in

Family imprint reveals basin-wide patterns of Amazon forest embolism resistance


Abstract

Amazon rainforests face intensifying water stress due to increases in vapour pressure deficit and changing hydrological regimes. Embolism resistance (Ψ50) is a critical metric of tree survival under drought conditions, it is defined as a plant’s capacity to resist disruption of xylem water flow due to air bubble formation from water stress. However, measurements of Ψ50 are only available for a limited number of Amazon locations and species. Conversely, data on forest taxonomic composition are abundant across Amazonia, and if Ψ50 is conserved phylogenetically, these data could provide a way to scale-up drought resistance patterns. Here we evaluate Ψ50 measurements across non-flooded Amazonian tree taxa and reveal a moderate phylogenetic signal, with phylogenetic conservatism evident at the family-level. Notably, Fabaceae is amongst the most embolism-resistant tree families in Amazonia. Leveraging the phylogenetic signal we use species composition and tree size data from 448 forest plots across Amazonia to produce a macroecological assessment of Amazonian vulnerability to embolism. The resulting estimate spatial pattern reveals that forests in the Brazilian and Guiana Shield regions, where Fabaceae abundance is high, show strong resistance to embolism. In contrast, tree communities in Western Amazonia appear more vulnerable to embolism, suggesting a reduced capacity to withstand future drought conditions.

Similar content being viewed by others

Basin-wide variation in tree hydraulic safety margins predicts the carbon balance of Amazon forests

One sixth of Amazonian tree diversity is dependent on river floodplains

Amazon forest biogeography predicts resilience and vulnerability to drought

Data availability

The embolism resistance dataset used in this study is available through the pan-Amazonian hydraulic traits dataset21, which is deposited as a ForestPlots.net data package: https://doi.org/10.5521/forestplots.net/2023_1. This dataset integrates newly collected samples from Western and Southern Amazonia together with published data from Central–Eastern Amazonia19,24,29. The phylogenetic tree used in our analyses is accessible in the ref. 38. Community-weighted mean Ψ₅₀ estimates for Pan-Amazonian plots used in this study are available through the ForestPlots.net data package80: https://doi.org/10.5521/forestplots.net/2025_5

Code availability

Code to reproduce the main analyses and figures is available as part of the ForestPlots.net data package associated with this study80: https://doi.org/10.5521/forestplots.net/2025_5

References

  1. Esquivel-Muelbert, A. et al. Compositional response of Amazon forests to climate change. Glob. Chang Biol. 25, 39–56 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aguirre-Gutiérrez, J. et al. Long-term droughts may drive drier tropical forests towards increased functional, taxonomic and phylogenetic homogeneity. Nat. Commun. 11, 3346 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aguirre-Gutiérrez, J. et al. Drier tropical forests are susceptible to functional changes in response to a long-term drought. Ecol. Lett. 22, 855–865 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brienen, R. J. W. et al. Long-term decline of the Amazon carbon sink. Nature 519, 344–348 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bennett, A. C. et al. Sensitivity of South American tropical forests to an extreme climate anomaly. Nat. Clim. Chang 13, 967–974 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Aragão, L. E. O. C. et al. Spatial patterns and fire response of recent Amazonian droughts. Geophys Res Lett. 34, L07701 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Marengo, J. A. et al. The drought of Amazonia in 2005. J. Clim. 21, 495–516 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Phillips, O. L. et al. Drought sensitivity of the Amazon rainforest. Science 323, 1344–1347 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lewis, S. L., Brando, P. M., Phillips, O. L., van der Heijden, G. M. F. & Nepstad, D. The 2010 Amazon drought. Science 331, 554 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jiménez-Muñoz, J. C. et al. Record-breaking warming and extreme drought in the Amazon rainforest during the course of El Niño 2015-2016. Sci. Rep. 6, 33130 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ferreira, V., Buras, A., Zscheischler, J., Mahecha, M. & Rammig, A. Evaluating the 2023–2024 record dry-hot conditions in the Amazon in the context of historical compound extremes. Environ. Res. Lett. 20, 084055 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Espinoza, J.-C. et al. The new record of drought and warmth in the Amazon in 2023 is related to regional and global climatic features. Sci. Rep. 14, 8107 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Veiga, S. F. et al. Climate change over South America simulated by the Brazilian Earth system model under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 131, 104598 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Marengo, J. A. et al. Changes in climate and land use over the Amazon region: current and future variability and trends. Front Earth Sci. 6, 228 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Baker, J. C. A. et al. Robust Amazon precipitation projections in climate models that capture realistic land–atmosphere interactions. Environ. Res Lett. 16, 074002 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Tyree, M. T. & Zimmermann, M. H. Xylem Structure and the Ascent of Sap. (Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin, 2002).

  17. Sperry, J. S., Donnelly, J. R. & Tyree, M. T. A method for measuring hydraulic conductivity and embolism in xylem. Plant Cell Environ. 11, 35–40 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fontes, C. G. et al. Dry and hot: the hydraulic consequences of a climate change-type drought for Amazonian trees. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 373, 20180209 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Barros, F., de, V. et al. Hydraulic traits explain differential responses of Amazonian forests to the 2015 El Niño-induced drought. N. Phytol. 223, 1253–1266 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Oliveira, R. S. et al. Embolism resistance drives the distribution of Amazonian rainforest tree species along hydro-topographic gradients. N. Phytol. 221, 1457–1465 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Tavares, J. V. et al. Basin-wide variation in tree hydraulic safety margins predicts the carbon balance of Amazon forests. Nature 617, 111–117 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Powell, T. L. et al. Differences in xylem and leaf hydraulic traits explain differences in drought tolerance among mature Amazon rainforest trees. Glob. Chang Biol. 23, 4280–4293 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rowland, L. et al. Death from drought in tropical forests is triggered by hydraulics, not carbon starvation. Nature 528, 119–122 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Brum, M. et al. Hydrological niche segregation defines forest structure and drought tolerance strategies in a seasonal Amazon forest. J. Ecol. 107, 318–333 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Fontes, C. G. et al. Convergent evolution of tree hydraulic traits in Amazonian habitats: implications for community assemblage and vulnerability to drought. N. Phytol. 228, 106–120 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Penha, D. et al. Preserving isohydricity: vertical environmental variability explains Amazon forest water-use strategies. Tree Physiol. 44, (2024).

  27. Garcia, M. N. et al. Importance of hydraulic strategy trade-offs in structuring the response of canopy trees to extreme drought in the central Amazon. Oecologia 197, 13–24 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Santiago, L. S. et al. Coordination and trade-offs among hydraulic safety, efficiency and drought avoidance traits in Amazonian rainforest canopy tree species. N. Phytol. 218, 1015–1024 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bittencourt, P. R. L. et al. Amazonia trees have a limited capacity to acclimate their plant hydraulic properties in response to long-term drought. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 3569–3584 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mattos, C. R. C. et al. Rainfall and topographic position determine tree embolism resistance in Amazônia and Cerrado sites. Environ. Res. Lett. 18, 114009 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  31. ForestPlots.net et al. Taking the pulse of Earth’s tropical forests using networks of highly distributed plots. Biol. Conserv. 260, 108849 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Penone, C. et al. Imputation of missing data in life-history trait datasets: which approach performs the best? Methods Ecol. Evol. 5, 961–970 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Sanchez-Martinez, P., Martínez-Vilalta, J., Dexter, K. G., Segovia, R. A. & Mencuccini, M. Adaptation and coordinated evolution of plant hydraulic traits. Ecol. Lett. 23, 1599–1610 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Laughlin, D. C. et al. Rooting depth and xylem vulnerability are independent woody plant traits jointly selected by aridity, seasonality, and water table depth. N. Phytol. 240, 1774–1787 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  35. ter Steege, H. et al. Hyperdominance in the Amazonian tree flora. Science 342, 1243092 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Cardoso, D. et al. Amazon plant diversity revealed by a taxonomically verified species list. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114, 10695–10700 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Tavares, J. V. et al. Data and R-code from ‘Julia Valentim Tavares, Rafael S. Oliveira, Maurizio Mencuccini, […] Oliver L. Phillips, Emanuel Gloor, David R. Galbraith. Basin-wide variation in tree hydraulic safety margins predicts the carbon balance of Amazon forests. Nature 2023. ForestPlots.net https://doi.org/10.5521/FORESTPLOTS.NET/2023_1 (2023).

  38. Coelho de Souza, F. et al. Evolutionary diversity is associated with wood productivity in Amazonian forests. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1754–1761 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  39. ter Steege, H. et al. Continental-scale patterns of canopy tree composition and function across Amazonia. Nature 443, 444–447 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Fauset, S. et al. Hyperdominance in Amazonian forest carbon cycling. Nat. Commun. 6, 6857 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Coelho de Souza, F. et al. Evolutionary heritage influences Amazon tree ecology. Proc. Biol. Sci. 283, 20161587 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Blomberg, S. P., Garland, T. Jr & Ives, A. R. Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution 57, 717–745 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Dexter, K. & Chave, J. Evolutionary patterns of range size, abundance and species richness in Amazonian angiosperm trees. PeerJ 4, e2402 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Gentry, A. H. Changes in plant community diversity and floristic composition on environmental and geographical gradients. Ann. Mo Bot. Gard. 75, 1–34 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Choat, B. et al. Global convergence in the vulnerability of forests to drought. Nature 491, 752–755 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Fan, Y., Li, H. & Miguez-Macho, G. Global patterns of groundwater table depth. Science 339, 940–943 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Garcia, M. N. et al. Local hydrological gradients structure high intraspecific variability in plant hydraulic traits in two dominant central Amazonian tree species. J. Exp. Bot. 73, 939–952 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Costa, F. R. C., Schietti, J., Stark, S. C. & Smith, M. N. The other side of tropical forest drought: do shallow water table regions of Amazonia act as large-scale hydrological refugia from drought? N. Phytol. 237, 714–733 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Crisp, M. D. & Cook, L. G. Phylogenetic niche conservatism: what are the underlying evolutionary and ecological causes? N. Phytol. 196, 681–694 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Batterman, S. A. et al. Key role of symbiotic dinitrogen fixation in tropical forest secondary succession. Nature 502, 224–227 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Gei, M. et al. Legume abundance along successional and rainfall gradients in Neotropical forests. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1104–1111 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Gillespie, T. W., Grijalva, A. & Farris, C. N. Diversity, composition, and structure of tropical dry forests in Central America. Plant Ecol. 147, 37–47 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Johnson, M. O. et al. Variation in stem mortality rates determines patterns of above-ground biomass in Amazonian forests: implications for dynamic global vegetation models. Glob. Chang Biol. 22, 3996–4013 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Luize, B. G. et al. Geography and ecology shape the phylogenetic composition of Amazonian tree communities. J. Biogeogr. 51, 1163–1184 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Oliveira, R. S. et al. Linking plant hydraulics and the fast-slow continuum to understand resilience to drought in tropical ecosystems. N. Phytol. 230, 904–923 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Luize, B. G. et al. The biogeography of the Amazonian tree flora. Commun. Biol. 7, 1240 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Salamin, N., Wüest, R. O., Lavergne, S., Thuiller, W. & Pearman, P. B. Assessing rapid evolution in a changing environment. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 692–698 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Davis, M. B., Shaw, R. G. & Etterson, J. R. Evolutionary responses to changing climate. Ecology 86, 1704–1714 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Aguirre-Gutiérrez, J. et al. Tropical forests in the Americas are changing too slowly to track climate change. Science 387, eadl5414 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Choat, B. et al. Triggers of tree mortality under drought. Nature 558, 531–539 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Esquivel-Muelbert, A. et al. Seasonal drought limits tree species across the Neotropics. Ecography 40, 618–629 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Pereira, L. et al. Plant pneumatics: stem air flow is related to embolism – new perspectives on methods in plant hydraulics. N. Phytol. 211, 357–370 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Bittencourt, P. R. L., Pereira, L. & Oliveira, R. S. Pneumatic method to measure plant xylem embolism. Bio Protoc. 8, e3059 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Brum, M. et al. Reconciling discrepancies in vulnerability to xylem embolism when using the Pneumatic method – a reply to Chen et al. New Phytol. (2021).

  65. Paligi, S. S. et al. Assessing the agreement between the pneumatic and the flow-centrifuge method for estimating xylem safety in temperate diffuse-porous tree species. Plant Biol. 25, 1171–1185 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Lopez-Gonzalez, G., Lewis, S. L., Burkitt, M., Baker, T. R. & Phillips, O. L. ForestPlots.net Database. (2009).

  67. Lopez-Gonzalez, G., Lewis, S. L., Burkitt, M. & Phillips, O. L. ForestPlots.net: a web application and research tool to manage and analyse tropical forest plot data: ForestPlots.net. J. Veg. Sci. 22, 610–613 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  68. H.D. Eva, O. Huber, F. Achard, H. Balslev, S. Beck, H. Behling, A.S. Belward, R. Beuchle, A.M. Cleef, M. Colchester, J. Duivenvoorden, M. Hoogmoed, W. Junk, P. Kabat, B. Kruijt, Y. Malhi, J.M. Müller, J.M. Pereira, C. Peres, G.T. Prance. A Proposal for Defining the Geographical Boundaries of Amazonia: Synthesis of the Results from an Expert Consultation Workshop Organized by the European Commission in Collaboration with the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization – JRC Ispra, 7-8 June 2005. 1–52 (2005).

  69. Chavent, M., Kuentz-Simonet, V., Labenne, A. & Saracco, J. ClustGeo: an R package for hierarchical clustering with spatial constraints. Comput Stat. 33, 1799–1822 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  70. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/ (The R Project for Statistical Computing, 2024).

  71. Moraga, P. Spatial Statistics for Data Science. (Taylor & Francis, London, England, 2023).

  72. Gräler, B., Pebesma, E. & Heuvelink, G. Spatio-temporal Interpolation using gstat. R. J. 8, 204 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Li, J. Assessing the accuracy of predictive models for numerical data: not r nor r2, why not? Then what? PLoS ONE 12, e0183250 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  74. Elith, J., Kearney, M. & Phillips, S. The art of modelling range-shifting species. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1, 330–342 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Hijmans, R. J., Phillips, S., Leathwick, J. & Elith, J. dismo: Species Distribution Modeling. CRAN: Contributed Packages. The R Foundation https://doi.org/10.32614/cran.package.dismo (2010).

  76. Hess, L. L. et al. LBA-ECO LC-07 Wetland Extent, Vegetation, and Inundation: Lowland Amazon Basin (Version 2). ORNL Distributed Active Archive Center. https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1284 (2015).

  77. Souza, C. M. Jr et al. Reconstructing three decades of land use and land cover changes in Brazilian biomes with Landsat archive and Earth Engine. Remote Sens (Basel) 12, 2735 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  78. INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE PESQUISAS ESPACIAIS (INPE). Amazônia Legal-Prodes(Desmatamento). https://terrabrasilis.dpi.inpe.br/downloads/ (2025).

  79. World Bank Group. Major Rivers of the World. World Bank Group (2017).

  80. Tavares et al. – Data and R-code from ‘Tavares et al. 2026, Nature Communications. Family imprint reveals basin-wide patterns of Amazon forest embolism resistance.’ ForestPlots.NET https://doi.org/10.5521/forestplots.net/2025_5 (2026).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper is an outcome of J.V.T.’s doctoral thesis, which was sponsored by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES, finance code 001, GDE 99999.001293/2015-00). J.V.T. was previously supported by the NERC-funded ARBOLES project (NE/S011811/1) and is currently supported by a Birgitta Sintring Foundation (Stipend S2023-0009, Sweden) to J.V.T. and by the Swedish Research Council Vetenskapsrådet (grant no. 2019-03758 to R.M.). Data collection was largely funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) project TREMOR (NE/N004655/1) to D.G., E.G. and O.L.P., with further funds from CAPES – Brasil (GDE 99999.001293/2015-00) to J.V.T. and a University of Leeds Climate Research Bursary Fund to J.V.T. D.G., E.G. and O.L.P. acknowledge further support from a NERC-funded consortium award (ARBOLES, NE/S011811/1). E.G., O.L.P. and D.G. acknowledge support from NERC-funded BIORED grant (NE/N012542/1). O.P. acknowledges support from an ERC Advanced Grant and a Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit Award. R.S.O. was supported by a CNPq productivity scholarship, the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP-Microsoft 11/52072-0) and the US Department of Energy, project GoAmazon (FAPESP 2013/50531-2). M.M. acknowledges support from MINECO FUN2FUN (CGL2013-46808-R) and DRESS (CGL2017-89149-C2-1-R). P.M. acknowledges support from the Royal Society Wolfson Fellowship RSWF_211008 and NERC (NE/W006308/1). E.N.H.C. was supported by NERC Knowledge Exchange Fellowship (grant ref no. NE/V018760/2). K.R. thanks the Aarhus University Research Foundation grant AUFF-E-2023-7-3 to Hanna Tuomisto. K.Y. was funded in part by the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Tecnológica (CONCYTEC) and the Programa Nacional de Investigación Científica y Estudios Avanzados (PROCIENCIA) within the framework of the E033-2023-01-BM “Alianzas Interinstitucionales para Programas de Doctorado” contest, grant number (PE501084299-2023). This paper is facilitated by the RAINFOR plot network and its long-term forest records curated at ForestPlots.net. As well as investigators and field leaders included here, we gratefully acknowledge the efforts of several hundred additional botanists, technicians and field assistants who contributed to the installation, measurement and identification of trees across South American forests. RAINFOR and ForestPlots.net have been supported by numerous people and grants since their inception. For their contributions to developing the RAINFOR network and antecedents, we are indebted to our late colleagues Elisbán Armas, Terry Erwin, Thomas Lovejoy, Alwyn Gentry, Sandra Patiño, Antonio Peña Cruz, David Neill and Jean-Pierre Veillon. For financial support we thank the European Research Council (ERC Advanced Grant 291585—‘T-FORCES’), the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (#1656 ‘RAINFOR’, and ‘MonANPeru’), the European Union’s Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Framework Programme (EVK2-CT-1999-00023—‘CARBONSINK-LBA’, 283080—‘GEOCARBON’, 282664—‘AMAZALERT), the Natural Environment Research Council (NE/ D005590/1—‘TROBIT’, NE/F005806/1—‘AMAZONICA’, NE/X014347/1—‘AMSINK’), several NERC Urgency and New Investigators Grants, the NERC/State of São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) consortium grants ‘BIO-RED’ (NE/N012542/1), ‘ECOFOR’ (NE/K016431/1, 2012/51872-5, 2012/51509-8), ‘ARBOLES’ (NE/S011811/1, FAPESP 2018/15001-6), Brazilian National Research Council (PELD/CNPq 403710/2012-0), the Royal Society (University Research Fellowships and Global Challenges Award ICA/R1/180100 – ‘FORAMA’), the National Geographic Society (PFA-21-PP029), US National Science Foundation (DEB 1754647) and Colombia’s Colciencias. This manuscript is an output of ForestPlots.net Research Project 19, “ Hydraulic properties of Amazonian trees: spatial variation and consequences for vulnerability to drought”. ForestPlots.net is a meta-network and cyber-initiative developed at the University of Leeds to unite permanent plot records and support tropical forest scientists. We thank A. Levesley, K. Melgaço Ladvocat and G. Pickavance for ForestPlots.net management. We acknowledge the contributions of the ForestPlots.net Collaboration and Data Request Committee (B.S.M., E.N.H.C., O.L.P., T.R.B., B. Sonké, C. Ewango, J. Muledi, S.L.L., L. Qie) for facilitating this project and associated data management. Data curation, partner support, and the development of ForestPlots.net have been funded by grants including NE/B503384/1, NE/N012542/1 – ‘BIO-RED’, ERC Advanced Grant 291585 – ‘T-FORCES’, NE/F005806/1 – ‘AMAZONICA’, NE/N004655/1 – ‘TREMOR’, NE/X014347/1 – AMSINK’, NERC New Investigators Awards, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (‘RAINFOR’, ‘MonANPeru’), ERC Starter Grant 758873 -‘TreeMort’, EU Framework 6, and a Leverhulme Trust Research Fellowship.

Funding

Open access funding provided by Uppsala University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

J.V.T., D.G., E.G., and T.S.F.S. designed the study with inputs from R.S.O., M.M., and O.L.P. Data analyses were done by J.V.T. and T.S.F.S. with inputs from D.G., E.G., F.C.S., O.L.P., M.M., R.S.O., T.R.B., and A.E.-M. The manuscript was written by J.V.T. with main inputs from D.G., E.G., T.S.F.S., F.C.S., R.S.O., P.B., L.R., P.M., M.M., O.P., C.S.-M., K.G.D., R.M., E.N.H.C., M.D., J.C., R.B., and I.O.M., J.V.T., C.S.-M., F.C.D., M.G., L.P., M.A., M.J.M.Z., C.A.S.Y., F.M.P.-M., H.J., M.C.S., P.B., J.A.R.S., and R.T.O. collected hydraulic traits data. Basin-wide forest species composition data were collected, managed or funded by F.C.S., B.S.M., B.H.M.J., Y.M., I.O.M., L.R., P.M., A.C.L.C., A.E.-M., E.Á.-D., M.N.A., E.A.O., A.A., L.A., A.A.-M., L.Ar., G.A., J.G.B., D.B., R.B., C.C., J.L.C., R.S., W.C., J.C., J.C., D.C.D., G.D., M.D., A.D., S.F., T.F., G.F.L., B.H., L.H., N.H., E.N.H.C., E.J.-R., M.K., S.L., W.L., S.L., A.S.L., A.M.-M., P.M., P.N.V., D.N., W.P., A.P.G., G.P.-M., M.C.P.-M., N.P., R.R., A.P., M.R.-M., H.R.-A., S.C.R., K.R., R.P.S., J.S., R.S., A.R.R., M.S., H.t.S., J.T., L.V.G., R.V.M., I.V., E.V.T., V.A.V., O.W., K.Y., R.M., T.R.B., O.L.P., and D.G. All authors critically revised the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to
Julia Valentim Tavares.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Communications thanks Takashi Kohyama and the other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. A peer review file is available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Reporting Summary

Transparent Peer Review file

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tavares, J.V., Gloor, E., Silva, T.S.F. et al. Family imprint reveals basin-wide patterns of Amazon forest embolism resistance.
Nat Commun (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-69892-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-69892-1


Source: Ecology - nature.com

A miniature, subterranean, blind cobitid loach, Gitchak nakana, new genus and species, is the first groundwater-dwelling fish from Northeast India

Chromosome-level genome of the bank vole (Clethrionomys glareolus): a resource for eco-evo-disease research

Back to Top