File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Exploring complex water stress–gross primary production relationships: Impact of climatic drivers, main effects, and interactive effects

TitleExploring complex water stress–gross primary production relationships: Impact of climatic drivers, main effects, and interactive effects
Authors
KeywordsCO effect 2
gross primary production
interactive effect
main effect
SHAP value
soil water content
vapor pressure deficit
Issue Date2022
Citation
Global Change Biology, 2022, v. 28, n. 13, p. 4110-4123 How to Cite?
AbstractThe dominance of vapor pressure deficit (VPD) and soil water content (SWC) for plant water stress is still under debate. These two variables are strongly coupled and influenced by climatic drivers. The impacts of climatic drivers on the relationships between gross primary production (GPP) and water stress from VPD/SWC and the interaction between VPD and SWC are not fully understood. Here, applying statistical methods and extreme gradient boosting models—Shapley additive explanations framework to eddy-covariance observations from the global FLUXNET2015 data set, we found that the VPD-GPP relationship was strongly influenced by climatic interactions and that VPD was more important for plant water stress than SWC across most plant functional types when we removed the effect of main climatic drivers, e.g. air temperature, incoming shortwave radiation and wind speed. However, we found no evidence for a significant influence of elevated CO2 on stress alleviation, possibly because of the short duration of the records (approximately one decade). Additionally, the interactive effect between VPD and SWC differed from their individual effect. When SWC was high, the SHAP interaction value of SWC and VPD on GPP was decreased with increasing VPD, but when SWC was low, the trend was the opposite. Additionally, we revealed a threshold effect for VPD stress on GPP loss; above the threshold value, the stress on GPP was flattened off. Our results have important implications for independently identifying VPD and SWC limitations on plant productivity, which is meaningful for capturing the magnitude of ecosystem responses to water stress in dynamic global vegetation models.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/345183
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 10.8
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 4.285

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWang, Huan-
dc.contributor.authorYan, Shijie-
dc.contributor.authorCiais, Philippe-
dc.contributor.authorWigneron, Jean Pierre-
dc.contributor.authorLiu, Laibao-
dc.contributor.authorLi, Yan-
dc.contributor.authorFu, Zheng-
dc.contributor.authorMa, Hongliang-
dc.contributor.authorLiang, Ze-
dc.contributor.authorWei, Feili-
dc.contributor.authorWang, Yueyao-
dc.contributor.authorLi, Shuangcheng-
dc.date.accessioned2024-08-15T09:25:45Z-
dc.date.available2024-08-15T09:25:45Z-
dc.date.issued2022-
dc.identifier.citationGlobal Change Biology, 2022, v. 28, n. 13, p. 4110-4123-
dc.identifier.issn1354-1013-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/345183-
dc.description.abstractThe dominance of vapor pressure deficit (VPD) and soil water content (SWC) for plant water stress is still under debate. These two variables are strongly coupled and influenced by climatic drivers. The impacts of climatic drivers on the relationships between gross primary production (GPP) and water stress from VPD/SWC and the interaction between VPD and SWC are not fully understood. Here, applying statistical methods and extreme gradient boosting models—Shapley additive explanations framework to eddy-covariance observations from the global FLUXNET2015 data set, we found that the VPD-GPP relationship was strongly influenced by climatic interactions and that VPD was more important for plant water stress than SWC across most plant functional types when we removed the effect of main climatic drivers, e.g. air temperature, incoming shortwave radiation and wind speed. However, we found no evidence for a significant influence of elevated CO2 on stress alleviation, possibly because of the short duration of the records (approximately one decade). Additionally, the interactive effect between VPD and SWC differed from their individual effect. When SWC was high, the SHAP interaction value of SWC and VPD on GPP was decreased with increasing VPD, but when SWC was low, the trend was the opposite. Additionally, we revealed a threshold effect for VPD stress on GPP loss; above the threshold value, the stress on GPP was flattened off. Our results have important implications for independently identifying VPD and SWC limitations on plant productivity, which is meaningful for capturing the magnitude of ecosystem responses to water stress in dynamic global vegetation models.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofGlobal Change Biology-
dc.subjectCO effect 2-
dc.subjectgross primary production-
dc.subjectinteractive effect-
dc.subjectmain effect-
dc.subjectSHAP value-
dc.subjectsoil water content-
dc.subjectvapor pressure deficit-
dc.titleExploring complex water stress–gross primary production relationships: Impact of climatic drivers, main effects, and interactive effects-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/gcb.16201-
dc.identifier.pmid35429206-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85129156609-
dc.identifier.volume28-
dc.identifier.issue13-
dc.identifier.spage4110-
dc.identifier.epage4123-
dc.identifier.eissn1365-2486-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats