Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,050

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Time‐lag effects of global vegetation responses to climate change

Wu, Donghai, Zhao, Xiang, Liang, Shunlin, Zhou, Tao, Huang, Kaicheng, Tang, Bijian, Zhao, Wenqian·2015·Global Change Biology

Abstract

Climate conditions significantly affect vegetation growth in terrestrial ecosystems. Due to the spatial heterogeneity of ecosystems, the vegetation responses to climate vary considerably with the diverse spatial patterns and the time‐lag effects, which are the most important mechanism of climate–vegetation interactive effects. Extensive studies focused on large‐scale vegetation–climate interactions use the simultaneous meteorological and vegetation indicators to develop models; however, the time‐lag effects are less considered, which tends to increase uncertainty. In this study, we aim to quantitatively determine the time‐lag effects of global vegetation responses to different climatic factors using the GIMMS 3g NDVI time series and the CRU temperature, precipitation, and solar radiation datasets. First, this study analyzed the time‐lag effects of global vegetation responses to different climatic factors. Then, a multiple linear regression model and partial correlation model were established to statistically analyze the roles of different climatic factors on vegetation responses, from which the primary climate‐driving factors for different vegetation types were determined. The results showed that (i) both the time‐lag effects of the vegetation responses and the major climate‐driving factors that significantly affect vegetation growth varied significantly at the global scale, which was related to the diverse vegetation and climate characteristics; (ii) regarding the time‐lag effects, the climatic factors explained 64% variation of the global vegetation growth, which was 11% relatively higher than the model ignoring the time‐lag effects; (iii) for the area with a significant change trend (for the period 1982–2008) in the global GIMMS 3g NDVI (P < 0.05), the primary driving factor was temperature; and (iv) at the regional scale, the variation in vegetation growth was also related to human activities and natural disturbances. Considering the time‐lag effects is quite important for better predicting and evaluating the vegetation dynamics under the background of global climate change.

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 · 10.1111/gcb.12945

Cites

60 of 60 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

Cited by

See all 1,050

Metadata

Authors
Wu, D., Zhao, X., Liang, S., Zhou, T., Huang, K., Tang, B., & Zhao, W.
Venue
Global Change Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-05-19
Volume
21
Issue
9
Pages
3520-3531
ISSN
  • 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2486
OpenAlex
W2039361154
Cited by
1,050
References
60
FWCI
30.31
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

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.