Precocidad y productividad según número de ramas por planta en tomate (Solanum lycopersicum) injertado y sin injertar

El tomate sin injertar se conduce normalmente a un tallo, aunque existen antecedentes de buenas respuestas productivas con conducción a dos ramas. Las plantas injertadas, por su vigor, pueden sostener más fácilmente la conducción a más tallos; reduciéndose la densidad de plantación, y consecuentemente, los costos de implantación, condición favorable dado el mayor precio de los plantines injertados. Sin embargo, en plantas injertadas puede producirse un retraso en las fases reproductivas, repercutiendo en la precocidad, mientras que a mayor número de ramas, el aumento en cantidad de frutos formados puede generar competencia y reducción de su tamaño. En tomate, la producción puede ser modificada por el cultivar, la práctica del injerto, el portainjerto y el número de ramas por planta. Sin embargo, en general, el planteo de los trabajos no permite diferenciar respuestas atribuibles al uso de injertos, la forma de conducción o a la interacción de estos factores. Este trabajo tuvo como objetivo estudiar el efecto del injerto y número de ramas por planta sobre la precocidad y productividad en tomate.Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias y Forestale

First Latin American clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus: Latin American Group for the Study of Lupus (GLADEL, Grupo Latino Americano de Estudio del Lupus)-Pan-American League of Associations of Rheumatology (PANLAR)

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), a complex and heterogeneous autoimmune disease, represents a significant challenge for both diagnosis and treatment. Patients with SLE in Latin America face special problems that should be considered when therapeutic guidelines are developed. The objective of the study is to develop clinical practice guidelines for Latin American patients with lupus. Two independent teams (rheumatologists with experience in lupus management and methodologists) had an initial meeting in Panama City, Panama, in April 2016. They selected a list of questions for the clinical problems most commonly seen in Latin American patients with SLE. These were addressed with the best available evidence and summarised in a standardised format following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. All preliminary findings were discussed in a second face-to-face meeting in Washington, DC, in November 2016. As a result, nine organ/system sections are presented with the main findings; an 'overarching' treatment approach was added. Special emphasis was made on regional implementation issues. Best pharmacologic options were examined for musculoskeletal, mucocutaneous, kidney, cardiac, pulmonary, neuropsychiatric, haematological manifestations and the antiphospholipid syndrome. The roles of main therapeutic options (ie, glucocorticoids, antimalarials, immunosuppressant agents, therapeutic plasma exchange, belimumab, rituximab, abatacept, low-dose aspirin and anticoagulants) were summarised in each section. In all cases, benefits and harms, certainty of the evidence, values and preferences, feasibility, acceptability and equity issues were considered to produce a recommendation with special focus on ethnic and socioeconomic aspects. Guidelines for Latin American patients with lupus have been developed and could be used in similar settings.Fil: Pons Estel, Bernardo A.. Centro Regional de Enfermedades Autoinmunes y Reumáticas; ArgentinaFil: Bonfa, Eloisa. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Soriano, Enrique R.. Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires. Rectorado.; ArgentinaFil: Cardiel, Mario H.. Centro de Investigación Clínica de Morelia; MéxicoFil: Izcovich, Ariel. Hospital Alemán; ArgentinaFil: Popoff, Federico. Hospital Aleman; ArgentinaFil: Criniti, Juan M.. Hospital Alemán; ArgentinaFil: Vásquez, Gloria. Universidad de Antioquia; ColombiaFil: Massardo, Loreto. Universidad San Sebastián; ChileFil: Duarte, Margarita. Hospital de Clínicas; ParaguayFil: Barile Fabris, Leonor A.. Hospital Angeles del Pedregal; MéxicoFil: García, Mercedes A.. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Hospital de Clínicas General San Martín; ArgentinaFil: Amigo, Mary Carmen. Centro Médico Abc; MéxicoFil: Espada, Graciela. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital General de Niños "Ricardo Gutiérrez"; ArgentinaFil: Catoggio, Luis J.. Hospital Italiano. Instituto Universitario. Escuela de Medicina; ArgentinaFil: Sato, Emilia Inoue. Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Levy, Roger A.. Universidade do Estado de Rio do Janeiro; BrasilFil: Acevedo Vásquez, Eduardo M.. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos; PerúFil: Chacón Díaz, Rosa. Policlínica Méndez Gimón; VenezuelaFil: Galarza Maldonado, Claudio M.. Corporación Médica Monte Sinaí; EcuadorFil: Iglesias Gamarra, Antonio J.. Universidad Nacional de Colombia; ColombiaFil: Molina, José Fernando. Centro Integral de Reumatología; ColombiaFil: Neira, Oscar. Universidad de Chile; ChileFil: Silva, Clóvis A.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Vargas Peña, Andrea. Hospital Pasteur Montevideo; UruguayFil: Gómez Puerta, José A.. Hospital Clinic Barcelona; EspañaFil: Scolnik, Marina. Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires. Rectorado.; ArgentinaFil: Pons Estel, Guillermo J.. Centro Regional de Enfermedades Autoinmunes y Reumáticas; Argentina. Hospital Provincial de Rosario; ArgentinaFil: Ugolini Lopes, Michelle R.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Savio, Verónica. Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires. Rectorado.; ArgentinaFil: Drenkard, Cristina. University of Emory; Estados UnidosFil: Alvarellos, Alejandro J.. Hospital Privado Universitario de Córdoba; ArgentinaFil: Ugarte Gil, Manuel F.. Universidad Cientifica del Sur; Perú. Hospital Nacional Guillermo Almenara Irigoyen; PerúFil: Babini, Alejandra. Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires. Rectorado.; ArgentinaFil: Cavalcanti, André. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Cardoso Linhares, Fernanda Athayde. Hospital Pasteur Montevideo; UruguayFil: Haye Salinas, Maria Jezabel. Hospital Privado Universitario de Córdoba; ArgentinaFil: Fuentes Silva, Yurilis J.. Universidad de Oriente - Núcleo Bolívar; VenezuelaFil: Montandon De Oliveira E Silva, Ana Carolina. Universidade Federal de Goiás; BrasilFil: Eraso Garnica, Ruth M.. Universidad de Antioquia; ColombiaFil: Herrera Uribe, Sebastián. Hospital General de Medellin Luz Castro de Gutiérrez; ColombiaFil: Gómez Martín, DIana. Instituto Nacional de la Nutrición Salvador Zubiran; MéxicoFil: Robaina Sevrini, Ricardo. Universidad de la República; UruguayFil: Quintana, Rosana M.. Hospital Provincial de Rosario; Argentina. Centro Regional de Enfermedades Autoinmunes y Reumáticas; ArgentinaFil: Gordon, Sergio. Hospital Interzonal General de Agudos Dr Oscar Alende. Unidad de Reumatología y Enfermedades Autoinmunes Sistémicas; ArgentinaFil: Fragoso Loyo, Hilda. Instituto Nacional de la Nutrición Salvador Zubiran; MéxicoFil: Rosario, Violeta. Hospital Docente Padre Billini; República DominicanaFil: Saurit, Verónica. Hospital Privado Universitario de Córdoba; ArgentinaFil: Appenzeller, Simone. Universidade Estadual de Campinas; BrasilFil: Dos Reis Neto, Edgard Torres. Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Cieza, Jorge. Hospital Nacional Edgardo Rebagliati Martins; PerúFil: González Naranjo, Luis A.. Universidad de Antioquia; ColombiaFil: González Bello, Yelitza C.. Ceibac; MéxicoFil: Collado, María Victoria. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Investigaciones Médicas; ArgentinaFil: Sarano, Judith. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Investigaciones Médicas; ArgentinaFil: Retamozo, Maria Soledad. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias de la Salud. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias de la Salud; ArgentinaFil: Sattler, María E.. Provincia de Buenos Aires. Ministerio de Salud. Hospital Interzonal de Agudos "Eva Perón"; ArgentinaFil: Gamboa Cárdenas, Rocio V.. Hospital Nacional Guillermo Almenara Irigoyen; PerúFil: Cairoli, Ernesto. Universidad de la República; UruguayFil: Conti, Silvana M.. Hospital Provincial de Rosario; ArgentinaFil: Amezcua Guerra, Luis M.. Instituto Nacional de Cardiologia Ignacio Chavez; MéxicoFil: Silveira, Luis H.. Instituto Nacional de Cardiologia Ignacio Chavez; MéxicoFil: Borba, Eduardo F.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Pera, Mariana A.. Hospital Interzonal General de Agudos General San Martín; ArgentinaFil: Alba Moreyra, Paula B.. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Medicina; ArgentinaFil: Arturi, Valeria. Hospital Interzonal General de Agudos General San Martín; ArgentinaFil: Berbotto, Guillermo A.. Provincia de Buenos Aires. Ministerio de Salud. Hospital Interzonal de Agudos "Eva Perón"; ArgentinaFil: Gerling, Cristian. Hospital Interzonal General de Agudos Dr Oscar Alende. Unidad de Reumatología y Enfermedades Autoinmunes Sistémicas; ArgentinaFil: Gobbi, Carla Andrea. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Medicina; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Gervasoni, Viviana L.. Hospital Provincial de Rosario; ArgentinaFil: Scherbarth, Hugo R.. Hospital Interzonal General de Agudos Dr Oscar Alende. Unidad de Reumatología y Enfermedades Autoinmunes Sistémicas; ArgentinaFil: Brenol, João C. Tavares. Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre; BrasilFil: Cavalcanti, Fernando. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Costallat, Lilian T. Lavras. Universidade Estadual de Campinas; BrasilFil: Da Silva, Nilzio A.. Universidade Federal de Goiás; BrasilFil: Monticielo, Odirlei A.. Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre; BrasilFil: Seguro, Luciana Parente Costa. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Xavier, Ricardo M.. Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre; BrasilFil: Llanos, Carolina. Universidad Católica de Chile; ChileFil: Montúfar Guardado, Rubén A.. Instituto Salvadoreño de la Seguridad Social; El SalvadorFil: Garcia De La Torre, Ignacio. Hospital General de Occidente; MéxicoFil: Pineda, Carlos. Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación; MéxicoFil: Portela Hernández, Margarita. Umae Hospital de Especialidades Centro Medico Nacional Siglo Xxi; MéxicoFil: Danza, Alvaro. Hospital Pasteur Montevideo; UruguayFil: Guibert Toledano, Marlene. Medical-surgical Research Center; CubaFil: Reyes, Gil Llerena. Medical-surgical Research Center; CubaFil: Acosta Colman, Maria Isabel. Hospital de Clínicas; ParaguayFil: Aquino, Alicia M.. Hospital de Clínicas; ParaguayFil: Mora Trujillo, Claudia S.. Hospital Nacional Edgardo Rebagliati Martins; PerúFil: Muñoz Louis, Roberto. Hospital Docente Padre Billini; República DominicanaFil: García Valladares, Ignacio. Centro de Estudios de Investigación Básica y Clínica; MéxicoFil: Orozco, María Celeste. Instituto de Rehabilitación Psicofísica; ArgentinaFil: Burgos, Paula I.. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile; ChileFil: Betancur, Graciela V.. Instituto de Rehabilitación Psicofísica; ArgentinaFil: Alarcón, Graciela S.. Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia; Perú. University of Alabama at Birmingahm; Estados Unido

Geographic patterns of tree dispersal modes in Amazonia and their ecological correlates

Aim: To investigate the geographic patterns and ecological correlates in the geographic distribution of the most common tree dispersal modes in Amazonia (endozoochory, synzoochory, anemochory and hydrochory). We examined if the proportional abundance of these dispersal modes could be explained by the availability of dispersal agents (disperser-availability hypothesis) and/or the availability of resources for constructing zoochorous fruits (resource-availability hypothesis). Time period: Tree-inventory plots established between 1934 and 2019. Major taxa studied: Trees with a diameter at breast height (DBH) ≥ 9.55 cm. Location: Amazonia, here defined as the lowland rain forests of the Amazon River basin and the Guiana Shield. Methods: We assigned dispersal modes to a total of 5433 species and morphospecies within 1877 tree-inventory plots across terra-firme, seasonally flooded, and permanently flooded forests. We investigated geographic patterns in the proportional abundance of dispersal modes. We performed an abundance-weighted mean pairwise distance (MPD) test and fit generalized linear models (GLMs) to explain the geographic distribution of dispersal modes. Results: Anemochory was significantly, positively associated with mean annual wind speed, and hydrochory was significantly higher in flooded forests. Dispersal modes did not consistently show significant associations with the availability of resources for constructing zoochorous fruits. A lower dissimilarity in dispersal modes, resulting from a higher dominance of endozoochory, occurred in terra-firme forests (excluding podzols) compared to flooded forests. Main conclusions: The disperser-availability hypothesis was well supported for abiotic dispersal modes (anemochory and hydrochory). The availability of resources for constructing zoochorous fruits seems an unlikely explanation for the distribution of dispersal modes in Amazonia. The association between frugivores and the proportional abundance of zoochory requires further research, as tree recruitment not only depends on dispersal vectors but also on conditions that favour or limit seedling recruitment across forest types

Geography and ecology shape the phylogenetic composition of Amazonian tree communities

AimAmazonia hosts more tree species from numerous evolutionary lineages, both young and ancient, than any other biogeographic region. Previous studies have shown that tree lineages colonized multiple edaphic environments and dispersed widely across Amazonia, leading to a hypothesis, which we test, that lineages should not be strongly associated with either geographic regions or edaphic forest types.LocationAmazonia.TaxonAngiosperms (Magnoliids; Monocots; Eudicots).MethodsData for the abundance of 5082 tree species in 1989 plots were combined with a mega-phylogeny. We applied evolutionary ordination to assess how phylogenetic composition varies across Amazonia. We used variation partitioning and Moran's eigenvector maps (MEM) to test and quantify the separate and joint contributions of spatial and environmental variables to explain the phylogenetic composition of plots. We tested the indicator value of lineages for geographic regions and edaphic forest types and mapped associations onto the phylogeny.ResultsIn the terra firme and várzea forest types, the phylogenetic composition varies by geographic region, but the igapó and white-sand forest types retain a unique evolutionary signature regardless of region. Overall, we find that soil chemistry, climate and topography explain 24% of the variation in phylogenetic composition, with 79% of that variation being spatially structured (R2 = 19% overall for combined spatial/environmental effects). The phylogenetic composition also shows substantial spatial patterns not related to the environmental variables we quantified (R2 = 28%). A greater number of lineages were significant indicators of geographic regions than forest types.Main ConclusionNumerous tree lineages, including some ancient ones (>66 Ma), show strong associations with geographic regions and edaphic forest types of Amazonia. This shows that specialization in specific edaphic environments has played a long-standing role in the evolutionary assembly of Amazonian forests. Furthermore, many lineages, even those that have dispersed across Amazonia, dominate within a specific region, likely because of phylogenetically conserved niches for environmental conditions that are prevalent within regions

Geography and ecology shape the phylogenetic composition of Amazonian tree communities

Aim: Amazonia hosts more tree species from numerous evolutionary lineages, both young and ancient, than any other biogeographic region. Previous studies have shown that tree lineages colonized multiple edaphic environments and dispersed widely across Amazonia, leading to a hypothesis, which we test, that lineages should not be strongly associated with either geographic regions or edaphic forest types. Location: Amazonia. Taxon: Angiosperms (Magnoliids; Monocots; Eudicots). Methods: Data for the abundance of 5082 tree species in 1989 plots were combined with a mega-phylogeny. We applied evolutionary ordination to assess how phylogenetic composition varies across Amazonia. We used variation partitioning and Moran\u27s eigenvector maps (MEM) to test and quantify the separate and joint contributions of spatial and environmental variables to explain the phylogenetic composition of plots. We tested the indicator value of lineages for geographic regions and edaphic forest types and mapped associations onto the phylogeny. Results: In the terra firme and várzea forest types, the phylogenetic composition varies by geographic region, but the igapó and white-sand forest types retain a unique evolutionary signature regardless of region. Overall, we find that soil chemistry, climate and topography explain 24% of the variation in phylogenetic composition, with 79% of that variation being spatially structured (R$^{2}$ = 19% overall for combined spatial/environmental effects). The phylogenetic composition also shows substantial spatial patterns not related to the environmental variables we quantified (R$^{2}$ = 28%). A greater number of lineages were significant indicators of geographic regions than forest types. Main Conclusion: Numerous tree lineages, including some ancient ones (>66 Ma), show strong associations with geographic regions and edaphic forest types of Amazonia. This shows that specialization in specific edaphic environments has played a long-standing role in the evolutionary assembly of Amazonian forests. Furthermore, many lineages, even those that have dispersed across Amazonia, dominate within a specific region, likely because of phylogenetically conserved niches for environmental conditions that are prevalent within regions

Mapping density, diversity and species-richness of the Amazon tree flora

Using 2.046 botanically-inventoried tree plots across the largest tropical forest on Earth, we mapped tree species-diversity and tree species-richness at 0.1-degree resolution, and investigated drivers for diversity and richness. Using only location, stratified by forest type, as predictor, our spatial model, to the best of our knowledge, provides the most accurate map of tree diversity in Amazonia to date, explaining approximately 70% of the tree diversity and species-richness. Large soil-forest combinations determine a significant percentage of the variation in tree species-richness and tree alpha-diversity in Amazonian forest-plots. We suggest that the size and fragmentation of these systems drive their large-scale diversity patterns and hence local diversity. A model not using location but cumulative water deficit, tree density, and temperature seasonality explains 47% of the tree species-richness in the terra-firme forest in Amazonia. Over large areas across Amazonia, residuals of this relationship are small and poorly spatially structured, suggesting that much of the residual variation may be local. The Guyana Shield area has consistently negative residuals, showing that this area has lower tree species-richness than expected by our models. We provide extensive plot meta-data, including tree density, tree alpha-diversity and tree species-richness results and gridded maps at 0.1-degree resolution

Global burden and strength of evidence for 88 risk factors in 204 countries and 811 subnational locations, 1990–2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

Background: Understanding the health consequences associated with exposure to risk factors is necessary to inform public health policy and practice. To systematically quantify the contributions of risk factor exposures to specific health outcomes, the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 aims to provide comprehensive estimates of exposure levels, relative health risks, and attributable burden of disease for 88 risk factors in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, from 1990 to 2021. Methods: The GBD 2021 risk factor analysis used data from 54 561 total distinct sources to produce epidemiological estimates for 88 risk factors and their associated health outcomes for a total of 631 risk–outcome pairs. Pairs were included on the basis of data-driven determination of a risk–outcome association. Age-sex-location-year-specific estimates were generated at global, regional, and national levels. Our approach followed the comparative risk assessment framework predicated on a causal web of hierarchically organised, potentially combinative, modifiable risks. Relative risks (RRs) of a given outcome occurring as a function of risk factor exposure were estimated separately for each risk–outcome pair, and summary exposure values (SEVs), representing risk-weighted exposure prevalence, and theoretical minimum risk exposure levels (TMRELs) were estimated for each risk factor. These estimates were used to calculate the population attributable fraction (PAF; ie, the proportional change in health risk that would occur if exposure to a risk factor were reduced to the TMREL). The product of PAFs and disease burden associated with a given outcome, measured in disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), yielded measures of attributable burden (ie, the proportion of total disease burden attributable to a particular risk factor or combination of risk factors). Adjustments for mediation were applied to account for relationships involving risk factors that act indirectly on outcomes via intermediate risks. Attributable burden estimates were stratified by Socio-demographic Index (SDI) quintile and presented as counts, age-standardised rates, and rankings. To complement estimates of RR and attributable burden, newly developed burden of proof risk function (BPRF) methods were applied to yield supplementary, conservative interpretations of risk–outcome associations based on the consistency of underlying evidence, accounting for unexplained heterogeneity between input data from different studies. Estimates reported represent the mean value across 500 draws from the estimate's distribution, with 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) calculated as the 2·5th and 97·5th percentile values across the draws. Findings: Among the specific risk factors analysed for this study, particulate matter air pollution was the leading contributor to the global disease burden in 2021, contributing 8·0% (95% UI 6·7–9·4) of total DALYs, followed by high systolic blood pressure (SBP; 7·8% [6·4–9·2]), smoking (5·7% [4·7–6·8]), low birthweight and short gestation (5·6% [4·8–6·3]), and high fasting plasma glucose (FPG; 5·4% [4·8–6·0]). For younger demographics (ie, those aged 0–4 years and 5–14 years), risks such as low birthweight and short gestation and unsafe water, sanitation, and handwashing (WaSH) were among the leading risk factors, while for older age groups, metabolic risks such as high SBP, high body-mass index (BMI), high FPG, and high LDL cholesterol had a greater impact. From 2000 to 2021, there was an observable shift in global health challenges, marked by a decline in the number of all-age DALYs broadly attributable to behavioural risks (decrease of 20·7% [13·9–27·7]) and environmental and occupational risks (decrease of 22·0% [15·5–28·8]), coupled with a 49·4% (42·3–56·9) increase in DALYs attributable to metabolic risks, all reflecting ageing populations and changing lifestyles on a global scale. Age-standardised global DALY rates attributable to high BMI and high FPG rose considerably (15·7% [9·9–21·7] for high BMI and 7·9% [3·3–12·9] for high FPG) over this period, with exposure to these risks increasing annually at rates of 1·8% (1·6–1·9) for high BMI and 1·3% (1·1–1·5) for high FPG. By contrast, the global risk-attributable burden and exposure to many other risk factors declined, notably for risks such as child growth failure and unsafe water source, with age-standardised attributable DALYs decreasing by 71·5% (64·4–78·8) for child growth failure and 66·3% (60·2–72·0) for unsafe water source. We separated risk factors into three groups according to trajectory over time: those with a decreasing attributable burden, due largely to declining risk exposure (eg, diet high in trans-fat and household air pollution) but also to proportionally smaller child and youth populations (eg, child and maternal malnutrition); those for which the burden increased moderately in spite of declining risk exposure, due largely to population ageing (eg, smoking); and those for which the burden increased considerably due to both increasing risk exposure and population ageing (eg, ambient particulate matter air pollution, high BMI, high FPG, and high SBP). Interpretation: Substantial progress has been made in reducing the global disease burden attributable to a range of risk factors, particularly those related to maternal and child health, WaSH, and household air pollution. Maintaining efforts to minimise the impact of these risk factors, especially in low SDI locations, is necessary to sustain progress. Successes in moderating the smoking-related burden by reducing risk exposure highlight the need to advance policies that reduce exposure to other leading risk factors such as ambient particulate matter air pollution and high SBP. Troubling increases in high FPG, high BMI, and other risk factors related to obesity and metabolic syndrome indicate an urgent need to identify and implement interventions

Sensitivity of South American tropical forests to an extreme climate anomaly

The tropical forest carbon sink is known to be drought sensitive, but it is unclear which forests are the most vulnerable to extreme events. Forests with hotter and drier baseline conditions may be protected by prior adaptation, or more vulnerable because they operate closer to physiological limits. Here we report that forests in drier South American climates experienced the greatest impacts of the 2015–2016 El Niño, indicating greater vulnerability to extreme temperatures and drought. The long-term, ground-measured tree-by-tree responses of 123 forest plots across tropical South America show that the biomass carbon sink ceased during the event with carbon balance becoming indistinguishable from zero (−0.02 ± 0.37 Mg C ha −1 per year). However, intact tropical South American forests overall were no more sensitive to the extreme 2015–2016 El Niño than to previous less intense events, remaining a key defence against climate change as long as they are protected

Mapping density, diversity and species-richness of the Amazon tree flora

Using 2.046 botanically-inventoried tree plots across the largest tropical forest on Earth, we mapped tree species-diversity and tree species-richness at 0.1-degree resolution, and investigated drivers for diversity and richness. Using only location, stratified by forest type, as predictor, our spatial model, to the best of our knowledge, provides the most accurate map of tree diversity in Amazonia to date, explaining approximately 70% of the tree diversity and species-richness. Large soil-forest combinations determine a significant percentage of the variation in tree species-richness and tree alpha-diversity in Amazonian forest-plots. We suggest that the size and fragmentation of these systems drive their large-scale diversity patterns and hence local diversity. A model not using location but cumulative water deficit, tree density, and temperature seasonality explains 47% of the tree species-richness in the terra-firme forest in Amazonia. Over large areas across Amazonia, residuals of this relationship are small and poorly spatially structured, suggesting that much of the residual variation may be local. The Guyana Shield area has consistently negative residuals, showing that this area has lower tree species-richness than expected by our models. We provide extensive plot meta-data, including tree density, tree alpha-diversity and tree species-richness results and gridded maps at 0.1-degree resolution