4.3 Article

Amazon wildfires: Scenes from a foreseeable disaster

期刊

FLORA
卷 268, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.flora.2020.151609

关键词

Amazon; Fires; Deforestation; Conservation; Tree mortality; Droughts

资金

  1. NSF [1802754, 1457602]
  2. CNPq [442710/2018-6]
  3. NASA [NNX14AD29G]
  4. WHRC Fund for Climate Solutions
  5. Global Wildlife Conservation
  6. Mott Foundation
  7. Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
  8. NASA [NNX14AD29G, 685336] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER
  9. Division Of Environmental Biology
  10. Direct For Biological Sciences [1457602, 1802754] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Amazon forest's main protection against fire is its capacity to create a moist understory microclimate. Roads, deforestation, droughts, and climate change have made this natural firebreak less effective. The southern Amazon, in particular, has become more flammable and vulnerable to wildfires during recent droughts. The drought of 1997/98 first showed that fires could escape from agricultural fields and burn standing primary forests that were once considered impenetrable to fire. The spread of forest fires during other 21st-century droughts suggests that this pattern may well be the new normal. With the landscape becoming more flammable, reducing sources of ignition and the negative effects of deforestation is crucial for avoiding severe degradation of Amazon forests. Unfortunately, recent increases in deforestation suggest that Brazil is moving in the opposite direction. Keeping pace with the rapid changes in the region's fire regimes would require innovation; cooperation across political boundaries; and interagency communication on a scale never seen before. While Brazil's past success in reducing deforestation suggests that it could be an effective leader in this regard, its sluggish response to the 2019 fires tells quite a different story. But the fact remains that the future of the Amazon depends on decisive action now.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据