Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.

Tall Amazonian forests are less sensitive to precipitation variability


Climate change is altering the dynamics, structure and function of the Amazon, a biome deeply connected to the Earth’s carbon cycle. Climate factors that control the spatial and temporal variations in forest photosynthesis have been well studied, but the influence of forest height and age on this controlling effect has rarely been considered. Here, we present remote sensing observations of solar-induced fluorescence (a proxy for photosynthesis), precipitation, vapour-pressure deficit and canopy height, together with estimates of forest age and aboveground biomass. We show that photosynthesis in tall Amazonian forests, that is, forests above 30 m, is three times less sensitive to precipitation variability than in shorter (less than 20 m) forests. Taller Amazonian forests are also found to be older, have more biomass and deeper rooting systems1, which enable them to access deeper soil moisture and make them more resilient to drought. We suggest that forest height and age are an important control of photosynthesis in response to interannual precipitation fluctuations. Although older and taller trees show less sensitivity to precipitation variations, they are more susceptible to fluctuations in vapour-pressure deficit. Our findings illuminate the response of Amazonian forests to water stress, droughts and climate change.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Spatial patterns of canopy characteristics and interannual variability of climatic drivers between 2007 and 2015.
Fig. 2: Correlation of tree height with canopy characteristics and precipitation.
Fig. 3: Variations of SIF sensitivity to VPD and precipitation binned by tree height and precipitation.


  1. 1.

    Sternberg, L. et al. Root distribution in an Amazonian seasonal forest as derived from δ13C profiles. Plant Soil 205, 45–50 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Pan, Y. et al. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333, 988–993 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Betts, R. 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 

  4. 4.

    Friedlingstein, P. et al. Climate–carbon cycle feedback analysis: results from the C4MIP model Intercomparison. J. Clim. 19, 3337–3353 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Jiménez-Muñoz, J. C. et al. Record-breaking warming and extreme drought in the Amazon rainforest during the course of El Niño 2015–2016. Sci. Rep. 6, 5204 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Espinoza, J. C. et al. Climate variability and extreme drought in the upper Solimões River (western Amazon Basin): understanding the exceptional 2010 drought. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L13406 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Brando, P. M. et al. Seasonal and interannual variability of climate and vegetation indices across the Amazon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 14685–14690 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Doughty, C. E. et al. Drought impact on forest carbon dynamics and fluxes in Amazonia. Nature 519, 78–82 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Feldpausch, T. R. et al. Amazon forest response to repeated droughts. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 30, 964–982 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Gatti, L. V. et al. Drought sensitivity of Amazonian carbon balance revealed by atmospheric measurements. Nature 506, 76–80 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Lewis, S. L., Brando, P. M., Phillips, O. L., van der Heijden, G. M. F. & Nepstad, D. The 2010 Amazon drought. Science 331, 554–554 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Saleska, S. R., Didan, K., Huete, A. R. & da Rocha, H. R. Amazon forests green-up during 2005 drought. Science 318, 612 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Samanta, A. et al. Amazon forests did not green-up during the 2005 drought. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L13406 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Morton, D. C. et al. Amazon forests maintain consistent canopy structure and greenness during the dry season. Nature 506, 221–224 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Wu, J. et al. Leaf development and demography explain photosynthetic seasonality in Amazon evergreen forests. Science 351, 972–976 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Guan, K. et al. Photosynthetic seasonality of global tropical forests constrained by hydroclimate. Nat. Geosci. 8, 284–289 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Konings, A. G., Williams, A. P. & Gentine, P. Sensitivity of grassland productivity to aridity controlled by stomatal and xylem regulation. Nat. Geosci. 7, 2193–2197 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Novick, K. A. et al. The increasing importance of atmospheric demand for ecosystem water and carbon fluxes. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 1023–1027 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Williams, A. P. Temperature as a potent driver of regional forest drought stress and tree mortality. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 292–297 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Xu, L. et al. Satellite observation of tropical forest seasonality: spatial patterns of carbon exchange in Amazonia. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 084005 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Maeda, E. E., Kim, H., Aragão, L. E. O. C., Famiglietti, J. S. & Oki, T. Disruption of hydroecological equilibrium in southwest Amazon mediated by drought. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 7546–7553 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Rowland, L. et al. Death from drought in tropical forests is triggered by hydraulics not carbon starvation. Nature 528, 119–122 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Joiner, J. et al. Global monitoring of terrestrial chlorophyll fluorescence from moderate-spectral-resolution near-infrared satellite measurements: methodology, simulations, and application to GOME-2. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 6, 2803–2823 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Frankenberg, C. et al. New global observations of the terrestrial carbon cycle from GOSAT: patterns of plant fluorescence with gross primary productivity. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L7706 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Green, J. K. et al. Regionally strong feedbacks between the atmosphere and terrestrial biosphere. Nat. Geosci. 48, 410–422 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Simard, M., Pinto, N., Fisher, J. B. & Baccini, A. Mapping forest canopy height globally with spaceborne lidar. J. Geophys. Res. 116, G04021 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Huffman, G. J. et al. Global precipitation at one-degree daily resolution from multisatellite observations. J. Hydrometeorol. 2, 36–50 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Aumann, H. H. & Pagano, R. J. Atmospheric infrared sounder on the Earth observing system. Opt. Eng. 33, 776–784 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Chazdon, R. L. et al. Carbon sequestration potential of second-growth forest regeneration in the Latin American tropics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 2, e1501639 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Avitabile, V. et al. An integrated pan-tropical biomass map using multiple reference datasets. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 1406–1420 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Martinez-Vilalta, J., Poyatos, R., Aguadé, D., Retana, J. & Mencuccini, M. A. A new look at water transport regulation in plants. New Phytol. 204, 105–115 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Konings, A. G. & Gentine, P. Global variations in ecosystem‐scale isohydricity. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 891–905 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Domec, J.-C. & Johnson, D. M. Does homeostasis or disturbance of homeostasis in minimum leaf water potential explain the isohydric versus anisohydric behavior of Vitis vinifera L. cultivars? Tree Physiol. 32, 245–248 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Brodribb, T. J., Holbrook, N. M., Edwards, E. J. & Gutierrez, M. V. Relations between stomatal closure, leaf turgor and xylem vulnerability in eight tropical dry forest trees. Plant Cell Environ. 26, 443–450 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Martinez-Vilalta, J. & Garcia-Forner, N. Water potential regulation, stomatal behaviour and hydraulic transport under drought: deconstructing the iso/anisohydric concept. Plant Cell Environ. 40, 962–976 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Porcar-Castell, A. et al. Linking chlorophyll a fluorescence to photosynthesis for remote sensing applications: mechanisms and challenges. J. Exp. Bot. 65, 4065–4095 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Zhang, Y. et al. Consistency between sun-induced chlorophyll fluorescence and gross primary production of vegetation in North America. Remote Sens. Environ. 183, 154–169 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Parazoo, N. C. et al. Interpreting seasonal changes in the carbon balance of southern Amazonia using measurements of XCO2 and chlorophyll fluorescence from GOSAT. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 2829–2833 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Lee, J. E. et al. Forest productivity and water stress in Amazonia: observations from GOSAT chlorophyll fluorescence. Proc. R. Soc. B 280, 20130171 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Anber, U., Gentine, P., Wang, S. & Sobel, A. H. Fog and rain in the Amazon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 11473–11477 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Wielicki, B. et al. Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES): an Earth observing system experiment. BAMS 77, 853–868 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Meakem, V. et al. Role of tree size in moist tropical forest carbon cycling and water deficit responses. New Phytol. (2017).

  44. 44.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Friedl, M. A. et al. MODIS Collection 5 global land cover: algorithm refinements and characterization of new datasets. Remote Sens. Environ. 114, 168–182 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Santoro, M. et al. Forest growing stock volume of the northern hemisphere: spatially explicit estimates for 2010 derived from Envisat ASAR. Remote Sens. Environ. 168, 316–334 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Koelemeijer, R. B. A., Stammes, P., Hovenier, J. W. & de Haan, J. F. A fast method for retrieval of cloud parameters using oxygen A band measurements from the Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment. J. Geophys. Res. 106, 3475–3490 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Stammes, P. et al. Effective cloud fractions from the Ozone Monitoring Instrument: theoretical framework and validation. J. Geophys. Res. 113, D05204–D05212 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Joiner, J. et al. The seasonal cycle of satellite chlorophyll fluorescence observations and its relationship to vegetation phenology and ecosystem atmosphere carbon exchange. Remote Sens. Env. 152, 375–391 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Joiner, J. et al. Filling-in of near-infrared solar lines by terrestrial fluorescence and other geophysical effects: simulations and space-based observations from SCIAMACHY and GOSAT. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 5, 809–829 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Feldpausch, T. R. et al. Height–diameter allometry of tropical forest trees. Biogeosciences 8, 1081–1106 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Medlyn, B. E. et al. Reconciling the optimal and empirical approaches to modelling stomatal conductance. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 2134–2144 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Xu, X., Medvigy, D., Powers, J. S., Becknell, J. M. & Guan, K. Diversity in plant hydraulic traits explains seasonal and inter-annual variations of vegetation dynamics in seasonally dry tropical forests. New Phytol. 212, 80–95 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Corey, A. & Brooks, R. Drainage characteristics of soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 39, 251–255 (1975).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Brooks, R. & Corey, A. Hydraulic properties of porous media Hydrology Paper 3 (Colorado State University, 1964).

  57. 57.

    Gleason, S. M. et al. Weak tradeoff between xylem safety and xylem-specific hydraulic efficiency across the world’s woody plant species. New Phytol. 209, 123–136 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors thank Columbia Water Center for comments, in particular J. Green. The authors also thank the providers of the other data sets used in this study.

Author information




F.G., D.K., A.G.K. and P.G. wrote the main manuscript text. F.G., P.G., D.K. and S.H.A. prepared figures. F.G., P.G. and A.G.K. designed the study. F.G., D.K., A.G.K., M.U. and R.S.O. reviewed and edited the manuscript. D.K. performed the plant hydraulics simulations.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pierre Gentine.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Notes and Supplementary Figures

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Giardina, F., Konings, A.G., Kennedy, D. et al. Tall Amazonian forests are less sensitive to precipitation variability. Nature Geosci 11, 405–409 (2018).

Download citation

Further reading


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