Bibliometric review reveals evolving research dynamics on lakes in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, highlighting climate impact.
The Qinghai-Tibet Plateau is a sensitive area of global climate change and an “Asian water tower” and lakes in Qinghai-Tibet Plateau changes are of great significance to the regional hydrological cycle and ecological balance. However, the existing research mostly focuses on a single lake or short-term monitoring, and lacks a systematic review of the evolution of knowledge structure and interdisciplinary dynamics. Based on 354 literatures from CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) and Web of Science, this study used CiteSpace 6.3.R1 software to construct a scientific knowledge map of lake changes in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau under the background of climate change for the first time. By analyzing the number of publications, research hotspots, institutional cooperation networks and keyword emergence rules, the core triangle structure of ”climate change–Qinghai-Tibet Plateau–lake” was revealed, and the three stages of sedimentary reconstruction (2002–2008), glacier–lake coupling (2005–2014) and human–land system comprehensive research (2015–2025) were divided. The study found that the scientific literature written in Chinese and the scientific literature written in English focused on empirical cases and model simulations, respectively, The research frontiers focused on hot karst lakes (burst intensity 3.71), lake water level (2.97) and carbon cycle (2.13). The research force is centered on the Chinese Academy of Sciences, forming a cluster of institutions in the northwest region, but international cooperation only accounts for 12.3%. Future research needs to deepen multi-source data fusion, strengthen cross-regional comparison, and build an international cooperation network to cope with the complex challenges of plateau lake systems under climate change. This study provides a scientific basis for the paradigm shift and future direction of plateau lake research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mei et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: