CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 67Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementForest Management and PolicyForest ecology and management

Old-growth forest loss and secondary forest recovery across Amazonian countries

Open access
Smith, Charlotte C, Healey, John R, Berenguer, Erika, Young, Paul J, Taylor, Ben, Elias, Fernando, Espírito-Santo, Fernando, Barlow, Jos·2021·Environmental Research Letters
DOI 10.1088/1748-9326/ac1701
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

There is growing recognition of the potential of large-scale forest restoration in the Amazon as a ‘nature-based solution’ to climate change. However, our knowledge of forest loss and recovery beyond Brazil is limited, and carbon emissions and accumulation have not been estimated for the whole biome. Combining a 33 year land cover dataset with estimates of above-ground biomass and carbon sequestration rates, we evaluate forest loss and recovery across nine Amazonian countries and at a local scale. We also estimate the role of secondary forests in offsetting old-growth deforestation emissions and explore the temporal trends in forest loss and recovery. We find secondary forests across the biome to have offset just 9.7% of carbon emissions from old-growth deforestation, despite occupying 28.8% of deforested land. However, these numbers varied between countries ranging from 9.0% in Brazil to 23.8% in Guyana for carbon offsetting, and 24.8% in Brazil to 56.9% in Ecuador for forest area recovery. We reveal a strong, negative spatial relationship between old-growth forest loss and recovery by secondary forests, showing that regions with the greatest potential for large-scale restoration are also those that currently have the lowest recovery (e.g. Brazil dominates deforestation and emissions but has the lowest recovery). In addition, a temporal analysis of the regions that were >80% deforested in 1997 shows a continued decline in overall forest cover. Our findings identify three important challenges: (a) incentivising large-scale restoration in highly deforested regions, (b) protecting secondary forests without disadvantaging landowners who depend on farm-fallow systems, and (c) preventing further deforestation. Combatting all these successfully is essential to ensuring that the Amazon biome achieves its potential in mitigating anthropogenic climate change.

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 · 10.1088/1748-9326/ac1701

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • At the landscape scale, secondary forests are more likely to be cleared than mature forests, thus keeping forests persistently young and landscapes fragmented.

    “At the landscape scale, secondary forests are more likely to be cleared than mature forests, thus keeping forests persistently young and landscapes fragmented83.”

    From Critical transitions in the Amazon forest system (2024) · cites this paper as [83]

    Section 2.2 reports that most Amazonian secondary forest was young and that 70% of cleared secondary forest was five years old or less; the Discussion also describes high turnover and short residence times. Our copy does not establish that secondary forests are more likely to be cleared than mature forests, or that their clearance keeps landscapes fragmented. Page numbers were not available in the indexed passages. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The Amazon biome has already lost 13% of its original forest area due to deforestation, or 15% of the biome if young secondary forests are considered.

    “The Amazon biome has already lost 13% of its original forest area due to deforestation83 (or 15% of the biome if we consider also young secondary forests83 that provide limited contribution to moisture flow84).”

    From Critical transitions in the Amazon forest system (2024) · cites this paper as [83]

    Table 1 reports 13.4% old-growth forest loss across the Amazon biome, supporting the rounded 13% figure. Section 2.2 reports the extent and ages of secondary forests, but does not report 15% forest loss when young secondary forests are considered. The paper defines secondary forest as regrowth on previously deforested land, so adding it to old-growth loss would double-count that area. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Estimates from across the Amazon indicate that approximately 30% of areas previously deforested are in a secondary forest state, covering 4% of the biome.

    “Estimates from across the Amazon indicate that approximately 30% of areas previously deforested are in a secondary forest state83 (covering 4% of the biome).”

    From Critical transitions in the Amazon forest system (2024) · cites this paper as [83]

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: 46

  1. Aide T M, Clark M L, Grau H R, López-Carr D, Levy M A, Redo D, Bonilla-Moheno M, Riner G, Andrade-Núñez M J and Muñiz M 2013 Deforestation and reforestation of Latin America and the Caribbean (2001-2010) Biotropica 45 262-71 · DOI
  2. Alice-Guier F E, Mohren F and Zuidema P A 2020 The life cycle carbon balance of selective logging in tropical forests of Costa Rica J. Ind. Ecol. 24 534-47 · DOI
  3. Arima E Y, Barreto P, Araújo E and Soares-Filho B 2014 Public policies can reduce tropical deforestation: lessons and challenges from Brazil Land Use Policy 41 465-73 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Avitabile V et al 2016 An integrated pan-tropical biomass map using multiple reference datasets Glob. Change Biol. 22 1406-20 · DOI
  5. Barlow J, Berenguer E, Carmenta R and França F 2020 Clarifying Amazonia's burning crisis Glob. Change Biol. 26 319-21 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Berenguer E, Ferreira J, Gardner T A, Aragão L E O C, De Camargo P B, Cerri C E, Durigan M, De Oliveira R C D, Vieira I C G and Barlow J 2014 A large-scale field assessment of carbon stocks in human-modified tropical forests Glob. Change Biol. 20 3713-26 · DOI
  7. Boucher D, Roquemore S and Fitzhugh E 2013 Brazil's success in reducing deforestation Trop. Conserv. Sci. 6 426-45 · DOI
  8. Bullock E L and Woodcock C E 2021 Carbon loss and removal due to forest disturbance and regeneration in the Amazon Sci. Total Environ. 764 142839 · DOI
  9. Bullock E L, Woodcock C E, Souza C and Olofsson P 2020 Satellite-based estimates reveal widespread forest degradation in the Amazon Glob. Change Biol. 26 2956-69 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Chazdon R L et al 2016 Carbon sequestration potential of second-growth forest regeneration in the Latin American tropics Sci. Adv. 2 e1501639 Chazdon R L and Guariguata M R 2016 Natural regeneration as a tool for large-scale forest restoration in the tropics: prospects and challenges Biotropica 48 716-30 · DOI
  11. Chazdon R L, Lindenmayer D, Guariguata M R, Crouzeilles R, Rey Benayas J M and Lazos Chavero E 2020 Fostering natural forest regeneration on former agricultural land through economic and policy interventions Environ. Res. Lett. 15 043002 · DOI
  12. Crouzeilles R et al 2020 Achieving cost-effective landscape-scale forest restoration through targeted natural regeneration Conserv. Lett. 13 · DOI
  13. e12709 Cunningham C and Beazley K F 2018 Changes in human population density and protected areas in terrestrial global biodiversity hotspots, 1995-2015 Land 7 136 · DOI
  14. Curtis P G, Slay C M, Harris N L, Tyukavina A and Hansen M C 2018 Classifying drivers of global forest loss Science 361 1108-11 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K, Adler A, Baum I, Brunner S and Eickemeier P 2014 Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) (https:// doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415416) · DOI
  16. Elias F, Ferreira J, Lennox G D, Berenguer E, Ferreira S, Schwartz G, Melo L D O, Reis Júnior D N, Nascimento R O and Ferreira F N 2019 Assessing the growth and climate sensitivity of secondary forests in highly deforested Amazonian landscapes Ecology 101 3 · DOI
  17. Escobar H 2021 Researchers face attacks from Bolsonaro regime Science 372 225 FAO and UNEP 2020 The State of the World's Forests 2020. Forests, biodiversity and people 2020 (Rome: FAO and UNEP (https://doi.org/10.4060/ca8642en)) FAO 2012 Global ecological zones for FAO forest reporting: 2010 update (Rome) (available at: www.fao.org/3/a-ap861e.pdf) (19 January 2020) · DOI · Paper page
  18. Garrett R D, Levy S A, Gollnow F, Hodel L and Rueda X 2021 Have food supply chain policies improved forest conservation and rural livelihoods? A systematic review Environ. Res. Lett. 16 033002 · DOI
  19. Gatti L V et al 2021 Amazonia as a carbon source linked to deforestation and climate change Nature 595 388-93 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Gibson L et al 2011 Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity Nature 478 378-81 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Grassi G et al 2021 Critical adjustment of land mitigation pathways for assessing countries' climate progress Nat. Clim. Change 11 425-34 · DOI
  22. Grau H R, Aide T M, Zimmerman J K, Thomlinson J R, Helmer E and Zou X 2003 The ecological consequences of socioeconomic and land-use changes in postagriculture Puerto Rico BioScience 53 1159 · DOI
  23. Griscom B W et al 2017 Natural climate solutions Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114 11645-50 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Heinrich V H A et al 2021 Large carbon sink potential of secondary forests in the Brazilian Amazon to mitigate climate change Nat. Commun. 12 1785 · DOI
  25. Houghton R A, Byers B and Nassikas A A 2015 A role for tropical forests in stabilizing atmospheric CO2 Nat. Clim. Change 5 1022-3 · DOI
  26. Jakovac C C, Dutrieux L P, Siti L, Peña-Claros M, Bongers F and Zang R 2017 Spatial and temporal dynamics of shifting cultivation in the middle-Amazonas river: expansion and intensification PLoS One 12 e0181092 · DOI
  27. Jakovac C C, Junqueira A B, Crouzeilles R, Peña-Claros M, Mesquita R C G and Bongers F 2021 The role of land-use history in driving successional pathways and its implications for the restoration of tropical forests Biol. Rev. 96 1114-34 · DOI
  28. Kalamandeen M, Gloor E, Mitchard E, Quincey D, Ziv G, Spracklen D, Spracklen B, Adami M, Aragão L E O C and Galbraith D 2018 Pervasive rise of small-scale deforestation in Amazonia Sci. Rep. 8 1600 · DOI
  29. Latawiec A E, Strassburg B B N, Rodriguez A M, Matt E, Nijbroek R and Silos M 2014 Suriname: reconciling agricultural development and conservation of unique natural wealth Land Use Policy 38 627-36 · DOI
  30. Lennox G D et al 2018 Second rate or a second chance? Assessing biomass and biodiversity recovery in regenerating Amazonian forests Glob. Change Biol. 24 5680-94 · DOI
  31. Lubowski R N and Rose S K 2020 The potential for REDD+: key economic modeling insights and issues Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 7 1 · DOI
  32. Luyssaert S et al 2007 CO2 balance of boreal, temperate, and tropical forests derived from a global database Glob. Change Biol. 13 2509-37 · DOI
  33. Mac Nally R, Duncan R P, Thomson J R, Yen J D L and Mori A 2018 Model selection using information criteria, but is the "best" model any good? J. Appl. Ecol. 55 1441-4 · DOI
  34. Matos F A R et al 2020 Secondary forest fragments offer important carbon and biodiversity cobenefits Glob. Change Biol. 26 509-22 · DOI
  35. Muggeo V M R 2017 Interval estimation for the breakpoint in segmented regression: a smoothed score-based approach Aust. N.Z. J. Stat. 59 311-22 · DOI
  36. Nunes S, Oliveira L, Siqueira J, Morton D C and Souza C M 2020 Unmasking secondary vegetation dynamics in the Brazilian Amazon Environ. Res. Lett. 15 034057 · DOI
  37. Porro R, Lopez-Feldman A and Vela-Alvarado J W 2015 Forest use and agriculture in Ucayali, Peru: livelihood strategies, poverty and wealth in an Amazon frontier For. Policy Econ. 51 47-56 PRODES 2020 PRODES (available at: http:// terrabrasilis.dpi.inpe.br/app/dashboard/deforestation/ biomes/legal_amazon/rates) · DOI
  38. Qin Y et al 2021 Carbon loss from forest degradation exceeds that from deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon Nat. Clim. Change 11 442-8 · DOI
  39. Quinn G P and Keough M J 2002 Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
  40. Requena Suarez D et al 2019 Estimating aboveground net biomass change for tropical and subtropical forests: refinement of IPCC default rates using forest plot data Glob. Change Biol. 25 · DOI
  41. Rudel T K, Sloan S, Chazdon R and Grau R 2016 The drivers of tree cover expansion: global, temperate, and tropical zone analyses Land Use Policy 58 502-13 · DOI
  42. Saatchi S S et al 2011 Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions across three continents Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108 9899-904 · DOI
  43. Saatchi S S, Houghton R A, Dos Santos Alvalá R C, Soares J V and Yu Y 2007 Distribution of aboveground live biomass in the Amazon basin Glob. Change Biol. 13 816-37 · DOI
  44. Saraiva M B, Ferreira M D P, Da Cunha D A, Daniel L P, Homma A K O and Pires G F 2020 Forest regeneration in the Brazilian Amazon: public policies and economic conditions J. Clean. Prod. 269 122424 · DOI
  45. Schwartz N B, Aide T M, Graesser J, Grau H R and Uriarte M 2020 Reversals of reforestation across Latin America limit climate mitigation potential of tropical forests Front. For. Glob. Change 3 85 · DOI
  46. Seymour F and Busch J 2016 Why Forests? Why Now? The Science, Economics, and Politics of Tropical Forests and Climate Change (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, C. C., Healey, J. R., Berenguer, E., Young, P. J., Taylor, B., Elias, F., Espírito-Santo, F., & Barlow, J.
Affiliations
  • Lancaster University (GB)
  • Bangor University (GB)
  • UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (GB)
  • Embrapa Amazônia Oriental (BR)
  • University of Leicester (GB)
Corresponding author
Smith, Charlotte C
ORCID
Venue
Environmental Research Letters
Publisher
IOP Publishing
Published
2021-08-01
Volume
16
Issue
8
Pages
085009
ISSN
1748-9326 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1088/1748-9326/ac1701
OpenAlex
W3173192154
Cited by
67
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 8
FWCI
4.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
correction (2022-09-20)
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Environmental Research Letters (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • EarthArXiv (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Bangor University Research Portal (Bangor University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Natural Environment Research Council (NE/L002604/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Forest ecology and management
Keywords
secondary forest recovery, Amazon deforestation, forest restoration, carbon offsetting, carbon sequestration, aboveground biomass, land cover change, nature-based solutions, climate change mitigation, spatiotemporal trends

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