Abstract

The eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) is an important proxy for examining historical trajectories of coastal ecosystems. Measurement of ~40,000 oyster shells from archaeological sites along the Atlantic Coast of the United States provides a long-term record of oyster abundance and size. The data demonstrate increases in oyster size across time and a nonrandom pattern in their distributions across sites. We attribute this variation to processes related to Native American fishing rights and environmental variability. Mean oyster length is correlated with total oyster bed length within foraging radii (5 and 10 km) as mapped in 1889 and 1890. These data demonstrate the stability of oyster reefs despite different population densities and environmental shifts and have implications for oyster reef restoration in an age of global climate change.

Anthropologists and historians are increasingly critical of the long-held and widely shared view of non-European peoples as isolated entities before the advent of European colonialism. This perspective is rooted in the mistaken assumption that indigenous people and their institutions were unchanging, as the noted anthropologist Wolf put it: people without history (1). Here, we argue that increasingly fine-grained archaeology, paleobiology, and 19th century cartography provide a deep history that can inform biological conservation by providing critical historical baselines that document the processes responsible for ongoing changes in coastal ecosystems, including the collapse of fisheries (2).

Identifying the core social and environmental processes responsible for resource depletion is critical for management decisions regarding particular resources or attempts at ecosystem restoration. Oysters (Ostreidae) are valuable proxies for past human-induced and ecological change (2) and, along with other mollusks, have been used by some as a marker of the Anthropocene (3). However, if we rely on keystone species like oysters as proxies for investigating historical trajectories of past ecosystems, it is critical to understand the social and environmental factors that condition their productivity at both local and regional scales across long periods.

Thus, we explore the deep history of harvesting eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica) in the American South to investigate the structure of oyster reef ecosystems from initial human harvesting to the modern era, i.e., from the early Late Archaic [ca. 4500 to 3500 calibrated years before the present (cal. BP)], the Mississippian period (ca. 1000 to 500 cal. BP), and into the late 1800s and 1970s. Tracking changes in oyster size provides insight into the health of reefs, as shifts in size have been directly correlated to environmental change, including human predation (4, 5). Specifically, the size of oysters and the main drivers of their ecology are determined by the age of the animal, environmental variability, ontogenetic growth rates, and the structure of the reef and the oysters location within it (6, 7). Therefore, large samples from multiple sites are needed to evaluate shifts in oyster paleobiology. Understanding these past dynamics can help prepare for future oyster reef ecosystem management. We focus on four interrelated questions: (i) Did oyster size vary from the Late Archaic to the Mississippian periods into the 1800s (a roughly 5000-year period of intensive harvest)? (ii) Did oyster size vary latitudinally across the southeastern United States? (iii) To what extent are observed variations in oyster size across space and time linked to environmental and social drivers? (iv) How can such historical and paleobiological studies inform modern restoration and conservation of oyster fisheries?

The Georgia Bight extends from present-day South Carolina to northern Florida along the Atlantic coast of the United States and is home to some of the most productive estuaries in the world (Fig. 1) (8). These estuaries have undergone and continue to experience marked changes due to human exploitation and climate change. The harvesting of eastern oysters as a food resource and possible building material began along the Georgia Bight almost 5000 years ago. Oysters and other coastal species continue to be commercially harvested from the region, raising increased concerns for sustainable management (9). Here, we use three different datasets to examine the long-term stability/resilience in oyster fisheries over time and how social factors and environmental changes affected these fisheries. These include oyster measurements (n = 37,805) from archaeological sites dated to two critical periods with different modes of food production: the Late Archaic (ca. 4500 to 3500 cal. BP) and the Mississippian period (ca. 1000 to 500 cal. BP), as well as the distribution of oyster beds as mapped in the late 1800s (and again in the 1970s). These data reveal long-term temporal trends in oyster sizes and latitudinal variation in the mean size of oysters. These results demonstrate that at a regional level, oyster fisheries were resilient and experienced multiple stable states over the last 5000 years before the 1900s. This is although the population grew exponentially from the Late Archaic to the Mississippian period and experienced shifts in political organization (e.g., from egalitarian to ranked systems) and changing economies (e.g., from foraging to a mixed economy that included some maize agriculture). Beginning in the 1900s, the oyster fishery experienced a marked collapse and has yet to return to its pre-1800 productivity (10). We believe that the archaeological evidence provides critical insights for ecosystem restoration by demonstrating where such fisheries are most resilient to long-term human influence.

Digitation of the oyster reef locations (in blue) was performed by M. Strickland for South Carolina and Clark Alexanders Laboratory for Georgia. All sites are located on barrier islands; however, exact locations are not provided to protect site locations from looting.

The Native Americans who harvested oysters and other shellfish of the Georgia Bight were variously organized from small egalitarian villages to large stratified polities, yet all relied on estuaries and oysters in their economic pursuits (11). The earliest substantial occupation of the coast begins during the Late Archaic, followed by Native American occupation during the Woodland and Mississippian periods (detailed below). In middens found throughout these various periods, oyster was the most common invertebrate taxon regardless of the time period in linear sheet middens (i.e., refuse shell deposits) and midden-mounds, large mounded deposits of shell and other sediments. Perhaps, the most famous of the regions archaeological sites are its shell rings, massive circular ring formations of midden-mound deposits, some over 3- m tall. These shell rings, composed of oyster, other mollusks, vertebrate faunal remains, and artifacts, are thought to represent some of the earliest coastally adapted, pottery producing, egalitarian, sedentary villages in the United States (12, 13). Around 3500 cal. BP, in some areas, there appears to have been a disruption in the fishery, and many sites were abandoned, possibly due to lowering sea levels (14). Despite the hiatus in shellfishing in some areas, people still resided along the coast, and when sea levels shifted again to favorable conditions, Native Americans reoccupied many of these areas, harvesting oysters and creating middens once again (15). While shell middens dating to the Woodland period (ca. 3100 to 1000 cal. BP) exist, few of these have appropriately collected samples similar to the other two time periods represented in our study and are thus not present in the current study. By around 1500 cal. BP, Native American groups increasingly focused on areas closer to estuaries and the coast in general (15).

By the Mississippian period (ca. 1000 to 500 cal. BP), the Georgia Bight saw exponential growth in population, possibly due to in-migration from other regions, the establishment of a regional settlement system, and eventually, the adoption of maize agriculture (16). During this time, the Guale (the 16th century historically known people of the northern Georgia Coast) were organized into expansive multitown polities with ranked systems of inherited asymmetry in leadership and social prestige (16). This likely played out as social status ascribed at birth determined by the genealogical distance from a single noble ancestor. Thus, the egalitarian social network of the Late Archaic (with leadership lacking inherited authority) shifted to one that was characterized by increased competition between groups. The resulting status competition with other groups led to proprietorship over key resource areas, including oyster reefs. With more people to feed, nearby shellfish beds inevitably experienced more substantial harvesting pressures, forcing increased reliance on harvesting eastern oysters from more distant intertidal habitats and/or substrates. At many of these sites, archaeologists have documented hundreds of individual household midden mounds typically dominated by oysters. At some sites, up to 600 midden mounds have been recognized. On the basis of studies of extant midden mounds, many of these would have been a meter high and 10 m in diameter before being reduced in height by historic agriculturally practices (17, 18). Thus, the harvesting of oysters, even in the context of a limited degree of maize agriculture, still contributed to the overall Mississippian diet. Isotopic analysis of oysters and clams from both Late Archaic and Mississippian period sites from the Georgia Coast suggests that Native peoples harvested these resources throughout the year with a preference for oysters during the cooler months (12, 19).

Isotopic studies of Late Archaic and Mississippian period oysters from the Georgia Coast indicate that Native American groups used a wide range of oyster reef habitats (19, 20), based on the understanding that d18O water trends covary with salinity and that the absolute values reflect the range of habitat (20). These results suggest that the foraging areas for oysters were quite large; given the nature of canoe technology and knowledge of the twice-daily high-amplitude tides (ca. 3 m) for the Georgia Bight, distant beds could be traveled to daily, and a foraging radius of 10 km or possibly larger would not have been out of the question (20).

During the early 16th century, Spanish explorers, colonists, and Jesuit and Franciscan missionaries arrived on the Georgia and South Carolina coasts, significantly changing Native American lifeways (21). Indigenous population density plummeted, and villages sometimes congregated in mission towns, which were threatened by attacks and slave raids in the late 17th century. Spanish towns and missions contracted and were then abandoned (22). Although mission period populations continued to use oyster reefs, the resulting middens are more constricted across the landscape, mostly located near the mission towns (16, 23). The intervening years saw the development of the plantation period with the legalization of slavery in Georgia in the 1750s (24). During the time that the plantations on the Georgia and South Carolina coast operated, oysters continued to be harvested; however, in much-reduced numbers compared to the time frames that Native Americans lived in these regions. This changed markedly in the early 1900s when the Georgia Coast became one of the leading producers of the worlds canned oysters (25).

Given the trends that we describe above in shifts from the Late Archaic to the Mississippian period, we might expect that the size of the oysters harvested over time would diminish with increased harvesting pressures. In sum, there are several trends that suggest that this might be something that we would expect. First is the sheer nature of population growth and the number of people that would have needed to be fed during the Mississippian period versus the Late Archaic period sites. Second, given that we believe that there was greater territoriality among groups during the Mississippian period, then access to oyster reefs was likely more restrictive. Third, although there are some changes in subsistence, the timing of seasonal harvesting of oysters remained consistent over time. Thus, similar harvesting pressures, at least in terms of the timing of harvesting, existed for the Late Archaic and Mississippian periods. As a result of colonization and Native American depopulation, oyster reefs likely experienced fewer harvesting pressures during the period between the 1700s and late 1800s; however, during the late 1800s and early 1900s, these reefs were heavily harvested for canning and likely experienced greater pressure than ever before.

The results of our study of 37,805 eastern oysters from 15 Mississippian and Late Archaic sites from the South Carolina and Georgia coasts document both continuity and changes in size and their distributions along the coast over time. These trends, as we discuss below, do not conform to the expectations of reduced size of oysters during the time that Native Americans harvested oysters. The data do show that historic period exploitation resulted in significant reduction in live oyster reefs. This work highlights trends that can inform research regarding the stability of oyster reefs over time and how Native Americans communities along South Atlantic Coast may have contributed to the long-term stability of these oyster reefs.

Left valve height (LVH) and left valve length (LVL) increase in the archaeological oyster shell sample between the Late Archaic and Mississippian periods: mean LVH significantly increases from 72.9 to 75.6 mm, and mean LVL significantly increases from 38.2 to 41.4 mm (Table 1). Late Archaic and Mississippian samples are statistically different for both mean LVL [95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.43 to 2.93; P < 0.001] and mean LVH (95% CI = 3.28 to 2.09; P < 0.001). In general, this pattern holds when comparing oyster size between Late Archaic and Mississippian sites within the same foraging radius. Mississippian sites have statistically larger oyster shells than Late Archaic sites in the same foraging radii on both St. Catherines Island (LVH: 95% CI = 7.3 to 5.2, P < 0.001; LVL: 95% CI = 0.1 to 1.0, P = 0.01) and Sapelo Island (LVH: 95% CI = 8.9 to 1.9, P < 0.01; LVL: 95% CI = 9.1 to 6.6, P < 0.001). Ossabaw Island is of exception as it witnessed a statistically significant decrease in oyster size across time (LVH: 95% CI = 16.5 to 20.8, P < 0.05; LVL: 95% CI = 2.0 to 3.5, P < 0.05). Oyster size also varies between levels within single sites. At McQueen Shell Ring (LVH: X2 = 76.1, P < 0.001; LVL: X2 = 58.1, P < 0.001), St. Catherines Shell Ring (LVH: X2 = 30.4, P < 0.001; LVL: X2 = 22.4, P = 0.004), and Sapelo Shell Ring 3 (LVH: X2 = 90.9, P < 0.001; LVL: X2 = 76.7, P < 0.001), there is a small yet statistically significant temporal decrease in oyster shell size through time during the Late Archaic Period (Figs. 2 and 3 and tables S5 to S8).

LVH measurements, top; LVL measurements, bottom.

LVH measurements, top; LVL measurements, bottom. Radiocarbon dates are shown below box plots.

Oyster size also varies latitudinally, as indicated by a nonrandom pattern moving north to south, often clustering by island (Fig. 4 and Table 1). Tests for equality of variance find a significant difference among the variances of LVL and LVH for each site (LVL, P < 0.001; LVH, P < 0.001). At the mean level, sites are significantly different in regard to both LVH and LVL (LVH: X2 = 2092, P < 0.001; LVL: X2 = 3057.9, P < 0.001). A post hoc Mann-Whitney U test, however, shows that many but not all sites are distinguishable regarding these measurements. Much of the difference in oyster size variation is between islands. A geographical comparison of oyster size shows that sites grouped by island are significantly different regarding mean LVH and LVL (LVH: X2 = 2120, P < 0.05; LVL: X2 = 782, P < 0.05) (fig. S1), and a post hoc pairwise Mann-Whitney U test indicates that all islands are distinguishable, except for LVL between Edisto and Ossabaw islands (P < 0.05) (table S4).

Mean LVH, top; mean LVL, bottom. Gray boxes are Late Archaic period sites, and blue boxes are Mississippian period sites. Sites are organized from north to south starting at the left.

The mean oyster length (LVH) was compared to the total length of oyster beds as mapped in 1889 and 1890 within a foraging radius of both 5 and 10 km from each site. We assume that oyster bed length correlates with density, productivity, and abundance of past oysters. A Spearmans correlation test shows a moderate and statistically significant correlation between LVH measurements and total oyster bed lengths in both 5 and 10 km foraging radii (5 km: R = 0.58, P = 0.04; 10 km: R = 0.62, P = 0.03) (Fig. 5 and table S3).

Diamonds represent Mississippian period sites and circles represent Late Archaic period sites. Inset oyster drawing shows measurement locations on C. virginica [adapted from (5, 6)]. Drawing by E. R. Parham. ASH, anterior scar height; LHL, left hinge length.

Late Archaic and Mississippian period oyster measurements correlate with the size of oyster reef habitat as mapped in 1889 and 1890 within site foraging radii (26), suggesting long-term stability in estuarine and marine habitats despite variable human harvesting practices. In addition, oyster size measurements at individual sites demonstrate that some oyster populations experienced harvesting pressure at the outset of human occupation during the Late Archaic. In the southern part of Ossabaw Island, the mean oyster size decreases for several periods (6). Overall, however, our data show growth in oyster size through time, implying localized increases in ecosystem productivity, either through human management practices or environmental change.

How do we account for this long-term stability? On the basis of our results, we suggest that when Native Americans used oyster reef ecosystems that there existed some kind of territoriality in fishing rights. Mississippian populations likely maintained considerable hierarchical control over oyster reef harvesting, and these territorial practices might have begun much earlier, perhaps parallel to ethnographic and archaeological evidence from fisher-hunter-gatherers elsewhere in the world (27). Along the Northwestern coast of North America, for instance, long-term property rights likely endured and were linked intimately with social institutions revolving around kinship and affiliation (28). Although technologies and environments probably shifted through time, Reitz (29) found considerable continuity in the kinds of estuarine fishes captured by Native Americans in Georgia from the Late Archaic through the Mississippian period, consistent with the findings reported here.

Overall, these data suggest that fishing/shellfish harvesting territories and governing practices may have had considerable antiquity. Larger regional systems of fisheries management could have functioned as ways to overcome collective action problems at both local and regional scales. Reitz (29) argues that common pool management might have governed where fishing and shellfish collection could take place and by whom, mitigating resource depression problems at both local and regional scales. Her study of fishes found that Native Americans and subsequently Euroamericans continued to harvest core species in the region from 2400 B.C. until the 16th century and, in some cases, at postcolonial sites harvesting persisted into the 19th century. In general, Native Americans captured fishes using mass capture technologies (e.g., nets and weirs). Despite intensive harvesting of these fishes, for the most part, such practices were sustainable over long periods, indicating to Reitz (29) that some form of social control and management of resources occurred along the coast. Adaptive controls, such as common pool management and proprietorship over beds, likely emerged with the onset of village formation along the coast as populations moved into productive new areas where resources could be procured (29, 30). Villages were dependent, to a large extent, on local resources, therefore, and likely enacted practices to encourage the health and productivity of nearby reefs (e.g., perhaps seeding them with old oyster shells). Precisely what these practices were that promoted sustainability in oyster reefs is difficult to discern at this point; however, the patterns identified here point to such practices. In addition, each site and subregion experienced unique local histories, and these interactions reflect an overarching complex adaptive system that may have emerged early on in the regions history. While such practices were likely concerned overall with local-level resources, they would have nonetheless contributed to larger regional sustainability. Thus, this common pool management system likely had lasting effects on the oyster reef community. In the interim 200 years from the reduction in Native American populations to the rise of the market economy in the 1800s and 1900s, there is considerable continuity in oyster productivity. This suggests that Native American management of these resources has lasting legacy effects on the ecosystem, not unlike those observed elsewhere in the American South (31).

Beyond suggesting some mechanisms of Native American resource management, this research also has implications for modern oyster conservation and management. The Georgia Bight ecosystem evolved in concert with human use of estuarine and terrestrial resources over 5000 yearsunderscoring the fallacy of any purportedly pristine environment inhabited by people without history (29). Instead, the archaeological and paleoecological findings suggest a highly resilient pattern of harvesting practices and possible reef management of oyster use over this time frame. Such a perspective would not have been possible without the data provided by the archaeological samples from shell middens in the region. Furthermore, these data indicate that large-scale harvesting of oysters from the region can be sustained with proper institutions in place to protect against overexploitation. With the emergence of market-based exploitation in the late 1800s and 1900s, millions of pounds of oysters were harvested from the Georgia Bight (25, 32), resulting in an overall ~86% decline in the areal extent of oyster reef habitat as measured by the 1889 survey (10, 17, 26). By 1974 to 1977, many of the beds documented in 1889 survey no longer support living reefs, and with the demise of industrialized harvesting, only a few thousand pounds were being collected per year (26, 32). Only 8% of live oyster beds documented in 1889 were live oyster beds in 2018 (33). Beyond overexploitation, the loss of freshwater input has affected the salinity along parts of the coast and may be partially responsible for the shifts in some beds (32).

New legislation and costly conservation programs today encourage the restoration of oyster reef farming on the Georgia Bight (34). We argue that the paleobiological record from archaeological sites in the region can help managers make informed decisions about such ecosystem restoration, using 5000 years of oyster reef history to pinpoint places where oyster farming may be more efficiently practiced. This, of course, is more complicated than merely looking at the data in the present study and must be coupled with current localized environmental data to provide a comprehensive picture of oyster restoration. Nevertheless, the long-term history of oyster productivity demonstrates that not all parts of the Georgia Bight have equal potential as oyster habitat, particularly with regard to the mean size of individuals harvested, to say nothing of the dependent estuaries. In coastal California, long-term archaeological datasets of red and black abalones (Haliotis rufescens and Haliotis cracherodii) have helped identify important past nursery sites and highlight places for habitat restoration (35, 36). In the Pacific Northwest, similar archaeological research on Native American clam gardens and clam management systems demonstrates the relevance of past human subsistence, land use, and management practices for informing modern nearshore ecological productivity (37). Our work in coastal Georgia further demonstrates how deep historical data can provide concrete metrics for restoration, including site selection, past environmental productivity, and suitability for sustained human harvest. The next step will be to incorporate these data along with information on modern ecosystem services in discussions between scientists, resource managers, local stakeholders, and the descendent communities whose ancestral lands are the Georgia and South Carolina coasts.

Shellfishing has been a critical human subsistence strategy around the world for thousands of years (38). This was never a matter of merely picking up mollusks for food but a practice governed by a diversity of social rules that operated at the community, individual, and regional levels. Then and now, human survival is governed by complex behaviors regarding key subsistence resources. Kirby (25) underscores the importance of documenting historical sequences of expanding and collapsing oyster fisheries to define which parts of the coast are in the greatest danger. The long-term histories buried in shell middens on the Georgia Bight may hold a key to its future, provided we factor in the social and environmental forces that have affected oyster and human populations alike.

A total of 37,805 eastern oysters (C. virginica) were measured from 15 Late Archaic and Mississippian period sites situated along the South Atlantic Coast (Fig. 2). LVL and LVH measurements (millimeters) were taken following a standard method outlined by Lulewicz et al. (6). Although LVH is more commonly used in oyster paleobiology studies, we also include LVL measurements because it too is an important proxy for paleoenvironment and human population pressures (5). All data analyses were conducted using the statistical software R (39). A Bartlett and Shapiro-Wilk test were first used to examine homogeneity of variance and normality of the data, respectively. Since the data are not normally distributed or homoscedastic, a nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare mean LVH and LVL between sites, and a post hoc pairwise Mann-Whitney U test was used to examine which sites are distinguishable in regard to mean LVL and LVH. To reduce the possibility of type I errors associated with multiple comparisons, a Holm correction was added to all Mann-Whitney U tests. Emphasis was placed on differences between islands and between Late Archaic and Mississippian period sites within the same 5- and 10-km foraging radius. A Kruskal-Wallis test and a Mann-Whitney U test were also used to compare oyster size between different levels at McQueen Shell Ring, Sapelo Shell Ring 3, St. Catherines Shell Ring, and Ossabaw Shell Ring and between sites clustered on Edisto Island, Ossabaw Island, St. Catherines Island, and Sapelo Island. A Students t test was used to compare mean LVH and LVL between all Late Archaic and Mississippian sites. Differences were considered statistically significant when P 0.05. A Spearmans rank correlation test was used to examine the strength of the relationship between LVH and total oyster bed lengths (meters) in 5- and 10-km foraging radii of 10 sites. Two Late Archaic sites (Spanish Mount and Cane Patch) were excluded from the correlation analysis, as these sites appear to be mounds, as opposed to rings, and thus likely aggregation sites rather than habitation sites. Data on oyster bed length were collected from oyster bed maps made in an 1889 survey of Georgia (10, 33) and from 1890 in South Carolina (40). These were then georeferenced and digitized in ArcGIS by Alexanders Laboratory and M. Strickland, respectively, for the current analysis.

E. R. Wolf, Europe and the People without History (University of California Press, 2010).

C. Claassen, Shells (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1998).

O. H. Pilkey, M. E. Fraser, A Celebration of the Worlds Barrier Islands (Columbia Univ. Press, 2003).

C. D. Harris, Survey of the Intertidal and Subtidal Oyster Resources of the Georgia coast (Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Resources Division, 1980).

D. H. Thomas, Synthesis and implications, in Native American Landscapes of St. Catherines Island Georgia III, D. H. Thomas, Ed. (American Museum of Natural History, 2008), pp. 10461065.

J. E. Worth, The Sruggle for the Georgia Coast (University of Alabama Press, 2007).

M. A. Stewart, What Nature Suffers to Groe: Life, Labor, and Landscape on the Georgia Coast, 1680-1920 (University of Georgia Press, 2002).

J. C. Drake, On the Sounds and Estuaries of Georgia: With Reference to Oyster Culture (US Government Printing Office, 1891).

L. R. Binford, Constructing Frames of Reference: An Analytical Method for Archaeological Theory Building Using Ethnographic and Environmental Data Sets (University of California Press, 2001).

V. Thompson, in The Archaeology of Villages in Eastern North America, J. Birch, V. Thompson, Eds. (University of Florida Press, 2018), pp. 2035.

R. L. Walker, C. Cotton, Oyster bed distribution as a long term environmental indicator for the Duplin River, Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve (2001).

C. R. Alexander, Geospatial Integration to Advance Management in Coastal Georgia (Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 2018).

A. J. Gallant, A High Low Tide: The Revival of a Southern Oyster (University of Georgia Press, 2018).

R. C. Team, R: A language and environment for statistical computing (2013).

V. G. Burrell, South Carolina Oyster Industry: A History (University of South Carolina, Thomas Cooper Library, Digital Collections, 2009).

Acknowledgments: We thank the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, the Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve, the University of Georgia Marine Institute, the Department of Anthropology and Laboratory of Archaeology at the University of Georgia, the Smithsonian Institution, the American Museum of Natural History, the Edward John Noble Foundation, and the St. Catherines Island Foundation for institutional support. We thank the Historic and Cultural Preservation Department of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, especially R. Butler, for commenting on this manuscript and for allowing us to conduct research on their ancestral lands. We also thank C. Rodning, D. G. Anderson, C. Giovas, D. Sandweiss, N. Hausmann, and four anonymous reviewers for their comments on this manuscript. Funding: This research was supported, in part, in association with the Georgia Coastal Ecosystems LTER project, NSF grants (NSF grant numbers OCE- 0620959 and OCE- OCE-123714). Research at Spanish Mount was supported, in part, by a contract with the South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism for Data Recovery at Spanish Mount Point (38CH62), award number 21300-GA24, 2016-2018. Author contributions: Designed research: V.D.T. and T.R. Performed research: V.D.T., T.R., C.J.G., K.Y.S., S.B., M.S., B.T., I.L., C.A., and B.T.R. Analyzed data: V.D.T., C.J.G., T.R., J.S., and C.H. Wrote paper: V.D.T., T.R., C.J.G., and D.H.T. Edited final draft: All authors. Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Data and materials availability: All data needed to evaluate the conclusions in the paper are present in the paper and/or the Supplementary Materials. All raw data measurements are available through the Georgia Coastal Ecosystem Long Term Ecological Research Network website: https://gce-lter.marsci.uga.edu/. DOI: 10.6073/pasta/581d10fe0cd0d1d87b1d0742d1f84ad0. Additional data related to this paper may be requested from the authors.

Go here to see the original:

Ecosystem stability and Native American oyster harvesting along the Atlantic Coast of the United States - Science Advances

New Delhi, Jul 16 (IANS): Similar to Alibaba and Tencent which created tech-based ecosystems in China, Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) is best positioned to create a similar ecosystem in India, according to BofA Securities.

It said that RIL is best positioned to create tech eco-system in India. "Similar to Alibaba and Tencent which created tech-based ecosystems in China, we find RIL best positioned to create a similar ecosystem in India," it added.

"In 2-3 years, we expect RIL to have a captive mobile base of 500 million users, fixed broadband users of 15 million and SME base of 5-7 million. The company has also acquired stakes in 25 start-ups and is looking to lead India's 4th Industrial Revolution," the report said.

"We also find the company well placed to create Super-App (have 4-5 successful apps) and lead SME and kirana digitization. Also Jio unlike Bharti and Vodafone Idea, doesn't use Chinese vendors," the report said.

The Indian government in the last few months has tweaked some rules impacting China's presence in India telecom, media and technology (TMT) space.

The key changes are amended the FDI policy for countries sharing a border with India by moving from the earlier automatic approval to the government, banned 59 Chinese apps to counter potential threat posed on sovereignty and security, asked e-com platforms to display the country of origin on products. Also, it has begun consultations on whether it needs to ban Chinese vendors for 5G.

"We expect these changes to potentially lead to a freeze/reduction of Chinese investments in India's tech ecosystem. We don't see much impact as there seems to be adequate liquidity chasing these start-ups," the report said.

"We note that China has invested $4 billion in the Indian start-up ecosystem and 13 out of the total 28 Unicorns have been China funded. As of now, we also don't see much impact on companies which are funded by Chinese investments," it added.

These are companies run by Indian founders and largely agnostic to where the capital comes from as long as reputation of investor is good. Over time, Chinese ownership may be diluted with capital coming from other investors. The current bans by the Indian government suggest that focus is more on software/apps that challenge India's sovereignty and where there are concerns that data may be shared outside India.

India is the fastest growing internet market in the world, with 19 billion app downloads in 2019. "Post China apps ban, we are seeing alternate apps gaining traction quickly. India's PE/VC ecosystem is looking to fund some of these Indian apps to capitalize on this opportunity. This aligns well with the govt focus on "Aatmanirbhar Bharat" (Self-reliant India)," it said.

Most traction by Chinese apps was in Bharat' (Indians in tier 2/3 cities). For instance, Tiktok has more users in rural India and apps like UC browser, ShareIt etc work well in low bandwidth areas.

A few Indian apps that have gained traction since the ban are Roposo, Chingari, ShareChat and DailyHunt. "We also see Instagram/YouTube/Snap attracting most of TikTok's influencers or users," the report said.

Read the original here:

RIL is looking to lead India's 4th Industrial Revolution - Daijiworld.com

Onthis week's edition of Eco Africa, we bring you a host of clever ideas for a greener planet!

First, we're off to Kenya to learn more about the plight facing one of nature's greatest waste disposal services, the vulture. They clean up carcasses in the wild but are under huge threat from poachers. Now an NGO is trying to help protect the birds by informing locals of the important role the creatures play in the ecosystem.

Next we visit a start-up in Germany which is aiming to boost biodiversity with its insect-friendly compostable confetti made of seeds which can simply be thrown into the wind, rather than be planted.

Then we check out a new eco-friendly floating neighborhood in Amsterdam that is being built entirely on water. With rising sea levels, the innovative idea is gaining attention as a way to cope with the threats posed by climate change.

Mali is our next stop, where millions of people have no access to electricity. A start-up wants to change that by providing mini solar power plants to remote villages.

Finally we check out a start-up in West Africa which aims to improve the efficiency of recycling rubbish by connecting customers with waste collectors using an app.

Check out the showand let us know what you think atecoafrica@dw.com.

View post:

Welcome to the newest edition of Eco Africa - Deutsche Welle

Join us on Monday, July 27 for a virtual briefing with WIRED editor Greg Williams and Kate Kallot, the director of AI ecosystems for the machine learning group at Arm, as they explore the future of artificial intelligence.

Date: Monday, July 27, 2020Time: 13.00 BST / 08.00 ESTAccess: ComplimentaryBook now

Kallot whose work focuses on the creation of disruptive AI applications will explain what today's AI ecosystem looks like, and how it is evolving amidst the coronavirus outbreak

In this punchy 25-minute briefing, we'll explore the major differences in the localised responses to the global COVID-19 pandemic, and how emerging markets such as Africa are developing its software developer hubs, and applying innovative ways to solve region-specific challenges with artificial intelligence.

Register for this thought-provoking discussion online here.

Kallot is the director of AI ecosystems for the Machine Learning Group at Arm. In this role she works closely with partners and influencers to create disruptive AI applications on Arm-based technologies. She has a special interest in Tech for Good and a strong belief in the power of AI to drive social change.

She has won multiple awards throughout her career including the CES Best of Innovation Award and the China AI Industry Innovation Alliance Most Remarkable Product Award in 2018.

Kallot holds a BA and MBA from EFAP, International School of Marketing, Paris.

Designed as an extension of WIREDs long-running live conference portfolio, WIRED virtual briefings are punchy, deliberate and engaging sessions that reflect the same high calibre of speakers and programming featured at a WIRED event. Part of the WIRED Foresight series, curated by WIRED editor, Greg Williams.

Here is the original post:

The future of the AI ecosystem with Kate Kallot - Wired.co.uk

The COVID-19 pandemic has put telemedicine and health tech in the spotlight. This has opened up avenues of care, spurred innovation and investments in these segments as well as ushered newer operating models. But, along with growth prospects, there are challenges too in the current ecosystem. So, Jitesh Aggarwal, Founder & CEO,TreelifeConsulting recommends measures that telehealth and health tech companies should take to improve their preparedness to navigate the new normal and avoid pitfalls, especially legal, as they try to tap into emerging trends and capitalise opportunities

The focus on telehealth has intensified since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Tell us how prepared are start-ups, companies in this space to capitalise the opportunities that this crisis has created for them?

Telemedicine has been around in India since the early 1990s. However, only because of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic are we noticing mass adoption of this model of providing medical care. The publishing of the Telemedicine Practice Guidelines is another major reason why this form of medical practice has witnessed a surge and is the reason that telemedicine practice will stay. In effect, the Guidelines have made the practice of text/audio/video-based medical care legal and regulated, and thus have given platforms (apps and websites alike) as well as doctors the standards to adhere.

Start-up companies in the telemedicine space are the ones who facilitate, i.e. provide a platform for telemedicine. For these companies, being prepared means adhering to two things: a) regulatory preparedness and b) competitive preparedness.

Regulatory preparedness: Itwould come from compliance with the IT Act, 2000 (as it is the standard data protection legislation in India at present), the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rules, and the MCI Act and Rules and Code, primarily. From our estimate, the more diverse the telemedicine offering of a company is, the more they are prepared to tackle the situation. Essentially, the diversity here means the bundling of a telemedicine service offering along with other health tech or healthcare service offerings. For example, if a start-up plans to offer and add a telemedicine software, to its already existing offerings which involves software for healthcare CRMs, clinical software and patient management systems, and does not have an interface that requires such start-up to deal directly with consumers, the regulatory preparedness would be greater. Compare this to a start-up that is just getting into the telemedicine space and because of its business model will be handling more data on its own but may not be as regulatory prepared even though it should be, ideally. This could be a drawback of telemedicine in India where everyone is clamouring to provide this service.

Competitive preparedness: Itis a result of being more strategically aware in terms of business. In a way, tier I and II cities, already have a robust telemedicine offering. As this space becomes more mature, it will be tougher for newer entrants to simply be a telemedicine offering. They would need to strategise to create a value proposition, and something along the lines of diversity as specified above could be a starting point. Moreover, in tier I cities, medical professionals are already beginning to limit the number of telemedicine platforms they sign on to. This may create a supply problem for telemedicine platforms as well, as there are only so many platforms on which medical professionals can provide their advice.

What are the measures that Indias health tech industry needs to implement for tapping into the emerging trends, capturing new markets and serving evolving consumer needs?

To ensure that the Indian healthcare ecosystem does not miss out on the current wave, a few things should be worked around:

Promote research: The Indian ecosystem does not support research. This is evidenced by the lack of intellectual property protections that medical inventions have in India. With the onset of PE money/backing into the health tech industry, there is a chance that research, innovation and invention are not fostered on a larger scale in India, and instead, our tech solutions mirror the ones used outside the country. The GoI would need to give this a push, not only through a policy level but through monetary support as well. In January this year, Microsoft launched a $40 million fund to focus on accelerating medical research, increasing the shared understanding of mortality and longevity and reducing health inequity. These philanthropic efforts need to be mirrored by way of government policy as well. Spending on healthcare in India, including both public and private spend is only 3.6 per cent of the GDP, as compared to 16.9 per cent in the US.

Adopt EHRs: For health tech to grow, the solutions provided need to work for the Indian population and solve issues specific to India. Such solutions would only be able to grow once they have an actionable set of data to work from. Electronic health records (EHR) present a great opportunity to increase patient visibility and decrease patient recruitment time

Bring in standardisation across healthcare records: Standards for healthcare data need to be defined and implemented because different codes exist for storage of medical data across hospitals, pharmacies, diagnostic labs etc. Without standardisation, there is bound to be chaos in case of data records portability

Health data needs to be understood as Indias prized possession, and should be regulated differently: The IT Act, 2000 is hardly a standard to protect health data of patients. India up till 2018 (at least) was pondering a separate bill for digital health data of patients. This seems to have been subsumed under the PDP Bill, 2019. For a plethora of reasons, the healthcare sector needs legislation which is healthcare specific, as far as data protection is concerned. While regulatory sandboxing is a novel concept under the PDP Bill, there is no implied bar from government exemptions on it, i.e. the government will have the power to access data, or use data in a manner beneficial to it, or to its schemes, irrespective of the benefits provided to a company from strict adherence to the provisions of the PDP Bill.

Is the demand for remote monitoring solutions and non-contact technologies for patient care just a by-product of the health crisis or are we likely to see the influence of these technologies in the healthcare sector long after the pandemic ends? If yes, why?

Yes, remote monitoring solutions are here to stay, after the pandemic ends. Health tech start-ups have already used the opportunity presented by the pandemic to offer solutions that are convenient for the average city-dwelling customer/patient in India. Telemedicine is one, m-tech through IoT devices and/or wearables technology is another. In fact, there are companies that are using these solutions and packaging them as their unique solutions creating an environment that permits efficient access to health monitoring for patients.

Convenience to customers is one reason. The fact that PE/VC has recognised this is another. There is expected to be a significant inflow of investor money into this space, and where investor money goes, process standardisation follows. Once health care provides start providing standardised solutions to patients, patients will know what to expect, and the ecosystem as a knock-on effect of the same will become more dependable and this is what PE/VC money will be counting on.

Which are the new areas where health tech must focus on to build new capabilities? Which will be the most viable segments that will draw investors? Why?

The Indian healthcare ecosystem should build upon key focus areas such as standardising pharma supply chains and delivery, including for e-pharma. Drug/medication delivery to patients needs to be more standardised, regularised and the scope of the same should be extended to beyond tier I and II cities.

There needs to be standardisation of health data across India.Niti AayogsNational Health Stack push is already being implemented to an extent. Companies have already won bids to create a national health exchange which shall permit controlled transfer and sharing of health data. Moreover, institutions such as iSpirit, have taken it upon themselves to foster collaboration in the space of creating open-source APIs for the handling of health data, including the creation of an ecosystem of permissions for access to patient-related health data. Of course, for a countrywide adoption, a lot of work needs to be done.

Another focus area should be digital research. Advances in AI and ML, and deep learning have provided us with the tools to interpret data. Today, we can simulate how cells and even complex organs like the heart may respond to drug treatment. If data creation, generation and storage are standardised (as mentioned above), it will lead to greater data availability and insight generation capabilities. This could benefit,inter alia, processes involved inin-vitrotesting. Computational results can informin vitroresearch for a faster, more targeted, drug discovery approach.

Clinical trials help to assess the efficacy and safety of drug candidates. The lengthy, high-risk and expensive process of drug discovery and development can take a total of 10 to 15 years. Digitising clinical trials will validate better drugs, faster. The reduction of this timeframe will deliver life-enhancing medications faster to patients in need. There is a need to improve clinical trial efficiency. There are several pain points in the research and development process that technology can address. Together with the establishment of EHRs, clinical trials, once digitised, may also be paired up with the existing technology of wearable tech and virtual care. This would help with the creation of more efficient drugs for treating underlying medical conditions.

Along with opportunities, there could be pitfalls too, especially legal. What are they likely to be and how can companies safeguard themselves against them?

Companies providing different technologies and different product/service offerings will require to have different safeguards in place.

From a telemedicine perspective, platforms/tech providers would need to ensure compliance with laws surrounding not only data privacy, but also laws that govern the medical profession, pharmacies and telemarketing. The compliance and liability burden would depend on the kind of service offering made by the telemedicine platform providers. Are they merely providing a mode of connection between the patient and medical profession or are they going beyond that? Even then, there will not be a one size fits all solution to meet the regulatory requirements.

With the evolution of the medical device regime in India, companies that provide medical devices are going to be more heavily regulated. All kinds of devices offering some kind of benefit (whether assistive, operative or invasive) are now regulated as medical devices. More importantly, and rather ambiguously, the government has chosen to regulate software as medical devices without providing a determination as to what software is sought to be regulated, thus leaving that door open. Read with the drug pricing regulation in India, which permits caps on the prices ofall medical devicesas well, and this may hamper the growth and deployment of novel and India-centric software solutions to treat medical conditions and conduct medical research. Moreover, from next year, i.e. October 2021, all stakeholders within the medical device supply chain will need to be amenable to a lot more compulsory regulation by way of registrations as well as for applying and acquiring licenses. This will lead to a cost-to-benefit analysis for the deployment of medical technology, and this should certainly not be the way to promote evolution in this sector.

One of the most immediate changes that health tech companies may need to be prepared for is the cost of compliance with the Personal Data Protection (PDP) Bill 2019. As of the current interpretation of the text of the PDP Bill, 2019 (which effectively can get signed into law at any time) there is no period provided to affected companies to comply with the data protection measures in the Bill. The requirement of having a privacy-by-design system in place means that for a lot of companies the cost of compliance will go up as they would have to upgrade/overhaul their data protection systems and software. This change would be akin to the one experienced by European companies when they needed to comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), but at least, in that case, there was a period prescribed within which companies were permitted to overhaul their security systems.

Along with the changes mentioned above, generally, companies in the health tech space would need to be aware of the changes in the laws and regulations that govern this sector. It is anticipated because of the overhaul needed within the system, combined with the lack of innovation and regulation in the past (most of the regulation we are seeing now has come about as a response to COVID-19), will lead to a situation where regulations and policies will need to be chopped and changed as the eco-system matures.

Data security will be one of the biggest challenges in times of telemedicine and digital healthcare. How can companies ensure the privacy of their data to protect their patients and uphold their credibility?

The short answer is complying with the data privacy law of India, as is present at a particular point in time.

If the compliance is under the IT Act, 2000, the deployment of the IS/ISO/IEC 27001 on Information Technology Security Techniques Information Security Management System Requirements standard is a compliance requirement, along with the principles espoused under the IT Act and Rules for protecting and sharing data.

If we are to move under the PDP regime, the changes proposed to Indias date protection ecosystem are revolutionary and would require a greater level of compliance. Some of these are: the principles of accountability by the company to the user whose data is being used; providing the right to data erasure; facilitating data audits and data protection impact assessments, and most of all ensuring localised (i.e. in India) data storage.

The best way for companies to protect data would be to (and this is not only from a cost-saving perspective though that should also be considered) streamline their processes, and have a holistic business plan in terms of service offerings, scaling and tie-ups/partnerships. By way of an example, if a hospital is looking to optimise its process or improve upon their offerings, any method employed to do the same should be viewed from a data protection impact assessment angle. In the due diligence that is being done by the hospital, policies surrounding data protection of its partners and potential partners needs to be done so that there is an alignment of the same. The objective is that there must be harmony between the processes involved. A failure to achieve such harmony may lead to increased costs, penalties, liabilities and also a loss of credibility, including a potential loss to data of its patients.

[emailprotected]

[emailprotected]

Read the original here:

Why telemedicine and health tech providers need to improve their regulatory preparedness - Express Healthcare

Batang Toru ecosystem has come under the national and international spotlight in the last few years, due to its unique character and valuable biodiversity, especially the newly discovered Tapanuli orangutan.

Recently, some environmental activists have been calling for more studies on the ecosystem, for strategic environment study and an environment audit on the ecosystems carrying capacity. They also demand a halt to the hydropower project there.

Conducting more studies looks like opening Pandora's box. It will reveal and provide opportunities for interests other than the necessity to protect the orangutan. In reality, this is not a scientific, but a political process that goes beyond the control of both NGOs and scientists, especially scientists from overseas.

The outcome is unpredictable and the level of uncertainty is high, since the regents and local councilors tend to resist any changes to the existing land status that they fought so hard for in the past. It is more obtainable to work within the existing land title and call for sustainable management of these areas, with the Tapanuli orangutan as the umbrella species. It is more effective and can provide an immediate solution to the protection of the primate.

Implementation of sustainable management in zones allocated for other land uses (APL) in the Batang Toru ecosystem in North Sumatra can be the answer to maintaining a long-term viable population of this critically endangered species. The sustainable development principles will treat economic, environmental and social dimensions in an equilibrium, so that there is no dichotomy between conservation and economy.

On July 26, 2019, I wrote in this newspaper that the Tapanuli orangutan could coexist with the run-of-river hydropower plant, against those who insist the construction must stop. I want to re-emphasize that position, with better understanding of the land use system, more studies coming out recently (Rahman et.al, 2019) and Kuswanda (2020), as well as new findings from a more detailed study recently conducted by the National University Center for Sustainable Environment and Resource Management (Prasetyo and Prakosa, 2020) on the project site, and consultations with orangutan experts of PanEco and YEL Foundation.

My argument came from the fact that the majority of the Batang Toru forests (around 71 percent) have been protected under protection forest status and around 10 percent are under nature conservation status.

A comparison between the land status and Tapanuli orangutan habitat suitability distribution by Rahman, et.al, (2019) shows that the majority of the orangutan population is found within the protected and conservation forests.

Orangutans inhabiting APL are mostly in low to moderate density. The APL are managed by the local governments of North, Central and South Tapanuli and are intended for economic purposes. The Batang Toru hydropower project is located in this area, not in the highest density of orangutan population, as claimed by Serge Wich. Other large-scale economic activities are also found in the APL.

The fact that the majority of the orangutan population is already within the protection forest is a big relief. The challenge is how to protect orangutan outside the protected and conservation areas.

The focus of this solution is to guarantee the safety of orangutans and the integrity of forest cover in all land statuses and to create wildlife corridors to allow genetic flow of isolated populations to a larger population. Public education followed by law enforcement to prevent killing and hunting of orangutans, as well as illegal logging prevention, is a must and is a prerequisite.

At the same time, orangutan habitat suitability within the APL status should be identified and delineated. Any projects in these areas have to protect the habitat and restore it whenever possible for temporary disturbed ones, and finding offset for habitats that are permanently disturbed, and restore areas that are not suitable as orangutan habitat into ones that are suitable.

As for the misleading information about the hydropower project, especially coming from IUCN Fact Check created by Serge Wich recently, I have found the fact check has a fundamental problem because it was based on wrong and outdated information. PT NSHE has done more work and studies since construction started, and new data and information has changed some of the previous position.

Ian Singleton last February stated during a workshop in Medan, in which Serge Wich refused to participate and called for a boycott of, that the project did not infringe the connectivity of orangutans from the Sibual-Buali population to the larger population in the west block and with the planned mitigation program, the impacts will be minimal.

The critical habitat within its area of influence (AOI) has been identified, the permanent disturbance of orangutan habitat is 84 hectares, and temporary disturbance and to be restored is 189 ha, and priority area to be protected has been delineated. The permanent disturbance is going to be offset, and the recommendation is to establish a wildlife corridor in Sitandiang.

There has been daily orangutan monitoring with the involvement of local communities, trained and supervised by orangutan experts. The company collaborates with scientists, NGOs, local governments and conservation agencies at all levels.

Other companies need to follow this example. The bar for best practices should be established. I call for all concerned parties to collaborate and achieve this objective as soon as possible.

***

The writer has advised PT NSHEs president. The views expressed are her own.

Editor's note: This opinion piece has been updated to clarify the writer's position.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official stance of The Jakarta Post.

See the original post:

Collaborative sustainable management of other use areas to protect Tapanuli orangutan in Batang Toru ecosystem - The Jakarta Post - Jakarta Post

It is our aim to provide our readers with report for Foodcoin ecosystem Market, which examines the industry during the period 2020 2026. One goal is to present deeper insight into this line of business in this document. The first part of the report focuses on providing the industry definition for the product or service under focus in the Foodcoin ecosystem Market report. Next, the document will study the factors responsible for hindering and enhancing growth in the industry. After covering various areas of interest in the industry, the report aims to provide how the Foodcoin ecosystem Market will grow during the forecast period.

The final report will add the analysis of the Impact of Covid-19 on Foodcoin ecosystem Market.

Request a free sample copy @ https://www.reportsandmarkets.com/sample-request/global-foodcoin-ecosystem-market-research-report-2019-to-2026?utm_source=3wnews&utm_medium=38

The Foodcoin ecosystem Market report between the years 2020 2026 will highlight the current value of the industry. At the same time, there is also an estimate of how much this line of business will be worth at the end of the forecast period. As it is our goal to maintain high levels of accuracy at all times, we will take a look at the CAGR of the Foodcoin ecosystem Market. We make sure that all the information available in this report has excellent levels of readability. One way we achieve this target is by Foodcoin ecosystem Market segmentation. Going through the report for 2020 2026 will bring our readers up-to-date regarding this industry.

While examining the information from this document, one thing becomes clear, the elements which contribute to increase in demand for the product or service. At the same time, there will be a focus on what drives the popularity of these types of products or services. This report is for those who want to learn about Foodcoin ecosystem Market, along with its forecast for 2020 2026. Information regarding market revenue, competitive partners, and key players will also be available.

Segmentation

As discussed earlier, there is segmentation in the Foodcoin ecosystem Market report, to improve the accuracy and make it easier to collect data. The categories which are the dividing factors in the industry are distribution channels, application, and product or service type. With this level of segmentation, it becomes easier to analyze and understand the Foodcoin ecosystem Market. At the same time, there is emphasis on which type of consumers become the customers in this industry. When it comes to distribution channels, the Foodcoin ecosystem Market report looks at the different techniques of circulation of the product or service.

Regional Overview

In this part of the Foodcoin ecosystem Market report, we will be taking a look at the geographical areas and the role they play in contributing to the growth of this line of business. The areas of interest in this document are as follows Middle East and Africa, South and North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. From the Foodcoin ecosystem Market report, it becomes clear which region is the largest contributor.

Latest Industry News

From this Foodcoin ecosystem Market report, the reader will also get to learn about the latest developments in the industry. The reason is that these products or services have the potential to disrupt this line of business. If there is information about company acquisitions or mergers, this information will also be available in this portion of the Foodcoin ecosystem Market report.

If you have any special requirements about this Foodcoin ecosystem Market report, please let us know and we can provide custom report.

Inquire more about this report @ https://www.reportsandmarkets.com/enquiry/global-foodcoin-ecosystem-market-research-report-2019-to-2026?utm_source=3wnews&utm_medium=38

About Us

ReportsAndMarkets.com allocates the globally available market research and many company reports from reputed market research companies that are a pioneer in their respective domains. We are completely an autonomous group and serve our clients by offering the trustworthy available research stuff, as we know this is an essential aspect of Market Research.

Contact Us

Sanjay Jain

Manager Partner Relations & International Marketing

http://www.reportsandmarkets.com

Ph: +1-352-353-0818 (US)

See more here:

Impact of COVID-19 on Foodcoin ecosystem 2020 by Manufacturers, Regions, Type and Application, Forecast to 2026 - 3rd Watch News