Fragmentation-driven divergent trends in burned area in Amazonia and Cerrado

The two major Brazilian biomes, the Amazonia and the Cerrado (savanna), are increasingly exposed to fires. The Amazonian Forest is a fire sensitive ecosystem where fires are a typically rare disturbance while the Cerrado is naturally fire-dependent. Human activities, such as landscape fragmentation and land-use management, have modified the fire regime of the Cerrado and introduced fire into the Amazonian Forest. There is limited understanding of the role of landscape fragmentation on fire occurrence in the Amazonia and Cerrado biomes. Due to differences in vegetation structure, composition, and land use characteristics in each biome, we hypothesize that the emerging burned area (BA) patterns will result from biome-specific fire responses to fragmentation. The aim of this study was to test the general relationship between BA, landscape fragmentation, and agricultural land in the Amazonia and the Cerrado biomes. To estimate the trends and status of landscape fragmentation a Forest Area Density (FAD) index was calculated based on the MapBiomas land cover dataset for both biomes between 2002 and 2018. BA fraction was analyzed within native vegetation against the FAD and agricultural land fraction. Our results showed an increase in landscape fragmentation across 16% of Amazonia and 15% of Cerrado. We identified an opposite relationship between BA fraction, and landscape fragmentation and agricultural fraction contrasting the two biomes. For Amazonia, both landscape fragmentation and agricultural fraction increased BA fraction due to an increase of human ignition activities. For the Cerrado, on the other hand, an increase in landscape fragmentation and agricultural fraction caused a decrease in BA fraction within the native vegetation. For both biomes, we found that during drought years BA increases whilst the divergent trends driven by fragmentation in the two contrasting global biomes is maintained. This understanding will be critical to informing the representation of fire dynamics in fire-enable Dynamic Global Vegetation Models and Earth System Models for climate projection and future ecosystem service provision

On the use of Earth Observation to support estimates of national greenhouse gas emissions and sinks for the Global stocktake process: lessons learned from ESA-CCI RECCAP2

The Global Stocktake (GST), implemented by the Paris Agreement, requires rapid developments in the capabilities to quantify annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and removals consistently from the global to the national scale and improvements to national GHG inventories. In particular, new capabilities are needed for accurate attribution of sources and sinks and their trends to natural and anthropogenic processes. On the one hand, this is still a major challenge as national GHG inventories follow globally harmonized methodologies based on the guidelines established by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but these can be implemented differently for individual countries. Moreover, in many countries the capability to systematically produce detailed and annually updated GHG inventories is still lacking. On the other hand, spatially-explicit datasets quantifying sources and sinks of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide emissions from Earth Observations (EO) are still limited by many sources of uncertainty. While national GHG inventories follow diverse methodologies depending on the availability of activity data in the different countries, the proposed comparison with EO-based estimates can help improve our understanding of the comparability of the estimates published by the different countries. Indeed, EO networks and satellite platforms have seen a massive expansion in the past decade, now covering a wide range of essential climate variables and offering high potential to improve the quantification of global and regional GHG budgets and advance process understanding. Yet, there is no EO data that quantifies greenhouse gas fluxes directly, rather there are observations of variables or proxies that can be transformed into fluxes using models. Here, we report results and lessons from the ESA-CCI RECCAP2 project, whose goal was to engage with National Inventory Agencies to improve understanding about the methods used by each community to estimate sources and sinks of GHGs and to evaluate the potential for satellite and in-situ EO to improve national GHG estimates. Based on this dialogue and recent studies, we discuss the potential of EO approaches to provide estimates of GHG budgets that can be compared with those of national GHG inventories. We outline a roadmap for implementation of an EO carbon-monitoring program that can contribute to the Paris Agreement

Large carbon sink potential of secondary forests in the Brazilian Amazon to mitigate climate change

Tropical secondary forests sequester carbon up to 20 times faster than old-growth forests. This rate does not capture spatial regrowth patterns due to environmental and disturbance drivers. Here we quantify the influence of such drivers on the rate and spatial patterns of regrowth in the Brazilian Amazon using satellite data. Carbon sequestration rates of young secondary forests (<20 years) in the west are ~60% higher (3.0 ± 1.0 Mg C ha−1 yr−1) compared to those in the east (1.3 ± 0.3 Mg C ha−1 yr−1). Disturbances reduce regrowth rates by 8–55%. The 2017 secondary forest carbon stock, of 294 Tg C, could be 8% higher by avoiding fires and repeated deforestation. Maintaining the 2017 secondary forest area has the potential to accumulate ~19.0 Tg C yr−1 until 2030, contributing ~5.5% to Brazil’s 2030 net emissions reduction target. Implementing legal mechanisms to protect and expand secondary forests whilst supporting old-growth conservation is, therefore, key to realising their potential as a nature-based climate solution

Mind the gap: reconciling tropical forest carbon flux estimates from earth observation and national reporting requires transparency

Background: The application of different approaches calculating the anthropogenic carbon net flux from land, leads to estimates that vary considerably. One reason for these variations is the extent to which approaches consider forest land to be “managed” by humans, and thus contributing to the net anthropogenic flux. Global Earth Observation (EO) datasets characterising spatio-temporal changes in land cover and carbon stocks provide an independent and consistent approach to estimate forest carbon fluxes. These can be compared against results reported in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (NGHGIs) to support accurate and timely measuring, reporting and verification (MRV). Using Brazil as a primary case study, with additional analysis in Indonesia and Malaysia, we compare a Global EO-based dataset of forest carbon fluxes to results reported in NGHGIs. Results: Between 2001 and 2020, the EO-derived estimates of all forest-related emissions and removals indicate that Brazil was a net sink of carbon (− 0.2 GtCO2yr−1), while Brazil’s NGHGI reported a net carbon source (+ 0.8 GtCO2yr−1). After adjusting the EO estimate to use the Brazilian NGHGI definition of managed forest and other assumptions used in the inventory’s methodology, the EO net flux became a source of + 0.6 GtCO2yr−1, comparable to the NGHGI. Remaining discrepancies are due largely to differing carbon removal factors and forest types applied in the two datasets. In Indonesia, the EO and NGHGI net flux estimates were similar (+ 0.6 GtCO2 yr−1), but in Malaysia, they differed in both magnitude and sign (NGHGI: -0.2 GtCO2 yr−1; Global EO: + 0.2 GtCO2 yr−1). Spatially explicit datasets on forest types were not publicly available for analysis from either NGHGI, limiting the possibility of detailed adjustments. Conclusions: By adjusting the EO dataset to improve comparability with carbon fluxes estimated for managed forests in the Brazilian NGHGI, initially diverging estimates were largely reconciled and remaining differences can be explained. Despite limited spatial data available for Indonesia and Malaysia, our comparison indicated specific aspects where differing approaches may explain divergence, including uncertainties and inaccuracies. Our study highlights the importance of enhanced transparency, as set out by the Paris Agreement, to enable alignment between different approaches for independent measuring and verification

A multi-data assessment of land use and land cover emissions from Brazil during 2000–2019

Brazil is currently the largest contributor of land use and land cover change (LULCC) carbon dioxide net emissions worldwide, representing 17%–29% of the global total. There is, however, a lack of agreement among different methodologies on the magnitude and trends in LULCC emissions and their geographic distribution. Here we perform an evaluation of LULCC datasets for Brazil, including those used in the annual global carbon budget (GCB), and national Brazilian assessments over the period 2000–2018. Results show that the latest global HYDE 3.3 LULCC dataset, based on new FAO inventory estimates and multi-annual ESA CCI satellite-based land cover maps, can represent the observed spatial variation in LULCC over the last decades, representing an improvement on the HYDE 3.2 data previously used in GCB. However, the magnitude of LULCC assessed with HYDE 3.3 is lower than estimates based on MapBiomas. We use HYDE 3.3 and MapBiomas as input to a global bookkeeping model (bookkeeping of land use emission, BLUE) and a process-based Dynamic Global Vegetation Model (JULES-ES) to determine Brazil's LULCC emissions over the period 2000–2019. Results show mean annual LULCC emissions of 0.1–0.4 PgC yr−1, compared with 0.1–0.24 PgC yr−1 reported by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimation System of land use changes and forest sector (SEEG/LULUCF) and by FAO in its latest assessment of deforestation emissions in Brazil. Both JULES-ES and BLUE now simulate a slowdown in emissions after 2004 (−0.006 and −0.004 PgC yr−2 with HYDE 3.3, −0.014 and −0.016 PgC yr−2 with MapBiomas, respectively), in agreement with the Brazilian INPE-EM, global Houghton and Nassikas book-keeping models, FAO and as reported in the 4th national greenhouse gas inventories. The inclusion of Earth observation data has improved spatial representation of LULCC in HYDE and thus model capability to simulate Brazil's LULCC emissions. This will likely contribute to reduce uncertainty in global LULCC emissions, and thus better constrains GCB assessments

Synthesis of the land carbon fluxes of the Amazon region between 2010 and 2020

The Amazon is the largest continuous tropical forest in the world and plays a key role in the global carbon cycle. Human-induced disturbances and climate change have impacted the Amazon carbon balance. Here we conduct a comprehensive synthesis of existing state-of-the-art estimates of the contemporary land carbon fluxes in the Amazon using a set of bottom-up methods (i.e., dynamic vegetation models and bookkeeping models) and a top-down inversion (atmospheric inversion model) over the Brazilian Amazon and the whole Biogeographical Amazon domain. Over the whole biogeographical Amazon region bottom-up methodologies suggest a small average carbon sink over 2010-2020, in contrast to a small carbon source simulated by top-down inversion (2010-2018). However, these estimates are not significantly different from one another when accounting for their large individual uncertainties, highlighting remaining knowledge gaps, and the urgent need to reduce such uncertainties. Nevertheless, both methodologies agreed that the Brazilian Amazon has been a net carbon source during recent climate extremes and that the south-eastern Amazon was a net land carbon source over the whole study period (2010-2020). Overall, our results point to increasing human-induced disturbances (deforestation and forest degradation by wildfires) and reduction in the old-growth forest sink during drought

Global Carbon Budget 2022

Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO$_2$) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in a changing climate is critical to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe and synthesize data sets and methodologies to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO$_2$ emissions (E$_{FOS}$) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (E$_{LUC}$), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO$_2$ concentration is measured directly, and its growth rate (G$_{ATM}$) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO$_2$ sink (S$_{OCEAN}$) is estimated with global ocean biogeochemistry models and observation-based data products. The terrestrial CO$_2$ sink (S$_{LAND}$) is estimated with dynamic global vegetation models. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (B$_{IM}$), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the year 2021, E$_{FOS}$ increased by 5.1 % relative to 2020, with fossil emissions at 10.1 ± 0.5 GtC yr$^{−1}$ (9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr$^{−1}$ when the cement carbonation sink is included), and E$_{LUC}$ was 1.1 ± 0.7 GtC yr$^{−1}$, for a total anthropogenic CO$_2$ emission (including the cement carbonation sink) of 10.9 ± 0.8 GtC yr$^{−1}$ (40.0 ± 2.9 GtCO$_2$). Also, for 2021, G$_{ATM}$ was 5.2 ± 0.2 GtC yr$^{−1}$ (2.5 ± 0.1 ppm yr$^{−1}$), S$_{OCEAN}$ was 2.9  ± 0.4 GtC yr$^{−1}$, and S$_{LAND}$ was 3.5 ± 0.9 GtC yr$^{−1}$, with a B$_{IM}$ of −0.6 GtC yr$^{−1}$ (i.e. the total estimated sources were too low or sinks were too high). The global atmospheric CO$_2$ concentration averaged over 2021 reached 414.71 ± 0.1 ppm. Preliminary data for 2022 suggest an increase in E$_{FOS}$ relative to 2021 of +1.0 % (0.1 % to 1.9 %) globally and atmospheric CO$_2$ concentration reaching 417.2 ppm, more than 50 % above pre-industrial levels (around 278 ppm). Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2021, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr$^{−1}$ persist for the representation of annual to semi-decadal variability in CO$_2$ fluxes. Comparison of estimates from multiple approaches and observations shows (1) a persistent large uncertainty in the estimate of land-use change emissions, (2) a low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO$_2$ flux in the northern extratropics, and (3) a discrepancy between the different methods on the strength of the ocean sink over the last decade. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set. The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2022 (Friedlingstein et al., 2022b)

Global Carbon Budget 2023

Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in a changing climate is critical to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe and synthesize data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFOS) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land-use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly, and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) is estimated with global ocean biogeochemistry models and observation-based f CO2 products. The terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) is estimated with dynamic global vegetation models. Additional lines of evidence on land and ocean sinks are provided by atmospheric inversions, atmospheric oxygen measurements, and Earth system models. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and incomplete understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the year 2022, EFOS increased by 0.9 % relative to 2021, with fossil emissions at 9.9 ± 0.5 Gt C yr−1 (10.2 ± 0.5 Gt C yr−1 when the cement carbonation sink is not included), and ELUC was 1.2 ± 0.7 Gt C yr−1, for a total anthropogenic CO2 emission (including the cement carbonation sink) of 11.1 ± 0.8 Gt C yr−1 (40.7±3.2 Gt CO2 yr−1). Also, for 2022, GATM was 4.6±0.2 Gt C yr−1 (2.18±0.1 ppm yr−1; ppm denotes parts per million), SOCEAN was 2.8 ± 0.4 Gt C yr−1, and SLAND was 3.8 ± 0.8 Gt C yr−1, with a BIM of −0.1 Gt C yr−1 (i.e. total estimated sources marginally too low or sinks marginally too high). The global atmospheric CO2 concentration averaged over 2022 reached 417.1 ± 0.1 ppm. Preliminary data for 2023 suggest an increase in EFOS relative to 2022 of +1.1 % (0.0 % to 2.1 %) globally and atmospheric CO2 concentration reaching 419.3 ppm, 51 % above the pre-industrial level (around 278 ppm in 1750). Overall, the mean of and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2022, with a near-zero overall budget imbalance, although discrepancies of up to around 1 Gt C yr−1 persist for the representation of annual to semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. Comparison of estimates from multiple approaches and observations shows the following: (1) a persistent large uncertainty in the estimate of land-use changes emissions, (2) a low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) a discrepancy between the different methods on the strength of the ocean sink over the last decade. This living-data update documents changes in methods and data sets applied to this most recent global carbon budget as well as evolving community understanding of the global carbon cycle. The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2023 (Friedlingstein et al., 2023)