Search for: All records

Deforestation and climate change are expected to alter fire regimes along the Cerrado-Amazon transition, one of the world’s most active agricultural frontiers. Here we tested the hypothesis that the time since land-use transition (age of frontier) and agricultural intensification also drive changes in the region’s fire regimes by reducing fire probability in both drought and non-drought years. We modeled fire probability as a function of the time since land-use transitions based on MapBiomas Project datasets from 1986 to 2020. We find that, while burned area declined as pasturelands aged and croplands advanced, deforestation abruptly increased fire activity before (Amazon: 4 years; Cerrado: 3 years) and after (Amazon: 8 years; Cerrado: 7 years) land clearing for pasture, especially in the Amazon. Additionally, the combination of ignition risk, drought, and air-dryness increased the likelihood of large extents of burned areas associated with deforestation. Incorporating frontier age as a proxy for governance in fire modeling is crucial, given the ecological implications of changing fire regimes despite declining rates of fire probability. Most importantly, protecting against deforestation and preserving native vegetation are vital.

 

Tropical ecosystems store over half of the world’s aboveground live carbon as biomass, and water availability plays a key role in its distribution. Although precipitation and temperature are shifting across the tropics, their effect on biomass and carbon storage remains uncertain. Here we use empirical relationships between climate and aboveground biomass content to show that the contraction of humid regions, and expansion of those with intense dry periods, results in substantial carbon loss from the neotropics. Under a low emission scenario (Representative Concentration Pathway 4.5) this could cause a net reduction of aboveground live carbon of ~14.4–23.9 PgC (6.8–12%) from 1950–2100. Under a high emissions scenario (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5) net carbon losses could double across the tropics, to ~28.2–39.7 PgC (13.3–20.1%). The contraction of humid regions in South America accounts for ~40% of this change. Climate mitigation strategies could prevent half of the carbon losses and help maintain the natural tropical net carbon sink. 

Abstract The Amazon biome is being pushed by unsustainable economic drivers towards an ecological tipping point where restoration to its previous state may no longer be possible. This degradation is the result of self-reinforcing interactions between deforestation, climate change and fire. We assess the economic, natural capital and ecosystem services impacts and trade-offs of scenarios representing movement towards an Amazon tipping point and strategies to avert one using the Integrated Economic-Environmental Modeling (IEEM) Platform linked with spatial land use-land cover change and ecosystem services modeling (IEEM + ESM). Our approach provides the first approximation of the economic, natural capital and ecosystem services impacts of a tipping point, and evidence to build the economic case for strategies to avert it. For the five Amazon focal countries, namely, Brazil, Peru, Colombia, Bolivia and Ecuador, we find that a tipping point would create economic losses of US$256.6 billion in cumulative gross domestic product by 2050. Policies that would contribute to averting a tipping point, including strongly reducing deforestation, investing in intensifying agriculture in cleared lands, climate-adapted agriculture and improving fire management, would generate approximately US$339.3 billion in additional wealth and a return on investment of US$29.5 billion. Quantifying the costs, benefits and trade-offs of policies to avert a tipping point in a transparent and replicable manner can support the design of regional development strategies for the Amazon biome, build the business case for action and catalyze global cooperation and financing to enable policy implementation. 

Biophysical effects from deforestation have the potential to amplify carbon losses but are often neglected in carbon accounting systems. Here we use both Earth system model simulations and satellite–derived estimates of aboveground biomass to assess losses of vegetation carbon caused by the influence of tropical deforestation on regional climate across different continents. In the Amazon, warming and drying arising from deforestation result in an additional 5.1 ± 3.7% loss of aboveground biomass. Biophysical effects also amplify carbon losses in the Congo (3.8 ± 2.5%) but do not lead to significant additional carbon losses in tropical Asia due to its high levels of annual mean precipitation. These findings indicate that tropical forests may be undervalued in carbon accounting systems that neglect climate feedbacks from surface biophysical changes and that the positive carbon–climate feedback from deforestation-driven climate change is higher than the feedback originating from fossil fuel emissions.

 

Forest disturbances associated with edge effects, wildfires, and windthrow events have impacted large swaths of the tropics. Defining the levels of forest disturbance that cause ecologically relevant reductions in fruit and seed (FS) production is key to understanding forest resilience to current and future global changes. Here, we tested the hypotheses that: (1) low‐intensity experimental fires alone would cause minor changes in FS production and diversity in a tropical forest, whereas synergistic disturbance effects resulting from edge effects, wildfires, droughts, and blowdowns would drive long‐term reductions in FS diversity and production; and (2) the functional composition of FS in disturbed forests would shift toward tree species with acquisitive strategies. To test these hypotheses, we quantified FS production between 2005 and 2018 in a large‐scale fire experiment in southeast Amazonia. The experimental treatments consisted of three 50‐ha plots: a Control plot, a plot burned annually (B1yr) and a plot burned every three years (B3yr) between 2004 and 2010. These plots were impacted by edge effects, two droughts (2007 and 2010), and a blowdown event in 2012. Our results show that FS production remained relatively high following low‐intensity fires, but declined where fires were most severe (i.e., forest edge of B3yr). The number of species‐producing FS declined sharply when fires co‐occurred with droughts and a windthrow event, and species composition shifted throughout the experiment. Along the edge of both burned plots, the forest community became dominated by species with faster relative growth, thinner leaves, thinner bark, and lower height. We conclude that compounding disturbances changed FS patterns, with a strong effect on species composition and potentially large effects on the next generation of trees. This is largely due to reductions in the diversity of species‐producing FS where fires are severe, causing a shift toward functional traits typically associated with pioneer and generalist species.

 

Abstract The contemporary fire regime of southern Amazonian forests has been dominated by interactions between droughts and sources of fire ignition associated with deforestation and slash-and-burn agriculture. Until recently, wildfires have been concentrated mostly on private properties, with protected areas functioning as large-scale firebreaks along the Amazon’s agricultural frontier. However, as the climate changes, protected forests have become increasingly flammable. Here, we have quantified forest degradation in the Território Indígena do Xingu (TIX), an iconic area of 2.8 million hectares where over 6000 people from 16 different ethnic Indigenous groups live across 100 villages. Our main hypothesis was that forest degradation, defined here as areas with lower canopy cover, inside the TIX is increasing due to pervasive sources of fire ignition, more frequent extreme drought events, and changing slash-and-burn agricultural practices. Between 2001 and 2020, nearly 189 000 hectares (∼7%) of the TIX became degraded by recurrent drought and fire events that were the main factors driving forest degradation, particularly in seasonally flooded forests. After three fire events, the probability of forest loss was higher in seasonally flooded areas (63%) compared to upland areas (41%). Given the same fire frequency, areas that have not suffered with extreme droughts showed a 24% lower probability of forest loss compared to areas that experienced three drought events. Distance from villages and human density also had a marked effect on forest cover loss, which was generally higher in areas close to the largest villages. In one of the most culturally diverse Indigenous lands of the Amazon, in a landscape highly threatened by deforestation, our findings demonstrate that climate change may have already exceeded the conditions to which the system has adapted. 

Carbon losses from forest degradation and disturbances are significant and growing sources of emissions in the Brazilian Amazon. Between 2003 and 2019, degradation and disturbance accounted for 44% of forest carbon losses in the region, compared with 56% from deforestation (forest clearing). We found that land tenure played a decisive role in explaining these carbon losses, with Undesignated Public Forests and Other Lands (e.g., private properties) accounting for the majority (82%) of losses during the study period. Illegal deforestation and land grabbing in Undesignated Public Forests widespread and increasingly are important drivers of forest carbon emissions from the region. In contrast, indigenous Territories and Protected Natural Areas had the lowest emissions, demonstrating their effectiveness in preventing deforestation and maintaining carbon stocks. These trends underscore the urgent need to develop reliable systems for monitoring and reporting on carbon losses from forest degradation and disturbance. Together with improved governance, such actions will be crucial for Brazil to reduce pressure on standing forests; strengthen Indigenous land rights; and design effective climate mitigation strategies needed to achieve its national and international climate commitments.