Abstract

Drought, a recurring phenomenon with major impacts on both human and natural systems1,2,3, is the most widespread climatic extreme that negatively affects the land carbon sink2,4. Although twentieth-century trends in drought regimes are ambiguous5,6,7, across many regions more frequent and severe droughts are expected in the twenty-first century3,7,8,9. Recovery time—how long an ecosystem requires to revert to its pre-drought functional state—is a critical metric of drought impact. Yet the factors influencing drought recovery and its spatiotemporal patterns at the global scale are largely unknown. Here we analyse three independent datasets of gross primary productivity and show that, across diverse ecosystems, drought recovery times are strongly associated with climate and carbon cycle dynamics, with biodiversity and CO2 fertilization as secondary factors. Our analysis also provides two key insights into the spatiotemporal patterns of drought recovery time: first, that recovery is longest in the tropics and high northern latitudes (both vulnerable areas of Earth’s climate system10) and second, that drought impacts11 (assessed using the area of ecosystems actively recovering and time to recovery) have increased over the twentieth century. If droughts become more frequent, as expected, the time between droughts may become shorter than drought recovery time, leading to permanently damaged ecosystems and widespread degradation of the land carbon sink.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from $8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    , , & Climate change and human health: impacts, vulnerability and public health. Public Health 120, 585–596 (2006)

  2. 2.

    et al. Reduction in carbon uptake during turn of the century drought in western North America. Nat. Geosci. 5, 551–556 (2012)

  3. 3.

    , , , & A multi-model and multi-index evaluation of drought characteristics in the 21st century. J. Hydrol. 526, 196–207 (2015)

  4. 4.

    et al. Climate extremes and the carbon cycle. Nature 500, 287–295 (2013)

  5. 5.

    et al. Global warming and changes in drought. Nat. Clim. Chang. 4, 17–22 (2014)

  6. 6.

    , & Little change in global drought over the past 60 years. Nature 491, 435–438 (2012)

  7. 7.

    et al. in Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (eds et al.) 109–230 (Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012)

  8. 8.

    et al. Climate extremes: progress and future directions. Int. J. Climatol. 29, 317–319 (2009)

  9. 9.

    , & Unprecedented 21st century drought risk in the American Southwest and Central Plains. Sci. Adv. 1, e1400082 (2015)

  10. 10.

    et al. Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 1786–1793 (2008)

  11. 11.

    & A review of drought concepts. J. Hydrol. 391, 202–216 (2010)

  12. 12.

    & Analyzing the sensitivity of drought recovery forecasts to land surface initial conditions. J. Hydrol. 526, 89–100 (2014)

  13. 13.

    , & A probabilistic framework for assessing drought recovery. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 3637–3642 (2013)

  14. 14.

    , , , & Rapid hydraulic recovery in Eucalyptus pauciflora after drought: linkages between stem hydraulics and leaf gas exchange. Plant Cell Environ. 37, 617–626 (2014)

  15. 15.

    & Down-regulation of plasma intrinsic protein1 aquaporin in poplar trees is detrimental to recovery from embolism. Plant Physiol. 164, 1789–1799 (2014)

  16. 16.

    et al. Pervasive drought legacies in forest ecosystems and their implications for carbon cycle models. Science 349, 528–532 (2015)

  17. 17.

    , & Predictability of the terrestrial carbon cycle. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 1737–1751 (2015)

  18. 18.

    , , & Interactions among Amazon land use, forests and climate: prospects for a near-term forest tipping point. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 363, 1737–1746 (2008)

  19. 19.

    , , & An ecosystem services approach to estimating economic losses associated with drought. Ecol. Econ. 91, 19–27 (2013)

  20. 20.

    & Drought-induced reduction in global terrestrial net primary production from 2000 through 2009. Science 329, 940–943 (2010)

  21. 21.

    et al. Global patterns of land-atmosphere fluxes of carbon dioxide, latent heat, and sensible heat derived from eddy covariance, satellite, and meteorological observations. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 116, G00J07 (2011)

  22. 22.

    et al. The North American Carbon Program Multi-scale synthesis and Terrestrial Model Intercomparison Project—Part 1: Overview and experimental design. Geosci. Model Dev. 6, 2121–2133 (2013)

  23. 23.

    et al. Terrestrial gross carbon dioxide uptake: global distribution and covariation with climate. Science 329, 834–838 (2010)

  24. 24.

    , , & Standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI) revisited: parameter fitting, evapotranspiration models, tools, datasets and drought monitoring. Int. J. Climatol. 34, 3001–3023 (2014)

  25. 25.

    , , , & Advancing biodiversity–ecosystem functioning science using high-density tree-based experiments over functional diversity gradients. Oecologia 174, 609–621 (2014)

  26. 26.

    et al. Tree diversity does not always improve resistance of forest ecosystems to drought. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 14812–14815 (2014)

  27. 27.

    , , , & Does drought influence the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in boreal forests? Ecosystems 17, 394–404 (2014)

  28. 28.

    et al. Drought sensitivity shapes species distribution patterns in tropical forests. Nature 447, 80–82 (2007)

  29. 29.

    , , , & Cavitation fatigue. Embolism and refilling cycles can weaken the cavitation resistance of xylem. Plant Physiol. 125, 779–786 (2001)

  30. 30.

    et al. Persistent effects of a severe drought on Amazonian forest canopy. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 565–570 (2013)

  31. 31.

    , , & Updated high-resolution grids of monthly climatic observations—the CRU TS3.10 dataset. Int. J. Climatol. 34, 623–642 (2014)

  32. 32.

    et al. NCEP-DOE AMIP-II Reanalysis (R-2). Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 83, 1631–1643 (2002)

  33. 33.

    et al. The North American Carbon Program Multi-scale Synthesis and Terrestrial Model Intercomparison Project—Part 2: Environmental driver data. Geosci. Model Dev. 7, 2875–2893 (2014)

  34. 34.

    , , , & Remote sensing evaluation of CLM4 GPP for the period 2000-09. J. Clim. 25, 5327–5342 (2012)

  35. 35.

    et al. Sensitivity of global terrestrial gross primary production to hydrologic states simulated by the Community Land Model using two runoff parameterizations. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 6, 658–679 (2014)

  36. 36.

    et al. Century-scale response of ecosystem carbon storage to multifactorial global change in the Southern United States. Ecosystems 15, 674–694 (2012)

  37. 37.

    & Modeling the effects of two different land cover change data sets on the carbon stocks of plants and soils in concert with CO2 and climate change. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 19, GB2015 (2005)

  38. 38.

    et al. Is the northern high-latitude land-based CO2 sink weakening? Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 25, GB3018 (2011)

  39. 39.

    & Classification and regression by randomForest. R News 2, 18–22 (2002)

  40. 40.

    , & All is not loss: plant biodiversity in the Anthropocene. PLoS One 7, e30535 (2012)

  41. 41.

    et al. The underpinnings of land-use history: three centuries of global gridded land-use transitions, wood-harvest activity, and resulting secondary lands. Glob. Change Biol. 12, 1208–1229 (2006)

  42. 42.

    & Three distinct global estimates of historical land-cover change and land-use conversions for over 200 years. Front. Earth Sci. 6, 122–139 (2012)

  43. 43.

    , , & Defining pyromes and global syndromes of fire regimes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 6442–6447 (2013)

  44. 44.

    , & Analysis of daily, monthly, and annual burned area using the fourth-generation global fire emissions database (GFED4). J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 118, 317–328 (2013)

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding for this research was provided by the National Science Foundation (NSF) grant DEB EF-1340270. C.R.S. was also supported by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) grants NNX12AK12G, NNX12AP74G, NNX10AG01A and NNX11AO08A. J.B.F. contributed to this paper from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with NASA. Government sponsorship acknowledged. Support was provided to J.B.F. by NASA grants NNN13D504T (CARBON), NNN13D202T (INCA), and NNN13D503T (SUSMAP). Funding for the MsTMIP activity was provided through NASA grant NNX10AG01A. Data management support for preparing, documenting and distributing model driver and output data was performed by the Modeling and Synthesis Thematic Data Center at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (http://nacp.ornl.gov), with funding through NASA grant NNH10AN681. Finalized MsTMIP datasets are archived at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Active Archive Center (http://daac.ornl.gov). This is MsTMIP contribution number 10.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Woods Hole Research Center, Falmouth, Massachusetts 02540, USA

    • Christopher R. Schwalm
  2. Center for Ecosystem Science and Society, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona 86011, USA

    • Christopher R. Schwalm
    •  & George Koch
  3. Department of Biology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, USA

    • William R. L. Anderegg
  4. Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, California 94305, USA

    • Anna M. Michalak
    •  & Yuanyuan Fang
  5. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, California 91109, USA

    • Joshua B. Fisher
  6. DendroLab and Graduate Program of Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation Biology (EECB), University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, Nevada 89557, USA

    • Franco Biondi
  7. Department of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, USA

    • Marcy Litvak
  8. Informatics and Computing Program, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona 86011, USA

    • Kiona Ogle
  9. Rocky Mountain Research Station, US Forest Service, Ogden, Utah 84401, USA

    • John D. Shaw
  10. Arable Labs Inc., 40 North Tulane Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08542, USA

    • Adam Wolf
  11. School of Earth Sciences and Environmental Sustainability, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona 86011, USA

    • Deborah N. Huntzinger
  12. National Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA

    • Kevin Schaefer
  13. Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831, USA

    • Robert Cook
    •  & Yaxing Wei
  14. School of Forest Resources, University of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469, USA

    • Daniel Hayes
  15. Atmospheric Sciences and Global Change Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington 99354, USA

    • Maoyi Huang
  16. Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA

    • Atul Jain
  17. International Center for Climate and Global Change Research and School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36849, USA

    • Hanqin Tian

Authors

  1. Search for Christopher R. Schwalm in:

  2. Search for William R. L. Anderegg in:

  3. Search for Anna M. Michalak in:

  4. Search for Joshua B. Fisher in:

  5. Search for Franco Biondi in:

  6. Search for George Koch in:

  7. Search for Marcy Litvak in:

  8. Search for Kiona Ogle in:

  9. Search for John D. Shaw in:

  10. Search for Adam Wolf in:

  11. Search for Deborah N. Huntzinger in:

  12. Search for Kevin Schaefer in:

  13. Search for Robert Cook in:

  14. Search for Yaxing Wei in:

  15. Search for Yuanyuan Fang in:

  16. Search for Daniel Hayes in:

  17. Search for Maoyi Huang in:

  18. Search for Atul Jain in:

  19. Search for Hanqin Tian in:

Contributions

C.R.S. and W.R.L.A. designed the analysis. C.R.S. carried out the analysis and wrote the manuscript with contributions from all authors. W.R.L.A., A.M.M. and J.B.F. contributed to the framing of the paper. D.N.H. is the overall lead of the MsTMIP effort; R.C., J.B.F., A.M.M., K.S., C.R.S., Y.F. and Y.W. serve as the MsTMIP core team. D.H., M.H., A.J. and H.T. contributed to MsTMIP results.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher R. Schwalm.

Reviewer Information Nature thanks M. Migliavacca and the other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23021

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.