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:

Emerging threats to Antarctic conservation

Nature Ecology & Evolution volume 9, pages 1885–1896 (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Antarctica, long considered an environmental sanctuary, now confronts accelerating, complex and inter-related conservation challenges. The vast size and remote location of the continent introduce substantial uncertainty in understanding and predicting these threats. Here, using strategic foresight techniques, we synthesized insights from a global horizon scan with 131 experts from 42 countries. We identified ten emerging conservation challenges across six thematic categories. Key issues included extreme precipitation, emerging animal pathogens, human pandemics, security threats, reduced cooperation among Antarctic Treaty parties and potential agricultural expansion. Several of these challenges stem from persistent underlying drivers, revealing how longstanding processes are giving rise to new and increasingly acute conservation concerns. Others, driven by global disruptions, have no historical precedent in the region but increasingly constrain decision-making and international coordination. This horizon scan reveals substantial limitations in the ability of the Antarctic Treaty system to address these challenges, underscoring the need to reassess existing governance mechanisms to protect the unique ecosystems of Antarctica and its vital role in the global climate system.

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

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1: Overview of the expert elicitation process used in this 2024 horizon scan.
Fig. 2: Visual summary of emerging and established Antarctic conservation challenges.
Fig. 3: Perceived impact of conservation challenges ranked by likelihood.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Anonymized questionnaire data supporting this study are publicly available at https://doi.org/10.25909/29265767.

References

  1. Díaz, S. et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366, eaax3100 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Maxwell, S. L., Fuller, R. A., Brooks, T. M. & Watson, J. E. M. Biodiversity: the ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature 536, 143–145 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN, 2015).

  4. Chown, S. L. & Brooks, C. M. The state and future of Antarctic environments in a global context. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 44, 1–30 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lee, J. R. et al. Islands in the ice: potential impacts of habitat transformation on Antarctic biodiversity. Glob. Change Biol. 28, 5865–5880 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Liggett, D., Frame, B., Convey, P. & Hughes, K. A. How the COVID-19 pandemic signaled the demise of Antarctic exceptionalism. Sci. Adv. 10, eadk4424 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Brooks, S. T., Jabour, J., van den Hoff, J. & Bergstrom, D. M. Our footprint on Antarctica competes with nature for rare ice-free land. Nat. Sustain. 2, 185–190 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Koerich, G., Fraser, C. I., Lee, C. K., Morgan, F. J. & Tonkin, J. D. Forecasting the future of life in Antarctica. Trends Ecol. Evol. 38, 24–34 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jones, J. M. et al. Assessing recent trends in high-latitude Southern Hemisphere surface climate. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 917–926 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chown, S. L. et al. (eds) Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment: A Decadal Synopsis and Recommendations for Action (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, 2022).

  11. Haward, M., Jabour, J. & Press, A. J. Antarctic Treaty System ready for a challenge. Science 338, 603–603 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wintle, B. C., Kennicutt, M. C. & Sutherland, W. J. in Conservation Research, Policy and Practice Ecological Reviews (eds Brotherton, P. N. M. et al.) 29–47 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2020).

  13. Sutherland, W. J. et al. A horizon scan of global biological conservation issues for 2024. Trends Ecol. Evol. 39, 89–100 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sutherland, W. J. & Woodroof, H. J. The need for environmental horizon scanning. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 523–527 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chown, S. L. et al. Challenges to the future conservation of the Antarctic. Science 337, 158–159 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bergstrom, D. M. et al. Combating ecosystem collapse from the tropics to the Antarctic. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 1692–1703 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Gardiner, N. B., Gilbert, N., Liggett, D. & Bode, M. Measuring the performance of Antarctic Treaty decision-making. Conserv. Biol., e14349 (2024).

  18. Burgman, M. Trusting Judgements: How to Get the Best Out of Experts (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2016).

  19. Mukherjee, N. et al. The Delphi technique in ecology and biological conservation: applications and guidelines. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 1097–1109 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sutherland, W. J. et al. Ten years on: a review of the first global conservation horizon scan. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 139–153 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kennicutt, M. C. et al. Polar research: six priorities for Antarctic science. Nature 512, 23–25 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gray, A. D. & Hughes, K. A. Demonstration of “substantial research activity” to acquire consultative status under the Antarctic Treaty. Polar Res. 35, 34061 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Liggett, D., Frame, B., Gilbert, N. & Morgan, F. Is it all going south? Four future scenarios for Antarctica. Polar Rec. 53, 459–478 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Tscherning, K., Helming, K., Krippner, B., Sieber, S. & y. Paloma, S. G. Does research applying the DPSIR framework support decision making? Land Use Policy 29, 102–110 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Davison, B. J. et al. Sea level rise from West Antarctic mass loss significantly modified by large snowfall anomalies. Nat. Commun. 14, 1479 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Vignon, É., Roussel, M.-L., Gorodetskaya, I. V., Genthon, C. & Berne, A. Present and future of rainfall in Antarctica. Geophys. Res. Lett. 48, e2020GL092281 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ropert-Coudert, Y. et al. A complete breeding failure in an Adélie penguin colony correlates with unusual and extreme environmental events. Ecography 38, 111–113 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Maclennan, M. L., Lenaerts, J. T. M., Shields, C. & Wille, J. D. Contribution of atmospheric rivers to Antarctic precipitation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 49, e2022GL100585 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Barrett, J. E. et al. Response of a terrestrial polar ecosystem to the March 2022 Antarctic weather anomaly. Earth’s Future 12, e2023EF004306 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Siegert, M. J. et al. Antarctic extreme events. Front. Environ. Sci. 11, 1229283 (2023).

  31. López-Bueno, A. et al. High diversity of the viral community from an Antarctic lake. Science 326, 858–861 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Varliero, G. et al. Biogeographic survey of soil bacterial communities across Antarctica. Microbiome 12, 9 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. El-Sayed, A. & Kamel, M. Future threat from the past. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28, 1287–1291 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Strona, G. et al. Time-travelling pathogens and their risk to ecological communities. PLoS Comput. Biol. 19, e1011268 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Miner, K. R. et al. Emergent biogeochemical risks from Arctic permafrost degradation. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 809–819 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Banyard, A. C. et al. Detection and spread of high pathogenicity avian influenza virus H5N1 in the Antarctic region. Nat. Commun. 15, 7433 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Haward, M. & Jackson, A. Antarctica: geopolitical challenges and institutional resilience. Polar J. 13, 31–48 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China (Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2023).

  39. Buchanan, E. Antarctica in the gray zone. Aust. J. Int. Aff. 76, 324–339 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hemmings, A. D. Challenges to substantive demilitarisation in the Antarctic Treaty area. Yearb. Polar Law Online 12, 172–194 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Burke, R. Towards an Antarctic security and defense forum. Polar J. 13, 6–12 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Molenaar, E. J. Participation in the Antarctic Treaty. Polar J. 11, 360–380 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Bax, N. et al. Perspective: increasing blue carbon around Antarctica is an ecosystem service of considerable societal and economic value worth protecting. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 5–12 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Brooks, C. M., Crowder, L. B., Österblom, H. & Strong, A. L. Reaching consensus for conserving the global commons: the case of the Ross Sea, Antarctica. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12676 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Gallo-Cajiao, E. et al. Implications of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine for the governance of biodiversity conservation. Front. Conserv. Sci. 4, 989019 (2023).

  46. Liverpool, L. Russia’s war in Ukraine is disrupting Antarctic science. Nature 621, 453–453 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Chuffart, R., Raspotnik, A., Brodt, L. & Convey, P. Dealing with insecurities and geopolitics: science diplomacy at the poles. Antarct. Sci. 34, 205–207 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Hughes, K. A. & Convey, P. Implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for Antarctica. Antarct. Sci. 32, 426–439 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Wu, T. The socioeconomic and environmental drivers of the COVID-19 pandemic: a review. Ambio 50, 822–833 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Gore, M. L. et al. Transnational environmental crime threatens sustainable development. Nat. Sustain. 2, 784–786 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Österblom, H. & Olsson, O. in Handbook on the Politics of Antarctica (eds Dodds, K. et al.) Ch. 26 (Edward Elgar, 2017).

  52. Graham, K. & Webb, J. Fit for Purpose? A Study of the Political and Legal Aspects of CAMLR (New Zealand Centre for Global Studies, 2022).

  53. Goldsworthy, L. Consensus decision-making in CCAMLR: Achilles’ heel or fundamental to its success? Int. Environ. Agreem. Polit. Law Econom. 22, 411–437 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Cavanagh, R. D. et al. Utilising IPCC assessments to support the ecosystem approach to fisheries management within a warming Southern Ocean. Mar. Policy 131, 104589 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Condron, A. Towing icebergs to arid regions to reduce water scarcity. Sci. Rep. 13, 365 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Lewis, C. Iceberg harvesting: suggesting a Federal regulatory regime for a new freshwater source. BC Environ. Aff. Law Rev. 42, 439 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  57. IPCC. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (eds Pörtner, H.-O. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2023).

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Bokhorst, S., Convey, P., Casanova-Katny, A. & Aerts, R. Warming impacts potential germination of non-native plants on the Antarctic Peninsula. Commun. Biol. 4, 403 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Press, A. J. & Jackson, A. W. in Geopolitical Change and the Antarctic Treaty System: Historical Lessons, Current Challenges (eds Scott, S. V. et al.) 231–248 (Springer Nature, 2024).

  61. Dodds, K. J. Sovereignty watch: claimant states, resources, and territory in contemporary Antarctica. Polar Rec. 47, 231–243 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Qadir, M. & Siriwardana, N. in Unconventional Water Resources (eds Qadir, M. et al.) 199–212 (Springer International, 2022).

  63. Final Report of the Forty-fourth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty, 2022).

  64. Final Report of the Forty-fifth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty, 2023).

  65. Dodds, K. Governing Antarctica: contemporary challenges and the enduring legacy of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty. Glob. Policy 1, 108–115 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Madani, Z. & Shibata, A. International law, climate change and the Antarctic Treaty System: re-contemplating governance questions apropos of the mounting challenges. Antarct. Sci. 35, 374–389 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Hughes, K. A., Lowther, A., Gilbert, N., Waluda, C. M. & Lee, J. R. Communicating the best available science to inform Antarctic policy and management: a practical introduction for researchers. Antarct. Sci. 35, 438–472 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Rothwell, D. R. The Antarctic Treaty at sixty years: past, present and future. Melb. J. Int. Law 22, 332–356 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Meredith, M. et al. in IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (eds Pörtner, H.-O. et al.) 203–320 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2019).

  70. Constable, A. J. et al. in Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (eds Pörtner, H.-O. et al.) 2319–2368 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2022).

  71. Black, M. et al. Antarctica at Risk: Geostrategic Manoeuvring and the Future of the Antarctic Treaty System (RAND, 2023).

  72. Kennicutt, M. C. et al. Sustained Antarctic research: a 21st century imperative. One Earth 1, 95–113 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Kennicutt, M. C. et al. A roadmap for Antarctic and Southern Ocean science for the next two decades and beyond. Antarct. Sci. 27, 3–18 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Burgman, M. et al. Redefining expertise and improving ecological judgment. Conserv. Lett. 4, 81–87 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Hussler, C., Muller, P. & Rondé, P. Is diversity in Delphi panelist groups useful? Evidence from a French forecasting exercise on the future of nuclear energy. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 78, 1642–1653 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Mitlin, D. & Satterthwaite, D. Urban Poverty in the Global South: Scale and Nature (Routledge, 2013).

  77. Qualtrics. Qualtrics XM Platform (Qualtrics International Inc., 2023).

  78. Powell, C. The Delphi technique: myths and realities. J. Adv. Nurs. 41, 376–382 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Keith, D. A. et al. Scientific foundations for an IUCN Red List of ecosystems. PLoS ONE 8, e62111 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Goddard, M. A. et al. A global horizon scan of the future impacts of robotics and autonomous systems on urban ecosystems. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 219–230 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2022).

  82. Chown, S. L. in Handbook on the Politics of Antarctica (eds Dodds, K. et al.) Ch. 33 (Edward Elgar, 2017).

  83. Griffiths, H. J., Cummings, V. J., Van de Putte, A., Whittle, R. J. & Waller, C. L. Antarctic benthic ecological change. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 5, 645–664 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Leihy, R. I., Peake, L., Clarke, D. A., Chown, S. L. & McGeoch, M. A. Introduced and invasive alien species of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean Islands. Sci. Data 10, 200 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Preliminary Agenda and Five-Year Work Plan (5YWP) (Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty, 2024).

  86. Non-Native Species Manual Report No. DDC 578.6/2, 41 (Committee for Environmental Protection, 2016).

  87. Siegert, M. et al. Safeguarding the polar regions from dangerous geoengineering. Preprint at ResearchGate https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.13179.94246 (2024).

  88. Napolitano, G. The two ways of global governance after the financial crisis: multilateralism versus cooperation among governments. Int. J. Const. Law 9, 310–339 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  89. Bastmeijer, K., Shibata, A., Steinhage, I., Ferrada, L. V. & Bloom, E. T. Regulating Antarctic tourism: the challenge of consensus-based decision making. Am. J. Int. Law 117, 651–676 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Bastmeijer, K., Jabour, J., Leary, D. & Wallace, C. Money-making in Antarctica and related challenges to the Antarctic Treaty System. Yearb. Polar Law Online 15, 309–347 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Antarctic Bioprospecting: SCAR Survey of Member Countries Information Paper 12 from Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XLIII (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, 2021).

  92. Report of the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators 2023–24 Information Paper 101 from Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XLVI (IAATO, 2024).

  93. Tourism Monitoring in Antarctica—Status and Preliminary Findings on Developing a Concept for the Analysis of the Impacts of Tourism on the Assets to be Protected in the Antarctic Information Paper 80 from Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XLVI (Germany, 2024).

  94. De-la-Torre, G. E. et al. Assessing the current state of plastic pollution research in Antarctica: knowledge gaps and recommendations. Chemosphere 355, 141870 (2024).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Stark, J. S. et al. Contamination of the marine environment by Antarctic research stations: monitoring marine pollution at Casey station from 1997 to 2015. PLoS ONE 18, e0288485 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Permanent Facilities for Tourism and Other Non-Governmental Activities in Antarctica Working Paper 35 from Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting XLIII (Netherlands, 2021).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the 131 expert participants for providing their insights and expertise, which were essential to the success of this horizon scan. We thank the following experts (listed in alphabetical order by surname) and eight anonymous experts: B. J. Adams, N. Akçar, B. Alexandrov, S. A. Alias, J. L. Baeseman, S. Batista, J. Benayas, D. M. Bergstrom, R. Bialik, D. Blok, C. Le Bohec, P. Bohlin-Nizzetto, R. Bojariu, C. B. Chirinos, A. Choquet, C. Christian, K. Chwedorzewska, S. J. S. Colina, P. Convey, I. Corsi, D. A. Cowan, K. Crosbie, M. Cuba-Díaz, H. H. H. Delgado, C. Devine, R. B. Dunbar, A. Eijs, J. Elster, N. S. Ergüven, H. Farjami, W. Fontes, R. Forsberg, J. Francis, B. García, H. C. Goh, H. D. Granados, S. Grant, G. M. Greer, M. Greve, M. Guglielmin, S. Hain, C. D. Hansen, D. Harakalova, C. Havermans, I. Heidbrink, D. S. Hik, J. van den Hoff, K. A. Hughes, J. Jabbour, T. James, P. T. Jayachandran, S. Kaye, J.-H. Kim, T.-W. Kim, T. Kukharchyk, H. Kuosa, C. Lavery, E. Leane, J. Lee, P. T. Lepe, M. Leppe, M. Lewandowski, D. Liggett, C. Lüdecke, A. Lynnes, W. Majewski, T. P. Makhalanyane, A. Mancilla, S. Marinsek, K. Matsuoka, B. Meyer, H. Moreano, P. Morozova, T. Naish, C. Nath, L. Nedbalová, H. Nielsen, B. Njåstad, D. Nývlt, J. O’Reilly, J. E. A. Pallares, N. C. Pant, F. Pattyn, L. S. Peck, C. Poirot, V. Pomelov, C. Purcarea, A. Van de Putte, G. Rachlewicz, M. Raphael, K. Reid, D. Renault, S. Rintoul, W. A. Rios-Angulo, P. Roberts, S. A. Robinson, Y. Ropert-Coudert, J. Rumble, C. X. Salinas, L. De Santis, I. R. Schloss, E. R. Secchi, M. A. Sewell, M. Sidoroff, E. Sikes, J. C. Simões, J. Smith, T.-O. Soyol-Erdene, M. Sparrow, C. Summerhayes, P. Tejedo, A. Terauds, A. K. Tiwari, P. Uotila, P. Valdespino, B. J. van Vuuren, D. H. Wall, L.-M. H. van der Watt, G. M. Watters, D. C. Welsford, A. Wilmotte, J. Xavier, A. Yernazarova and A. Yılmaz. We thank J. Hopf of Knowlegible designs for creating Fig. 2. Z.T.C. would additionally like to thank L. Botelho for support in framing the paper, as well as R. Hamilton and A. Purich for expertise on individual sections. This work was supported by ARC SRIEAS grant no. SR200100005 Securing Antarctica’s Environmental Future.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Biological Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

    Zachary T. Carter & Phillip Cassey

  2. Securing Antarctica’s Environmental Future, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

    Zachary T. Carter & Phillip Cassey

  3. Securing Antarctica’s Environmental Future, School of Biology and Environmental Science, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Zachary T. Carter, Joanna L. Burrows, Justine D. Shaw & Kerrie A. Wilson

  4. School of Mathematical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Michael Bode

  5. Securing Antarctica’s Environmental Future, School of Mathematical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Michael Bode

  6. School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Steven L. Chown & Jessica C. Walsh

  7. Securing Antarctica’s Environmental Future, School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Steven L. Chown

  8. School of Biology and Environmental Science, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Joanna L. Burrows, Justine D. Shaw & Kerrie A. Wilson

  9. School of Biology and Environmental Science & Centre for Environment and Society, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Jessica C. Walsh

  10. School of Life Sciences, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI, USA

    Mark A. Burgman

Authors
  1. Zachary T. Carter
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Bode
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Steven L. Chown
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joanna L. Burrows
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Justine D. Shaw
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jessica C. Walsh
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mark A. Burgman
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Phillip Cassey
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Kerrie A. Wilson
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.L.B., K.A.W. and J.D.S. conceived the initial idea. J.L.B., J.D.S., K.A.W. and Z.T.C. designed the study with support from J.C.W., M.A.B. and S.L.C. Z.T.C. collected the data with support from J.D.S. and S.L.C., and analysed the data with support from M.B. Z.T.C. wrote the paper with support from M.B. and S.L.C. All authors contributed to editing the paper and approved the final version for submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zachary T. Carter.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Ecology & Evolution thanks Shirley Scott, Alvaro Soutullo and Billy van Uitregt for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Additional information

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

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Expert participant countries of employment for round one of the horizon scan.

Darker shading signifies greater representation from an individual country. Countries represented from the Global North were Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, South Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Russia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, Belarus, Canada, and Denmark. Countries represented from the Global South were Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Ecuador, India, Peru, South Africa, Uruguay, Columbia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mongolia, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Turkey, Venezuela, Iran, Kenya, and Mexico.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Example of the frequency histograms provided to each participant expert during the third-round questionnaire of the horizon scan.

Frequency histograms were organised by extent of impact, likelihood of impact, and severity of impact for each conservation challenge. The • symbol signifies the expert’s individually selected score. Conservation challenges shown include: (panel a) extreme precipitation events, (panel b) emerging animal pathogens, and (panel c) iceberg harvesting. Note that the names of the challenges in panels b and c have been revised in the final manuscript to more accurately reflect their thematic scope.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Final scores for each emerging conservation challenge, as identified by the group of Antarctic experts participating in this horizon scan.

Frequency histograms were organised by extent of impact, likelihood of impact, and severity of impact for each conservation challenge.

Extended Data Table 1 Scoring options presented to each expert participant during the second-round questionnaire of the horizon scan
Full size table
Extended Data Table 2 Summary table of statistical tests undertaken following the third-round questionnaire of the horizon scan
Full size table

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information (download PDF )

Supplementary Sections 1–3, Tables 1–4, Figs. 1–3 and References.

Reporting Summary (download PDF )

Peer Review File (download PDF )

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carter, Z.T., Bode, M., Chown, S.L. et al. Emerging threats to Antarctic conservation. Nat Ecol Evol 9, 1885–1896 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-025-02814-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-025-02814-4

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

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

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