Biodiversity contributes to the ecological and climatic stability of the Amazon Basin1,2, but is increasingly threatened by deforestation and fire3,4. Here we quantify these impacts over the past two decades using remote-sensing estimates of fire and deforestation and comprehensive range estimates of 11,514 plant species and 3,079 vertebrate species in the Amazon. Deforestation has led to large amounts of habitat loss, and fires further exacerbate this already substantial impact on Amazonian biodiversity. Since 2001, 103,079–189,755 km2 of Amazon rainforest has been impacted by fires, potentially impacting the ranges of 77.3–85.2% of species that are listed as threatened in this region5. The impacts of fire on the ranges of species in Amazonia could be as high as 64%, and greater impacts are typically associated with species that have restricted ranges. We find close associations between forest policy, fire-impacted forest area and their potential impacts on biodiversity. In Brazil, forest policies that were initiated in the mid-2000s corresponded to reduced rates of burning. However, relaxed enforcement of these policies in 2019 has seemingly begun to reverse this trend: approximately 4,253–10,343 km2 of forest has been impacted by fire, leading to some of the most severe potential impacts on biodiversity since 2009. These results highlight the critical role of policy enforcement in the preservation of biodiversity in the Amazon.
This is a preview of subscription content
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $3.90 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
The plant occurrences from the BIEN database are accessible using the RBIEN package (https://github.com/bmaitner/RBIEN). The climatic data are accessible from http://worldclim.org and the soil data are available from http://soilgrids.org. MODIS active fire and burned area products are available at http://modis-fire.umd.edu. The MODIS Vegetation Continuous Fields data are publicly available from https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/products/mod44bv006/. The annual forest loss layers are available from http://earthenginepartners.appspot.com/science-2013-global-forest. The plant range maps are accessible at https://github.com/shandongfx/paper_Amazon_biodiversity_2021. The vertebrate range maps are available from https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/spatial-data-download. The SPEI data are available from SPEI Global Drought Monitor (https://spei.csic.es/map).
The code to process the remote-sensing data is available at https://github.com/shandongfx/paper_Amazon_biodiversity_2021.
Yachi, S. & Loreau, M. Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: the insurance hypothesis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 1463–1468 (1999).
Oliver, T. H. et al. Biodiversity and resilience of ecosystem functions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 673–684 (2015).
Barlow, J., Berenguer, E., Carmenta, R. & França, F. Clarifying Amazonia’s burning crisis. Glob. Change Biol. 9, 1 (2019).
Brando, P. M. et al. The gathering firestorm in southern Amazonia. Sci. Adv. 6, eaay1632 (2020).
IUCN. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species version 6.2. https://www.iucnredlist.org/ (2019).
Flores, M. et al. WWF’s Living Amazon Initiative (Grambs Corporación Gráfica, 2010).
Hubbell, S. P. et al. How many tree species are there in the Amazon and how many of them will go extinct? Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105 Suppl. 1, 11498–11504 (2008).
Nepstad, D. C., Stickler, C. M., Filho, B. S.- & Merry, F. Interactions among Amazon land use, forests and climate: prospects for a near-term forest tipping point. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 363, 1737–1746 (2008).
Rankin-de-Mérona, J. M. et al. Preliminary results of a large-scale tree inventory of upland rain forest in the Central Amazon. Acta Amazon. 22, 493–534 (1992).
Sakschewski, B. et al. Resilience of Amazon forests emerges from plant trait diversity. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 1032–1036 (2016).
Poorter, L. et al. Biomass resilience of Neotropical secondary forests. Nature 530, 211–214 (2016).
Beisner, B. E., Haydon, D. T. & Cuddington, K. Alternative stable states in ecology. Front. Ecol. Environ. 1, 376–382 (2003).
Lovejoy, T. E. & Nobre, C. Amazon tipping point. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat2340 (2018).
Veldman, J. W. Clarifying the confusion: old-growth savannahs and tropical ecosystem degradation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 371, (2016).
Arruda, D., Candido, H. G. & Fonseca, R. Amazon fires threaten Brazil’s agribusiness. Science 365, 1387 (2019).
Ter Steege, H. et al. Estimating the global conservation status of more than 15,000 Amazonian tree species. Sci. Adv. 1, e1500936 (2015).
Gomes, V. H. F., Vieira, I. C. G., Salomão, R. P. & ter Steege, H. Amazonian tree species threatened by deforestation and climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 547–553 (2019).
Brando, P. et al. Amazon wildfires: scenes from a foreseeable disaster. Flora 268, 151609 (2020).
Balch, J. K. et al. The susceptibility of southeastern Amazon forests to fire: insights from a large-scale burn experiment. Bioscience 65, 893–905 (2015).
Barlow, J. et al. The critical importance of considering fire in REDD+ programs. Biol. Conserv. 154, 1–8 (2012).
Cochrane, M. A. & Schulze, M. D. Fire as a recurrent event in tropical forests of the eastern Amazon: effects on forest structure, biomass, and species composition. Biotropica 31, 2–16 (1999).
Brando, P. M. et al. Prolonged tropical forest degradation due to compounding disturbances: Implications for CO2 and H2O fluxes. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 2855–2868 (2019).
Barlow, J. & Peres, C. A. Fire-mediated dieback and compositional cascade in an Amazonian forest. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 363, 1787–1794 (2008).
Cochrane, M. Tropical Fire Ecology: Climate Change, Land Use and Ecosystem Dynamics (Springer, 2010).
Uhl, C. & Kauffman, J. B. Deforestation, fire susceptibility, and potential tree responses to fire in the eastern Amazon. Ecology 71, 437–449 (1990).
Cochrane, M. A. Fire science for rainforests. Nature 421, 913–919 (2003).
Cochrane, M. A. & Laurance, W. F. Synergisms among fire, land use, and climate change in the Amazon. Ambio 37, 522–527 (2008).
Nepstad, D. C. et al. Large-scale impoverishment of Amazonian forests by logging and fire. Nature 398, 505–508 (1999).
Aragão, L. E. O. C. et al. 21st Century drought-related fires counteract the decline of Amazon deforestation carbon emissions. Nat. Commun. 9, 536 (2018).
Nepstad, D. et al. Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains. Science 344, 1118–1123 (2014).
Hope, M. The Brazilian development agenda driving Amazon devastation. Lancet Planet. Health 3, e409–e411 (2019).
Brown, J. H. On the relationship between abundance and distribution of species. Am. Nat. 124, 255–279 (1984).
Barnagaud, J.-Y. et al. Ecological traits influence the phylogenetic structure of bird species co-occurrences worldwide. Ecol. Lett. 17, 811–820 (2014).
Šímová, I. et al. Spatial patterns and climate relationships of major plant traits in the New World differ between woody and herbaceous species. J. Biogeogr. 45, 895–916 (2018).
Enquist, B. J. et al. The commonness of rarity: Global and future distribution of rarity across land plants. Sci. Adv. 5, eaaz0414 (2019).
May, P. H., Gebara, M. F., de Barcellos, L. M., Rizek, M. B. & Millikan, B. The Context of REDD+ in Brazil: Drivers, Agents, and Institutions, 3rd edition, https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/006338 (Center for International Forestry Research, 2016).
Neves, D. M., Dexter, K. G., Baker, T. R., Coelho de Souza, F. & Oliveira-Filho, A. T. Evolutionary diversity in tropical tree communities peaks at intermediate precipitation. Sci. Rep. 10, 1188 (2020).
Cadotte, M. W., Cardinale, B. J. & Oakley, T. H. Evolutionary history and the effect of biodiversity on plant productivity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 17012–17017 (2008).
Hopkins, M. J. G. Modelling the known and unknown plant biodiversity of the Amazon Basin. J. Biogeogr. 34, 1400–1411 (2007).
Wilson, E. O. in Biodiversity (eds Wilson E. O. & Peter F. M.) Ch. 1 (National Academies Press, 1988).
Brooks, T. M. et al. Habitat loss and extinction in the hotspots of biodiversity. Conserv. Biol. 16, 909–923 (2002).
Gibbs, H. K. et al. Brazil’s soy moratorium. Science 347, 377–378 (2015).
Alix-Garcia, J. & Gibbs, H. K. Forest conservation effects of Brazil’s zero deforestation cattle agreements undermined by leakage. Glob. Environ. Change 47, 201–217 (2017).
Escobar, H. There’s no doubt that Brazil’s fires are linked to deforestation, scientists say. Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz2689 (2019).
Amazon fires: Brazil sends army to help tackle blazes. BBC News https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-49452789 (24 August 2019).
Marengo, J. A., Tomasella, J., Soares, W. R., Alves, L. M. & Nobre, C. A. Extreme climatic events in the Amazon basin. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 107, 73–85 (2012).
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).
Swann, A. L. S. et al. Continental-scale consequences of tree die-offs in North America: identifying where forest loss matters most. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 055014 (2018).
McCoy, T. Amazon fires dropped unexpectedly in September, after summer spike. Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/amazon-fires-dropped-unexpectedly-in-september-after-spiking-over-the-summer/2019/10/02/4ddc0026-e516-11e9-b403-f738899982d2_story.html (2 October 2019).
Moutinho, P., Guerra, R. & Azevedo-Ramos, C. Achieving zero deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: what is missing? Elementa 4, 000125 (2016).
Olson, D. M. et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on Earth: A new global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving biodiversity. Bioscience 51, 933–938 (2001).
Hansen, M. C. et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342, 850–853 (2013).
Giglio, L., Schroeder, W. & Justice, C. O. The collection 6 MODIS active fire detection algorithm and fire products. Remote Sens. Environ. 178, 31–41 (2016).
Giglio, L. MODIS Collection 6 Active Fire Product User’s Guide Revision A (Univ. Maryland, 2015).
Barlow, J., Lagan, B. O. & Peres, C. A. Morphological correlates of fire-induced tree mortality in a central Amazonian forest. J. Trop. Ecol. 19, 291–299 (2003).
Brando, P. M. et al. Fire-induced tree mortality in a neotropical forest: the roles of bark traits, tree size, wood density and fire behavior. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 630–641 (2012).
Gibbs, H. K. et al. Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 16732–16737 (2010).
Barlow, J. & Peres, C. in Emerging Threats to Tropical Forests (eds. Laurance, W. F. & Peres, C. A.) 225–240 (Univ. Chicago Press, 2006).
Barlow, J. et al. Wildfires in bamboo-dominated Amazonian forest: impacts on above-ground biomass and biodiversity. PLoS ONE 7, e33373 (2012).
Gerwing, J. J. Degradation of forests through logging and fire in the eastern Brazilian Amazon. For. Ecol. Manage. 157, 131–141 (2002).
Brando, P. M. et al. Abrupt increases in Amazonian tree mortality due to drought-fire interactions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 6347–6352 (2014).
Barlow, J. & Peres, C. A. Avifaunal responses to single and recurrent wildfires in Amazonian forests. Ecol. Appl. 14, 1358–1373 (2004).
Paolucci, L. N., Schoereder, J. H., Brando, P. M. & Andersen, A. N. Fire-induced forest transition to derived savannas: cascading effects on ant communities. Biol. Conserv. 214, 295–302 (2017).
Roy, D. P. & Kumar, S. S. Multi-year MODIS active fire type classification over the Brazilian Tropical Moist Forest Biome. Int. J. Digital Earth 10, 54–84 (2017).
Giglio, L., Schroeder, W., Hall, J. V. & Justice, C. O. MODIS Collection 6 Active Fire Product User’s Guide Revision B (Univ. Maryland, 2018).
Barriopedro, D., Fischer, E. M., Luterbacher, J., Trigo, R. M. & García-Herrera, R. The hot summer of 2010: redrawing the temperature record map of Europe. Science 332, 220–224 (2011).
Chen, Y. et al. Forecasting fire season severity in South America using sea surface temperature anomalies. Science 334, 787–791 (2011).
Giglio, L. et al. Assessing variability and long-term trends in burned area by merging multiple satellite fire products. Biogeosciences 7, 1171–1186 (2010).
Justice, C. O. et al. The MODIS fire products. Remote Sens. Environ. 83, 244–262 (2002).
Giglio, L., Boschetti, L., Roy, D. P., Humber, M. L. & Justice, C. O. The Collection 6 MODIS burned area mapping algorithm and product. Remote Sens. Environ. 217, 72–85 (2018).
Nóbrega, C. C., Brando, P. M., Silvério, D. V., Maracahipes, L. & de Marco, P. Effects of experimental fires on the phylogenetic and functional diversity of woody species in a neotropical forest. For. Ecol. Manage. 450, 117497 (2019).
Alencar, A., Nepstad, D. & Diaz, M. C. V. Forest understory fire in the Brazilian Amazon in ENSO and Non-ENSO years: area burned and committed carbon emissions. Earth Interact. 10, 1–17 (2006).
Siegert, F., Ruecker, G., Hinrichs, A. & Hoffmann, A. A. Increased damage from fires in logged forests during droughts caused by El Niño. Nature 414, 437–440 (2001).
Cochrane, M. A. & Laurance, W. F. Fire as a large-scale edge effect in Amazonian forests. J. Trop. Ecol. 18, 311–325 (2002).
Ray, D., Nepstad, D. & Moutinho, P. Micrometeorological and canopy controls of fire susceptibility in a forested Amazon landscape. Ecol. Appl. 15, 1664–1678 (2005).
Silvério, D. V. et al. Fire, fragmentation, and windstorms: a recipe for tropical forest degradation. J. Ecol. 107, 656–667 (2019).
Guisan, A. & Zimmermann, N. E. Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology. Ecol. Modell. 135, 147–186 (2000).
Fegraus, E. Tropical Ecology Assessment and Monitoring Network (TEAM Network). Biodivers. Ecol. 4, 287–287 (2012).
Peet, R. K., Lee, M. T., Jennings, M. D. & Faber-Langendoen, D. VegBank: a permanent, open-access archive for vegetation plot data. Biodivers. Ecol. 4, 233–241 (2012).
DeWalt, S. J., Bourdy, G., Chavez de Michel, L. R. & Quenevo, C. Ethnobotany of the Tacana: quantitative inventories of two permanent plots of Northwestern Bolivia. Econ. Bot. 53, 237–260 (1999).
USDA Forest Service. Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program, http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/ (2013).
Wiser, S. K., Bellingham, P. J. & Burrows, L. E. Managing biodiversity information: development of New Zealand’s National Vegetation Survey databank. N. Z. J. Ecol. 25, 1–17 (2001).
Anderson-Teixeira, K. J. et al. CTFS-ForestGEO: a worldwide network monitoring forests in an era of global change. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 528–549 (2015).
Enquist, B. & Boyle, B. SALVIAS – the SALVIAS vegetation inventory database. Biodivers. Ecol. 4, 288 (2012).
GBIF.org. GBIF Occurrence Download https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.yubndf (2018).
Dauby, G. et al. RAINBIO: a mega-database of tropical African vascular plants distributions. PhytoKeys 74, 1–18 (2016).
Arellano, G. et al. A standard protocol for woody plant inventories and soil characterisation using temporary 0.1-ha plots in tropical forests. J. Trop. For. Sci. 28, 508–516 (2016).
O’Connell, B. M. et al. The Forest Inventory and Analysis Database: Database Description and User Guide for Phase 2 (version 6.1), https://doi.org/10.2737/fs-fiadb-p2-6.1 (USDA Forest Service, 2016).
Oliveira-Filho, A. T. NeoTropTree, Flora arbórea da Região Neotropical: Um Banco de Dados Envolvendo Biogeografia, Diversidade e Conservação, http://www.neotroptree.info (Univ. Federal de Minas Gerais, 2017).
Peet, R. K., Lee, M. T., Jennings, M. D. & Faber-Langendoen, D. VegBank: The Vegetation Plot Archive of the Ecological Society of America, http://vegbank.org (accessed 2013).
Boyle, B. et al. The taxonomic name resolution service: an online tool for automated standardization of plant names. BMC Bioinf. 14, 16 (2013).
Goldsmith, G. R. et al. Plant-O-Matic: a dynamic and mobile guide to all plants of the Americas. Methods Ecol. Evol. 7, 960–965 (2016).
McFadden, I. R. et al. Temperature shapes opposing latitudinal gradients of plant taxonomic and phylogenetic β diversity. Ecol. Lett. 22, 1126–1135 (2019).
Enquist, B. J., Condit, R., Peet, R. K., Schildhauer, M. & Thiers, B. M. Cyberinfrastructure for an integrated botanical information network to investigate the ecological impacts of global climate change on plant biodiversity. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.2615v2 (2016).
Maitner, B. S. et al. The BIEN R package: A tool to access the Botanical Information and Ecology Network (BIEN) database. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 373–379 (2017).
Phillips, S. J. & Dudik, M. Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography 31, 161–175 (2008).
Merow, C. & Silander, J. A. A comparison of Maxlike and Maxent for modelling species distributions. Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 215–225 (2014).
Aiello-Lammens, M. E., Boria, R. A., Radosavljevic, A., Vilela, B. & Anderson, R. P. spThin: an R package for spatial thinning of species occurrence records for use in ecological niche models. Ecography 38, 541–545 (2015).
Grubbs, F. E. Sample criteria for testing outlying observations. Ann. Math. Statist. 21, 27–58 (1950).
Komsta, L. outliers: Tests for outliers. R package v.0.14 (2011).
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).
Hijmans, R. J., Cameron, S. E., Parra, J. L., Jones, P. G. & Jarvis, A. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 25, 1965–1978 (2005).
Mueller-Dombois, D. & Ellenberg, H. Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology (Wiley, 1974).
Friedman, J., Hastie, T. & Tibshirani, R. glmnet: Lasso and elastic-net regularized generalized linear models. R package v.4.0-2 (2020).
Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. P. & Schapire, R. E. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Modell. 190, 231–259 (2006).
Drake, J. M. Range bagging: a new method for ecological niche modelling from presence-only data. J. R. Soc. Interface 12, 20150086 (2015).
Cardoso, D. et al. Amazon plant diversity revealed by a taxonomically verified species list. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 10695–10700 (2017).
Warton, D. I. & Shepherd, L. C. Poisson point process models solve the “pseudo-absence problem” for presence-only data in ecology. Ann. Appl. Stat. 4, 1383–1402 (2010).
Renner, I. W. et al. Point process models for presence-only analysis. Methods Ecol. Evol. 6, 366–379 (2015).
Dinerstein, E. et al. An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. Bioscience 67, 534–545 (2017).
Roberts, D. R. et al. Cross-validation strategies for data with temporal, spatial, hierarchical, or phylogenetic structure. Ecography 40, 913–929 (2016).
Phillips, S. J. Transferability, sample selection bias and background data in presence-only modelling: a response to Peterson et al. (2007). Ecography 31, 272–278 (2008).
Merow, C., Smith, M. J. & Silander, J. A. Jr. A practical guide to MaxEnt for modeling species’ distributions: what it does, and why inputs and settings matter. Ecography 36, 1058–1069 (2013).
Qiao, H. et al. An evaluation of transferability of ecological niche models. Ecography 42, 521–534 (2019).
Peterson, A. T., Papeş, M. & Soberón, J. Rethinking receiver operating characteristic analysis applications in ecological niche modeling. Ecol. Modell. 213, 63–72 (2008).
Allouche, O., Tsoar, A. & Kadmon, R. Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: prevalence, kappa and the true skill statistic (TSS). J. Appl. Ecol. 43, 1223–1232 (2006).
Jung, M. et al. Areas of global importance for terrestrial biodiversity, carbon, and water. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.16.021444 (2020).
Carlson, C. J. et al. Climate change will drive novel cross-species viral transmission. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.24.918755 (2020).
BirdLife International. IUCN Red List for Birds http://www.birdlife.org (2019).
Brooks, T. M. et al. Measuring terrestrial area of habitat (AOH) and its utility for the IUCN Red List. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 977–986 (2019).
de Area Leão Pereira, E. J., de Santana Ribeiro, L. C., da Silva Freitas, L. F. & de Barros Pereira, H. B. Brazilian policy and agribusiness damage the Amazon rainforest. Land Use Policy 92, 104491 (2020).
Garcia, R. T. After Brazil’s summer of fire, the militarization of the Amazon remains. Foreign Policy https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/19/militarization-amazon-legacy-brazil-forest-fire-bolsonaro/ (19 November 2019).
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).
Feldpausch, T. R. et al. Amazon forest response to repeated droughts. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 30, 964–982 (2016).
Marin, P.-G., Julio, C. J., Arturo, R.-T. D. & Jose, V.-N. D. Drought and spatiotemporal variability of forest fires across Mexico. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 28, 25–37 (2018).
Adams, H. D. et al. Temperature sensitivity of drought-induced tree mortality portends increased regional die-off under global-change-type drought. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 7063–7066 (2009).
We acknowledge the herbaria that contributed data to this work: HA, FCO, MFU, UNEX, VDB, ASDM, BPI, BRI, CLF, L, LPB, AD, TAES, FEN, FHO, A, ANSM, BCMEX, RB, TRH, AAH, ACOR, AJOU, UI, AK, ALCB, AKPM, EA, AAU, ALU, AMES, AMNH, AMO, ANA, GH, ARAN, ARM, AS, CICY, ASU, BAI, AUT, B, BA, BAA, BAB, BACP, BAF, BAL, COCA, BARC, BBS, BC, BCN, BCRU, BEREA, BG, BH, BIO, BISH, SEV, BLA, BM, MJG, BOL, CVRD, BOLV, BONN, BOUM, BR, BREM, BRLU, BSB, BUT, C, CAMU, CAN, CANB, CAS, CAY, CBG, CBM, CEN, CEPEC, CESJ, CHR, ENCB, CHRB, CIIDIR, CIMI, CLEMS, COA, COAH, COFC, CP, COL, COLO, CONC, CORD, CPAP, CPUN, CR, CRAI, FURB, CU, CRP, CS, CSU, CTES, CTESN, CUZ, DAO, HB, DAV, DLF, DNA, DS, DUKE, DUSS, E, HUA, EAC, ECU, EIF, EIU, GI, GLM, GMNHJ, K, GOET, GUA, EKY, EMMA, HUAZ, ERA, ESA, F, FAA, FAU, UVIC, FI, GZU, H, FLAS, FLOR, HCIB, FR, FTG, FUEL, G, GB, GDA, HPL, GENT, GEO, HUAA, HUJ, CGE, HAL, HAM, IAC, HAMAB, HAS, HAST, IB, HASU, HBG, IBUG, HBR, IEB, HGI, HIP, IBGE, ICEL, ICN, ILL, SF, NWOSU, HO, HRCB, HRP, HSS, HU, HUAL, HUEFS, HUEM, HUSA, HUT, IAA, HYO, IAN, ILLS, IPRN, FCQ, ABH, BAFC, BBB, INPA, IPA, BO, NAS, INB, INEGI, INM, MW, EAN, IZTA, ISKW, ISC, GAT, IBSC, UCSB, ISU, IZAC, JBAG, JE, SD, JUA, JYV, KIEL, ECON, TOYA, MPN, USF, TALL, RELC, CATA, AQP, KMN, KMNH, KOR, KPM, KSTC, LAGU, UESC, GRA, IBK, KTU, KU, PSU, KYO, LA, LOMA, SUU, UNITEC, NAC, IEA, LAE, LAF, GMDRC, LCR, LD, LE, LEB, LI, LIL, LINN, AV, HUCP, MBML, FAUC, CNH, MACF, CATIE, LTB, LISI, LISU, MEXU, LL, LOJA, LP, LPAG, MGC, LPD, LPS, IRVC, MICH, JOTR, LSU, LBG, WOLL, LTR, MNHN, CDBI, LYJB, LISC, MOL, DBG, AWH, NH, HSC, LMS, MELU, NZFRI, M, MA, UU, UBT, CSUSB, MAF, MAK, MB, KUN, MARY, MASS, MBK, MBM, UCSC, UCS, JBGP, OBI, BESA, LSUM, FULD, MCNS, ICESI, MEL, MEN, TUB, MERL, CGMS, FSU, MG, HIB, TRT, BABY, ETH, YAMA, SCFS, SACT, ER, JCT, JROH, SBBG, SAV, PDD, MIN, SJSU, MISS, PAMP, MNHM, SDSU, BOTU, MPU, MSB, MSC, CANU, SFV, RSA, CNS, JEPS, BKF, MSUN, CIB, VIT, MU, MUB, MVFA, SLPM, MVFQ, PGM, MVJB, MVM, MY, PASA, N, HGM, TAM, BOON, MHA, MARS, COI, CMM, NA, NCSC, ND, NU, NE, NHM, NHMC, NHT, UFMA, NLH, UFRJ, UFRN, UFS, ULS, UNL, US, NMNL, USP, NMR, NMSU, XAL, NSW, ZMT, BRIT, MO, NCU, NY, TEX, U, UNCC, NUM, O, OCLA, CHSC, LINC, CHAS, ODU, OKL, OKLA, CDA, OS, OSA, OSC, OSH, OULU, OXF, P, PACA, PAR, UPS, PE, PEL, SGO, PEUFR, PH, PKDC, SI, PMA, POM, PORT, PR, PRC, TRA, PRE, PY, QMEX, QCA, TROM, QCNE, QRS, UH, R, REG, RFA, RIOC, RM, RNG, RYU, S, SALA, SANT, SAPS, SASK, SBT, SEL, SING, SIU, SJRP, SMDB, SNM, SOM, SP, SRFA, SPF, STL, STU, SUVA, SVG, SZU, TAI, TAIF, TAMU, TAN, TEF, TENN, TEPB, TI, TKPM, TNS, TO, TU, TULS, UADY, UAM, UAS, UB, UC, UCR, UEC, UFG, UFMT, UFP, UGDA, UJAT, ULM, UME, UMO, UNA, UNM, UNR, UNSL, UPCB, UPNA, USAS, USJ, USM, USNC, USZ, UT, UTC, UTEP, UV, VAL, VEN, VMSL, VT, W, WAG, WII, WELT, WIS, WMNH, WS, WTU, WU, Z, ZSS, ZT, CUVC, AAS, AFS, BHCB, CHAM, FM, PERTH and SAN. X.F., D.S.P., E.A.N., A.L. and J.R.B. were supported by the University of Arizona Bridging Biodiversity and Conservation Science program. Z.L. was supported by NSFC (41922006) and K. C. Wong Education Foundation. The BIEN working group was supported by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, a centre funded by NSF EF-0553768 at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the State of California. Additional support for the BIEN working group was provided by iPlant/Cyverse via NSF DBI-0735191. B.J.E., B.M. and C.M. were supported by NSF ABI-1565118. B.J.E. and C.M. were supported by NSF ABI-1565118 and NSF HDR-1934790. B.J.E., L.H. and P.R.R. were supported by the Global Environment Facility SPARC project grant (GEF-5810). D.D.B. was supported in part by NSF DEB-1824796 and NSF DEB-1550686. S.R.S. was supported by NSF DEB-1754803. X.F. and A.L. were partly supported by NSF DEB-1824796. B.J.E. and D.M.N. were supported by NSF DEB-1556651. M.M.P. is supported by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP), grant 2019/25478-7. D.M.N. was supported by Instituto Serrapilheira/Brazil (Serra-1912-32082). E.I.N. was supported by NSF HDR-1934712. We thank L. López-Hoffman and L. Baldwin for constructive comments.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information Nature thanks the anonymous reviewers 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 figures and tables
a–h, Visualization of fire-impacted forest (a, b), forest loss without fire (c, d), fire-impacted forest with forest loss (e, f), and fire-impacted forest without forest loss (g, h) in the Amazon Basin based on MODIS burned area (left panels) and active fire (right panels). Data in a–d are resampled from the 500m (MODIS burned area) or 1 km (MODIS active fire) to 10 km resolution using mean function and thresholded at 0.01 to illustrate the temporal dynamics. Black represents non-forested areas masked out from this study. The cumulative fire-impacted forest is classified into two categories: fire-impacted forest with forest loss (e, f) and fire-impacted forest without forest loss (g, h). Data in e–h are resampled to 10 km using mean function to illustrate the cumulative percentages of impacts.
Scatter plot of species’ range size in Amazon forest (x-axis) and percentage of total range impacted by fire (red) and forest loss without fire (black) up to 2019 for plants (left panel) and vertebrates (right panel).
Density plot of species’ cumulative range impacted by fire. The different colours represent years 2001-2019. The x-axis is log10 transformed.
Areas of forest impact in the Amazon Basin estimated from MODIS burned area (top) and MODIS active fire (bottom).
Cumulative effects of forest loss without fire on biodiversity in the Amazon rainforest. In the left panels, the black and grey shading represent the cumulative forest loss without fire based on MODIS burned area and MODIS active fire, respectively. Coloured areas represent the lower and upper bounds of cumulative numbers of a, plant and c, vertebrate species’ ranges impacted. Right panels depict the relationships between the cumulative forest loss without fire (based on MODIS burned area) and cumulative number of b, plant and d, vertebrate species. Coloured lines represent predicted values of an ordinary least squares linear regression and grey bands define the two-sided 95% confidence interval (two-sided, p values = 0.00). The silhouette of the tree is from http://phylopic.org/; silhouette of the monkey is courtesy of Mathias M. Pires.
Newly fire-impacted forest in Brazil (based on MODIS active fire). a shows the area of fire-impacted forest not explained by drought conditions. Different colours represent years from different policy regimes: pre-regulations in light red (mean value in dark red), regulation in grey (mean value in black dashed line), and 2019 in blue. The y-axis represents the difference between actual area and area predicted by drought conditions calibrated by data from regulation years (Methods). A positive value on the y-axis represents more area than expected, using the regulation years as a baseline. b shows a scatter plot of newly fire-impacted forest in Brazil and drought conditions (SPEI); The lines represent the ordinary least squares linear regression between fire-impacted forest and drought conditions for pre-regulation (red) and regulation (black) respectively.
The contribution (0–1) of different countries to the newly fire-impacted forest each year based on MODIS active fire (top) and MODIS burned area (bottom).
a, Newly fire-impacted forest, b, new range impact on plants and c, new range impacts on vertebrate species in Brazil each year (based on MODIS active fire) that are not predicted by drought conditions. The colours represent three policy regimes: pre-regulation in red, regulation in grey and 2019 in blue. The y-axis represents the difference between actual value (area or range impacted by fire) and the values predicted by drought conditions calibrated by data from regulation years (Methods). A positive value on the y-axis represents more area or range impacted by fire than the expectation using the regulation years as a baseline. The dotted lines represent a smooth curve fitted to the values based on the loess method.
About this article
Cite this article
Feng, X., Merow, C., Liu, Z. et al. How deregulation, drought and increasing fire impact Amazonian biodiversity. Nature 597, 516–521 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03876-7