies and consequences, and develop the necessary knowledge base for addressing the social, ethical and policy challenges associated with global environmental challenges81,82. Furthermore, by virtue of its proactive approach to environmental governance, anticipatory governance also allows for the early identification of the core capacities, technologies and enabling conditions that must be developed to underpin the transformative changes required83.

Conclusions

Planetary boundaries research has primarily focused on terrestrial systems, in part because there is a perception that so much remains unknown about the oceans. However, given the fundamental dependence of the global biosphere on oceanic components and processes, this imbalance threatens the integrity of the planetary boundaries approach and the usefulness of conclusions drawn from it. Thus, if we are to advance the framework from a useful heuristic to a set of guidelines for Earth system governance, we need to better account for marine systems. For some boundaries, such as HANPP, increased integration may simply mean addition of marine data. In other cases, expanding the scope of the boundary may be necessary; for example, moving from a land-system to an Earth surface change boundary. Marine research may also help to support characterization of boundaries where there is current uncertainty on how to proceed, for example, biosphere integrity. Moreover, a better understanding of how the boundaries interact is fundamental to operationalizing planetary boundaries, and marine research has important contributions to make in this regard. Most of the data and techniques necessary to initiate this increased integration of marine systems are available, but there is considerable scope for further work (Table 2). For example, here we focus on modification of the existing planetary boundaries. These boundaries are not the only options. Exploration of additional boundaries that describe biophysical processes inherent to marine systems and that are central to Earth system function, such as changes in vertical mixing and ocean circulation patterns, present a fertile arena for new research. Rather than putting the oceans to the side, the important knowledge gaps associated with those biomes signal the need for extensive additional research if planetary boundaries are to inform effective Earth system governance that supports societal well-being on a blue planet.

Data availability

Terrestrial data used in global HANPP map were downloaded from https://www.aau.at/blog/global-hanpp-2000/. Marine data used in global HANPP map are freely available from http://dx.doi.org/10.4226/77/58293083b0515.

Additional information

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

References

  1. 1.

    Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney, O. & Ludwig, C. The trajectory of the Anthropocene: the Great Acceleration. Anthropocene Rev. 2, 81–98 (2015).

  2. 2.

    Rockström, J. et al. Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol. Soc. 14, 32 (2009).

  3. 3.

    Steffen, W. et al. Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, 1259855 (2015).

  4. 4.

    Galaz, V. et al. ‘Planetary boundaries’—exploring the challenges for global environmental governance. Curr. Opin. Env. Sust. 4, 80–87 (2012).

  5. 5.

    Galaz, V., Biermann, F., Folke, C., Nilsson, M. & Olsson, P. Global environmental governance and planetary boundaries: an introduction. Ecol. Econ. 81, 1–3 (2012).

  6. 6.

    Biermann, F. Planetary boundaries and Earth system governance: exploring the links. Ecol. Econ. 81, 4–9 (2012).This paper discusses the significant governance challenges associated with Earth system governance and the planetary boundaries framework in particular.

  7. 7.

    Frischknecht, R., Stolz, P. & Tschümperlin, L. National environmental footprints and planetary boundaries: from methodology to policy implementation 59th LCA forum, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zürich, June 12, 2015. Int. J. Life Cycle Ass . 21, 601–605 (2016).

  8. 8.

    Webb, T. J. Marine and terrestrial ecology: unifying concepts, revealing differences. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 535–541 (2012).This review discusses the fundamental differences in ecosytem structure and function between marine and terrestrial systems.

  9. 9.

    Halpern, B. S. et al. Spatial and temporal changes in cumulative human impacts on the world’s ocean. Nat. Commun. 6, 7615 (2015).

  10. 10.

    Pauly, D., Watson, R. & Alder, J. Global trends in world fisheries: impacts on marine ecosystems and food security. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 360, 5–12 (2005).

  11. 11.

    Running, S. W. A measurable planetary boundary for the biosphere. Science 337, 1458–1459 (2012).

  12. 12.

    Rockstrom, J. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009).

  13. 13.

    West, P. C., Narisma, G. T., Barford, C. C., Kucharik, C. J. & Foley, J. A. An alternative approach for quantifying climate regulation by ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Env. 9, 126–133 (2011).

  14. 14.

    Snyder, P. K., Delire, C. & Foley, J. A. Evaluating the influence of different vegetation biomes on the global climate. Clim. Dynam. 23, 279–302 (2004).

  15. 15.

    Loveland, T. R. et al. Development of a global land cover characteristics database and IGBP DISCover from 1 km AVHRR data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 21, 1303–1330 (2000).

  16. 16.

    Delire, C. et al. Simulated response of the atmosphere–ocean system to deforestation in the Indonesian Archipelago. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 2081–2084 (2001).

  17. 17.

    Adams, E. E. World Forest Area Still on the Decline (Earth Policy Institute, New Brunswick, 2012); http://www.earth-policy.org/?/indicators/C56/.

  18. 18.

    Borges, A. V. Do we have enough pieces of the jigsaw to integrate CO2 fluxes in the coastal ocean? Estuaries 28, 3–27 (2005).

  19. 19.

    Mcleod, E. et al. A blueprint for blue carbon: toward an improved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2. Front. Ecol. Env. 9, 552–560 (2011).

  20. 20.

    Hood, E., Battin, T. J., Fellman, J., O’Neel, S. & Spencer, R. G. M. Storage and release of organic carbon from glaciers and ice sheets. Nat. Geosci. 8, 91–96 (2015).

  21. 21.

    van der Werf, G. R. et al. CO2 emissions from forest loss. Nat. Geosci. 2, 737–738 (2009).

  22. 22.

    Pendleton, L. et al. Estimating global “blue carbon” emissions from conversion and degradation of vegetated coastal ecosystems. PLoS ONE 7, e43542 (2012).

  23. 23.

    Betts, A. K. & Ball, J. H. Albedo over the boreal forest. J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos. 102, 28901–28909 (1997).

  24. 24.

    Allison, I., Brandt, R. E. & Warren, S. G. East Antarctic sea ice: albedo, thickness distribution, and snow cover. J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans 98, 12417–12429 (1993).

  25. 25.

    Tokeshi, M. & Arakaki, S. Habitat complexity in aquatic systems: fractals and beyond. Hydrobiologia 685, 27–47 (2012).

  26. 26.

    Graham, N. A. J. & Nash, K. L. The importance of structural complexity in coral reef ecosystems. Coral Reefs 32, 315–326 (2013).

  27. 27.

    Gittman, R. K., Scyphers, S. B., Smith, C. S., Neylan, I. P. & Grabowski, J. H. Ecological consequences of shoreline hardening: a meta-analysis. Bioscience 66, 763–773 (2016).

  28. 28.

    Collie, J. et al. Indirect effects of bottom fishing on the productivity of marine fish. Fish Fish. 18, 619–637 (2017).

  29. 29.

    Berg, T., Fürhaupter, K., Teixeira, H., Uusitalo, L. & Zampoukas, N. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the ecosystem-based approach – pitfalls and solutions. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 96, 18–28 (2015).

  30. 30.

    Rice, J. et al. Indicators for sea-floor integrity under the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Ecol. Indic. 12, 174–184 (2012).

  31. 31.

    Samhouri, J. F., Haupt, A. J., Levin, P. S., Link, J. S. & Shuford, R. Lessons learned from developing integrated ecosystem assessments to inform marine ecosystem-based management in the USA. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 71, 1205–1215 (2014).

  32. 32.

    Carpenter, S. R. & Bennett, E. M. Reconsideration of the planetary boundary for phosphorus. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 014009 (2011).

  33. 33.

    Liu, C., Kroeze, C., Hoekstra, A. Y. & Gerbens-Leenes, W. Past and future trends in grey water footprints of anthropogenic nitrogen and phosphorus inputs to major world rivers. Ecol. Indic. 18, 42–49 (2012).

  34. 34.

    Martiny, A. C., Vrugt, J. A. & Lomas, M. W. Concentrations and ratios of particulate organic carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus in the global ocean. Sci. Data 1, 140048 (2014).

  35. 35.

    Capone, D. G. & Hutchins, D. A. Microbial biogeochemistry of coastal upwelling regimes in a changing ocean. Nat. Geosci. 6, 711–717 (2013).

  36. 36.

    Reed, D. C. & Harrison, J. A. Linking nutrient loading and oxygen in the coastal ocean: a new global scale model. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 30, 447–459 (2016).

  37. 37.

    Sawyer, A. H., David, C. H. & Famiglietti, J. S. Continental patterns of submarine groundwater discharge reveal coastal vulnerabilities. Science 353, 705–707 (2016).

  38. 38.

    McCauley, D. J. et al. From wing to wing: the persistence of long ecological interaction chains in less-disturbed ecosystems. Sci. Rep. 2, 409 (2012).

  39. 39.

    Moore, C. M. et al. Processes and patterns of oceanic nutrient limitation. Nat. Geosci. 6, 701–710 (2013).This review explores the implications of nutrient enrichment for oceanic nutrient cycles and microbial activity.

  40. 40.

    Luong, A. D. et al. Inferring time-variable effects of nutrient enrichment on marine ecosystems using inverse modelling and ecological network analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 493, 708–718 (2014).

  41. 41.

    Boyd, P. W. & Ellwood, M. J. The biogeochemical cycle of iron in the ocean. Nat. Geosci. 3, 675–682 (2010).

  42. 42.

    Jickells, T. D. et al. Global iron connections between desert dust, ocean biogeochemistry, and climate. Science 308, 67–71 (2005).

  43. 43.

    Eero, M., Andersson, H. C., Almroth-Rosell, E. & MacKenzie, B. R. Has eutrophication promoted forage fish production in the Baltic Sea? Ambio 45, 649–660 (2016).

  44. 44.

    Roman, J. & McCarthy, J. J. The whale pump: marine mammals enhance primary productivity in a coastal basin. PLoS ONE 5, e13255 (2010). 

  45. 45.

    Estes, J. A. et al. Trophic downgrading of planet Earth. Science 333, 301–306 (2011).

  46. 46.

    Jennings, S. & Wilson, R. W. Fishing impacts on the marine inorganic carbon cycle. J. Appl. Ecol. 46, 976–982 (2009).

  47. 47.

    Mace, G. M. et al. Approaches to defining a planetary boundary for biodiversity. Glob. Environ. Change 28, 289–297 (2014).This review explores the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches to characterizing a planetary boundary focused on biodiversity and biosphere integrity.

  48. 48.

    Newbold, T. et al. Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment. Science 353, 288–291 (2016).

  49. 49.

    MacNeil, M. A. et al. Recovery potential of the world’s coral reef fishes. Nature 520, 341–344 (2015).

  50. 50.

    Oliver, T. H. et al. Biodiversity and resilience of ecosystem functions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 673–684 (2015).

  51. 51.

    Jennings, S. & Collingridge, K. Predicting consumer biomass, size-structure, production, catch potential, responses to fishing and associated uncertainties in the world’s marine ecosystems. PLoS ONE 10, e0133794 (2015).

  52. 52.

    Birks, H. J. B., Felde, V. A. & Seddon, A. W. R. Biodiversity trends within the Holocene. Holocene 26, 994–1001 (2016).

  53. 53.

    Webb, T. J. & Mindel, B. L. Global patterns of extinction risk in marine and non-marine systems. Curr. Biol. 25, 506–511 (2015).

  54. 54.

    Scott, F., Blanchard, J. L. & Andersen, K. H. mizer: an R package for multispecies, trait-based and community size spectrum ecological modelling. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 1121–1125 (2014).

  55. 55.

    Fulton, E. A., Smith, A. D. M. & Punt, A. E. Which ecological indicators can robustly detect effects of fishing? ICES J. Mar. Sci. 62, 540–551 (2005).

  56. 56.

    Samhouri, J. F. et al. Sea sick? Setting targets to assess ocean health and ecosystem services. Ecosphere 3, 41 (2012).

  57. 57.

    Haberl, H., Erb, K.-H. & Krausmann, F. Human appropriation of net primary production: patterns, trends, and planetary boundaries. Annu. Rev. Env. Resour. 39, 363–391 (2014).

  58. 58.

    Chavez, F. P., Messié, M. & Pennington, J. T. Marine primary production in relation to climate variability and change. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 3, 227–260 (2010).

  59. 59.

    Pauly, D. et al. Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature 418, 689–695 (2002).

  60. 60.

    Haberl, H. et al. Quantifying and mapping the human appropriation of net primary production in Earth’s terrestrial ecosystems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 12942–12947 (2007).

  61. 61.

    Le Quéré, C. et al. Global carbon budget 2016. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 8, 605–649 (2016).

  62. 62.

    Chassot, E. et al. Global marine primary production constrains fisheries catches. Ecol. Lett. 13, 495–505 (2010).

  63. 63.

    Caldeira, K., Bala, G. & Cao, L. The science of geoengineering. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 41, 231–256 (2013).

  64. 64.

    Cornell, S. On the system properties of the planetary boundaries. Ecol. Soc. 17, r2 (2012).

  65. 65.

    de Vries, W., Kros, J., Kroeze, C. & Seitzinger, S. P. Assessing planetary and regional nitrogen boundaries related to food security and adverse environmental impacts. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5, 392–402 (2013).

  66. 66.

    Anderies, J. M., Carpenter, S. R., Steffen, W. & Rockstrom, J. The topology of non-linear global carbon dynamics: from tipping points to planetary boundaries. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 044048 (2013).

  67. 67.

    Selkoe, K. A. et al. Principles for managing marine ecosystems prone to tipping points. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 1, 1–18 (2015).

  68. 68.

    Walters, C. J. & Holling, C. S. Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology 71, 2060–2068 (1990).

  69. 69.

    van Vuuren, D. P., Lucas, P. L., Hayha, T., Cornell, S. E. & Stafford-Smith, M. Horses for courses: analytical tools to explore planetary boundaries. Earth Syst. Dynam. 7, 267–279 (2016).

  70. 70.

    Fulton, E. A. et al. Lessons in modelling and management of marine ecosystems: the Atlantis experience. Fish Fish. 12, 171–188 (2011).

  71. 71.

    Griffith, G. P., Fulton, E. A., Gorton, R. & Richardson, A. J. Predicting interactions among fishing, ocean warming, and ocean acidification in a marine system with whole-ecosystem models. Conserv. Biol. 26, 1145–1152 (2012).

  72. 72.

    Warszawski, L. et al. The Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISI–MIP): project framework. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3228–3232 (2014).

  73. 73.

    De La Mare, W. K. Tidier fisheries management requires a new MOP (management-oriented paradigm). Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 8, 349–356 (1998).

  74. 74.

    Bunnefeld, N., Hoshino, E. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. Management strategy evaluation: a powerful tool for conservation? Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 441–447 (2011).

  75. 75.

    Game, E. T. et al. Pelagic protected areas: the missing dimension in ocean conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 360–369 (2009).

  76. 76.

    Biggs, R. et al. Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services. Annu. Rev. Env. Resour. 37, 421–448 (2012).

  77. 77.

    Galaz, V., Crona, B., Osterblom, H., Olsson, P. & Folke, C. Polycentric systems and interacting planetary boundaries - emerging governance of climate change–ocean acidification–marine biodiversity. Ecol. Econom. 81, 21–32 (2012).

  78. 78.

    Paavola, J. Institutions and environmental governance: a reconceptualization. Ecol. Econom. 63, 93–103 (2007).

  79. 79.

    Boyd, E., Nykvist, B., Borgström, S. & Stacewicz, I. A. Anticipatory governance for social–ecological resilience. Ambio 44, 149–161 (2015).

  80. 80.

    Guston, D. H. Innovation policy: not just a jumbo shrimp. Nature 454, 940–941 (2008).This commentary explores the concept of anticipatory governance and how this approach may better equip policymakers dealing with uncertainty.

  81. 81.

    Guston, D. H. Understanding ‘anticipatory governance’. Soc. Stud. Sci. 44, 218–242 (2014).

  82. 82.

    Raworth, K. A Safe and Just Space for Humanity: Can We Live Within the Doughnut? (Oxfam, Oxford, 2012).

  83. 83.

    Sadowski, J. & Guston, D. H. ‘You caught me off guard’: probing the futures of complex engineered nanomaterials. J. Nanopart. Res. 18, 208 (2016).

  84. 84.

    Fabricius, K., De’ath, G., McCook, L., Turak, E. & Williams, D. M. Changes in algal, coral and fish assemblages along water quality gradients on the inshore Great Barrier Reef. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 51, 384–398 (2005).

  85. 85.

    Niiranen, S. et al. Combined effects of global climate change and regional ecosystem drivers on an exploited marine food web. Glob. Change Biol. 19, 3327–3342 (2013).

  86. 86.

    Duplisea, D. E., Jennings, S., Malcolm, S. J., Parker, R. & Sivyer, D. B. Modelling potential impacts of bottom trawl fisheries on soft sediment biogeochemistry in the North Sea. Geochem. Trans. 2, 112–112 (2001).

  87. 87.

    Seitzinger, S. P. et al. Global river nutrient export: a scenario analysis of past and future trends. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 24, GB0A08 (2010).

  88. 88.

    Egeghy, P. P. et al. The exposure data landscape for manufactured chemicals. Sci. Total Environ. 414, 159–166 (2012).

  89. 89.

    Jang, Y. C. et al. Estimating the global inflow and stock of plastic marine debris using material flow analysis: a preliminary approach. J. Korean Soc. Mar. Environ. Energy 18, 263–273 (2015).

  90. 90.

    Cózar, A. et al. Plastic debris in the open ocean. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 10239–10244 (2014).

  91. 91.

    IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 2013).

  92. 92.

    Seneviratne, S. I., Donat, M. G., Pitman, A. J., Knutti, R. & Wilby, R. L. Allowable CO2 emissions based on regional and impact-related climate targets. Nature 529, 477–483 (2016).

  93. 93.

    Schleussner, C. F. et al. Differential climate impacts for policy-relevant limits to global warming: the case of 1.5  °C and 2  °C. Earth Syst. Dynam. 7, 327–351 (2016).

  94. 94.

    Norström, A. V. et al. Guiding coral reef futures in the Anthropocene. Front. Ecol. Env. 14, 490–498 (2016).

  95. 95.

    WMO Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2006 Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project Report No. 50 (NOAA, NASA, UNEP, WMO and EC, Geneva, 2007).

  96. 96.

    Zepp, R. G., Erickson Iii, D. J., Paul, N. D. & Sulzberger, B. Interactive effects of solar UV radiation and climate change on biogeochemical cycling. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 6, 286–300 (2007).

  97. 97.

    Miraldo, A. et al. An Anthropocene map of genetic diversity. Science 353, 1532–1535 (2016).

  98. 98.

    Farmery, A. K., Jennings, S., Gardner, C., Watson, R. A. & Green, B. S. Naturalness as a basis for incorporating marine biodiversity into life cycle assessment of seafood. Int. J. Life Cycle Ass. 22, 1571–1587 (2017).

  99. 99.

    Jennings, S., Dinmore, T. A., Duplisea, D. E., Warr, K. J. & Lancaster, J. E. Trawling disturbance can modify benthic production processes. J. Anim. Ecol. 70, 459–475 (2001).

  100. 100.

    Hiddink, J. G. et al. Cumulative impacts of seabed trawl disturbance on benthic biomass, production, and species richness in different habitats. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 63, 721–736 (2006).

  101. 101.

    Reid, P. C. et al. in Advances in Marine Biology Vol. 56 (ed. Sims, D. W.) 1–150 (Elsevier Academic, San Diego, 2009).

  102. 102.

    Alleway, H. K. & Connell, S. D. Loss of an ecological baseline through the eradication of oyster reefs from coastal ecosystems and human memory. Conserv. Biol. 29, 795–804 (2015).

  103. 103.

    Gittman, R. K. et al. Engineering away our natural defenses: an analysis of shoreline hardening in the US. Front. Ecol. Env. 13, 301–307 (2015).

  104. 104.

    Brewer, P. Planetary boundaries: consider all consequences. Nat. Rep. Clim. Change 3, 117–118 (2009).

  105. 105.

    Rummer, J. L. & Munday, P. L. Climate change and the evolution of reef fishes: past and future. Fish Fish. 18, 22–39 (2017).This review explores the wide-reaching impacts of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems — beyond simply changing aragonite saturation state.

  106. 106.

    National Research Council of the National Academies Ocean Acidification: A National Strategy to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Ocean (National Academies Press, Washington DC, 2010).

  107. 107.

    Gephart, J. A. et al. The ‘seafood gap’ in the food-water nexus literature—issues surrounding freshwater use in seafood production chains. Adv. Water Resour. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2017.03.025 (2017).

  108. 108.

    Blanchard, J. L. et al. Cross-sectoral sustainability challenges for fisheries-dependent countries. Nat. Ecol. Evol. (in the press).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project is supported by funding from the University of Tasmania and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation via the Centre for Marine Socioecology. R.A.W. acknowledges support from the Australian Research Council (Discovery project DP140101377) and E.J.M.-G. acknowledges a Pew Marine Fellowship. Thank you to R. Little for discussions relating to this paper. Availability of data used to produce Fig. 3 is described in the Supplementary Information.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Centre for Marine Socioecology, Private Bag 129, Hobart, Tasmania, 7001, Australia

    • Kirsty L. Nash
    • , Christopher Cvitanovic
    • , Elizabeth A. Fulton
    • , Reg A. Watson
    •  & Julia L. Blanchard
  2. Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 129, Hobart, Tasmania, 7001, Australia

    • Kirsty L. Nash
    • , Christopher Cvitanovic
    • , Reg A. Watson
    •  & Julia L. Blanchard
  3. Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 129, Hobart, Tasmania, 7001, Australia

    • Christopher Cvitanovic
  4. CSIRO, Castray Esplanade, Battery Point, Tasmania, 2004, Australia

    • Elizabeth A. Fulton
  5. National Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California, 735 State St, Santa Barbara, CA, 93101-5504, USA

    • Benjamin S. Halpern
  6. Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, 93101, USA

    • Benjamin S. Halpern
  7. Imperial College London, Silwood Park Campus, Burkhurst Road, Ascot, SL5 7PY, UK

    • Benjamin S. Halpern
  8. Interdisciplinary Centre for Conservation Science, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3PS, UK

    • E. J. Milner-Gulland

Authors

  1. Search for Kirsty L. Nash in:

  2. Search for Christopher Cvitanovic in:

  3. Search for Elizabeth A. Fulton in:

  4. Search for Benjamin S. Halpern in:

  5. Search for E. J. Milner-Gulland in:

  6. Search for Reg A. Watson in:

  7. Search for Julia L. Blanchard in:

Contributions

K.L.N. and J.L.B. conceived the idea for the Review. K.L.N. wrote the majority of the manuscript. R.A.W. performed the HANPP mapping. All authors contributed to writing and editing the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kirsty L. Nash.

Electronic supplementary material

  1. Supplementary Information

    Supplementary notes, figures and references

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0319-z