CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 34Fire effects on ecosystemsClimate variability and modelsPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics

Abrupt loss and uncertain recovery from fires of Amazon forests under low climate mitigation scenarios

Open access
Cano, Isabel Martínez, Shevliakova, Elena, Malyshev, Sergey, John, Jasmin G., Yu, Yan, Smith, Benjamin, Pacala, Stephen W.·2022·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.2203200119PMC PMC9907153
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Tropical forests contribute a major sink for anthropogenic carbon emissions essential to slowing down the buildup of atmospheric CO 2 and buffering climate change impacts. However, the response of tropical forests to more frequent weather extremes and long-recovery disturbances like fires remains uncertain. Analyses of field data and ecological theory raise concerns about the possibility of the Amazon crossing a tipping point leading to catastrophic tropical forest loss. In contrast, climate models consistently project an enhanced tropical sink. Here, we show a heterogeneous response of Amazonian carbon stocks in GFDL-ESM4.1, an Earth System Model (ESM) featuring dynamic disturbances and height-structured tree–grass competition. Enhanced productivity due to CO 2 fertilization promotes increases in forest biomass that, under low emission scenarios, last until the end of the century. Under high emissions, positive trends reverse after 2060, when simulated fires prompt forest loss that results in a 40% decline in tropical forest biomass by 2100. Projected fires occur under dry conditions associated with El Niño Southern Oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, a response observed under current climate conditions, but exacerbated by an overall decline in precipitation. Following the initial disturbance, grassland dominance promotes recurrent fires and tree competitive exclusion, which prevents forest recovery. EC-Earth3-Veg, an ESM with a dynamic vegetation model of similar complexity, projected comparable wildfire forest loss under high emissions but faster postfire recovery rates. Our results reveal the importance of complex nonlinear responses to assessing climate change impacts and the urgent need to research postfire recovery and its representation in ESMs.

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.2203200119

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?

  • Large parts of the Amazon forest are projected to experience mass mortality events due to climatic and land use-related disturbances in the coming decades, potentially accelerating climate change through carbon emissions and feedbacks with the climate system.

    “Large parts of the Amazon forest, however, are projected to experience mass mortality events due to climatic and land use-related disturbances in the coming decades5,6, potentially accelerating climate change through carbon emissions and feedbacks with the climate system2,3.”

    From Critical transitions in the Amazon forest system (2024) · cites this paper as [5]

    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

  • Other more recent models incorporating fire disturbances support a potential broad-scale transition of the Amazon forest, simulating a biomass loss of 30-40% under a high-emission scenario (SSP5-8.5 at 4 °C).

    “Other more recent models incorporating fire disturbances support a potential broad-scale transition of the Amazon forest, simulating a biomass loss of 30–40% under a high-emission scenario5,82 (SSP5–8.5 at 4 °C).”

    From Critical transitions in the Amazon forest system (2024) · cites this paper as [5]

    The Results section ('Projected Changes in Tropical Tree Biomass'; page unavailable) reports that GFDL-ESM4.1 projects Neotropical forest biomass falling to 40% below its initial stock under SSP5-8.5, and describes fire-driven declines in Amazon grid cells. This supports the potential broad-scale transition, but our copy does not give a 30–40% biomass-loss range or tie that loss to 4 °C of warming. It also notes that another fire-capable model projects forest growth under high emissions. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Fire-vegetation feedbacks can reduce ecosystem resilience and promote persistent forest degradation.

    “Recent studies highlight that fire-vegetation feedbacks can reduce ecosystem resilience and promote persistent forest degradation 26,59,60 .”

    From Amazon dieback beyond the 21st century under high-emission scenarios by Earth System models (2025) · cites this paper as [26]

  • Repeated fires can lead to grass invasion, increased flammability and suppressed canopy recovery, particularly at the forest-savanna transition.

    “Repeated fires can lead to grass invasion, increased flammability and suppressed canopy recovery, particularly at the forest-savanna transition.”

    From Amazon dieback beyond the 21st century under high-emission scenarios by Earth System models (2025) · cites this paper as [26]

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: 51

  1. [1]R. J. W. Brienen, Long-term decline of the Amazon carbon sink. Nature 519, 344– 348 (2015), 10.1038/nature14283. 25788097 · DOI · Paper page
  2. [2]W. Hubau, Asynchronous carbon sink saturation in African and Amazonian tropical forests. Nature 579, 80– 87 (2020), 10.1038/s41586-020-2035-0. 32132693 PMC7617213 · DOI
  3. [3]M. S. Morales, Six hundred years of South American tree rings reveal an increase in severe hydroclimatic events since mid-20th century. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117, 16816– 16823 (2020), 10.1073/pnas.2002411117. 32632003 PMC7382209 · DOI
  4. [5]P. M. Brando, Abrupt increases in Amazonian tree mortality due to drought–fire interactions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 6347– 6352 (2014), 10.1073/pnas.1305499111. 24733937 PMC4035969 · DOI · Paper page
  5. [6]A. A. Alencar, P. M. Brando, G. P. Asner, F. E. Putz, Landscape fragmentation, severe drought, and the new Amazon forest fire regime. Ecol. Appl. 25, 1493– 1505 (2015), 10.1890/14-1528.1. 26552259 · DOI · Paper page
  6. [7]K. Withey, Quantifying immediate carbon emissions from El Nino-mediated wildfires in humid tropical forests. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 373, 20170312 (2018), 10.1098/rstb.2017.0312. PMC6178445 30297469 · DOI
  7. [8]T. E. Lovejoy, C. Nobre, Amazon tipping point: Last chance for action. Sci. Adv. 5, eaba2949 (2019), 10.1126/sciadv.aba2949. 32064324 PMC6989302 · DOI
  8. [9]C. A. Nobre, P. J. Sellers, J. Shukla, Amazonian Deforestation and regional climate change. J. Clim. 4, 957– 988 (1991), 10.1175/1520-0442(1991)004<0957:ADARCC>2.0.CO;2. · DOI
  9. [10]A. C. Staver, S. Archibald, S. A. Levin, The global extent and determinants of savanna and forest as alternative biome states. Science 334, 230 (2011), 10.1126/science.1210465. 21998389 · DOI · Paper page
  10. [11]M. Hirota, M. Holmgren, E. H. Van Nes, M. Scheffer, Global resilience of tropical forest and savanna to critical transitions. Science 334, 232 (2011), 10.1126/science.1210657. 21998390 · DOI
  11. [12]S. Archibald, G. P. Hempson, C. A. Lehmann, Unified framework for plant life-history strategies shaped by fire and herbivory. New Phytol. 224, 1490– 1503 (2019), 10.1111/nph.15986. 31177547 · DOI
  12. [13]I. Oliveras, Y. Malhi, Many shades of green: The dynamic tropical forest–savannah transition zones. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 371, 20150308 (2016), 10.1098/rstb.2015.0308. PMC4978866 27502373 · DOI
  13. [14]C. A. Nobre, Land-use and climate change risks in the Amazon and the need of a novel sustainable development paradigm. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113, 10759 (2016), 10.1073/pnas.1605516113. 27638214 PMC5047175 · DOI · Paper page
  14. [15]B. L. De Faria, Current and future patterns of fire-induced forest degradation in Amazonia. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 095005 (2017), 10.1088/1748-9326/aa69ce. · DOI · Paper page
  15. [16]P. M. Brando, The gathering firestorm in southern Amazonia. Sci. Adv. 6, eaay1632 (2020), 10.1126/sciadv.aay1632. 31950083 PMC6954065 · DOI
  16. [17]P. M. Cox, Amazonian forest dieback under climate-carbon cycle projections for the 21st century. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 78, 137– 156 (2004), 10.1007/s00704-004-0049-4. · DOI
  17. [18]C. Huntingford, Simulated resilience of tropical rainforests to CO2-induced climate change. Nat. Geosci. 6, 268– 273 (2013), 10.1038/ngeo1741. · DOI
  18. [19]A. Koch, W. Hubau, S. L. Lewis, Earth system models are not capturing present-day tropical forest carbon dynamics. Earth’s Future 9, e2020EF001874 (2021), 10.1029/2020EF001874. · DOI
  19. [21]R. A. Fisher, Vegetation demographics in Earth system models: A review of progress and priorities. Global Change Biol. 24, 35– 54 (2018), 10.1111/gcb.13910. 28921829 · DOI · Paper page
  20. [22]B. I. Cook, Twenty-first century drought projections in the CMIP6 forcing scenarios. Earth’s Future 8, e2019EF001461 (2020), 10.1029/2019EF001461. · DOI
  21. [23]A. M. Ukkola, M. G. De Kauwe, M. L. Roderick, G. Abramowitz, A. J. Pitman, Robust future changes in meteorological drought in CMIP6 projections despite uncertainty in precipitation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2020GL087820 (2020), 10.1029/2020GL087820. · DOI
  22. [24]L. A. Parsons, Implications of CMIOP6 projected drying trends for 21st Century Amazonian drought risk. Earth’s Future 8, e2020EF001608 (2020), 10.1029/2020EF001608. · DOI
  23. [25]J. P. Dunne, The GFDL earth system model version 4.1 (GFDL-ESM 4.1): Overall coupled model description and simulation characteristics. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 12, e2019MS002015 (2020), 10.1029/2019MS002015. · DOI
  24. [26]V. Eyring, Overview of the coupled model intercomparison project phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 1937– 1958 (2016), 10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016. · DOI · Paper page
  25. [27]I. Martínez Cano, Allometric constraints and competition enable the simulation of size structure and carbon fluxes in a dynamic vegetation model of tropical forests (LM3PPA-TV). Global Change Biol. 26, 4478– 4494 (2020), 10.1111/gcb.15188. 32463934 · DOI
  26. [28]S. S. Rabin, A fire model with distinct crop, pasture, and non-agricultural burning: Use of new data and a model-fitting algorithm for FINAL.1. Geosci. Model Dev. 11, 815– 842 (2018), 10.5194/gmd-11-815-2018. · DOI
  27. [29]D. S. Ward, E. Shevliakova, S. Malyshev, S. Rabin, Trends and variability of global fire emissions due to historical anthropogenic activities. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 32, 122– 142 (2018), 10.1002/2017GB005787. · DOI
  28. [31]R. Döscher, The EC-Earth3 earth system model for the climate model intercomparison project 6. Geosci. Model Dev. 15, 2973– 3020 (2022), 10.5194/gmd-15-2973-2022. · DOI
  29. [32]R. Ramo, African burned area and fire carbon emissions are strongly impacted by small fires undetected by coarse resolution satellite data. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118, e2011160118 (2021), 10.1073/pnas.2011160118. 33619088 PMC7936338 · DOI
  30. [33]M. W. Jones, Global and regional trends and drivers of fire under climate change. Rev. Geophys. 60, e2020RG000726 (2022), 10.1029/2020RG000726. · DOI · Paper page
  31. [34]Y. Chen, Forecasting fire season severity in south america using sea surface temperature anomalies. Science 334, 787– 791 (2011), 10.1126/science.1209472. 22076373 · DOI · Paper page
  32. [36]W. Cai, Changing El Niño-Southern oscillation in a warming climate. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2, 628– 644 (2021), 10.1038/s43017-021-00199-z. · DOI · Paper page
  33. [37]T. M. Lenton, Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105, 1786 (2008), 10.1073/pnas.0705414105. 18258748 PMC2538841 · DOI · Paper page
  34. [38]S. Drijfhout, Catalogue of abrupt shifts in intergovernmental panel on climate change climate models. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, E5777 (2015), 10.1073/pnas.1511451112. 26460042 PMC4629371 · DOI · Paper page
  35. [39]B. Smith, Implications of incorporating N cycling and N limitations on primary production in an individual-based dynamic vegetation model. Biogeosciences 11, 2027– 2054 (2014), 10.5194/bg-11-2027-2014. · DOI
  36. [40]P. M. Cox, Emergent constraints on climate-carbon cycle feedbacks. Curr. Climate Change Rep. 5, 275– 281 (2019), 10.1007/s40641-019-00141-y. PMC6892762 31867156 · DOI
  37. [41]M. Wu, B. Smith, G. Schurgers, A. Ahlström, M. Rummukainen, Vegetation-climate feedbacks enhance spatial heterogeneity of pan-amazonian ecosystem states under climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett. 48 e2020GL092001 (2021), 10.1029/2020GL092001. · DOI
  38. [42]C. H. L. Silva Junior, Persistent collapse of biomass in Amazonian forest edges following deforestation leads to unaccounted carbon losses. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz8360 (2020), 10.1126/sciadv.aaz8360. 32998890 PMC7527213 · DOI
  39. [44]A. Esquivel-Muelbert, Compositional response of Amazon forests to climate change. Global Change Biol. 25, 39– 56 (2019), 10.1111/gcb.14413. PMC6334637 30406962 · DOI · Paper page
  40. [45]P. M. Brando, Fire-induced tree mortality in a neotropical forest: The roles of bark traits, tree size, wood density and fire behavior. Global Change Biol. 18, 630– 641 (2012), 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02533.x. · DOI
  41. [46]N. Strigul, D. Pristinski, D. Purves, J. Dushoff, S. Pacala, Scaling from trees to forests: Tractable macroscopic equations for forest dynamics. Ecol. Monogr. 78, 523– 545 (2008), 10.1890/08-0082.1. · DOI
  42. [47]E. S. Weng, Scaling from individual trees to forests in an Earth system modeling framework using a mathematically tractable model of height-structured competition. Biogeosciences 12, 2655– 2694 (2015), 10.5194/bg-12-2655-2015. · DOI
  43. [48]A. Wolf, W. R. L. Anderegg, S. W. Pacala, Optimal stomatal behavior with competition for water and risk of hydraulic impairment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113, E7222– E7230 (2016), 10.1073/pnas.1615144113. 27799540 PMC5135368 · DOI
  44. [49]S. Evans, P. Ginoux, S. Malyshev, E. Shevliakova, Climate-vegetation interaction and amplification of Australian dust variability. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 11,823– 11,830 (2016), 10.1002/2016GL071016. · DOI
  45. [50]S. Evans, S. Malyshev, P. Ginoux, E. Shevliakova, The impacts of the dust radiative effect on vegetation growth in the sahel. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 33, 1582– 1593 (2019), 10.1029/2018GB006128. · DOI
  46. [51]L. Yin, R. Fu, E. Shevliakova, R. E. Dickinson, How well can CMIP5 simulate precipitation and its controlling processes over tropical South America? Clim. Dyn. 41, 3127– 3143 (2013), 10.1007/s00382-012-1582-y · DOI
  47. [52]B. Saugier, J. Roy, H. A. Mooney, Terrestrial Global Productivity, B. Saugier Roy, H. A. Mooney, Eds. (Academic Press, San Diego, 2001), pp. 543– 557.
  48. [53]L. Giglio, J. T. Randerson, G. R. van der Werf, Analysis of daily, monthly, and annual burned area using the fourth-generation global fire emissions database (GFED4). J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 118, 317– 328 (2013), 10.1002/jgrg.20042. · DOI · Paper page
  49. [54]G. R. van der Werf, Global fire emissions estimates during 1997–2016. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 9, 697– 720 (2017), 10.5194/essd-9-697-2017. · DOI
  50. [55]G. J. van Oldenborgh, L. A. te Raa, H. A. Dijkstra, S. Y. Philip, Frequency- or amplitude-dependent effects of the Atlantic meridional overturning on the tropical Pacific Ocean. Ocean Sci. 5, 293– 301 (2009), 10.5194/os-5-293-2009. · DOI
  51. [56]V. Avitabile, An integrated pan-tropical biomass map using multiple reference datasets. Global Change Biol. 22, 1406– 1420 (2016), 10.1111/gcb.13139. 26499288 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cano, I. M., Shevliakova, E., Malyshev, S., John, J. G., Yu, Y., Smith, B., & Pacala, S. W.
Affiliations
  • Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US)
  • Peking University (CN)
  • Lund University (SE)
  • Princeton University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2022-12-19
Volume
119
Issue
52
Pages
e2203200119-e2203200119
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.2203200119
PMC
PMC9907153
OpenAlex
W4313429741
Cited by
34
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7
FWCI
2.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
  • NOAA Institutional Repository (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Princeton University (CMIP6)
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Plant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Keywords
Amazon forest fires, post-fire recovery, tree-grass competition, CO2 fertilization, ENSO, Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, precipitation decrease, climate change scenarios, forest biomass, EC-Earth3-Veg, Earth system models
MeSH terms
Carbon, Carbon Dioxide, Fires, Trees, Climate Change, Forests

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