PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 5, 2026Forests2 citationsOpen Access

Contrasting Effects of Hydrothermal Drivers on Gross Primary Productivity and Ecosystem Respiration

View Full Paper
RQRui QuWZWeirong ZhangQZQilin Zhu

Key Points

  • This research aims to understand how different hydrothermal factors affect gross primary productivity (GPP) and ecosystem respiration (ER) in forest ecosystems.
  • Analyzed flux observations from global terrestrial sites with a focus on forest ecosystems.
  • Selected mean annual temperature, latent heat flux, vapor pressure deficit, soil water content, and annual precipitation as indicators.
  • Used mixed-effects models to assess the influence of hydrothermal conditions on GPP and ER.
  • Latent heat flux and mean annual temperature promoted GPP more strongly than ER.
  • Vapor pressure deficit suppressed GPP more than ER, but had a greater impact on variance in ER.
  • Soil water content positively affected GPP but had a minimal effect and an insignificant impact on ER.
  • Mean annual temperature showed a stronger influence on GPP across ecosystem types, especially in mixed forests and savannas.

Abstract

The balance between gross primary productivity (GPP) and ecosystem respiration (ER) defines an ecosystem’s carbon sink-source status. Under global warming, hydrothermal conditions critically shape carbon fluxes, yet their differential impacts on GPP and ER remain insufficiently understood, especially across biomes. Elucidating these differences is essential for reducing uncertainties in terrestrial carbon cycle projections under ongoing climate change. Here, based on flux observations from global terrestrial sites with a focus on forest ecosystems, we selected mean annual temperature (MAT), latent heat flux (LH), vapor pressure deficit (VPD), soil water content (SWC), and annual precipitation as representative indicators of hydrothermal conditions, and employed mixed-effects models to examine how these key environmental drivers influence GPP and ER. After analyzing the fixed effects, LH and MAT promoted GPP more strongly than ER (slope = 0.5 > 0.253, slope = 0.595 > 0.392, respectively), whereas VPD suppressed GPP more than ER (slope = −0.658 0.07). Although SWC had a significant (p < 0.001) positive effect on GPP, the effect size was minimal, and its impact on ER was insignificant. R2 decomposition showed that marginal R2 values were similar for the GPP and ER models (0.43 and 0.44), whereas the GPP model exhibited a substantially higher conditional R2 (0.82 vs. 0.63), indicating that MAT exerted a stronger influence on GPP than on ER across ecosystem types. The combined analysis of fixed and random effects indicated that MAT affected GPP more variably than ER across ecosystem types, with the strongest responses in mixed forests and savannas, intermediate responses in evergreen needleleaf forests, and the weakest responses in evergreen broadleaf forests. Overall, this study advances our understanding of how environmental factors differently influence GPP and ER, and incorporating these differences can improve predictions of forest carbon fluxes and climate-carbon feedbacks.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Qu et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6984359ef1d9ada3c1fb4a7bhttps://doi.org/10.3390/f17020205
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper