Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 373

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 75 of the 75 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The impact of the 2009/2010 drought on vegetation growth and terrestrial carbon balance in Southwest China

Li, Xiangyi, Li, Yue, Chen, Anping, Gao, Mengdi, Slette, Ingrid J., Piao, Shilong·2019·Agricultural and Forest Meteorology

Abstract

Abstract The 2009/2010 drought in Southwest China was a “once in a century drought” event. This drought event had strong adverse impacts, such as water scarcity, crop failure, and economic loss, on ecosystems and the human society. Explicit representations of this drought event and associated changes in vegetation dynamics and carbon cycle, however, are still largely missed in literature. Here we used the standardized anomaly of 3-month Standard Precipitation-Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI) to characterize this 2009/2010 drought event, including its onset and end months, duration and severity. We examined the drought impacts on vegetation greenness using Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI); and assessed the terrestrial carbon flux responses to drought using data from satellite-based datasets, atmospheric inversion, one data-based model, and three ecosystem models. Our analysis showed that this “autumn-winter-spring” drought mostly suppressed vegetation growth in Yunnan, North Guangxi, Guizhou and East Sichuan. In comparisons to the same months of the reference period (2000–2015), the drought caused a large reduction in carbon uptake (4.4 ± 5 gCm−2month-1) from the decrease in gross primary production (GPP, 5.7 ± 9.5 gCm−2month-1), although ecosystem respiration (TER) also decreased by a smaller extent (1.3 ± 5.1 gCm−2month-1). Nonetheless, more than 65% of the drought-impacted area recovered in both vegetation greenness and productivity within 3 months, while about 10% of the drought-affected area failed to recover even after 6 months post the drought event. Across different vegetation types, forests and shrubs had stronger capability of drought resistance and shorter post-drought recovery time than crops and grasses. Model comparison reveals that while data from different sources generally agreed on the sign of vegetation greenness and carbon flux responses to drought, they differ significantly in the extent of such responses.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.01.036

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 75 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Li, X., Li, Y., Chen, A., Gao, M., Slette, I. J., & Piao, S.
Venue
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-05
Volume
269-270
Pages
239-248
ISSN
0168-1923 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2913519628
Cited by
373
References
75
FWCI
16.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The impact of the 2009/2010 drought on vegetation growth and terrestrial carbon balance in Southwest China. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.01.036
The paper
Li, X., Li, Y., Chen, A., Gao, M., Slette, I. J., & Piao, S. (2019). The impact of the 2009/2010 drought on vegetation growth and terrestrial carbon balance in Southwest China. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.01.036

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.