Search

The possibility that the Amazon forest system could soon reach a tipping point, inducing large-scale collapse, has raised global concern1-3. For 65 million years, Amazonian forests remained relatively resilient to climatic variability. Now, the region is increasingly exposed to unprecedented stress from warming temperatures, extreme droughts, deforestation and fires, even in central and remote parts of the system1. Long existing feedbacks between the forest and environmental conditions are being replaced by novel feedbacks that modify ecosystem resilience, increasing the risk of critical transition. Here we analyse existing evidence for five major drivers of water stress on Amazonian forests, as well as potential critical thresholds of those drivers that, if crossed, could trigger local, regional or even biome-wide forest collapse. By combining spatial information on various disturbances, we estimate that by 2050, 10% to 47% of Amazonian forests will be exposed to compounding disturbances that may trigger unexpected ecosystem transitions and potentially exacerbate regional climate change. Using examples of disturbed forests across the Amazon, we identify the three most plausible ecosystem trajectories, involving different feedbacks and environmental conditions. We discuss how the inherent complexity of the Amazon adds uncertainty about future dynamics, but also reveals opportunities for action. Keeping the Amazon forest resilient in the Anthropocene will depend on a combination of local efforts to end deforestation and degradation and to expand restoration, with global efforts to stop greenhouse gas emissions.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments are the trusted source of scientific evidence for climate negotiations taking place under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Evidence-based decision-making needs to be informed by up-to-date and timely information on key indicators of the state of the climate system and of the human influence on the global climate system. However, successive IPCC reports are published at intervals of 5–10 years, creating potential for an information gap between report cycles. We follow methods as close as possible to those used in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) Working Group One (WGI) report. We compile monitoring datasets to produce estimates for key climate indicators related to forcing of the climate system: emissions of greenhouse gases and short-lived climate forcers, greenhouse gas concentrations, radiative forcing, the Earth's energy imbalance, surface temperature changes, warming attributed to human activities, the remaining carbon budget, and estimates of global temperature extremes. The purpose of this effort, grounded in an open-data, open-science approach, is to make annually updated reliable global climate indicators available in the public domain (10.5281/zenodo.11388387, Smith et al., 2024a). As they are traceable to IPCC report methods, they can be trusted by all parties involved in UNFCCC negotiations and help convey wider understanding of the latest knowledge of the climate system and its direction of travel. The indicators show that, for the 2014–2023 decade average, observed warming was 1.19 [1.06 to 1.30] °C, of which 1.19 [1.0 to 1.4] °C was human-induced. For the single-year average, human-induced warming reached 1.31 [1.1 to 1.7] °C in 2023 relative to 1850–1900. The best estimate is below the 2023-observed warming record of 1.43 [1.32 to 1.53] °C, indicating a substantial contribution of internal variability in the 2023 record. Human-induced warming has been increasing at a rate that is unprecedented in the instrumental record, reaching 0.26 [0.2–0.4] °C per decade over 2014–2023. This high rate of warming is caused by a combination of net greenhouse gas emissions being at a persistent high of 53±5.4 Gt CO 2 e yr -1 over the last decade, as well as reductions in the strength of aerosol cooling. Despite this, there is evidence that the rate of increase in CO2 emissions over the last decade has slowed compared to the 2000s, and depending on societal choices, a continued series of these annual updates over the critical 2020s decade could track a change of direction for some of the indicators presented here. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Esthetic procedures are currently among the most effective options for consumers seeking to correct aging signs such as fine lines, wrinkles, and skin tone unevenness. Currently, there is a scientific need for an adjunct active to be paired with esthetic procedures to encourage wound recovery and address postprocedure pigmentation concerns. Objective: Toward that goal, this study assessed the efficacy of a peptide created from a multi‐component reaction (multi‐component peptide, MCP) as a model active for postprocedure care and evaluated its ability to promote skin healing in an ablative laser‐induced wound model on the forearm. Methods: The mechanism of action of MCP was investigated using tubo assays, 2D melanocyte, and fibroblast cultures, reconstructed skin equivalents, and ex vivo skin explants. The MCP formula and the clinical benchmark formula of Aquaphor were assessed head‐to‐head by applying the products topically in an ablative laser‐induced wound model (n = 20 subjects). The promotion of wound healing was evaluated by the investigator assessment of epithelial confluence, crusting or scabbing, general wound appearance, erythema, and edema. Results: MCP was determined to be beneficial to postprocedure skin recovery and healing by four main mechanisms of action: barrier repair as determined in an ex vivo tape‐stripping model, reduction of inflammation and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, reduction of elastase activity, and stimulation of fibroblast through the mTOR pathway. The formula containing 10% MCP enhanced the kinetics of epithelial confluence and improvement of the crusting or scabbing appearance of the laser‐generated wounds in a laser‐induced mini‐zone wound healing study on the forearm. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the use of MCP as a proof of concept regenerative active that when incorporated into an optimized postprocedure skincare formula can improve skin healing and enhance the appearance of skin after injury with relevance to ablative aesthetic procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION. Peru's rainy season falls in the first quarter of the year, often dubbed the 'landslide season,' with the direst downpours typically occurring in March (Lavado Casimiro et al. 2012). [...]

Peatlands of the central Congo Basin have accumulated carbon over millennia. They currently store some 29 billion tonnes of carbon in peat. However, our understanding of the controls on peat carbon accumulation and loss and the vulnerability of this stored carbon to climate change is in its infancy. Here we present a new model of tropical peatland development, DigiBog_Congo, that we use to simulate peat carbon accumulation and loss in a rain‐fed interfluvial peatland that began forming ~20,000 calendar years Before Present (cal. yr BP, where 'present' is 1950 CE). Overall, the simulated age‐depth curve is in good agreement with palaeoenvironmental reconstructions derived from a peat core at the same location as our model simulation. We find two key controls on long‐term peat accumulation: water at the peat surface (surface wetness) and the very slow anoxic decay of recalcitrant material. Our main simulation shows that between the Late Glacial and early Holocene there were several multidecadal periods where net peat and carbon gain alternated with net loss. Later, a climatic dry phase beginning ~5200 cal. yr BP caused the peatland to become a long‐term carbon source from ~3975 to 900 cal. yr BP. Peat as old as ~7000 cal. yr BP was decomposed before the peatland's surface became wetter again, suggesting that changes in rainfall alone were sufficient to cause a catastrophic loss of peat carbon lasting thousands of years. During this time, 6.4 m of the column of peat was lost, resulting in 57% of the simulated carbon stock being released. Our study provides an approach to understanding the future impact of climate change and potential land‐use change on this vulnerable store of carbon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]