ArticleNature plants2025
Satellite-based evidence of recent decline in global forest recovery rate from tree mortality events.
Article in Nature plants, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unraveling Spatiotemporal Heterogeneity and Driving Mechanism of Vegetation Recovery in Co-Seismic Landslide Areas via Nonlinear Trajectories and Bayesian Networks.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Asymmetric temperature responses to soil moisture drought legacies under anthropogenic forcing.Nature communications · 2026Article
- China's "greening but weakening" protected areas reveal a global conservation quality-quantity dilemma.Science China. Life sciences · 2026Article
- A Global Comparison of Direct and Legacy Effects of Drought on Ecosystem Productivity.Ecology letters · 2026Article
- Impacts of fire severity and exotic invasion ofFrontiers in plant science · 2026Article
- Uncovering the spatio-temporal patterns and drivers of 30 years of greening in South UK landscapes.Landscape ecology · 2026Article
- A national soil organic carbon density dataset (2010-2024) in China.Scientific data · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Climate-driven forest mortality events have been extensively observed in recent decades, prompting the question of how quickly these affected forests can recover their functionality following such events. Here we assessed forest recovery in vegetation greenness (normalized difference vegetation index) and canopy water content (normalized difference infrared index) for 1,699 well-documented forest mortality events across 1,600 sites worldwide. By analysing 158,427 Landsat surface reflectance images sampled from these sites, we provided a global assessment on the time required for impacted forests to return to their pre-mortality state (recovery time). Our findings reveal a consistent decline in global forest recovery rate over the past decades indicated by both greenness and canopy water content. This decline is particularly noticeable since the 1990s. Further analysis on underlying mechanisms suggests that this reduction in global forest recovery rates is primarily associated with rising temperatures and increased water scarcity, while the escalation in the severity of forest mortality contributes only partially to this reduction. Moreover, our global-scale analysis reveals that the recovery of forest canopy water content lags significantly behind that of vegetation greenness, implying that vegetation indices based solely on greenness can overestimate post-mortality recovery rates globally. Our findings underscore the increasing vulnerability of forest ecosystems to future warming and water insufficiency, accentuating the need to prioritize forest conservation and restoration as an integral component of efforts to mitigate climate change impacts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40251283What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.