A 2017 Horizon Scan of Emerging Issues for Global Conservation and Biological Diversity
Authors: William J. Sutherland, Phoebe Barnard, Steven Broad, Mick Clout, Ben Connor, Isabelle M. Côté, Lynn V. Dicks, Helen Doran, Abigail C. Entwistle, Erica Fleishman, Marie Fox, Kevin J. Gaston, David W. Gibbons, Zhigang Jiang, Brandon Keim, Fiona A. Lickorish, Paul Markillie, Kathryn A. Monk, James W. Pearce-Higgins, Lloyd S. Peck, Jules Pretty, Mark D. Spalding, Femke H. Tonneijck, Bonnie C. Wintle, Nancy Ockendon
Journal: Trends in Ecology & Evolution (2016)

This is the eighth such annual horizon scan. An international team with expertise in horizon scanning, science communication, and conservation research, practice, and policy identified 15 issues, following widespread consultation and a Delphi-like scoring process to identify the most important. The issues were wide ranging, and include sand extraction, blockchain technology, use of robotics to combat invasive species, and new developments in energy storage and fuel production. We present the results of our eighth annual horizon scan of emerging issues likely to affect global biological diversity, the environment, and conservation efforts in the future. The potential effects of these novel issues might not yet be fully recognized or understood by the global conservation community, and the issues can be regarded as both opportunities and risks. A diverse international team with collective expertise in horizon scanning, science communication, and conservation research, practice, and policy reviewed 100 potential issues and identified 15 that qualified as emerging, with potential substantial global effects. These issues include new developments in energy storage and fuel production, sand extraction, potential solutions to combat coral bleaching and invasive marine species, and blockchain technology. We present the results of our eighth annual horizon scan of emerging issues likely to affect global biological diversity, the environment, and conservation efforts in the future. The potential effects of these novel issues might not yet be fully recognized or understood by the global conservation community, and the issues can be regarded as both opportunities and risks. A diverse international team with collective expertise in horizon scanning, science communication, and conservation research, practice, and policy reviewed 100 potential issues and identified 15 that qualified as emerging, with potential substantial global effects. These issues include new developments in energy storage and fuel production, sand extraction, potential solutions to combat coral bleaching and invasive marine species, and blockchain technology. We have conducted an annual horizon scan of global conservation issues since 2010 with the aim of highlighting, by consensus, emerging topics that are not yet widely known in the conservation community but could have substantial effects on biological diversity worldwide in the medium to long term. Our iterative, transferable process of horizon scanning, which is designed to be both transparent and democratic, is carried out by a team with a wide range of experiences and areas of expertise. Our aim has been to focus attention and stimulate debate about these subjects, potentially leading to new research foci, policy developments, or business innovations. These responses should help to facilitate better-informed forward-planning. It is difficult to gauge the direct effects of our horizon scans on the research, policy, or business communities, except through personal communication and hearsay. However, several topics recognized in our previous horizon scans received international attention during 2016. For example, we identified microplastics as an emerging issue in 2010 [1Sutherland W.J. et al.A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2010.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010; 25: 1-7Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (304) Google Scholar]. There is now substantial action on this issue internationally, with several governments, including those of the USA and the UK, introducing legislative bans on microbeads in cosmetics and detergents, and many cosmetics companies voluntarily committing to halt their use of microplastics by 2020 [2Rochman C.M. et al.Scientific evidence supports a ban on microbeads.Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015; 49: 10759-10761Crossref PubMed Scopus (246) Google Scholar, 3Environmental Audit CommitteeEnvironmental Impact of Microplastics. Fourth Report of Session, 2016-2017. House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, 2016Google Scholar]. New research on the effects of microbeads has revealed biological responses in both terrestrial and aquatic environments, with evidence demonstrating that microplastics reduce the survival and fitness of earthworms Lumbricus terrestris [4Lwanga H. et al.Microplastics in the terrestrial ecosystem: implications for Lumbricus terrestris (Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae).Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016; 50: 2685-2691Crossref PubMed Scopus (617) Google Scholar] and facilitate the accumulation of sorbed organic pollutants in fish [5Wardrop P. et al.Chemical pollutants sorbed to ingested microbeads from personal care products accumulate in fish.Env. Sci. Technol. 2016; 50: 4037-4044Crossref PubMed Scopus (288) Google Scholar]. Discussion of the use of gene editing to control invasive species or disease vectors, raised in our 2014 horizon scan [6Sutherland W.J. et al.A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2014.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2014; 29: 15-22Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (82) Google Scholar], has increased dramatically over the past year, with a range of developments using clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR). This approach is already being focused towards controlling diseases such as malaria, Zika, and dengue, by removing disease-carrying female mosquitoes [7Adelman Z.N. Tu Z. Control of mosquito-borne infectious diseases: sex and gene drive.Trends Parasitol. 2016; 32: 219-229Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (73) Google Scholar] or reducing reproduction in female mosquitoes [8Hammond A. et al.A CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive system targeting female reproduction in the malaria mosquito vector Anopheles gambiae.Nat. Biotech. 2016; 34: 78-83Crossref PubMed Scopus (673) Google Scholar]. The consumption, production, and marketing of plant-based proteins and meat substitutes (synthetic meat), another issue identified in 2010 [1Sutherland W.J. et al.A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2010.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010; 25: 1-7Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (304) Google Scholar], gained traction in 2016. Several companies produced molecules found in meats, either from stem cells or by fermentation. More recently, we raised the issue of changes in the legal status of nonhuman animals [9Sutherland W.J. et al.A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2015.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2015; 30: 17-24Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (38) Google Scholar] and in 2016 legislation was introduced by the New Zealand Parliament [the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill] that, if passed, will legally recognize the Whanganui River as an indivisible and living whole, with both physical and metaphysical elements. The examples above demonstrate that our process has accurately identified issues that have since become more well known and significant; we look forward to further assessing the trajectories of topics identified in past horizon scans. For these issues, the time lag between our identification of an issue and it resulting in practical or policy consequences has been up to 6 years; clearly this is likely to be a lower bound as the first issues were identified only 6 years ago. At the same time, we recognize that not all identified issues will materialize: new innovations may be quickly superseded by others, initial promise may not be realized, risks may curtail adoption, or an unexpected development may shift the course of a trend. The length of time between an issue being raised and its consequences being felt demonstrates the value of our commitment to horizon scanning as a long-term project, and the importance of regularly revisiting issues. The methods used to identify issues were consistent with our previous annual horizon scans [1Sutherland W.J. et al.A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2010.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010; 25: 1-7Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (304) Google Scholar, 6Sutherland W.J. et al.A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2014.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2014; 29: 15-22Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (82) Google Scholar, 9Sutherland W.J. et al.A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2015.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2015; 30: 17-24Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (38) Google Scholar, 10Sutherland W.J. et al.A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2011.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2011; 26: 10-16Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (112) Google Scholar, 11Sutherland W.J. et al.A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2012.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2012; 27: 12-18Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (64) Google Scholar, 12Sutherland W.J. et al.A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2013.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2013; 28: 16-22Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (65) Google Scholar, 13Sutherland W.J. et al.A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2016.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2016; 31: 44-53Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (41) Google Scholar]. The 25 core participants in the horizon scan (the authors) applied an inclusive, transparent, and repeatable process that is a modification of the Delphi technique [14Rowe G. Wright G. The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis.Int. J. Forecasting. 1999; 15: 353-375Crossref Scopus (1424) Google Scholar, 15Sutherland W.J. et al.Methods for collaboratively identifying research priorities and emerging issues in science and policy.Methods Ecol. Evol. 2011; 2: 238-247Crossref Scopus (247) Google Scholar]. Each participant proposed two or more topics, either alone or following consultation with members of their networks within and beyond their organizations. Several participants used social media to canvass followers for issues. Proposed topics were required to meet the criteria of global relevance and limited recognition among conservation professionals. The 99 topics that were submitted reflected the input of an estimated 430 individuals. Short descriptions of the full list of topics were circulated to all participants in July 2016. Participants then scored each topic on a scale from 1 (well known, or poorly known but unlikely to have substantial effects on conservation of biological diversity) to 1000 (poorly known and likely to have substantial effects on the conservation of biological diversity and the environment). Each participant also indicated whether they had heard of each issue; the percentage of participants that were aware of each issue was considered in the final scoring process as a relative measure of the novelty of an issue. Each participant's scores were converted to ranks, and we calculated the median rank of each topic. Given the time available for discussion, we retained the 35 topics with the highest median ranks and three topics that one or more participants thought warranted further discussion, and one additional topic that was not included in the original 99. Two participants, neither of whom had proposed the topic, researched the feasibility, novelty, and likely effects of each topic if realized (three participants examined the newly added topic). The participants convened in Cambridge, UK, in mid-September 2016. Each of the 39 topics was discussed in turn, with the constraint that the individual who suggested a given topic, if present, was not among the first three people to comment on it. The focus of some topics was modified during discussion. After each topic was discussed, participants independently and confidentially rescored the issue from 1 through 1000 as described above. The 15 topics that received the highest median ranks after discussion at the meeting are reported below. The topics are not presented in rank order, but are instead grouped by approximate subject area. We present each topic as objectively as possible, and acknowledge that many topics, if realized, could present either risks or opportunities for global biological diversity, the environment, and conservation efforts in the future. Bleaching, a stress response of corals to high ocean temperature, has recently led to mass coral mortality over extensive areas. The incidence and magnitude of bleaching is strongly influenced by a symbiotic dinoflagellate (Symbiodinium) held within coral tissues. Symbiodinium strains vary greatly in heat tolerance, but recent studies have identified strains that are particularly tolerant to very high temperatures [16Hume B.C.C. et al.Ancestral genetic diversity associated with the rapid spread of stress-tolerant coral symbionts in response to Holocene climate change.PNAS. 2016; 113: 4416-4421Crossref PubMed Scopus (124) Google Scholar]. These studies are unraveling the physiological and transcriptional responses of genetically different strains to thermal stress and exploring how these responses translate into bleaching [17Levin R.A. et al.Sex, scavengers, and chaperones: transcriptome secrets of divergent Symbiodinium thermal tolerances.Mol. Biol. Evol. 2016; 33: 2201-2215Crossref PubMed Scopus (97) Google Scholar]. This step increase in our understanding of the molecular basis of Symbiodinium thermal tolerance raises the possibility of manipulating symbiont populations in the wild as a means of improving the survival of multiple coral species in warming seas, either through the transfer and release of natural strains of Symbiodinium outside their current geographical range, or through more direct genetic manipulation. With recurring mass mortality of corals, the possibility of such 'assisted evolution' is receiving serious consideration [18van Oppen M.J.H. et al.Building coral reef resilience through assisted evolution.PNAS. 2015; 112: 2307-2313Crossref PubMed Scopus (508) Google Scholar]. The risks associated with engineering Symbiodinium in the wild, such as disease transfer or unexpected biological responses, have not yet been evaluated. Non-native invasive and native irruptive species can have marked detrimental effects on ecosystems. The eradication and control of such species can be particularly challenging in marine environments, and managers often rely on time- and labor-intensive manual removal. Robotics could provide a means of accelerating such interventions, with prototype robots intended to cull two of the most damaging marine species now being tested. The COTSbot is an autonomous robot that can search a reef for 4–8 h, accurately recognize irruptive crown-of-thorn seastar Acanthaster planci (responsible for 40% of coral mortality on the Great Barrier Reef over the past three decades: [19De'ath G. et al.The 27-year decline of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef and its causes.PNAS. 2012; 109: 17995-17999Crossref PubMed Scopus (1212) Google Scholar]), and administer a lethal injection of bile salts [20Platt J.R. A starfish-killing, artificially intelligent robot is set to patrol the Great Barrier Reef.Sci. Am. 2016; (1 January)Google Scholar]. In the Caribbean, remotely operated underwater vehicles are targetting invasive lionfish Pterois volitans, an Indo-Pacific species that has reduced the biomass of native reef fishes by up to 80% [21Green S.J. et al.Invasive lionfish drive native Atlantic coral reef fish declines.PLOS ONE. 2012; 7: e32596Crossref PubMed Scopus (281) Google Scholar]. The vehicles stun the lionfish with an electric shock, and retrieve them for human consumption, creating a revenue stream. Customized robots can work more hours per day and at greater depths than human divers and, hence, might more effectively control species considered to be marine pests at a local level. Therefore, robotic technologies could significantly increase our ability to tackle the growing range of problematic invasive species across the world in the future. However, the costs of this approach are currently high and might be prohibitive in many circumstances, particularly for developing nations. Spatially extensive application might depend on future developments that make this technology more accessible. Nevertheless, the use of robots may be feasible in popular tourist destinations or to protect high-priority areas for conservation. Electronic sensors that analyze the chemistry of odors have been used commercially since the early 1990s [22Pearce T.C. Handbook of Machine Olfaction: Electronic Nose Technology. Wiley-VCH, 2006Google Scholar]. Recent rapid technological developments have improved both their sensitivity and portability, and a range of new uses is emerging [23Wilson A.D. Diverse applications of electronic-nose technologies in agriculture and forestry.Sensors. 2013; 13: 2295-2348Crossref PubMed Scopus (221) Google Scholar]. One such application is the detection of illegally traded wildlife, a multibillion-dollar sector that attracts organized crime and drives unsustainable levels of harvest of wild animal and plant species. Illegal trade often has far-reaching ecological, security-related, and economic effects. Standard approaches for the detection of illegal wildlife goods along transport routes, such as targeted inspections by enforcement officials and trained sniffer dogs, are expensive, and the number of hours that humans and dogs can work are limited. The use of portable, potentially low-cost, electronic 'noses' linked to software operating on readily available mobile devices could greatly increase detection effort, improve border biosecurity, and result in more enforcement action. Efforts to realize the marketability of one such device that aims to identify species and their geographical origin recently received backing from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization of Australia. The combination of olfactory sensors with detection of rare species via environmental DNA [12Sutherland W.J. et al.A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2013.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2013; 28: 16-22Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (65) Google Scholar, 24Barnes M.A. Turner C.R. The ecology of environmental DNA and implications for conservation genetics.Conserv. Genet. 2016; 17: 1-17Crossref Scopus (535) Google Scholar] could markedly increase the amount of information available to improve wildlife protection and biosecurity. Bumblebees (Bombus) inhabit most ecosystems worldwide, with the notable exceptions of Australia and sub-Saharan Africa. The rapid growth in the international trade in bumblebee colonies for crop pollination has resulted in major invasions by Bombus terrestris and other Bombus species into New Zealand, Japan, and southern South America. Invasion of non-native Bombus can lead to declines in local or regional species richness or in the abundance of native pollinators, such as Bombus dahlbommii in Argentina, and can increase pollination of non-native invasive plants [25Morales C.L. et al.Rapid ecological replacement of a native bumble bee by invasive species.Front. Ecol. Environ. 2013; 11: 529-534Crossref Scopus (142) Google Scholar]. As the global bumblebee trade continues to grow, often without regulation, bumblebees are being sent to, and released in, new locations. Models have identified several regions in which B. terrestris is not yet present but where habitat quality for the species is high, including mainland Australia, Brazil, Uruguay, China, and areas of South Africa and Namibia [26Acosta A.L. et al.Worldwide alien invasion: a methodological approach to forecast the potential spread of a highly invasive pollinator.PLoS ONE. 2016; 11: e0148295Crossref PubMed Scopus (27) Google Scholar]. There are currently no records of bumblebee invasions in South Africa, yet the import of bumblebee colonies for agricultural use has been promoted, despite non-native bumblebees posing a substantial risk to native South African species, including carpenter bees (Xylocopa spp.). Bumblebees can also act as vectors, introducing novel infectious diseases as they spread to new regions [27Graystock P. et al.Do managed bees drive parasite spread and emergence in wild bees?.Int. J. Parasitol. Parasites Wildl. 2016; 5: 64-75Crossref PubMed Scopus (108) Google Scholar]. Biological pest control is currently widely used in forestry, horticulture, and intensive glasshouse production of fruits and vegetables, but it has been successfully used on outdoor field crops in relatively few cases (e.g., control of cassava mealybug Phenacoccus manihoti in Africa [28Pretty J. Bharucha Z.P. Integrated pest management for sustainable intensification of agriculture in Asia and Africa.Insects. 2015; 6: 152-182Crossref PubMed Scopus (243) Google Scholar]). Recent advances in genetic screening and engineering are now enabling the widespread use of biological pest control or growth stimulation treatments based on bacteria or fungi. The agrochemical industry views the use of these microbial treatments as an alternative to synthetic compounds and as an area of potential commercial growth in the face of increasingly stringent regulation of synthetic chemicals. Spatially extensive crops, such as cereals and oilseeds, are now targets for the research and development of biological control and the use of biostimulant microbial mixtures (which improve plant growth and yield; [29Wong K. A new start-up hopes to develop faster-growing crops – without genetic modification.Modern Farmer. 2015; (November 10)Google Scholar]). The potential effects on species and ecosystem function from extensive manipulation of soil microbial communities, key to biogeochemical cycling, have not been assessed. Additionally, there may be thresholds beyond which substantial changes in the microbiota have the potential to affect gas exchange between the soil and the atmosphere, although the mechanisms are not well understood [30Wang C. et al.Aridity threshold in controlling ecosystem nitrogen cycling in arid and semi-arid grasslands.Nat. Commun. 2014; 5: 4799Crossref PubMed Scopus (221) Google Scholar]. Globally, sand and gravel comprise 68–85% of the 47–59 billion tons of material mined annually, and this percentage is increasing rapidly [31Steinberger J.K. et al.Global patterns of materials use: a socioeconomic and geophysical analysis.Ecol. Econ. 2010; 69: 1148-1158Crossref Scopus (244) Google Scholar]. Sand is used in diverse sectors, particularly the manufacture of concrete and in land reclamation, as well as in the production of glass, asphalt, and electronics; beach creation; and hydraulic fracturing. Hence, as human populations, urbanization, and wealth increase, demand for sand continues to grow, with potentially large, but uncertain, risks and opportunities for biological diversity. Sand and gravel are generally mined from land quarries, rivers, lakes, seabeds, and coasts, and the properties of sand from different sources vary considerably, affecting their utility. Impacts of sand mining include loss of species, loss or degradation of habitats, and social conflict, and the local scarcity of certain types of sand is driving an extensive, and often illegal or unregulated, trade. However, opportunities for restoration after mining and the ecosystem-based design of mining sites are emerging (e.g., [32De Jong M.F. et al.Ecosystem-based design rules for marine sand extraction sites.Ecol. Eng. 2016; 87: 271-280Crossref Scopus (12) Google Scholar]). Alternatives, such as the use of desert sand, previously deemed to have little economic value or potential [33Cisse A. et al.Contribution to improving the performance of concrete: the case of the use of desert sand of the region of Dakar.Res. J. Env. Earth Sci. 2012; 4: 1071-1078Google Scholar], use of mud for land reclamation, or recycling of construction material, are also being explored. The use of fences to stake ownership, secure borders, control livestock, or prevent vehicle collisions has long constrained the movements of animals. The fencing of international boundaries between the Soviet Union, China, and Mongolia during the 1950s, for example, limited the movements of numerous migratory species. New political trends are leading to an acceleration of fencing around national boundaries in the USA and Europe. Such fences and associated infrastructure affect the daily movements, migration, and survival of animals ranging from large carnivores to gallinaceous birds [34Flesch A.D. et al.Potential effects of the United States–Mexico border fence on wildlife.Cons. Biol. 2010; 24: 171-181Crossref PubMed Scopus (56) Google Scholar, 35Seidler R.G. et al.Identifying impediments to long-distance mammal migrations.Cons. Biol. 2015; 29: 99-109Crossref PubMed Scopus (83) Google Scholar]. Thus, these fences may present a new threat to the viability of wild animal populations. For example, Slovenia has built a razor-wire fence along much of its border with Croatia that may reduce connectivity among transboundary animal populations, including grey wolf Canis lupus, a protected species with a regional population size estimated to be less than 100 [36Linnell J.D.C. et al.Border security fencing and wildlife: the end of the transboundary paradigm in Eurasia?.PLOS Biol. 2016; 14: e1002483Crossref PubMed Scopus (69) Google Scholar]. The extent to which species can traverse new border fences, and resulting population-level effects, will depend on how fences are constructed and maintained, and on surrounding land use and cover. Changes in waste management may affect the abundance and behavior of scavenging species, with effects potentially cascading to lower trophic levels [37Buechley E.R. Şekercioğlu Ç. The avian scavenger crisis: looming extinctions, trophic cascades and loss of critical ecosystem functions.Biol. Cons. 2016; 198: 220-228Crossref Scopus (163) Google Scholar]. Recently, the availability of food at rubbish dumps has been shown to drive sedentary behavior in previously migratory European white stork Ciconia ciconia [38Gilbert N.I. et al.Are white storks addicted to junk food? Impacts of landfill use on the movement and behaviour of resident white storks (Ciconia ciconia) from a partially migratory population.Mov. Ecol. 2016; 4: 7Crossref PubMed Scopus (104) Google Scholar] and brown bear Ursus arctos in Turkey and Romania [39Cozzi G. et al.Anthropogenic food resources foster the coexistence of distinct life history strategies: year-round sedentary and migratory brown bears.J. Zool. 2016; 300: 142-150Crossref Scopus (35) Google Scholar], contributing to increases in the abundance of the stork and fragmentation of bear populations. There is strong policy pressure for the closure or covering of open landfill sites in the European Union (under the Landfill Directive 1993/31/EC), Turkey, and other parts of the world. Such closures may alter the abundance and behavior of avian and mammalian scavengers. For example, it is unclear whether scavenging European white storks would resume winter migrations to sub-Saharan Africa in response to closure of landfill sites. Such changes in the behavior and distribution of scavengers may have unpredictable short- and long-term effects on species, ecological processes, and the incidence of human–wildlife conflict [39Cozzi G. et al.Anthropogenic food resources foster the coexistence of distinct life history strategies: year-round sedentary and migratory brown bears.J. Zool. 2016; 300: 142-150Crossref Scopus (35) Google Scholar]. Over the past two decades, there has been a slow but steady increase in the average air speed above the oceans and a corresponding increase in frequency of gales [40Young I.R. et al.Global trends in wind speed and wave height.Science. 2011; 33: 451-455Crossref Scopus (728) Google Scholar]. Average sea-surface wind speed increased considerably between 1988 and 2011, from 24.8 km h–1 to 27.4 km h–1 [41Zheng C.W. et al.Global oceanic wind speed trends.Ocean Coast. Manage. 2016; 129: 15-24Crossref Scopus (46) Google Scholar]. This was associated with increased wave height and increased frequency of very large waves. It has not yet been determined whether these changes are part of a long-term trend or simply reflect long-term oscillations, but they would be consistent with some projections of climate change. Strong winds (more than force 5 on the Beaufort scale) have become more common. Coastal and inshore ecosystems, such as beaches, dune systems, coastal forests, benthos affected by polar icebergs, and reefs, could increasingly be affected by wind or waves, including storm surges. Coastal dynamics may also be altered by the formation or removal of sediment-driven structures, such as dunes, islands, windward lagoon margins, and shallow subtidal sediments. The distribution and behavior of oceanic bird species or transoceanic migrants could be affected, potentially increasing their likelihood of collision with wind turbines [42Ainley D.G. et al.Seabird flight behavior and height in response to altered wind strength and direction.Mar. Ornithol. 2015; 43: 25-36Google Scholar]. Increases in the speed of oceanic winds could also drive human actions that could affect wildlife, such as the construction of highly engineered coastal defences or changes in the locations of shipping routes, offshore windfarms, or fishing areas. Commercial offshore windfarms currently comprise bottom-fixed wind turbines that cannot be installed at depths exceeding 50 m [43Myhr A. et al.Levelised cost of energy for offshore floating wind turbines in a life cycle perspective.Renew. Energy. 2014; 66: 714-728Crossref Scopus (293) Google Scholar]. Most potential wind energy is associated with areas above deeper waters, and so is not currently utilized. As distance offshore increases, winds become more consistent and the visual effects of windfarms to land-based observers decrease. The concept of floating offshore wind turbines was proposed during the 1970s, but prototypes were not deployed until 2008. The floating structure needs sufficient buoyancy to support the turbine weight and to restrain pitch,