Widespread Amazon forest tree mortality from a single cross‐basin squall line event
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate change is expected to increase the intensity of extreme precipitation events in Amazonia that in turn might produce more forest blowdowns associated with convective storms. Yet quantitative tree mortality associated with convective storms has never been reported across Amazonia, representing an important additional source of carbon to the atmosphere. Here we demonstrate that a single squall line (aligned cluster of convective storm cells) propagating across Amazonia in January, 2005, caused widespread forest tree mortality and may have contributed to the elevated mortality observed that year. Forest plot data demonstrated that the same year represented the second highest mortality rate over a 15‐year annual monitoring interval. Over the Manaus region, disturbed forest patches generated by the squall followed a power‐law distribution (scaling exponent α = 1.48) and produced a mortality of 0.3–0.5 million trees, equivalent to 30% of the observed annual deforestation reported in 2005 over the same area. Basin‐wide, potential tree mortality from this one event was estimated at 542 ± 121 million trees, equivalent to 23% of the mean annual biomass accumulation estimated for these forests. Our results highlight the vulnerability of Amazon trees to wind‐driven mortality associated with convective storms. Storm intensity is expected to increase with a warming climate, which would result in additional tree mortality and carbon release to the atmosphere, with the potential to further warm the climate system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".