Cited by 413Plant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsEcosystem dynamics and resilienceClimate variability and models

Self-amplified Amazon forest loss due to vegetation-atmosphere feedbacks

Open access
Zemp, Delphine Clara, Schleussner, Carl-Friedrich, Barbosa, Henrique M. J., Hirota, Marina, Montade, Vincent, Sampaio, Gilvan, Staal, Arie, Wang-Erlandsson, Lan +1 more·2017·Nature Communications

Abstract

Reduced rainfall increases the risk of forest dieback, while in return forest loss might intensify regional droughts. The consequences of this vegetation–atmosphere feedback for the stability of the Amazon forest are still unclear. Here we show that the risk of self-amplified Amazon forest loss increases nonlinearly with dry-season intensification. We apply a novel complex-network approach, in which Amazon forest patches are linked by observation-based atmospheric water fluxes. Our results suggest that the risk of self-amplified forest loss is reduced with increasing heterogeneity in the response of forest patches to reduced rainfall. Under dry-season Amazonian rainfall reductions, comparable to Last Glacial Maximum conditions, additional forest loss due to self-amplified effects occurs in 10–13% of the Amazon basin. Although our findings do not indicate that the projected rainfall changes for the end of the twenty-first century will lead to complete Amazon dieback, they suggest that frequent extreme drought events have the potential to destabilize large parts of the Amazon forest.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/ncomms14681

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The difference between both ensembles is possibly related to the forest-rainfall feedback included in the five coupled models, which increases total annual rainfall and therefore the stable forest area along the southern Amazon, but only when deforestation is not included in the simulations.

    “The difference between both ensembles is possibly related to the forest–rainfall feedback included in the five coupled models, which increases total annual rainfall and therefore the stable forest area along the southern Amazon, but only when deforestation is not included in the simulations4,37.”

    From Critical transitions in the Amazon forest system (2024) · cites this paper as [37]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Increases in tree water-use efficiency may reduce forest transpiration and consequently atmospheric moisture flow across the Amazon, potentially reducing forest resilience in the southwest of the biome.

    “Moreover, increases in tree water-use efficiency may reduce forest transpiration and consequently atmospheric moisture flow across the Amazon53,56, potentially reducing forest resilience in the southwest of the biome4,37.”

    From Critical transitions in the Amazon forest system (2024) · cites this paper as [37]

    The Results section (‘Self-amplified forest loss under dry-season intensification’; page unavailable) links reduced evapotranspiration after forest loss with moisture recycling and declining forest resilience. But the paper studies forest loss, not increased tree water-use efficiency as a cause of reduced transpiration. The southwest-resilience clause has separate citations in the citing sentence and is not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In the Amazon, atmospheric moisture flow westward is an important source of connectivity enhancing forest resilience, partly maintained by forest evapotranspiration.

    “In the Amazon, an important source of connectivity enhancing forest resilience is atmospheric moisture flow westward (Fig. 2), partly maintained by forest evapotranspiration4,37,67.”

    From Critical transitions in the Amazon forest system (2024) · cites this paper as [37]

    The Methods (‘Moisture recycling networks’; page not provided) describe links through which evapotranspiration in one Amazon grid cell contributes rainfall to another. The Results (‘Forest shifts’; page not provided) link rainfall to forest resilience. These passages support moisture-mediated connectivity and its relationship to resilience, but they do not establish the claim’s specific westward direction of flow. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Satellite observations suggest a critical threshold in rainfall seasonality intensity at −400 mm of the maximum cumulative water deficit.

    “Satellite observations of tree cover distributions across tropical South America suggest a critical threshold in rainfall seasonality intensity at −400 mm of the maximum cumulative water deficit37,80 (MCWD).”

    From Critical transitions in the Amazon forest system (2024) · cites this paper as [37]

    The Results section (“Forest shifts”; page unavailable) says that forest probability across rainfall regimes is derived from satellite data and that forest resilience decreases as MCWD decreases. The Methods section (“Potential landscapes”; page unavailable) examines tree-cover states across MCWD values, but the retrieved passages do not identify a critical threshold at −400 mm. That numerical threshold is unsupported by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Another study using a climate-vegetation model found that with accumulated deforestation of 30−50%, rainfall in non-deforested areas downwind would decline by 40%, potentially causing more forest loss.

    “Another study using a climate-vegetation model found that with accumulated deforestation of 30−50%, rainfall in non-deforested areas downwind would decline67 by 40% (ref. 67), potentially causing more forest loss4,37.”

    From Critical transitions in the Amazon forest system (2024) · cites this paper as [37]

    The Results (LGM and twenty-first century; page unavailable) describe an approximately 40% dry-season rainfall reduction that could lead to self-amplified forest loss. But that scenario is driven by reduced oceanic moisture inflow, not 30–50% accumulated deforestation; the passage does not place the rainfall decline in non-deforested areas downwind. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Lenton T. M.. Tipping elements in the Earth's climate system. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 1786– 1793 (2008). 18258748 PMC2538841
  2. Mayle F. E., Beerling D. J., Gosling W. D. & Bush M. B. Responses of Amazonian ecosystems to climatic and atmospheric carbon dioxide changes since the last glacial maximum. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 359, 499– 514 (2004). PMC1693334 15212099
  3. Oyama M. D. & Nobre C. A. A new climate-vegetation equilibrium state for tropical South America. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 2199 (2003).
  4. Malhi Y.. Exploring the likelihood and mechanism of a climate-change-induced dieback of the Amazon rainforest. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 20610– 20615 (2009). 19218454 PMC2791614
  5. Coe M. T.. Deforestation and climate feedbacks threaten the ecological integrity of south-southeastern Amazonia. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 368, 20120155 (2013). PMC3638426 23610166
  6. Brando P. M.. Abrupt increases in Amazonian tree mortality due to drought-fire interactions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 6347– 6352 (2014). 24733937 PMC4035969
  7. Davidson E. A.. The Amazon basin in transition. Nature 481, 321– 328 (2012). 22258611
  8. Hirota M., Holmgren M., van Nes E. H. & Scheffer M. Global resilience of tropical forest and savanna to critical transitions. Science 334, 232– 235 (2011). 21998390
  9. Staver A. C., Archibald S. & Levin S. A. The global extent and determinants of savanna and forest as alternative biome states. Science 334, 230– 232 (2011). 21998389
  10. Xu C.. Remotely sensed canopy height reveals three pantropical ecosystem states. Ecology 97, 2518– 2521 (2016). 27859090
  11. Spracklen D., Arnold S. & Taylor C. Observations of increased tropical rainfall preceded by air passage over forests. Nature 489, 282– 285 (2012). 22951966
  12. van der Ent R. J., Savenije H. H. G., Schaefli B. & Steele-Dunne S. C. Origin and fate of atmospheric moisture over continents. Water Resour. Res. 46, W09525 (2010).
  13. Fu R.. Increased dry-season length over southern Amazonia in recent decades and its implication for future climate projection. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 18110– 18115 (2013). 24145443 PMC3831494
  14. Cheng H.. Climate change patterns in Amazonia and biodiversity. Nat. Commun. 4, 1411 (2013). 23361002
  15. Wang X.. Hydroclimate changes across the Amazon lowlands over the past 45,000 years. Nature 541, 204– 207 (2017). 28079075
  16. Cook K. & Vizy E. South American climate during the Last Glacial Maximum: delayed onset of the South American monsoon. J. Geophys. Res. 111, D02110 (2006).
  17. van Nes E. H., Hirota M., Holmgren M. & Scheffer M. Tipping points in tropical tree cover: linking theory to data. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 1016– 1021 (2014). 24106057
  18. Gai P. & Kapadia S. Contagion in financial networks. Proc. R. Soc. A 466, 2401– 2423 (2010).
  19. Watts D. J. A simple model of global cascades on random networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 5766– 5771 (2002). 16578874 PMC122850
  20. Thébault E. & Fontaine C. Stability of ecological communities and the architecture of mutualistic and trophic networks. Science 329, 853– 856 (2010). 20705861
  21. Buldyrev S. V., Parshani R., Paul G., Stanley H. E. & Havlin S. Catastrophic cascade of failures in interdependent networks. Nature 464, 1025– 1028 (2010). 20393559
  22. Boers N.. Prediction of extreme floods in the eastern Central Andes based on a complex networks approach. Nat. Commun. 5, 5199 (2014). 25310906
  23. Ludescher J.. Very early warning of next El Niño. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 2064– 2066 (2014). 24516172 PMC3926055
  24. Aragao L. E. O.. Spatial patterns and fire response of recent Amazonian droughts. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L07701 (2007).
  25. Levine N. M.. Ecosystem heterogeneity determines the ecological resilience of the Amazon to climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 793– 797 (2016). 26711984 PMC4725538
  26. Rammig A.. Estimating the risk of Amazonian forest dieback. New Phytol. 187, 694– 706 (2010). 20553387
  27. Malhi Y.. Climate change, deforestation, and the fate of the Amazon. Science 319, 169– 172 (2008). 18048654
  28. Cox P. M.. Increasing risk of Amazonian drought due to decreasing aerosol pollution. Nature 453, 212– 215 (2008). 18464740
  29. Miguez-Macho G. & Fan Y. The role of groundwater in the Amazon water cycle: 1. Influence on seasonal streamflow, flooding and wetlands. J. Geophys. Res. 117, D15114 (2012).
  30. Franchito S. H., Rao V. B., Vasques A. C., Santo C. M. & Conforte J. C. Validation of TRMM precipitation radar monthly rainfall estimates over Brazil. J. Geophys. Res. 114, D0210 (2009).
  31. Lapola D. M., Oyama M. D., Nobre C. A. & Sampaio G. A new world natural vegetation map for global change studies. An. Acad. Bras. Ciênc. 80, 397– 408 (2008). 18506265
  32. Soares-Filho B. S.. Modelling conservation in the Amazon basin. Nature 440, 520– 523 (2006). 16554817
  33. Gerrits A., Savenije H., Veling E. & Pfister L. Analytical derivation of the Budyko curve based on rainfall characteristics and a simple evaporation model. Water Resour. Res. 45, W04403 (2009).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zemp, D. C., Schleussner, C.-F., Barbosa, H. M. J., Hirota, M., Montade, V., Sampaio, G., Staal, A., Wang-Erlandsson, L., & Rammig, A.
Affiliations
  • Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
  • Climate Analytics (DE)
  • Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
  • Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) (BR)
  • University of Göttingen (DE)
  • Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (BR)
  • Wageningen University & Research (NL)
  • Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (DE)
Corresponding author
Zemp, Delphine Clara
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2017-03-13
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
14681-14681
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2597353615
Cited by
413
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 43 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 9
FWCI
20.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Maryland Shared Open Access Repository (USMAI Consortium) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Americanae (AECID Library) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • GoeScholar The Publication Server of the Georg-August-Universität Göttingen (Georg-August-Universität Göttingen) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RENATE (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Publication Database PIK (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Repository (Delft University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Biblioteca Digital da Memória Científica do INPE (National Institute for Space Research) (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Repository at the University of Maryland (University of Maryland College Park) (cc-by)
  • RENATE (cc-by)
Funders
  • European Commission (282664, 283093)
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (IRTG 1740/TRP 2011/50151-0, 1740/TRP 2011/50151-0, IRTG1740, TRP 2011/50151-0)
  • Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (13/50510-5, 11/50151-0, 13/50169-1, 2011/)
  • Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas (1364115)
  • Vetenskapsrådet
  • Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, nukleare Sicherheit und Verbraucherschutz (16_II_148_GLobal_A_IMPACT)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Plant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Ecosystem dynamics and resilience
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
Keywords
extreme drought, complex networks, Last Glacial Maximum, forest stability, Amazon basin

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review