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

  • 2,990
    views
  • 577
    downloads
  • 45
    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. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Ecology
    Kazushi Tsutsui, Ryoya Tanaka ... Keisuke Fujii
    Research Article

    Collaborative hunting, in which predators play different and complementary roles to capture prey, has been traditionally believed to be an advanced hunting strategy requiring large brains that involve high-level cognition. However, recent findings that collaborative hunting has also been documented in smaller-brained vertebrates have placed this previous belief under strain. Here, using computational multi-agent simulations based on deep reinforcement learning, we demonstrate that decisions underlying collaborative hunts do not necessarily rely on sophisticated cognitive processes. We found that apparently elaborate coordination can be achieved through a relatively simple decision process of mapping between states and actions related to distance-dependent internal representations formed by prior experience. Furthermore, we confirmed that this decision rule of predators is robust against unknown prey controlled by humans. Our computational ecological results emphasize that collaborative hunting can emerge in various intra- and inter-specific interactions in nature, and provide insights into the evolution of sociality.

    1. Ecology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Théo Constant, F Stephen Dobson ... Sylvain Giroud
    Research Article

    Seasonal animal dormancy is widely interpreted as a physiological response for surviving energetic challenges during the harshest times of the year (the physiological constraint hypothesis). However, there are other mutually non-exclusive hypotheses to explain the timing of animal dormancy, that is, entry into and emergence from hibernation (i.e. dormancy phenology). Survival advantages of dormancy that have been proposed are reduced risks of predation and competition (the ‘life-history’ hypothesis), but comparative tests across animal species are few. Using the phylogenetic comparative method applied to more than 20 hibernating mammalian species, we found support for both hypotheses as explanations for the phenology of dormancy. In accordance with the life-history hypotheses, sex differences in hibernation emergence and immergence were favored by the sex difference in reproductive effort. In addition, physiological constraint may influence the trade-off between survival and reproduction such that low temperatures and precipitation, as well as smaller body mass, influence sex differences in phenology. We also compiled initial evidence that ectotherm dormancy may be (1) less temperature dependent than previously thought and (2) associated with trade-offs consistent with the life-history hypothesis. Thus, dormancy during non-life-threatening periods that are unfavorable for reproduction may be more widespread than previously thought.