Climate seasonality limits leaf carbon assimilation and wood productivity in tropical forests

The seasonal climate drivers of the carbon cycle in tropical forests remain poorly known, although these forests account for more carbon assimilation and storage than any other terrestrial ecosystem. Based on a unique combination of seasonal pan-tropical data sets from 89 experimental sites (68 include aboveground wood productivity measurements and 35 litter productivity measurements), their associated canopy photosynthetic capacity (enhanced vegetation index, EVI) and climate, we ask how carbon assimilation and aboveground allocation are related to climate seasonality in tropical forests and how they interact in the seasonal carbon cycle. We found that canopy photosynthetic capacity seasonality responds positively to precipitation when rainfall is < 2000ĝ€-mmĝ€-yrĝ'1 (water-limited forests) and to radiation otherwise (light-limited forests). On the other hand, independent of climate limitations, wood productivity and litterfall are driven by seasonal variation in precipitation and evapotranspiration, respectively. Consequently, light-limited forests present an asynchronism between canopy photosynthetic capacity and wood productivity. First-order control by precipitation likely indicates a decrease in tropical forest productivity in a drier climate in water-limited forest, and in current light-limited forest with future rainfall < 2000ĝ€-mmĝ€-yrĝ'1. Author(s) 2016.Fil: Wagner, Fabien H.. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais; BrasilFil: Hérault, Bruno. Ecologie Des Forets de Guyane; BrasilFil: Bonal, Damien. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique; FranciaFil: Stahl, Clment. Universiteit Antwerp; BélgicaFil: Anderson, Liana O.. National Center For Monitoring And Early Warning Of Natural Disasters; BrasilFil: Baker, Timothy R.. University Of Leeds; Reino UnidoFil: Sebastian Becker, Gabriel. Universidad de Hohenheim; AlemaniaFil: Beeckman, Hans. Royal Museum For Central Africa; BélgicaFil: Boanerges Souza, Danilo. Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia; BrasilFil: Cesar Botosso, Paulo. Ministerio da Agricultura Pecuaria e Abastecimento de Brasil. Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria; BrasilFil: Bowman, David M. J. S.. University of Tasmania; AustraliaFil: Bräuning, Achim. Universitat Erlangen-Nuremberg; AlemaniaFil: Brede, Benjamin. Wageningen University And Research Centre; Países BajosFil: Irving Brown, Foster. Universidade Federal Do Acre; BrasilFil: Julio Camarero, Jesus. Instituto Boliviano de Investigacion Forestal Bolivia; BoliviaFil: Camargo, Plnio Barbosa. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Cardoso, Fernanda C.G.. Universidade Federal do Paraná; BrasilFil: Carvalho, Fabrcio Alvim. Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora; BrasilFil: Castro, Wendeson. Universidade Federal Do Acre; BrasilFil: Koloski Chagas, Rubens. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Chave, Jrome. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; FranciaFil: Chidumayo, Emmanuel N.. University Of Zambia; ZambiaFil: Clark, Deborah A.. University Of Missouri-st. Louis; Estados UnidosFil: Regina Capellotto Costa, Flavia. Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações. Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia; BrasilFil: Couralet, Camille. Royal Museum For Central Africa; BélgicaFil: Henrique Da Silva Mauricio, Paulo. Universidade Federal Do Acre; BrasilFil: Dalitz, Helmut. Universidad de Hohenheim; AlemaniaFil: Resende De Castro, Vinicius. Universidade Federal de Vicosa; BrasilFil: Milani, Jaanan Eloisa De Freitas. Universidade Federal do Paraná; BrasilFil: Roig Junent, Fidel Alejandro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mendoza. Instituto Argentino de Nivología, Glaciología y Ciencias Ambientales. Museo de Historia Natural de San Rafael - Ianigla | Provincia de Mendoza. Instituto Argentino de Nivología, Glaciología y Ciencias Ambientales. Museo de Historia Natural de San Rafael - Ianigla | Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Instituto Argentino de Nivología, Glaciología y Ciencias Ambientales. Museo de Historia Natural de San Rafael - Ianigla; Argentin

Basin-wide variation in tree hydraulic safety margins predicts the carbon balance of Amazon forests

Funding: Data collection was largely funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) project TREMOR (NE/N004655/1) to D.G., E.G. and O.P., with further funds from Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES, finance code 001) to J.V.T. and a University of Leeds Climate Research Bursary Fund to J.V.T. D.G., E.G. and O.P. acknowledge further support from a NERC-funded consortium award (ARBOLES, NE/S011811/1). This paper is an outcome of J.V.T.’s doctoral thesis, which was sponsored by CAPES (GDE 99999.001293/2015-00). J.V.T. was previously supported by the NERC-funded ARBOLES project (NE/S011811/1) and is supported at present by the Swedish Research Council Vetenskapsrådet (grant no. 2019-03758 to R.M.). E.G., O.P. and D.G. acknowledge support from NERC-funded BIORED grant (NE/N012542/1). O.P. acknowledges support from an ERC Advanced Grant and a Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit Award. R.S.O. was supported by a CNPq productivity scholarship, the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP-Microsoft 11/52072-0) and the US Department of Energy, project GoAmazon (FAPESP 2013/50531-2). M.M. acknowledges support from MINECO FUN2FUN (CGL2013-46808-R) and DRESS (CGL2017-89149-C2-1-R). C.S.-M., F.B.V. and P.R.L.B. were financed by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES, finance code 001). C.S.-M. received a scholarship from the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq 140353/2017-8) and CAPES (science without borders 88881.135316/2016-01). Y.M. acknowledges the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and ERC Advanced Investigator Grant (GEM-TRAITS, 321131) for supporting the Global Ecosystems Monitoring (GEM) network (gem.tropicalforests.ox.ac.uk), within which some of the field sites (KEN, TAM and ALP) are nested. The authors thank Brazil–USA Collaborative Research GoAmazon DOE-FAPESP-FAPEAM (FAPESP 2013/50533-5 to L.A.) and National Science Foundation (award DEB-1753973 to L. Alves). They thank Serrapilheira Serra-1709-18983 (to M.H.) and CNPq-PELD/POPA-441443/2016-8 (to L.G.) (P.I. Albertina Lima). They thank all the colleagues and grants mentioned elsewhere [8,36] that established, identified and measured the Amazon forest plots in the RAINFOR network analysed here. The authors particularly thank J. Lyod, S. Almeida, F. Brown, B. Vicenti, N. Silva and L. Alves. This work is an outcome approved Research Project no. 19 from ForestPlots.net, a collaborative initiative developed at the University of Leeds that unites researchers and the monitoring of their permanent plots from the world’s tropical forests [61]. The authros thank A. Levesley, K. Melgaço Ladvocat and G. Pickavance for ForestPlots.net management. They thank Y. Wang and J. Baker, respectively, for their help with the map and with the climatic data. The authors acknowledge the invaluable help of M. Brum for kindly providing the comparison of vulnerability curves based on PAD and on PLC shown in this manuscript. They thank J. Martinez-Vilalta for his comments on an early version of this manuscript. The authors also thank V. Hilares and the Asociación para la Investigación y Desarrollo Integral (AIDER, Puerto Maldonado, Peru); V. Saldaña and Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonía Peruana (IIAP) for local field campaign support in Peru; E. Chavez and Noel Kempff Natural History Museum for local field campaign support in Bolivia; ICMBio, INPA/NAPPA/LBA COOMFLONA (Cooperativa mista da Flona Tapajós) and T. I. Bragança-Marituba for the research support.Tropical forests face increasing climate risk1,2, yet our ability to predict their response to climate change is limited by poor understanding of their resistance to water stress. Although xylem embolism resistance thresholds (for example, Ψ50) and hydraulic safety margins (for example, HSM50) are important predictors of drought-induced mortality risk3-5, little is known about how these vary across Earth's largest tropical forest. Here, we present a pan-Amazon, fully standardized hydraulic traits dataset and use it to assess regional variation in drought sensitivity and hydraulic trait ability to predict species distributions and long-term forest biomass accumulation. Parameters Ψ50 and HSM50 vary markedly across the Amazon and are related to average long-term rainfall characteristics. Both Ψ50 and HSM50 influence the biogeographical distribution of Amazon tree species. However, HSM50 was the only significant predictor of observed decadal-scale changes in forest biomass. Old-growth forests with wide HSM50 are gaining more biomass than are low HSM50 forests. We propose that this may be associated with a growth-mortality trade-off whereby trees in forests consisting of fast-growing species take greater hydraulic risks and face greater mortality risk. Moreover, in regions of more pronounced climatic change, we find evidence that forests are losing biomass, suggesting that species in these regions may be operating beyond their hydraulic limits. Continued climate change is likely to further reduce HSM50 in the Amazon6,7, with strong implications for the Amazon carbon sink.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Hyperdominance in Amazonian Forest Carbon Cycling

While Amazonian forests are extraordinarily diverse, the abundance of trees is skewed strongly towards relatively few ‘hyperdominant’ species. In addition to their diversity, Amazonian trees are a key component of the global carbon cycle, assimilating and storing more carbon than any other ecosystem on Earth. Here we ask, using a unique data set of 530 forest plots, if the functions of storing and producing woody carbon are concentrated in a small number of tree species, whether the most abundant species also dominate carbon cycling, and whether dominant species are characterized by specific functional traits. We find that dominance of forest function is even more concentrated in a few species than is dominance of tree abundance, with only ≈1% of Amazon tree species responsible for 50% of carbon storage and productivity. Although those species that contribute most to biomass and productivity are often abundant, species maximum size is also influential, while the identity and ranking of dominant species varies by function and by region

The number of tree species on Earth

One of the most fundamental questions in ecology is how many species inhabit the Earth. However, due to massive logistical and financial challenges and taxonomic difficulties connected to the species concept definition, the global numbers of species, including those of important and well-studied life forms such as trees, still remain largely unknown. Here, based on global groundsourced data, we estimate the total tree species richness at global, continental, and biome levels. Our results indicate that there are 73,000 tree species globally, among which ∼9,000 tree species are yet to be discovered. Roughly 40% of undiscovered tree species are in South America. Moreover, almost one-third of all tree species to be discovered may be rare, with very low populations and limited spatial distribution (likely in remote tropical lowlands and mountains). These findings highlight the vulnerability of global forest biodiversity to anthropogenic changes in land use and climate, which disproportionately threaten rare species and thus, global tree richness

The number of tree species on Earth.

One of the most fundamental questions in ecology is how many species inhabit the Earth. However, due to massive logistical and financial challenges and taxonomic difficulties connected to the species concept definition, the global numbers of species, including those of important and well-studied life forms such as trees, still remain largely unknown. Here, based on global ground-sourced data, we estimate the total tree species richness at global, continental, and biome levels. Our results indicate that there are ∼73,000 tree species globally, among which ∼9,000 tree species are yet to be discovered. Roughly 40% of undiscovered tree species are in South America. Moreover, almost one-third of all tree species to be discovered may be rare, with very low populations and limited spatial distribution (likely in remote tropical lowlands and mountains). These findings highlight the vulnerability of global forest biodiversity to anthropogenic changes in land use and climate, which disproportionately threaten rare species and thus, global tree richness

The number of tree species on Earth.

One of the most fundamental questions in ecology is how many species inhabit the Earth. However, due to massive logistical and financial challenges and taxonomic difficulties connected to the species concept definition, the global numbers of species, including those of important and well-studied life forms such as trees, still remain largely unknown. Here, based on global ground-sourced data, we estimate the total tree species richness at global, continental, and biome levels. Our results indicate that there are ∼73,000 tree species globally, among which ∼9,000 tree species are yet to be discovered. Roughly 40% of undiscovered tree species are in South America. Moreover, almost one-third of all tree species to be discovered may be rare, with very low populations and limited spatial distribution (likely in remote tropical lowlands and mountains). These findings highlight the vulnerability of global forest biodiversity to anthropogenic changes in land use and climate, which disproportionately threaten rare species and thus, global tree richness

Long-term thermal sensitivity of Earth’s tropical forests

The sensitivity of tropical forest carbon to climate is a key uncertainty in predicting global climate change. Although short-term drying and warming are known to affect forests, it is unknown if such effects translate into long-term responses. Here, we analyze 590 permanent plots measured across the tropics to derive the equilibrium climate controls on forest carbon. Maximum temperature is the most important predictor of aboveground biomass (−9.1 megagrams of carbon per hectare per degree Celsius), primarily by reducing woody productivity, and has a greater impact per °C in the hottest forests (>32.2°C). Our results nevertheless reveal greater thermal resilience than observations of short-term variation imply. To realize the long-term climate adaptation potential of tropical forests requires both protecting them and stabilizing Earth’s climate

The global abundance of tree palms

Aim Palms are an iconic, diverse and often abundant component of tropical ecosystems that provide many ecosystem services. Being monocots, tree palms are evolutionarily, morphologically and physiologically distinct from other trees, and these differences have important consequences for ecosystem services (e.g., carbon sequestration and storage) and in terms of responses to climate change. We quantified global patterns of tree palm relative abundance to help improve understanding of tropical forests and reduce uncertainty about these ecosystems under climate change. Location Tropical and subtropical moist forests. Time period Current. Major taxa studied Palms (Arecaceae). Methods We assembled a pantropical dataset of 2,548 forest plots (covering 1,191 ha) and quantified tree palm (i.e., ≥10 cm diameter at breast height) abundance relative to co‐occurring non‐palm trees. We compared the relative abundance of tree palms across biogeographical realms and tested for associations with palaeoclimate stability, current climate, edaphic conditions and metrics of forest structure. Results On average, the relative abundance of tree palms was more than five times larger between Neotropical locations and other biogeographical realms. Tree palms were absent in most locations outside the Neotropics but present in >80% of Neotropical locations. The relative abundance of tree palms was more strongly associated with local conditions (e.g., higher mean annual precipitation, lower soil fertility, shallower water table and lower plot mean wood density) than metrics of long‐term climate stability. Life‐form diversity also influenced the patterns; palm assemblages outside the Neotropics comprise many non‐tree (e.g., climbing) palms. Finally, we show that tree palms can influence estimates of above‐ground biomass, but the magnitude and direction of the effect require additional work. Conclusions Tree palms are not only quintessentially tropical, but they are also overwhelmingly Neotropical. Future work to understand the contributions of tree palms to biomass estimates and carbon cycling will be particularly crucial in Neotropical forests

Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research

Biodiversity loss is one of the main challenges of our time,1,2 and attempts to address it require a clear un derstanding of how ecological communities respond to environmental change across time and space.3,4 While the increasing availability of global databases on ecological communities has advanced our knowledge of biodiversity sensitivity to environmental changes,5–7 vast areas of the tropics remain understudied.8–11 In the American tropics, Amazonia stands out as the world’s most diverse rainforest and the primary source of Neotropical biodiversity,12 but it remains among the least known forests in America and is often underrepre sented in biodiversity databases.13–15 To worsen this situation, human-induced modifications16,17 may elim inate pieces of the Amazon’s biodiversity puzzle before we can use them to understand how ecological com munities are responding. To increase generalization and applicability of biodiversity knowledge,18,19 it is thus crucial to reduce biases in ecological research, particularly in regions projected to face the most pronounced environmental changes. We integrate ecological community metadata of 7,694 sampling sites for multiple or ganism groups in a machine learning model framework to map the research probability across the Brazilian Amazonia, while identifying the region’s vulnerability to environmental change. 15%–18% of the most ne glected areas in ecological research are expected to experience severe climate or land use changes by 2050. This means that unless we take immediate action, we will not be able to establish their current status, much less monitor how it is changing and what is being lostinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio