ArticleFrontiers in plant science2026
Vegetation productivity responses to increased atmospheric vapor pressure deficit across the globe.
Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Atmospheric vapor pressure deficit (VPD) has been identified as a key factor influencing vegetation productivity, with spatially divergent positive and negative effects observed across global ecosystems. However, the mechanisms underlying these heterogeneous responses remain insufficiently understood. Methods: Here, we integrated long-term global satellite observations with multiple statistical approaches to investigate the drivers of divergent vegetation responses to VPD. We examined the responses of leaf area index (LAI) and evapotranspiration (ET) to VPD along spatial gradients of soil and atmospheric water availability, and further explored the roles of plant water-use strategies and atmospheric moisture conditions using mediation analyses. Results: Our results showed that vegetation responses of LAI and ET to VPD varied significantly along gradients of soil water content (SWC) and relative humidity (RH). When SWC and RH increased beyond critical thresholds, vegetation responses to VPD shifted from negative to positive for both LAI and ET. These transition patterns were closely associated with spatial variations in plant water-use strategies. Mediation analyses further revealed that changes in ET responses to VPD, jointly regulated by SWC and plant water-use strategies, were associated with variations in atmospheric moisture conditions, which in turn influenced vegetation responses to VPD. Specifically, in water-limited regions, conservative plant water-use strategies and low soil moisture were associated with reduced ET responses under increasing VPD, potentially contributing to lower atmospheric humidity and constrained vegetation productivity. In contrast, in water-rich regions, higher soil moisture and more water-intensive strategies were associated with positive ET responses to VPD, which may help maintain relatively humid atmospheric conditions and less constrained vegetation productivity. Discussion: Overall, we propose an integrated observational framework to reconcile spatially divergent vegetation responses to VPD, highlighting the importance of soil water availability, atmospheric moisture conditions, and plant water-use strategies in regulating vegetation-climate interactions. These findings may improve our understanding of ecosystem responses to ongoing climate change.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.