Carbon recovery dynamics following disturbance by selective logging in Amazonian forests

  1. Camille Piponiot  Is a corresponding author
  2. Plinio Sist
  3. Lucas Mazzei
  4. Marielos Peña-Claros
  5. Francis E Putz
  6. Ervan Rutishauser
  7. Alexander Shenkin
  8. Nataly Ascarrunz
  9. Celso P de Azevedo
  10. Christopher Baraloto
  11. Mabiane França
  12. Marcelino Guedes
  13. Eurídice N Honorio Coronado
  14. Marcus VN d'Oliveira
  15. Ademir R Ruschel
  16. Kátia E da Silva
  17. Eleneide Doff Sotta
  18. Cintia R de Souza
  19. Edson Vidal
  20. Thales AP West
  21. Bruno Hérault  Is a corresponding author
  1. Université de la Guyane, UMR EcoFoG, France
  2. Cirad, UR Forests and Societies, France
  3. Embrapa Amazônia Oriental, Brazil
  4. Wageningen University, Netherlands
  5. University of Florida, United States
  6. CarbonForExpert, Switzerland
  7. University of Oxford, United Kingdom
  8. Instituto Boliviano de Investigación Forestal, Bolivia
  9. Embrapa Amazônia Ocidental, Brazil
  10. Florida International University, United States
  11. Embrapa Amapa, Brazil
  12. Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonia Peruana, Peru
  13. Embrapa Acre, Brazil
  14. University of São Paulo, Brazil
  15. Cirad, UMR EcoFoG, France

Abstract

When 2 Mha of Amazonian forests are disturbed by selective logging each year, more than 90 Tg of carbon (C) is emitted to the atmosphere. Emissions are then counterbalanced by forest regrowth. With an original modelling approach, calibrated on a network of 133 permanent forest plots (175 ha total) across Amazonia, we link regional differences in climate, soil and initial biomass with survivors' and recruits' C fluxes to provide Amazon-wide predictions of post-logging C recovery. We show that net aboveground C recovery over 10 years is higher in the Guiana Shield and in the west (21{plus minus}3 MgC ha-1) than in the south (12{plus minus}3 MgC ha-1) where environmental stress is high (low rainfall, high seasonality). We highlight the key role of survivors in the forest regrowth and elaborate a comprehensive map of post-disturbance C recovery potential in Amazonia.

Data availability

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Camille Piponiot

    Université de la Guyane, UMR EcoFoG, Kourou, France
    For correspondence
    camille.piponiot@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3473-1982
  2. Plinio Sist

    Cirad, UR Forests and Societies, Montpellier, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Lucas Mazzei

    Oriental, Embrapa Amazônia Oriental, Belém, Brazil
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Marielos Peña-Claros

    Forest Ecology and Forest Management Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Francis E Putz

    Department of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Ervan Rutishauser

    CarbonForExpert, Hermance, Switzerland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Alexander Shenkin

    Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Nataly Ascarrunz

    Instituto Boliviano de Investigación Forestal, Santa Cruz, Bolivia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Celso P de Azevedo

    Embrapa Amazônia Ocidental, Belém, Brazil
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Christopher Baraloto

    International Center for Tropical Botany, Florida International University, Miami, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Mabiane França

    Embrapa Amazônia Ocidental, Belém, Brazil
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Marcelino Guedes

    Embrapa Amapa, Macapa, Brazil
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Eurídice N Honorio Coronado

    Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonia Peruana, Iquitos, Peru
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2314-590X
  14. Marcus VN d'Oliveira

    Embrapa Acre, Rio Branco, Brazil
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Ademir R Ruschel

    Embrapa Amazônia Ocidental, Belém, Brazil
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Kátia E da Silva

    Embrapa Amazônia Ocidental, Belém, Brazil
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Eleneide Doff Sotta

    Embrapa Amapa, Macapa, Brazil
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Cintia R de Souza

    Embrapa Amazônia Ocidental, Belém, Brazil
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Edson Vidal

    Departamento de Ciências Florestais, University of São Paulo, Piracicaba, Brazil
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Thales AP West

    Department of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. Bruno Hérault

    Cirad, UMR EcoFoG, Kourou, France
    For correspondence
    Bruno.Herault@ecofog.gf
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Funding

Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-10-LABEX-0025)

  • Camille Piponiot

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP: 2013/16262-4 and 2013/50718-5)

  • Edson Vidal

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Susan Trumbore, Max-Planck-Institute for Biogeochemistry, Germany

Version history

  1. Received: September 10, 2016
  2. Accepted: December 8, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: December 20, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: January 4, 2017 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2016, Piponiot et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,969
    Page views
  • 573
    Downloads
  • 45
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, PubMed Central.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Camille Piponiot
  2. Plinio Sist
  3. Lucas Mazzei
  4. Marielos Peña-Claros
  5. Francis E Putz
  6. Ervan Rutishauser
  7. Alexander Shenkin
  8. Nataly Ascarrunz
  9. Celso P de Azevedo
  10. Christopher Baraloto
  11. Mabiane França
  12. Marcelino Guedes
  13. Eurídice N Honorio Coronado
  14. Marcus VN d'Oliveira
  15. Ademir R Ruschel
  16. Kátia E da Silva
  17. Eleneide Doff Sotta
  18. Cintia R de Souza
  19. Edson Vidal
  20. Thales AP West
  21. Bruno Hérault
(2016)
Carbon recovery dynamics following disturbance by selective logging in Amazonian forests
eLife 5:e21394.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21394

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21394

Further reading

    1. Ecology
    Luca Casiraghi, Francesco Mambretti ... Tommaso Bellini
    Research Article

    The understanding of eco-evolutionary dynamics, and in particular the mechanism of coexistence of species, is still fragmentary and in need of test bench model systems. To this aim we developed a variant of SELEX in vitro selection to study the evolution of a population of ∼1015 single-strand DNA oligonucleotide ‘individuals’. We begin with a seed of random sequences which we select via affinity capture from ∼1012 DNA oligomers of fixed sequence (‘resources’) over which they compete. At each cycle (‘generation’), the ecosystem is replenished via PCR amplification of survivors. Massive parallel sequencing indicates that across generations the variety of sequences (‘species’) drastically decreases, while some of them become populous and dominate the ecosystem. The simplicity of our approach, in which survival is granted by hybridization, enables a quantitative investigation of fitness through a statistical analysis of binding energies. We find that the strength of individual resource binding dominates the selection in the first generations, while inter- and intra-individual interactions become important in later stages, in parallel with the emergence of prototypical forms of mutualism and parasitism.

    1. Ecology
    Yongzhi Yan, Scott Jarvie, Qing Zhang
    Research Article

    Habitat loss and fragmentation per se have been shown to be a major threat to global biodiversity and ecosystem function. However, little is known about how habitat loss and fragmentation per se alters the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem function (BEF relationship) in the natural landscape context. Based on 130 landscapes identified by a stratified random sampling in the agro-pastoral ecotone of northern China, we investigated the effects of landscape context (habitat loss and fragmentation per se) on plant richness, above-ground biomass, and the relationship between them in grassland communities using a structural equation model. We found that habitat loss directly decreased plant richness and hence decreased above-ground biomass, while fragmentation per se directly increased plant richness and hence increased above-ground biomass. Fragmentation per se also directly decreased soil water content and hence decreased above-ground biomass. Meanwhile, habitat loss decreased the magnitude of the positive relationship between plant richness and above-ground biomass by reducing the percentage of grassland specialists in the community, while fragmentation per se had no significant modulating effect on this relationship. These results demonstrate that habitat loss and fragmentation per se have inconsistent effects on BEF, with the BEF relationship being modulated by landscape context. Our findings emphasise that habitat loss rather than fragmentation per se can weaken the positive BEF relationship by decreasing the degree of habitat specialisation of the community.