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.

Upturn in secondary forest clearing buffers primary forest loss in the Brazilian Amazon


Brazil contains two-thirds of remaining Amazonian rainforests and is responsible for the most Amazon forest loss. Primary forest loss in the Brazilian Amazon has declined considerably since 2004 but secondary forest loss has never been quantified. We use a recently developed high-resolution land use/land cover dataset to track secondary forests in the Brazilian Amazon over 14 yr, providing the first estimates of secondary forest loss for the region. We find that secondary forest loss increased by (187 ± 48)% from 2008 to 2014. Moreover, the proportion of total forest loss accounted for by secondary forests rose from (37 ± 3)% in 2000 to (72 ± 5)% in 2014. The recent acceleration in secondary forests loss occurred across the entire region and was not driven simply by increasing secondary forest area but probably a conscious preferential shift towards clearance of a little-protected forest ecosystem (secondary forests). Our results suggest that secondary forests loss has eased deforestation pressure on primary forests. However, this has been at the expense of a lost carbon sequestration opportunity of 2.59–2.66 Pg C over our study period.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Sample-based estimates of annual primary and secondary forest loss in the Brazilian Amazon from 2000 to 2014.
Fig. 2: Spatio-temporal variation of secondary forest loss as fraction of total forest loss in the Brazilian Amazon.
Fig. 3: Distribution of percentage loss rate of secondary forests by age group (0–4 yr, 4–8 yr and >8 yr).
Fig. 4: Comparison of secondary forest loss between actual estimates from TERRACLASS and null model predictions.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the paper or from the supplementary materials. The TERRACLASS dataset used in current study is freely available from

Code availability

The Google Earth Engine (GEE) codes analysed during current study are available in Y.W.’s GEE repository:


  1. 1.

    Dirzo, R. & Raven, P. H. Global state of biodiversity and loss. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 28, 137–167 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    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).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Spracklen, D. V., Arnold, S. R. & Taylor, C. Observations of increased tropical rainfall preceded by air passage over forests. Nature 489, 282–285 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Amazonia under Pressure (RAISG, 2012);

  7. 7.

    PRODES: Monitoramento de Floresta Amazonica Brasileira por Satelite (INPE, 2018);

  8. 8.

    Maia, H., Hargrave, J., Gómez, J. J. & Röper, M. Avaliação do Plano de Ação para Prevenção e Controle do Desmatamento na Amazônia Legal: PPCDAm: 2007-2010 (CEPAL, IPEA, GIZ, 2011);

  9. 9.

    Assunção, J., Gandour, C. & Rocha, R. DETERring Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: Environmental Monitoring and Law Enforcement (Climate Policy Initiative, 2013).

  10. 10.

    Gibbs, H. K. et al. Brazil’s soy moratorium. Science 347, 377–378 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Rudorff, B. F. T. et al. The soy moratorium in the Amazon biome monitored by remote sensing images. Remote Sens. 3, 185–202 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Gibbs, H. K. et al. Did ranchers and slaughterhouses respond to zero‐deforestation agreements in the Brazilian Amazon? Conserv. Lett. 9, 32–42 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Massoca, P. E. D. S., Delaroche, M. & Lui, G. in Zero Deforestation: A Commitment to Change (eds Pasiecznik, N. & Herman Savenije, H.) 151–159 (Tropenbos International, 2017).

  14. 14.

    Almeida, C. Ad et al. High spatial resolution land use and land cover mapping of the Brazilian Legal Amazon in 2008 using Landsat-5/TM and MODIS data. Acta Amazonica 46, 291–302 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Poorter, L. et al. Biomass resilience of neotropical secondary forests. Nature 530, 211–214 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Kato, O., Kato, M. d. S., Sa, T. d. A. & Figueiredo, R. Plantio direto na capoeira. Ciência e Ambiente 29, 99–111 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Carvalho, R., Adami, M., Amaral, S., Bezerra, F. G. & de Aguiar, A. P. D. Changes in secondary vegetation dynamics in a context of decreasing deforestation rates in Pará, Brazilian Amazon. Appl. Geogr. 106, 40–49 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Olofsson, P. et al. Good practices for estimating area and assessing accuracy of land change. Remote Sens. Environ. 148, 42–57 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Tyukavina, A. et al. Types and rates of forest disturbance in Brazilian Legal Amazon, 2000–2013. Sci. Adv. 3, e1601047 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Cordeiro, I. M. C. C., Rangel-Vasconcelos, L. G. T. & Schwartz, G. in Nordeste Paraense: Panorama Geral e Uso Sustentável das Florestas Secundárias (eds Cordeiro, I. M. C. C. et al.) 163–190 (EDUFRA, 2017).

  22. 22.

    Aguiar, A. P. D. et al. Land use change emission scenarios: anticipating a forest transition process in the Brazilian Amazon. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 1821–1840 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Vieira, I. C. G., Gardner, T., Ferreira, J., Lees, A. C. & Barlow, J. Challenges of governing second-growth forests: a case study from the Brazilian Amazonian State of Pará. Forests 5, 1737–1752 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Instrucao Normativa Sema No. 08, DE 28-10-2015 (Pará State, 2015);

  25. 25.

    Gibson, L. et al. Primary forests are irreplaceable for sustaining tropical biodiversity. Nature 478, 378–381 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Brockerhoff, E. G., Jactel, H., Parrotta, J. A., Quine, C. P. & Sayer, J. Plantation forests and biodiversity: oxymoron or opportunity? Biodivers. Conserv. 17, 925–951 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Lennox, G. D. et al. Second rate or a second chance? Assessing biomass and biodiversity recovery in regenerating Amazonian forests. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 5680–5694 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Martin, P. A., Newton, A. C. & Bullock, J. M. Carbon pools recover more quickly than plant biodiversity in tropical secondary forests. Proc. R. Soc. B 280, 20132236 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) (UNFCCC, 2015).

  30. 30.

    CO 2 Emissions (Metric Tons per Capita) (World Bank, 2014).

  31. 31.

    Correcting the PRODES Mask (INPE, 2017);

  32. 32.

    Olofsson, P., Foody, G. M., Stehman, S. V. & Woodcock, C. E. Making better use of accuracy data in land change studies: estimating accuracy and area and quantifying uncertainty using stratified estimation. Remote Sens. Environ. 129, 122–131 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Arévalo, P., Olofsson, P. & Woodcock, C. E. Continuous monitoring of land change activities and post-disturbance dynamics from Landsat time series: a test methodology for REDD+ reporting. Remote Sens. Environ. (2019).

  34. 34.

    Saah, D. et al. Collect Earth: an online tool for systematic reference data collection in land cover and use applications. Environ. Model. Softw. 118, 166–171 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Batterman, S. A. et al. Key role of symbiotic dinitrogen fixation in tropical forest secondary succession. Nature 502, 224–227 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


This work was funded by a China Scholarship Council/University of Leeds grant to Y.W. (grant no. 201506300051), a Google Earth Engine Research Award (2016) to G.Z. and D.G., a NERC-funded standard grant to D.G. (TREMOR project grant no. NE/N004655/1), a Royal Society Newton Advanced Fellowship to M.A. (NAF/R1/180405) and a Horizon 2020 programme grant to G.Z. (ECOPOTENTIAL project grant no. 641762). We thank M.A., L. Santos and T. Lisboa for the contribution of visual interpretation of our sampling pixels. We thank the many dedicated staff at INPE and EMBRAPA who produce the PRODES and TERRACLASS products; these efforts are critical for understanding land use change dynamics in the Brazilian Amazon. We thank T. Baker and S. Batterman for providing useful feedback on an earlier version of the manuscript.

Author information




Y.W., D.G. and G.Z. developed the concept and methodological work plan. Y.W. performed the data analysis with support from G.Z. and D.G. M.A., C.A.A., J.F.G.A., A.C.C., J.C.D.M.E. and A.R.G. coordinated the development of the TERRACLASS products. M.A. performed visual interpretation of the sampled pixels for sample-based estimates, with L. Santos and T. Lisboa (mentioned in Acknowledgements). Y.W., D.G. and G.Z. wrote the paper with contributions from M.A. All authors discussed results and commented on the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yunxia Wang or David Galbraith.

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 Figs. 1–4, Tables 1–12 and refs. 1 and 2.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, Y., Ziv, G., Adami, M. et al. Upturn in secondary forest clearing buffers primary forest loss in the Brazilian Amazon. Nat Sustain 3, 290–295 (2020).

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