Cited by 189Remote Sensing and LiDAR ApplicationsPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsForest ecology and management

Post-drought decline of the Amazon carbon sink.

Open access
Yang, Yan, Saatchi, Sassan S., Xu, Liang, Yu, Yifan, Choi, Sungho, Phillips, Nathan, Kennedy, Robert, Keller, Michael +2 more·2018·Nature Communications

Abstract

Abstract Amazon forests have experienced frequent and severe droughts in the past two decades. However, little is known about the large-scale legacy of droughts on carbon stocks and dynamics of forests. Using systematic sampling of forest structure measured by LiDAR waveforms from 2003 to 2008, here we show a significant loss of carbon over the entire Amazon basin at a rate of 0.3 ± 0.2 (95% CI) PgC yr−1 after the 2005 mega-drought, which continued persistently over the next 3 years (2005–2008). The changes in forest structure, captured by average LiDAR forest height and converted to above ground biomass carbon density, show an average loss of 2.35 ± 1.80 MgC ha−1 a year after (2006) in the epicenter of the drought. With more frequent droughts expected in future, forests of Amazon may lose their role as a robust sink of carbon, leading to a significant positive climate feedback and exacerbating warming trends.

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/s41467-018-05668-6

Cites

79 of 79 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?

  • During 2005-2008 the Amazon was a net carbon source due to drought-stressed and dying trees, combined with increased occurrence of fires.

    “However, during 2005-2008 the Amazon was a net carbon source due to drought-stressed and dying trees, combined with increased occurrence of fires (Zeng et al., 2008;Yang et al., 2018).”

    From The tropical atlantic observing system (2019) · cites this paper as Yang et al., 2018

    The Results (Biomass and carbon changes) report post-2005 carbon losses, a shift to a carbon source in intact southern forests, and emissions from fires. But they do not show an increased occurrence of fires, and the Discussion cautions that the estimated drought-related loss is a decline in the forest carbon sink, not its absolute magnitude. The paper therefore does not establish that the entire Amazon was a net carbon source throughout 2005–2008 for the reasons stated. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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

1 of the 80 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [68]Cochran, W. G. Sampling Techniques 3rd edn (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1977).
  2. [79]Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R. & Friedman, J. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction (Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin, 2013).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yang, Y., Saatchi, S. S., Xu, L., Yu, Y., Choi, S., Phillips, N., Kennedy, R., Keller, M., Knyazikhin, Y., & Myneni, R. B.
Affiliations
  • Boston University (US)
  • Jet Propulsion Laboratory (US)
  • Oregon State University (US)
  • US Forest Service (US)
Corresponding author
Yang, Yan
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2018-08-09
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
3172-3172
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2887158854
Cited by
189
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 1
FWCI
9.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OpenBU (Boston University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  • California Institute of Technology
  • U.S. Geological Survey
  • Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Remote Sensing and LiDAR Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Plant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Forest ecology and management
Keywords
Amazon drought, forest carbon loss, aboveground biomass, forest structure, climate feedbacks, forest carbon dynamics, 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