Interannual variability in the global land carbon sink is strongly related to variations in tropical temperature and rainfall. This association suggests an important role for moisture-driven fluctuations in tropical vegetation productivity, but empirical evidence to quantify the responsible ecological processes is missing. Such evidence can be obtained from tree-ring data that quantify variability in a major vegetation productivity component: woody biomass growth. Here we compile a pantropical tree-ring network to show that annual woody biomass growth increases primarily with dry-season precipitation and decreases with dry-season maximum temperature. The strength of these dry-season climate responses varies among sites, as reflected in four robust and distinct climate response groups of tropical tree growth derived from clustering. Using cluster and regression analyses, we find that dry-season climate responses are amplified in regions that are drier, hotter and more climatically variable. These amplification patterns suggest that projected global warming will probably aggravate drought-induced declines in annual tropical vegetation productivity. Our study reveals a previously underappreciated role of dry-season climate variability in driving the dynamics of tropical vegetation productivity and consequently in influencing the land carbon sink.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Open Access articles citing this article.
Communications Earth & Environment Open Access 01 September 2022
Subscribe to Nature+
Get immediate online access to Nature and 55 other Nature journal
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $9.92 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
The 50-year mean RWI time series of all 347 chronologies used in this study and all relevant metadata of these chronologies are included in Supplementary Data. Raw tree-ring-width data of 98 out of the 112 contributed chronologies used in the analyses have been uploaded to the ITRDB (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/tree-ring).
R-code used for chronology construction and statistical analyses will be made available upon request from the corresponding author.
Ahlström, A. et al. The dominant role of semi-arid ecosystems in the trend and variability of the land CO2 sink. Science 348, 895–899 (2015).
Friedlingstein, P. et al. Global carbon budget 2019. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 11, 1783–1838 (2019).
Poulter, B. et al. Contribution of semi-arid ecosystems to interannual variability of the global carbon cycle. Nature 509, 600–603 (2014).
Fan, L. et al. Satellite-observed pantropical carbon dynamics. Nat. Plants https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-019-0478-9 (2019).
Humphrey, V. et al. Sensitivity of atmospheric CO2 growth rate to observed changes in terrestrial water storage. Nature 560, 628–631 (2018).
Jung, M. et al. Compensatory water effects link yearly global land CO2 sink changes to temperature. Nature 541, 516–520 (2017).
Wang, J., Zeng, N. & Wang, M. Interannual variability of the atmospheric CO2 growth rate: roles of precipitation and temperature. Biogeosciences 13, 2339–2352 (2016).
Wigneron, J.-P. et al. Tropical forests did not recover from the strong 2015–2016 El Niño event. Sci. Adv. 6, eaay4603 (2020).
Keenan, T. F. & Williams, C. A. The terrestrial carbon sink. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 43, 219–243 (2018).
Niu, S. et al. Interannual variability of ecosystem carbon exchange: from observation to prediction. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 26, 1225–1237 (2017).
Fatichi, S., Pappas, C., Zscheischler, J. & Leuzinger, S. Modelling carbon sources and sinks in terrestrial vegetation. N. Phytol. 221, 652–668 (2019).
Zuidema, P. A., Poulter, B. & Frank, D. C. A wood biology agenda to support global vegetation modelling. Trends Plant Sci. 23, 1006–1015 (2018).
Moore, S. et al. Forest biomass, productivity and carbon cycling along a rainfall gradient in West Africa. Glob. Change Biol. 24, e496–e510 (2018).
Clark, D. A., Clark, D. B. & Oberbauer, S. F. Field-quantified responses of tropical rainforest aboveground productivity to increasing CO2 and climatic stress, 1997–2009. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 118, 783–794 (2013).
Phillips, O. L. et al. Drought sensitivity of the Amazon rainforest. Science 323, 1344–1347 (2009).
Hubau, W. et al. Asynchronous carbon sink saturation in African and Amazonian tropical forests. Nature 579, 80–87 (2020).
Pan, Y. et al. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333, 988–993 (2011).
Anderegg, W. R. L. et al. Climate-driven risks to the climate mitigation potential of forests. Science 368, eaaz7005 (2020).
Guan, K. et al. Photosynthetic seasonality of global tropical forests constrained by hydroclimate. Nat. Geosci. 8, 284–289 (2015).
Wagner, F. H. et al. Climate seasonality limits leaf carbon assimilation and wood productivity in tropical forests. Biogeosciences 13, 2537–2562 (2016).
Zhang, X. et al. Dominant regions and drivers of the variability of the global land carbon sink across timescales. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 3954–3968 (2018).
Sullivan, M. J. P. et al. Long-term thermal sensitivity of Earth’s tropical forests. Science 368, 869–874 (2020).
Hewitson, B. & Crane, R. G. Self-organizing maps: applications to synoptic climatology. Clim. Res. 22, 13–26 (2002).
Babst, F. et al. Twentieth century redistribution in climatic drivers of global tree growth. Sci. Adv. 5, eaat4313 (2019).
Brienen, R. J., Schöngart, J. & Zuidema, P. A. in Tropical Tree Physiology (eds Goldstein, G. & Santiago, L. S.) 439–461 (Springer, 2016).
Groenendijk, P., Sass-Klaassen, U., Bongers, F. & Zuidema, P. A. Potential of tree-ring analysis in a wet tropical forest: a case study on 22 commercial tree species in Central Africa. For. Ecol. Manage. 323, 65–78 (2014).
Rifai, S. W. et al. ENSO drives interannual variation of forest woody growth across the tropics. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 373, 20170410 (2018).
López, L., Rodríguez‐Catón, M. & Villalba, R. Convergence in growth responses of tropical trees to climate driven by water stress. Ecography 42, 1899–1912 (2019).
Doughty, C. E. et al. Drought impact on forest carbon dynamics and fluxes in Amazonia. Nature 519, 78–82 (2015).
Clark, D. A., Piper, S. C., Keeling, C. D. & Clark, D. B. Tropical rain forest tree growth and atmospheric carbon dynamics linked to interannual temperature variation during 1984–2000. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 5852–5857 (2003).
Rathgeber, C. B. K., Cuny, H. E. & Fonti, P. Biological basis of tree-ring formation: a crash course. Front. Plant Sci. 7, 734 (2016).
Peters, R. L. et al. Turgor—a limiting factor for radial growth in mature conifers along an elevational gradient. N. Phytol. 229, 213–229 (2021).
Trouet, V., Mukelabai, M., Verheyden, A. & Beeckman, H. Cambial growth season of brevi-deciduous Brachystegia spiciformis trees from south central Africa restricted to less than four months. PLoS ONE 7, e47364 (2012).
Mendivelso, H. A., Camarero, J. J., Gutiérrez, E. & Castaño-Naranjo, A. Climatic influences on leaf phenology, xylogenesis and radial stem changes at hourly to monthly scales in two tropical dry forests. Agric. For. Meteorol. 216, 20–36 (2016).
Girardin, C. A. J. et al. Seasonal trends of Amazonian rainforest phenology, net primary productivity, and carbon allocation. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 30, 700–715 (2016).
Krepkowski, J., Bräuning, A., Gebrekirstos, A. & Strobl, S. Cambial growth dynamics and climatic control of different tree life forms in tropical mountain forest in Ethiopia. Trees 25, 59–70 (2011).
Restrepo-Coupe, N. et al. Do dynamic global vegetation models capture the seasonality of carbon fluxes in the Amazon basin? A data–model intercomparison. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 191–208 (2017).
Barichivich, J. et al. A triple tree-ring constraint for tree growth and physiology in a global land surface model. Biogeosciences 18, 3781–3803 (2021).
Nepstad, D. C. et al. The role of deep roots in the hydrological and carbon cycles of Amazonian forests and pastures. Nature 372, 666–669 (1994).
Panthi, S., Fan, Z. X., van der Sleen, P. & Zuidema, P. A. Long-term physiological and growth responses of Himalayan fir to environmental change are mediated by mean climate. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 1778–1794 (2020).
Morales, M. S. et al. Six hundred years of South American tree rings reveal an increase in severe hydroclimatic events since mid-20th century. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2002411117 (2020).
Brodribb, T. J., Powers, J., Cochard, H. & Choat, B. Hanging by a thread? Forests and drought. Science 368, 261–266 (2020).
McDowell, N. G. et al. Pervasive shifts in forest dynamics in a changing world. Science 368, eaaz9463 (2020).
Locosselli, G. M. et al. Global tree-ring analysis reveals rapid decrease in tropical tree longevity with temperature. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2003873117 (2020).
Zhao, S. et al. The International Tree-Ring Data Bank (ITRDB) revisited: data availability and global ecological representativity. J. Biogeogr. 46, 355–368 (2019).
Babst, F., Poulter, B., Bodesheim, P., Mahecha, M. D. & Frank, D. C. Improved tree-ring archives will support Earth-system science. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0008 (2017).
Fichtler, E., Clark, D. A. & Worbes, M. Age and long-term growth of trees in an old-growth tropical rain forest, based on analyses of tree rings and 14C. Biotropica 35, 306–317 (2003).
Fritts, H. Tree Rings and Climate (Elsevier, 2012).
Klesse, S. et al. Sampling bias overestimates climate change impacts on forest growth in the southwestern United States. Nat. Commun. 9, 5336 (2018).
Klesse, S. et al. A combined tree ring and vegetation model assessment of European forest growth sensitivity to interannual climate variability. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 32, 1226–1240 (2018).
Schulman, E. Dendroclimatic Changes in Semiarid America (Univ. Arizona Press, 1956).
Aragão, J. R. V., Groenendijk, P. & Lisi, C. S. Dendrochronological potential of four neotropical dry-forest tree species: climate–growth correlations in northeast Brazil. Dendrochronologia 53, 5–16 (2019).
R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2019).
Bunn, A. G. A dendrochronology program library in R (dplR). Dendrochronologia 26, 115–124 (2008).
Fick, S. E. & Hijmans, R. J. WorldClim 2: new 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 37, 4302–4315 (2017).
Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Beguería, S. & López-Moreno, J. I. A multiscalar drought index sensitive to global warming: the Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index. J. Clim. 23, 1696–1718 (2010).
Harris, I., Jones, P. D., Osborn, T. J. & Lister, D. H. Updated high-resolution grids of monthly climatic observations—the CRU TS3.10 Dataset. Int. J. Climatol. 34, 623–642 (2014).
Pau, S., Detto, M., Kim, Y. & Still, C. J. Tropical forest temperature thresholds for gross primary productivity. Ecosphere 9, e02311 (2018).
Mau, A., Reed, S., Wood, T. & Cavaleri, M. Temperate and tropical forest canopies are already functioning beyond their thermal thresholds for photosynthesis. Forests 9, 47 (2018).
Lucy, D., Aykroyd, R. G. & Pollard, A. M. Nonparametric calibration for age estimation. J. R. Stat. Soc. C 51, 183–196 (2002).
Babst, F. et al. Site- and species-specific responses of forest growth to climate across the European continent. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 22, 706–717 (2013).
Martin-Benito, D. & Pederson, N. Convergence in drought stress, but a divergence of climatic drivers across a latitudinal gradient in a temperate broadleaf forest. J. Biogeogr. 42, 925–937 (2015).
Wehrens, R. & Buydens, L. M. Self- and super-organizing maps in R: the kohonen package. J. Stat. Softw. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v021.i05 (2007).
Canty, A. & Ripley, B. D. boot: Bootstrap R (S-Plus) Functions. R package v.1.3-26 (2021).
Furnival, G. M. & Wilson, R. W. Regressions by leaps and bounds. Technometrics 16, 499–511 (1974).
Lumley, T. leaps: Regression Subset Selection. R package v.3.1 (2019).
McLeod, A. I., Xu, C. & Lai, Y. bestglm: Best Subset GLM and Regression Utilities. R package v.0.37.3 (2020).
Groemping, U. Relative importance for linear regression in R: the package relaimpo. J. Stat. Softw. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v017.i01 (2006).
Demin, G. & Jeworutzki, S. expss: Tables, Labels and Some Useful Functions from Spreadsheets and ‘SPSS’ Statistics. R package v.0.10.7 (2020).
Whittaker, R. H. Primary Productivity of the Biosphere Vol. 14 (Springer‐Verlag, 1975).
Beck, H. E. et al. Present and future Köppen-Geiger climate classification maps at 1-km resolution. Sci. Data 5, 180214 (2018).
We acknowledge financial support to the co-authors provided by Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica, Argentina (PICT 2014-2797) to M.E.F.; Alberta Mennega Stichting to P.G.; BBVA Foundation to H.A.M. and J.J.C.; Belspo BRAIN project: BR/143/A3/HERBAXYLAREDD to H.B.; Confederação da Agricultura e Pecuária do Brasil - CNA to C.F.; Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - CAPES, Brazil (PDSE 15011/13-5 to M.A.P.; 88881.135931/2016-01 to C.F.; 88887.199858/2018-00 to G.A.-P.; Finance Code 001 for all Brazilian collaborators); Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico - CNPq, Brazil (ENV 42 to O.D.; 1009/4785031-2 to G.C.; 311874/2017-7 to J.S.); CONACYT-CB-2016-283134 to J.V.-D.; CONICET to F.A.R.; CUOMO FOUNDATION (IPCC scholarship) to M.M.; Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft - DFG (BR 1895/15-1 to A.B.; BR 1895/23-1 to A.B.; BR 1895/29-1 to A.B.; BR 1895/24-1 to M.M.); DGD-RMCA PilotMAB to B.T.; Dirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico of the UNAM (Mexico) to R.B.; Elsa-Neumann-Scholarship of the Federal State of Berlin to F.S.; EMBRAPA Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation to C.F.; Equatorian Dirección de Investigación UNL (21-DI-FARNR-2019) to D.P.-C.; São Paulo Research Foundation FAPESP (2009/53951-7 to M.T.-F.; 2012/50457-4 to G.C.; 2018/01847‐0 to P.G.; 2018/24514-7 to J.R.V.A.; 2019/08783-0 to G.M.L.; 2019/27110-7 to C.F.); FAPESP-NERC 18/50080-4 to G.C.; FAPITEC/SE/FUNTEC no. 01/2011 to M.A.P.; Fulbright Fellowship to B.J.E.; German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) to M.I. and M.R.; German Ministry of Education, Science, Research, and Technology (FRG 0339638) to O.D.; ICRAF through the Forests, Trees, and Agroforestry research programme of the CGIAR to M.M.; Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI-SGP-CRA 2047) to J.V.-D.; International Foundation for Science (D/5466-1) to M.I.; Lamont Climate Center to B.M.B.; Miquelfonds to P.G.; National Geographic Global Exploration Fund (GEFNE80-13) to I.R.; USA’s National Science Foundation NSF (IBN-9801287 to A.J.L.; GER 9553623 and a postdoctoral fellowship to B.J.E.); NSF P2C2 (AGS-1501321) to A.C.B., D.G.-S. and G.A.-P.; NSF-FAPESP PIRE 2017/50085-3 to M.T.-F., G.C. and G.M.L.; NUFFIC-NICHE programme (HEART project) to B.K., E.M., J.H.S., J.N. and R. Vinya; Peru ‘s CONCYTEC and World Bank (043-2019-FONDECYT-BM-INC.INV.) to J.G.I.; Peru’s Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico, Tecnológico y de Innovación Tecnológica (FONDECYT-BM-INC.INV 039-2019) to E.J.R.-R. and M.E.F.; Programa Bosques Andinos - HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation to M.E.F.; Programa Nacional de Becas y Crédito Educativo - PRONABEC to J.G.I.; Schlumberger Foundation Faculty for the Future to J.N.; Sigma Xi to A.J.L.; Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute to R. Alfaro-Sánchez.; Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs AECID (11-CAP2-1730) to H.A.M. and J.J.C.; UK NERC grant NE/K01353X/1 to E.G. For logistical and (field) assistance, we thank Bangladesh Forest Department; Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church and Congregants; Evandro Dalmaso (CEMAL logging firm); Instituto Boliviano de Investigación Forestal (IBIF; Bolivia); INPA parket Co.; Instituto Federal de Educação; Ciência e Tecnologia de Sergipe (IFS); Ministry of Minerals, Energy and Water Resources of Botswana; Reserva Natural da Vale (RNV); Sebastian Bernal; the Valere project of University of Campania “L. Vanvitelli”; the villagers of Nizanda in Oaxaca, Mexico. We are grateful for the help and supervision by D. Stahle, D. Eckstein and H. Muller-Landau.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information
Nature Geoscience thanks Amy Hessl and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor: Tom Richardson, in collaboration with the Nature Geoscience team.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
a, Spatial distribution of tree-ring chronologies from two sources (ITRDB and contributors) selected to be included in this study (“in”, n = 347) or not (“out”, n = 68). b, Chronology distribution in climate space and across tropical biomes following Whittaker biome classification70. c, Distribution of the most recent 50 years of selected chronologies in time and across Koeppen climate classes71. The red line indicates the average midpoint of all 347 selected chronologies. Vegetation background in a from open source data: Natural Earth (www.naturalearthdata.com).
Extended Data Fig. 2 Cross validation test of cluster analysis reveals robustness of climate response groups.
Results of cross validation tests in which selections of sites were left out of the network to test robustness of climate response patterns and correctness of site assignment. Four sets of tests were conducted: removal of a random 10% of the sites (a, repeated 10 times), of overrepresented climates (b, cold sites), of underrepresented climates (c, wet sites) and of poorly represented regions (d-e). Line graphs per climate response group are similar to those in Fig. 2 and show mean Pearson r correlation coefficients of 50-year RWI series with monthly Tmax (red) or PP (blue) for a 24-month period that covers the year of ring formation (months 1-12) and that prior to ring formation (months 13-24). Bar graphs show the percentage of correct and incorrect assignments of the left out sites to climate response groups.
Left panels: Spatial distribution for climate response groups in well-represented sections of the network: North America (n = 119), High-mountain Asia (n = 92) and South America (n = 65). In North America, climate response groups are geographically segregated and the ‘Strong positive PP response’ and ‘Positive PP response’ groups are characterized by the lowest water availability (MAP; Extended Data Table 3). Furthermore, these climate response groups differ in PP variability, whereas the groups with the weakest (positive and negative) precipitation responses differ in PP seasonality. High-mountain Asia and South America portions of the network are dominated by climate response groups with weak (positive and negative) precipitation response. As in the full network, these groups do not differ in PP variability (Extended Data Table 3). Right panels: Responses of ring-width index (RWI) to interannual variation in monthly Tmax (red) and PP (blue) of four climate response groups. Correlation coefficients (Pearson r, mean and 95% confidence intervals) are shown for a 24-month period including the year prior to ring formation and that of ring formation. Elevation data for left panels from open source data: ETOPO5, NOAA (https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/etopo5.HTML).
a,c, Density plots of significant regression coefficients of PP (blue, a) and Tmax (red, c) for dry season (all dry months prior to onset of wet season), late dry season (last 2 months before onset of wet season), and wet season. Density plots are based on 279 multiple regression models that included at least one significant seasonal climate effect. Letters denote significant differences between groups for either PP or Tmax based on Wilcoxon rank test (P < 0.05, n = 581 coefficients; dry-season n = 243; late dry-season n = 161; wet-season n = 177). Horizonal lines represent medians. b,d, As panels a and c but for relative importance (only for models with >1 significant coefficient, n = 487).
a-c, Association of regression coefficients for wet-season PP (blue, n = 92) and Tmax (red, n = 84) with three site-specific hydroclimate variables. All hydroclimatic variables are ordered from arid (left) to humid (right). d-g, Association of regression coefficients for seasonal PP (blue) and Tmax (red) with PP variability and PP seasonality. Symbol size is proportional to scaled representativeness of sites (‘Density’) for climate variable on X-axis (Extended Data Fig. 2). Multiple regression models are based on the most recent 50 years of each chronology. Significant correlations (P < 0.05; Spearman rank correlation, weighted for density; Extended Data Table 4) are indicated; lines are shown for illustration only.
Supplementary Fig. 1.
Supplementary metadata and mean RWI of all 347 selected chronologies. Source, whether data were obtained from the ITRDB or contributed by co-authors; Rbar, mean inter-series correlation of the chronology; SOM_clusters, climate response group to which chronology belongs; SOM_clusters_PercentAssignment, the percentage of SOM-clustering runs that a chronology was assigned to the climate response group (cluster) in column ‘SOM_clusters’; columns with calendar years (‘1929’ to ‘2017’) contain mean RWI of the re-constructed chronologies, always for the 50 most recent years of available tree-ring data.
About this article
Cite this article
Zuidema, P.A., Babst, F., Groenendijk, P. et al. Tropical tree growth driven by dry-season climate variability. Nat. Geosci. 15, 269–276 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-022-00911-8
This article is cited by
Communications Earth & Environment (2022)