↓ Skip to main content

Drought impact on forest carbon dynamics and fluxes in Amazonia

Overview of attention for article published in Nature, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

7 news outlets
3 blogs
1 policy source
76 tweeters
5 Facebook pages
1 Google+ user


247 Dimensions

Readers on

666 Mendeley
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Drought impact on forest carbon dynamics and fluxes in Amazonia
Published in
Nature, March 2015
DOI 10.1038/nature14213
Pubmed ID

Christopher E. Doughty, D. B. Metcalfe, C. A. J. Girardin, F. Farfán Amézquita, D. Galiano Cabrera, W. Huaraca Huasco, J. E. Silva-Espejo, A. Araujo-Murakami, M. C. da Costa, W. Rocha, T. R. Feldpausch, A. L. M. Mendoza, A. C. L. da Costa, P. Meir, O. L. Phillips, Y. Malhi


In 2005 and 2010 the Amazon basin experienced two strong droughts, driven by shifts in the tropical hydrological regime possibly associated with global climate change, as predicted by some global models. Tree mortality increased after the 2005 drought, and regional atmospheric inversion modelling showed basin-wide decreases in CO2 uptake in 2010 compared with 2011 (ref. 5). But the response of tropical forest carbon cycling to these droughts is not fully understood and there has been no detailed multi-site investigation in situ. Here we use several years of data from a network of thirteen 1-ha forest plots spread throughout South America, where each component of net primary production (NPP), autotrophic respiration and heterotrophic respiration is measured separately, to develop a better mechanistic understanding of the impact of the 2010 drought on the Amazon forest. We find that total NPP remained constant throughout the drought. However, towards the end of the drought, autotrophic respiration, especially in roots and stems, declined significantly compared with measurements in 2009 made in the absence of drought, with extended decreases in autotrophic respiration in the three driest plots. In the year after the drought, total NPP remained constant but the allocation of carbon shifted towards canopy NPP and away from fine-root NPP. Both leaf-level and plot-level measurements indicate that severe drought suppresses photosynthesis. Scaling these measurements to the entire Amazon basin with rainfall data, we estimate that drought suppressed Amazon-wide photosynthesis in 2010 by 0.38 petagrams of carbon (0.23-0.53 petagrams of carbon). Overall, we find that during this drought, instead of reducing total NPP, trees prioritized growth by reducing autotrophic respiration that was unrelated to growth. This suggests that trees decrease investment in tissue maintenance and defence, in line with eco-evolutionary theories that trees are competitively disadvantaged in the absence of growth. We propose that weakened maintenance and defence investment may, in turn, cause the increase in post-drought tree mortality observed at our plots.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 76 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 666 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 9 1%
United States 8 1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Chile 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Panama 1 <1%
Other 9 1%
Unknown 629 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 162 24%
Researcher 122 18%
Student > Master 96 14%
Student > Bachelor 48 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 47 7%
Other 115 17%
Unknown 76 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 210 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 189 28%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 98 15%
Engineering 15 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 1%
Other 27 4%
Unknown 120 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 127. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 January 2020.
All research outputs
of 15,488,719 outputs
Outputs from Nature
of 74,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 217,944 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
of 995 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,488,719 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 74,769 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 84.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 217,944 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 995 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.