PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15212092

Pattern and process in Amazon tree turnover, 1976-2001.

Abstract

Previous work has shown that tree turnover, tree biomass and large liana densities have increased in mature tropical forest plots in the late twentieth century. These results point to a concerted shift in forest ecological processes that may already be having significant impacts on terrestrial carbon stocks, fluxes and biodiversity. However, the findings have proved controversial, partly because a rather limited number of permanent plots have been monitored for rather short periods. The aim of this paper is to characterize regional-scale patterns of 'tree turnover' (the rate with which trees die and recruit into a population) by using improved datasets now available for Amazonia that span the past 25 years. Specifically, we assess whether concerted changes in turnover are occurring, and if so whether they are general throughout the Amazon or restricted to one region or environmental zone. In addition, we ask whether they are driven by changes in recruitment, mortality or both. We find that: (i) trees 10 cm or more in diameter recruit and die twice as fast on the richer soils of southern and western Amazonia than on the poorer soils of eastern and central Amazonia; (ii) turnover rates have increased throughout Amazonia over the past two decades; (iii) mortality and recruitment rates have both increased significantly in every region and environmental zone, with the exception of mortality in eastern Amazonia; (iv) recruitment rates have consistently exceeded mortality rates; (v) absolute increases in recruitment and mortality rates are greatest in western Amazonian sites; and (vi) mortality appears to be lagging recruitment at regional scales. These spatial patterns and temporal trends are not caused by obvious artefacts in the data or the analyses. The trends cannot be directly driven by a mortality driver (such as increased drought or fragmentation-related death) because the biomass in these forests has simultaneously increased. Our findings therefore indicate that long-acting and widespread environmental changes are stimulating the growth and productivity of Amazon forests.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

O L Phillips, T R Baker, L Arroyo, N Higuchi, T J Killeen, W F Laurance, S L Lewis, J Lloyd, Y Malhi, A Monteagudo, D A Neill, P Núñez Vargas, J N M Silva, J Terborgh, R Vásquez Martínez, M Alexiades, S Almeida, S Brown, J Chave, J A Comiskey, C I Czimczik, A Di Fiore, T Erwin, C Kuebler, S G Laurance, H E M Nascimento, J Olivier, W Palacios, S Patiño, N C A Pitman, C A Quesada, M Saldias, A Torres Lezama, B Vinceti. 2004-03-29. Pattern and process in Amazon tree turnover, 1976-2001.. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2003.1438

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Protecting tropical forests is more cost-effective for biodiversity and climate than restoration.

Halting deforestation and promoting restoration are at the core of strategies to confront the biodiversity and climate crises in tropical forests. Avoiding forest disturbances is also critically important but has received far less attention, and there is a lack of clarity about the relative cost-effectiveness of these three interventions. We compare the biodiversity and carbon benefits and costs associated with each intervention, comparing observed and counterfactual outcomes based on in-depth field assessments and high-resolution remote sensing in the Brazilian Amazon deforestation frontier. Avoidance interventions delivered the greatest benefits and were more cost-effective than restoration, with results being robust to a range of benefit and cost assumptions. However, combined interventions delivered the greatest gains and were essential to reverse biodiversity and carbon losses.

Biodiversity↗

Operationalizing Local Ecological Knowledge for Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation: A Systematic Review and Management Framework.

Effective conservation and management of aquatic biodiversity is severely constrained by the absence of long-term ecological data in small-scale, tropical, and data-poor fisheries, where roughly one-quarter to one-third of freshwater fish species and 37.5% of elasmobranchs are threatened with extinction once Data Deficient species are accounted for. Conventional monitoring and stock-assessment tools are often financially and technically inaccessible in these systems, leaving managers without the evidence needed to prioritize conservation action or implement precautionary governance. Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK) is a largely underutilized resource for natural resource management that can provide temporal depth, spatial resolution, and species-specific ecological insights unavailable from scientific records. We conducted a systematic review and bibliometric synthesis of 60 peer-reviewed studies (1997-2025) applying LEK to assess fish conservation status, examining how, where, and through what methods this knowledge has been used. Our analysis identifies four complementary pathways through which LEK informs conservation management: reconstructing multi-decadal population changes, documenting spatial contraction and habitat loss, detecting extreme rarity and local extirpation, and characterizing intrinsic sensitivity to exploitation based on life-history traits. Despite growing methodological rigor, freshwater systems and African fisheries remain critically underrepresented, and formal integration of LEK into fisheries governance and biodiversity assessment remains the exception rather than the rule. We propose a practical three-stage framework to operationalize LEK within existing management and conservation systems. Recognizing fishing communities as legitimate co-producers of ecological knowledge is both scientifically necessary and an equity imperative for achieving global biodiversity commitments under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

Biodiversity↗

What health are we talking about? Biodiversity as the missing link between One Health and Planetary Health.

Health has become a central term in global sustainability policy, yet it is often used without sufficient conceptual precision. Public health, global health, One Health, EcoHealth, GeoHealth, and Planetary Health each emphasize different dimensions of the relationship between humans, animals, and the environment. In policy contexts, however, these distinctions are frequently blurred. We argue that biodiversity is often treated as an environmental co-benefit rather than as a foundational determinant of health. This weakens the implementation of One Health approaches because biodiversity underpins disease regulation, immune system development, food and water security, ecosystem functioning, resilience, and climate adaptation. At the same time, biodiversity provides a critical link between One Health and broader Planetary Health challenges, including global environmental change and the transgression of planetary boundaries. Future health and sustainability policies should move beyond generic references to health and explicitly recognize biodiversity as part of preventive health systems.

Biodiversity↗