Global environmental changes significantly alter ecosystem services (ESs), particularly in fragile regions like the Tibetan Plateau. While methodological advances have improved spatial assessment capabilities, understanding of how multiple drivers interact to shape ecosystem service heterogeneity remains limited to regional scales, especially across complex alpine landscapes. This study aims to clarify whether multi-factor interactions produce nonlinear enhancements in ES explanatory power and how these driver–response relationships vary across heterogeneous terrains. We quantified spatiotemporal patterns of four key ecosystem services—water yield (WY), soil conservation (SC), carbon sequestration (CS), and habitat quality (HQ)—across the southeastern Tibetan Plateau from 2000 to 2020 using multi-source remote sensing data and spatial econometric modeling. Our analysis reveals that SC increased by 0.43 t·hm−2·yr−1, CS rose by 1.67 g·m−2·yr−1, and HQ improved by 0.09 over this period, while WY decreased by 3.70 mm·yr−1. ES variations are predominantly shaped by potent synergies, where interactive explanatory power consistently surpasses individual drivers. Hydrothermal coupling (precipitation ∩ potential evapotranspiration) reached 0.52 for WY and SC, while climate–vegetation synergy (precipitation ∩ normalized difference vegetation index) achieved 0.76 for CS. Such climate–restoration synergies now fundamentally shape the region’s ESs. Geographically weighted regression (GWR) further revealed distinct spatial dependencies, with southeastern regions experiencing strong negative effects of land use type and elevation on WY, while northwestern areas showed a positive elevation associated with WY but negative effects on SC and HQ. These findings highlight the critical importance of accounting for spatial non-stationarity in driver–ecosystem service relationships when designing conservation strategies for vulnerable alpine ecosystems.
Sun et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: