CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 319

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Carbon loss from forest degradation exceeds that from deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon

Qin, Yuanwei, Xiao, Xiangming, Wigneron, Jean-Pierre, Ciais, Philippe, Brandt, Martin, Fan, Lei, Li, Xiaojun, Crowell, Sean, Wu, Xiaocui, Doughty, Russell, Zhang, Yao, Liu, Fang, Sitch, Stephen, Moore, Berrien·2021·Nature Climate Change
DOI 10.1038/s41558-021-01026-5
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

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/s41558-021-01026-5

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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 main objective of the GEDI mission is to provide high-accuracy and high global coverage data on canopy structure, which can be used to estimate biomass and canopy height.

    “The main objective of the GEDI mission is to provide high-accuracy and high global coverage data on canopy structure, which can be used to estimate biomass [39][40][41] and canopy height [30,38,42].”

    From ANADEM: A Digital Terrain Model for South America (2024) · cites this paper as [39]

    In “AGB losses from both deforestation and degradation” (page unavailable), the paper identifies GEDI as a spaceborne platform that measures vegetation canopy structure and is expected to aid forest monitoring. It does not state that GEDI’s main objective is high-accuracy, high-global-coverage data, or explicitly say that GEDI data are used to estimate biomass. The cited paper therefore supports the canopy-structure premise but not the full claim attached to the biomass citations. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 55

  1. Xiao, X. M., Biradar, C. M., Czarnecki, C., Alabi, T. & Keller, M. A simple algorithm for large-scale mapping of evergreen forests in tropical America, Africa and Asia. Remote Sens. 1, 355–374 (2009). · DOI
  2. Saatchi, S. S. et al. Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions across three continents. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 9899–9904 (2011). · DOI
  3. Davidson, E. A. et al. The Amazon basin in transition. Nature 481, 321–328 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  4. Jenkins, C. N., Pimm, S. L. & Joppa, L. N. Global patterns of terrestrial vertebrate diversity and conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, E2602–E2610 (2013). · DOI · Paper page
  5. Mitchard, E. T. A. The tropical forest carbon cycle and climate change. Nature 559, 527–534 (2018). · DOI
  6. Fearnside, P. M. Brazilian politics threaten environmental policies. Science 353, 746–748 (2016). · DOI
  7. Fearnside, P. M. Business as Usual: A Resurgence of Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon (Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, 2017). · DOI · Paper page
  8. Berenguer, E. et al. A large-scale field assessment of carbon stocks in human-modified tropical forests. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 3713–3726 (2014). · DOI
  9. Brienen, R. J. W. et al. Long-term decline of the Amazon carbon sink. Nature 519, 344–348 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  10. Doughty, C. E. et al. Drought impact on forest carbon dynamics and fluxes in Amazonia. Nature 519, 78–82 (2015). · DOI
  11. Baccini, A. et al. Tropical forests are a net carbon source based on aboveground measurements of gain and loss. Science 358, 230–234 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  12. Tyukavina, A. et al. Types and rates of forest disturbance in Brazilian Legal Amazon, 2000–2013. Sci. Adv. 3, e1601047 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  13. Qin, Y. et al. Improved estimates of forest cover and loss in the Brazilian Amazon in 2000–2017. Nat. Sustain. 2, 764–772 (2019). · DOI
  14. Seymour, F. & Harris, N. L. Reducing tropical deforestation. Science 365, 756–757 (2019). · DOI
  15. Richards, P., Arima, E., VanWey, L., Cohn, A. & Bhattarai, N. Are Brazil’s deforesters avoiding detection? Conserv. Lett. 10, 470–476 (2017). · DOI
  16. Fan, L. et al. Satellite-observed pantropical carbon dynamics. Nat. Plants 5, 944–951 (2019). · DOI
  17. Brandt, M. et al. Satellite passive microwaves reveal recent climate-induced carbon losses in African drylands. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 827–835 (2018). · DOI
  18. Wigneron, J.-P. et al. Tropical forests did not recover from the strong 2015–2016 El Niño event. Sci. Adv. 6, eaay4603 (2020). · DOI
  19. Wigneron, J.-P. et al. SMOS-IC data record of soil moisture and L-VOD: historical development, applications and perspectives. Remote Sens. Environ. 254, 112238 (2021). · DOI
  20. Qin, Y. W. et al. Annual dynamics of forest areas in South America during 2007–2010 at 50 m spatial resolution. Remote Sens. Environ. 201, 73–87 (2017). · DOI
  21. Ferrante, L. & Fearnside, P. M. Brazil’s new president and ‘ruralists’ threaten Amazonia’s environment, traditional peoples and the global climate. Environ. Conserv. 46, 261–263 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  22. Artaxo, P. Working together for Amazonia. Science 363, 323–323 (2019). · DOI
  23. Aragão, L. E. O. C. et al. 21st century drought-related fires counteract the decline of Amazon deforestation carbon emissions. Nat. Commun. 9, 536 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  24. Nunes, S., Oliveira, L., Siqueira, J., Morton, D. C. & Souza, C. M. Unmasking secondary vegetation dynamics in the Brazilian Amazon. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 034057 (2020). · DOI
  25. Hilker, T. et al. Vegetation dynamics and rainfall sensitivity of the Amazon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 16041–16046 (2014). · DOI
  26. Liu, J. et al. Contrasting carbon cycle responses of the tropical continents to the 2015–2016 El Nino. Science 358, eaam5690 (2017). · DOI
  27. Giardina, F. et al. Tall Amazonian forests are less sensitive to precipitation variability. Nat. Geosci. 11, 405–409 (2018). · DOI
  28. Gatti, L. V. et al. Drought sensitivity of Amazonian carbon balance revealed by atmospheric measurements. Nature 506, 76–80 (2014). · DOI
  29. Asner, G. P. et al. Selective logging in the Brazilian Amazon. Science 310, 480–482 (2005). · DOI
  30. Silva, C. H. L.Jr et al. Persistent collapse of biomass in Amazonian forest edges following deforestation leads to unaccounted carbon losses. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz8360 (2020). · DOI
  31. Espírito-Santo, F. D. B. et al. Size and frequency of natural forest disturbances and the Amazon forest carbon balance. Nat. Commun. 5, 3434 (2014). · DOI
  32. Lewis, S. L., Brando, P. M., Phillips, O. L., van der Heijden, G. M. F. & Nepstad, D. The 2010 Amazon drought. Science 331, 554–554 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  33. Jiménez-Muñoz, J. C. et al. Record-breaking warming and extreme drought in the Amazon rainforest during the course of El Niño 2015–2016. Sci. Rep. 6, 33130 (2016). · DOI
  34. Harris, N. L. et al. Baseline map of carbon emissions from deforestation in tropical regions. Science 336, 1573–1576 (2012). · DOI
  35. Aguiar, A. P. D. et al. Land use change emission scenarios: anticipating a forest transition process in the Brazilian Amazon. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 1821–1840 (2016). · DOI
  36. Aragão, L. E. O. C. et al. Environmental change and the carbon balance of Amazonian forests. Biol. Rev. 89, 913–931 (2014). · DOI
  37. Friedlingstein, P. et al. Global carbon budget 2019. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 11, 1783–1838 (2019). · DOI
  38. Silva, C. V. J. et al. Estimating the multi-decadal carbon deficit of burned Amazonian forests. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 114023 (2020). · DOI
  39. Silva, C. V. J. et al. Drought-induced Amazonian wildfires instigate a decadal-scale disruption of forest carbon dynamics. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 373, 20180043 (2018). · DOI
  40. Barlow, J., Peres, C. A., Lagan, B. O. & Haugaasen, T. Large tree mortality and the decline of forest biomass following Amazonian wildfires. Ecol. Lett. 6, 6–8 (2003). · DOI
  41. Fuchs, R. et al. Why the US–China trade war spells disaster for the Amazon. Nature 567, 451–454 (2019). · DOI
  42. Hansen, M. C., Potapov, P. & Tyukavina, A. Comment on ‘Tropical forests are a net carbon source based on aboveground measurements of gain and loss’. Science 363, eaar3629 (2019). · DOI
  43. Dubayah, R. et al. The Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation: high-resolution laser ranging of the Earth’s forests and topography. Sci. Remote Sens. 1, 100002 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  44. Doughty, R. et al. TROPOMI reveals dry-season increase of solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence in the Amazon forest. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 22393–22398 (2019). · DOI
  45. Moore, B. III et al. The potential of the Geostationary Carbon Cycle Observatory (GeoCarb) to provide multi-scale constraints on the carbon cycle in the Americas. Front. Environ. Sci. 6, 109 (2018). · DOI
  46. Avitabile, V. et al. An integrated pan-tropical biomass map using multiple reference datasets. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 1406–1420 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  47. Fernandez-Moran, R. et al. SMOS-IC: an alternative SMOS soil moisture and vegetation optical depth product. Remote Sens. 9, 457 (2017). · DOI
  48. Rodriguez-Fernandez, N. J. et al. An evaluation of SMOS L-band vegetation optical depth (L-VOD) data sets: high sensitivity of L-VOD to above-ground biomass in Africa. Biogeosciences 15, 4627–4645 (2018). · DOI
  49. Konings, A. G. & Gentine, P. Global variations in ecosystem-scale isohydricity. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 891–905 (2017). · DOI
  50. Liu, Y. Y. et al. Recent reversal in loss of global terrestrial biomass. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 470–474 (2015). · DOI
  51. Moesinger, L. et al. The global long-term microwave Vegetation Optical Depth Climate Archive (VODCA). Earth Syst. Sci. Data 12, 177–196 (2020). · DOI
  52. Tang, H. et al. Characterizing global forest canopy cover distribution using spaceborne lidar. Remote Sens. Environ. 231, 111262 (2019). · DOI
  53. Crisp, D. et al. The on-orbit performance of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) instrument and its radiometrically calibrated products. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 10, 59–81 (2017). · DOI
  54. Kiel, M. et al. How bias correction goes wrong: measurement of XCO2 affected by erroneous surface pressure estimates. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 12, 2241–2259 (2019). · DOI
  55. Worden, J. R. et al. Evaluation and attribution of OCO-2 XCO2 uncertainties. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 10, 2759–2771 (2017). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Qin, Y., Xiao, X., Wigneron, J.-P., Ciais, P., Brandt, M., Fan, L., Li, X., Crowell, S., Wu, X., Doughty, R., Zhang, Y., Liu, F., Sitch, S., & Moore, B.
ORCID
Venue
Nature Climate Change
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-04-29
Volume
11
Issue
5
Pages
442-448
ISSN
  • 1758-678X
  • 1758-6798
DOI
10.1038/s41558-021-01026-5
Cited by
319
References
5
Language
en
Licence

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