| Literature DB >> 32076648 |
Jean-Pierre Wigneron1, Lei Fan1,2, Philippe Ciais3, Ana Bastos4, Martin Brandt5, Jérome Chave6, Sassan Saatchi7,8, Alessandro Baccini9,10, Rasmus Fensholt5.
Abstract
Severe drought and extreme heat associated with the 2015-2016 El Niño event have led to large carbon emissions from the tropical vegetation to the atmosphere. With the return to normal climatic conditions in 2017, tropical forest aboveground carbon (AGC) stocks are expected to partly recover due to increased productivity, but the intensity and spatial distribution of this recovery are unknown. We used low-frequency microwave satellite data (L-VOD) to feature precise monitoring of AGC changes and show that the AGC recovery of tropical ecosystems was slow and that by the end of 2017, AGC had not reached predrought levels of 2014. From 2014 to 2017, tropical AGC stocks decreased by 1.3 1.2 1.5 Pg C due to persistent AGC losses in Africa ( - 0.9 - 1.1 - 0.8 Pg C) and America ( - 0.5 - 0.6 - 0.4 Pg C). Pantropically, drylands recovered their carbon stocks to pre-El Niño levels, but African and American humid forests did not, suggesting carryover effects from enhanced forest mortality.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32076648 PMCID: PMC7002128 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aay4603
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Adv ISSN: 2375-2548 Impact factor: 14.136
Fig. 1Anomalies of AGC stocks estimated from the L-VOD index in tropical regions.
(A), (C), (E), and (G) are time variations in annual AGC over the pantropical, tropical Africa, tropical America, and tropical Asia regions, respectively. In each region, AGC changes are separated (B, D, F, and H) into three biome groups [including (i) forests, (ii) shrublands and savannas, and (iii) grasslands and croplands] using a classification based on MODIS IGBP 2001–2010. The background shading shows the intensity of La Niña (blue) and El Niño (red) events defined by the multivariate ENSO index (MEI). The AGC anomalies at the continental scale were computed by summing the deseasonalized AGC anomalies estimated separately over each pixel. The latter was computed at the pixel scale, by estimating the time series of AGC to which we removed the average seasonal cycle of AGC. This average cycle was computed over 2010–2017. AGC stocks were computed from the L-VOD index (see the Supplementary Materials).
AGC (Pg) changes over the whole tropics and over tropical regions of Africa, America, and Asia.
Changes are given (positive sign for a CO2 land surface sink) between two periods in time given in the first column (for instance, 2014/2015–2016 corresponds to the change in AGC between year 2014 and the period 2015–2016). As in (), the range in brackets represents the minimum and maximum of AGC changes estimated by 10 calibrations (see the Supplementary Materials).
| 2014/2015–2016 | −1.63 | −0.91 | −0.66 | −0.06 |
| 2015–2016/2017 | +0.30 | −0.04 | +0.17 | +0.17 |
| 2016/2017 | +0.89 | +0.06 | +0.50 | +0.33 |
| 2014/2017 | −1.33 | −0.94 | −0.49 | +0.11 |
| 2010–2017/2017 | −0.53 | −0.35 | −0.43 | +0.25 |
Fig. 2Spatial patterns of AGC changes corresponding to “El Niño” and “Recovery.”
AGC changes (A) from 2014 to 2015–2016 (ΔAGCEN) and (B) from 2015–2016 to 2017 (ΔAGCR) (subscripts “R” and “EN” mean “recovery” and “El Niño,” respectively). In (C), the recovery strength was estimated as the ratio ΔAGCR/ΔAGCEN and expressed in percentage. AGC stocks were computed from the L-VOD index as described in the Supplementary Materials. Masked pixels (gray) correspond to pixels where no recovery was identified, namely, pixels where either ΔAGCEN > −1 Mg C ha−1 (no losses or very low losses during El Niño 2015–2016) or ΔAGCR < 0 (no recovery in 2017). White areas correspond to areas where no L-VOD data were available after applying quality flag filtering criteria (see the Supplementary Materials).
Fig. 3Map of the AGC “recovery” date.
The date was defined here as the date of the minimum value in the AGC stocks over year 2016. To ensure that this date corresponded well to a minimum (the inflexion point in the AGC anomaly curve), we excluded recovery dates at the very beginning or at the very end of 2016. Gray and white areas are defined in the caption of Fig. 2. An estimate of the uncertainty value associated with the recovery date is presented in the Supplementary Materials.