Patricia Alvarez-Loayza

Patricia Alvarez-Loayza

Auto-generated profile, based on publicly available information

Patricia Alvarez-Loayza

Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710, USA

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

20Years (2007-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
14 October 2016 in Science
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JLJingjing Liang
Jingjing Liang
TCThomas W. Crowther
Thomas W. Crowther
NPNicolas Picard
Nicolas Picard
SWSusan Wiser
Susan Wiser
MZMo Zhou
Mo Zhou
PRPeter B. Reich
Peter B. Reich
Global biodiversity and productivity: The relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem productivity has been explored in detail in herbaceous vegetation, but patterns in forests are far less well understood. Liang et al. have amassed a global forest data set from >770,000 sample plots in 44 countries. A positive and consistent relationship can be discerned between tree diversity and ecosystem productivity at landscape, country, and ecoregion scales. On average, a 10% loss in biodiversity leads to a 3% loss in productivity. This means that the economic value of maintaining biodiversity for the sake of global forest productivity is more than fivefold greater than global conservation costs. Science , this issue p. 196

18 March 2015 in Nature
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
RBR. J. W. Brienen
R. J. W. Brienen
OPOliver L. Phillips
Oliver L. Phillips
TFTed Feldpaush
Ted Feldpaush
EGE. Gloor
E. Gloor
TBT. R. Baker
T. R. Baker
RZR. J. Zagt
R. J. Zagt

16 June 2015 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JSJ. W. Ferry Slik
J. W. Ferry Slik
VAVíctor Arroyo-Rodríguez
Víctor Arroyo-Rodríguez
SAShin-Ichiro Aiba
Shin-Ichiro Aiba
PAPatricia Alvarez-Loayza
Patricia Alvarez-Loayza
LALuciana F. Alves
Luciana F. Alves
EVEduardo M. Venticinque
Eduardo M. Venticinque
Significance: People are fascinated by the amazing diversity of tropical forests and will be surprised to learn that robust estimates of the number of tropical tree species are lacking. We show that there are at least 40,000, but possibly more than 53,000, tree species in the tropics, in contrast to only 124 across temperate Europe. Almost all tropical tree species are restricted to their respective continents, and the Indo-Pacific region appears to be as species-rich as tropical America, with each of these two regions being almost five times as rich in tree species as African tropical forests. Our study shows that most tree species are extremely rare, meaning that they may be under serious risk of extinction at current deforestation rates.

17 January 2017 in Scientific Reports
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
MSMartin Sullivan
Martin Sullivan
JTJoey Talbot
Joey Talbot
SLSimon L. Lewis
Simon L. Lewis
OPOliver L. Phillips
Oliver L. Phillips
LQLan Qie
Lan Qie
LZLise Zemagho
Lise Zemagho
Tropical forests are global centres of biodiversity and carbon storage. Many tropical countries aspire to protect forest to fulfil biodiversity and climate mitigation policy targets, but the conservation strategies needed to achieve these two functions depend critically on the tropical forest tree diversity-carbon storage relationship. Assessing this relationship is challenging due to the scarcity of inventories where carbon stocks in aboveground biomass and species identifications have been simultaneously and robustly quantified. Here, we compile a unique pan-tropical dataset of 360 plots located in structurally intact old-growth closed-canopy forest, surveyed using standardised methods, allowing a multi-scale evaluation of diversity-carbon relationships in tropical forests. Diversity-carbon relationships among all plots at 1 ha scale across the tropics are absent, and within continents are either weak (Asia) or absent (Amazonia, Africa). A weak positive relationship is detectable within 1 ha plots, indicating that diversity effects in tropical forests may be scale dependent. The absence of clear diversity-carbon relationships at scales relevant to conservation planning means that carbon-centred conservation strategies will inevitably miss many high diversity ecosystems. As tropical forests can have any combination of tree diversity and carbon stocks both require explicit consideration when optimising policies to manage tropical carbon and biodiversity.

22 May 2020 in Science
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MSMartin Sullivan
Martin Sullivan
SLSimon L. Lewis
Simon L. Lewis
KAKofi Affum-Baffoe
Kofi Affum-Baffoe
CCCarolina Castilho
Carolina Castilho
FCFlávia Capellotto Costa
Flávia Capellotto Costa
OPOliver L. Phillips
Oliver L. Phillips
Thermal sensitivity of tropical trees: A key uncertainty in climate change models is the thermal sensitivity of tropical forests and how this value might influence carbon fluxes. Sullivan et al. measured carbon stocks and fluxes in permanent forest plots distributed globally. This synthesis of plot networks across climatic and biogeographic gradients shows that forest thermal sensitivity is dominated by high daytime temperatures. This extreme condition depresses growth rates and shortens the time that carbon resides in the ecosystem by killing trees under hot, dry conditions. The effect of temperature is worse above 32°C, and a greater magnitude of climate change thus risks greater loss of tropical forest carbon stocks. Nevertheless, forest carbon stocks are likely to remain higher under moderate climate change if they are protected from direct impacts such as clearance, logging, or fires. Science , this issue p. 869

30 April 2016 in Global Biogeochemical Cycles
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
TFTed Feldpaush
Ted Feldpaush
OPOliver L. Phillips
Oliver L. Phillips
RBR. J. W. Brienen
R. J. W. Brienen
EGE. Gloor
E. Gloor
JLJ. Lloyd
J. Lloyd
Vincent Antoine VosVincent Antoine Vos
Vincent Antoine Vos
The Amazon Basin has experienced more variable climate over the last decade, with a severe and widespread drought in 2005 causing large basin‐wide losses of biomass. A drought of similar climatological magnitude occurred again in 2010; however, there has been no basin‐wide ground‐based evaluation of effects on vegetation. We examine to what extent the 2010 drought affected forest dynamics using ground‐based observations of mortality and growth from an extensive forest plot network. We find that during the 2010 drought interval, forests did not gain biomass (net change: −0.43 Mg ha−1, confidence interval (CI): −1.11, 0.19, n = 97), regardless of whether forests experienced precipitation deficit anomalies. This contrasted with a long‐term biomass sink during the baseline pre‐2010 drought period (1998 to pre‐2010) of 1.33 Mg ha−1 yr−1 (CI: 0.90, 1.74, p < 0.01). The resulting net impact of the 2010 drought (i.e., reversal of the baseline net sink) was −1.95 Mg ha−1 yr−1 (CI:−2.77, −1.18; p < 0.001). This net biomass impact was driven by an increase in biomass mortality (1.45 Mg ha−1 yr−1 CI: 0.66, 2.25, p < 0.001) and a decline in biomass productivity (−0.50 Mg ha−1 yr−1, CI:−0.78, −0.31; p < 0.001). Surprisingly, the magnitude of the losses through tree mortality was unrelated to estimated local precipitation anomalies and was independent of estimated local pre‐2010 drought history. Thus, there was no evidence that pre‐2010 droughts compounded the effects of the 2010 drought. We detected a systematic basin‐wide impact of the 2010 drought on tree growth rates across Amazonia, which was related to the strength of the moisture deficit. This impact differed from the drought event in 2005 which did not affect productivity. Based on these ground data, live biomass in trees and corresponding estimates of live biomass in lianas and roots, we estimate that intact forests in Amazonia were carbon neutral in 2010 (−0.07 Pg C yr−1 CI:−0.42, 0.23), consistent with results from an independent analysis of airborne estimates of land‐atmospheric fluxes during 2010. Relative to the long‐term mean, the 2010 drought resulted in a reduction in biomass carbon uptake of 1.1 Pg C, compared to 1.6 Pg C for the 2005 event.