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.

Advertisement

Nature Communications
  • View all journals
  • Search
  • My Account Login
  • Content Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed
  1. nature
  2. nature communications
  3. articles
  4. article
Low-pressure storms drive nitrous oxide emissions in the Southern Ocean
Download PDF
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open access
  • Published: 26 January 2026

Low-pressure storms drive nitrous oxide emissions in the Southern Ocean

  • Colette L. Kelly  ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3660-44421,
  • Bonnie X. Chang  ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5887-86552,
  • Andrea F. Emmanuelli  ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4568-02951,3,
  • Ellen R. Park  ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5808-99581,3,
  • Alison M. Macdonald  ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4688-61374 &
  • …
  • David P. Nicholson  ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2653-93491 

Nature Communications , Article number:  (2026) Cite this article

  • 7 Altmetric

  • Metrics details

We are providing an unedited version of this manuscript to give early access to its findings. Before final publication, the manuscript will undergo further editing. Please note there may be errors present which affect the content, and all legal disclaimers apply.

Subjects

  • Element cycles
  • Marine chemistry
  • Physical oceanography
  • Scientific data

Abstract

Nitrous oxide is a potent greenhouse gas and the primary ozone-depleting agent of the 21st century, but marine emissions of nitrous oxide remain difficult to constrain due to their spatiotemporal variability. In the Southern Ocean, where extratropical cyclones create conditions conducive to air-sea gas flux, shipboard measurements are unlikely to capture the full extent of nitrous oxide emissions due to the impracticality of sampling said storms. Here, we use machine learning to derive nitrous oxide observations from biogeochemical Argo floats, revealing that low-pressure storms amplify air-sea gradients and create hotspots of emissions. Taking these low-pressure storms into account, rather than assuming 1 atmosphere (the standard condition outside of storms), increases the net annual Southern Ocean nitrous oxide flux by 88%. Our results imply that the Southern Ocean plays a significant role in the global nitrous oxide cycle, and may be a weaker overall sink of greenhouse gases than previously thought.

Similar content being viewed by others

Biological nitrous oxide consumption in oxygenated waters of the high latitude Atlantic Ocean

Article Open access 18 February 2021

The marine nitrogen cycle: new developments and global change

Article 07 February 2022

High nitrous oxide emissions from temporary flooded depressions within croplands

Article Open access 08 December 2023

Data availability

The processed GO-SHIP N2O data, BGC-Argo float data with interpolated ERA5 and NCEP-NCAR Reanalysis 1 data, N2O fluxes, and figure data used in this study are available via Zenodo under https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17904981 [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17904981]71. The original GO-SHIP data were obtained from CLIVAR and Carbon Hydrographic Data Office (CCHDO) [https://doi.org/10.6075/J0CCHNNN]72. The original BGC-Argo float data were obtained from a snapshot of the BGC-Argo dataset from October 9th, 2024 [https://doi.org/10.17882/42182]53. The original NCEP-NCAR Reanalysis 1 data was provided by the NOAA PSL, Boulder, Colorado, USA, from their website at [https://psl.noaa.gov]70. The original ERA5 hourly reanalysis datasets were downloaded from the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store at [cds.climate.copernicus]57. Figures containing maps were created using Cartopy with coastline data from Natural Earth (naturalearthdata.com, CC0 license).

Code availability

The gasex-python library for air-sea gas exchange calculations is available via Zenodo under https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15132888 [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15132888]61. Python scripts for Random Forest model training, pN2O prediction from BGC-Argo float data, and air-sea N2O flux calculations are publicly available and archived at Zenodo under https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17905126 [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17905126]73.

References

  1. Smith, C. et al. The Earth’s Energy Budget, Climate Feedbacks, and Climate Sensitivity Supplementary Material. in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2021).

  2. Ravishankara, A. R., Daniel, J. S. & Portmann, R. W. Nitrous oxide (N2O): the dominant ozone-depleting substance emitted in the 21st century. Science 326, 123–125 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Wuebbles, D. J. Nitrous oxide: no laughing matter. Science 326, 56–57 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Nevison, C. D., Weiss, R. F. & Erickson III, D. J. Global Oceanic emissions of nitrous oxide. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 100, 15809–15820 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Nevison, C. D. et al. Southern Ocean ventilation inferred from seasonal cycles of atmospheric N2O and O2/N2 at Cape Grim, Tasmania. Tellus B Chem. Phys. Meteorol. 57, 218–229 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Yang, S. et al. Global reconstruction reduces the uncertainty of oceanic nitrous oxide emissions and reveals a vigorous seasonal cycle. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 11954–11960 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Law, C. S. & Ling, R. D. Nitrous oxide flux and response to increased iron availability in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. Deep Sea Res. Part II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 48, 2509–2527 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Jin, X. & Gruber, N. Offsetting the radiative benefit of ocean iron fertilization by enhancing N2O emissions. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL018458 (2003).

  9. Suntharalingam, P. & Sarmiento, J. L. Factors governing the oceanic nitrous oxide distribution: Simulations with an ocean general circulation model. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 14, 429–454 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Prend, C. J. et al. Sub-seasonal forcing drives year-to-year variations of southern ocean primary productivity. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 36, e2022GB007329 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Monteiro, P. M. S. et al. Intraseasonal variability linked to sampling alias in air-sea CO2 fluxes in the Southern Ocean. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 8507–8514 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Sutton, A. J., Williams, N. L. & Tilbrook, B. Constraining Southern Ocean CO2 flux uncertainty using uncrewed surface vehicle observations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 48, e2020GL091748 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Wei, L. & Qin, T. Characteristics of cyclone climatology and variability in the Southern Ocean. Acta Oceanol. Sin. 35, 59–67 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lin, X., Zhai, X., Wang, Z. & Munday, D. R. Mean, variability, and trend of Southern Ocean wind stress: role of wind fluctuations. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0481.1 (2018).

  15. Carranza, M. M. et al. When mixed layers are not mixed. storm-driven mixing and bio-optical vertical gradients in mixed layers of the Southern Ocean. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 123, 7264–7289 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Nicholson, S.-A. et al. Storms drive outgassing of CO2 in the subpolar Southern Ocean. Nat. Commun. 13, 158 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Carranza, M. M. et al. Extratropical storms induce carbon outgassing over the Southern Ocean. Npj Clim. Atmospheric Sci. 7, 1–16 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Turner, K. E., Krasting, J. P., Russell, J. L. & Stouffer, R. J. Uncovering the seasonality of storm-driven southern ocean heat and carbon uptake. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-24-0642.1 (2025).

  19. Gray, A. R. et al. Autonomous biogeochemical floats detect significant carbon dioxide outgassing in the high-latitude Southern Ocean. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 9049–9057 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Sherwen, T. et al. A machine-learning-based global sea-surface iodide distribution. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 11, 1239–1262 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Weber, T., Wiseman, N. A. & Kock, A. Global ocean methane emissions dominated by shallow coastal waters. Nat. Commun. 10, 4584 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Landschützer, P. et al. A neural network-based estimate of the seasonal to inter-annual variability of the Atlantic Ocean carbon sink. Biogeosciences 10, 7793–7815 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Breiman, L. Random Forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 5–32 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Turner, J., Marshall, G. J. & Lachlan-Cope, T. A. Analysis of synoptic-scale low pressure systems within the Antarctic Peninsula sector of the circumpolar trough. Int. J. Climatol. 18, 253–280 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Edmon, H. J., Hoskins, B. J. & McIntyre, M. E. Eliassen-Palm cross sections for the troposphere. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/37/12/1520-0469_1980_037_2600_epcsft_2_0_co_2.xml (1980).

  26. Held, I. M. & Hoskins, B. J. Large-scale eddies and the general circulation of the troposphere. in Advances in Geophysics vol. 28 3–31 (Elsevier, 1985).

  27. Moon, W., Lee, S. P., Vanderborght, E., Manucharyan, G. & Dijkstra, H. An idealized model for the spatial structure of the eddy-driven Ferrel cell in mid-latitudes. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1004 (2025).

  28. Chang, E. K. M. Projected significant increase in the number of extreme extratropical cyclones in the southern hemisphere. J. Clim. 30, 4915–4935 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Pellichero, V., Sallée, J.-B., Schmidtko, S., Roquet, F. & Charrassin, J.-B. The ocean mixed layer under Southern Ocean sea-ice: seasonal cycle and forcing. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 122, 1608–1633 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Reagan, J. R. et al. World Ocean Atlas 2023. NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (2024).

  31. Zhong, G. et al. The Southern Ocean carbon sink has been overestimated in the past three decades. Commun. Earth Environ. 5, 1–12 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Bushinsky, S. M. et al. Offset between profiling float and shipboard oxygen observations at depth imparts bias on float ph and derived pCO2. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 39, e2024GB008185 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Johnson, G. C., Lyman, J. M. & Purkey, S. G. Informing deep argo array design using argo and full-depth hydrographic section data. https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-15-0139.1 (2015).

  34. Johnson, G. C., Mahmud, A. K. M. S., Macdonald, A. M. & Twining, B. S. Antarctic bottom water warming, freshening, and contraction in the eastern Bellingshausen basin. Geophys. Res. Lett. 51, e2024GL109937 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Butterworth, B. J. & Miller, S. D. Air-sea exchange of carbon dioxide in the Southern Ocean and Antarctic marginal ice zone. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 7223–7230 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Dong, Y. et al. Direct observational evidence of strong CO2 uptake in the Southern Ocean. Sci. Adv. 10, eadn5781 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Landwehr, S. et al. Using eddy covariance to measure the dependence of air–sea CO2 exchange rate on friction velocity. Atmospheric Chem. Phys. 18, 4297–4315 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Yang, M. et al. Natural variability in air–sea gas transfer efficiency of CO2. Sci. Rep. 11, 13584 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Reichl, B. G. & Deike, L. Contribution of Sea-state dependent bubbles to Air-Sea carbon dioxide fluxes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2020GL087267 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Yang, M. et al. Global Synthesis of Air-Sea CO2 Transfer Velocity Estimates From Ship-Based Eddy Covariance Measurements. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.826421 (2022).

  41. Else, B. G. T. et al. Wintertime CO2 fluxes in an Arctic polynya using eddy covariance: Evidence for enhanced air-sea gas transfer during ice formation. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JC006760 (2011).

  42. Prytherch, J. et al. Central Arctic Ocean surface–atmosphere exchange of CO2 and CH4 constrained by direct measurements. Biogeosciences 21, 671–688 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Butterworth, B. J. & Else, B. G. T. Dried, closed-path eddy covariance method for measuring carbon dioxide flux over sea ice. Atmospheric Meas. Tech. 11, 6075–6090 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Resplandy, L. et al. A synthesis of Global Coastal Ocean greenhouse gas fluxes. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 38, e2023GB007803 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Heimdal, T. H., McKinley, G. A., Sutton, A. J., Fay, A. R. & Gloege, L. Assessing improvements in global ocean pCO2 machine learning reconstructions with Southern Ocean autonomous sampling. Biogeosciences 21, 2159–2176 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Fyfe, J. C., Saenko, O. A., Zickfeld, K., Eby, M. & Weaver, A. J. The role of poleward-intensifying winds on southern ocean warming. J. Clim. 20, 5391–5400 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Deng, K. et al. Changes of Southern Hemisphere westerlies in the future warming climate. Atmospheric Res 270, 106040 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Bracegirdle, T. J. et al. Twenty first century changes in Antarctic and Southern Ocean surface climate in CMIP6. Atmospheric Sci. Lett. 21, e984 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Neme, J., England, M. H. & McC. Hogg, A. Projected changes of surface winds over the Antarctic continental margin. Geophys. Res. Lett. 49, e2022GL098820 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Holmes, C. R., Bracegirdle, T. J. & Holland, P. R. Antarctic Sea ice projections constrained by historical ice cover and future global temperature change. Geophys. Res. Lett. 49, e2021GL097413 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Shu, Q. et al. Assessment of sea ice extent in CMIP6 with comparison to observations and CMIP5. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2020GL087965 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Bittig, H. C. et al. A BGC-Argo Guide: planning, deployment, data handling and usage. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00502 (2019).

  53. Argo. Argo float data and metadata from Global Data Assembly Centre (Argo GDAC) - Snapshot of BGC Sprof data files as of October 09th, 2024. SEANOE (2024).

  54. Prend, C. J. et al. Indo-Pacific sector dominates southern ocean carbon outgassing. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 36, e2021GB007226 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Johnson, K. S. & Bif, M. B. Constraint on net primary productivity of the global ocean by Argo oxygen measurements. Nat. Geosci. 14, 769–774 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Dutton, G. S. et al. Combined atmospheric nitrous oxide dry air mole fractions from the NOAA GML halocarbons sampling network, 1977-2024. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) https://doi.org/10.15138/GMZ7-2Q16 (2024).

  57. Hersbach, H. et al. ERA5 hourly data on single levels from 1940 to the present. Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS) https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.adbb2d47 (2023).

  58. Fernandes, F. et al. TEOS-10/GSW-python. thermodynamic equation of seawater - 2010 (TEOS-10) (2023).

  59. Garcia, H. E. & Gordon, L. I. Oxygen solubility in seawater: better fitting equations. Limnol. Oceanogr. 37, 1307–1312 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Weiss, R. F. & Price, B. A. Nitrous oxide solubility in water and seawater. Mar. Chem. 8, 347–359 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Manning, C., Nicholson, D. (Roo) & Kelly, C. L. First release of gasex-python v0.0.1. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15132889 (2025).

  62. Sharp, J. D. et al. GOBAI-O2: temporally and spatially resolved fields of ocean interior dissolved oxygen over nearly 2 decades. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 15, 4481–4518 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Bittig, H. C. et al. An Alternative to Static Climatologies: Robust Estimation of Open Ocean CO2 Variables and Nutrient Concentrations From T, S, and O2 Data Using Bayesian Neural Networks. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00328 (2018).

  64. Pedregosa, F. et al. Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2825–2830 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Domingos, P. A few useful things to know about machine learning. Commun. ACM 55, 78–87 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  66. James, G., Witten, D., Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R. & Taylor, J. An Introduction to Statistical Learning: With Applications in Python. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38747-0 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2023).

  67. Meinshausen, N. Quantile regression forests. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 7, 983–999 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Wanninkhof, R. Relationship between wind speed and gas exchange over the ocean revisited. Limnol. Oceanogr. Methods 12, 351–362 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Liang, J.-H. et al. Parameterizing bubble-mediated air-sea gas exchange and its effect on ocean ventilation. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 27, 894–905 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  70. Kalnay, A. E. et al. The NCEP/NCAR 40-year reanalysis project. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 77, 437–471 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Kelly, C. Data and analysis products for: low-pressure storms drive nitrous oxide emissions in the Southern Ocean. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17904982 (2025).

  72. CCHDO Hydrographic Data Office. CCHDO hydrographic data archive, version 2024-11-01. UC San Diego library digital collections. https://doi.org/10.6075/J0CCHNNN (2024).

  73. Kelly, C. L. ckelly314/ml-argo-n2o: v1.0.0 - Initial Release: ML-based Nâ‚‚O flux estimation in the Southern Ocean. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17905127 (2025).

Download references

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge Channing Prend for many conversations about Southern Ocean physical oceanography and BGC-Argo data. Training data were collected and made publicly available by the U.S. Global Ship-based Hydrographic Investigations Program (U.S. GO-SHIP; https://usgoship.ucsd.edu/) and the programs that contribute to it. BGC-Argo data were assembled or collected and made available by the Global Ocean Biogeochemistry Array (GO-BGC) Project funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF grant #OCE-1946578). Development of the BGC-Argo parquet dataset used in this work was supported by NSF grant #OAC-2311383 to D.P.N. C.L.K. was supported by a Doherty Postdoctoral Scholarship funded by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and a U.S. GO-SHIP Postdoctoral Fellowship funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF grant # OCE-2023545). B.X.C. was supported by NSF grant #OCE-2048518. D.P.N.’s contribution to this work was sponsored by the National Science Foundation’s Global Ocean Biogeochemistry Array (GO-BGC) Project under NSF grant #OCE-1946578 with operational support from NSF grant #OCE-2110258. A.M.M. acknowledges partial support from NSF grants #OCE-2023545 and #OCE-1923387. A.F.E. was supported by the 2022 Cooperative Institute for Climate, Ocean, and Ecosystem Studies (CICOES) Summer Internship Program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marine Chemistry and Geochemistry, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA, USA

    Colette L. Kelly, Andrea F. Emmanuelli, Ellen R. Park & David P. Nicholson

  2. The Cooperative Institute for Climate, Ocean, and Ecosystem Studies, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Bonnie X. Chang

  3. MIT-WHOI Joint Program in Oceanography, Cambridge and, Woods Hole, MA, USA

    Andrea F. Emmanuelli & Ellen R. Park

  4. Physical Oceanography Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA, USA

    Alison M. Macdonald

Authors
  1. Colette L. Kelly
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bonnie X. Chang
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrea F. Emmanuelli
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ellen R. Park
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alison M. Macdonald
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. David P. Nicholson
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

C.L. Kelly, B.X. Chang, and D.P. Nicholson conceived the study. B.X. Chang collected much of the machine learning training data. C.L. Kelly and B.X. Chang processed, analyzed, and curated the training data. C.L. Kelly, A.F. Emmanuelli, and E.R. Park developed the machine learning models. D.P. Nicholson provided critical insights on BGC-Argo data and air-sea gas exchange. D.P. Nicholson and A.M. Macdonald supervised the work. C.L. Kelly wrote the manuscript with input from all authors.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Colette L. Kelly or David P. Nicholson.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Communications thanks Damian Leonardo Arévalo-Martínez, Yuanxu Dong and the other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. A peer review file is available.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary information

Transparent Peer Review file

Supplementary Table 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kelly, C.L., Chang, B.X., Emmanuelli, A.F. et al. Low-pressure storms drive nitrous oxide emissions in the Southern Ocean. Nat Commun (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-68744-2

Download citation

  • Received: 17 October 2025

  • Accepted: 14 January 2026

  • Published: 26 January 2026

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-68744-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Download PDF

Advertisement

Explore content

  • Research articles
  • Reviews & Analysis
  • News & Comment
  • Videos
  • Collections
  • Subjects
  • Follow us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Twitter
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed

About the journal

  • Aims & Scope
  • Editors
  • Journal Information
  • Open Access Fees and Funding
  • Calls for Papers
  • Editorial Values Statement
  • Journal Metrics
  • Editors' Highlights
  • Contact
  • Editorial policies
  • Top Articles

Publish with us

  • For authors
  • For Reviewers
  • Language editing services
  • Open access funding
  • Submit manuscript

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Find a job
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

Nature Communications (Nat Commun)

ISSN 2041-1723 (online)

nature.com sitemap

About Nature Portfolio

  • About us
  • Press releases
  • Press office
  • Contact us

Discover content

  • Journals A-Z
  • Articles by subject
  • protocols.io
  • Nature Index

Publishing policies

  • Nature portfolio policies
  • Open access

Author & Researcher services

  • Reprints & permissions
  • Research data
  • Language editing
  • Scientific editing
  • Nature Masterclasses
  • Research Solutions

Libraries & institutions

  • Librarian service & tools
  • Librarian portal
  • Open research
  • Recommend to library

Advertising & partnerships

  • Advertising
  • Partnerships & Services
  • Media kits
  • Branded content

Professional development

  • Nature Awards
  • Nature Careers
  • Nature Conferences

Regional websites

  • Nature Africa
  • Nature China
  • Nature India
  • Nature Japan
  • Nature Middle East
  • Privacy Policy
  • Use of cookies
  • Legal notice
  • Accessibility statement
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Your US state privacy rights
Springer Nature

© 2026 Springer Nature Limited

Nature Briefing AI and Robotics

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: AI and Robotics newsletter — what matters in AI and robotics research, free to your inbox weekly.

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