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.

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

  • 3,132
    views
  • 597
    downloads
  • 50
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

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
    2. Neuroscience
    Kathleen T Quach, Gillian A Hughes, Sreekanth H Chalasani
    Research Article

    Prey must balance predator avoidance with feeding, a central dilemma in prey refuge theory. Additionally, prey must assess predatory imminence—how close threats are in space and time. Predatory imminence theory classifies defensive behaviors into three defense modes: pre-encounter, post-encounter, and circa-strike, corresponding to increasing levels of threat—–suspecting, detecting, and contacting a predator. Although predatory risk often varies in spatial distribution and imminence, how these factors intersect to influence defensive behaviors is poorly understood. Integrating these factors into a naturalistic environment enables comprehensive analysis of multiple defense modes in consistent conditions. Here, we combine prey refuge and predatory imminence theories to develop a model system of nematode defensive behaviors, with Caenorhabditis elegans as prey and Pristionchus pacificus as predator. In a foraging environment comprised of a food-rich, high-risk patch and a food-poor, low-risk refuge, C. elegans innately exhibits circa-strike behaviors. With experience, it learns post- and pre-encounter behaviors that proactively anticipate threats. These defense modes intensify with predator lethality, with only life-threatening predators capable of eliciting all three modes. SEB-3 receptors and NLP-49 peptides, key stress regulators, vary in their impact and interdependence across defense modes. Overall, our model system reveals fine-grained insights into how stress-related signaling regulates defensive behaviors.

    1. Ecology
    Laura Fargeot, Camille Poesy ... Blanchet Simon
    Research Article

    Understanding the relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning stands as a cornerstone in ecological research. Extensive evidence now underscores the profound impact of species loss on the stability and dynamics of ecosystem functions. However, it remains unclear whether the loss of genetic diversity within key species yields similar consequences. Here, we delve into the intricate relationship between species diversity, genetic diversity, and ecosystem functions across three trophic levels – primary producers, primary consumers, and secondary consumers – in natural aquatic ecosystems. Our investigation involves estimating species diversity and genome-wide diversity – gauged within three pivotal species – within each trophic level, evaluating seven key ecosystem functions, and analyzing the magnitude of the relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem functions (BEFs). We found that, overall, the absolute effect size of genetic diversity on ecosystem functions mirrors that of species diversity in natural ecosystems. We nonetheless unveil a striking dichotomy: while genetic diversity was positively correlated with various ecosystem functions, species diversity displays a negative correlation with these functions. These intriguing antagonist effects of species and genetic diversity persist across the three trophic levels (underscoring its systemic nature), but were apparent only when BEFs were assessed within trophic levels rather than across them. This study reveals the complexity of predicting the consequences of genetic and species diversity loss under natural conditions, and emphasizes the need for further mechanistic models integrating these two facets of biodiversity.