Published in

Nature Research, Nature, 7543(519), p. 344-348, 2015

DOI: 10.1038/nature14283

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Long-term decline of the Amazon carbon sink

Journal article published in 2015 by Roel Jacobus Wilhelmus Brienen, Oliver L. Phillips ORCID, Ted R. Feldpausch, Emanuel Gloor, Timothy R. Baker, Jon Lloyd, Gabriela Lopez Gonzalez, A. Monteagudo Mendoza, Yadvinder Malhi, Simon L. Lewis, R. Vásquez Martinez, M. Alexiades, E. Álvarez Dávila, P. Alvarez Loayza, Ana Andrade and other authors.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Upload
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Upload
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Policy details
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Atmospheric carbon dioxide records indicate that the land surface has acted as a strong global carbon sink over recent decades1, 2, with a substantial fraction of this sink probably located in the tropics3, particularly in the Amazon4. Nevertheless, it is unclear how the terrestrial carbon sink will evolve as climate and atmospheric composition continue to change. Here we analyse the historical evolution of the biomass dynamics of the Amazon rainforest over three decades using a distributed network of 321 plots. While this analysis confirms that Amazon forests have acted as a long-term net biomass sink, we find a long-term decreasing trend of carbon accumulation. Rates of net increase in above-ground biomass declined by one-third during the past decade compared to the 1990s. This is a consequence of growth rate increases levelling off recently, while biomass mortality persistently increased throughout, leading to a shortening of carbon residence times. Potential drivers for the mortality increase include greater climate variability, and feedbacks of faster growth on mortality, resulting in shortened tree longevity5. The observed decline of the Amazon sink diverges markedly from the recent increase in terrestrial carbon uptake at the global scale1, 2, and is contrary to expectations based on models. (Résumé d'auteur)