[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Search Results (367)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = vapor pressure deficit

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
20 pages, 13149 KiB  
Article
Patterns and Drivers of Surface Energy Flux in the Alpine Meadow Ecosystem in the Qilian Mountains, Northwest China
by Yongxin Tian, Zhangwen Liu, Yanwei Fan, Yongyuan Li, Hu Tao, Chuntan Han, Xinmao Ao and Rensheng Chen
Plants 2025, 14(2), 155; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14020155 - 7 Jan 2025
Viewed by 285
Abstract
Alpine meadows are vital ecosystems on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau, significantly contributing to water conservation and climate regulation. This study examines the energy flux patterns and their driving factors in the alpine meadows of the Qilian Mountains, focusing on how the meteorological variables of [...] Read more.
Alpine meadows are vital ecosystems on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau, significantly contributing to water conservation and climate regulation. This study examines the energy flux patterns and their driving factors in the alpine meadows of the Qilian Mountains, focusing on how the meteorological variables of net radiation (Rn), air temperature, vapor pressure deficit (VPD), wind speed (U), and soil water content (SWC) influence sensible heat flux (H) and latent heat flux (LE). Using the Bowen ratio energy balance method, we monitored energy changes during the growing and non-growing seasons from 2022 to 2023. The annual average daily Rn was 85.29 W m−2, with H, LE, and G accounting for 0.56, 0.71, and −0.32 of Rn, respectively. Results show that Rn is the main driver of both H and LE, highlighting its crucial role in turbulent flux variations. Additionally, a negative correlation was found between air temperature and H, suggesting that high temperatures may suppress H. A significant positive correlation was observed between soil moisture and LE, further indicating that moist soil conditions enhance LE. In conclusion, this study demonstrates the impact of climate change on energy distribution in alpine meadows and calls for further research on the ecosystem’s dynamic responses to changing climate conditions. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Plant Ecology)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Annual variation in daily average meteorological variables at the meteorological observation site from 2022 to 2023, with the green area representing the GS: (<b>a</b>) <span class="html-italic">T<sub>a</sub></span> and <span class="html-italic">T<sub>s</sub></span>; (<b>b</b>) <span class="html-italic">VPD</span>; (<b>c</b>) <span class="html-italic">U</span>; (<b>d</b>) <span class="html-italic">SWC</span>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Daily variation in energy fluxes during the GS (<b>a</b>), NGS (<b>b</b>), and throughout the year (<b>c</b>) at the meteorological observation station in 2022–2023.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Yearly variation in daily average energy fluxes at the meteorological observation site from 2022 to 2023, with the green area indicating the GS: (<b>a</b>) <span class="html-italic">R<sub>n</sub></span>; (<b>b</b>) <span class="html-italic">H</span>; (<b>c</b>) <span class="html-italic">LE</span>; (<b>d</b>) <span class="html-italic">G</span>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Yearly variations in the daily average proportions of energy fluxes and Bowen ratio at the meteorological observation site from 2022 to 2023, with the green area indicating the GS: (<b>a</b>) <span class="html-italic">H/R<sub>n</sub></span> ratio; (<b>b</b>) <span class="html-italic">LE/R<sub>n</sub></span> ratio; (<b>c</b>) <span class="html-italic">G/R<sub>n</sub></span> ratio; (<b>d</b>) Bowen ratio.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Yearly variations in the monthly average proportions of energy fluxes and Bowen ratio at the meteorological observation site from 2022 to 2023, with the green area indicating the GS.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Pearson’s correlation coefficients between meteorological variables and energy fluxes during the study period.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Structural equation model (SEM) of meteorological variables (<span class="html-italic">T<sub>a</sub></span>, <span class="html-italic">VPD</span>, <span class="html-italic">U</span>, and <span class="html-italic">SWC</span>) and energy components (<span class="html-italic">R<sub>n</sub></span>, <span class="html-italic">H</span>, and <span class="html-italic">LE</span>) at the observation site. Panels (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) represent the path analysis models for <span class="html-italic">LE</span> and <span class="html-italic">H</span>, respectively, with standardized path coefficients positively correlated with the strength of path arrows. Blue arrows indicate positive correlations, while red arrows represent negative correlations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Location of the Hulu catchment (red dot) and meteorological observation stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Linear correlation analysis between daily average turbulent flux (<span class="html-italic">H</span> + <span class="html-italic">LE</span>) and available flux (<span class="html-italic">R<sub>n</sub></span> + <span class="html-italic">G</span>).</p>
Full article ">
19 pages, 14062 KiB  
Article
Spatiotemporal Changes in Water-Use Efficiency of China’s Terrestrial Ecosystems During 2001–2020 and the Driving Factors
by Jia He, Yuxuan Zhou, Xueying Liu, Wenjing Duan and Naiqing Pan
Remote Sens. 2025, 17(1), 136; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17010136 - 3 Jan 2025
Viewed by 405
Abstract
Water-use efficiency (WUE) is an important indicator for understanding the coupling of carbon and water cycles in terrestrial ecosystems. It provides a comprehensive reflection of ecosystems’ responses to various environmental factors, making it essential for understanding how ecosystems adapt to complex environmental changes. [...] Read more.
Water-use efficiency (WUE) is an important indicator for understanding the coupling of carbon and water cycles in terrestrial ecosystems. It provides a comprehensive reflection of ecosystems’ responses to various environmental factors, making it essential for understanding how ecosystems adapt to complex environmental changes. Using satellite-based estimates of gross primary productivity (GPP) and evapotranspiration (ET), our study investigated the spatiotemporal variations in WUE across China’s terrestrial ecosystems from 2001 to 2020. We employed the geographic detector method, partial correlation analysis, and ridge regression to assess the contributions of different factors (temperature, precipitation, solar radiation, vapor pressure deficit, leaf area index, and soil moisture) to GPP, ET, and WUE. The results show significant increases in GPP, ET, and WUE during the study period, with increase rates of 6.70 g C m−2 yr−1, 2.68 kg H2O m−2 yr−1, and 0.007 g C H2O m−2 yr−1, respectively. More than three-quarters of the regions with significant trends in WUE (p < 0.05) displayed notable increases in WUE (p < 0.05). Among all driving factors, leaf area index (LAI) made the largest contribution to WUE, particularly in warm temperate semi-humid regions. Precipitation and solar radiation were the primary climatic influences in arid regions of northern China and humid regions of southwestern China, respectively. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Ecological Remote Sensing)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Study area and climate zone ((<b>a</b>–<b>f</b>) shows the multi-year average values of LAI (leaf area index), RAD (solar radiation), TEM (temperature), PRE (precipitation), SM (soil moisture), VPD (vapor pressure deficit) from 2001–2020 and I–VII means the distribution of climate zones in the study area, there into I is mid-temperate arid region; II is mid-temperate semi-arid region, III is mid-temperate and semi-humid region, IV is plateau temperate semi-arid region, V is warm temperate semi-humid region, VI is northern subtropical humid region, VII is edge tropical warm region).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Time variation characteristics of GPP, ET, and WUE from 2001 to 2020 (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) and their rates of variation in various climate zones (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>). (GPP: gross primary productivity, ET: evapotranspiration, WUE: water–use efficiency) (The *** means <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.001, and ** means <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The spatial variation characteristics of GPP, ET, and WUE from 2001 to 2020 (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) (GPP: gross primary productivity, ET: evapotranspiration, WUE: water-use efficiency).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Partial correlation between different driving and GPP, ET, and WUE ((<b>a</b>–<b>f</b>) shows the partial correlation between GPP, with TEM, PRE, RAD, SM, VPD and LAI; (<b>g</b>–<b>l</b>) shows the partial correlation between ET with above variables; (<b>m</b>–<b>r</b>) shows the partial correlation between WUE with above variables, while GPP: gross primary productivity, ET: evapotranspiration, WUE: water-use efficiency, TEM: temperature, PRE: precipitation, RAD: solar radiation, VPD: vapor pressure deficit, SM: soil moisture).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The interactive effects detection results and explanatory power of different driving factors on GPP, ET, and WUE in China from 2001 to 2020 (GPP: gross primary productivity, ET: evapotranspiration, WUE: water-use efficiency, TEM: temperature, PRE: precipitation, RAD: solar radiation, VPD: vapor pressure deficit, SM: soil moisture).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The relative contributions of different driving factors to changes in GPP, ET, and WUE from 2001 to 2020 ((<b>a</b>–<b>f</b>) shows the relative contributions between GPP, with TEM, PRE, RAD, SM, VPD and LAI; (<b>g</b>–<b>l</b>) shows the relative contributions between ET with above variables; (<b>m</b>–<b>r</b>) shows the relative contributions between WUE with above variables, while GPP: gross primary productivity, ET: evapotranspiration, WUE: water-use efficiency, TEM: temperature, PRE: precipitation, RAD: solar radiation, VPD: vapor pressure deficit, SM: soil moisture).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6 Cont.
<p>The relative contributions of different driving factors to changes in GPP, ET, and WUE from 2001 to 2020 ((<b>a</b>–<b>f</b>) shows the relative contributions between GPP, with TEM, PRE, RAD, SM, VPD and LAI; (<b>g</b>–<b>l</b>) shows the relative contributions between ET with above variables; (<b>m</b>–<b>r</b>) shows the relative contributions between WUE with above variables, while GPP: gross primary productivity, ET: evapotranspiration, WUE: water-use efficiency, TEM: temperature, PRE: precipitation, RAD: solar radiation, VPD: vapor pressure deficit, SM: soil moisture).</p>
Full article ">
17 pages, 5744 KiB  
Article
Variation and Controlling Factors of Carbon Flux over a Humid Region Kiwifruit Orchard in Southwest China
by Xiuyun Yu, Ningbo Cui, Yuxin He, Mingjun Wang, Shunsheng Zheng, Lu Zhao, Renjuan Wei and Shouzheng Jiang
Sustainability 2025, 17(1), 258; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17010258 - 2 Jan 2025
Viewed by 466
Abstract
Investigating the carbon flux in orchard ecosystems is crucial for assessing agroecosystem productivity and optimizing management practices. We measured and estimated carbon fluxes (gross primary productivity, GPP; ecosystem respiration, Re; and net ecosystem exchange, NEE) and environmental variables in a seven-year-old [...] Read more.
Investigating the carbon flux in orchard ecosystems is crucial for assessing agroecosystem productivity and optimizing management practices. We measured and estimated carbon fluxes (gross primary productivity, GPP; ecosystem respiration, Re; and net ecosystem exchange, NEE) and environmental variables in a seven-year-old kiwifruit orchard over two years. Our results showed that diurnal carbon fluxes exhibited bell-shaped patterns, peaking between 12:30 and 15:30. Daily carbon fluxes exhibited a seasonal trend, characterized by an increase followed by a decrease. The average daily GPP, Re, and NEE values were 6.77, 4.99, and −1.79 g C m−2 d−1 in 2018, and 5.88, 4.78, and −1.10 g C m−2 d−1 in 2019, respectively. The orchard sequestered −444.25 g C m−2 in 2018 and −285.77 g C m−2 in 2019, which accounted for 26.4% and 18.6% of GPP, respectively. Diurnal GPP and NEE were significantly influenced by photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), with direct path coefficients of 0.75 and 0.88 (p < 0.01), while air temperature (Ta) significantly affected GPP and NEE through PAR, with an indirect path coefficient of 1.12 for both. PAR had a similar effect on daily GPP and NEE, while both were indirectly influenced by soil temperature (Ts) at a 5 cm depth and vapor pressure deficit (VPD). Re was primarily impacted by VPD, with a direct path coefficient of 0.64 (p < 0.01), while Ta and the concentration of air carbon dioxide (CCO2) significantly affected GPP through VPD, with indirect path coefficients of 0.82 and −0.80. The leaf area index (LAI) and soil water content (SWC) at a 20 cm depth exhibited a significant correlation with carbon fluxes during the vigorous growing period. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>(<b>a</b>) Geophysical location and (<b>b</b>) wind rose plot of the studied ecosystems in the Pujiang County of Chengdu Plain, southwest China.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Monthly variations in environmental factors and leaf area index (LAI) during the kiwifruit growth period of 2018 and 2019. Environmental factors are (<b>a</b>) air temperature (T<sub>a</sub>), soil temperature (T<sub>s</sub>) at 5 cm depth and photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), (<b>b</b>) concentration of air carbon dioxide (CCO<sub>2</sub>) and concentration of air water vapor (CH<sub>2</sub>O), (<b>c</b>) soil water content (SWC) at 20 cm depth and air relative humidity (RH), and (<b>d</b>) vapor pressure deficit (VPD) and LAI.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Variations in (<b>a</b>) monthly average diurnal gross primary productivity (GPP), ecosystem respiration (R<sub>e</sub>), and net ecosystem exchange (NEE) during the kiwifruit growth period in 2018 and 2019; and seasonal GPP, R<sub>e</sub>, and NEE in (<b>b</b>) 2018 and (<b>c</b>) 2019.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Pearson correlation coefficient between biophysical factors and carbon fluxes (GPP, gross primary productivity; R<sub>e</sub>, ecosystem respiration; NEE, net ecosystem exchange) at diurnal and daily scales in 2018 (left) and 2019 (right). Biophysical factors are vapor pressure deficit (VPD), concentration of air carbon dioxide (CCO<sub>2</sub>), concentration of air water vapor concentration (CH<sub>2</sub>O), air temperature (T<sub>a</sub>), air relative humidity (RH), photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), soil temperature (T<sub>s</sub>) at 5 cm depth, soil water content (SWC) at 20 cm depth, and the leaf area index (LAI). * and ** represent a significance level of <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 and <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Pearson correlation coefficient between biophysical factors and carbon fluxes (GPP, gross primary productivity; R<sub>e</sub>, ecosystem respiration; NEE, net ecosystem exchange) during the (<b>a</b>) vigorous growth period and (<b>b</b>) non-vigorous growth period. Biophysical factors are vapor pressure deficit (VPD), concentration of air carbon dioxide (CCO<sub>2</sub>), concentration of air water vapor concentration (CH<sub>2</sub>O), air temperature (T<sub>a</sub>), air relative humidity (RH), photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), soil temperature (T<sub>S</sub>) at 5 cm depth, soil water content (SWC) at 20 cm depth, and the leaf area index (LAI). * and ** represent a significance level of <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 and <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Standardized direct and indirect path coefficients of environmental factors and leaf area index (LAI) on diurnal (<b>a</b>–<b>f</b>) and daily (<b>g</b>–<b>l</b>) gross primary productivity (GPP), ecosystem respiration (R<sub>e</sub>), and net ecosystem exchange (NEE) for 2018–2019. Environmental factors are vapor pressure deficit (VPD), air carbon dioxide concentration (CCO<sub>2</sub>), atmospheric water vapor concentration (CH<sub>2</sub>O), air temperature (T<sub>a</sub>), air relative humidity (RH), photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), soil temperature (T<sub>S</sub>) at 5 cm depth, and soil water content (SWC) at 20 cm depth. Note: * and ** represent a significance level of <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 and <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Path diagrams of biophysical factors on carbon fluxes (GPP, gross primary productivity; R<sub>e</sub>, ecosystem respiration; NEE, net ecosystem exchange) during the (<b>a</b>) vigorous growth period and (<b>b</b>) non-vigorous growth period. The biophysical factors include the vapor pressure deficit (VPD), air carbon dioxide concentration (CCO<sub>2</sub>), atmospheric water vapor concentration (CH<sub>2</sub>O), air temperature (T<sub>a</sub>), air relative humidity (RH), photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), soil temperature (T<sub>s</sub>) at 5 cm depth, soil water content (SWC) at 20 cm depth, and leaf area index (LAI). The solid red lines denote the direct paths, the blue dashed lines denote the indirect paths, the values on the arrows denote the path coefficients, and the black dashed lines represent the absence of a pathway. Note: * and ** represent a significance level of <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 and <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01, respectively.</p>
Full article ">
16 pages, 4519 KiB  
Article
Suitable Tree Species for Afforestation in Semiarid China: Evidence from Tree Stem Growth Monitoring
by Mei Wu, Di Tian, Liang Shi, Chongyang Xu, Yien Mo, Guochen Zhang and Yongliang Gao
Forests 2025, 16(1), 50; https://doi.org/10.3390/f16010050 - 30 Dec 2024
Viewed by 476
Abstract
Each tree species occupies its own ecological niche along biogeographic gradients. Selecting suitable tree species with the principle of matching specific habitats is therefore of vital importance for ensuring the success and efficiency of afforestation, especially in harsh ecoregions. Therefore, if the ecological [...] Read more.
Each tree species occupies its own ecological niche along biogeographic gradients. Selecting suitable tree species with the principle of matching specific habitats is therefore of vital importance for ensuring the success and efficiency of afforestation, especially in harsh ecoregions. Therefore, if the ecological suitability of trees to the target area is not carefully considered in the selection of afforestation species, the establishment of plantation may not achieve the desired effect. Hence, to evaluate trees’ fitness to different environments along an altitude gradient and then select suitable tree species for afforestation in semiarid China, we investigated stem growth of the most common tree species in typical afforestation types, including larch (Larix principis-rupprechtii), pine (Pinus sylvestris) and birch (Betula pendula), at low, middle and high altitudes (~1400 m, 1500 m and 1600 m, respectively), via high-resolution dendrometers in 2021. We found that pine had the highest growth rate and cumulative stem growth amount at lower, rather than higher, altitude, while larch showed the opposite pattern. Compared to the two conifers, the growth rate of the secondary species birch is much lower. Water stress-related climatic variables during the growing season, including relative humidity and vapor pressure deficit, explained the most variation of tree stem growth among these three species (33%~44%). Specifically, larch revealed higher sensitivity to atmospheric water demand factors while pine indicated stronger drought tolerance. These results indicated higher potential mortality and decline risk of larch plantations with the climate becoming warmer and drier, especially at low altitudes in semiarid China. There are challenges in using larch for reforestation in areas with harsh environmental conditions. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Forest Ecology and Management)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Research framework illustrating the study of tree growth adaptation in semiarid Saihanba. The study assessed three tree species (larch, pine and birch) along an altitudinal gradient (1414 m, 1525 m and 1604 m) to investigate stem growth variability. Data were collected in 2021 using dendrometers to monitor stem radial growth and environmental data loggers (HOBO Pro v2 U23, Onset, Bourne, MA, USA; Em50/G, Decagon, Pullman, WA, USA) to measure environmental factors (e.g., temperature and soil moisture). The results identified differences in growth responses and the key environmental factors driving daily growth variations. These findings support the selection of resilient tree species for afforestation projects in semiarid environments.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Location of the monitoring sites of pine (<span class="html-italic">Pinus sylvestris</span>), larch (<span class="html-italic">Larix principis-rupprechtii</span>) and birch (<span class="html-italic">Betula pendula)</span> in the Saihanba artificial forest area.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Cumulative growth amount and differences in growth amount for <span class="html-italic">Larix principis-rupprechtii</span> (L), <span class="html-italic">Pinus sylvestris</span> (P) and <span class="html-italic">Betula pendula</span> (B) at different altitudes (<b>a</b>–<b>f</b>). Red represents <span class="html-italic">Larix principis-rupprechtii</span>, blue represents <span class="html-italic">Pinus sylvestris</span> and gray represents <span class="html-italic">Betula pendula</span>, with color depth indicating altitude variation. DOY stands for “day of year”. Different letters represent significant difference among three species (<span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Daily growth rates and differences in average growth rates within the growing season for <span class="html-italic">Larix principis-rupprechtii</span> (L), <span class="html-italic">Pinus sylvestris</span> (P) and <span class="html-italic">Betula pendula</span> (B) at different altitudes (<b>a</b>–<b>f</b>). Red represents <span class="html-italic">Larix principis-rupprechtii</span>, blue represents <span class="html-italic">Pinus sylvestris</span> and gray represents <span class="html-italic">Betula pendula</span>. DOY stands for “day of year”. Different letters represent significant difference among three species (<span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Differences in stem growth phenology among altitudes and species. (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) The analysis of significant differences in the start time of growth, end time of growth, length of the growth period and effective growth days for three species across different altitude gradients. Sites A, B and C correspond to altitudes of 1414 m, 1525 m and 1604 m, respectively. L represents <span class="html-italic">Larix principis-rupprechtii</span>, P represents <span class="html-italic">Pinus sylvestris</span> and B represents <span class="html-italic">Betula platyphyll</span>. Uppercase letters indicate significant interspecific differences, while lowercase letters indicate significant altitude differences (<span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Relationship between daily stem growth amount of three tree species and environmental factors. (<b>a</b>) Correlation analysis: *, <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05 and **, <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01. (<b>b</b>) Variable importance ranking by random forest. Sites A, B and C correspond to altitudes of 1414 m, 1525 m and 1604 m, respectively. L represents <span class="html-italic">Larix principis-rupprechtii</span>, P represents <span class="html-italic">Pinus sylvestris</span> and B represents <span class="html-italic">Betula platyphyll</span>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Relationship between daily stem growth of three tree species and VPD. Sites A, B and C represent altitudes of 1414 m, 1525 m and 1604 m, respectively. L represents <span class="html-italic">Larix principis-rupprechtii</span>, P represents <span class="html-italic">Pinus sylvestris</span> and B represents <span class="html-italic">Betula platyphyll</span>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Conceptual diagram summarizing the key findings on the growth performance of larch, pine and birch across an altitude gradient in the semiarid region. This figure illustrates the cumulative seasonal growth patterns of three tree species (larch, pine and birch) along three altitudinal gradients (1414 m, 1525 m and 1604 m). Tree size and root density qualitatively represent growth performance, where larger trees with denser roots indicate better growth. Lowercase letters represent the significance of differences in cumulative radial growth (<span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05).</p>
Full article ">
19 pages, 5592 KiB  
Article
Assessing the Air Humidity Characteristics of Local Climate Zones in Guangzhou, China
by Xiao Tan, Qi Zhang, Yiqi Chen, Junsong Wang, Lihua Zhao and Guang Chen
Buildings 2025, 15(1), 95; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15010095 - 30 Dec 2024
Viewed by 382
Abstract
An urban canopy’s humidity significantly affects thermal comfort, public health, and building energy efficiency; however, it remains insufficiently understood. This study employed 3-year (2020–2022) fixed measurements from Guangzhou to investigate the temporal patterns of relative humidity (RH), vapor pressure (Ea), and vapor pressure [...] Read more.
An urban canopy’s humidity significantly affects thermal comfort, public health, and building energy efficiency; however, it remains insufficiently understood. This study employed 3-year (2020–2022) fixed measurements from Guangzhou to investigate the temporal patterns of relative humidity (RH), vapor pressure (Ea), and vapor pressure deficit (VPD) across eight local climatic zones (LCZs). Clear and distinct patterns in the humidity characteristics among the LCZs were revealed on multiple timescales. The RH and VPD of each zone were higher in summer than in winter, with peak RH observed in LCZ A (83.45%) and peak VPD in LCZ 3 (13.6 hPa). Furthermore, a significant daytime urban dry island (UDI) effect in the summer and a nighttime urban moisture island (UMI) effect in the winter were observed in terms of the Ea difference between urban and rural areas. The strongest UMI occurred during winter nights in LCZ 8, with a peak intensity of 0.8 hPa, while the UDI was more frequent during summer days in LCZ 1, with a maximum value of −1.2 hPa; meanwhile, compact areas had a slightly higher frequency of UDI than open areas. Finally, the effects of the urban heat island (UHI) and wind speed (V) on UMI were analyzed. During the daytime, a weak correlation was observed between the UHI and UMI. Wind enhanced the intensity of the nighttime UMI. This research offers further insights into the canopy humidity characteristics in low-latitude subtropical cities, thereby contributing to the establishment of a universal model to quantify the differences in moisture between urban and rural areas. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Enhancing Building Resilience Under Climate Change)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Land use/land cover (LULC) and the distribution of each LCZ site in Guangzhou. The dots represent the locations and types of each LCZ, while the star indicates the location of national meteorological station (NWS).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>(<b>a</b>) Satellite imagery of local climate zone D (LCZ D, characterized by low plants) sourced from Google Maps (<a href="https://www.amap.com" target="_blank">https://www.amap.com</a>, accessed on 26 December 2024); “D1” and “D2” represent the detailed locations of the two loggers. (<b>b</b>) The specific locations where the temperature and humidity data loggers were installed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Distributions of RH, Ea, and VPD for LCZ 1–LCZ D during the season, and diurnal cycles. All the sample of three years of typical days were used for analysis (n = 275 days).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Monthly urban—rural differences in RH in the (<b>a</b>) daytime and (<b>b</b>) nighttime and in ΔEa in the (<b>c</b>) daytime and (<b>d</b>) nighttime under all weather conditions (n = 875 days).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Daily variations in urban—rural differences in relative humidity (ΔRHX-D) and vapor pressure (ΔEaX-D) for typical meteorological days in (<b>a</b>,<b>c</b>) summer (June–September); (<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>) winter (December–February).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Frequencies of different types of ΔRH (ΔRH &lt; 0% and ΔRH &gt; 0%) and ΔEa (ΔEa &lt; 0 hPa, ΔEa &lt; 0.5 hPa, ΔEa &gt; 0.5 hPa) in all LCZs on typical meteorological days during the four seasons. (<b>a</b>) Frequencies of ΔRH types; (<b>b</b>) Frequencies of ΔEa types.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Frequencies of urban dry island (ΔEa &lt; 0 hPa), weak urban moisture island (0 hPa ≤ ΔEa &lt; 0.5 hPa), and strong urban moisture island (ΔEa ≥ 0.5 hPa) in each LCZ on typical meteorological days during (<b>a</b>) summer and (<b>b</b>) winter.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Relationships between UHII and urban—rural vapor pressure difference (ΔEa) in LCZ 1 in (<b>a</b>) summer daytime, (<b>b</b>) summer nighttime, (<b>c</b>) winter daytime, and (<b>d</b>) winter nighttime during typical days (120 d in total).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Relationship between wind speed and urban—rural vapor pressure difference (ΔEa) in all LCZs (LCZ 1—LCZ 8) during typical weather days in (<b>a</b>) daytime and (<b>b</b>) nighttime.</p>
Full article ">
19 pages, 13236 KiB  
Article
Permafrost Degradation and Vegetation Growth Beyond the Polar Circle in Siberia
by Viacheslav I. Kharuk, Sergei T. Im, Il’ya A. Petrov and Evgeny G. Shvetsov
Forests 2025, 16(1), 47; https://doi.org/10.3390/f16010047 - 30 Dec 2024
Viewed by 371
Abstract
Permafrost thawing is potentially a crucial but poorly investigated factor that influences vegetation dynamics in the Arctic. We studied the permafrost thaw rate beyond the Polar Circle in Siberia. We analyzed its influence on the larch (Larix spp.) growth and Arctic vegetation [...] Read more.
Permafrost thawing is potentially a crucial but poorly investigated factor that influences vegetation dynamics in the Arctic. We studied the permafrost thaw rate beyond the Polar Circle in Siberia. We analyzed its influence on the larch (Larix spp.) growth and Arctic vegetation (sparse larch forests, tundra, and forest–tundra communities) productivity (NPP). We checked the following hypotheses: (1) satellite gravimetry is valid for permafrost thawing analysis; (2) meltwater runoff stimulated trees’ growth and NPP. We used satellite (GRACE, Terra/MODIS) and field data, and larch tree radial growth index measurements. We found a continuous negative trend in the terrestrial water content (r2 = 0.67) caused by permafrost thawing beyond the Polar Circle. Runoff is maximal in West and Mid Siberia (9.7 ± 2.9 kg/m2/y) and decreases in the eastward direction with minimal values in the Chukotka Peninsula sector (−2.9 ± 3.2 kg/m2/y). We found that the growth increment of larch trees positively correlated with meltwater runoff (0.5…0.6), whereas the correlation with soil water content was negative (−0.55…−0.85). Permafrost thawing leads to an increase in the Arctic vegetation productivity. We found a positive trend in NPP throughout the Siberian Arctic (r2 = 0.30). NPP negatively correlated with soil water content (r = −0.55) and positively with meltwater runoff (West Siberia, r = 0.7). An increase in VPD (vapor pressure deficit) and air and soil temperatures stimulated the larch growth and vegetation NPP (r = 0.5…0.9 and r = 0.6…0.9, respectively). Generally, permafrost degradation leads to improved hydrothermal conditions for trees and vegetation growth and contributes to the preservation of the Arctic as a carbon sink despite the increase in burning rate. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Forest Ecology and Management)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The study area is located within continuous permafrost mostly. Stars indicate on-ground study sites (1—Pyasino, 2—Ary-Mas, 3—Kotuy, 4—Emb). Background: vegetation landcover classes (according to VEGA PRO map <a href="http://pro-vega.ru/eng" target="_blank">http://pro-vega.ru/eng</a>, accessed on 19 November 2024) and permafrost types (adapted with permission from [<a href="#B23-forests-16-00047" class="html-bibr">23</a>]).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Within the entire Siberian Arctic, a stable decreasing trend (<span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01, grey line) of water anomalies (WAs) has been observed since 2007.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Portion of the biomass remaining in the given year since the beginning of decomposition.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>A map of <span class="html-italic">WR<sub>r</sub></span> (raw data) changes beyond the Arctic Circle (Δ<span class="html-italic">G<sub>m</sub></span> = <span class="html-italic">G<sub>m</sub></span><sub>(2007–2009)</sub> − <span class="html-italic">G<sub>m</sub></span><sub>(2021–2023)</sub>). Mean Δ<span class="html-italic">G<sub>m</sub></span> is 52 kg/m<sup>2</sup> (σ = 38; min = −52, max = 175). Positive Δ<span class="html-italic">G<sub>m</sub></span> means runoff and negative Δ<span class="html-italic">Gm</span> means water accumulation. Insert is the study area location.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The Arctic’s clusters with different values of meltwater runoff (<span class="html-italic">WR<sub>r</sub></span>). Legend: WestSib, MidSib, LenaRiver, EastSib, and ChukotkaPen are the West Siberia, Mid Siberia, Lena River, East Siberia, and Chukotka Peninsula clusters, respectively. Insert is the study area location.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The <span class="html-italic">WA</span> (raw data) dynamics within Arctic sectors (<a href="#forests-16-00047-f005" class="html-fig">Figure 5</a>). On average, during 2007–2023, the mean water runoff rate was about ~3 kg/m<sup>2</sup>/y (<span class="html-italic">r</span><sup>2</sup> = 0.67). Vertical lines show the 95% confidence interval, grey lines indicate trends. The years 2017 and 2018 were excluded because &gt;25% of the data were missed. Abbreviations: WestSib, MidSib, LenaRiver, EastSib, and ChukotkaPen are the West Siberia, Mid Siberia, Lena River, East Siberia, and Chukotka Peninsula clusters, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>(<b>a</b>) The accumulated NPP (∑NPP) during 2007–2023. Mean ∑NPP is 2.6 kg/m<sup>2</sup> (σ = 1.1; min = 0, max = 8.5). (<b>b</b>) Map of the remaining biomass (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo>∑</mo> <msub> <mrow> <mi>V</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>m</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>). Mean <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo>∑</mo> <msub> <mrow> <mi>V</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>m</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> is 2.1 kg/m<sup>2</sup> (σ = 0.8; min = 0.1, max = 6.6).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Total fire-caused carbon loss (∑<span class="html-italic">F</span>) during 2007–2023. Mean ∑<span class="html-italic">F</span> is 0.06 kg/m<sup>2</sup> (σ = 0.35; min = 0, max = 11.16).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>(<b>a</b>) Map of the mean (2007–2023) annual water runoff within the Arctic. Mean <span class="html-italic">WR</span> is 7.7 kg/m<sup>2</sup>/year (σ = 4.4, min = −9.9, max = 19.1). Positive and negative <span class="html-italic">WR</span> corresponded to water runoff and water accumulation, respectively. (<b>b</b>) Meltwater runoff within given Arctic sectors. Whiskers show standard deviations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>(<b>a</b>) Map of NPP trends, (<b>b</b>) and the mean NPP dynamics within the Siberian Arctic (dotted line, <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05). Positive and negative trends occurred within ~15% of the Arctic and ~1%, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>(<b>a</b>) Map of Spearman correlations (<span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.1) between NPP and water runoff (<span class="html-italic">WR</span>). Positive Spearman correlations are observed within 4.5% of the analyzed area, negative—1%, and insignificant—94%. (<b>b</b>) NPP positively correlated with meltwater runoff within the WestSib sector and, much lower but significantly, in the MidSib sector. Within the other sectors, positive correlations are local (<a href="#forests-16-00047-f0A2" class="html-fig">Figure A2</a>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>NPP correlations with summer ((<b>a</b>–<b>e</b>); <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01) air and soil temperatures ((<b>f</b>–<b>j</b>); <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01), vapor pressure deficit (VPD; (<b>k</b>–<b>o</b>); <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01), and precipitation ((<b>p</b>–<b>t</b>); <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01) within the Arctic sectors.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>(<b>a</b>) Correlations between larch growth index (GI) and water anomalies (<span class="html-italic">WAs</span>) in JJA (red) and the hydrological year (August–September, blue) (since 2003). Grey columns: correlations between GI and water runoff (<span class="html-italic">WR</span>) (since 2007, <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.2). (<b>b</b>) Correlations between GI and JJA air (TEMP) and soil temperatures (SoTEMP), precipitation (PRE), and vapor pressure deficit (VPD). Significances at <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.01, <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05, and <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.1 are indicated by one (*), two (**), and three (***) asterisks. Abbreviations: Ary-Mas, Pyasino, Kotuy, and Emb are the on-ground sites (<a href="#forests-16-00047-f001" class="html-fig">Figure 1</a>).</p>
Full article ">Figure A1
<p>Climate variables of ARY-MAS (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>), PYASINO (<b>e</b>–<b>h</b>), KOTUY (<b>i</b>–<b>l</b>), and EMB (<b>m</b>–<b>p</b>) sites (based on ERA5 Land data): summer temperature (<b>a</b>,<b>e</b>,<b>i</b>,<b>m</b>); summer precipitation (<b>b</b>,<b>f</b>,<b>j</b>,<b>n</b>); summer VPD (<b>c</b>,<b>g</b>,<b>k</b>,<b>o</b>); summer soil temperature (<b>d</b>,<b>h</b>,<b>l</b>,<b>p</b>); dotted lines indicate trends.</p>
Full article ">Figure A2
<p>Correlations between NPP and WA (water anomalies) within the Arctic sectors. Significant correlations were observed in the WestSib and MidSib sectors.</p>
Full article ">
14 pages, 7734 KiB  
Article
Evolution Characteristics of Water Use Efficiency and the Impact of Its Driving Factors on the Yunnan–Guizhou Plateau in China
by Pei Wang, Xuepeng Zhang, Yang Liu and Wei Nie
Sustainability 2024, 16(24), 11163; https://doi.org/10.3390/su162411163 - 19 Dec 2024
Viewed by 497
Abstract
Water use efficiency (WUE) of ecosystems plays a crucial role in balancing carbon storage and water consumption. The Yunnan–Guizhou Plateau, a karst landscape region with relatively fragile ecosystems in China, requires a better understanding of the evolution of WUE and the factors driving [...] Read more.
Water use efficiency (WUE) of ecosystems plays a crucial role in balancing carbon storage and water consumption. The Yunnan–Guizhou Plateau, a karst landscape region with relatively fragile ecosystems in China, requires a better understanding of the evolution of WUE and the factors driving it for the region’s ecological sustainability. This study employs Theil–Sen slope estimation and Mann–Kendall significance analysis to investigate the temporal trends and spatial patterns of WUE in the study area. Additionally, a machine learning model, XGBoost, is used to establish driving relationships, and the SHAP model is applied to interpret the importance of the driving factors and their specific relationship with WUE. The results show that (1) WUE exhibits an increasing trend, with a slope of 0.002, indicating improved water absorption and utilization capacity of vegetation in the region. (2) The spatial distribution of WUE follows a “high–low–high” pattern from southwest to northeast, with 6.68% of the area showing a significant increase, 50.80% showing a weak increase, 4.60% showing a significant decrease, and 37.92% showing a weak decrease. (3) The importance of the driving factors is ranked as follows: normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), maximum temperature (TMAX), shortwave radiation (SRAD), Palmer drought severity index (PDSI), vapor pressure deficit (VPD), and precipitation (PRE). The NDVI has a linear positive relationship with WUE; SRAD has a decreasing effect on WUE, with this effect weakening at higher values; and TMAX, PRE, the PDSI, and VPD show a non-monotonic relationship with WUE, increasing and then decreasing. The findings of this study are significant for ecological civilization construction and sustainable development in the region. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Geographical Information System for Sustainable Ecology)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Overview of the study area. The location (<b>a</b>), elevation (<b>b</b>), land use type (<b>c</b>), and vegetation environment (<b>d</b>) of the study area.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Technical workflow.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Annual average spatial distribution of GPP from 2003 to 2020 (<b>a</b>) and temporal variation (<b>b</b>); annual average spatial distribution of ET (<b>c</b>) and temporal variation (<b>d</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Temporal variation in WUE from 2003 to 2020 (<b>a</b>), annual average spatial distribution (<b>b</b>), and trend of change (<b>c</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Significant changes in WUE from 2003 to 2020 (<b>a</b>) and the area proportions (<b>b</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Summary of the importance of driving factors for WUE.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Fitted relationship between WUE and driving factors.</p>
Full article ">
24 pages, 18784 KiB  
Article
Large Offsets in the Impacts Between Enhanced Atmospheric and Soil Water Constraints and CO2 Fertilization on Dryland Ecosystems
by Feng Tian, Lei Wang, Ye Yuan and Jin Chen
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(24), 4733; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16244733 - 18 Dec 2024
Viewed by 472
Abstract
Greening dryland ecosystems greatly benefits from significant CO2 fertilization. This greening trend across global drylands, however, has also been severely constrained by enhancing atmospheric and soil water (SW) deficits. Thus far, the relative offsets in the contributions between the atmospheric vapor pressure [...] Read more.
Greening dryland ecosystems greatly benefits from significant CO2 fertilization. This greening trend across global drylands, however, has also been severely constrained by enhancing atmospheric and soil water (SW) deficits. Thus far, the relative offsets in the contributions between the atmospheric vapor pressure deficit (VPD), SW at varying depths, and CO2 fertilization to vegetation dynamics, as well as the differences in the impacts of decreasing SW at different soil depths on dryland ecosystems over long periods, remain poorly recorded. Here, this study comprehensively explored the relative offsets in the contributions to vegetation dynamics between high VPD, low SW, and rising CO2 concentration across global drylands during 1982–2018 using process-based models and satellite-observed Leaf Area Index (LAI), Gross Primary Productivity (GPP), and solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF). Results revealed that decreasing-SW-induced reductions of LAI in dryland ecosystems were larger than those caused by rising VPD. Furthermore, dryland vegetation was more severely constrained by decreasing SW on the subsurface (7–28 cm) among various soil layers. Notable offsets were found in the contributions between enhanced water constraints and CO2 fertilization, with the former offsetting approximately 38.49% of the beneficial effects of the latter on vegetation changes in global drylands. Process-based models supported the satellite-observed finding that increasing water constraints failed to overwhelmingly offset significant CO2 fertilization on dryland ecosystems. This work emphasizes the differences in the impact of SW at different soil depths on vegetation dynamics across global drylands as well as highlights the far-reaching importance of significant CO2 fertilization to greening dryland ecosystems despite increasing atmospheric and SW constraints. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Temporal dynamics of different satellite-observed vegetation indexes from different datasets in global drylands from 1982 to 2018. (<b>a</b>) LAI, (<b>b</b>) GPP, (<b>c</b>) SIF, and (<b>d</b>) FLUXNET GPP.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Future trend in long-term series of LAI and GPP in global drylands from 2019 to 2100 derived by 22 ESMs from the CMIP6 projects across different SSP scenarios. (<b>a</b>) LAI, (<b>b</b>) GPP.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Spatial distribution of interannual trend for vegetation greenness and productivity from different satellite-observed indexes during the period of 1982–2018 is separately presented in (<b>a</b>) averaged LAI trend from three LAI datasets, (<b>b</b>) latitude difference in LAI trend, (<b>c</b>) averaged GPP trend from three GPP datasets, (<b>d</b>) latitude difference in GPP trend, (<b>e</b>) GOSAT SIF trend from 2000 to 2018, and (<b>f</b>) latitude difference of SIF trend. Regions labelled by black dots indicate trends that are statistically significant (MK test; <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Spatial patterns in the sensitivities of LAI to (<b>a</b>) rising CO<sub>2</sub> concentration, (<b>c</b>) decreasing SW, and (<b>e</b>) increasing atmospheric VPD in global drylands since the early 1980s. Their latitude differences in the sensitivities are shown in (<b>b</b>), (<b>d</b>), and (<b>f</b>), respectively. Regions labelled by black dots represent those trends that are statistically significant at a 95% significance interval (MK test, <span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Spatial patterns in the sensitivities of LAI to SW at the soil depths of (<b>a</b>) 0–7 cm, (<b>b</b>) 7–28 cm, (<b>c</b>) 28–100 cm, and (<b>d</b>) 100–289 cm in global drylands since the early 1980s.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Spatial patterns of the contributions in LAI changes caused by (<b>a</b>) rising CO<sub>2</sub> concentration, (<b>c</b>) decreasing SW, and (<b>e</b>) increasing atmospheric VPD. Their latitude differences in the contributions are shown in (<b>b</b>), (<b>d</b>), and (<b>f</b>), respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Differences in LAI changes caused by SW at (<b>a</b>) 0–7 cm soil depth, (<b>b</b>) 7–28 cm soil depth, (<b>c</b>) 28–100 cm soil depth, and (<b>d</b>) 100–289 cm soil depth.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Comparisons of contributions in the VPD- and SW-induced LAI decreases with CO<sub>2</sub>-induced LAI increases across global drylands from 1982 to 2018. (<b>a</b>) Rising VPD-induced negative contributions counteracting the CO<sub>2</sub>-induced positive contributions, (<b>b</b>) decreasing SW-induced negative contributions counteracting the CO<sub>2</sub>-induced positive contributions, and (<b>c</b>) VPD- and SW-induced negative contributions counteracting the CO<sub>2</sub>-induced positive contributions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Statistical distribution of the proportion of the offsetting contributions in different landcovers in global drylands from 1982 to 2018. (<b>a</b>) VPD-induced decreases in LAI offsetting the positive contributions of CO<sub>2</sub> fertilization, defining VPD vs. CO<sub>2</sub>; (<b>b</b>) SW-induced decreases in LAI offsetting the positive contributions of CO<sub>2</sub> fertilization, defining VPD vs. SW; and (<b>c</b>) VPD- and SW-induced decreases in LAI offsetting the positive contributions of CO<sub>2</sub> fertilization, defining VPD+SW vs. CO<sub>2</sub>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>The differences in the contribution of SW-induced LAI decrease offsetting the CO<sub>2</sub>-induced LAI increases at different soil depths across global drylands from 1982 to 2018: (<b>a</b>) 0–7 cm, (<b>b</b>) 7–28 cm, (<b>c</b>) 28–100 cm, and (<b>d</b>) 100–289 cm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Comparison of the contributions of influencing factors on the trend in LAI in global drylands from 1982 to 2018. (<b>a</b>) Multi-model averaging (MMA) of 11 ecosystem models from the TRENDY project and (<b>b</b>) satellite observations.</p>
Full article ">
22 pages, 13335 KiB  
Article
An Integrated Drought Index (Vapor Pressure Deficit–Soil Moisture–Sun-Induced Chlorophyll Fluorescence Dryness Index, VMFDI) Based on Multisource Data and Its Applications in Agricultural Drought Management
by Caiyun Deng, Li Zhang, Tianhe Xu, Siqi Yang, Jian Guo, Lulu Si, Ran Kang and Hermann Josef Kaufmann
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(24), 4666; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16244666 - 13 Dec 2024
Viewed by 630
Abstract
To more precisely monitor drought, a new remote sensing-based drought index, the Vapor Pressure Deficit–Soil Moisture–Sun-Induced Chlorophyll fluorescence Dryness Index (VMFDI), with a spatial resolution of 1 km based on vapor pressure deficit (VPD), soil moisture (SM), and sun-induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF) data [...] Read more.
To more precisely monitor drought, a new remote sensing-based drought index, the Vapor Pressure Deficit–Soil Moisture–Sun-Induced Chlorophyll fluorescence Dryness Index (VMFDI), with a spatial resolution of 1 km based on vapor pressure deficit (VPD), soil moisture (SM), and sun-induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF) data was constructed via a three-dimensional spatial distance model, and it was used to monitor dryness in the Yellow River Basin during 2003–2020. The spatiotemporal variations in and main factors of the VMFDI and agroecosystem responses were analyzed via the Theil–Sen median and Mann–Kendall tests and Liang–Kleeman information flow. The results revealed the following: (1) The VMFDI effectively monitors regional drought and is more sensitive than other indices like the standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI) and GRACE drought severity index and single variables. (2) VMFDI values fluctuated seasonally in the Yellow River Basin, peaking in August and reaching their lowest in March. The basin becomes drier in winter but wetter in spring, summer, and autumn, with the middle and lower reaches, particularly Shaanxi and Gansu, being drought-prone. The VMFDI values in the agroecosystem were lower. (3) SM and VPD dominated drought at the watershed and agroecosystem scales, respectively. Key agroecosystem indicators, including greenness (NDVI), gross primary productivity (GPP), water use efficiency (WUE), and leaf area index (LAI), were negatively correlated with drought (p < 0.05). When VPD exceeded a threshold range of 7.11–7.17 ha, the relationships between these indicators and VPD shifted from positive to negative. The specific VPD thresholds in maize and wheat systems were 8.03–8.57 ha and 7.15 ha, respectively. Suggestions for drought risk management were also provided. This study provides a new method and high-resolution data for accurately monitoring drought, which can aid in mitigating agricultural drought risks and promoting high-quality agricultural development. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Location and land use of study area.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Technical flowchart.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The concept of the VMFDI in a three-dimensional space model. A principle map of the VMFDI. The reference point D (1, 0, 0) is the driest point, where the value of the VMFDI is 0. Point W (0, 1, 1) is the wettest point, where the value of the VMFDI is <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msqrt> <mn>3</mn> </msqrt> </mrow> </semantics></math>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Significant temporal correlations between VMFDI and (<b>a</b>) SPEI01, (<b>b</b>) SPEI03, (<b>c</b>) SPEI12, (<b>d</b>) DSI, (<b>e</b>) PRE, (<b>f</b>) VPD, (<b>g</b>) SM, and (<b>h</b>) SIF (<span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05). In (<b>i</b>), R &gt; 0 means that VMFDI results are consistent with those of SPEI01, SPEI03, SPEI12, GRACE_DSI, PRE, VPD, SM, and SIF.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>A comparison of the drought monitoring ability of different drought indices. In this Figure, the red, light gray, and purple dashed lines are the drought thresholds for the GRACE-DSI, SPEI, and VMFDI, respectively (classified by <a href="#remotesensing-16-04666-t002" class="html-table">Table 2</a>). The light pink columns represent the actual observed drought events in the Yellow River Basin recorded in the Bulletin of Flood and Drought Disasters in China.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Correlation coefficients between the VMFDI and other indices in the Yellow River Basin (<b>a</b>) based on all monthly data and (<b>b1</b>–<b>b12</b>) for each month of data in the range of 2003~2020.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Monthly spatiotemporal variations in the VMFDI values (1 km <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo>×</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math> 1 km) of the Yellow River Basin from 2003 to 2020. (<b>a</b>) shows the distribution pattern of the multiyear mean value of the monthly VMFDI and the temporal series of the monthly VMFDI at the basin scale. In (<b>b</b>,<b>c</b>), the changes in VMFDI values and their significance from 2003 to 2020, respectively, are shown; an obvious increase or decrease represents a region of significant change (<span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The distribution and movement tracks of the annual and monthly drought centers in the Yellow River Basin identified by VMFDI anomalies and the gravity model. (<b>a</b>) is an overview map showing the location of the drought centers. In (<b>b</b>,<b>c</b>), the color dots represent the center of gravity of drought in different months or years, where drought is most likely to occur. The lines are the trajectory of the drought center. The standard deviational ellipses represent the change direction of drought.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>A time series of monthly VMFDI, VPD, SM, SIF, and VMFDI anomalies in the agroecosystem of the Yellow River Basin from 2003 to 2020. In figure (<b>a</b>)., r represents the correlation between variables and * represents the level of significance (<span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05). The box diagram represents the value distribution of each variable. In figure (<b>b</b>), <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">V</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">M</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">F</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">D</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">I</mi> <mo>_</mo> <mi mathvariant="normal">a</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">n</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">m</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">o</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">m</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">a</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">l</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">i</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">e</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">s</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">i</mi> <mo>,</mo> <mi mathvariant="normal">j</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> is the difference between the VMFDI value in month <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">i</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> of year <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">j</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> and the multiyear mean value in month <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">i</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math>. The red bars represent the values below zero.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Correlations between the monthly VMFDI and crop growth status indicators in the agroecosystem of the Yellow River Basin from 2003 to 2020. The corresponding data for the agroecosystem (<b>a</b>), maize (<b>b</b>), and wheat (<b>c</b>) included data from January to December, April to September (the maize growth cycle), and March to June (wheat regreening to maturity) from 2003 to 2020, respectively. r is the correlation efficiency, and * indicates that there is a significant correlation with a <span class="html-italic">p</span> value less than 0.05.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Causalities between the monthly VMFDI and other corresponding variables. <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">T</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">i</mi> <mo>→</mo> <mi mathvariant="normal">j</mi> </mrow> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> is the rate of the information flow from <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">i</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> to <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">j</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math>. * represents a 95% significance level.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Thresholds in the relationships between VPD and the NDVI, GPP, or LAI in various agroecosystems. The temporal ranges of the corresponding data in (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) were 12 months (January to December), 6 months (April to September, which is the maize growing season), and 4 months (March to June, in which wheat regreens to maturity) from 2003 to 2020, respectively.</p>
Full article ">
18 pages, 4367 KiB  
Article
A Study on the Response Characteristics of Carbon Flux Exchange in Chinese Fir Forests to Vapor Pressure Deficit
by Zhenxiang Liu, Yongqian Wang, Luming Sun, Jing Jiang, Lan Jiang, Mengtao Wang, Jingjing Ye and Zhiqing Cheng
Sustainability 2024, 16(24), 10906; https://doi.org/10.3390/su162410906 - 12 Dec 2024
Viewed by 598
Abstract
Forest carbon exchange is affected by various environmental variables, among which photosynthetically active radiation, temperature, saturated water vapor pressure deficit, and soil moisture content dominate. The global atmospheric temperature has risen significantly in recent decades, and the saturated water vapor pressure deficit has [...] Read more.
Forest carbon exchange is affected by various environmental variables, among which photosynthetically active radiation, temperature, saturated water vapor pressure deficit, and soil moisture content dominate. The global atmospheric temperature has risen significantly in recent decades, and the saturated water vapor pressure deficit has also increased, which has had a widespread and lasting impact on terrestrial carbon sinks. Here, using flux data from Mazongling in Jinzhai County from July 2020 to June 2023, the relationship between saturated water vapor pressure deficit and forest carbon flux was investigated on the basis of carbon flux changes in the forest ecosystem in response to environmental factors. Results revealed that vapor pressure deficit (VPD) and net ecosystem productivity (NEP) exhibited a quadratic relationship at the daily and monthly scales. When the VPD was greater than 1.2 kPa at the monthly scale, the NEP of the fir forest ecosystem decreased with increasing VPD. At the daily scale, the impact of the VPD on NEP was studied by month and season. The results revealed that the threshold value at which the VPD affected NEP differed across different months and seasons. Therefore, the VPD is an important factor in forest ecosystems and should be considered in the assessment of ecosystem carbon sinks. It also has far-reaching significance in the carbon cycle and ecological sustainable development. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Air, Climate Change and Sustainability)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Technical route of research.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Location of flux tower sites.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Flux tower structure diagram.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Monthly changes in photosynthetically active radiation from July 2020 to June 2023.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Monthly changes in temperature from July 2020 to June 2023.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Monthly changes in precipitation from July 2020 to June 2023.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Monthly changes in the saturated vapor pressure deficit from July 2020 to June 2023.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Monthly changes in volumetric soil moisture content from July 2020 to June 2023.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Monthly changes in net ecosystem productivity from July 2020 to June 2023.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Relationship between NEP and PAR from July 2020 to June 2023.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Relationship between NEP and Ta from July 2020 to June 2023.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Relationship between NEP and VPD from July 2020 to June 2023.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Relationship between VPD and Ta from July 2020 to June 2023.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Relationship between NEP and SWC from July 2020 to June 2023.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Relationships between net ecosystem productivity and saturated water vapor pressure deficit in different months from July 2020 to June 2023.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Relationships between net ecosystem productivity and saturated water vapor pressure deficit in different seasons from July 2020 to June 2023.</p>
Full article ">
19 pages, 13359 KiB  
Article
Characteristics of Drought Events and Their Impact on Vegetation Dynamics in the Arid Region of Northwest China
by Guixiang Zhou, Junqiang Yao, Jing Chen, Yaning Chen, Chuan Wang, Yinxue Mo, Chenzhi Ma, Yuhui Yang, Moyan Li and Peng Zheng
Forests 2024, 15(12), 2187; https://doi.org/10.3390/f15122187 - 12 Dec 2024
Viewed by 570
Abstract
The arid region of Northwest China (ARNC) is responsive to global climate change, and drought events have occurred frequently in recent decades. However, studies about the effect of meteorological and drought stress on vegetation change in the ARNC are still insufficient. In this [...] Read more.
The arid region of Northwest China (ARNC) is responsive to global climate change, and drought events have occurred frequently in recent decades. However, studies about the effect of meteorological and drought stress on vegetation change in the ARNC are still insufficient. In this study, we analyzed the spatiotemporal trends of meteorological factors (temperature, TMP; precipitation, PRE; standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index, SPEI), drought stress factors (vapor pressure deficit, VPD; soil moisture, SM), and vegetation (normalized difference vegetation index, NDVI) during 1982–2021. We also investigated the characteristics of drought events by the run theory, including drought times, drought duration, drought severity, and drought intensity. The impacts of meteorological and drought stress factors on the vegetation were explored using Pearson correlation analysis and the structural equation model (SEM). We found that the annual and growing season TMP, PRE, VPD, SM, and NDVI showed an increasing trend in the ARNC during 1982–2021. In contrast, SPEI exhibited a decreasing trend in the annual and growing season. In addition, the characteristics of the drought events varied significantly in the ARNC. The drought events primarily occurred in the Tarim River Basin, Turpan-Hami Basin, and the Hexi Corridor. The Pearson correlation analysis and SEM results consistently demonstrated that TMP and SM exerted greater impacts on vegetation growth than PRE, VPD, and SPEI. The factors that determine vegetation change were TMP and PRE. Exploration of meteorological and drought stress factors that influence vegetation change is essential for comprehending the influence of dominant factors on vegetation change. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Geographical location of study area. The land use type data were derived from the Resource and Environment Data Cloud Platform (<a href="http://www.resdc.cn/" target="_blank">http://www.resdc.cn/</a>; accessed on 3 January 2024).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Spatial distribution of the annual (<b>left</b>) and growing season (<b>right</b>) drought events in the ARNC during 1982–2021. The following characteristics of drought events are included: drought times (DT), drought duration (DD), drought severity (DS), and drought intensity (DI).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Change trends of the characteristics of annual drought events ((<b>a</b>) DT; (<b>b</b>) DD; (<b>c</b>) DS; (<b>d</b>) DI) in different categories in the ARNC during 1982–2021. The following characteristics of drought events are included: drought times (DT), drought duration (DD), drought severity (DS), and drought intensity (DI). The SPEI thresholds are less than −0.5, −1.0, −1.5, and −2.0, which represent mild, moderate, severe, and extreme droughts, respectively. The numbers (e.g., 0.004) represent the changing trends of different drought categories. * indicates that <span class="html-italic">p</span> is less than 0.05; ** indicates that <span class="html-italic">p</span> is less than 0.01.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Change trends of the characteristics of growing season drought events ((<b>a</b>) DT; (<b>b</b>) DD; (<b>c</b>) DS; (<b>d</b>) DI) in different categories in the ARNC during 1982–2021. The following characteristics of drought events are included: drought times (DT), drought duration (DD), drought severity (DS), and drought intensity (DI). The SPEI thresholds are less than −0.5, −1.0, −1.5, and −2.0, which represent mild, moderate, severe, and extreme droughts, respectively. The numbers (e.g., 0.003) represent the changing trends of different drought categories. * indicates that <span class="html-italic">p</span> is less than 0.05; ** indicates that <span class="html-italic">p</span> is less than 0.01.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The annual (<b>a</b>) and growing season (<b>b</b>) change trends of the NDVI in the ARNC from 1982 to 2021. The shaded portion is the 95% confidence interval, based on Theil–Sen analysis.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The spatial distribution patterns and trends of the annual and growing season NDVI in the ARNC from 1982 to 2021 (S represents a stable trend; SD represents a significant decreasing trend; NSD represents a non-significant decreasing trend; NSI represents a non-significant increasing trend; SI represents a significant increasing trend, based on Theil–Sen analysis and the Mann–Kendall test).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The change trends of the annual TMP (<b>a</b>), PRE (<b>b</b>), VPD (<b>c</b>), SM (<b>d</b>), and SPEI (<b>e</b>) in the ARNC between 1982 and 2021. The shaded portion represents the 95% confidence interval, based on Theil–Sen analysis and the Mann–Kendall test. The following meteorological and drought stress factors are included: temperature (TMP), precipitation (PRE), vapor pressure deficit (VPD), soil moisture (SM), and standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The temporal trends of growing season TMP (<b>a</b>), PRE (<b>b</b>), VPD (<b>c</b>), SM (<b>d</b>) and SPEI (<b>e</b>) in the ARNC between 1982 and 2021. The shaded portion represents the 95% confidence interval, based on Theil–Sen analysis and the Mann–Kendall test. The following meteorological and drought stress factors are included: temperature (TMP), precipitation (PRE), vapor pressure deficit (VPD), soil moisture (SM), and standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Spatial distribution patterns of the annual TMP, PRE, VPD, SM, and SPEI in the ARNC from 1982 to 2021 (S represents a stable trend; SD represents a significant decreasing trend; NSD represents a non-significant decreasing trend; NSI represents a non-significant increasing trend; and SI represents a significant increasing trend, based on Theil–Sen analysis and the Mann–Kendall test). The following meteorological and drought stress factors are included: temperature (TMP), precipitation (PRE), vapor pressure deficit (VPD), soil moisture (SM), and standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI).</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Spatial patterns of the growing season TMP, PRE, VPD, SM, and SPEI in the ARNC from 1982 to 2021 (S represents a stable trend; SD represents a significant decreasing trend; NSD represents a non-significant decreasing trend; NSI represents a non-significant increasing trend; SI represents a significant increasing trend, based on Theil–Sen analysis and the Mann–Kendall test). The following meteorological and drought stress factors are included: temperature (TMP), precipitation (PRE), vapor pressure deficit (VPD), soil moisture (SM), and standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI).</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Spatial patterns of the correlation between the annual NDVI and TMP (<b>a</b>), PRE (<b>b</b>), VPD (<b>c</b>), SM (<b>d</b>), and SPEI (<b>e</b>) in the ARNC from 1982 to 2021. The following meteorological and drought stress factors are included: temperature (TMP), precipitation (PRE), vapor pressure deficit (VPD), soil moisture (SM), and standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI).</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Spatial patterns of the correlation between the growing season NDVI and TMP (<b>a</b>), PRE (<b>b</b>), VPD (<b>c</b>), SM (<b>d</b>), and SPEI (<b>e</b>) in the ARNC from 1982 to 2021. The following meteorological and drought stress factors are included: temperature (TMP), precipitation (PRE), vapor pressure deficit (VPD), soil moisture (SM), and standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI).</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Structural equation models showing the relationship between the TMP, PRE, VPD, SM, SPEI, and NDVI annually (<b>a</b>) and during growing season (<b>b</b>) on the ARNC. The solid arrows indicate a positive correlation between variables, while the dashed arrows indicate a negative correlation between variables. The following meteorological and drought stress factors are included: temperature (TMP), precipitation (PRE), vapor pressure deficit (VPD), soil moisture (SM), and standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI).</p>
Full article ">
22 pages, 7862 KiB  
Article
Comparison Between Thermal-Image-Based and Model-Based Indices to Detect the Impact of Soil Drought on Tree Canopy Temperature in Urban Environments
by Takashi Asawa, Haruki Oshio and Yumiko Yoshino
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(23), 4606; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16234606 - 8 Dec 2024
Viewed by 750
Abstract
This study aimed to determine whether canopy and air temperature difference (ΔT) as an existing simple normalizing index can be used to detect an increase in canopy temperature induced by soil drought in urban parks, regardless of the unique energy balance and three-dimensional [...] Read more.
This study aimed to determine whether canopy and air temperature difference (ΔT) as an existing simple normalizing index can be used to detect an increase in canopy temperature induced by soil drought in urban parks, regardless of the unique energy balance and three-dimensional (3D) structure of urban trees. Specifically, we used a thermal infrared camera to measure the canopy temperature of Zelkova serrata trees and compared the temporal variation of ΔT to that of environmental factors, including solar radiation, wind speed, vapor pressure deficit, and soil water content. Normalization based on a 3D energy-balance model was also performed and used for comparison with ΔT. To represent the 3D structure, a terrestrial light detection and ranging-derived 3D tree model was used as the input spatial data. The temporal variation in ΔT was similar to that of the index derived using the energy-balance model, which considered the 3D structure of trees and 3D radiative transfer, with a correlation coefficient of 0.85. In conclusion, the thermal-image-based ΔT performed comparably to an index based on the 3D energy-balance model and detected the increase in canopy temperature because of the reduction in soil water content for Z. serrata trees in an urban environment. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Remote Sensing in Agriculture and Vegetation)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Overview of the study site: (<b>a</b>) map and aerial photographs; (<b>b</b>) target trees. Aerial photographs were obtained through the Geospatial Information Authority of Japan in June 2019.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Schematic diagram of the study site, including the measurement points.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Photographs of the measurement points: (<b>a</b>) Point A; (<b>b</b>) Point B; (<b>c</b>) Point C.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Areas used to acquire (<b>a</b>) leaf temperature for calculating ΔT, (<b>b</b>) input values for numerical simulation, and (<b>c</b>) the normalized index α. In (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>), the areas are indicated by white lines. In (<b>a</b>), a shaded portion used to detect low-quality thermal images is represented by a black square. In (<b>c</b>), the voxels used to calculate the mean value of the normalized index α are highlighted. A visible image of the target tree is shown in (<b>d</b>) for reference.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Schematic of the input parameters for the FLiESvox model. Input parameters are shown in blue and their sources in black. Some parameters were set for each wavelength region, i.e., ultraviolet (UV), visible (VIS), and near-infrared (NIR).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Temporal variation of the all measured data (all times): (<b>a</b>) SWC and rainfall; (<b>b</b>) air temperature; (<b>c</b>) global solar radiation; (<b>d</b>) wind speed; (<b>e</b>) VPD; (<b>f</b>) ΔT. The SWC is the mean of the data obtained at depths of 15 and 35 cm at points far from the side ditch (<a href="#remotesensing-16-04606-f003" class="html-fig">Figure 3</a>b). For ΔT, the box-and-whisker plot of the light blue line shows the data from 10:30 to 12:30, which was used for the analysis.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Relationship between ΔT and environmental factors: (<b>a</b>,<b>e</b>) SWC; (<b>b</b>,<b>f</b>) global solar radiation; (<b>c</b>,<b>g</b>) wind speed; (<b>d</b>,<b>h</b>) VPD. Each circle in the graph represents an individual measurement: (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) all data were obtained between 10:30 and 12:30 local standard time (LST); (<b>e</b>–<b>h</b>) data were obtained between 10:30 and 12:30 LST when the global solar radiation exceeded 800 W m<sup>−2</sup>. The SWC is the mean of data obtained at depths of 15 cm and 35 cm on points far from the side ditch (<a href="#remotesensing-16-04606-f003" class="html-fig">Figure 3</a>b). Each graph shows a correlation coefficient (R) and linear regression line (broken gray line).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Relationship between ΔT and SWC from 10:30 to 12:30 LST for different conditions of solar radiation, VPD, and wind speed. For solar radiation, there are three classes: 0–200 W m<sup>−2</sup>, 200–800 W m<sup>−2</sup>, and higher; for VPD, there are three classes: 0–0.2 kPa, 0.2–0.4 kPa, and higher; and for wind speed, there are two classes: 0–1.5 m s<sup>−1</sup> and higher. The SWC is the mean of data obtained at depths of 15 cm and 35 cm on points far from the side ditch (<a href="#remotesensing-16-04606-f003" class="html-fig">Figure 3</a>b). The dotted line represents the SWC value corresponding to the permanent wilting point. Filled circles indicate that both SWC values at the two depths are lower than the permanent wilting point. When the number of samples is greater than 5, the regression line and correlation coefficient (R) are shown in this Figure.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Temporal variation in the mean value of measured data between 10:30 and 12:30 local standard time (LST) under conditions of global solar radiation greater than 800 W m<sup>−2</sup>: (<b>a</b>) SWC; (<b>b</b>) global solar radiation; (<b>c</b>) wind speed; (<b>d</b>) VPD; (<b>e</b>) ΔT; (<b>f</b>) ΔT corrected for the effect of wind speed (ΔT<sub>cor</sub>); (<b>g</b>) the normalized index α; (<b>h</b>) overlaid plots of SWC, solar radiation, wind speed, and ΔT; (<b>i</b>) overlaid plots of SWC, ΔT, ΔT<sub>cor</sub>, and α. In (<b>h</b>,<b>i</b>), the values normalized by the minimum and maximum values are plotted for each item.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>(<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) Relationship between ΔT and environmental factors, (<b>e</b>–<b>h</b>) relationship between ΔT corrected for wind speed effect (ΔT<sub>cor</sub>) and environmental factors, and (<b>i</b>–<b>l</b>) relationship between the normalized index α and environmental factors: (<b>a</b>,<b>e</b>,<b>i</b>) SWC; (<b>b</b>,<b>f</b>,<b>j</b>) global solar radiation; (<b>c</b>,<b>g</b>,<b>k</b>) wind speed; and (<b>d</b>,<b>h</b>,<b>l</b>) VPD. The SWC is the mean of data obtained at depths of 15 and 35 cm on points distant from the side ditch (<a href="#remotesensing-16-04606-f003" class="html-fig">Figure 3</a>b). Each graph shows a correlation coefficient (R), regression equation, normalized root mean squared error (E), and regression line (broken gray line).</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Relationship between ΔT and wind speed for data obtained under conditions where it was anticipated that SWC would have no effect on the canopy temperature. Each graph shows a correlation coefficient (R), regression equation, and regression line (broken gray line).</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Relationship between ΔT and normalized index α. The graph shows a correlation coefficient (R) and linear regression line (gray broken line).</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Temporal variation in the maximum ΔT (ΔT<sub>max</sub>) between 10:30 and 12:30.</p>
Full article ">
17 pages, 7585 KiB  
Article
The Dynamics of Pheromone Release in Two Passive Dispensers Commonly Used for Mating Disruption in the Control of Lobesia botrana and Eupoecilia ambiguella in Vineyards
by Marta Corbetta, Luca Bricchi, Vittorio Rossi and Giorgia Fedele
Insects 2024, 15(12), 962; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects15120962 - 3 Dec 2024
Viewed by 764
Abstract
Background: Mating disruption (MD) is a worthwhile technique for the control of Lobesia botrana and Eupoecilia ambiguella in central Europe and Mediterranean areas. MD efficacy is affected by the pheromone release (PR), which in turn is influenced by environmental conditions. Methods: The effect [...] Read more.
Background: Mating disruption (MD) is a worthwhile technique for the control of Lobesia botrana and Eupoecilia ambiguella in central Europe and Mediterranean areas. MD efficacy is affected by the pheromone release (PR), which in turn is influenced by environmental conditions. Methods: The effect of weather conditions on PR was evaluated under four different fields in northern Italy. The PR of two commercial types of MD passive dispensers was correlated with different variables. Results: For both dispensers, the temperature and vapor pressure deficit explained PR in vineyards with diverse weather conditions better than time. The effect of temperature was not linear, and any temperature increase at high temperatures accelerated the PRR more than proportionally. One dispenser type showed a non-linear release trend of the pheromone emission in field conditions with respect to the considered variables; further, the stepwise regression pointed out the importance of the dichotomous variable associated with the vineyard for increasing the goodness-of-fit. Conclusions: The equations developed in this work are dispenser-dependent and can provide information on the PR during the season for each dispenser type, as influenced by weather conditions. These equations could serve as an input for a pheromone concentration model to predict concentrations based on meteorological conditions. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Chemical Ecology of Plant–Insect Interactions)
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>Changes over time in the net weight of pheromone dispensers Isonet (<b>A</b>) and Rak (<b>B</b>) at different temperatures: 5 °C (circles), 10 °C (full triangles), 15 °C (cross), 20 °C (square), 25 °C (stars), and 30 °C (diamond); whiskers show the standard error.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Changes in the pheromone release rate (PRR) as affected by temperature for pheromone dispensers Isonet (<b>A</b>) and Rak (<b>B</b>); whiskers show the standard error.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Weather conditions registered in the vineyard of Piacenza in 2017: wind speed (m/s) (<b>A</b>), air temperature (°C, full line), relative humidity (%, dotted line), rainfall (mm, black bars), and VPD (kPa, gray area) (<b>B</b>). In (<b>C</b>), changes in the net weight of pheromone dispensers Isonet (circles) and Rak (triangles) exposed into the vineyard; whiskers show the standard error.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Weather conditions registered in the vineyard of Piacenza in 2018: wind speed (m/s) (<b>A</b>), air temperature (°C, full line), relative humidity (%, dotted line), rainfall (mm, black bars), and VPD (kPa, gray area) (<b>B</b>). In (<b>C</b>), changes in the net weight of pheromone dispensers Isonet (circles) and Rak (triangles) exposed into the vineyard; whiskers show the standard error.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Weather conditions registered in the vineyard of Castell’Arquato in 2018: wind speed (m/s) (<b>A</b>), air temperature (°C, full line), relative humidity (%, dotted line), rainfall (mm, black bars), and VPD (kPa, gray area) (<b>B</b>). In (<b>C</b>), changes in the net weight of pheromone dispensers Isonet (circles) and Rak (triangles) exposed into the vineyard; whiskers show the standard error.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Weather conditions registered in the vineyard of Vicobarone in 2018: wind speed (m/s) (<b>A</b>), air temperature (°C, full line), relative humidity (%, dotted line), rainfall (mm, black bars), and VPD (kPa, gray area) (<b>B</b>). In (<b>C</b>), changes in the net weight of pheromone dispensers Isonet (circles) and Rak (triangles) exposed into the vineyard; whiskers show the standard error.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Pheromone release (as relative reduction in net dispenser weight) by Isonet (<b>A</b>) and Rak (<b>B</b>) dispenser as a function of accumulated, temperature-dependent pheromone release rate (ΣPRR) and accumulated vapor pressure (ΣVPD, kPa), respectively, in four vineyards: Piacenza in 2017 (PC17) and 2018 (PC18), Castell’Arquato (CA18) and Vicobarone (VB18) in 2018. The dotted lines show the regression equations in <a href="#insects-15-00962-t003" class="html-table">Table 3</a> (line 2) and <a href="#insects-15-00962-t004" class="html-table">Table 4</a> (line 5) for Isonet and Rak, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Comparison between predicted and observed pheromone release (as relative reduction in net dispenser weight) by Isonet (<b>A</b>,<b>C</b>) and Rak (<b>B</b>,<b>D</b>) dispensers in four vineyards: Piacenza in 2017 (PC17) and 2018 (PC18), Castell’Arquato (CA18) and Vicobarone (VB18) in 2018. Predicted values were obtained through the regression equations in <a href="#insects-15-00962-t003" class="html-table">Table 3</a> (line 6) and <a href="#insects-15-00962-t004" class="html-table">Table 4</a> (line 7) for Isonet and Rak, respectively. Box plots show the distribution of differences between predicted and observed; the line crossing the boxes represents the median, and × indicates the average; whiskers extend to the maximum and minimum.</p>
Full article ">
18 pages, 13734 KiB  
Article
Response of Carbon and Water Use Efficiency to Climate Change and Human Activities in Central Asia
by Lin Xiong, Jinjie Wang, Jianli Ding, Zipeng Zhang, Shaofeng Qin and Ruimei Wang
Land 2024, 13(12), 2072; https://doi.org/10.3390/land13122072 - 2 Dec 2024
Viewed by 603
Abstract
Carbon use efficiency (CUE) and water use efficiency (WUE) are key metrics for quantifying the coupling between terrestrial ecosystem carbon and water cycles. The impacts of intensifying climate change and human activities on carbon and water fluxes in Central Asian vegetation remain unclear. [...] Read more.
Carbon use efficiency (CUE) and water use efficiency (WUE) are key metrics for quantifying the coupling between terrestrial ecosystem carbon and water cycles. The impacts of intensifying climate change and human activities on carbon and water fluxes in Central Asian vegetation remain unclear. In this study, the CUE and WUE in Central Asia from 2001 to 2022 were accurately estimated with the help of the Google Earth Engine (GEE) data platform; the Theil–Sen median slope estimation combined with the Manna–Kendall significance test and partial derivative analysis were used to investigate the CUE and WUE trends and their responses to climate change and human activities. CUE and WUE show overall declining trends with significant spatial variability. Among meteorological factors, vapor pressure deficit and temperature show the strongest correlation with CUE, while precipitation and temperature are most correlated with WUE. Compared to human activities, climate change has a greater impact on CUE and WUE, mainly exerting a negative influence. Human activities are the main drivers in regions with developed agriculture, such as oases, farmlands, and areas near rivers and lakes. This study provides scientific references for the optimization of water and soil resources and the integrated regional environmental management in Central Asia. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Overview of the study area.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The flow chart.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Characteristics of spatial and temporal variations of CUE (<b>a</b>,<b>c</b>) and WUE (<b>b</b>,<b>c</b>) and trends of GPP, NPP and ET (<b>d</b>) in Central Asia from 2001 to 2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Interannual rates of change and significance of CUE (<b>a</b>,<b>c</b>) and WUE (<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>) in Central Asia, 2001–2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Correlation between CUE and PRE (<b>a</b>), TEM (<b>b</b>), RN (<b>c</b>), SW (<b>d</b>), VPD (<b>e</b>) in Central Asia, 2001–2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Correlation between WUE and PRE (<b>a</b>), TEM (<b>b</b>), RN (<b>c</b>), SW (<b>d</b>), VPD (<b>e</b>) in Central Asia, 2001–2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The contribution rates of each climatic factor to CUE and WUE, 2001–2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Contribution of climatic factors to CUE (<b>a</b>,<b>c</b>,<b>e</b>,<b>g</b>,<b>i</b>) and WUE (<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>,<b>f</b>,<b>h</b>,<b>j</b>), and their respective area proportions (<b>k</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Central Asia region and climate and human activities’ contribution to CUE (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) and WUE (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>), 2001–2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Dominant factors for CUE (<b>a</b>) and WUE (<b>b</b>) changes in Central Asia, 2001–2022.</p>
Full article ">
19 pages, 12883 KiB  
Article
A Flexible Wearable Sensor for In Situ Non-Destructive Detection of Plant Leaf Transpiration Information
by Zhikang Li, Hanping Mao, Lizhi Li, Yazhou Wei, Yongsheng Yu, Mingxue Zhao and Ze Liu
Agriculture 2024, 14(12), 2174; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14122174 - 28 Nov 2024
Viewed by 570
Abstract
This paper investigates an in situ, non-destructive detection sensor based on flexible wearable technology that can reflect the intensity of plant transpiration. The sensor integrates four components: a flexible substrate, a humidity-sensing element, a temperature-sensing element, and a self-adhesive film. It is capable [...] Read more.
This paper investigates an in situ, non-destructive detection sensor based on flexible wearable technology that can reflect the intensity of plant transpiration. The sensor integrates four components: a flexible substrate, a humidity-sensing element, a temperature-sensing element, and a self-adhesive film. It is capable of accurately and continuously measuring the temperature, humidity, and vapor pressure deficit (VPD) on the leaf surface, thus providing information on plant transpiration. We combined the humidity-sensitive material graphene oxide (GO) with a PDMS-GO-SDS flexible substrate as the humidity-sensing element of the sensor. This element exhibits high sensitivity, fast response, and excellent biocompatibility with plant interfaces. The humidity monitoring sensitivity of the sensor reaches 4456 pF/% RH, while the temperature sensing element has a sensitivity of approximately 3.93 Ω/°C. Additionally, tracking tests were conducted on tomato plants in a natural environment, and the experimental results were consistent with related research findings. This sensor can be used to monitor plant growth during agricultural production and facilitate precise crop management, helping to advance smart agriculture in the Internet of Things (IoT) for plants. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Digital Agriculture)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>(<b>a</b>) Schematic diagram of the flexible substrate preparation process. (<b>b</b>) Schematic diagram of the flexible substrate after curing. (<b>c</b>) Printing process of the interdigitated electrode.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Schematic diagram of the flexible wearable sensor.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Schematic of deformation of flexible substrate under different degrees of bending.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>(<b>a</b>) XRD characterization image of the PDMS-GO composite material. (<b>b</b>) FTIR characterization image of the composite material. (<b>c</b>) XPS characterization image of pure PDMS and the composite material.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>(<b>a</b>) SEM image of the cross-section of the composite material. (<b>b</b>) Silicon mapping image of the composite material. (<b>c</b>) Oxygen mapping image of the composite material. (<b>d</b>) Carbon mapping image of the composite material.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5 Cont.
<p>(<b>a</b>) SEM image of the cross-section of the composite material. (<b>b</b>) Silicon mapping image of the composite material. (<b>c</b>) Oxygen mapping image of the composite material. (<b>d</b>) Carbon mapping image of the composite material.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>(<b>a</b>) Permeability testing of the adhesive film. (<b>b</b>) UV transmittance of the PDMS-GO-SDS flexible substrate.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Influence of humidity on the resistance information of the temperature sensing element at (<b>a</b>) 10 °C, (<b>b</b>) 25 °C, and (<b>c</b>) 40 °C; influence of light intensity on the resistance information of the temperature sensing element at (<b>d</b>) 10 °C, (<b>e</b>) 25 °C, and (<b>f</b>) 40 °C.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>(<b>a</b>) Relationship between the resistance value of the temperature sensing element and temperature. (<b>b</b>) Response curve of the temperature sensing element during rapid temperature changes from 10 °C to 40 °C. (<b>c</b>) Temperature response graph of the temperature sensing element over a long period. (<b>d</b>) Fitting of the resistance value R of the temperature sensing element with temperature T.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Capacitance response of the humidity-sensing element at 40% RH (normal relative humidity) under different frequencies.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Capacitive response of the humidity-sensing element under the influence of temperature at (<b>a</b>) 30% RH, (<b>b</b>) 60% RH, and (<b>c</b>) 90% RH; capacitive response of the humidity-sensing element under the influence of light intensity at (<b>d</b>) 30% RH, (<b>e</b>) 60% RH, and (<b>f</b>) 90% RH.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10 Cont.
<p>Capacitive response of the humidity-sensing element under the influence of temperature at (<b>a</b>) 30% RH, (<b>b</b>) 60% RH, and (<b>c</b>) 90% RH; capacitive response of the humidity-sensing element under the influence of light intensity at (<b>d</b>) 30% RH, (<b>e</b>) 60% RH, and (<b>f</b>) 90% RH.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>The capacitance values of humidity-sensing elements using PDMS-GO-SDS and pure PDMS as flexible substrates vary with relative humidity.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>(<b>a</b>) Response curve of the humidity-sensing element during rapid changes from 20% RH to 80% RH. (<b>b</b>) Detection stability of the humidity-sensing element under long-term storage conditions. (<b>c</b>) Fitting of capacitance value C of the humidity-sensing element with relative humidity RH.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>(<b>a</b>) Leaf temperature curves measured by the wearable sensor and the commercial sensor. (<b>b</b>) Leaf surface relative humidity curves measured by the wearable sensor and the commercial sensor. (<b>c</b>) Leaf small environmental air temperature curves measured by the wearable sensor and the commercial sensor. (<b>d</b>) The wearable sensor detecting tomatoes in a real scene.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13 Cont.
<p>(<b>a</b>) Leaf temperature curves measured by the wearable sensor and the commercial sensor. (<b>b</b>) Leaf surface relative humidity curves measured by the wearable sensor and the commercial sensor. (<b>c</b>) Leaf small environmental air temperature curves measured by the wearable sensor and the commercial sensor. (<b>d</b>) The wearable sensor detecting tomatoes in a real scene.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>(<b>a</b>) Detection of leaf and surrounding microenvironment temperature by the wearable sensor. (<b>b</b>) Detection of surface relative humidity of the leaf by the wearable sensor. (<b>c</b>) Detection of leaf <span class="html-italic">VPD<sub>L</sub></span>.</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop