Cited by 925Plant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsClimate variability and modelsFire effects on ecosystems

Exploring the likelihood and mechanism of a climate-change-induced dieback of the Amazon rainforest

Open access
Malhi, Yadvinder, Aragão, Luiz E. O. C., Galbraith, David, Huntingford, Chris, Fisher, Rosie, Zelazowski, Przemyslaw, Sitch, Stephen, McSweeney, Carol +1 more·2009·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

We examine the evidence for the possibility that 21st-century climate change may cause a large-scale “dieback” or degradation of Amazonian rainforest. We employ a new framework for evaluating the rainfall regime of tropical forests and from this deduce precipitation-based boundaries for current forest viability. We then examine climate simulations by 19 global climate models (GCMs) in this context and find that most tend to underestimate current rainfall. GCMs also vary greatly in their projections of future climate change in Amazonia. We attempt to take into account the differences between GCM-simulated and observed rainfall regimes in the 20th century. Our analysis suggests that dry-season water stress is likely to increase in E. Amazonia over the 21st century, but the region tends toward a climate more appropriate to seasonal forest than to savanna. These seasonal forests may be resilient to seasonal drought but are likely to face intensified water stress caused by higher temperatures and to be vulnerable to fires, which are at present naturally rare in much of Amazonia. The spread of fire ignition associated with advancing deforestation, logging, and fragmentation may act as nucleation points that trigger the transition of these seasonal forests into fire-dominated, low biomass forests. Conversely, deliberate limitation of deforestation and fire may be an effective intervention to maintain Amazonian forest resilience in the face of imposed 21st-century climate change. Such intervention may be enough to navigate E. Amazonia away from a possible “tipping point,” beyond which extensive rainforest would become unsustainable.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.0804619106

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • 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 [80]

    In “Hydrological Thresholds on Current Forest Extent” (page unavailable), the paper uses satellite-derived maps and reports that savannas predominate below −400 mm MCWD when annual precipitation is below 1,500 mm. It explicitly says there is no sharp vegetation threshold: the forest–savanna transition spans −400 to −200 mm MCWD. The claim omits both the precipitation condition and the broad transition. (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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Malhi, Y., Aragão, L. E. O. C., Galbraith, D., Huntingford, C., Fisher, R., Zelazowski, P., Sitch, S., McSweeney, C., & Meir, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (GB)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • Met Office (GB)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2009-12-08
Volume
106
Issue
49
Pages
20610-20615
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2120220555
Cited by
925
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 96 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 55 · 2017: 46 · 2016: 52 · 2015: 59 · 2014: 50 · 2013: 73 · 2012: 70
FWCI
49.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NERC Open Research Archive (Natural Environment Research Council) (submittedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Natural Environment Research Council (NE/F005806/1, CEH010023)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Plant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
Keywords
rainfall regime, seasonal forest, drought, fire vulnerability, deforestation, forest fragmentation, tipping points, climate model projections, forest resilience
MeSH terms
Atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide, Models, Biological, Rain, Temperature, Trees, Tropical Climate, Extinction, Biological, Droughts, Climate Change

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