Productivity response characteristics of different grasslands to flash drought and their relationship with drought tolerance

•The effects of flash drought on productivity and the relationship among influencing factors are revealed.•The sensitivity and anomaly of grassland productivity response to flash drought are discussed.•The time stage and type of flash drought had the greatest impact on grassland productivity.•The dr...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ecological indicators 2024-02, Vol.159, p.111761, Article 111761
Hauptverfasser: Liu, Xiaoxu, Liu, Xiaomin, Yu, Miao, Zhao, Haiyang, Zhu, Zhongyuan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:•The effects of flash drought on productivity and the relationship among influencing factors are revealed.•The sensitivity and anomaly of grassland productivity response to flash drought are discussed.•The time stage and type of flash drought had the greatest impact on grassland productivity.•The drought tolerance of grassland and the grassland type with the greatest risk of flash drought are determined. Flash droughts have attracted worldwide attention because of their rapid outbreak and extensive influence. However, studies regarding the characteristics and effects of flash droughts in grassland ecosystems are insufficient. In this study, the frequency and intensity characteristics of flash droughts in the Xilinguole Grassland in China were studied. The response characteristics of the productivity of different types of grassland to flash droughts and the relationship between these characteristics and the drought tolerance of grassland were revealed. The results show that (1) flash droughts had the greatest impact on grassland net primary productivity (NPP) and rain use efficiency (RUE) in summer and spring, respectively, with a level of intensity above that of moderate drought. Strong evapotranspiration flash droughts (SEFD) require more attention from decision-makers than heat wave flash droughts (HWFD). A higher frequency and intensity of flash droughts had a greater impact on vegetation. (2) Flash droughts caused moderate negative anomalies in the NPP and RUE indices in more than 90 % of the grasslands. The longest lag time of the NPP response to flash droughts was 2 months, and NPP anomalies were affected by flash droughts for nearly 2 months. RUE was more sensitive to flash droughts than NPP. RUE responded to flash droughts within 10 days, with a decrease of more than 80 % in magnitude, which was 30 % higher than that of the NPP, and the duration of the anomaly was half that of the NPP. (3) Grasslands with a high sensitivity to flash droughts had shorter response durations, fewer abnormalities, better recovery abilities and better drought tolerance. The drought tolerance of grasslands did not increase in association with large NPP and RUE values. Desert grasslands were the most drought tolerant, while meadow grasslands were the least drought tolerant, with the highest risk of flash droughts. This study provides theoretical support for improving the ability of an ecosystem to cope with flash drought risk and scientific grassland management.
ISSN:1470-160X
1872-7034
DOI:10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.111761