The Amazon’s crucial water cycle faces collapse, scientists say
Fernanda Vega
News Article: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/amazons-crucial-water-cycle-faces-collapse-scientists-say-rcna138639
Scientific Article:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06970-0
The Amazon Rainforest, located in the Amazon Basin, is the largest rainforest in the world, covering about 5.8 million square kilometers3. It is a vital ecosystem due to its extensive biodiversity, ability to sequester carbon, and cooling effect on land surface temperatures2. Home to around 47 million people, including 2.2 million Indigenous people, the Amazon also supports a wide range of sociocultural groups. Although the forest has shown resilience to natural climate variability for over 65 million years, intensive human activity has introduced new feedback loops that are threatening its stability. Over the past two centuries, resource extraction and national agricultural expansion have added stress to the ecosystem, resulting in biodiversity loss, increased carbon emissions, and negative impacts on Indigenous people and local communities3. Additionally, climate change is compounding these stressors and is projected to drive significant vegetation loss across the Amazon2.
To evaluate the likelihood and extent of large-scale ecosystem collapse in the Amazon, Flores et al. investigate the escalating risk of abrupt, potentially irreversible changes due to environmental pressures. In their study, published in Nature, Flores et al. integrate multiple datasets and modeling techniques to assess water stress and ecosystem stability. The study ultimately identified five major drivers of water stress and potential critical thresholds for each driver. It also concluded that although 86% of the Amazon biome remains in a stable forest state with minimal disturbances, between 10% and 47% of the forest is at risk of exposure to multiple disturbances that could trigger unexpected ecosystem changes by 2050.
The Amazon, while historically resilient to climate variations, now faces unprecedented threats from rising temperatures, severe droughts, deforestation, and fires. These pressures, especially water stress, could push the rainforest to critical thresholds where even small disruptions may cause irreversible structural and functional changes. Ecosystems like the Amazon either adapt gradually or reach tipping points, beyond which minor stresses lead to significant, lasting transitions, often resulting in new stable states—like degraded forests or savannas—that are hard to reverse. As deforestation and climate change increase, the Amazon’s resilience weakens, leaving it more vulnerable to such critical shifts.
Flores et al. identify five main drivers of water stress that, if unaddressed, could push the Amazon beyond tipping points. These drivers include global warming, with temperatures above 1.5°C over pre-industrial levels posing a risk of widespread forest loss; annual rainfall, with a critical threshold at 1,000 mm, below which forests become highly unstable; rainfall seasonality, where dry season water deficits exceeding -450 mm increase the risk of savanna-like states; dry season length, where prolonged dry seasons of eight months or more make dense forest cover unsustainable; and accumulated deforestation, which has already reduced Amazon forest cover by 13% and could lead to large-scale ecosystem collapse if it reaches a 20% loss. Moreover, all five drivers interact to strengthen positive feedback loops between water stress and forest loss. Together, these drivers illustrate the Amazon rainforest’s vulnerabilities and the need to maintain safe boundaries to prevent critical transitions.
Figure 1. (a) summary of five critical drivers of water stress in the Amazon rainforest, their critical threshold, safe boundary, and confidence of threshold accuracy. (b) Conceptual model showing how the five drivers may interact and strengthen a positive feedback between water stress and forest loss.
The paper then outlines three potential ecosystem trajectories if these stressors persist: forests that recover slowly with altered plant composition, white-sand savannas resistant to reforestation, and open-canopy landscapes dominated by fire-tolerant species and invasive grasses. Each of these transformations would lead to reduced biodiversity, diminished carbon storage, and weakened climate-regulating functions of the rainforest. The drivers, thresholds, and pathways identified in the study offer insights to refine earth system models and improve projections for the Amazon’s future. Flores et al. emphasize the need for a precautionary strategy that combines global climate action with local measures to end deforestation, restore degraded areas, and protect Indigenous territories. These actions are essential to maintaining the Amazon’s resilience and its crucial role in stabilizing the global climate2.
Evan Bush’s NBC News article, “The Amazon’s crucial water cycle faces collapse, scientists say”, references the Flores et al. study, framing the Amazon’s water cycle under threat from wildfires, deforestation, and global warming. Bush cites the study's warning that 10% to 47% of the Amazon could shift away from rainforest by 2050 if these issues persist. He includes direct quotes from Bernardo Flores but does not fully address the study’s emphasis on five specific drivers of water stress and critical thresholds. Additional quotes from researchers Ernesto Alvarado and Tim Lenton, who were not involved in the study, contribute to a disjointed flow to the article that misrepresents the study’s focus. For example, Alvarado’s remarks on the water cycle appear disconnected from the study’s findings. Furthermore, Bush’s choice to hyperlink another related study over the main Flores et al. study seems counterintuitive.
While Bush’s coverage of the Amazon’s ecological challenges isn’t inaccurate, it simplifies and misinterprets the study’s findings, particularly by suggesting a broader collapse of the water cycle. Bush’s focus on the Amazon’s water cycle does not make sense as other factors such as heat stress can impact the water cycle, as noted by Flores et al., and the water cycle is only talked about indirectly in the study when concepts such as evapotranspiration are mentioned. Bush concludes with a quote from Flores in an ominous tone, contrasting with the study’s call for proactive solutions which I think is a mistake given people’s hesitation to learn about the climate crisis for that exact reason. Ultimately, while the article attempts to generalize a dense, method heavy paper, the focus and accuracy were really lacking. Bush missed an opportunity to introduce important ecological concepts and a new way of thinking about ecosystem loss to readers. Hence, I would give Bush’s article a 6/10 rating.
Sources
(1) Bush, E. The Amazon’s crucial water cycle faces collapse, scientists say. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/amazons-crucial-water-cycle-faces-collapse-scientists-say-rcna138639 (accessed 2024-11-03).
(2) Flores, B. M.; Montoya, E.; Sakschewski, B.; Nascimento, N.; Staal, A.; Betts, R. A.; Levis, C.; Lapola, D. M.; Esquível-Muelbert, A.; Jakovac, C.; Nobre, C. A.; Oliveira, R. S.; Borma, L. S.; Nian, D.; Boers, N.; Hecht, S. B.; ter Steege, H.; Arieira, J.; Lucas, I. L.; Berenguer, E.; Marengo, J. A.; Gatti, L. V.; Mattos, C. R. C.; Hirota, M. Critical Transitions in the Amazon Forest System. Nature 2024, 626 (7999), 555–564. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06970-0.
(3) Nobre, C.; Encalada, A.; Anderson, E.; Roca Alcazar, F. H. Amazon Assessment Report 2021, 1st ed.; Science Panel for the Amazon, Bustamante, M., Mena, C., Peña-Claros, M., Poveda, G., Rodriguez, J. P., Saleska, S., Trumbore, S. E., Val, A., Villa Nova, L., Abramovay, R., Alencar, A., Rodriguez Alzza, A. C., Armenteras, D., Artaxo, P., Athayde, S., Barretto Filho, H. T., Barlow, J., Berenguer, E., Bortolotto, F., Costa, F. D. A., Costa, M. H., Cuvi, N., Fearnside, P., Ferreira, J., Flores, B. M., Frieri, S., Gatti, L. V., Guayasamin, J. M., Hecht, S., Hirota, M., Hoorn, C., Josse, C., Lapola, D. M., Larrea, C., Larrea-Alcazar, D. M., Lehm Ardaya, Z., Malhi, Y., Marengo, J. A., Melack, J., Moraes R., M., Moutinho, P., Murmis, M. R., Neves, E. G., Paez, B., Painter, L., Ramos, A., Rosero-Peña, M. C., Schmink, M., Sist, P., Ter Steege, H., Val, P., Van Der Voort, H., Varese, M., Zapata-Ríos, G., Eds.; UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), 2021. https://doi.org/10.55161/RWSX6527.
Great job on the blog post, Fernanda! I really enjoyed reading your insights. I completely agree with your point about how the news article simplifies the complex findings of the Flores et al. study, particularly by not discussing in-depth into the five critical drivers of water stress. I think presenting this data to the public is crucial, and since topics like global warming, annual rainfall, dry season length, deforestation, and rainfall intensity are familiar to many readers and I don’t find it too technical or scientific to discuss with readers. I believe summarizing these drivers and explaining their interconnections would enhance understanding of the water stress issue for the readers.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I think the conclusion of the article should have emphasize more on solutions because highlighting the ways to take action is important for inspiring and engaging the readers. One thing I found lacking in the news article was the absence of a link to the original Nature paper, which I think is crucial as it allows interested readers to explore the details.
Overall, while Bush’s article effectively brings attention to significant issues, it falls short in providing the depth and accuracy necessary for readers to fully grasp the seriousness of the situation. So, I agree with the rating that you have provided.
Hi Anika, thank you for the comment! I really like your angle that the five drivers mentioned in the study are already pretty familiar topics to most readers and could have been easily included. I think that including them could have also made it easier to come at the study from a more solutions based approach like you mentioned, because these drivers deliver specific issues we can address directly to mitigate losing the rainforest. Lastly, I completely agree that not linking the original Nature paper makes it very hard for readers to explore the topic in more details.
DeleteFirst off, great analysis and blog post.
ReplyDeleteI do not personally agree with your rating. I would put the article more at a 7/10 or maybe even and 7.5/10. I completely agree that the placement of the quotations, from authors outside of the current study, lead to a disjointed read. However, I believe that overall including the opinions on the scientific article of others in the field was impactful. It helped me understand that these findings are being actively discussed in the climate community. I think this article would benefit from restructuring, but I think keeping the non-scientific article quotes is important.
Another drawback from the new article was its ending. It completely misrepresents the message of the original scientific article in a fear monger sort of fashion. From the scientific article, I understood that local changes and proactive efforts can lead to the Amazon Rainforests bouncing back, but the news article left on a different tone. They begin to talk about another study with promising results: limiting warmer to 1.5 °C could allow rainforest to recover. Then, the article quickly transition to a darker note with no call to action. The new article left me almost feeling sad and especially did not make me want to read more about the issue.
Thanks for the comment Nico. Although I stand by my rating, I do think I may have been slightly hypercritical. I agree with your take that having different scientific voices as it helps relay to the readers that it's a important topic circulating amongst the environmental science community. My main issue was specifically with Alvarado's quote regarding the water cycle as it provided little sight into the study, and I feel that it led Bush to deviate from the actual information in the study. Regardless, my rating came more so from the lack of discussion on the findings and misrepresentation of the message of the study like you said. I think Bush missed a great opportunity to shed light on meaningful and tangible solutions that the paper provides which I think is incredibly important as bad news seems to largely out way good news in the media.
DeleteGreat job on the blog post! I agree with your assessment of the article. Overall the news article is very disjointed and feels like the author had pieced together a bunch of quotes and facts about how climate change impacts the Amazon rainforest. Like you said, it definitely could have benefited from talking about the five drivers of water stress as it would have given the piece a more central message. I think that the final line in the news article about the transitions being irreversible is depressing, but also is important to be mentioned so that the severity of the situation comes across. However, it could have been better incorporated into the article so that the final message was about what can be done to avoid this, therefore fueling the reader’s optimism for change.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment! Yes, I also felt like the article was somewhat a collage centered around the main statistic that he pulled from the article. Regardless, any talk bringing awareness to Amazon rainforest loss or the climate crisis in important. And like you said, even though it is depressing, it is a serious situations and does need to be talked about in such way. Regardless, I have found that the best way to get people to care and to want to learn is using a more solutions based approach over worst case scenarios.
DeleteExcellent analysis on your blog post. I also agree with your 6/10 rating based on how much the article simplified and misinterpreted the the study, particularly by sounding the alarm bells on global warming/climate change and its irreversible changes to the water cycle. Many of the claims that the news article made seems outside of the focus of the original study, since the water cycle is only talked about briefly, and with its conclusions must more optimistic. Overall, it just seems like another scare attempt for people to feel unsafe and vote for anything environmentally "helpful" in politics.
ReplyDeleteI also thought that some of the quotations included were quite hilarious. Short one off phrases such as "This paper resonates" and "The studies are broadly consistent" add little to no value to the overall narrative at all, and do nothing besides add more fuel to the fire of fear. This makes it leave quite a taste of uncertainty in the reader's mouth, as it doesn't mention much about how these changes in the environment could impact the average person specifically, besides how temperatures will go hot and things will die. All in all, I believe that the article could benefit from describing the research more rather than just bombarding the reader with quotations outside of the scientific paper, and that depth and accuracy can be improved to further hook readers into caring about the issue at hand.
Hi Chadwin. Yes, I completely agree with your comment. How Bush centered the article around altering the water cycle with irreversible changes specially rubbed me the wrong way as it was not a main discussion of the study nor did he ever tie it back to the study. I do think that water stress, deforestation, climate change, and the water cycle are all intrinsically tied, but if he wanted to make this the point of the article he should have pulled from another source. Furthermore, most readers probably won't understand how the water cycle specifically impacts them, as you mentioned, and I think it would have been more impactful to tie it back to land loss which Bush barely did. Also I completely agree about the poor choice of quotes used, and do wish the article used a more optimistic lens.
DeleteI don't think this article does a great job of making the information accessible to the reader. In addition to the news article not linking the Nature article (Which is a big flaw in my opinion), they also do not cover the factors behind water stress, which are very important to the broader importance of the Nature article. You also make a good point that while not being flat at inaccurate, Bush does misinterpret the study's findings which combined with many other factors starts to draw into question how good of a "summary" this article can be considered. You also bring up the use of external quotes which I don't think are particularly helpful in Bush's case. All of these things combined make it really difficult for me to consider this news article to be any form of a summary which is ultimately what I look for in any of these discussion board posts, so I would actually lower the article rating to 5/10.
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis of the article! I would agree with the 6/10 rating for the misinterpreted information, and making false and fearmonger claims. Overall, I feel like the piece lacks a smooth flow of ideas. I think it needed a central idea that the quotes are built around in support. I think the final paragraph left a negative message to the readers, but I do see how Evan probably wanted to add a little more impact to this article and be a memorable piece to the readers. I think overall the article just needs a bit of reorganization and cut a bit deeper into the publication itself. I can't see it as a helpful summary of the topic of interest and would walk away saddened thinking "Many species will go extinct and never come back,”"
ReplyDeleteThanks Richard. Exactly, it felt like the quotes are thrown in the article to add credibility, but they don't do a great job emphasizing the findings of the study and why they are important to the reader. I do think that Evan used the ending quote to try and hit home with the readers and draw importance to the topic, but I don't think this is a good approach. Moreover, the Flores study specifically mentioned parameters to make sure we are not losing forest cover and how local and global governments can act to help mitigate drivers of water stress, so this makes Evan's choice to end on a sad quote even more interesting.
DeleteHi Fernanda, good review! I largely agree with your rating the NBS news article 6/10 but personally would rate it lower at 5/10. I would argue that although they don't fabricate any explicitly untrue facts and do reference the original scientific paper along with some of the researchers, the title is in the general sense a lie. I'm curious where this author got the idea that climate change and deforestation would cause the water cycle in the Amazon to collapse. The scientific article clearly lays out how certain stressors may cause the Amazon's ecosystem to collapse, but does not focus on the water cycle or impacts on it. I also agree that the new article felt disjointed--based on the quality of writing and level of scientific information it seems like it was written in a rush, which isn't surprising for a popular news outlet but is disappointing nonetheless.
ReplyDelete