CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 630Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFire effects on ecosystemsForest ecology and management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 122 of the 122 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 203 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

The drivers and impacts of Amazon forest degradation

Open access
Lapola, David M., Pinho, Patricia, Barlow, Jos, Aragão, Luiz E. O. C., Berenguer, Erika, Carmenta, Rachel, Liddy, Hannah M., Seixas, Hugo, Silva, Camila V. J., Silva-Junior, Celso H. L., Alencar, Ane A. C., Anderson, Liana O., Armenteras, Dolors, Brovkin, Victor, Calders, Kim, Chambers, Jeffrey, Chini, Louise, Costa, Marcos H., Faria, Bruno L., Fearnside, Philip M., Ferreira, Joice, Gatti, Luciana, Gutierrez-Velez, Victor Hugo, Han, Zhangang, Hibbard, Kathleen, Koven, Charles, Lawrence, Peter, Pongratz, Julia, Portela, Bruno T. T., Rounsevell, Mark, Ruane, Alex C., Schaldach, Rüdiger, da Silva, Sonaira S., von Randow, Celso, Walker, Wayne S.·2023·Science
DOI 10.1126/science.abp8622
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Approximately 2.5 × 10 6 square kilometers of the Amazon forest are currently degraded by fire, edge effects, timber extraction, and/or extreme drought, representing 38% of all remaining forests in the region. Carbon emissions from this degradation total up to 0.2 petagrams of carbon per year (Pg C year −1 ), which is equivalent to, if not greater than, the emissions from Amazon deforestation (0.06 to 0.21 Pg C year −1 ). Amazon forest degradation can reduce dry-season evapotranspiration by up to 34% and cause as much biodiversity loss as deforestation in human-modified landscapes, generating uneven socioeconomic burdens, mainly to forest dwellers. Projections indicate that degradation will remain a dominant source of carbon emissions independent of deforestation rates. Policies to tackle degradation should be integrated with efforts to curb deforestation and complemented with innovative measures addressing the disturbances that degrade the Amazon forest.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This Analytical Review synthesizes evidence that extreme droughts, edge effects, timber extraction, and fire degrade large areas of remaining Amazon forest, with carbon losses comparable to deforestation. It projects that degradation will remain a major carbon source by 2050 even if deforestation is halted, requiring policies that address degradation separately.

Key findings

  • For 2001–2018, fire affected 122,624 km², timber extraction 119,700 km², edge effects 188,531 km², and drought 2,740,647 km²; combined fire, timber, and edge degradation affected at least 364,748 km² (5.5% of remaining Amazon forest), equal to 112% of the 325,975 km² deforested in the same period. Adding drought raised the total degraded area to 2,542,593 km², or 38% of remaining Amazon forests.
  • Estimated carbon loss from disturbances ranged from 0.05 to 0.20 PgC yr⁻¹, comparable to deforestation emissions of 0.06 to 0.21 PgC yr⁻¹. Disturbances can cause as much biodiversity loss as deforestation, and forests degraded by fire and timber extraction had 2% to 34% less dry-season evapotranspiration.
  • First-order 2050 projections gave annual carbon emissions of 0.06 PgC yr⁻¹ under a governance scenario and 0.42 PgC yr⁻¹ under business-as-usual; the degradation-to-deforestation carbon ratio remained high (GOV: 1.04; BAU: 0.74). Drought dominated BAU emissions (63%), while fire dominated GOV emissions (59%).
  • Benefits and burdens are misaligned: material benefits often accrue to external or elite actors, while burdens concentrate locally; timber extraction in the Brazilian Amazon generated US$459.5 million in 2018 even omitting the clandestine market.

Methods

  • Analytical review compiling published spatially explicit datasets for four disturbances over 2001–2018: burned area (MCD64A1, 500 m), timber extraction (LUH2, 27 km), edge effects (MapBiomas/Silva-Junior approach, 30–120 m), and drought (CRU 4.0, 0.5°). These layers were overlaid to estimate extent and overlaps.
  • 2050 projections combined existing disturbance projections under “governance” (GOV) and “business-as-usual” (BAU) deforestation scenarios, using SimAmazonia 1, CMIP5 RCP4.5/RCP8.5, LUH2, a fire model, and deterministic carbon-loss factors.
  • Carbon loss estimates used an aboveground biomass dataset for 2000 and disturbance-specific factors; the reference forest area was MapBiomas 2018 forest extent with 81.3% accuracy.

Limitations

  • The paper states important uncertainties remain in quantifying the area affected by different disturbances, their longer-term impacts, and how severity is modified by co-occurrence, repeated events, or management changes. Timber extraction extent is highly uncertain, with approximately 50% or more of Amazon timber extraction estimated to be illegal and thus absent from census or the product used.
  • The paper notes that projections probably underestimate future degradation because they omit feedbacks and interactions among disturbances; comparisons among studies are confounded by different spatial and temporal scales and disturbance types; not all extreme droughts in 2001–2018 were unequivocally attributed to human-induced climate change; and cumulative impacts of multiple droughts on aboveground carbon are unknown.
  • Evident from the text: the review relies on existing datasets with differing resolutions and assumptions, such as assuming a systematic distribution of logged forests within 27-km grid cells, and it does not present new primary field data.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1126/science.abp8622

Cites

122 of 122 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 203 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 76 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 81
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 11
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
87 of 87

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    For purposes of accounting for overlaps between timber extraction and other disturbances, logged forests are systematically distributed within the 27-km resolution grid-cell used for timber extraction.

    “Here, we assumed a systematic distribution of logged forests within the gridcell to account for the timber extraction overlaps with other drivers, as logged forests can be more flammable than undisturbed forests (51), and the extraction of timber is often associated with edges (52).”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    In the absence of information on the impacts of repeated drought, cumulative values from individual events were used, assuming that the minimum value could remain constant even with multiple droughts and the maximum value could double in the case of a total absence of post-drought recovery.

    “in the absence of information on the impacts of repeated drought, we simply used cumulative values from individual events, assuming that, due to forest recovery, the minimum value could remain constant even in the event of multiple droughts, while the maximum value could double in the case of a total absence of post-drought recovery.”
2 of 2

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. J. A. Parrotta S. Mansourian C. Wildburger T. Gardner V. Kapos W. A. Kurz C. L. McDermott B. B. N. Strassburg I. D. Thompson B. Vira “Conclusions” in Understanding relationships between biodiversity carbon forests and people: The key to achieving REDD+ objectives J. A. Parrotta C. Wildburger S. Mansourian Eds. (IUFRO Vienna 2012) pp. 139–146.
  2. FAO “Terms and definitions” in Global Forest Resources Assessment FAO Ed. (FAO Rome 2020) pp. 1–26.
  3. M. Lentini R. Palmieri L. Sobral “Atividade florestal madeireira no norte do Pará: do projeto Jari ao combate à ilegalidade e ao advento das concessões florestais” in Florestas de Valor. Desenvolvimento territorial e sustentabilidade: a experiência do IMAFLORA no Norte do Pará R. Palmieri Ed. (IMAFLORA Belém 2020) pp. 64–93.
  4. S. L. Francelino-Gonçalves-Dias P. Mendonça “Deforestation and Slave Labour in the Amazon: Contesting the sustainability of the cattle industry” in 7th International Critical Management Studies (CMS) Conference (Naples 2011).
  5. S. C. das C. Xavier, A. L. R. Roque, V. dos S. Lima, K. J. L. Monteiro, J. C. R. Otaviano, L. F. C. Ferreira da Silva, A. M. Jansen, Lower Richness of Small Wild Mammal Species and Chagas Disease Risk. PLOS Negl. Trop. Dis. 6, e1647 (2012).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 630

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Lapola, D. M., Pinho, P., Barlow, J., Aragão, L. E. O. C., Berenguer, E., Carmenta, R., Liddy, H. M., Seixas, H., Silva, C. V. J., Silva-Junior, C. H. L., Alencar, A. A. C., Anderson, L. O., Armenteras, D., Brovkin, V., Calders, K., Chambers, J., Chini, L., Costa, M. H., Faria, B. L., Fearnside, P. M., Ferreira, J., Gatti, L., Gutierrez-Velez, V. H., Han, Z., Hibbard, K., Koven, C., Lawrence, P., Pongratz, J., Portela, B. T. T., Rounsevell, M., Ruane, A. C., Schaldach, R., da Silva, S. S., von Randow, C., & Walker, W. S.
Affiliations
  • Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) (BR)
  • Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (BR)
  • Lancaster University (GB)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
  • University of East Anglia (GB)
  • Goddard Institute for Space Studies (US)
  • Institute of Environment and Sustainability, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
  • Centro Nacional de Monitoramento e Alertas de Desastres Naturais (BR)
  • Universidad Nacional de Colombia (CO)
  • Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (DE)
  • University of Eastern Finland (FI)
  • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • Universidade Federal de Viçosa (BR)
  • Instituto Federal de Educação Ciência e Tecnologia do Norte de Minas Gerais (BR)
  • Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia (BR)
  • Embrapa (BR)
  • Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (BR)
  • Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
  • Beijing Normal University (CN)
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (US)
  • NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research (US)
  • Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (DE)
  • University of Kassel (DE)
  • Universidade Federal do Acre, Cruzeiro do Sul, AC, Brazil.
  • Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, São José dos Campos, SP, Brazil.
  • Woodwell Climate Research Center (US)
Corresponding author
Lapola, David M.
ORCID
Venue
Science
Publisher
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Published
2023-01-27
Volume
379
Issue
6630
Pages
eabp8622-eabp8622
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
DOI
10.1126/science.abp8622
OpenAlex
W4318141566
Cited by
630
References
121
Citations by year
2026: 169 · 2025: 214 · 2024: 158 · 2023: 87
FWCI
15.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
  • UEF eRepo (University of Eastern Finland) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
  • Biblioteca Digital da Memória Científica do INPE (National Institute for Space Research) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (80NSSC18K0339)
  • Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (409531/2021-9, 16/02018-2, 20/16457-3, 15/02537-7, 314416/2020-0, 2015/, 2020/08916, 314473/2020-3, 2020/15230 – 5, 2020/, 312450/2021-4, 20/15230-5, 20/08916-8)
  • Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (314473/2020-3, 2020/15230-5, 2020-3, 409531/2021-9, 2020/16457-3, 2018-5, 2016/02018-2, 314416/2020-0, 2020/08916-8, 2020/08916)
  • Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (441573/2020-7, 314780/2020-3, 314416/2020‐0, 2020/08916-8, 2016/02018-2, 2020/08916, 441949/2018-5, 2020/15230-5, 312450/2021-4, 441949/2018, 314473/2020‐3, 309074/2021‐5, 409531/2021-9, 2020/16457-3)
  • Nuclear Safety and Security Commission
  • Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Amazonas (2020/15230-5, 312450/2021-4, 2020/08916, 314473/2020-3, 2020/08916-8)
  • Agência Espacial Brasileira (314416/2020-0)
  • Jet Propulsion Laboratory
  • Natural Environment Research Council (NE/S01084X/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Forest ecology and management
Keywords
forest fires, edge effects, logging, drought, CO2 emissions, evapotranspiration, biodiversity loss, forest dwellers, deforestation, climate policy
MeSH terms
Brazil, Carbon, Conservation of Natural Resources, Biodiversity, Carbon Cycle, Rainforest

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-03, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-03 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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