southeast alaska tourism council

Southeast Alaska Is Our Home

And we’re here to protect it.

TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT THE CHILKAT

Keep Up with our Tongass Work! 

SIGN UP FOR OUR CLIMATE NEWSLETTER!

The Southeast Alaska Conservation Council is a homegrown conservation group of Southeast Alaskans fiercely fighting to protect our home: the ancient and mighty Tongass National Forest and the crisp, vibrant waters of the Inside Passage. This is our backyard. We’ve been protecting it since 1970 and continue today.

Southeast alaska is under threat, and we’re doing something about it.

We are facing daily, hostile threats to our environment and way of life in Southeast Alaska.

Out-of-touch Alaska politicians want to repeal decades-old safeguards on the Tongass to open it up to clearcut logging and road building. National, state, and local agencies constantly propose new timber sales to clearcut the forest. The mining industry here in Alaska and across the border in Canada willfully ignores environmental regulations and tries to extract more and more minerals from the earth’s near-critical salmon-producing watersheds.

On top of it all, Alaska is on the front lines of climate change, warming twice as fast as the rest of the country.

All of this threatens the 35 communities that make up Southeast Alaska.

We are commercial fishermen. We are hikers and kayakers. We are small business owners. We are Alaska Natives. We are hunters. We are parents, grandparents, and youth. We are family. And we are here to say enough.

To us, Southeast Alaska, though beautiful, is not just pretty scenery. It is where we live, work, and play. We rely on this living forest and its waterways for food, jobs, clean air, and water.

SEACC has galvanized our supporters into action to successfully protect this place for over 50 years. We are a truly grassroots advocacy nonprofit organization, supported by the members who work with us to take action. We use our collective regional voice — united by the love of this special place — to win in the courtroom, to watchdog harmful industries, and to advocate for laws that point us toward a more sustainable future.

We are Southeast Alaskans: this is our home. And we’re not going anywhere.

Read more about our roots and who we are →

What We’re Working On

Tongass national forest.

With its ancient, towering trees and pristine waterways teeming with salmon, the lush Tongass National Forest spans Southeast Alaska’s panhandle and is the largest national forest in the United States. We work to protect, restore and honor this living temperate rainforest — traditional homelands of the Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian peoples — that drives our region’s economy and sustains us with food, jobs, and clean air and water.

Inside Passage Waters

Southeast Alaska is as much water as it is land. Here, the interconnected web of the Inside Passage is home to lush wild salmon rivers and immense watersheds that feed the trees of the Tongass and the oceans of the world. It is a place teeming with biodiversity — from whales and wolves, to eagles, deer and bears, to salmon and communities.

Grassroots Community Organizing

Southeast_ak_wild, happening now, epa requires new alaska water quality standards for health of fish loving alaskans.

Jun 7, 2024

Response to a 2015 SEACC petition acknowledges Alaskans’ high fish consumption rates and disproportionate health impacts Great news for people who love fish — we got a response from the EPA about a petition we filed way back in 2015 saying they’re requiring Alaska to update its water quality...

Comment: Take 30 seconds to request an extension on the Palmer Project 5-Year PoO comment period

Apr 17, 2024

How long does it take you to read a 300-page novel? Now, how long do you think it would take to read 294 pages of a mine's 5-year operating plan? OK, you don't really have to answer that — we can tell you now that two weeks to read the Palmer Project's 5-year Plan of Operations and comment is not...

Comment on Alaska’s Five Year Schedule of Timber Sales for 2025-2029

Apr 3, 2024

Earlier this year, Alaska’s (now former) State Forester, Helge Eng, said the Division of Forestry & Fire Prevention and the Alaska Mental Health Trust are “charged with essentially maintaining a timber supply to keep the (logging) industry going until federal timber from the Tongass National...

More than 105,000 gallons of mine waste spilled at Kensington Mine

Mar 27, 2024

Reports of more than 105,000 gallons of mine waste spilling from a ruptured tailings pipeline at Coeur Alaska Kensington Mine in late January hit the news yesterday.While Coeur Alaska claims the spilled tailings are geochemically inert and “pose no long-term impacts to Johnson Creek,” the spill...

USPS suggests the address below

Time to upgrade your browser.

If you're reading this, you're surfing using Internet Explorer 6, an eight-year-old browser that cannot cope with the demands of the modern, secure internet. For the best web experience, we strongly recommend upgrading to Firefox , Opera , Safari , Google Chrome , or a more recent version of Internet Explorer .

• Juneau Links
• Juneau Introduction
• Nearby Destinations
• Statewide Links
• Alaska Destinations
• Visit Other States
• Visit Other Countries

A summary of what Juneau has to offer.

Hikers, climbers and more casual sight-seers flock to Denali National Park hoping to clap eyes on North America's big peak, Mt. Mckinley, and maybe a grizzly cub or two.

• Tour Companies
• Tourist Attractions
• Sightseeing Opportunities
• Recreational Activities
• Things To Do - Overview
• Attractions
• Scenic Drives
• Scenic Flights
• Sightseeing Tours
• Free Travel Planners
• Bird Watching
• Horseback Riding
• Offroad - ATV
• Climbing / Canyoneering
• RV Parks Camping
• Scuba - Snorkel
• Skiing - Boarding
• Snowmobiling
• White Water Rafting
• X-Country Skiing

Searchable list of Juneau tour companies, guides and outfitters, rental companies and more.

Full information on Juneau Tourist Attractions, Scenic Drives and other easy vacation activities…

• Whitewater Rafting

• Lodging - Hotels, Resorts, etc.
• RV Parks - Campgrounds

Searchable listings of Juneau hotels, motels, resorts, bed & breakfast, and more.

Searchable listings of Juneau RV parks and campgrounds.

Use our easy Lodging Search to find exactly the type of accommodation you are looking for at the right price.

• Transportation
• Tourism Resources
• Free Visitor Guides!
• State Facts

Travel articles related to Juneau…

Transportation companies, driving directions and more for Juneau.

Juneau weather report, historic temperatures and climate info,…

Searchable lists of Juneau tourism offices and other helpful government agencies.

Explore destinations near Juneau.

• Juneau Photo Gallery
• Juneau Video Gallery
• Alaska Photo Gallery Alaska Video Gallery

• Connecticut
• Development
• Massachusetts
• Mississippi
• New Hampshire
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• Washington D.C.
• West Virginia

Southeast Ak Tourism Council

• Introduction
• Sightseeing Overview
• Recreation Overview
• Photo Gallery
• Video Gallery

Contact Info

Map + directions, customizable directions.

• Advertising
• Privacy Policy
• Report a Problem
• Make A Suggestion

• Go Travel Sites
• Houseboating.org

Email Page Link

Visit Anchorage Alaska

Visit anchorage.

To request your selected free visitor guides, please fill out the form below and click "Submit".

Your request has been processed, thank you!

We also have the following visitor guides in Alaska. Click on any additional guides you would like to receive. Your submissions were successful, thank you! ' )); tpsButtonClicked.closest( 'div.popup' ).hide( ); $('#before-Dest-State-Travel-Planners').hide();$('#after-Dest-State-Travel-Planners').show(); } ); ">Request these additional visitor guides selected below

We also have visitor guides available in states highlighted in blue below. Click on any state to see what's available.

Switch to Mobile Browser Mode

We offer a compact version of Go-Alaska for mobile users, allowing you to access just the information you need on the road. Of course, you can still use the full version of Go-Alaska on your mobile device just as you can on your desktop.

Continue to Mobile Site Return to Main Site

Southeast Alaska

Explore the Inside Passage, a place where ancient icefields meet lush rainforests.

• Destinations
• Alaska Regions

Quick Links

Juneau alaska, skagway alaska, ketchikan alaska, glacier bay national park.

• Alaska Cruises

Trip Finder

Known alternatively as the Alaskan Panhandle or the Inside Passage, Southeast Alaska stretches 500 miles from the base of Mt. Fairweather to Misty Fjords National Monument. To the northeast is Canada, to the southwest only ocean. It is a strikingly beautiful region, with forests of Sitka spruce and cedar, emerald mountains, sheer fjords, and tidewater glaciers connected by intensely blue water.

More than 75 percent of the Southeast is covered by the Tongass National Forest. It's a temperate rainforest, the largest in the world, and the misty, mossy, lushly green woodlands contribute greatly to the region's magical feel. Also within the Southeast border lines are Glacier Bay National Park , Misty Fjords National Monument, the farthest tip of Wrangell-St. Elias National Park .

Small port towns like Ketchikan , Wrangell, Angoon, Sitka , and Gustavus dot rocky coastlines throughout the Inside Passage. Many were originally sites of Native Alaskan villages or seasonal fish camps, while others were settled by Russian fur traders in the 1800s. The area is also home to gold rush boom towns like Skagway and Juneau , Alaska's state capital.

Recreational activities are abound in the Southeast, with nearly all centering on the area's protected waters. You can whale watch in Icy Straight and Glacier Bay, rich feeding grounds that support gray whales, humpbacks, and orcas. You can fish for everything from salmon to halibut to rockfish out of Ketchikan and Gustavus. You can sail up to the face of massive tidewater glaciers in Disenchantment Bay and the Tracy Arm, or see 3,000-foot granite cliffs shooting straight from the water in Misty Fjords.

Visitors can do all this by taking an Alaska cruise from Vancouver to Seward through the Inside Passage. Along with favorite ports of call in Ketchikan, Juneau, Skagway, and occasionally Sitka, cruises often spend a day exploring the scenery within either Glacier Bay National Park or sailing alongside the Hubbard Glacier. You can use the Alaska Tour & Travel cruise finder to browse potential voyages by date and cruise line.

Except for Haines, Skagway, and the tiny town of Hyder, there are no roads into Southeast Alaska. Most visitors travel through the region by cruise ship. Juneau is the hub for major air travel, with Alaska Airlines flights connecting to Anchorage and Seattle. Most other Southeast communities are reachable by floatplane air taxi. The area is also served extensively by the Alaska State Marine Highway.

Championed by the famed conservationist John Muir, this southeast Alaskan national park is as known for its glaciers as it is for abundant whale watching opportunities. Learn More >

Haines Alaska

Although less visited than Skagway or Juneau, Haines is a charming bayside town rich in Alaska Native culture, military history, arts, culture, and outdoor recreation. Learn More >

A bustling capital city along Alaska's tranquil Inside Passage, Juneau offers travelers everything from road-accessible glacier and gold mine tours to craft breweries and fine dining. Learn More >

Renowned for its impressive annual rainfall, Ketchikan makes up for the misty weather with a colorful backstory, gracious locals, rich native culture, and premier fishing opportunities. Learn More >

Sitka Alaska

First a Tlingit fort and then a Russian outpost, Sitka best represents southeast Alaska's dynamic cultural heritage. Explore its history, wildlife, trails, and fish-rich waterways. Learn More >

Modern day Skagway is as big a draw for its history and outdoor pursuits as it once was for its "easy" access to rumored riches up north. Learn More >

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Federal Government  | Outdoors  | Southeast  | Tourism

New Tongass forest plan will focus on climate change, tourism boom in Southeast

March 4, 2024 by Anna Canny, KTOO

It’s been nearly three decades since the U.S. Forest Service released their first management plan for the Tongass National Forest. 

During a presentation at the Juneau Economic Development Council’s Innovation Summit last week, Southeast Alaska’s Deputy Forester Chad VanOrmer said it’s time for an update. The development of a new Tongass forest plan will inform the agency’s management decisions for the next 15 to 20 years. 

“The Forest Plan is really kind of a compass, is how I like to look at it,” VanOrmer said. “It gives a direction on our desired future outcomes.”

The existing management plan was developed in 1997. Since then, there have been some amendments concerning timber management and the transition from old growth to young growth logging. But otherwise, the original plan has remained largely untouched.

In many ways, it fails to keep up with the modern-day opportunities and challenges in the Tongass.

For instance, when VanOrmer started his Forest Service career on Prince of Wales Island — just a few years after the original 1997 plan came out — there were only about 500,000 cruise ship passengers visiting the Tongass region annually. 

“I call it the ‘Field of Dreams,’ because we were doing a lot of ‘build it and they will come,’” he said. “So we were investing a lot of money in building trails and cabins and all sorts of recreation infrastructure for a tourism and recreation industry that was yet to actually arrive.” 

Now the tourism boom has arrived in full force, with 1.7 million cruise ship visitors last year. And the number of tour guiding businesses in the forest has more than doubled, from 68 in 2000 to at least 177 today.

Time has also revealed new threats that will shape the Tongass and the communities that rely on it. VanOrmer said climate resilience planning will be a priority in the new plan.

“In 1997, climate change wasn’t even a thought in the  forest plan – it wasn’t even really contemplated,” he said. “And here we are today where it’s really frontline, headline news and we have a forest plan currently that doesn’t really prepare ourselves for it.”

To make a plan that works for the present day, the agency wants to strengthen relationships with community organizers and tribal governments.

VanOrmer said the introduction of the Southeast Sustainability Strategy in 2021 set a precedent for that by sending millions in funding to tribal and Indigenous organizations for sustainable development projects — things like forest restoration, trail work and Indigenous cultural education projects.

A lot of that work has already begun. 

“We have multiple crews that are working, doing stewardship on the landscape. But they aren’t Forest Service crews,” VanOrmer said. “They’re local tribal crews, they’re other youth crews, they are other scientists coming to the table and really wanting to roll up their sleeves and expand the capacity and scope and breadth of the work here on the National Forest. “

VanOrmer said the new Tongass Forest Management Plan will set the foundation up for more projects like that. 

The Forest Service will spend the next year hosting workshops around Southeast Alaska to gather input on the next version of the plan. It will likely take two to three more years to develop a final version.

Sign up for The Signal

Top Alaska stories delivered to your inbox every week

Social media

Facebook Twitter YouTube Instagram

Public Media

• Gavel Alaska Media Use Policy

Share on Mastodon

• Polar Regions

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Alaska's Inside Passage a Pictorial Guide Paperback – January 1, 1994

Purchase options and add-ons.

• Print length 32 pages
• Language English
• Publisher Arctic Enterprises, Inc.
• Publication date January 1, 1994
• ISBN-10 1569440743
• ISBN-13 978-1569440742
• See all details

Product details

• Publisher ‏ : ‎ Arctic Enterprises, Inc. (January 1, 1994)
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• Paperback ‏ : ‎ 32 pages
• ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 1569440743
• ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1569440742
• Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 2.4 ounces

Customer reviews

Our goal is to make sure every review is trustworthy and useful. That's why we use both technology and human investigators to block fake reviews before customers ever see them.  Learn more

We block Amazon accounts that violate our community guidelines. We also block sellers who buy reviews and take legal actions against parties who provide these reviews.  Learn how to report

No customer reviews

• Amazon Newsletter
• About Amazon
• Accessibility
• Sustainability
• Press Center
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Sell on Amazon
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Supply to Amazon
• Protect & Build Your Brand
• Become an Affiliate
• Become a Delivery Driver
• Start a Package Delivery Business
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Become an Amazon Hub Partner
• › See More Ways to Make Money
• Amazon Visa
• Amazon Store Card
• Amazon Secured Card
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Credit Card Marketplace
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Amazon Prime
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices
• Recalls and Product Safety Alerts
• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices

NonProfitFacts.com - Tax-Exempt Organizations

Southeast alaska tourism council in juneau, alaska (ak).

• Other organizations in Alaska

Organization representatives - add corrected or new information about Southeast Alaska Tourism Council »

Non-representatives - add comments about Southeast Alaska Tourism Council»

Non-representatives - add comments:

Your review, optional verification.

(additional info to increase the weight and the placement of your review and ratings)

NonProfitFacts.com is not associated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Southeast Alaska Tourism Council and has no official or unofficial affiliation with Southeast Alaska Tourism Council

Visit Sitka

Sheet’ka kwaan naa kahidi tribal community house.

Constructed on a site that once housed the Indian Government School, the Sheet’ka Kwaan Naa Kahidi Tribal Community House offers Native dance performances in full regalia, along with story telling, cultural events, and a unique gift shop with authentic Native artwork. It also houses the largest stunning hand-carved house screen (“Lovebirds”) in Southeast Alaska.  Located in the downtown area on Katlian Street, next to the Pioneer Home.  This unique building can be rented for various events.

• More to Explore
• Getting Around
• Vacation Guides

Thanks for contacting us

Thank you for requesting information about Alaska’s Inside Passage communities. Your vacation planning guide(s) will be mailed shortly.

We look forward to welcoming you to Southeast Alaska!

Regards, Southeast Alaska Tourism

© 2014 - Present. Southeast Alaska Tourism Council The Southeast Alaska Tourism Council is a cooperative marketing organization whose members represent the convention and visitors bureaus of Alaska’s Inside Passage.

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.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 13 June 2024

Global impacts of marine heatwaves on coastal foundation species

• Kathryn E. Smith   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7240-1490 1 ,
• Margot Aubin 1 ,
• Michael T. Burrows   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4620-5899 2 ,
• Karen Filbee-Dexter   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8413-6797 3 , 4 ,
• Alistair J. Hobday   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3194-8326 5 ,
• Neil J. Holbrook   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3523-6254 6 , 7 ,
• Nathan G. King 1 ,
• Pippa J. Moore 8 ,
• Alex Sen Gupta   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5226-871X 9 ,
• Mads Thomsen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4597-3343 10 , 11 ,
• Thomas Wernberg   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1185-9745 3 , 4 ,
• Edward Wilson 1 &
• Dan A. Smale   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4157-541X 1  

Nature Communications volume  15 , Article number:  5052 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

275 Accesses

43 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Climate-change ecology
• Ecosystem ecology
• Macroecology

With increasingly intense marine heatwaves affecting nearshore regions, foundation species are coming under increasing stress. To better understand their impacts, we examine responses of critical, habitat-forming foundation species (macroalgae, seagrass, corals) to marine heatwaves in 1322 shallow coastal areas located across 85 marine ecoregions. We find compelling evidence that intense, summer marine heatwaves play a significant role in the decline of foundation species globally. Critically, detrimental effects increase towards species warm-range edges and over time. We also identify several ecoregions where foundation species don’t respond to marine heatwaves, suggestive of some resilience to warming events. Cumulative marine heatwave intensity, absolute temperature, and location within a species’ range are key factors mediating impacts. Our results suggest many coastal ecosystems are losing foundation species, potentially impacting associated biodiversity, ecological function, and ecosystem services provision. Understanding relationships between marine heatwaves and foundation species offers the potential to predict impacts that are critical for developing management and adaptation approaches.

Similar content being viewed by others

Marine protected areas, marine heatwaves, and the resilience of nearshore fish communities

Natural recovery of a marine foundation species emerges decades after landscape-scale mortality

Changing role of coral reef marine reserves in a warming climate

Introduction.

The vast majority (~90%) of the excess heat arising from anthropogenic climate change has been absorbed by the upper oceans, leading to multidecadal scale warming across most of the globe 1 . As a result, many marine species have shifted their distributions over recent decades, causing widespread changes in the structure and function of marine communities 2 and impacting the ecosystem services they underpin 3 . As a consequence of global warming, climatic extremes such as marine heatwaves (MHWs; discrete and prolonged periods of warm ocean temperature extremes) have also increased in intensity and duration over the past century 4 , a trend which is projected to intensify further in coming decades 5 . Although a range of complex, interacting oceanographic and atmospheric processes drive MHWs 6 , 7 , the underlying fundamental link to human-mediated warming means projected increases in global temperatures will exacerbate future MHW events and their ecosystem impacts 8 .

Extreme temperatures associated with MHWs have been shown to impact the performance of a wide range of marine species, from the molecular to the population level, as critical thermal thresholds are exceeded 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 . Acute temperature increases associated with MHWs reduce the potential for individuals to respond via mechanisms such as plasticity or relocation 12 . Responses ranging from reduced ecological performance (e.g., growth, photosynthesis) and failed reproduction, to mass mortality events (MMEs) have been reported globally for marine primary producers, invertebrates, fish, birds, and mammals 9 , 10 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 with far-reaching ecological and socioeconomic ramifications 12 , 18 . In particular, declines in the abundance and health of foundation species such as macroalgae, seagrass, and hard and soft corals can have a disproportionately large impact on the wider community and ecosystem due to their fundamental role in maintaining ecological processes 19 , 20 . Foundation species are among the most important species in any coastal ecosystem as they define its identity including the biodiversity it supports and the services it provides. The loss of these foundation species can result in ecosystem collapse, leading to widespread shifts in ecological structure and functioning 19 , 20 .

Our understanding of the biological and ecological impacts of MHWs has increased significantly over the past decade as recognition of and research into these events have developed. MHWs are commonly defined as periods of five or more days where sea temperatures are warmer than the 90th percentile based on a 30-year fixed historical climatological baseline for the location and time of year 21 , 22 . Events can be classified by intensity into moderate, strong, severe, or extreme categories 23 . Event category and other MHW metrics, such as maximum and cumulative intensity, duration, and rate of onset and timing, can be described and explored using this definition, enabling the comparison of MHW metrics across and between events and linked to biological responses 22 . Several MHW characteristics (e.g. duration, cumulative intensity) have been shown to be useful predictors for biological responses in different locations 11 , 15 , 17 . However, a coherent understanding of how MHW characteristics mediate the responses of groups of functionally similar, ecologically important foundation species at the global scale is lacking. A loss of foundation species changes the identity of an environment and can lead to severe declines in the ecosystem services (e.g. tourism and fisheries) that human societies depend on 18 , 19 , 20 . Hence, without such knowledge, the inherent spatial and temporal variability of MHWs makes predicting species responses to different event profiles and in differing biogeographic regions problematic. This challenge is further complicated by variability in responses across a given species distribution. For example, populations persisting towards their warm trailing range edge are expected to be more detrimentally impacted in the future as MHW temperatures exceeding critical thermal limits are experienced more frequently 11 , 12 .

Here, we combine an extensively used MHW framework 21 , 23 with globally distributed ecological observations to assess responses of coastal marine foundation species (macroalgae, seagrass, scleractininan hard corals (hereafter ‘hard corals’) and soft coral habitat-forming invertebrates, like gorgonians) to MHWs. Using time-series datasets, we examined changes in macroalgae and seagrass abundance, along with observations of bleaching in hard corals and MMEs on Gorgonian soft corals. We focused on more intense MHWs (classified as ‘strong’ or greater intensity 23 at some point during their lifetime), that occurred during summertime (June to September and December to March for the northern and southern hemispheres, respectively, and all year round within the tropics (23.4°N-23.4°S)). These events were targeted because strong summer MHWs are more likely to elicit a greater response as species will be closer to their thermal maxima. To examine biological responses to MHWs, we collated a total of 2314 observations spanning 85 marine ecoregions defined by Spalding et al. 24 . We focussed on the dominant habitat-forming foundation species at each location, with the exception of hard corals, where species-level bleaching data were rarely available. Where sites were in close geographical proximity (<8 kilometres) and sharing common environmental features, we averaged the observed response of the dominant foundation species to individual MHW events, resulting in 1322 observations. Using these data, we first applied linear regression to explore if the number of annual negative responses observed changed over time. We next visually explored trends in the level of responses associated with MHWs across foundation species globally and by ecoregion. We then ran two generalised linear models (GLMs; one for macrophytes, one for hard corals and Gorgonian soft corals) to examine the relationships between foundation species responses and key MHW characteristics (mean, maximum, and cumulative intensity, duration, and maximum absolute temperature) at a global level. We included ‘marine ecoregion’ and ‘point in range’ (i.e. where a species was located within its geographical range) as predictor variables in the GLMs. Separate GLMs were run for the two groups because the scale of responses varied; bleaching and MMEs were reported as proportions of the population impacted, whereas changes in macrophytes included both losses and gains and consequently were either positive or negative. Ecoregion was identified as a significant variable in both GLMs. Consequently, we ran separate GLMs to explore foundation species responses to MHW characteristics for the 28 ecoregions, where ≥ 10 co-occurring MHW events and biological responses were available. A further two ecoregions were available with ≥10 data points, but analyses were not run on these ecoregions due to the high number of zeros in the data. Zeros represent locations where no response to an MHW was observed.

Global impacts of MHWs on foundation species

We found that MHWs have driven major changes in populations of foundation species globally, with the proportion of negative responses relative to total annual observations increasing significantly over time ( p  = 0.021, R 2  = 0.15; Fig.  1 ). While trends in observed responses varied between foundation species, both globally and across marine ecoregions (Figs.  2 a–c and 3a–c ), impacts were identified in 79 of 85 ecoregions. In the remaining six ecoregions, no responses to MHWs were observed (all regions where no bleaching of hard corals was observed at site level), although for five of these six ecoregions less than three data points were available. Across hard and soft corals, the range of responses varied from 0 to 100% of sampled individuals being impacted in an ecoregion, while seagrass and macroalgae responses ranged from complete loss to, in some cases, considerable increases in abundance.

The blue trend line indicates the significant relationship between the number of negative responses and year using regression analyses ( p  = 0.021, R 2  = 0.15), along with the 95th percentiles around the mean in grey. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.

Colour codes represent no change or varying degrees of increased bleaching or mortality. a global map of ecoregions included in our analyses. Each ecoregion is coloured by the average observed biological response. Blue coloured ecoregions represent ecoregions where no data were available. The map is adapted from 24 and the relevant shape files available from the Nature Conservancy https://geospatial.tnc.org/datasets/ed2be4cf8b7a451f84fd093c2e7660e3_0/about . b , c proportion of responses globally and within each ecoregion that are mild (<10 % of population impacted), moderate (10 – 50% impacted), and severe (≥ 50% impacted). A number of data points identified in each ecoregion are listed on the right. 1 = Hawaii, 2 = Fiji Islands, 3 = Samoa Islands, 4 = Southern Cook/Austral Islands, 5 = Society Islands, 6 = Tuamotus, 7= Easter Island, 8 = Nicoya, 9 = Cocos Islands, 10 = Northern Galapagos Islands, 11 = Eastern Galapagos Islands, 12 = Guayaquil, 13 = Panama Bight, 14 = Western Caribbean, 15 = Greater Antilles, 16 = Floridian, 17 = Bahamian, 18 = Eastern Caribbean, 19 = Southwestern Caribbean, 20 = Southern Caribbean, 21 = Fernando de Naronha and Atoll das Rocas, 22 = Northeastern Brazil, 23 = Eastern Brazil, 24 = Gulf of Guinea Islands, 25 = Northern and Central Red Sea, 26 = Seychelles, 27 = East African Coral Coast, 28 = Delagoa, 29 = Western and Northern Madagascar, 30 = Mascarene Islands, 31 = Western Arabian Sea, 32 = Maldives, 33 = Chagos, 34 = South India and Sri Lanka, 35 = Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 36 = Northern Bay of Bengal, 37 = Gulf of Thailand, 38 = Andaman Sea Coral Coast, 39 = Malacca Strait, 40 = Western Sumatra, 41 = Cocos-Keeling/Christmas Island, 42 = Sunda Shelf/Java Sea, 43 = Northeast Sulawesi, 44 = Lesser Sunda, 45 = Banda Sea, 46 = Bonaparte Coast, 47 = Arnhem Coast to Gulf of Carpentaria, 48 = Torres Strait and Northern Great Barrier Reef, 49 = Southeast Papua New Guinea, 50 = Central and Southern Great Barrier Reef, 51 = Tweed–Moreton, 52 = New Caledonia, 53 = Southern Vietnam, 54 = Gulf of Tonkin, 55 = South China Sea Oceanic Islands, 56 = Southern China, 57 = East China Sea, 58 = South Kuroshio, 59=Central Kuroshio Current, 60 = Mariana Islands, 61 = Eastern Philippines, 62 = Palawan/North Borneo, 63 = Marshall Islands, 64=Sulawesi Sea/Makassar Strait, 65 = Bismarck Sea, 66=Solomon Archipelago, 67 = Vanuatu, 68 = Alboran Sea, 69 = Western Mediterranean, 70 = Aegean Sea, 71 = Adriatic Sea. * Average change is the average amount of bleaching or MME’s identified across all locations/events within that ecoregion. Not all ecoregions are averages; only one replicate was available for ecoregions 1, 4, 7, 9, 21, 26, 31, 35, 43, 46, 47, 49, 55, and 67, and thus the colour reflects the single replicate. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.

a global map of ecoregions included. Each ecoregion is coloured by the average observed biological response. Blue-coloured ecoregions represent ecoregions where no data were available. The map is adapted from 24 and the relevant shape files available from the Nature Conservancy https://geospatial.tnc.org/datasets/ed2be4cf8b7a451f84fd093c2e7660e3_0/about . b , c proportion of responses globally and within each ecoregion that are mild (10 % gain to 10 % loss), moderate loss (10–50% loss), severe loss (≥ 50% loss), moderate gain (10–50% gain) or severe gain (≥ 50% gain). The number of data points identified in each ecoregion is listed on the right. 1 = Fiji Islands, 2 = Floridian, 3 = Celtic Seas, 4 = Andaman Sea Coral Coast, 5 = Malacca Strait, 6=Arnhem Coast to Gulf of Carpentaria, 7 = Torres Strait and Northern Great Barrier Reef, 8 = Central and Southern Great Barrier Reef, 9 = Tweed–Moreton, 10 = Vanuatu, 11 = Gulf of Alaska, 12 = Oregon, Washington, Vancouver Is., 13 = Northern California, 14 = Southern California Bight, 15 = Magdalena transition, 16 = Humboldtian, 17 = Gulf of Maine, 18 = Southern Norway, 19 = North Sea, 20 = Houtman, 21 = Bassian, 22 = Cape Howe, 23 = Northeastern New Zealand. *Average change is the average amount of bleaching or MME’s identified across all locations/events within that ecoregion. Not all ecoregions are averages; only one replicate was available for ecoregions 1, 3, 6, 15–17, and 23, and thus the colour reflects the single replicate. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.

Across ecoregions, where there were enough observations ( n  ≥ 3, 57 ecoregions) to calculate an average change in foundation species, trends in the magnitude of responses varied markedly (Supplementary Data  1 ). The occurrence of MMEs was greatest in the Western Mediterranean where a single MHW event led to an average of 44.0% mortality across populations of Gorgonian soft corals. For the bleaching of hard corals, the hardest hit ecoregions included South India and Sri Lanka (average 69% bleaching) followed by the Maldives and the East African Coral Coast (51% and 40.3% bleaching, respectively). Comparatively, the least impacted ecoregions included New Caledonia, North and Central Red Sea, Andaman Sea Coral Coast, Cocos-Keeling/Christmas Island, Southern China, and the Banda Sea, where average bleaching remained below 1% across 80 observations gathered following MHW events (Fig.  2a ). For seagrass, the greatest loss of cover was recorded in the Tweed-Moreton ecoregion (28.6% loss) in Australia whereas only small impacts were observed in the Torres Strait and Northern Great Barrier Reef ecoregion, with changes averaging just 5.7% loss following MHW activity (Fig.  3a ). For macroalgae, Northern California recorded the most dramatic declines (39.3% loss of macroalgae density) whereas moderate increases were recorded in the Bassian ecoregion (11.8% gain in macroalgae coverage).

Critically, responses to MHWs were strongly modulated by the location of the surveyed population within species distributions, with the most negative responses occurring towards warm trailing range edges (Fig.  4 ). Our global-level GLMs indicated point in range to be a statistically significant variable predicting responses to MHWs in both macrophytes ( p  = 0.004) and corals ( p  = 0.027). For macrophytes, sizeable losses were typically recorded in populations persisting towards their warm range edges (20.1% loss), whereas those found towards leading cool range edges exhibited a moderate increase in density or coverage (11.0% gain). MHW-induced bleaching of hard corals and MMEs of Gorgonian soft corals affected larger proportions of the population at warm range edges (23.5%) compared with mid and cool range edges (22.9% and 21.0% bleaching, respectively). Our global-level GLMs also indicated responses in macrophytes to be significantly related to mean MHW intensity ( p  = 0.012), MHW duration ( p  = 0.034), and marine ecoregion ( p  = 0.009). Corals were found to be significantly related to mean and cumulative MHW intensity, maximum absolute temperature, MHW duration (all p  < 0.001), and marine ecoregion (both p  = 0.001).

a Percent of populations impacted by bleaching in scleractinian hard corals and mass mortality events in gorgonian soft corals, and b Change in macroalgae and seagrass abundance (percent cover or densities). Two-tailed generalised linear models indicate point in range to be a significant factor for predicting responses to MHWs in both corals ( p  = 0.027; n  = 171, 880 and 73, for 0–25%, 25-75% and 75-100%, respectively) and macrophytes ( p  = 0.004; n  = 34, 97 and 56, for 0–25%, 25-75% and 75-100%, respectively). Data are presented as mean values +/− SEM. Model parameters are defined in Supplementary Table  1 . c Illustrative performance curves for species from the northern hemisphere, equatorial region, and southern hemisphere indicating where species are more likely (warm range areas) or less likely (cool range areas) to experience negative impacts of MHWs. Source data are provided as a Source Data file.

Increasing MHW intensity and duration exacerbates negative impacts

We identified statistically significant relationships between species responses and key MHW characteristics for 21 of the 28 marine ecoregions where large numbers of observations (> 10) were recorded following strong MHWs (Figs.  5 , 6 , Table  1 ). In all ecoregions, foundation species performance declined significantly as one or more MHW characteristics, such as intensity and duration, increased. The most statistically important characteristics varied; for hard corals, maximum absolute temperature was most commonly the strongest predictor of bleaching levels. Conversely, for the other foundation species, the mean intensity was most commonly and significantly linked to responses. Across foundation species types, in many ecoregions, statistically significant relationships were found between biological responses and two or more MHW characteristics (Supplementary Table  2 ), although for a small number of ecoregions, no significant relationships were evident between differences in responses and any of the MHW characteristics examined. This could be due to factors including low sample size (e.g. Mascarene Islands) or low overall levels of bleaching in hard corals (e.g. Eastern Philippines). Interestingly, in New Caledonia bleaching in hard corals did not exceed 2.5% despite 20 observations made during MHWs. In the North and Central Red Sea and in Southern China, although commonly above zero, levels of bleaching were consistently low, with a maximum of 12.5% of hard coral bleached during any one event. For Gorgonian soft corals, we identified a significant relationship between MMEs and mean MHW intensity in the Western Mediterranean, whereas in the Adriatic Sea MMEs were significantly linked with MHW duration.

For each foundation species group and ecoregion, the MHW metric shown is for the lowest p value identified (see Supplementary Table  1 for model parameters and Supplementary Table  2 for all p values). * indicates significant p values. The colour surrounding each plot indicates the foundation species group. Numbers in the top left corner of each plot refer to the numbered ecoregions on the central map. All GLMs were two-tailed. For significant GLMs, the grey area around the blue trend line indicates 95th percentiles around the mean. GLMs were not run on data from New Caledonia or Southern China due to a high number of zeros present in each dataset. The map is adapted from24 and the relevant shape files available from the Nature Conservancy https://geospatial.tnc.org/datasets/ed2be4cf8b7a451f84fd093c2e7660e3_0/about . The underlying data for this figure can be found in the figshare database included in the data availability statement.

For each foundation species group and ecoregion, the MHW metric shown is for the lowest p value identified (see Supplementary Table  1 for model parameters and Supplementary Table  2 for all p values). * indicates significant p values. The colour surrounding each plot indicates the foundation species group. Numbers in the top left corner of each plot refer to the numbered ecoregions on the central map. All GLMs were two-tailed. For significant GLMs, the grey area around the blue trend line indicates 95th percentiles around the mean. The map is adapted from 24 and the relevant shape files available from the Nature Conservancy https://geospatial.tnc.org/datasets/ed2be4cf8b7a451f84fd093c2e7660e3_0/about . The underlying data for this figure can be found in the figshare database included in the data availability statement.

For macroalgae and seagrass, we found that mean and cumulative intensity were the strongest predictors of change in cover, with statistically significant declines in macrophytes observed with increasing MHW intensity (Fig.  6 , Supplementary Table  2 ). Our data also showed that while most responses to MHWs were negative (i.e. a reduction in density or cover of macrophytes), within every ecoregion some positive responses to MHWs were also observed, typically during lower-intensity MHW events. Regardless, observed declines in macroalgae and seagrass cover were mostly associated with increasing MHW intensity.

Marine heatwaves (MHWs) are emerging as pervasive stressors to marine ecosystems, with impacts observed across all trophic levels from primary producers to top predators 9 , 11 , 12 , 25 . Our study presents a globally extensive and coherent analysis of MHW impacts, highlighting the widespread, detrimental effects that these warm ocean extreme events have on a range of coastal foundation species. Given their exceptional importance within marine communities and ecosystems, losses of foundation species will likely have far-reaching implications for local biodiversity, ecological functioning, and the provision of ecosystem services. For example, declines in foundation species lead to loss of biogenic habitat structure, decreased species richness, and shifts in community composition 10 , 14 , 26 , 27 , 28 , as well as decreased productivity 15 . Considerable ecological and socioeconomic ramifications of foundation species’ losses have already been observed globally in response to MHWs 12 , 14 , 18 , 29 . Consequences range from loss of income from tourism or fishing to reduced storm protection and carbon sequestration (Table  1 and references therein). Off Christchurch, New Zealand, large bull kelp has become regionally extinct following an MHW in 2017/2018, replaced by smaller, more ephemeral species 28 . Similarly, in Western Australia, extensive losses of trailing edge macroalgae populations following an extreme MHW in 2011 resulted in an ecosystem-level regime shift from temperate macroalgae forests to warmer-affinity algal turfs that support a more tropicalized community 10 , a change that continues to persist more than a decade on from the event 30 . Further north, the same event led to extensive losses of seagrass, resulting in a reduction in commercial fisheries species 29 , a decline in charismatic megafauna 14 , and the release of significant amounts of carbon from coastal sediments 13 .

Our findings provide compelling evidence of the impacts of strong, summer MHWs on the decline in foundation species globally. Foundation species responses were overwhelmingly negative, with the relative number of negative impacts increasing through time, in line with MHW intensification over recent decades 4 . The most detrimental effects are seen on warm range edge populations, highlighting the potential for MHWs to accelerate range contractions at the equatorward distributions of these species. Our findings provide evidence to support previous research indicating that warm range edge populations, which live closer to their thermal limits, are more negatively impacted by warm water anomalies 11 , 31 . Further, our research highlights that this pattern is global. While there is evidence to suggest that such events also facilitate an expansion of foundation species at their cool range edge, newly established populations will likely take decades or longer to form productive ecosystems and will support dissimilar communities to the original foundation species with the potential for broad socioeconomic ramifications (Table  1 ).

At the ecoregion level, we identified clear negative relationships between the heath of foundation species and the severity of MHWs, with foundation species typically exhibiting more detrimental responses as MHW intensity increased. It was, however, interesting to note that despite a general pattern of bleaching in hard corals increasing rapidly at temperatures >30°C, populations in some ecoregions exhibited little to no bleaching following high-magnitude MHWs that exceeded 31°C (e.g. New Caledonia and Southern China). This could be related to local oceanography generating cooler regions that are unresolved by the temperature dataset 32 , cloud cover reducing insolation that is necessary for bleaching to occur 33 or indicate a level of thermal acclimation 34 , but identification of these regions offers the opportunity for further investigation into the drivers of ecological resilience. Similarly, it was interesting to observe ecoregions where moderate gains were reported (e.g. macroalgae in the Bassian ecoregion). These responses were likely due to the dominant foundational species remaining comfortably within their thermal range throughout the duration of the MHW events, which can lead to no impact or even promote growth and performance. For example, the kelp Ecklonia radiata is found at temperatures ranging from 8–25 °C 35 , but the highest temperature this species was exposed to during MHWs identified during this study in the Bassian ecoregion was ~21 °C (Supplementary Data  2 ). As these events fall inside the species thermal range, the higher water temperatures may have enhanced ecological performance. For species located near their cool range edge, these results are perhaps unsurprising; since it is cold temperatures that limit distribution in these locations, it follows that warmer conditions may promote growth. Certainly, range expansions at the poleward edge of species distributions have previously been reported for kelp and seagrass in the Arctic 36 , 37 , 38 and corals in subtropical regions 39 . Regardless, in many ecoregions, strong MHW events are projected to increase in frequency and duration over the coming decades 5 , 8 , while other ecoregions are characterised by the presence of high numbers of warm range edge species which have a greater likelihood of exhibiting negative responses 11 . It is where these two factors overlap that the most detrimental impacts of MHWs are most likely to be observed 11 .

Our analyses add an important contribution to the understanding of MHWs on coastal ecosystems globally. Nevertheless, despite targeting datasets that collect long-term data exploring trends in biodiversity at representative sites (e.g. Reef Check or Seagrass Survey; see Table  2 for details), we recognise elements of the study may be influenced by factors like publication bias or targeted sampling. Similarly, while we targeted strong, summer MHWs because these events are more likely to be stressful and have been associated with previous impacts 11 , we acknowledge that our study did not explore responses to MHWs occurring in other seasons. Temperatures experienced during such events will be less likely to exceed upper thermal thresholds and may elicit positive or neutral responses 12 , depending on the species and environmental context, and warrant further investigation. Furthermore, we have only assessed direct relationships between MHW characteristics and foundation species responses. Some of the foundation species responses we have observed could be exacerbated by either a compound stressor or may have occurred as an indirect response to MHWs. For example, the loss of seagrass off the coast of Western Australia and the loss of macroalgae off the coast of New Zealand following MHWs were attributed to a combination of warming, increased sedimentation, and reduced light conditions 14 , 40 . In a recent global bleaching event, tissue loss and subsequent mortality of hard corals were contributed to by both bleaching and disease induced by warming 41 . Loss of macroalgal forests off the coast of California following ‘the Blob’ MHW in 2014-2016 was, in some locations, driven by increased herbivory as a consequence of sea star mass mortality (due to wasting disease linked to warming), facilitating urchin population booms 42 . There is clearly a need to better understand the cumulative and secondary responses of a broad suite of species to MHWs, and to identify which species and ecosystems exhibit greater resistance and resilience to extreme warming events.

Identifying relationships between MHW characteristics and biological responses of foundation species across ecoregions takes us a step further towards predicting the impacts of future extreme warming events. Concurrently, such information can be used to ascertain potential climatic refugia or warming-resilient ecosystems by identifying areas at low risk of events or foundation species groups that exhibit some resistance to MHWs 43 . This, coupled with more skillful forecasting 44 , 45 will improve predictions of how species will respond across their ranges, facilitating management efforts such as ad hoc fishery closures and targeting of alternative species to alleviate the impacts of MHWs in high-risk areas 29 , 46 , 47 . In some locations, early management actions have already alleviated the impacts of or even taken advantage of, MHW activity 48 . Building a mechanistic understanding of how other species, or entire communities, respond to MHWs or compound events, including both direct and indirect responses 14 , 42 , will further increase predictive ability. Additionally, gaining an understanding of the recovery of MHW-affected communities will shed light on the longer-term resilience of ecosystems. Further, supporting field observations with laboratory studies 49 or more sophisticated mesocosm approaches 50 will help to identify physiological tipping points of critical foundation species. Ultimately, to mitigate the future impacts of MHWs, it is essential to use a multi-faceted approach to understand species-level risks, resilience, and recovery.

Data collection

Foundation species datasets.

We analysed nine long time-series datasets that reported either density or coverage of macroalgae or seagrass, bleaching in scleractinian hard corals, and mass mortality events (MMEs) in gorgonian soft corals. Datasets with a large spatiotemporal coverage were targeted to maximise the likelihood of identifying marine heatwaves (MHWs) that occurred during data collection across global locations (see Table  2 for details of the datasets used). The datasets used were generally datasets that had been gathered to explore trends in biodiversity at representative sites, rather than surveys which targeted specific impacts or areas. For example, the Santa Barbara Channel Long Term Ecological Research (SBC-LTER) team has been carrying out standardised surveys since the year 2000 on a range of sites, and Reef Check ( www.reefcheck.org ) has been using trained citizen scientists to survey reefs globally since 1996. We examined the datasets for any overlap (e.g. PISCO 51 data up until 2017 are also available in the dataset from ref. 52 ) and removed duplicate data points. We also removed data points that were described to have been impacted by stressors other than temperature (for example, Seagrass Watch records all Tropical Cyclones occurring across monitoring periods). Because MHWs are typically identified from sea surface temperature (SST) measurements, we targeted ecological surveys that had been carried out in shallow waters for consistency. We therefore used an arbitrary cut-off of 10 m depth for all datasets, and where multiple surveys were carried out at the same location and time, we used the shallowest records. These criteria resulted in 9027 global locations with multiple years of data or 25,951 individual data points. All data were reported at the species level, except hard corals that were reported at the order level (Scleractinia).

Definition and calculation of MHWs

To identify MHWs from observational SST time series data we used the definition proposed by Hobday et al. 21 , 23 , which defines a MHW as a period of 5 or more days when water temperatures are above a seasonally varying 90th percentile climatological threshold (i.e., consecutive events separated by two or fewer days were analysed as single events). The climatological mean and threshold were calculated over an 11-day window centred on each calendar day using a 30-year fixed baseline from 1983 to 2012 21 , 23 . The climatological mean and threshold were smoothed using a 30-day running window. MHW intensities were also categorised based on multiples of the difference between the climatological mean and the 90th percentile for any location and time, i.e. intensities between 1-2x are Moderate, 2-3x are Strong, 3-4x are Severe and >4x are Extreme events 23 .

To detect MHWs and calculate key metrics we used the R code ( https://robwschlegel.github.io/heatwaveR 53 ) which follows the Hobday et al. 21 , 23 MHW definition and intensity categorisation schemes. MHW events were calculated for each location where we had foundation species data, using the 1/4° resolution National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Optimum Interpolation SST V2 data. Analysed MHW metrics included mean intensity (the average SST anomaly across the event), maximum intensity (the maximum SST anomaly reached during an event), cumulative intensity (the sum of the daily intensities across the event), maximum absolute temperature (the highest recorded SST during an event) and duration (the number of days an event lasts). All events categorised as Moderate were removed, leaving only Strong, Severe, and Extreme category events. Higher magnitude events were targeted because a) MHWs of a magnitude of Moderate intensity have been present throughout the satellite record making it difficult to differentiate between events whereas events of Strong or greater intensity occur less frequently 8 , 12 , 17 and b) most key events which have elicited recorded ecological responses have been category Strong or greater 54 . For all locations outside the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn (23.44° N to 23.44° S), the remaining events occurring outside ‘summer’ were eliminated. For the purposes of this study, we defined boreal summer as 1st June–30th September and austral summer 1st December – 31st March, following Smale et al. 11 . Summer events were targeted because species are naturally closer to their thermal maxima during this season, increasing the likelihood of a response being observed 55 .

Foundation species responses to MHWs

To identify biological responses, we cross-referenced detected MHWs with foundation species data to identify periods where Strong or above-category MHWs fitting the above criteria overlapped with the biological datasets. If events occurred during multiple years at any one site, biological data were only included if at least two years had passed since the previous MHW categorised as Strong or greater intensity, offering foundation species the opportunity for some recovery 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 . We focussed on the dominant habitat-forming species at each location, with the exception of hard corals, where species-level bleaching data were rarely available, and followed two methodologies depending on the target foundation species.

For macroalgae and seagrass (in combination referred to as ‘macrophytes’) we used time-series data to compare densities (counts per area) or percent coverage from directly before, but not during, a strong MHW event to 6–12 months after that MHW event. This post-MHW duration was used because there is typically a lag between MHWs and changes in plant density or cover. In each location, we focussed on the dominant species only (e.g. Macrocystis pyrifera off California). Where possible we averaged measurements of macrophytes pre-MHW over 2–3 years to account for natural variability. Data gathered at the same time of year were used to compare pre- and post-MHW conditions. Density/coverage from pre-MHW was subtracted from the same data post-MHW to determine if macrophytes had increased or decreased, and to what extent.

For bleaching in hard corals and MMEs in Gorgonian soft corals, we examined MHW events that occurred at most 16 weeks prior to ecological surveys. Bleaching and MMEs in these foundation species groups typically occur during or soon after MHWs 60 , 61 , and the shorter period prior to surveys was chosen to reflect this.

To calculate the relevant MHW metrics for each biological response, consecutive events that fell within the timeframes being examined were combined. Where any event ran over the confines of the timeframes, the event metrics were trimmed to include only intensities that had occurred within the defined period, i.e. ‘summer’, or 16 weeks prior to surveys. Following the above criteria, we compiled a total data set comprising 2314 sites and time periods. Data from sites that were geographically similar were then averaged for each MHW event; this was defined here as sites within 8 kilometres of each other sharing common environmental features (adapted from Garrabou et al. 17 ). The resulting localized areas were then reclassified into marine ecoregions 24 resulting in 1322 observations across 85 ecoregions (139 for macroalgae, 60 for seagrass, 1047 for hard corals and 76 for gorgonian soft corals). Ranges of the corresponding MHW characteristics for ecoregion are listed in Supplementary Data  2 .

Data exploration and analysis

Trends in mhw responses across time.

We used our initial 25,951 site/year data points along with our 2208 sites and time periods that were impacted by a strong, summer MHW, to assess how negative responses to MHWs have changed over time. All observations were included here rather than the responses averaged within 8 km, to ensure the data was comparable with the 25,951 initial data points, which had not been averaged. We calculated the number of initial data points that had been gathered in any one calendar year along with the number of negative responses from our 2314 data points occurring within a calendar year (excluding either neutral or positive responses). We then calculated the percentage of annual data points that showed a negative response to MHWs. We applied regression analysis on the resulting data to assess if the proportion of sites examined that were negatively impacted by MHWs changed over time.

Global and ecoregion-level trends in responses

We used the 1322 biological observations we had gathered to visually explore trends in global and ecoregion-level responses to MHWs across foundation species. For each foundation species group, we determined the proportion of observations that fell into different effect sizes, first on a global scale, and then by marine ecoregion. The effect sizes comprised mild (<10% of the population impacted), moderate (10–50%), and severe (>50% of the population impacted) inhibition (loss) or facilitation (gain). For bleaching in hard corals and MMEs in gorgonian soft corals only inhibition was recorded, whereas for macroalgae and seagrass, both inhibition and facilitation were recorded. For all ecoregions with a minimum of three data points we also averaged all responses for each foundation species group independently to explore differences in global responses. Where data on bleaching in hard corals were only available as ranges (mild (1–10%), moderate (11–50%) or severe (≥50%)), the range was replaced with conservative values of 1%, 11%, and 51%, respectively, to enable data to be incorporated.

We next combined our data across all foundation species for either all the foundational macrophytes or corals, into two separate analyses to statistically explore the relationships between independent variables (MHW characteristics, ecoregion, species point in range) and foundation species responses. Species points in range were assessed as follows: for all species-level data, the full latitudinal ranges were determined from the Ocean Biodiversity Information System (OBIS; https://obis.org ) following Smale et al. 11 . For hard corals, where species-level data were not available, we gathered data from OBIS for the full latitudinal ranges of common reef-forming coral genera ( Acropora, Pocillopora, Porites, Favites and Goniastrea ; 35.03°N–35.06°S). For this group, which spans the equator, we considered the trailing range edge as the equator and leading range edges as the poleward extents, with a point in the range being expressed as the distance between the equator and northern or southern extent (see Fig.  4c for additional information on points in range). Data were analysed with Generalised Linear Models (GLMs) weighted by the number of sites that were averaged within a geographically similar localised area, as described above. For macroalgae and seagrass direct increases or decreases in counts or percent cover were modelled, so Gaussian error structure was used. For bleaching in hard corals and MME in Gorgonian soft corals, data were expressed as proportions of the population, so a Quasibinomial error structure was used. For each dataset, the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) was calculated to account for collinearity in independent variables. The largest VIFs were removed sequentially until all remaining independent variables had a VIF < 10. For GLMs run using Gaussian error structure, the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) score was also examined to help determine the best fitting models. Model residuals were examined, and outliers were removed if necessary (one for corals and three for macrophytes).

Ecoregion was identified as a significant variable affecting responses in both macrophytes and corals. Consequently, for all ecoregions with ≥ 10 datapoints, we ran additional GLMs to test for the relationships between MHW characteristics and foundation species responses at the ecoregion level. Here, our data were reduced to 1133 observations (128 for macroalgae, 60 for seagrass, 869 for hard corals, and 76 for gorgonian soft corals. An additional 189 observations from across these 30 ecoregions were not included in these analyses either because species were only reported to genus level (for 11 macrophyte locations), or because the responses reported within a range (i.e., bleaching in hard corals reported as mild, moderate, or severe, for 178 hard coral locations) were deemed too coarse for these analyses. For macroalgae and seagrass, we compared responses by a single dominant primary foundation species for each ecoregion (i.e., Ecklonia radiata for Bassian and Cape Howe ecoregions, Macrocystis pyrifera for Northern and Southern California ecoregions, Laminaria hyperborea for the North Sea ecoregion, and Zostera muelleri for the Tweed-Moreton ecoregion). No analyses were run for seagrass in the Central and Southern Great Barrier Reef ecoregion or for macroalgae in the Oregon, Washington, Vancouver Coast, and Shelf ecoregion, because data for ≥ 10 observations for a single, known species was not available. For hard corals and gorgonian soft corals, we compared responses across all observations within an ecoregion. No analyses were undertaken for the Samoa Islands, East China Sea, or Mariana Islands because ≥ 10 accurate data points (i.e. presented as a number instead of a range) were not available for these ecoregions (see Supplementary Data  1 ). GLMs were again weighted by a number of sites within a localised area for each ecoregion or group of ecoregions. As previously, the Gaussian error structure was used for macrophytes, and Quasibinomial error structure was used for corals. Again, the largest VIFs were removed sequentially until all remaining independent variables had a VIF < 10, and for GLMs run using Gaussian error structure the AIC score was examined to help determine the best fitting models (Supplementary Table  1 ). For each dataset, model residuals were examined and outliers were removed if necessary. All GLMs were conducted in RStudio v. 2022.12.0+353 62 .

Potential sources of non-independence

We acknowledge that non-independence of data is a potential issue in our dataset and we have corrected this to the best of our ability. To avoid spatial autocorrelation we averaged responses from sites that were geographically similar and in close proximity. We also recognise that we have used multiple sites from the same dataset. However, each site was typically surveyed by a different observer and therefore we elected to retain the full dataset. Finally, we recognise that similar species within a broader clade may have similar responses. However, our dataset shows large variation in responses for a single species across different studies and we therefore again elected to retain the full dataset, to ensure we had the highest power to detect the influence of MHW characteristics.

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the  Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Data availability

The datasets used in this study are shown in Table  2 . The processed data used in this study are available in the following figshare database: https://figshare.com/s/b7a4f926c746b2b9cc3a . Sea Surface Temperature data (dataset: ncdcOisst21Agg_LonPM180)used to determine the presence of marine heatwaves was downloaded from https://coastwatch.pfeg.noaa.gov/erddap/ . Source data are provided with this paper for Figs.  1 – 4 . The data underlying Figs.  5 and 6 can be found in the above figshare database. All datasets used in this study are freely available and the conditions of access were followed for each.  Source data are provided in this paper.

Code availability

All codes required to identify marine heatwaves are freely available at https://robwschlegel.github.io/heatwaveR 62 .

Forster, P. et al. The Earth’s Energy Budget, Climate Feedbacks, and Climate Sensitivity. 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, Masson-Delmotte, V. et al. Eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 923–1054. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.009 (2021).

Poloczanska, E. S. et al. Global imprint of climate change on marine life. Nat. Clim. Change 3 , 919–925 (2013).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Weiskopf, S. R. et al. Climate change effects on biodiversity, ecosystems, ecosystem services, and natural resource management in the United States. Sci. Total Environ. 733 , 137782 (2020).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Oliver, E. C. J. et al. Longer and more frequent marine heatwaves over the past century. Nat. Commun. 9 , 1–12 (2018).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Frölicher, T. L., Fischer, E. M. & Gruber, N. Marine heatwaves under global warming. Nature 560 , 360–364 (2018).

Article   ADS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Holbrook, N. J. et al. A global assessment of marine heatwaves and their drivers. Nat. Commun. 10 , 2624 (2019).

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Holbrook, N. J. et al. Keeping pace with marine heatwaves. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1 , 482–493 (2020).

Oliver, E. C. J. et al. Projected marine heatwaves in the 21st century and the potential for ecological impact. Front. Mar. Sci. 6 , 1–12 (2019).

Article   Google Scholar  

Cavole, L. M. et al. Biological impacts of the 2013–2015 warm-water anomaly in the northeast Pacific: Winners, losers, and the future. Oceanogr 29 , 273–285 (2016).

Wernberg, T. et al. Climate-driven regime shift of a temperate marine ecosystem. Science 353 , 169–172 (2016).

Smale, D. A. et al. Marine heatwaves threaten global biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services. Nat. Clim. Change 9 , 306–312 (2019).

Smith, K. E. et al. Biological impacts of marine heatwaves. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 15 , 119–145 (2023).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Arias-Ortiz, A. et al. A marine heatwave drives massive losses from the world’s largest seagrass carbon stocks. Nat. Clim. Change 8 , 338–344 (2018).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Kendrick, G. A. et al. A systematic review of how multiple stressors from an extreme event drove ecosystem-wide loss of resilience in an iconic seagrass community. Front. Mar. Sci. 6 , 1–15 (2019).

Filbee-Dexter, K. et al. Marine heatwaves and the collapse of marginal North Atlantic kelp forests. Sci. Rep. 10 , 1–11 (2020).

Shanks, A. L. et al. Marine heat waves, climate change, and failed spawning by coastal invertebrates. Limnol. Oceanogr. 65 , 627–636 (2020).

Garrabou, J. et al. Marine heatwaves drive recurrent mass mortalities in the Mediterranean Sea. Glob. Chang. Biol. 28 , 5708–5725 (2022).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Smith, K. E. et al. Socioeconomic impacts of marine heatwaves: Global issues and opportunities. Science . 374 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abj3593 (2021).

Wernberg, T. et al. Impacts of climate change on marine foundation species. Ann. Rev. Mar. Sci. 16 , 247–282 (2024).

Ellison, A. M. Foundation species, non-trophic interactions, and the value of being common. Iscience 13 , 254–268 (2019).

Hobday, A. J. et al. A hierarchical approach to defining marine heatwaves. Prog. Oceanogr. 141 , 227–238 (2016).

Sen Gupta, A. et al. Marine heatwaves: Definition duel heats up. Nature 617 , 465–465 (2023).

Hobday, A. J. et al. Categorizing and naming marine heatwaves. Oceanogr 31 , 162–173 (2018a).

Spalding, M. D. et al. Marine ecoregions of the world: a bioregionalization of coastal and shelf areas. BioScience 57 , 573–583 (2007).

Welch, H. et al. Impacts of marine heatwaves on top predator distributions are variable but predictable. Nat. Commun. 14 , 5188 (2023).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Stuart-Smith, R. D., Brown, C. J., Ceccarelli, D. M. & Edgar, G. J. Ecosystem restructuring along the Great Barrier Reef following mass coral bleaching. Nature 560 , 92–96 (2018).

Verdura, J. et al. Biodiversity loss in a Mediterranean ecosystem due to an extreme warming event unveils the role of an engineering gorgonian species. Sci. Rep. 9 , 1–11 (2019).

Montie, S. & Thomsen, M. S. Long‐term community shifts driven by local extinction of an iconic foundation species following an extreme marine heatwave. Ecol. Evol. 13 , e10235 (2023).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Caputi, N. et al. Factors affecting the recovery of invertebrate stocks from the 2011 Western Australian extreme marine heatwave. Front. Mar. Sci. 6 , 1–18 (2019).

Wernberg, T. Marine heatwave drives collapse of kelp forests in Western Australia. In Ecosystem Collapse and Climate Change, Vol. 241, ed. Canadell, J. G., Jackson, R. B., pp. 325–343. Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71330-0 (2021).

Wernberg, T. et al. An extreme climatic event alters marine ecosystem structure in a global biodiversity hotspot. Nat. Clim. Change 3 , 78–82 (2013).

McClanahan, T. R., Maina, J., Moothien-Pillay, R. & Baker, A. C. Effects of geography, taxa, water flow, and temperature variation on coral bleaching intensity in Mauritius. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 298 , 131–142 (2005).

Gonzalez-Espinosa, P. C. & Donner, S. D. Cloudiness reduces the bleaching response of coral reefs exposed to heat stress. Glob. Chang. Biol. 27 , 3474–3486 (2021).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Van Woesik, R. et al. Climate‐change refugia in the sheltered bays of Palau: analogs of future reefs. Ecol. Evol. 2 , 2474–2484 (2012).

Wernberg, T. et al. Biology and ecology of the globally significant kelp Ecklonia radiata . Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. 57 , 265–324 (2019).

Filbee-Dexter, K., Wernberg, T., Fredriksen, S., Norderhaug, K. M. & Pedersen, M. F. Arctic kelp forests: Diversity, resilience and future. Glob. Planet Change 172 , 1–14 (2019).

Marbà, N., Krause-Jensen, D., Masqué, P. & Duarte, C. M. Expanding Greenland seagrass meadows contribute new sediment carbon sinks. Sci. Rep. 8 , 14024 (2018).

Assis, J., Serrão, E. A., Duarte, C. M., Fragkopoulou, E. & Krause-Jensen, D. Major expansion of marine forests in a warmer Arctic. Front. Mar. Sci. 9 , 850368 (2022).

Yamano, H., Sugihara, K. & Nomura, K. Rapid poleward range expansion of tropical reef corals in response to rising sea surface temperatures. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38 , L04601 (2011).

Tait, L. W., Thoral, F., Pinkerton, M. H., Thomsen, M. S. & Schiel, D. R. Loss of the giant kelp Macrocystis pyrifera driven by marine heatwaves and exacerbated by poor water clarity in New Zealand. Front. Mar. Sci. 8 , 721087 (2021).

Eakin, C. M., Sweatman, H. P. A. & Brainard, R. E. The 2014–2017 global-scale coral bleaching event: insights and impacts. Coral Reefs 38 , 539–545 (2019).

Rogers-Bennett, L. & Catton, C. A. Marine heat wave and multiple stressors tip bull kelp forest to sea urchin barrens. Sci. Rep. 9 , 1–9 (2019).

Lachs, L. et al. Emergent increase in coral thermal tolerance reduces mass bleaching under climate change. Nat. Comms. 14 , 4939 (2023).

Spillman, C. M., Smith, G. A., Hobday, A. J. & Hartog, J. R. Onset and decline rates of marine heatwaves: global trends, seasonal forecasts, and marine management. Front. Clim. 3 , 182 (2021).

Hartog, J. R., Spillman, C. M., Smith, G. & Hobday, A. J. Forecasts of marine heatwaves for marine industries: reducing risk, building resilience and enhancing management responses. Deep Sea Res Ii. 209 , 105276 (2023).

Hobday, A. J. et al. A framework for combining seasonal forecasts and climate projections to aid risk management for fisheries and aquaculture. Front. Mar. Sci. 5 , 137 (2018b).

Hobday, A. J. et al. With the arrival of El Niño, prepare for stronger marine heatwaves. Nature 621 , 38–41 (2023).

Pershing, A. J., Mills, K. E., Dayton, A. M., Franklin, B. S. & Kennedy, B. T. Evidence for adaptation from the 2016 marine heatwave in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. Oceanogr 31 , 152–161 (2018).

Bass, A. V., Smith, K. E. & Smale, D. A. Marine heatwaves and decreased light availability interact to erode the ecophysiological performance of habitat‐forming kelp species. J. Phycol . https://doi.org/10.1111/jpy.13332 (2023).

Pansch, C. et al. Heat waves and their significance for a temperate benthic community: a near-natural experimental approach. Glob. Change Biol. 24 , 4357–4367 (2018).

Carr, M. H., Caselle, J. E., Koehn, K. D. & Malone, D. P. PISCO Kelp Forest Community Surveys. PISCO_kelpforest.1.6 ( https://data.piscoweb.org/catalog/metacat/PISCO_kelpforest.1.6/default ) (2020).

Beas et al. Geographic variation in responses of kelp forest communities of the California Current to recent climatic changes. Glob. Chang. Biol. 26 , 6457–6473 (2020).

Schlegel, R. W. & Smit, A. J. heatwaveR: A central algorithm for the detection of heatwaves and cold-spells. J. Open Source Softw. 3 , 821 (2018).

Van Woesik, R. & Kratochwill, C. A global coral-bleaching database, 1980–2020. Sci. Data. 9 , 20 (2022).

Tan, H.-J., Cai, R.-S. & Wu, R.-G. Summer marine heatwaves in the South China Sea: Trend, variability and possible causes. Adv. Clim. Change Res. 13 , 323–332 (2022).

Magel, C. L., Chan, F., Hessing-Lewis, M. & Hacker, S. D. Differential responses of eelgrass and macroalgae in Pacific northwest estuaries following an unprecedented NE Pacific Ocean marine heatwave. Front. Mar. Sci. 9 , 838967 (2022).

Bell, T. W. et al. Kelpwatch: A new visualization and analysis tool to explore kelp canopy dynamics reveals variable response to and recovery from marine heatwaves. PLoS ONE 18 , e0271477 (2023).

Moriarty, T., Leggat, W., Heron, S. F., Steinberg, R. & Ainsworth, T. D. Bleaching, mortality and lengthy recovery on the coral reefs of Lord Howe Island. The 2019 marine heatwave suggests an uncertain future for high-latitude ecosystems. PLOS Clim. 2 , e0000080 (2023).

Bruckner, A. W. Life-saving products from coral reefs. Issues Sci. Technol . 18, 39–44 (2002).

Glynn, P. W. Coral reef bleaching: ecological perspectives. Coral Reefs. 12 , 1–17 (2013).

Garrabou, J. et al. Mass mortality in Northwestern Mediterranean rocky benthic communities: effects of the 2003 heat wave. Glob. Change Biol. 15 , 1090–1103 (2009).

RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA URL http://www.rstudio.com/ (2020).

Anon. “Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura, Te Poha o Tohu Raumati, Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura 30 (Environmental Management Plan)” . (Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura, Takahanga Marae Kaikōura, New Zealand, 2007).

Google Scholar  

Doshi, A. et al. Loss of economic value from coral bleaching in SE Asia. 12th International Coral Reef Symposium 9–13 (2012).

Sheppard, C., Dixon, D. J., Gourlay, M., Sheppard, A. & Payet, R. Coral mortality increases wave energy reaching shores protected by reef flats: examples from the Seychelles. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 64 , 223–234 (2005).

Robinson, J. P., Wilson, S. K., Jennings, S. & Graham, N. A. Thermal stress induces persistently altered coral reef fish assemblages. Glob. Chang. Biol. 25 , 2739–2750 (2019).

Gurgel, C. F. et al. Marine heatwave drives cryptic loss of genetic diversity in underwater forests. Curr. Biol. 30 , 1199–1206 (2020).

Oliver, E. C. J. et al. The unprecedented 2015/16 Tasman Sea marine heatwave. Nat. Commun. 8 , 1–12 (2017).

Sukhdev, P., Wittmer, H. & Miller, D. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB): challenges and responses. Nature in the balance: the economics of biodiversity. 135–152 https://students.aiu.edu/submissions/profiles/resources/onlineBook/B5e9K7_Nature_in_the_Balance_The_Economics_of_Biodiversity.pdf#page=156 (2014).

Rassweiler, A., Novak, M., Okamoto, D., Byrnes, J. & Krumhansl, K. Global Kelp Time series from NCEAS/KEEN Working Group. Florida State University, Oregon State University, Simon Fraser University, University of Massachusetts Boston. https://catalogue-temperatereefbase.imas.utas.edu.au/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/ecbe5cc3-3fbf-4569-b5e8-07c2201fcb9c . Accessed 1/09/2022. (2016).

Reed, D. & Miller, R. SBC LTER: Reef: Kelp Forest Community Dynamics: Cover of sessile organisms, Uniform Point Contact ver 31. Environmental Data Initiative. https://doi.org/10.6073/pasta/7b9f59d4875c4e235448dd42ff7044ad . Accessed 01/09/2022. (2022).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the Australian Integrated Marine Observing System (IMOS), which is enabled by the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS) for providing data on macroalgal cover in the Southeast Indian Ocean and Southwest Pacific Ocean. Data on mass mortality events were extracted from MME-T-MEDNet database on mass mortality events in the Mediterranean ( https://t-mednet.org/MME ). Data on seagrass were extracted from https://www.seagrasswatch.org . Data from Reef Check are available at https://www.reefcheck.org . We thank the contributors to Seagrass Watch, T-MEDNet, Reef Check, Sabah Biodiversity Centre, and Reef Check Malaysia. D.A.S. was supported by a UK Research and Innovation Future Leaders Fellowship (Grant MR/X023214/1). T.W. was supported by the Australian Research Council (grant DP200100201). M.S.T. was supported by a University of Canterbury Seeding Grant and the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (Toka ākau toitu Kaitiakitanga – building a sustainable future for coastal reef ecosystems). P.J.M. and M.T.B. were supported by the Natural Environment Research Council Newton Fund (Grant NE/S011692/2). N.J.H. was supported by the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes (CE170100023) and the National Environmental Science Program Climate Systems Hub (Project 2.10). ASG was supported by an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (FT220100475). We acknowledge the Marine Heatwaves International Working Group ( https://www.marineheatwaves.org ) and several of its workshops for fostering much of this discussion.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, Plymouth, UK

Kathryn E. Smith, Margot Aubin, Nathan G. King, Edward Wilson & Dan A. Smale

Scottish Association for Marine Science, Oban, UK

Michael T. Burrows

Oceans Institute and School of Biological Sciences, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia

Karen Filbee-Dexter & Thomas Wernberg

Institute of Marine Research, His, Bergen, Norway

CSIRO Environment, Hobart, TAS, Australia

Alistair J. Hobday

Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, 7001, TAS, Australia

Neil J. Holbrook

Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes, University of Tasmania, Hobart, 7001, TAS, Australia

Dove Marine Laboratory, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, UK

Pippa J. Moore

Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Alex Sen Gupta

The Marine Ecology Research Group, Centre of Integrative Ecology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Mads Thomsen

Aarhus University, Department of Ecoscience, 4000, Roskilde, Denmark

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

K.E.S., M.T.B., A.J.H., N.J.H., P.J.M., A.S.G., M.T., T.W. and D.A.S. conceived the study. K.E.S. and D.A.S. designed the analyses. K.E.S., M.A., N.G.K. and E.W. collected the data and conducted the analyses. M.T.B., K.F.D., A.J.H., N.J.H., P.J.M., A.S.G., M.T., T.W. and D.A.S. provided technical support and conceptual advice. K.E.S. wrote the paper with contributions from all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathryn E. Smith .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Communications thanks Daniel Gómez-Gras 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, peer review file, description of additional supplementary files, supplementary data 1, supplementary data 2, reporting summary, source data, source data, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, 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 changes were made. 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/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Smith, K.E., Aubin, M., Burrows, M.T. et al. Global impacts of marine heatwaves on coastal foundation species. Nat Commun 15 , 5052 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-49307-9

Download citation

Received : 19 October 2023

Accepted : 31 May 2024

Published : 13 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-49307-9

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

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.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

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