Deforestation in Latin America in the 2000s predominantly occurred outside of typical mature forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of tropical forests in the global carbon budget remains controversial, as carbon emissions from deforestation are highly uncertain. This high uncertainty arises from the use of either fixed forest carbon stock density or maps generated from satellite-based optical reflectance with limited sensitivity to biomass to generate accurate estimates of emissions from deforestation. New space missions aiming to accurately map the carbon stock density rely on direct measurements of the spatial structures of forests using lidar and radar. We found that lost forests are special cases, and their spatial structures can be directly measured by combining archived data acquired before and after deforestation by space missions principally aimed at measuring topography. Thus, using biomass mapping, we obtained new estimates of carbon loss from deforestation ahead of forthcoming space missions. Here, using a high-resolution map of forest loss and the synergy of radar and lidar to estimate the aboveground biomass density of forests, we found that deforestation in the 2000s in Latin America, one of the severely deforested regions, mainly occurred in forests with a significantly lower carbon stock density than typical mature forests. Deforestation areas with carbon stock densities lower than 20.0, 50.0, and 100.0 Mg C/ha accounted for 42.1%, 62.0%, and 83.3% of the entire deforested area, respectively. The average carbon stock density of lost forests was only 49.13 Mg C/ha, which challenges the current knowledge on the carbon stock density of lost forests (with a default value 100 Mg C/ha according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Tier 1 estimates, or approximately 112 Mg C/ha used in other studies). This is demonstrated over both the entire region and the footprints of the spaceborne lidar. Consequently, our estimate of carbon loss from deforestation in Latin America in the 2000s was 253.0 ± 21.5 Tg C/year, which was considerably less than existing remote-sensing-based estimates, namely 400-600 Tg C/year. This indicates that forests in Latin America were most likely not a net carbon source in the 2000s compared to established carbon sinks. In previous studies, considerable effort has been devoted to rectify the underestimation of carbon sinks; thus, the overestimation of carbon emissions should be given sufficient consideration in global carbon budgets. Our results also provide solid evidence for the necessity of renewing knowledge on the role of tropical forests in the global carbon budget in the future using observations from new space missions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".