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:

A pause in Southern Hemisphere circulation trends due to the Montreal Protocol

Nature volume 579, pages 544–548 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Observations show robust near-surface trends in Southern Hemisphere tropospheric circulation towards the end of the twentieth century, including a poleward shift in the mid-latitude jet1,2, a positive trend in the Southern Annular Mode1,3,4,5,6 and an expansion of the Hadley cell7,8. It has been established that these trends were driven by ozone depletion in the Antarctic stratosphere due to emissions of ozone-depleting substances9,10,11. Here we show that these widely reported circulation trends paused, or slightly reversed, around the year 2000. Using a pattern-based detection and attribution analysis of atmospheric zonal wind, we show that the pause in circulation trends is forced by human activities, and has not occurred owing only to internal or natural variability of the climate system. Furthermore, we demonstrate that stratospheric ozone recovery, resulting from the Montreal Protocol, is the key driver of the pause. Because pre-2000 circulation trends have affected precipitation12,13,14, and potentially ocean circulation and salinity15,16,17, we anticipate that a pause in these trends will have wider impacts on the Earth system. Signatures of the effects of the Montreal Protocol and the associated stratospheric ozone recovery might therefore manifest, or have already manifested, in other aspects of the Earth system.

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

Access options

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: Timeseries of ozone and near-surface circulation metrics.
Fig. 2: Zonal average zonal wind trends in reanalysis data and models.
Fig. 3: Simulated zonal average zonal wind trends due to stratospheric ozone and GHGs.
Fig. 4: Scaling factors from the detection and attribution analysis.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Observations of total column ozone from the SBUV v8.4 satellite dataset (5° gridded, monthly and zonal mean) are available at: https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/merged/data/sbuv_v86_mod.int_lyr.70-17.za.r6_ext.txt.The reanalysis datasets can be downloaded from their respective webservers, provided by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) for ERA-I (https://apps.ecmwf.int/datasets/data/interim-full-daily/levtype=sfc/), the JMA Data Dissemination System (JDDS) for JRA-55 (https://jra.kishou.go.jp/JRA-55/index_en.html#download) and the Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DIC) for MERRA2 (https://disc.gsfc.nasa.gov/datasets?keywords=%22MERRA-2%22&page=1&source=Models%2FAnalyses%20MERRA-2). Monthly mean, proxy zonal mean pressures at 40° S and 65° S, used here to compute the observed SAM index, are available at: http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/icd/gjma/sam.html. Model output for CanESM2 can be accessed at: http://climate-modelling.canada.ca/climatemodeldata/cgcm4/CanESM2/index.shtml. Model output from CCMI and CCMVal-2 can be accessed through the British Atmospheric Data Center (BADC) archive at: ftp://ftp.ceda.ac.uk. The two WACCM control simulations are available from the High Performance Storage System at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado and available upon request from the corresponding author.

Code availability

Code is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Swart, N. C. & Fyfe, J. C. Observed and simulated changes in the Southern Hemisphere surface westerly wind-stress. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L16711 (2012).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  2. Swart, N. C., Fyfe, J. C., Gillett, N. & Marshall, G. J. Comparing trends in the Southern Annular Mode and surface westerly jet. J. Clim. 28, 8840–8859 (2015).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  3. Thompson, D. W. J. & Solomon, S. Interpretation of recent Southern Hemisphere climate change. Science 296, 895–899 (2002).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Marshall, G. J. Trends in the Southern Annular Mode from observations and reanalyses. J. Clim. 16, 4134–4143 (2003).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gillett, N. P. & Fyfe, J. C. Annular mode changes in the CMIP5 simulations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 1189–1193 (2013).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gillett, N. P., Fyfe, J. C. & Parker, D. E. Attribution of observed sea level pressure trends to greenhouse gas, aerosol, and ozone changes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 2302–2306 (2013).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Davis, S. M. & Rosenlof, K. H. A multidiagnostic intercomparison of tropical-width time series using reanalyses and satellite observations. J. Clim. 25, 1061–1078 (2012).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  8. Garfinkel, C. I., Waugh, D. W. & Polvani, L. M. Recent Hadley cell expansion: the role of internal atmospheric variability in reconciling modeled and observed trends. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 10824–10831 (2015).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  9. Son, S.-W. et al. Impact of stratospheric ozone on Southern Hemisphere circulation change: a multimodel assessment. J. Geophys. Res. D 115, D00M07 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Polvani, L. M., Waugh, D. W., Correa, G. J. P. & Son, S.-W. Stratospheric ozone depletion: the main driver of twentieth-century atmospheric circulation changes in the Southern Hemisphere. J. Clim. 24, 795–812 (2011).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  11. McLandress, C. et al. Separating the dynamical effects of climate change and ozone depletion. Part II: Southern Hemisphere troposphere. J. Clim. 24, 1850–1868 (2011).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kang, S. M., Polvani, L. M., Fyfe, J. C. & Sigmond, M. Impact of polar ozone depletion on subtropical precipitation. Science 332, 951–954 (2011).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Scheff, J. & Frierson, D. M. W. Robust future precipitation declines in CMIP5 largely reflect the poleward expansion of model subtropical dry zones. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L18704 (2012).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  14. Schmidt, D. F. & Grise, K. M. The response of local precipitation and sea level pressure to Hadley cell expansion. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 10,573–10,582 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Waugh, D. W., Primeau, F., Devries, T. & Holzer, M. Recent changes in the ventilation of the southern oceans. Science 339, 568–570 (2013).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Solomon, A., Polvani, L. M., Smith, K. L. & Abernathey, R. P. The impact of ozone depleting substances on the circulation, temperature, and salinity of the Southern Ocean: an attribution study with CESM1(WACCM). Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 5547–5555 (2015).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  17. Karpechko, A. Y. & Maycock, A. C. in Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2018 Report No. 58, Ch. 5 (World Meteorological Organization, 2018).

  18. Farman, J. C., Gardiner, B. G. & Shanklin, J. D. Large losses of total ozone in Antarctica reveal seasonal ClOx/NOx interaction. Nature 315, 207–210 (1985).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Solomon, S., Garcia, R. R., Rowland, F. S. & Wuebbles, D. J. On the depletion of Antarctic ozone. Nature 321, 755–758 (1986).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Engel, A. & Rigby, M. in Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2018 Report No. 58, Ch. 1 (World Meteorological Organization, 2018).

  21. Braesicke, P. & Neu, J. et al. in Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2018 Report No. 58, Ch. 3 (World Meteorological Organization, 2018).

  22. Solomon, S. et al. Emergence of healing in the Antarctic ozone layer. Science 353, 269–274 (2016).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Langematz, U. & Tully, M. in Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2018 Report No. 58, Ch. 4 (World Meteorological Organization, 2018).

  24. Engel, A. et al. A refined method for calculating equivalent effective stratospheric chlorine. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 18, 601–619 (2018).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Gillett, N. P. & Thompson, D. W. J. Simulation of recent Southern Hemisphere climate change. Science 302, 273–275 (2003).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Waugh, D. W., Garfinkel, C. I. & Polvani, L. M. Drivers of the recent tropical expansion in the Southern Hemisphere: changing SSTs or ozone depletion? J. Clim. 28, 6581–6586 (2015).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  27. Perlwitz, J., Pawson, S., Fogt, R. L., Nielsen, J. E. & Neff, W. D. Impact of stratospheric ozone hole recovery on Antarctic climate. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L08714 (2008).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  28. Son, S.-W. et al. The impact of stratospheric ozone recovery on the Southern Hemisphere westerly jet. Science 320, 1486–1489 (2008).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Polvani, L. M., Previdi, M. & Deser, C. Large cancellation, due to ozone recovery, of future Southern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation trends. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L04707 (2011).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  30. Thompson, D. W. J. et al. Signatures of the Antarctic ozone hole in Southern Hemisphere surface climate change. Nat. Geosci. 4, 741–749 (2011).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Arblaster, J. M. & Meehl, G. A. Contributions of external forcings to Southern Annular Mode trends. J. Clim. 19, 2896–2905 (2006).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  32. Barnes, E. A. & Polvani, L. Response of the midlatitude jets, and of their variability, to increased greenhouse gases in the CMIP5 models. J. Clim. 26, 7117–7135 (2013).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  33. Dee, D. P. et al. The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 137, 553–597 (2011).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  34. Kobayashi, S. et al. The JRA-55 Reanalysis: general specifications and basic characteristics. J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn 93, 5–48 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Gelaro, R. et al. The Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications, Version 2 (MERRA-2). J. Clim. 30, 5419–5454 (2017).

    ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Monahan, A. H. & Fyfe, J. C. On the nature of zonal jet EOFs. J. Clim. 19, 6409–6424 (2006).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  37. Monahan, A. H. & Fyfe, J. C. On annular modes and zonal jets. J. Clim. 21, 1963–1978 (2008).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  38. Solomon, A. & Polvani, L. M. Highly significant responses to anthropogenic forcings of the midlatitude jet in the Southern Hemisphere. J. Clim. 29, 3463–3470 (2016).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  39. Sun, L., Chen, G. & Robinson, W. A. The role of stratospheric polar vortex breakdown in Southern Hemisphere climate trends. J. Atmos. Sci. 71, 2335–2353 (2014).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  40. Solomon, S. et al. Mirrored changes in Antarctic ozone and stratospheric temperature in the late 20th versus early 21st centuries. J. Geophys. Res. D 122, 8940–8950 (2017).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Morgenstern, O. et al. Review of the formulation of present-generation stratospheric chemistry-climate models and associated external forcings. J. Geophys. Res. 115, D00M02 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Morgenstern, O. et al. Review of the global models used within phase 1 of the Chemistry–Climate Model Initiative (CCMI). Geosci. Model Dev. 10, 639–671 (2017).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  43. Cionni, I. et al. Ozone database in support of CMIP5 simulations: results and corresponding radiative forcing. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11, 11267–11292 (2011).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Santer, B. D. et al. Quantifying stochastic uncertainty in detection time of human-caused climate signals. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 19821–19827 (2019); correction 117, 2723 (2020).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Barnes, E. A., Barnes, N. W. & Polvani, L. M. Delayed Southern Hemisphere climate change induced by stratospheric ozone recovery, as projected by the CMIP5 models. J. Clim. 27, 852–867 (2014).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  46. Newman, P. A., Daniel, J. S., Waugh, D. W. & Nash, E. R. A new formulation of equivalent effective stratospheric chlorine (EESC). Atmos. Chem. Phys. 7, 4537-4552 (2007).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Davis, N. A. & Davis, S. M. Reconciling Hadley cell expansion trend estimates in reanalyses. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 11439–11446 (2018).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  48. Grise, K. M. et al. Recent tropical expansion: natural variability or forced response? J. Clim. 32, 1551–1571 (2019).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  49. Arora, V. K. et al. Carbon emission limits required to satisfy future representative concentration pathways of greenhouse gases. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L05805 (2011).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  50. van Vuuren, D. P. et al. The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Clim. Change 109, 5 (2011).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  51. Sigmond, M., Fyfe, J. C. & Scinocca, J. F. Does the ocean impact the atmospheric response to stratospheric ozone depletion? Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L12706 (2010).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  52. Son, S.-W. et al. Tropospheric jet response to Antarctic ozone depletion: an update with Chemistry-Climate Model Initiative (CCMI) models. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 054024 (2018).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  53. Seviour, W. J. M., Waugh, D. W., Polvani, L. M., Correa, G. J. P. & Garfinkel, C. I. Robustness of the simulated tropospheric response to ozone depletion. J. Clim. 30, 2577–2585 (2017).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  54. Gerber, E. P. & Son, S.-W. Quantifying the summertime response of the austral jet stream and Hadley cell to stratospheric ozone and greenhouse gases. J. Clim. 27, 5538–5559 (2014).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  55. Smith, K. L., Neely, R. R., Marsh, D. R. & Polvani, L. M. The Specified Chemistry Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model (SC-WACCM). J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 6, 883–901 (2014).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  56. Gong, D. & Wang, S. Definition of Antarctic Oscillation index. Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 459–462 (1999).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  57. Solomon, A., Polvani, L. M., Waugh, D. W. & Davis, S. M. Contrasting upper and lower atmospheric metrics of tropical expansion in the Southern Hemisphere. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 10496–10503 (2016).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  58. Davis, N. & Birner, T. On the discrepancies in tropical belt expansion between reanalyses and climate models and among tropical belt width metrics. J. Clim. 30, 1211–1231 (2017).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  59. Waugh, D. W. et al. Revisiting the relationship among metrics of tropical expansion. J. Clim. 31, 7565–7581 (2018).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  60. Weatherhead, E. C. et al. Factors affecting the detection of trends: statistical considerations and applications to environmental data. J. Geophys. Res. 103, 17149–17161 (1998).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  61. Swart, N. C., Gille, S. T., Fyfe, J. C. & Gillett, N. P. Recent Southern Ocean warming and freshening driven by greenhouse gas emissions and ozone depletion. Nat. Geosci. 11, 836–841 (2018).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank J. Daniel, N. A. Davis, S. M. Davis and B. Santer for conversations on this work. This work was funded by grants from the US National Science Foundation (NSF) to Columbia University and a fellowship from the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA

    Antara Banerjee & Kai-Lan Chang

  2. Chemical Sciences Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Earth System Research Laboratory, Boulder, CO, USA

    Antara Banerjee & Kai-Lan Chang

  3. Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

    John C. Fyfe

  4. Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Lorenzo M. Polvani

  5. Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Darryn Waugh

  6. School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    Darryn Waugh

Authors
  1. Antara Banerjee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John C. Fyfe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lorenzo M. Polvani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Darryn Waugh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kai-Lan Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.B. proposed the paper, performed the analysis and wrote the paper. A.B. and J.C.F. designed the paper and interpreted the results, with contributions from L.M.P. and D.W. K-L.C. advised on statistical methods.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antara Banerjee.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature thanks Sandip Dhomse, Alexey Karpechko, Wenshou Tian and Guang Zeng 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 Timeseries of mid-latitude jet strength.

The timeseries is for the DJF season. Thin black lines and the grey shaded envelope represent the average across four reanalysis products (ERA-I, JRA-55, MERRA2-ana and MERRA2-asm) and their minimum to maximum range. The thin line represents the unsmoothed quantity and the thick line represents centred 3-yr smoothed values. Two piecewise continuous linear trend lines for the unsmoothed data (dashed lines) are drawn for the periods 1980–2000 and 2000–2017 (the values for their slopes are provided in Extended Data Table 1).

Extended Data Fig. 2 Timeseries of ozone and near-surface circulation metrics.

a, EESC (note the inverted left y axis) for polar winter conditions and Antarctic TCO for the SON season as measured by SBUV (in Dobson units, DU). b–d, Circulation metrics for the JJA season. b, Position of the SH mid-latitude jet (in degrees latitude) in reanalysis data. c, SAM index (note the inverted y axis) as derived from reanalysis data and from station observations4. d, Latitude of the edge of the SH Hadley cell in reanalysis data. Thin black lines and grey shaded envelopes in b–d represent the average across four reanalysis products (ERA-I, JRA-55, MERRA2-ana and MERRA2-asm) and their minimum to maximum range. Thin lines represent unsmoothed quantities and thick lines represent centred 3-yr smoothed values. Two piecewise continuous linear trend lines for the unsmoothed data (dashed lines) are drawn for the periods 1980–2000 and 2000–2017.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Zonal average temperature trends.

a, b, Latitude–altitude cross-sections of zonal average temperature trends (colour shading) for SON are shown for the depletion period (a) and recovery period (b). Trends are for the four-reanalysis average. Contours show climatological values (in °C). Hatching indicates areas where trends are not significant at the 95% confidence level according to a two-tailed Student’s t-test using the standard error in the slopes.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Monthly trends in mid-latitude zonal wind.

The monthly evolution of trends in latitudinally averaged (50–70° S) zonal wind (colour shading) for DJF are shown for the depletion period (a, d, g), recovery period (b, e, h) and the change between them (c, f, i). a–i, Trends for the four-reanalysis average (a–c) and the ALL fingerprints of CanESM2 (d–f) and the CCMs (g–i) are shown. Contours show climatological values (in m s−1; in c, f and i, the climatology is over the entire change period). The hatching in d–i shows areas where the reanalysis trends lie outside the 5th–95th percentile range of the simulated ALL ensemble trends.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Simulated trends in near-surface circulation metrics.

a–e, Standard box and whisker plots showing DJF trends in jet position (a, d; degrees latitude per decade), the SAM index (b; per decade) and the Hadley cell edge (c, e; degrees latitude per decade) across the CanESM2 (a–c) and CCM (d, e) ensembles. Numbers designate the number of ensemble members showing positive (red) and negative (blue) trends. The cross symbols represent the average trends across the four reanalysis products. For the SAM index, the triangles represent trends in station-based observations.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Simulated zonal average zonal wind trends due to anthropogenic aerosols and natural forcing.

Latitude–altitude cross-sections of zonal average zonal wind trends (colour shading) for DJF are shown for the depletion period (a, d), recovery period (b, e) and the change between them (c, f). a–f, Fingerprints for the single forcings: AA (a–c) and NAT (d–f) as simulated by CanESM2. For illustrative purposes, the contours represent the ALL forcing climatologies (in m s−1; in c and f, the climatology is over the entire change period).

Extended Data Fig. 7 Scaling factors from detection and attribution sensitivity tests for CanESM2.

The main analysis (Fig. 4a) considers a one-signal analysis against the ALL fingerprint, and a two-signal analysis against the OZ and GHG fingerprints, where confidence intervals are derived from the ensemble spread, and over the domain shown in Figs. 2, 3 (10–850 hPa, 0–90° S). The sensitivity tests shown here are variations on the main analysis that consider a four-signal analysis of the OZ, GHG, AA and NAT fingerprints (black), the four-signal analysis with confidence intervals derived from a CanESM2 piControl run (Methods; red) and a limited domain of analysis (100–850 hPa, 30–90° S) (blue). The vertical bars represent the 95% uncertainty (2.5th–97.5th percentiles) and the horizontal bars represent the 90% uncertainty (5th–90th percentiles).

Extended Data Fig. 8 Scaling factors from detection and attribution sensitivity tests for the CCMs.

Each case shows a one-signal analysis against the ALL fingerprint, and a two-signal analysis against the OZ and GHG fingerprints. The main analysis (Fig. 4b) performs the analysis across 50 model simulations, with confidence intervals derived from a WACCM piControl run, and over the domain shown in Figs. 2, 3 (10–850 hPa, 0–90° S). The sensitivity tests shown here are variations on the main analysis that consider a subset of models that performed the fODS and fGHG sensitivity simulations (total 30 members) (black); confidence intervals derived from a WACCM piControl run containing the 11-yr solar cycle (Methods; red) and a limited domain of analysis (100–850 hPa, 30–90° S) (blue). The vertical bars represent the 95% uncertainty (2.5th–97.5th percentiles) and the horizontal bars represent the 90% uncertainty (5th–90th percentiles).

Extended Data Table 1 Trends in ozone and circulation metrics and change-point testing
Full size table
Extended Data Table 2 List of CCMs
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Banerjee, A., Fyfe, J.C., Polvani, L.M. et al. A pause in Southern Hemisphere circulation trends due to the Montreal Protocol. Nature 579, 544–548 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2120-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2120-4

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

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