2022
DOI: 10.1111/gcb.16522
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Saturation response of enhanced vegetation productivity attributes to intricate interactions

Abstract: Terrestrial ecosystems account for more than half of the global carbon sink , absorbing approximately one-third of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions (Friedlingstein et al., 2020). Climatic warming and fertilization effect of increasing atmospheric CO 2 concentration have been demonstrated to substantially increase vegetation productivity, which contributes to the accumulation of more land carbon sinks (Anderegg et al., 2015;Schimel et al., 2015). Current evidence suggests that CO 2 fertilization

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
4
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 75 publications
1
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…One possible explanation is that the greening stimulated by carbon dioxide (i.e., an augmentation in leaf area index), surpasses the water‐saving effect (i.e., the reduction in stomatal conductance and transpiration), aggravating water scarcity in arid regions and thereby amplifying the E WA‐GPP at shorter time scales, including 3‐, 7‐, and 17‐year time scales (Chen et al., 2022; Ueyama et al., 2020). However, in ENF, EBF, DBF, and MF, we observed a weakening E WA‐GPP (both positive and negative) for GPP NIRv , which is consistent with previous studies that there is a weakening impact of WA induced by carbon dioxide fertilization effects (Lian et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2020), whereas GPP FLUX and GPP EC‐LUE exhibited an increasing E WA‐GPP . Considering the better response of NIRv to high vegetation cover areas, we believe that the effect of WA on forests is weakening, which is more plausible, but of course, this needs to be further confirmed by other metrics such as biomass (Wang et al., 2021; Yang, Wang, et al., 2022).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…One possible explanation is that the greening stimulated by carbon dioxide (i.e., an augmentation in leaf area index), surpasses the water‐saving effect (i.e., the reduction in stomatal conductance and transpiration), aggravating water scarcity in arid regions and thereby amplifying the E WA‐GPP at shorter time scales, including 3‐, 7‐, and 17‐year time scales (Chen et al., 2022; Ueyama et al., 2020). However, in ENF, EBF, DBF, and MF, we observed a weakening E WA‐GPP (both positive and negative) for GPP NIRv , which is consistent with previous studies that there is a weakening impact of WA induced by carbon dioxide fertilization effects (Lian et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2020), whereas GPP FLUX and GPP EC‐LUE exhibited an increasing E WA‐GPP . Considering the better response of NIRv to high vegetation cover areas, we believe that the effect of WA on forests is weakening, which is more plausible, but of course, this needs to be further confirmed by other metrics such as biomass (Wang et al., 2021; Yang, Wang, et al., 2022).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…According to a new study, the driving forces of vegetation productivity in China have changed from being dominated by a single factor to being influenced by the interactive effects of multiple factors [21]. In some regions, the interactive effects of driving forces behind vegetation variations were seen, but the dominant factors and the types of interactions varied between regions [17,23].…”
Section: Driving Factors For the Spatial Heterogeneity Of Vegetation ...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition to change trends, significant spatial heterogeneity exists in the vegetation, and various settings have varied vegetation features [18,19]. Meanwhile, it is not always the case that one factor has an independent effect on vegetation development [20,21]. Geographical detectors can effectively identify the influencing factors of spatial differences in vegetation, as well as the importance of each factor and how those factors interact with one another [17,22].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The results showed that the partial correlation coefficients of the NDVI and albedo with LST are significant except in summer (Table 3). This may be due to the saturation effect of the summer vegetation and albedo contributions on the LST [48], resulting in their insignificant trend of contribution. The individual contribution of albedo to LST was larger than that of NDVI at all timescales, especially in spring and autumn.…”
Section: Vegetation Impacts On Lst At Different Time Scalesmentioning
confidence: 99%