Abstract
Siberian forests are generally thought to have acted as an important carbon sink over recent decades, but exposure to severe droughts and fire disturbances may have impacted their carbon dynamics. Limited available forest inventories mean the carbon balance remains uncertain. Here we analyse annual live and dead above-ground carbon changes derived from low-frequency passive microwave observations from 2010 to 2019. We find that during this period, the carbon balance of Siberian forests was close to neutral, with the forests acting as a small carbon sink of \(+ 0.02_{ + 0.01}^{ + 0.03}\) PgC yr−1. Carbon storage in dead wood increased, but this was largely offset by a decrease in live biomass. Substantial losses of live above-ground carbon are attributed to fire and drought, such as the widespread fires in northern Siberia in 2012 and extreme drought in eastern Siberia in 2015. These live above-ground carbon losses contrast with ‘greening’ trends seen in leaf area index over the same period, a decoupling explained by faster post-disturbance recovery of leaf area than live above-ground carbon. Our study highlights the vulnerability of large forest carbon stores in Siberia to climate-induced disturbances, challenging the persistence of the carbon sink in this region of the globe.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year
only $21.58 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
L-VOD and soil moisture data from this study are freely available from the SMOS-IC website (https://ib.remote-sensing.inrae.fr/). AGCtot, AGClive and CWDC products are freely available from https://doi.org/10.11888/Terre.tpdc.272842. The Saatchi biomass map is available upon request from Dr. S. Saatchi (sasan.s.saatchi@jpl.nasa.gov). Tree species maps are available upon request from D. Schepaschenko (schepd@iiasa.ac.at) or from http://webarchive.iiasa.ac.at/Research/FOR/forest_cdrom/english/for_prod_en.html. Additional data used in the paper are publicly available, with their locations provided in the respective references.
References
Keenan, R. J. et al. Dynamics of global forest area: results from the FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. For. Ecol. Manage. 352, 9–20 (2015).
Arneth, A. et al. in Special Report on Climate Change and Land (eds Shukla, P. R. et al.) Ch. 1 (IPCC, 2019).
Piao, S. et al. Growing season extension and its impact on terrestrial carbon cycle in the Northern Hemisphere over the past 2 decades. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 21, GB3018 (2007).
Chen, C. et al. China and India lead in greening of the world through land-use management. Nat. Sustain. 2, 122–129 (2019).
Piao, S. et al. Characteristics, drivers and feedbacks of global greening. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1, 14–27 (2020).
Liu, Y. Y. et al. Recent reversal in loss of global terrestrial biomass. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 470–474 (2015).
Chen, J. M. et al. Vegetation structural change since 1981 significantly enhanced the terrestrial carbon sink. Nat. Commun. 10, 4259 (2019).
Myneni, R. B. et al. Increased plant growth in the northern high latitudes from 1981 to 1991. Nature 386, 698–702 (1997).
Filipchuk, A. et al. Russian forests: a new approach to the assessment of carbon stocks and sequestration capacity. Environ. Dev. 26, 68–75 (2018).
Goodale, C. L. et al. Forest carbon sinks in the Northern Hemisphere. Ecol. Appl. 12, 891–899 (2002).
Tchebakova, N. M. et al. Energy and mass exchange and the productivity of main Siberian ecosystems (from eddy covariance measurements). 2. Carbon exchange and productivity. Biol. Bull. 42, 579–588 (2015).
Vaganov, E. A. et al. Forests and swamps of Siberia in the global carbon cycle. Contemp. Probl. Ecol. 1, 168–182 (2008).
Schepaschenko, D. et al. Russian forest sequesters substantially more carbon than previously reported. Sci. Rep. 11, 12825 (2021).
Shvidenko, A. & Schepaschenko, D. Climate change and wildfires in Russia. Contemp. Probl. Ecol. 6, 683–692 (2013).
Bradshaw, C. J. A. & Warkentin, I. G. Global estimates of boreal forest carbon stocks and flux. Glob. Planet. Change 128, 24–30 (2015).
Curtis, P. G. et al. Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science 361, 1108–1111 (2018).
Sukhinin, A. I. et al. AVHRR-based mapping of fires in Russia: new products for fire management and carbon cycle studies. Remote Sens. Environ. 93, 546–564 (2004).
Soja, A. J. et al. Climate-induced boreal forest change: predictions versus current observations. Glob. Planet. Change 56, 274–296 (2007).
Dolman, A. J. et al. An estimate of the terrestrial carbon budget of Russia using inventory-based, eddy covariance and inversion methods. Biogeosciences 9, 5323–5340 (2012).
Schaphoff, S. et al. Tamm review: Observed and projected climate change impacts on Russia’s forests and its carbon balance. For. Ecol. Manage. 361, 432–444 (2016).
de Jong, R. et al. Trend changes in global greening and browning: contribution of short-term trends to longer-term change. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 642–655 (2012).
Buermann, W. et al. Recent shift in Eurasian boreal forest greening response may be associated with warmer and drier summers. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 1995–2002 (2014).
Rödig, E. et al. Spatial heterogeneity of biomass and forest structure of the Amazon rain forest: Linking remote sensing, forest modelling and field inventory. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 26, 1292–1302 (2017).
Quegan, S. et al. Estimating the carbon balance of central Siberia using a landscape-ecosystem approach, atmospheric inversion and dynamic global vegetation models. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 351–365 (2011).
Gurney, K. R. et al. Interannual variations in continental-scale net carbon exchange and sensitivity to observing networks estimated from atmospheric CO2 inversions for the period 1980 to 2005. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 22, GB3025 (2008).
Stephens, B. B. et al. Weak northern and strong tropical land carbon uptake from vertical profiles of atmospheric CO2. Science 316, 1732–1735 (2007).
Leskinen, P. et al. Russian Forests and Climate Change: What Science Can Tell Us 11 (EFI, 2020); https://doi.org/10.36333/wsctu11
Myers-Smith, I. H. et al. Complexity revealed in the greening of the Arctic. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 106–117 (2020).
Stow, D. A. et al. Remote sensing of vegetation and land-cover change in Arctic tundra ecosystems. Remote Sens. Environ. 89, 281–308 (2004).
Karlsen, S. R. et al. A new NDVI measure that overcomes data sparsity in cloud-covered regions predicts annual variation in ground-based estimates of high Arctic plant productivity. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 025011 (2018).
Ding, Z. et al. Nearly half of global vegetated area experienced inconsistent vegetation growth in terms of greenness, cover, and productivity. Earths Future 8, e2020EF001618 (2020).
Fan, L. et al. Satellite-observed pantropical carbon dynamics. Nat. Plants 5, 944–951 (2019).
Hansen, M. C. et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342, 850–853 (2013).
Giglio, L. et al. The collection 6 MODIS active fire detection algorithm and fire products. Remote Sens. Environ. 178, 31–41 (2016).
Blunden, J. & Arndt, D. S. State of the climate in 2015. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 97, Si–S275 (2016).
Bastos, A. et al. Was the extreme Northern Hemisphere greening in 2015 predictable? Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 044016 (2017).
Pan, Y. et al. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333, 988–993 (2011).
Kukavskaya, E. A. et al. Biomass dynamics of central Siberian Scots pine forests following surface fires of varying severity. Int. J. Wildland Fire 23, 872–886 (2014).
Gauthier, S. et al. Boreal forest health and global change. Science 349, 819 (2015).
Harris, N. L. et al. Baseline map of carbon emissions from deforestation in tropical regions. Science 336, 1573 (2012).
Qin, Y. et al. Carbon loss from forest degradation exceeds that from deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 442–448 (2021).
Rogers, B. M. et al. Influence of tree species on continental differences in boreal fires and climate feedbacks. Nat. Geosci. 8, 228–234 (2015).
Shvetsov, E. G. et al. Assessment of post-fire vegetation recovery in southern Siberia using remote sensing observations. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 055001 (2019).
Wang, J. A. et al. Disturbance suppresses the aboveground carbon sink in North American boreal forests. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 435–441 (2021).
Xu, L. et al. Changes in global terrestrial live biomass over the 21st century. Sci. Adv. 7, eabe9829 (2021).
Shuman, J. K. et al. Forest forecasting with vegetation models across Russia. Can. J. For. Res. 45, 175–184 (2014).
Flannigan, M. et al. Impacts of climate change on fire activity and fire management in the circumboreal forest. Glob. Change Biol. 15, 549–560 (2009).
Yuan, W. et al. Differentiating moss from higher plants is critical in studying the carbon cycle of the boreal biome. Nat. Commun. 5, 4270 (2014).
Harris, N. L. et al. Global maps of twenty-first century forest carbon fluxes. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 234–240 (2021).
Larjavaara, M. et al. Post-fire carbon and nitrogen accumulation and succession in Central Siberia. Sci. Rep. 7, 12776 (2017).
Berner, L. T. et al. Cajander larch (Larix cajanderi) biomass distribution, fire regime and post-fire recovery in northeastern Siberia. Biogeosciences 9, 3943–3959 (2012).
Myneni, R. et al. MOD15A2H MODIS/Terra Leaf Area Index/FPAR 8-Day L4 Global 500 m SIN Grid v.006 (LAADS DAAC, 2015).
Houghton, R. A. et al. Mapping Russian forest biomass with data from satellites and forest inventories. Environ. Res. Lett. 2, 045032 (2007).
DiMiceli, C. et al. Annual Global Automated MODIS Vegetation Continuous Fields (MOD44B) at 250 m Spatial Resolution for Data Years Beginning Day 65, 2000–2014, Collection 5 Percent Tree Cover v.6 (University of Maryland, 2017).
Simard, M. et al. Mapping forest canopy height globally with spaceborne lidar. J. Geophys. Res. 116, G04021 (2011).
Broxton, P. et al. A global land cover climatology using MODIS data. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 53, 1593–1605 (2014).
Saatchi, S. S. et al. Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions across three continents. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 9899–9904 (2011).
Santoro, M. et al. The global forest above-ground biomass pool for 2010 estimated from high-resolution satellite observations. Earth Syst. Sci. Data. 13, 3927–3950 (2021).
Carreiras, J. M. B. et al. Coverage of high biomass forests by the ESA BIOMASS mission under defense restrictions. Remote Sens. Environ. 196, 154–162 (2017).
Penman, J. et al. Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (IGES, 2013).
Avitabile, V. et al. An integrated pan-tropical biomass map using multiple reference datasets. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 1406–1420 (2016).
Baccini, A. et al. Estimated carbon dioxide emissions from tropical deforestation improved by carbon-density maps. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 182–185 (2012).
Fernandez-Moran, R. et al. SMOS-IC: an alternative SMOS soil moisture and vegetation optical depth product. Remote Sens. 9, 457 (2017).
Wigneron, J.-P. et al. SMOS-IC data record of soil moisture and L-VOD: historical development, applications and perspectives. Remote Sens. Environ. 254, 112238 (2021).
Mitchard, E. T. A. et al. Markedly divergent estimates of Amazon forest carbon density from ground plots and satellites. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 23, 935–946 (2014).
Mitchard, E. T. A. et al. Uncertainty in the spatial distribution of tropical forest biomass: a comparison of pan-tropical maps. Carbon Balance Manage. 8, 10 (2013).
Harmon, M. E. et al. Release of coarse woody detritus-related carbon: a synthesis across forest biomes. Carbon Balance Manage. 15, 1 (2020).
Bartalev, S. A. & Stytsenko, F. V. Assessment of forest-stand destruction by fires based on remote-sensing data on the seasonal distribution of burned areas. Contemp. Probl. Ecol. 14, 711–716 (2021).
van Wees, D. et al. The role of fire in global forest loss dynamics. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 2377–2391 (2021).
Vicente‐Serrano, S. M. et al. A multiscalar drought index sensitive to global warming: the Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index. J. Clim. 23, 1696–1718 (2010).
Schepaschenko, D. et al. A new hybrid land cover dataset for Russia: a methodology for integrating statistics, remote sensing and in situ information. J. Land Use Sci. 6, 245–259 (2011).
Du, J. et al. A global satellite environmental data record derived from AMSR-E and AMSR2 microwave Earth observations. Earth Syst. Sci. Data. 9, 791–808 (2017).
Brandt, M. et al. Satellite passive microwaves reveal recent climate-induced carbon losses in African drylands. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 827–835 (2018).
De Grandpré, L. et al. Long-term post-fire changes in the northeastern boreal forest of Quebec. J. Veg. Sci. 11, 791–800 (2000).
Acknowledgements
This study is supported in part by research grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 41830648, 42171339), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (SWU020016) and Innovation Research 2035 Pilot Plan of Southwest University (SWUPilotPlan031). J.-P.W acknowledges funding support from the CNES (Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales, France) TOSCA programme. P.C. acknowledges the support from the European Space Agency (ESA) Climate Change Initiative (CCI) Biomass project (contract no. 4000123662/18/I-NB). P.C. and S.S. have received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 821003 (project 4 C). P.C., A.B., S.S. and J.-P.W acknowledge support from the ESA CCI RECCAP2-A project (ESRIN/4000123002/18/I-NB). Y.Q. and X.X. are supported by research grants from US NSF (OIA-1946093, 1911955) and NASA (GeoCarb contract #80LARC17C0001). Tree species information preparation and pre-processing were financially supported by the Russian Science Foundation (project no. 21-46-07002). The data on dead-wood stock and decomposition rate were collected and processed with support by the State Assignment of V.N. Sukachev Institute of Forest SB RAS no. 0287-2021-0008 (state registration number 121031500339-0). M.B. was funded by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (grant agreement no. 947757 TOFDRY) and DFF Sapere Aude (grant no. 9064–00049B). C.Y. acknowledges support from the National Science Foundation of China (U20A2090). D.v.W. acknowledges support from Dutch Research Council (NWO) Vici scheme research programme (no. 016.160.324) We also acknowledge that S. Saatchi provided the Saatchi biomass map.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
L.F., J.-P.W and P.C. designed the overall study plan. L.F. prepared the SMOS-IC SM, AGClive, CWDC dataset. D.S. prepared the tree species dataset. D.v.W prepared the stand-replacing fire product. L.F., Y.Q., X. Li, X. Liu and M.W. carried out data processing and analysis. L.F., J.-P.W, P.C., J. Chave, R.F., M.B., S.S., D.S. and L.M. interpreted the results. C.Y., A.B., X. Li, W.Y., F.F., X.X., M.M., J.W., X.C., H.Y. and J. Chen provided comments on the discussion. The manuscript was drafted by L.F., J.-P.W, P.C., J. Chave, R.F., M.B., and S.S. with contributions by all co-authors.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Geoscience thanks Wenru Xu 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.
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 Figs. 1–17, Tables 1–7 and text.
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.
About this article
Cite this article
Fan, L., Wigneron, JP., Ciais, P. et al. Siberian carbon sink reduced by forest disturbances. Nat. Geosci. 16, 56–62 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-022-01087-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-022-01087-x
This article is cited by
-
Simulating long-term wildfire impacts on boreal forest structure in Central Yakutia, Siberia, since the Last Glacial Maximum
Fire Ecology (2024)
-
Large language models reveal big disparities in current wildfire research
Communications Earth & Environment (2024)
-
Changes in land use and management led to a decline in Eastern Europe’s terrestrial carbon sink
Communications Earth & Environment (2023)
-
Wildfire precursors show complementary predictability in different timescales
Nature Communications (2023)
-
Evidence and attribution of the enhanced land carbon sink
Nature Reviews Earth & Environment (2023)