Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Net loss of biomass predicted for tropical biomes in a changing climate

Nature Climate Change volume 13, pages 274–281 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Tropical ecosystems store over half of the world’s aboveground live carbon as biomass, and water availability plays a key role in its distribution. Although precipitation and temperature are shifting across the tropics, their effect on biomass and carbon storage remains uncertain. Here we use empirical relationships between climate and aboveground biomass content to show that the contraction of humid regions, and expansion of those with intense dry periods, results in substantial carbon loss from the neotropics. Under a low emission scenario (Representative Concentration Pathway 4.5) this could cause a net reduction of aboveground live carbon of ~14.4–23.9 PgC (6.8–12%) from 1950–2100. Under a high emissions scenario (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5) net carbon losses could double across the tropics, to ~28.2–39.7 PgC (13.3–20.1%). The contraction of humid regions in South America accounts for ~40% of this change. Climate mitigation strategies could prevent half of the carbon losses and help maintain the natural tropical net carbon sink.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Distribution of climatic zones in the tropics for historic and future 30-year time periods (1950–1979, 1980–2009, 2010–2039, 2040–2069 and 2070–2099) under RCP 4.5.
Fig. 2: Individual model projections of precipitation and MCWD under RCP 4.5.
Fig. 3: Percentage changes in area covered by each climatic zone from 1950–2099.
Fig. 4: Biomass and biomass changes across the tropics under RCP 4.5.
Fig. 5: Changes in carbon in the tropics under RCP 4.5.

Data availability

CRU v.4.04 data can be downloaded from the CRU website (https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/hrg/). Downscaled climate data from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) multimodel ensemble can be downloaded from https://gdo-dcp.ucllnl.org/downscaled_cmip_projections/dcpInterface.html. Global biomass data is available from https://developers.google.com/earth-engine/datasets/catalog/WHRC_biomass_tropical)2, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4161694 (ref. 3) and https://catalogue.ceda.ac.uk/uuid/5f331c418e9f4935b8eb1b836f8a91b8 (ref. 20). MODIS Land Cover data is available at https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/products/mcd12q1v006/. Continent borders are from the Environmental Systems Research Institute’s World Continents shapefiles v.10.3 (http://gis.ucla.edu/geodata/dataset/continent_ln)53. Preprocessed input data (as specified in the manuscript), partial results and final predictions of changes in area and biomass are available in a public repository via Dryad54.

Code availability

Relevant R scripts used to process the data and perform the analyses are available in a public repository via Dryad54.

References

  1. Saatchi, S. S. et al. Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions across three continents. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 108, 9899–9904 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Baccini, A. et al. Estimated carbon dioxide emissions from tropical deforestation improved by carbon-density maps. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 182–185 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Xu, L. et al. Changes in global terrestrial live biomass over the 21st century. Sci. Adv. 7, eabe9829 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Betts, R. A. et al. The role of ecosystem-atmosphere interactions in simulated Amazonian precipitation decrease and forest dieback under global climate warming. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 78, 157–175 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cox, P. M. et al. Sensitivity of tropical carbon to climate change constrained by carbon dioxide variability. Nature 494, 341–344 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Rammig, A. et al. Estimating the risk of Amazonian forest dieback. N. Phytol. 187, 694–706 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Huntingford, C. et al. Towards quantifying uncertainty in predictions of Amazon ‘dieback’. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 363, 1857–1864 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Galbraith, D. et al. Multiple mechanisms of Amazonian forest biomass losses in three dynamic global vegetation models under climate change. N. Phytol. 187, 647–665 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kumar, D., Pfeiffer, M., Gaillard, C., Langan, L. & Scheiter, S. Climate change and elevated CO2 favor forest over savanna under different future scenarios in South Asia. Biogeosciences 18, 2957–2979 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Huntingford, C. et al. Simulated resilience of tropical rainforests to CO2-induced climate change. Nat. Geosci. 6, 268–273 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Brienen, R. J. W. et al. Forest carbon sink neutralized by pervasive growth-lifespan trade-offs. Nat. Commun. 11, 4241 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Koch, A., Hubau, W. & Lewis, S. L. Earth system models are not capturing present-day tropical forest carbon dynamics. Earths Future 9, e2020EF001874 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Negrón-Juárez, R. I., Koven, C. D., Riley, W. J., Knox, R. G. & Chambers, J. Q. Observed allocations of productivity and biomass, and turnover times in tropical forests are not accurately represented in CMIP5 Earth system models. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 064017 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fleischer, K. et al. Amazon forest response to CO2 fertilization dependent on plant phosphorus acquisition. Nat. Geosci. 12, 736–741 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Terrer, C. et al. Nitrogen and phosphorus constrain the CO2 fertilization of global plant biomass. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 684–689 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Malhi, Y. et al. Exploring the likelihood and mechanism of a climate-change-induced dieback of the Amazon rainforest. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 106, 20610–20615 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Zelazowski, P., Malhi, Y., Huntingford, C., Sitch, S. & Fisher, J. B. Changes in the potential distribution of humid tropical forests on a warmer planet. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 369, 137–160 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Huang, L. et al. Drought dominates the interannual variability in global terrestrial net primary production by controlling semi-arid ecosystems. Sci. Rep. 6, 24639 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Castanho, A. D. A. et al. Potential shifts in the aboveground biomass and physiognomy of a seasonally dry tropical forest in a changing climate. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 034053 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Santoro, M. & Cartus, O. ESA Biomass Climate Change Initiative (Biomass_cci): global datasets of forest above-ground biomass for the years 2010, 2017 and 2018, v3. NERC EDS Centre for Environmental Data Analysis https://doi.org/10.5285/5f331c418e9f4935b8eb1b836f8a91b8 (2021).

  21. Baccini, A. et al. Tropical forests are a net carbon source based on aboveground measurements of gain and loss. Science 358, 230–234 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Harris, N. L. et al. Global maps of twenty-first century forest carbon fluxes. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 234–240 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gatti, L. V. et al. Amazonia as a carbon source linked to deforestation and climate change. Nature 595, 388–393 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Qin, Y. et al. Carbon loss from forest degradation exceeds that from deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 442–448 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Brienen, R. J. W. et al. Long-term decline of the Amazon carbon sink. Nature 519, 344–348 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Hubau, W. et al. Asynchronous carbon sink saturation in African and Amazonian tropical forests. Nature 579, 80–87 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Phillips, O. L. et al. Drought sensitivity of the amazon rainforest. Science 323, 1344–1347 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Ross, C. W. et al. Woody-biomass projections and drivers of change in sub-Saharan Africa. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 449–455 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Larjavaara, M., Lu, X., Chen, X. & Vastaranta, M. Impact of rising temperatures on the biomass of humid old-growth forests of the world. Carbon Balance Manag. 16, 31 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Romps, D. M., Seeley, J. T., Vollaro, D. & Molinari, J. Projected increase in lightning strikes in the United States due to global warming. Science 346, 851–854 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Gora, E. M., Bitzer, P. M., Burchfield, J. C., Gutierrez, C. & Yanoviak, S. P. The contributions of lightning to biomass turnover, gap formation and plant mortality in a tropical forest. Ecology 102, e03541 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Magnabosco Marra, D. et al. Windthrows control biomass patterns and functional composition of Amazon forests. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 5867–5881 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Negrón-Juárez, R. I. et al. Windthrow variability in central amazonia. Atmosphere 8, 28 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Silva Junior, C. H. L. et al. Persistent collapse of biomass in Amazonian forest edges following deforestation leads to unaccounted carbon losses. Sci. Adv. 6, 40 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Yin, Y. et al. Fire decline in dry tropical ecosystems enhances decadal land carbon sink. Nat. Commun. 11, 1900 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Koch, A. & Kaplan, J. O. Tropical forest restoration under future climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 279–283 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Wang, S. et al. Recent global decline of CO2 fertilization effects on vegetation photosynthesis. Science 370, 1295–1300 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Case, M. F. & Staver, A. C. Fire prevents woody encroachment only at higher-than-historical frequencies in a South African savanna. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 955–962 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Mau, A. C., Reed, S. C., Wood, T. E. & Cavaleri, M. A. Temperate and tropical forest canopies are already functioning beyond their thermal thresholds for photosynthesis. Forests 9, 47 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kolby Smith, W. et al. Large divergence of satellite and Earth system model estimates of global terrestrial CO2 fertilization. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 306–310 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Martens, C. et al. Large uncertainties in future biome changes in Africa call for flexible climate adaptation strategies. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 340–358 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Doughty, C. E. & Goulden, M. L. Are tropical forests near a high temperature threshold?. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosciences 113, G00B07 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Doughty, C. E. & Goulden, M. L. Seasonal patterns of tropical forest leaf area index and CO2 exchange. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosciences 113, G00B06 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Langenbrunner, B., Pritchard, M. S., Kooperman, G. J. & Randerson, J. T. Why does amazon precipitation decrease when tropical forests respond to increasing CO2? Earths Future 7, 450–468 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Harris, I., Osborn, T. J., Jones, P. & Lister, D. Version 4 of the CRU TS monthly high-resolution gridded multivariate climate dataset. Sci. Data 7, 109 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Maurer, E. P., Brekke, L., Pruitt, T. & Duffy, P. B. Fine-resolution climate projections enhance regional climate change impact studies. EOS Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 88, 504–504 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Reclamation. Downscaled CMIP3 and CMIP5 Climate and Hydrology Projections: Release of Hydrology Projections, Comparison with preceding Information, and Summary of User Needs. https://gdo-dcp.ucllnl.org/downscaled_cmip_projections/techmemo/BCSD5HydrologyMemo.pdf (2014).

  48. Silva de Miranda, P. L. et al. Using tree species inventories to map biomes and assess their climatic overlaps in lowland tropical South America. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 27, 899–912 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Beguería, S., Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Reig, F. & Latorre, B. Standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI) revisited: parameter fitting, evapotranspiration models, tools, datasets and drought monitoring. Int. J. Climatol. 34, 3001–3023 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Wright, M. N. & Ziegler, A. ranger: a fast implementation of random forests for high dimensional data in C++ and R. J. Stat. Softw. 77, 1–17 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Middleton, N., Thomas, D. & UNEP. World Atlas of Desertification (Arnold, 1997).

  52. Staver, A. C., Archibald, S. & Levin, S. A. The global extent and determinants of Savanna and forest as alternative biome states. Science 334, 230–232 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. ESRI Data & Maps. World Continents Version 10.3. (2015).

  54. Uribe, M. R. et al. Net loss of biomass predicted for tropical biomes in a changing climate. Dryad https://doi.org/10.7280/D1D124 (2023).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the World Climate Research Programme’s Working Group on Coupled Modelling, which is responsible for CMIP, and we thank the climate modelling groups (listed in Supplementary Table 4) for producing and making available their model outputs. For CMIP, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison provided coordinating support and led development of software infrastructure in partnership with the Global Organization for Earth System Science Portals. This research was supported through funding from the National Science Foundation (MSB-ECA award no. 1802754; INFEWS/T1 award no. 1739724).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Earth System Science, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA

    Maria del Rosario Uribe & Paulo M. Brando

  2. Yale School of the Environment, Yale University, Yale, CT, USA

    Maria del Rosario Uribe & Paulo M. Brando

  3. Woodwell Climate Research Center, Falmouth, MA, USA

    Michael T. Coe, Andrea D. A. Castanho & Marcia N. Macedo

  4. School of Forest, Fisheries, and Geomatics Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    Denis Valle

  5. Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (IPAM), Brasília-DF, Brazil

    Paulo M. Brando

Authors
  1. Maria del Rosario Uribe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael T. Coe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrea D. A. Castanho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marcia N. Macedo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Denis Valle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Paulo M. Brando
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.T.C., M.N.M. and P.M.B. conceived the study. M.R.U. and A.D.A.C. performed the data analysis and prepared the manuscript. P.M.B. and D.V. contributed to the data processing and analysis. All the authors contributed and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Maria del Rosario Uribe or Paulo M. Brando.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Climate Change thanks Manan Bhan and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

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

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Distribution of climatic zones in the tropics for Historic and Future 30-year time periods (1950–1979, 1980–2009, 2010–2039, 2040–2069, and 2070–2099).

Colors represent the climatic zones. Contour lines in the maps and gray dashed lines in the scatterplots are plotted for reference to show the distribution and limits of the climatic zones in the period 1950–1979. Climate data from CRU v.4.0445 for 1950–2009 and from CMIP5 projections46,47 for 2010–2099 under RCP 8.5.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Individual model projections of precipitation and MCWD under RCP 8.5.

Dots represent each model’s mean Historic (1950–1979) climate for each climatic zone. Connected arrowheads represent average climate at the end of the century (2070–2099). The black shapes correspond to the average climate from all models. Models used are listed in Supplementary Table 1. Climate data from CRU v.4.0445 for 1950–2009 and from CMIP5 projections46,47 for 2010–2099 under RCP 8.5.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Biomass and biomass changes across the tropics under all scenarios.

Changes in carbon (Pg) in the tropics by pixel predicted from (a, c) our climatic zone averaging method and (b, d) quantile regression forest from 1950–2099. Climate data from CRU 4.0445 for 1950–2009 and from CMIP5 projections46,47 for 2010–2099 under RCP 4.5 (a, b) and RCP 8.5 (c, d).

Extended Data Fig. 4 Changes in carbon (Pg) in the tropics under RCP 8.5.

Changes in carbon (Pg) by climatic zone from 1950–2099 for the entire tropics (a) and for each region (b). Climate data from CRU 4.0445 for 1950–2009 and from CMIP5 projections46,47 for 2010–2099 under RCP 8.5.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1–8 and Figs. 1–3.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Uribe, M.d.R., Coe, M.T., Castanho, A.D.A. et al. Net loss of biomass predicted for tropical biomes in a changing climate. Nat. Clim. Chang. 13, 274–281 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01600-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01600-z

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing