<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/nlm-dtd/publishing/3.0/journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0" article-type="research-article">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">HESS</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Hydrology and Earth System Sciences</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">HESS</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1607-7938</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/hess-30-4985-2026</article-id><title-group><article-title>Declining Sensitivity and Increasing Resistance Time of Ecosystem Water Use Efficiency  to Meteorological Drought</article-title><alt-title>Declining Sensitivity and Increasing Resistance Time</alt-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>Zijun</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Wu</surname><given-names>Rong</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>Yangyang</given-names></name>
          <email>hnlylcbtks@163.com</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>Zhaoying</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Wen</surname><given-names>Zhongming</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>Zhenqian</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff6">
          <name><surname>Sitch</surname><given-names>Stephen</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff7">
          <name><surname>Yuan</surname><given-names>Wenping</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>College of Water Resources and Architectural Engineering, Northwest A&amp;F University, Yangling, Shaanxi 712100, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>State Key Laboratory of Water Resources Engineering and Management, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>College of Grassland Agriculture, Northwest A&amp;F University, Yangling, Shaanxi 712100, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Jiangsu Center for Collaborative Innovation in Geographical Information Resource Development and Application, International Institute for Earth System Sciences, Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210023, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>Department of Physical Geography and Bolin Centre for Climate Research, Stockholm University, Stockholm 10691, Sweden</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff6"><label>6</label><institution>Faculty of Environment, Science and Economy, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff7"><label>7</label><institution>Institute of Carbon Neutrality, Sino-French Institute for Earth System Science, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Yangyang Liu (hnlylcbtks@163.com)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>10</day><month>August</month><year>2026</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>30</volume>
      <issue>15</issue>
      <fpage>4985</fpage><lpage>5004</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>12</day><month>December</month><year>2025</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>14</day><month>January</month><year>2026</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>22</day><month>June</month><year>2026</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>22</day><month>July</month><year>2026</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2026 Zijun Wang et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2026</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/30/4985/2026/hess-30-4985-2026.html">This article is available from https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/30/4985/2026/hess-30-4985-2026.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/30/4985/2026/hess-30-4985-2026.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/30/4985/2026/hess-30-4985-2026.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>

      <p id="d2e195">Drought is a dominant factor influencing terrestrial ecosystem water-use efficiency (WUE). However, the coupling relationship between WUE and drought remains insufficiently understood. Currently, the coupling relationship is primarily assessed using correlation coefficients or linear regression slopes. However, the optimal drought timescale at which WUE responds to drought has largely been overlooked. Therefore, this study investigated the spatiotemporal patterns of the WUE – meteorological drought coupling relationship across global terrestrial ecosystems from 1982 to 2018 with satellite- derived and model-simulated WUE, together with the Standardized Precipitation-Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI), and explored the potential causal mechanisms. Within the framework of WUE-SPEI coupling, the maximum correlation coefficient between WUE and SPEI represents the sensitivity of WUE to meteorological drought (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), whereas the corresponding optimal drought timescale represents its resistance time (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). The results indicated that the sensitivity of WUE to meteorological drought decreased at a rate of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.0003 yr<sup>−1</sup> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.01), while the resistance time increased at a rate of 0.0155 month yr<sup>−1</sup> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.01), indicating a weakening of the coupling between WUE and meteorological drought. Attribution analysis indicated that CO<sub>2</sub> fertilization was the primary factor contributing to the weakening of the coupling relationship. Surface soil moisture was the most critical hydrometeorological driver, exhibiting nearly opposite effects and significant threshold effects on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Peter &amp; Clark Momentary Conditional Independence (PCMCI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>) algorithm was further employed to construct a causality diagnosis framework for identifying the relationships between WUE-drought coupling and temperature, precipitation, radiation, wind speed, vapor pressure deficit, and surface and root-zone soil moisture. The results showed that the decrease in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> had direct negative causal effects on precipitation, temperature, and radiation. In contrast, the increase in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was primarily driven by a negative causal effect of radiation. This study highlights the weakened coupling between WUE and meteorological drought, suggesting that vegetation's carbon-water trade-off is evolving toward drought adaptation, which is crucial for understanding the adaptive strategies of vegetation in response to climate change.</p>
  </abstract>
    
<funding-group>
<award-group id="gs1">
<funding-source>National Natural Science Foundation of China</funding-source>
<award-id>42477522</award-id>
</award-group>
<award-group id="gs2">
<funding-source>Science and Technology Plan Projects of Tibet Autonomous Region</funding-source>
<award-id>XZ202501ZY0045</award-id>
</award-group>
<award-group id="gs3">
<funding-source>Science and Technology Major Project of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region of China</funding-source>
<award-id>2025YFHH0224</award-id>
</award-group>
</funding-group>
</article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

      
<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d2e344">Ecosystem water use efficiency (WUE) is defined as the ratio of carbon assimilation to ecosystem water evapotranspiration (Beer et al., 2009). High WUE indicates that an ecosystem can more effectively carry out photosynthesis and growth under limited water resources (Wang et al., 2022). Therefore, the WUE is widely used to characterize the trade-off between carbon uptake and water loss within ecosystems (Xue et al., 2022). Meteorological drought, as characterized by the Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI), is one of the most common and destructive natural hazards (Li et al., 2026). The SPEI combines sensitivity to atmospheric evaporative demand, as captured by the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), with the multi-scalar characteristics of the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) (Vicente-Serrano et al., 2010). Therefore, the SPEI is widely regarded as an effective index for capturing the impacts of drought on terrestrial ecosystem carbon-water cycles (Vicente-Serrano et al., 2012, 2013). Against the backdrop of global climate change, the frequency, duration, and intensity of meteorological drought are projected to continue increasing in the future (Mokhtar et al., 2021; Trenberth et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2023), which will have increasingly profound effects on terrestrial ecosystems. Therefore, understanding the impacts of meteorological drought on terrestrial carbon-water dynamics is of great significance for ecosystem sustainability (Wang et al., 2026a).</p>
      <p id="d2e347">Previous studies have shown that WUE responses to drought exhibit significant spatiotemporal heterogeneity. Across aridity gradients, WUE exhibits a negative response to drought in arid ecosystems, whereas it shows a positive response in humid ecosystems (Huang et al., 2017). From a temporal perspective of drought development, WUE decreases during summer droughts but increases during autumn droughts (Ma et al., 2019). Furthermore, WUE demonstrates a two-phase relationship with drought intensity: increasing under moderate drought but declining under severe drought (Lu and Zhuang, 2010). The timing of drought occurrence also plays a crucial role in regulating both the direction and magnitude of WUE responses, as ecosystem physiological and physical processes exhibit varying sensitivities to water stress across different growth stages (Huang et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021).</p>
      <p id="d2e350">However, these studies remain limited, as they have largely been conducted at specific or fixed drought timescales, thereby neglecting the cumulative and lagged effects of drought on vegetation dynamics. In fact, plants can uptake water stored from past precipitation in deeper unsaturated soil layers or groundwater to maintain carbon–water balance (Zhang et al., 2026). In other words, drought not only impacts vegetation growth synchronously but also exhibits lagged and cumulative effects, where past drought conditions influence current vegetation growth (Huang et al., 2018; Kannenberg et al., 2020). Vicente-Serrano et al. (2013) emphasized that vegetation responses to drought are inherently multi-timescale in nature. Longer timescales imply stronger memory effects, which may buffer the impacts of recent drought events and thereby reduce vegetation drought sensitivity (Seddon et al., 2016). In contrast, shorter timescales indicate more rapid vegetation responses to moisture deficits, reflecting higher drought sensitivity (Jiao et al., 2021). Therefore, neglecting the role of timescales in assessing WUE-drought coupling may hinder our understanding of how WUE responds to drought. Although increasing attention has been paid to the optimal timescale of ecosystem responses to drought (Guo et al., 2026; Yuan et al., 2024; Xing et al., 2026), most existing studies identify a single fixed optimal drought timescale over the entire study period, thereby primarily revealing its spatial distribution patterns. For example, Yuan et al. (2024) used Spearman correlation analysis to reveal the lagged and legacy effects of meteorological drought on the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) in northern China during 1982–2022. However, the optimal drought timescale is not static; under climate change, its temporal evolution can indirectly indicate changes in ecosystem resistance and sensitivity to drought. Thus, it remains unclear whether the response duration of WUE to drought has lengthened or shortened, whether such temporal changes indicate a weakening or strengthening of WUE-drought coupling, and which environmental or physiological factors dominate these changes. Therefore, incorporating time-varying optimal drought timescales into analyses of WUE-drought coupling is essential for a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of vegetation carbon-water trade-offs under drought stress.</p>
      <p id="d2e353">Therefore, we calculated the coupling relationship between WUE and SPEI across time scales ranging from 1 to 24 months, including the maximum correlation coefficient (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and optimal drought timescale (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Specifically, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> represents the sensitivity of WUE to meteorological drought, whereas the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> represents its resistance time. Subsequently, we utilized Dynamic Global Vegetation Models from TRENDY project to quantify the contributions of CO<sub>2</sub>, climate change (CLI), and land-use change (LCC) to this coupling relationship. To further explore the impact of climate change, we employed the eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) algorithm combined with SHapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) to identify both the relative importance and modes of influence of key hydrothermal factors in shaping the coupling relationship between WUE and drought. Finally, we employed Peter-Clark Momentary Conditional Independence Plus (PCMCI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>) to uncover the complex causal network between hydrothermal factors, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. These findings are expected to enhance our understanding of the vulnerability of terrestrial ecosystems to drought and provides valuable insights for supporting ecosystem sustainability under climate change.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Data sources and processing</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>GPP and ET data</title>
      <p id="d2e454">Three widely used GPP datasets were employed in this study: FLUXCOM GPP, GLASS GPP, and NIRv GPP. FLUXCOM GPP, which is derived from a machine learning-based integration of eddy covariance measurements and remote sensing data, offers global coverage with monthly temporal resolution and a spatial resolution of 0.5°. The GLASS GPP product, generated using a light use efficiency model in conjunction with AVHRR reflectance data, provides 8 d composite estimates with a spatial resolution of 0.5° from 1982–2018. To aggregate the 8 d time-scale GPP data into monthly values, the maximum value method was utilized. NIRv GPP, a recently developed satellite-derived index based on near-infrared reflectance of vegetation, features a monthly temporal resolution and a 0.05° spatial resolution, and exhibits a strong correlation with tower-based GPP measurements. These datasets collectively represent distinct methodological approaches to quantifying terrestrial carbon uptake while maintaining complementary spatiotemporal characteristics suitable for cross-comparison analysis.</p>
      <p id="d2e457">Three widely used ET datasets were analyzed in this study: ERA5 ET, GLASS ET, and GLEAM ET. ERA5 ET, produced by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts through atmospheric reanalysis modeling, provides monthly temporal resolution at a 0.25° spatial grid, incorporating land-atmosphere interaction processes. The AVHRR-based GLASS ET data employs the Bayesian Model Averaging method, which merges five process-based ET algorithms to improve ET estimation. It provides ET data spanning from 1981 to 2022 with an 8 d temporal resolution and a 0.5° spatial resolution. In GLEAM, multiplicative evaporative stress factors are applied to convert the estimated potential evapotranspiration values of three land components – bare soil, high-canopy, and short-canopy – into bare soil evaporation (Eb) and transpiration (Et). Interception loss (Ei) is calculated separately using an analytical model driven by precipitation and vegetation characteristics. The actual evapotranspiration is estimated as the sum of these three components. GLEAM ET provides data with a monthly temporal resolution and a 0.25° spatial resolution. These datasets collectively represent diverse retrieval approaches (reanalysis, hybrid model, and observation-driven algorithm) while maintaining spatially and temporally complementary resolutions, enabling robust intercomparison of terrestrial water flux patterns across multiple scales.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>FLUXNET data</title>
      <p id="d2e468">To validate the reliability of WUE data observed from multi-source satellite products, this study collected flux data from FLUXNET 2015 (<uri>https://fluxnet.org/</uri>, last access: 14 January 2025). To ensure the long-term reliability of WUE observations, we selected sites with continuous observation records of more than 5 years and with complete and valid records were selected. Based on this criterion, 85 flux stations were ultimately selected for analysis at the monthly scale (Fig. S1, Table S1 in the Supplement). Among these sites, only high-quality gap-filled data (QC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.8) were retained (Guan et al., 2025). Additionally, to ensure the accuracy of ET estimates, the energy balance closure criterion was applied: when the energy imbalance (net radiation minus the sum of latent heat flux, sensible heat flux, and soil heat flux) exceeded 50 % of the available energy, the latent heat flux (LE) was treated as missing (Knauer et al., 2018). GPP was estimated using the nighttime respiration allocation method (“GPP_NT_VUT_REF”) to ensure consistency across sites.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>TRENDY v12 multi-model simulated GPP and ET data</title>
      <p id="d2e489">The latest version TRENDY v12 (Trends in Net Land-Atmosphere Carbon Exchange) is a collaborative initiative that integrates multiple Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs) (are available on request to Stephen Sitch (s.a.sitch@exeter.ac.uk) and Pierre Friedlingstein (p.friedlingstein@exeter.ac.uk)), aimed at quantifying global carbon budgets using forcing data on carbon dioxide concentrations, climate variables, and land use changes (Friedlingstein et al., 2023). All models utilize the same forcing data, with historical climate fields derived from the CRUv.4.07 and CRU-JRA55 datasets, and global atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentrations obtained from a combination of ice core records and atmospheric observations. Each DGVM model runs four simulation scenarios: S0 (no changes in CO<sub>2</sub>, climate, or land cover), S1 (changes in CO<sub>2</sub>, static climate conditions, and static land use), S2 (changes in CO<sub>2</sub> and climate conditions, static land use), and S3 (changes in CO<sub>2</sub>, climate conditions, and land use).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <label>2.4</label><title>SPEI data</title>
      <p id="d2e545">The SPEI is commonly used to assess climate drought conditions. By incorporating regional precipitation, potential evapotranspiration, and temperature, the SPEI quantifies the hydrological balance over a specific period and provides an objective method for comparing drought severity across different regions and time periods. It is of considerable importance for monitoring and predicting the impact of climate change on water resources and ecosystems. To ensure consistency with the climate data version used in the TRENDY model (CRU TS 4.07), we selected the SPEI version 2.9 dataset, which is derived from CRU TS 4.07 (<uri>https://spei.csic.es/spei_database</uri>, last access: 15 January 2025). This dataset has a spatial resolution of 0.5° <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5° and covers timescales ranging from 1 to 24 months (Beguería et al., 2014).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5">
  <label>2.5</label><title>Hydrometeorological factors data</title>
      <p id="d2e567">Since CRU climate data (CRUts4.07 and CRU-JRA55) is widely used as climate forcing in DGVMs, we adopt the same climate factor data in this study to ensure consistency with these models. Specifically, we collected monthly mean temperature (Temp), precipitation (Pre), and actual vapor pressure data (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ap</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) from the CRUts4.07 climate product, as well as downward shortwave radiation (Rad) and wind speed (WS) data from the CRU Japanese Reanalysis (CRU JAR) (<uri>https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/</uri>, last access: 15 January 2025). Soil moisture data for the surface layer (0–10 cm, SMsurf) and root zone (10–100 cm, SMroot) were obtained from the Global Land Evaporation Amsterdam Model (GLEAM) (<uri>https://www.gleam.eu/</uri>, last access: 3 October 2024). Additionally, the vapor pressure deficit (VPD) was calculated based on monthly average temperature and actual vapor pressure using the following equation (Wang et al., 2025):

                <disp-formula specific-use="gather" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M30" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E1"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>1</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mtable class="split" rowspacing="0.2ex" displaystyle="true" columnalign="right left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mi>lg⁡</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi>lg⁡</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close="]" open="["><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mfrac><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="[" close="]"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mfrac><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E2"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>2</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">VPD</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ap</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

          Where, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> represents the saturated vapor pressure. and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ap</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> represents the actual vapor pressure. The constants used are as follows: <inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1079574</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5028</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.150475</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.42873</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.78614</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.82969</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.476955</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Additionally, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>273.16 K (the triple point temperature of water), and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 276.15 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (K), where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the air temperature in Celsius.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS6">
  <label>2.6</label><title>Land use types data</title>
      <p id="d2e1001">This study utilizes the annual HLDA<inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> Global Land Use Change dataset (<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.921846" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1594/PANGAEA.921846</ext-link>, Winkler et al., 2020), which includes six general land use/cover categories: urban areas, croplands, pastures/rangelands, Forest, unmanaged grasslands/shrublands, and sparse/bare soils. We excluded pixels with land use types of “urban areas” and “sparse/bare soils” to define permanent vegetation areas (Winkler et al., 2021), and all subsequent studies were conducted within these permanent vegetation areas (Fig. S4).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS7">
  <label>2.7</label><title>Aridity index data</title>
      <p id="d2e1022">Using the third edition of the Global Aridity Index and Potential Evapotranspiration dataset (Global-AI-PET-v3, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7504448.v5" ext-link-type="DOI">10.6084/m9.figshare.7504448.v5</ext-link>), the globe is classified into four aridity gradients based on the following thresholds: AI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.2 as arid (AR), 0.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> AI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5 as semi-arid (SAR), 0.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> AI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.65 as dry sub-humid (DSH), and AI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.65 as humid (HU) (Fig. S3).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS8">
  <label>2.8</label><title>Pre-processing</title>
      <p id="d2e1079">All datasets were resampled to a spatial resolution of 0.25° using bilinear interpolation (Li et al., 2022b). Moreover, seasonal cycles and long-term trends in WUE and SPEI data may lead to spurious correlations (Boulton et al., 2022). Therefore, it is essential to perform deseasonalization and detrending on WUE and SPEI prior to subsequent calculations (Smith and Boers, 2023). This study employed the Seasonal and Trend decomposition using Loess (STL) method to decompose WUE and SPEI time series of each grid cell into the overall trend, seasonal component, and residual component, as implemented using the stl() function in the “stats” package in R (v4.2.1). The STL residual component, which represents the deseasonalized and detrended WUE and SPEI time series, were utilized for further analysis (Wang et al., 2023).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Definition of WUE</title>
      <p id="d2e1098">The grid-scale ecosystem WUE was calculated as the ratio of GPP to ET according to Eq. (3):

            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><label>3</label><mml:math id="M51" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">WUE</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">GPP</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ET</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          Where, the unit of WUE is g C m<sup>−2</sup> month<sup>−1</sup>, the unit of GPP is g C m<sup>−2</sup> month<sup>−1</sup>, and the unit of ET is mm<sup>−1</sup> month<sup>−1</sup>. In this study, based on these three independent sets of GPP products and three sets of ET products, we first computed WUE for each GPP-ET product combination. Then, we integrated the results of the nine WUE combinations using an arithmetic mean, ultimately generating a multi-product averaged WUE. This approach effectively reduces the impact of systematic errors from individual products, thereby enhancing the robustness of the estimated results (Wu et al., 2025).</p>
      <p id="d2e1190">Representative long-term scale sites from different land use types were selected to validate the satellite products. In the calculation of site-scale ecosystem WUE, GPP can be directly obtained, while ET is computed using Eq. (4):

            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E4" content-type="numbered"><label>4</label><mml:math id="M58" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ET</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">LE</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.501</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.361</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where ET represents actual evapotranspiration (mm month<sup>−1</sup>), LE (W m<sup>−2</sup>) represents latent heat flux, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (°C) is the air temperature. The validation results indicated a high correlation between satellite-based WUE and the flux-based WUE (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.62, Fig. S2), implying that satellite-based WUE results were highly reliable.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Calculation of coupling relationship between WUE and drought</title>
      <p id="d2e1277">The coupling relationship was defined as the maximum correlation coefficient (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and optimal lag time (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) between WUE and SPEI. In general, WUE decreases with increasing drought severity, whereas it tends to be higher under mild or non-drought conditions (Li et al., 2025), indicating an overall positive correlation between WUE and SPEI. Accordingly, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was defined as the maximum (non-absolute) correlation coefficient between SPEI at different time scales and WUE, representing the maximum sensitivity of WUE to SPEI (Vicente-Serrano et al., 2013). SPEI typically exhibits a lagged effect on WUE, whereby past drought conditions influence current WUE (Huang et al., 2018; Kannenberg et al., 2020). Therefore, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was defined as the SPEI time scale corresponding to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, representing the resistance time of WUE to SPEI (Li et al., 2024).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><title>Trend analysis</title>
      <p id="d2e1343">An 18-year moving window was employed to investigate the temporal variations in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over the past four decades. Then, we utilized a combination of Theil-Sen slope estimation and the Mann-Kendall (MK) test to identify and analyze trends in long-term time series data. The Theil-Sen method was applied to calculate robust linear trends, with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-values that remain resilient to the influence of outliers (Gocic and Trajkovic, 2013). At the same time, the non-parametric MK test was employed to assess the significance of monotonic trends by evaluating their slope values (Ma et al., 2020). To ensure the robustness of the identified temporal trends, we further examined the trends of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> using 16-year and 20-year moving windows.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <label>3.4</label><title>Attribution analysis and causality diagnosis of WUE-drought coupling relationship</title>
      <p id="d2e1405">We compared the coupling relationships derived from the simulation results of all DGVMs under the S3 scenario with those calculated from remote sensing observations, and ultimately retained only the seven models that were consistent with the remote sensing results: E3SM, EDv3, JSBACH, JULES, LPJ-GUESS, SDGVM, and VISIT (Zeng et al., 2022). We not only computed WUE for each individual model but also calculated the multi-model mean WUE under the S1, S2, and S3 scenarios (Fig. S6). Furthermore, we derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to examine the relationship between WUE and SPEI. Considering that the coupling relationship under the S1 scenario can only represent the effects of CO<sub>2</sub> changes, we also computed the coupling relationships for the (S2–S1) and (S3–S2) scenarios to quantify the contributions of CLI and LCC to the changes in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d2e1461">Machine learning models are capable of effectively capturing the nonlinear relationships between multidimensional predictors and target variables (Yan et al., 2025b). With the advancement of interpretability techniques such as SHapley Additive Explanations (SHAP), machine learning has gradually evolved from a black-box paradigm into an explainable artificial intelligence framework. In this study, “threshold effects” refer to nonlinear transition points at which the marginal contribution of a driving factor to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> changes markedly. Specifically, a threshold was interpreted as the point where the SHAP value showed a transition between positive and negative contributions (Chen et al., 2026). To avoid overinterpreting unstable patterns, only thresholds that appeared within the main distribution range of the predictor and showed consistent response patterns were discussed. Therefore, to complement our understanding of CLI, this study selected a series of hydrometeorological factors – including VPD, SMsurf, SMroot, Temp, Pre, WS, and Rad – and employed the XGBoost algorithm to quantify their respective influences on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Piao et al., 2020). To increase the sample size, all time-series data from each grid cell were extracted. The dataset was divided into training and test subsets at a ratio of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">80</mml:mn><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Bayesian optimization combined with five-fold cross-validation was used for hyperparameter tuning. For the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> model, the learning rate was set to 0.06, the number of trees to 1431, and the maximum depth to 4. For the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> model, the learning rate was set to 0.07, the number of trees to 1287, and the maximum depth to 4. The model performance was evaluated using the mean coefficient of determination (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and root mean square error (RMSE) obtained through five-fold cross-validation (Fig. S19).</p>
      <p id="d2e1554">This study further employed the improved Peter-Clark Momentary Conditional Independence plus algorithm (PCMCI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>) (Runge et al., 2019; Runge, 2020) to investigate the causal mechanisms between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and hydrometeorological factors. These factors included VPD, SMsurf, SMroot, Temp, Pre, WS, and Rad. The time series of all variables were detrended and converted into anomalies to satisfy the stationarity requirements of time-series analysis. The causal diagnostic analysis was then implemented using the PCMCI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> algorithm in the Python package Tigramite (<uri>https://github.com/jakobrunge/tigramite</uri>, last access: 20 April 2025). PCMCI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> iteratively identifies directed causal associations among variables through conditional independence tests. To reduce uncertainty in causal inference, we constrained the network to physically plausible associations consistent with established mechanisms. Instead of the conventional ParCorr method, a Gaussian process-based nonlinear conditional independence test (GPDC) was applied, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-values were computed through permutation testing (500 bootstrap iterations), with significance determined using an FDR-corrected threshold of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.05. Compared with structural equation modeling, PCMCI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> does not require a prespecified model and can automatically infer causal structures from time-series data (Poppe Terán et al., 2023). A detailed methodological description of the PCMCI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> algorithm is provided by Runge (2020).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Results</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <label>4.1</label><title>Spatiotemporal Characteristics of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></title>
      <p id="d2e1674">Based on remote sensing observations and the TRENDY multi-model ensemble, we computed the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> trends between ecosystem WUE and drought (Fig. 1). The results indicated that the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> derived from both datasets declined significantly at a rate of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.0003 yr<sup>−1</sup> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.01). Furthermore, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> calculated from remote sensing observations and the TRENDY multi-model ensemble increased at rates of 0.0155 month yr<sup>−1</sup> and 0.0222 month yr<sup>−1</sup> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.01), respectively. Notably, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> derived from the TRENDY multi-model ensemble were approximately 0.02 lower than those from remote sensing observations, whereas the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were about 0.5 months higher; however, both datasets exhibited nearly identical temporal trends.</p>

      <fig id="F1" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d2e1810">Temporal trends of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> between global WUE and SPEI calculated from <bold>(a)</bold> the remote sensing observations and <bold>(b)</bold> the TRENDY multi-model ensemble using an 18-year moving window.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/30/4985/2026/hess-30-4985-2026-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d2e1847">The spatial patterns of the multi-year mean values and trends of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were generally consistent, although the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> derived from the TRENDY multi-model ensemble was smaller and the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was larger than those obtained from remote sensing observations (Fig. 2). It was also noteworthy that the absolute values of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> trends estimated from remote sensing observations were slightly larger than those derived from the TRENDY multi-model ensemble. Specifically, in the high-latitude regions of the Northern Hemisphere, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> generally showed a decreasing trend, with the exception of the western Siberia, and central North America. Notably, the decrease was most pronounced in the central Siberian. In contrast, the Southern Hemisphere exhibited more regions where the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> have increased, particularly in areas such as the central-northern Africa, southern Africa, northern Australia, and the Amazon Basin, where the increasing rate was notably high. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> exhibited an opposite trend to the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, showing a clear increase between 30 and 60° N, while the remaining regions primarily exhibited a decreasing trend.</p>

      <fig id="F2" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d2e1964">Spatial distribution of the mean and change rates of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> calculated from the remote sensing observations and the TRENDY multi-model ensemble using an 18-year moving window. From left to right, the three columns represent remote sensing observations, the TRENDY multi-model ensemble and statistics across different vegetation types and aridity gradients. Points indicate statistically significant trends (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.01).</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/30/4985/2026/hess-30-4985-2026-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d2e2005">From the perspectives of vegetation type and drought gradient, the mean values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> showed relatively small differences, whereas their trends exhibited pronounced heterogeneity across these two dimensions (Fig. 2c). Specifically, the mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> varied little across aridity gradients but differed among vegetation types, with Shrub showing higher mean values than other vegetation types, particularly Shrub in HR, which reached 0.54. The mean characteristics of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were consistent with those of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, with the highest mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> observed in HR across aridity gradients and among shrubs across vegetation types. In terms of the rate of change, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> showed an overall decreasing trend globally but increased in AR, with the highest growth rates observed in Forest and Shrub, at 0.0017 and 0.0021 yr<sup>−1</sup>, respectively. Across vegetation types, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> also tended to increase in Pasture. In contrast, the rate of change in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> showed marked regional differences across aridity gradients, with higher increasing rates in AR, reaching up to 0.1181 month yr<sup>−1</sup> in Pasture, while SH showed a decreasing trend at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.0010 month yr<sup>−1</sup>. Across vegetation types, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increased more rapidly in Cropland and Pasture, whereas Forest displayed a decreasing trend, with the largest decline occurring in Forest within SAR at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.0394 month yr<sup>−1</sup>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <label>4.2</label><title>Separation of the Driving Factors of the changes in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></title>
      <p id="d2e2212">Since the spatial distributions simulated by individual DGVM exhibited certain deviations (Figs. S9–S11), this study adopted TRENDY multi-model ensemble to separate the effects of CO<sub>2</sub> fertilization, CLI, and LCC on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The results from the TRENDY multi-model ensemble indicated that the negative effect of CO<sub>2</sub> on the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and the positive effect on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were primarily concentrated in the high-latitude regions of the Northern Hemisphere. However, the opposite contributions were observed in the central-southern North America, central and eastern Siberia, as well as southern Central Asia and the Tibetan Plateau. In the Southern Hemisphere, CO<sub>2</sub> exerted a predominantly positive effect on the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and a negative effect on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, revealing an overall opposite spatial pattern. In comparison to CO<sub>2</sub>, the contributions of CLI and LCC were relatively smaller. The negative contribution of CLI to the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was mainly distributed in the southern Europe, western Siberia, and the Amazon Basin, while the negative contribution of LCC was primarily concentrated in the eastern Europe and central-northern Africa. Both factors showed an overall opposite spatial distribution pattern for their contributions to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> relative to the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 3).</p>

      <fig id="F3" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d2e2354">The contributions of CO<sub>2</sub>, CLI, and LCC to the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> under an 18-year moving window. (The left and right columns represented the contributions of variables to the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively, with the contributions of CO<sub>2</sub>, CLI, and LCC shown from top to bottom.)</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/30/4985/2026/hess-30-4985-2026-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d2e2426">At the global scale, the contribution of CO<sub>2</sub> to the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was approximately <inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<sup>−1</sup>, while the contributions of LCC and CLI were approximately <inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<sup>−1</sup>, respectively. The contributions of CO<sub>2</sub>, LCC, and CLI to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were 2.3<inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, 0.2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.2</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> month yr<sup>−1</sup>, respectively (Fig. 4). Further analysis across vegetation types and drought gradients revealed that CO<sub>2</sub> generally exerted a negative contribution to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, with substantial variation among vegetation types. The strongest negative contribution occurred in Cropland, particularly in Cropland within AR (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.3</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<sup>−1</sup>). Conversely, Forest and Shrub in AR and Pasture in HR exhibited relatively high positive contributions of 0.8<inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, 1.2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and 1.3<inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<sup>−1</sup>. In contrast, the contribution of LCC to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was negligible, with an absolute magnitude less than 0.1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<sup>−1</sup>. The contribution of CLI to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was strongly dependent on drought gradients, with its negative effect gradually intensifying from AR to HR. For <inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the contributions of LCC and CO<sub>2</sub> exhibited broadly consistent patterns across vegetation types and drought gradients. Across drought gradients, the largest contributions of CO<sub>2</sub> and LCC occurred in AR, while across vegetation types, their effects were much greater in cropland and pasture, with the maximum observed in pastures within AR, where the contributions of CO<sub>2</sub> and LCC reached 0.0815 and 0.0196 month yr<sup>−1</sup>, respectively. The contribution of CLI to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was predominantly negative in AR and SAR but positive in more humid regions (SH and HR). Specifically, the strongest negative contribution of CLI to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> occurred in pastures within AR (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.0196 month yr<sup>−1</sup>), whereas the strongest positive contribution was observed in pastures within SH.</p>

      <fig id="F4" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d2e2878">The contributions separated by DGVMs under an 18-year moving window, along with statistical plots for different vegetation types and drought gradients.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/30/4985/2026/hess-30-4985-2026-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d2e2887">Based on the independent contributions of CO<sub>2</sub>, LCC and CLI, their spatially dominant regions were further identified (Fig. 5). The results indicated that, for both <inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, CO<sub>2</sub> dominated the largest area, followed by CLI, while LCC accounted for the smallest proportion. For <inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the regions dominated by negative CO<sub>2</sub> contributions accounted for 27.3 % of the total area and were mainly distributed across the eastern Europe, western Siberia, Central Asia, southeastern South America, central and eastern Africa, and Australia. Regions dominated by positive CO<sub>2</sub> contributions covered a slightly smaller proportion (approximately 25.0 %), mainly concentrated in the central and eastern Siberia, south-central Africa, and eastern South America. Regions dominated by CLI accounted for 34.5 % of the total area and were mainly distributed along the margins of the CO<sub>2</sub>-dominated zones, whereas those dominated by LCC accounted for only 13.2 %. For <inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, regions dominated by positive CO<sub>2</sub> contributions accounted for 38.2 % of the total area and were concentrated between 30 and 60° N. In contrast, regions dominated by negative CO<sub>2</sub> contributions accounted for 20.2 % and were mainly distributed in high-elevation regions such as the eastern Siberia, the Tibetan Plateau, and central-southern North America. The regions dominated by CLI and LCC were relatively scattered.</p>

      <fig id="F5" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d2e3000">Spatial distribution of the dominant factors of CO<sub>2</sub>, LCC, and CLI on <bold>(a)</bold> the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <bold>(b)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> under an 18-year moving window. The bar chart shows the proportions of the dominant areas of CO<sub>2</sub>, LCC, and CLI.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/30/4985/2026/hess-30-4985-2026-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <label>4.3</label><title>The effects of hydrometeorological factors on the WUE-drought coupled relationship</title>
      <p id="d2e3064">Using XGBoost and SHAP, we quantified the contributions of hydrometeorological factors to the coupling relationship between WUE and drought (Fig. 6). From a global perspective, SMsurf was identified as the most important driving factor for both <inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, yet it exhibited nearly opposite influence patterns. Specifically, the effect of SMsurf on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> displayed a unimodal pattern: it reduced <inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> when SMsurf was below 0.22 m<sup>3</sup> m<sup>−3</sup>, promoted <inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> between 0.22 and 0.44, and peaked around 0.35 m<sup>3</sup> m<sup>−3</sup>. SMsurf showed a significant nonlinear negative relationship with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>: as SMsurf increased, its effect on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> shifted from positive to negative at approximately 0.25 m<sup>3</sup> m<sup>−3</sup>. The effects of SMroot on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were opposite to those of SMsurf, although the relative importance of SMroot was lower. Another key driving factor for both <inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was Temp, ranking third and second in relative importance, respectively. Specifically, Temp promoted <inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at temperatures below 5.01 °C, inhibited it between 5.01 and 18.38 °C with a local minimum near 12 °C, and again exerted a positive effect above 18.38 °C. For <inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, Temp exerted predominantly negative effects below 1.66 and above 22.80 °C, while showing positive effects between these thresholds. Other hydrometeorological factors also exhibited nonlinear patterns and threshold effects in their influences on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>

      <fig id="F6" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d2e3300">Global and local SHAP analyses of the contributions of hydrothermal factors to <bold>(a)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <bold>(b)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. In the local SHAP analysis, the variables from top to bottom are Pre, Rad, SMroot, SMsurf, Temp, VPD and WS on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/30/4985/2026/hess-30-4985-2026-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d2e3360">The relative importance rankings and influence mechanisms of hydrothermal factors on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> varied slightly across vegetation types and drought gradients (Figs. S20–S27). In Cropland, VPD was the most important driver of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, exhibiting a single-threshold effect: VPD exerted a negative influence when exceeding 1.13 hPa and a positive influence when below this threshold. Rad was the dominant driver of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, showing two distinct thresholds: Rad promoted <inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> below 145.69 W m<sup>−2</sup>, inhibited it between 145.69 and 204.51 W m<sup>−2</sup>, and promoted it again above 204.51 W m<sup>−2</sup>, with a local SHAP maximum at 204.51 W m<sup>−2</sup>. For Forest, Temp was the most important factor for both <inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Temp reduced <inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> between 2.23 and 18.65 °C, with the strongest inhibition near 10 °C, whereas it increased <inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.99 and 22.00 °C, showing the strongest promotion around 10 °C. For Pasture, Pre and SMsurf were the most critical factors influencing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M249" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M250" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively. Pre decreased <inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> when below 438.46 mm but increased it above this value, while SMsurf promoted <inline-formula><mml:math id="M252" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> below 0.24 m<sup>3</sup> m<sup>−3</sup> and inhibited it above. For Shrub, SMsurf was the most important driver for both <inline-formula><mml:math id="M255" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M256" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with thresholds of 0.23 and 0.20 m<sup>3</sup> m<sup>−3</sup>, respectively, showing opposite effects across the thresholds.</p>
      <p id="d2e3630">Across drought gradients, Pre and SMsurf were the most important drivers of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M259" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M260" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively, in AR. The effect of Pre on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M261" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> shifted from negative to positive at 245.03 mm, while that of SMsurf on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M262" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> changed from positive to negative at 0.12 m<sup>3</sup> m<sup>−3</sup>. In SAR, Temp and Rad were the most critical drivers of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M265" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M266" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively. The influence of Temp on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M267" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> exhibited pronounced nonlinearity: Temp decreased <inline-formula><mml:math id="M268" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> below 16.91 °C (with a local minimum near 13 °C) but promoted <inline-formula><mml:math id="M269" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> above 16.91 °C, showing a local maximum near 23 °C. Rad inhibited <inline-formula><mml:math id="M270" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> below 206.65 W m<sup>−2</sup> but promoted it above this threshold. In SH, VPD and Rad were the dominant drivers of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M272" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M273" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively; VPD increased <inline-formula><mml:math id="M274" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> when exceeding 0.58 hPa, while lower VPD values reduced it, and the positive effects of Rad on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M275" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were concentrated between 598.44 and 1472.70 W m<sup>−2</sup>. In HR, Temp was the most critical driver for both <inline-formula><mml:math id="M277" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M278" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, with their partial dependence plots exhibiting nearly opposite patterns.</p>
      <p id="d2e3857">The results derived from PCMCI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M279" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> revealed a complex causal network between hydrothermal factors, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M280" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M281" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 7). At the global scale, WS exhibited a negative causal relationship with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M282" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, while <inline-formula><mml:math id="M283" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, in turn, negatively influenced Pre, Rad, and Temp. Although many factors did not exert a direct causal effect on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M284" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, they influenced it indirectly through various pathways. For instance, VPD affected <inline-formula><mml:math id="M285" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> indirectly via WS, while Rad influenced Temp, which subsequently impacted WS and ultimately affected <inline-formula><mml:math id="M286" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. For <inline-formula><mml:math id="M287" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, Rad and WS exhibited direct negative and positive causal relationships, respectively. Conversely, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M288" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> exerted a direct positive causal effect on Pre and a direct negative effect on Temp. Additionally, SMroot and SMsurf were causally linked to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M289" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, though the direction of their influence remained unclear.</p>

      <fig id="F7" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d2e3980">Causal network diagram of hydrothermal factors, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M290" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M291" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> across different vegetation types, drought gradients, and the global scale.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/30/4985/2026/hess-30-4985-2026-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d2e4011">To further explore the causal network under different vegetation types and drought gradients, we conducted an in-depth statistical analysis, examining interactions within overlapping regions of vegetation type and drought gradient (Figs. S28–S31). In terms of drought gradients, the causal network structures in AR and SAR were relatively simple. In AR, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M292" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was directly influenced by Rad, while <inline-formula><mml:math id="M293" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> showed little causal linkage with other hydrothermal factors. In SAR, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M294" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was not directly affected by hydrothermal factors but exhibited direct causal relationships with VPD and WS. Meanwhile, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M295" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was positively influenced by Temp and Pre, negatively influenced by WS, and had an undefined negative causal relationship with SMsurf. Conversely, the causal relationships in SH and HR were considerably more intricate. Beyond the complex interactions among hydrothermal factors and their indirect effects on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M296" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M297" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, hydrothermal factors also directly influenced <inline-formula><mml:math id="M298" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M299" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> through multiple pathways. For example, in SH, both Pre and Rad exerted direct negative causal effects on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M300" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, while Temp had a direct positive influence. From the perspective of vegetation types, the causal networks in Cropland, Pasture, and Forest were relatively complex, whereas Shrub exhibited a simpler structure. In Cropland, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M301" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was directly and negatively influenced by Rad, while <inline-formula><mml:math id="M302" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was directly and positively affected by Rad but negatively impacted by SMroot and WS. In Pasture, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M303" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was negatively influenced by Pre, while <inline-formula><mml:math id="M304" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was negatively affected by SMroot. In Forest, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M305" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was negatively influenced by Rad, whereas <inline-formula><mml:math id="M306" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was negatively influenced by VPD and WS but positively affected by Pre and Temp. In Shrub, SMroot exerted a direct negative influence on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M307" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, while Temp had a direct positive effect. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M308" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, on the other hand, was mainly influenced by Pre through a direct positive causal relationship and was negatively influenced by SMsurf and Temp.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <label>5</label><title>Discussion</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS1">
  <label>5.1</label><title>Robustness of the results</title>
      <p id="d2e4219">To ensure the robustness of the remotely sensed WUE observations, we averaged three sets of GPP and ET products and validated the results against data from 85 FLUXNET 2015 sites (Fig. S1, Table S1). The results indicated a high consistency between the multi-product average WUE from remote sensing and the site data (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M309" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.62, Fig. S2). To confirm the alignment of the selected DGVMs with the remote sensing observations, we performed calculations for all models within TRENDY v12 and identified seven models whose trends under the S3 scenarios were consistent with the remote sensing observations. As shown in the Taylor diagram, the multi-model ensemble results exhibited high correlation with the remote sensing observations and lower standard deviation, supporting the credibility of the separated contributions of CO<sub>2</sub>, LCC, and CLI (Fig. S6). To mitigate the impact of interannual variations on trend significance, all calculations were performed within an 18-year moving window. To test the robustness of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M311" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M312" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> under different window choices, we repeated all calculations using 16 and 20-year windows, which yielded similar conclusions (Figs. S7–S17). Therefore, we considered our results to be highly reliable.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS2">
  <label>5.2</label><title>Spatiotemporal variation characteristics of the coupling relationship</title>
      <p id="d2e4271">This study pioneers the identification of optimal time scale for WUE response to drought coupling, demonstrating significant spatiotemporal heterogeneity. Temporally, the optimal WUE-drought response scale exhibited an upward trend (Fig. 1), indicating a delayed WUE response to drought and, consequently, an enhanced buffering capacity of vegetation against drought has been enhanced (Peters et al., 2018; Frank et al., 2015). This phenomenon likely stems from climate change-driven drought intensification, compelling vegetation to utilize slow-response water sources like deep soil moisture or groundwater (Miguez-Macho and Fan, 2012). However, Tang et al. (2024) employed GPP as a proxy for vegetation and found that vegetation sensitivity to drought increased and its response time shortened, which appears to contradict our findings. However, that study focused only on single indicators such as GPP, which reflect vegetation photosynthesis, whereas WUE likely plays a more complex role in regulating water and carbon dynamics. In addition, differences in the definition of sensitivity, data sources, methods, research periods, and research areas might lead to different conclusions. Different types of droughts might also result in different outcomes. Therefore, our findings did not necessarily refute previous views. However, we firmly believe that considering the time scale in the response of WUE to drought is a crucial step in revealing the dynamic relationship between WUE and SPEI.</p>
      <p id="d2e4274">Across drought gradients, the optimal drought scale in arid regions was significantly shorter than in humid regions. This phenomenon could be explained by the resource limitation hypothesis (Huxman et al., 2004) , which posited that in humid regions, plant growth was generally limited by light or nutrient availability, whereas in arid regions, it was primarily constrained by water scarcity (Maurer et al., 2020; Knapp et al., 2024). Larger <inline-formula><mml:math id="M313" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were mainly concentrated in humid, energy-limited regions, where drought conditions caused by insufficient precipitation were often accompanied by high temperatures and intense solar radiation, thereby enhancing the resistance of WUE to drought (Gentine et al., 2019; Walther et al., 2019). For instance, Miller et al. (2023) reported a sustained increase in plant photosynthesis during spring droughts across most vegetated areas of the Northern Hemisphere. Similarly, during recent drought events such as those in Europe in 2018 and 2022, several energy-limited ecosystems also exhibited enhanced plant activity (Bastos et al., 2020). Differences in vegetation adaptation strategies along drought gradients might also have led to distinct response times. Vegetation in arid regions optimized water use through stomatal dynamics, whereas humid ecosystems buffered drought effects via deep rooting systems and canopy shading (Klein et al., 2011). A shorter response time might indirectly indicate higher sensitivity (Vicente-Serrano et al., 2013); thus, our findings also supported previous conclusions that vegetation in arid regions exhibited stronger drought sensitivity (De Keersmaecker et al., 2015; Seddon et al., 2016). However, we found that this pattern was shifting between arid and humid regions. Specifically, the optimal drought scale in arid regions showed the most rapid increase, whereas the rate of change in humid regions was much smaller or even declined. We attributed this discrepancy in the consideration of time scales.</p>
      <p id="d2e4288">From the perspective of vegetation types, the optimal drought scale increased rapidly in Cropland and Pasture, increased slightly in Shrub, but decreased in Forest. This pattern might result from the stronger influence of human activities on Cropland and Pasture, where irrigation and fertilization altered the water and nutrient conditions of these ecosystems (Jaramillo et al., 2018). On the one hand, irrigation maintained adequate soil moisture at all times. On the other hand, sufficient nitrogen supply ensured high photosynthetic nitrogen-use efficiency in crop leaves, indicating that even under partial stomatal closure and limited intercellular CO<sub>2</sub> concentration, leaves were still able to efficiently utilize the available CO<sub>2</sub> for photosynthesis. In contrast, Shrub and Forest were mostly subject to natural conditions. The slight increase in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M316" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> observed in Shrub might have reflected their conservative, isohydric water-use strategy (Yang et al., 2016). The decrease in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M317" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in Forest might have been attributed to continued transpiration under water stress, which persisted due to their extensive canopies and residual hydraulic function, thereby shortening the response time to drought (Novick et al., 2016). These findings collectively reveal vegetation-drought coupling as a nonlinear outcome of climate forcing, ecological adaptation, and anthropogenic intervention, necessitating multi-scale models and sustained monitoring to unravel critical thresholds (Reichstein et al., 2013).</p>
      <p id="d2e4331">It is also important to emphasize that drought is a continuously evolving process, and the transition from one type of drought to another is referred to as drought propagation (Zhou et al., 2021). Drought generally begins as meteorological drought caused by reduced precipitation or increased potential evapotranspiration and may subsequently result in soil drought (Ma and Yuan, 2024). However, this propagation does not occur instantaneously because the soil water-storage capacity can buffer and delay the response of WUE to meteorological drought. Therefore, the decoupling of WUE from meteorological drought is closely linked to the propagation of meteorological drought into soil drought. Nevertheless, further research is required to investigate the coupling relationship between soil drought and WUE and to determine how soil drought regulates the coupling between meteorological drought and WUE.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS3">
  <label>5.3</label><title>Influencing factors of coupling relationship</title>
      <p id="d2e4342">TRENDY multi-model simulations identified CO<sub>2</sub> fertilization as the dominant driver weakening WUE-SPEI coupling, as evidenced by a decrease in the maximum correlation coefficient and an increase in the optimal drought timescale (Fig. 4). On the one hand, elevated atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> enhances the carboxylation efficiency of Rubisco, thereby directly promoting GPP and enabling vegetation to maintain relatively high carbon assimilation without increased water supply; consequently, the synchrony between decreases in GPP and SPEI is weakened. On the other hand, elevated atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> induces partial stomatal closure, thereby reducing transpiration water loss (Keenan et al., 2013). These mechanisms play a critical role in preventing rapid declines in WUE under drought conditions, thereby directly reducing its sensitivity to meteorological drought. Moreover, the CO<sub>2</sub> fertilization effect promotes deeper root distribution and adaptive changes in hydraulic traits, leading plants to increasingly rely on water stored from past precipitation in deeper unsaturated soil layers or groundwater to maintain carbon-water balance under drought stress (Zhang et al., 2026). This enhances the ecohydrological buffering capacity of vegetation against short-term meteorological drought, as reflected by an increase in the optimal drought timescale. Theoretically, these processes occur at the leaf scale, enhancing intrinsic water use efficiency (Li et al., 2025), however, cross-scale dependencies allow these effects to propagate to the ecosystem scale. Land-use changes exert secondary but critical impacts, including tropical deforestation, forest degradation, and afforestation programs, all of which gradually altered global vegetation patterns. In addition, agricultural management practices such as irrigation, fertilization, and crop modification did not change vegetation cover types but still influenced vegetation adaptability to environmental conditions. Chen et al. (2019) found that human land-use practices might have contributed to more than one-third of the global vegetation increase, particularly in extensive cropland regions – most notably in China (25 %) and India (6.8 %). Therefore, we reasonably inferred that LCC driven by human interventions enhanced ecosystem resilience to drought and other extreme events, particularly in croplands. This was manifested in our results as LCC contributed a negative effect in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M322" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and a positive effect in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M323" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d2e4404">Although TRENDY multi-model simulations indicated that the influence of climate change was minimal, this study employed XGBoost and SHAP to reveal how meteorological factors affected the WUE–SPEI coupling relationship. SMsurf was identified as the most important driving factor, exhibiting nearly opposite effects on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M324" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M325" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and a significant threshold response (Fig. 6). In fact, this remained closely associated with increased atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>. Previous studies suggested that although elevated atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> could reduce plant water loss by decreasing stomatal conductance – thereby theoretically slowing soil moisture depletion (Gray et al., 2016) – the elevated CO<sub>2</sub> was accompanied by increased leaf temperature and accelerated evaporation from shallow soils, which offset this water-saving effect (Wilson et al., 1999), ultimately promoting soil moisture depletion (Kellner et al., 2019). As the direct “water reservoir” for vegetation, surface soil moisture limited plant water supply and reduced photosynthesis, thereby exerting a profound influence on the WUE–SPEI coupling relationship (Liu et al., 2020; Martínez-Vilalta et al., 2014). Along the drought gradient, precipitation was the most important factor influencing the WUE–SPEI coupling in arid regions, with SMsurf ranking third in importance. In contrast, in humid regions, temperature and radiation were the dominant factors, while SMsurf ranked fifth and sixth in importance for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M329" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M330" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively (Figs. S23, S26), consistent with previous findings. Vegetation in arid regions was typically water-limited, and precipitation, as its direct water source, played a crucial regulatory role in drought response (Li et al., 2022a). In contrast, in humid regions with sufficient water supply, vegetation responses to drought were primarily controlled by energy-related factors such as temperature and radiation (Liu et al., 2025). Across vegetation types, the dominant factors influencing the WUE–SPEI coupling were more clearly defined in Forest and Shrub, being temperature and surface soil moisture, respectively, which were closely related to their rooting patterns and drought-resistance strategies (Yang et al., 2025). In contrast, the dominant factors in Pasture and Cropland were more complex, likely resulting from vegetation structural diversity and intensive human interventions (Liu et al., 2018).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS4">
  <label>5.4</label><title>Limitations and future prospects</title>
      <p id="d2e4487">This study provides valuable insights into the dynamic coupling between WUE and meteorological drought; however, several limitations remain. Among various drought types, meteorological drought is the most prevalent, which is why SPEI was selected in this study (Zhou et al., 2024). Previous studies have demonstrated that other drought types are closely linked to meteorological drought, often triggered by precipitation anomalies and exhibiting certain lag effects; in contrast, heatwaves typically precede meteorological drought, indicating that heatwave-drought events evolve dynamically through a sequential triggering process (Yan et al., 2025a). Different drought types operate through distinct mechanisms and exert varying impacts on WUE. For example, soil drought is more directly associated with root-zone water availability for vegetation, whereas atmospheric drought affects WUE by regulating stomatal aperture. Furthermore, this study focuses solely on WUE at the ecosystem scale, while the coupling relationships between drought and WUE at the leaf and canopy scales remain unclear (Wang et al., 2026b). Therefore, future studies should further investigate the dynamic coupling between WUE across multiple scales and different types of heatwaves and droughts, as WUE at different scales responds differently across various stages of heatwave-drought propagation. The relatively short study period represents an additional limitation of this study. Although extending the analysis to more recent years would improve the timeliness and relevance of the results, such an extension was limited by the temporal coverage and consistency of available long-term GPP and ET datasets. Nevertheless, future studies should extend the analysis to more recent years as longer, more reliable, and temporally consistent datasets become available. Future research should also incorporate Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) datasets to investigate projected changes in WUE-drought coupling and their driving mechanisms under different development scenarios. Such efforts will facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of vegetation responses to drought and provide a stronger theoretical foundation for evaluating carbon-water cycles under climate change.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>6</label><title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d2e4499">Understanding the coupling relationship between WUE and drought is crucial for assessing the impact of drought on terrestrial ecosystem carbon-water cycles. To this end, we investigated the spatiotemporal patterns of the WUE-SPEI coupling relationship from 1982 to 2018 globally. Using the DGVMs, we separated the contributions of CO<sub>2</sub> fertilization, CLI, and LCC to the changes in WUE-drought coupling relationship. Furthermore, the XGBoost combined with SHAP and PCMCI<inline-formula><mml:math id="M332" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> were employed to elucidate the mechanisms and influencing pathways of hydrothermal factors on the coupling relationship. Our key findings included the following: <list list-type="order"><list-item>
      <p id="d2e4520"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M333" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> decreased at a rate of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M334" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.0003 yr<sup>−1</sup> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M336" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.01), while <inline-formula><mml:math id="M337" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increased at a rate of 0.0155 month yr<sup>−1</sup> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M339" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.01), indicating the buffer capacity of WUE against drought was enhanced. The rates of change in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M340" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M341" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> varied substantially across drought gradients and vegetation types. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M342" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increased most rapidly in Shrub within AR at 0.0021 yr<sup>−1</sup> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M344" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.01), whereas the largest decreases occurred in Shrub within SAR and Forest within SH, both at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M345" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.0020 yr<sup>−1</sup> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M347" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.01). <inline-formula><mml:math id="M348" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increased most rapidly in Pasture within AR at 0.1181 month yr<sup>−1</sup> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M350" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.01), while it decreased most markedly in Forest within SAR at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M351" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.0394 month yr<sup>−1</sup> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M353" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.01).</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d2e4745">CO<sub>2</sub> fertilization was identified as the primary cause for the weakening of the coupling relationship. SMsurf was identified as the most critical driver, exhibiting nearly opposite effects and significant threshold effects on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M355" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M356" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d2e4780">At the global scale, WS exhibited a direct negative causal relationship with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M357" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">max</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, while Rad and WS had direct negative and positive causal effects on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M358" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">opt</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively. The complex causal networks under different vegetation types and drought gradients were also revealed.</p></list-item></list> Overall, our findings highlighted an enhanced resistance of WUE to drought, manifested as a reduced correlation and a delayed response time. Moreover, vegetation under different drought gradients gradually adjusted its water-use strategies to maintain WUE stability. These findings encourage a reassessment of the WUE–drought relationship, offering new insights to support the sustainable development of ecosystems under climate change.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="codedataavailability"><title>Code and data availability</title>

      <p id="d2e4810">The datasets that support the findings of this study are publicly available. The GLASS GPP dataset is available at <uri>https://glass.hku.hk/download.html</uri> (last access: 15 January 2025). The FluxCom Gpp dataset is available at <uri>http://fluxcom.org/CF-Download/</uri> (last access: 15 January 2025). The NIRv Gpp dataset is at <uri>https://data.tpdc.ac.cn/zh-hans/data/d6dff40f-5dbd-4f2d-ac96-55827ab93cc5</uri> (last access: 15 January 2025). The ERA5-Land ET dataset is available at <uri>https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/datasets/reanalysis-era5-pressure-levels-monthly-means?tab=overview</uri> (last access: 15 January 2025). The GLASS ET dataset is available at <uri>https://glass.hku.hk/download.html</uri> (last access: 15 January 2025). The GLEAM ET is available at <uri>https://www.gleam.eu</uri> (last access: 3 October 2024; Miralles et al., 2011). CRU ts4.07 is available at <uri>https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/hrg/cru_ts_4.07/</uri> (last access: 15 January 2025). Collection of CRU JRA forcing datasets of gridded land surface blend of Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and Japanese reanalysis (JRA) data (CRU JAR) is available at <uri>https://data-search.nerc.ac.uk/geonetwork/srv/api/records/863a47a6d8414b6982e1396c69a9efe8</uri> (last access: 15 January 2025). The HIstoric Land Dynamics Assessment<inline-formula><mml:math id="M359" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> (HILDA<inline-formula><mml:math id="M360" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>) is available at <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.921846" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1594/PANGAEA.921846</ext-link> (Winkler et al., 2020). Global Aridity Index and Potential Evapotranspiration (ET0) Database: Version 3 is available at <uri>https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Global_Aridity_Index_and_Potential_Evapotranspiration_ET0_Climate_Database_v2/7504448/5</uri> (last access: 15 January 2025); FLUXNET2015 Dataset is available at <uri>https://fluxnet.org/data/fluxnet2015-dataset/</uri> (last access: 14 January 2025). Simulations from TRENDY land surface models are available on request to Stephen Sitch (s.a.sitch@exeter.ac.uk) and Pierre Friedlingstein (p.friedlingstein@exeter.ac.uk). Code will be made available on request.</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d2e4862">The supplement related to this article is available online at <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-30-4985-2026-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-30-4985-2026-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d2e4871">Conceptualization and supervision: Z. W. and Y. L.; Design and methodology: Z. W., R. W., and Y. L.; Data analysis: Z. W., R. W., S. S., Z. Y., and W. Y.; Data curation: Z. W., Z. W., and H. S.; Writing-original draft preparation: Z. W. and Y. L.; Writing-review and editing: S. S. and W. Y.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d2e4877">The contact author has declared that none of the authors has any competing interests.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="disclaimer"><title>Disclaimer</title>

      <p id="d2e4883">Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. The authors bear the ultimate responsibility for providing appropriate place names. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d2e4890">We acknowledge for the data support from “Loess plateau science data center, National Earth System Science Data Sharing Infrastructure, National Science and Technology Infrastructure of China, National Tibetan Plateau Scientific Data Center”.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d2e4895">This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 42477522), the Science and Technology Plan Project of the Tibet Autonomous Region (grant no. XZ202501ZY0045), the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Science and Technology Plan (grant no. 2025YFHH0224), and the Shanxi Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology Security in Fenhe River Basin (grant no. FHKF202402).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d2e4901">This paper was edited by Xing Yuan and reviewed by two anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Bastos, A., Ciais, P., Friedlingstein, P., Sitch, S., Pongratz, J., Fan, L., Wigneron, J. P., Weber, U., Reichstein, M., Fu, Z., Anthoni, P., Arneth, A., Haverd, V., Jain, A. K., Joetzjer, E., Knauer, J., Lienert, S., Loughran, T., McGuire, P. C., Tian, H., Viovy, N., and Zaehle, S.: Direct and seasonal legacy effects of the 2018 heat wave and drought on European ecosystem productivity, Science Advances, 6, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba2724" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/sciadv.aba2724</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Beer, C., Ciais, P., Reichstein, M., Baldocchi, D., Law, B. E., Papale, D., Soussana, J.-F., Ammann, C., Buchmann, N., Frank, D., Gianelle, D., Janssens, I. A., Knohl, A., Köstner, B., Moors, E., Roupsard, O., Verbeeck, H., Vesala, T., Williams, C. A., and Wohlfahrt, G.: Temporal and among-site variability of inherent water use efficiency at the ecosystem level, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 23, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GB003233" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008GB003233</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Beguería, S., Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Reig, F., and Latorre, B.: Standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI) revisited: parameter fitting, evapotranspiration models, tools, datasets and drought monitoring, Int. J. Climatol., 34, 3001–3023, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.3887" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/joc.3887</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Boulton, C. A., Lenton, T. M., and Boers, N.: Pronounced loss of Amazon rainforest resilience since the early 2000s, Nat. Clim. Change, 12, 271–278, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01287-8" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41558-022-01287-8</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Chen, C., Park, T., Wang, X., Piao, S., Xu, B., Chaturvedi, R. K., Fuchs, R., Brovkin, V., Ciais, P., Fensholt, R., Tømmervik, H., Bala, G., Zhu, Z., Nemani, R. R., and Myneni, R. B.: China and India lead in greening of the world through land-use management, Nature Sustainability, 2, 122–129, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0220-7" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41893-019-0220-7</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Chen, T., Wang, Y., and Peng, L.: Advanced time-lagged effects of drought on global vegetation growth and its social risk in the 21st century, J. Environ. Manage., 347, 119253, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119253" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119253</ext-link>, 2023.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Chen, Y., Qu, W., Zohner, C. M., Peñuelas, J., and Wu, C.: Increased artificial illumination delays urban autumnal foliar senescence, Nat. Commun., 17, 1526, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-68246-7" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41467-025-68246-7</ext-link>, 2026.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>De Keersmaecker, W., Lhermitte, S., Tits, L., Honnay, O., Somers, B., and Coppin, P.: A model quantifying global vegetation resistance and resilience to short-term climate anomalies and their relationship with vegetation cover, Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 24, 539–548, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12279" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/geb.12279</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Frank, D. C., Poulter, B., Saurer, M., Esper, J., Huntingford, C., Helle, G., Treydte, K., Zimmermann, N. E., Schleser, G. H., Ahlström, A., Ciais, P., Friedlingstein, P., Levis, S., Lomas, M., Sitch, S., Viovy, N., Andreu-Hayles, L., Bednarz, Z., Berninger, F., Boettger, T., D`Alessandro, C. M., Daux, V., Filot, M., Grabner, M., Gutierrez, E., Haupt, M., Hilasvuori, E., Jungner, H., Kalela-Brundin, M., Krapiec, M., Leuenberger, M., Loader, N. J., Marah, H., Masson-Delmotte, V., Pazdur, A., Pawelczyk, S., Pierre, M., Planells, O., Pukiene, R., Reynolds-Henne, C. E., Rinne, K. T., Saracino, A., Sonninen, E., Stievenard, M., Switsur, V. R., Szczepanek, M., Szychowska-Krapiec, E., Todaro, L., Waterhouse, J. S., and Weigl, M.: Water-use efficiency and transpiration across European forests during the Anthropocene, Nat. Clim. Change, 5, 579–583, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2614" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nclimate2614</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Friedlingstein, P., O'Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Bakker, D. C. E., Hauck, J., Landschützer, P., Le Quéré, C., Luijkx, I. T., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Schwingshackl, C., Sitch, S., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Alin, S. R., Anthoni, P., Barbero, L., Bates, N. R., Becker, M., Bellouin, N., Decharme, B., Bopp, L., Brasika, I. B. M., Cadule, P., Chamberlain, M. A., Chandra, N., Chau, T.-T.-T., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Cronin, M., Dou, X., Enyo, K., Evans, W., Falk, S., Feely, R. A., Feng, L., Ford, D. J., Gasser, T., Ghattas, J., Gkritzalis, T., Grassi, G., Gregor, L., Gruber, N., Gürses, Ö., Harris, I., Hefner, M., Heinke, J., Houghton, R. A., Hurtt, G. C., Iida, Y., Ilyina, T., Jacobson, A. R., Jain, A., Jarníková, T., Jersild, A., Jiang, F., Jin, Z., Joos, F., Kato, E., Keeling, R. F., Kennedy, D., Klein Goldewijk, K., Knauer, J., Korsbakken, J. I., Körtzinger, A., Lan, X., Lefèvre, N., Li, H., Liu, J., Liu, Z., Ma, L., Marland, G., Mayot, N., McGuire, P. C., McKinley, G. A., Meyer, G., Morgan, E. J., Munro, D. R., Nakaoka, S.-I., Niwa, Y., O'Brien, K. M., Olsen, A., Omar, A. M., Ono, T., Paulsen, M., Pierrot, D., Pocock, K., Poulter, B., Powis, C. M., Rehder, G., Resplandy, L., Robertson, E., Rödenbeck, C., Rosan, T. M., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Smallman, T. L., Smith, S. M., Sospedra-Alfonso, R., Sun, Q., Sutton, A. J., Sweeney, C., Takao, S., Tans, P. P., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., Tsujino, H., Tubiello, F., van der Werf, G. R., van Ooijen, E., Wanninkhof, R., Watanabe, M., Wimart-Rousseau, C., Yang, D., Yang, X., Yuan, W., Yue, X., Zaehle, S., Zeng, J., and Zheng, B.: Global Carbon Budget 2023, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5301–5369, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023</ext-link>, 2023.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Gentine, P., Green, J. K., Guérin, M., Humphrey, V., Seneviratne, S. I., Zhang, Y., and Zhou, S.: Coupling between the terrestrial carbon and water cycles – a review, Environ. Res. Lett., 14, 083003, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab22d6" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/1748-9326/ab22d6</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Gocic, M. and Trajkovic, S.: Analysis of changes in meteorological variables using Mann-Kendall and Sen's slope estimator statistical tests in Serbia, Global Planet. Change, 100, 172–182, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.10.014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.10.014</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Gray, S. B., Dermody, O., Klein, S. P., Locke, A. M., McGrath, J. M., Paul, R. E., Rosenthal, D. M., Ruiz-Vera, U. M., Siebers, M. H., Strellner, R., Ainsworth, E. A., Bernacchi, C. J., Long, S. P., Ort, D. R., and Leakey, A. D. B.: Intensifying drought eliminates the expected benefits of elevated carbon dioxide for soybean, Nat. Plants, 2, 16132, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2016.132" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nplants.2016.132</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Guan, X., Li, Y., Chen, J. M., Ma, Y., and Shen, H.: A process model-guided transfer learning framework for mapping global gross primary production, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 372, 110678, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2025.110678" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.agrformet.2025.110678</ext-link>, 2025.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Guo, X., Zhang, Z., Zhang, X., and Feng, S.: The inclusion of time-lag response reveals contrasting effects of meteorological and agricultural drought on agroecosystem water use efficiency in Africa, J. Hydrol., 664, 134346, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2025.134346" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2025.134346</ext-link>, 2026.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Huang, L., He, B., Han, L., Liu, J., Wang, H., and Chen, Z.: A global examination of the response of ecosystem water-use efficiency to drought based on MODIS data, Sci. Total Environ., 601–602, 1097–1107, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.084" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.084</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Huang, M., Wang, X., Keenan, T. F., and Piao, S.: Drought timing influences the legacy of tree growth recovery, Glob. Change Biol., 24, 3546–3559, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14294" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/gcb.14294</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Huang, M., Zhai, P., and Piao, S.: Divergent responses of ecosystem water use efficiency to drought timing over Northern Eurasia, Environ. Res. Lett., 16, 045016, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abf0d1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/1748-9326/abf0d1</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Huxman, T. E., Smith, M. D., Fay, P. A., Knapp, A. K., Shaw, M. R., Loik, M. E., Smith, S. D., Tissue, D. T., Zak, J. C., Weltzin, J. F., Pockman, W. T., Sala, O. E., Haddad, B. M., Harte, J., Koch, G. W., Schwinning, S., Small, E. E., and Williams, D. G.: Convergence across biomes to a common rain-use efficiency, Nature, 429, 651–654, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02561" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature02561</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Jaramillo, F., Licero, L., Åhlen, I., Manzoni, S., Rodríguez-Rodríguez, J. A., Guittard, A., Hylin, A., Bolaños, J., Jawitz, J., Wdowinski, S., Martínez, O., and Espinosa, L. F.: Effects of Hydroclimatic Change and Rehabilitation Activities on Salinity and Mangroves in the Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta, Colombia, Wetlands, 38, 755–767, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-018-1024-7" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s13157-018-1024-7</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Jiao, W., Wang, L., Smith, W. K., Chang, Q., Wang, H., and D'Odorico, P.: Observed increasing water constraint on vegetation growth over the last three decades, Nat. Commun., 12, 3777, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-24016-9" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41467-021-24016-9</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Kannenberg, S. A., Schwalm, C. R., and Anderegg, W. R. L.: Ghosts of the past: how drought legacy effects shape forest functioning and carbon cycling, Ecol. Lett., 23, 891–901, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13485" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/ele.13485</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Keenan, T. F., Hollinger, D. Y., Bohrer, G., Dragoni, D., Munger, J. W., Schmid, H. P., and Richardson, A. D.: Increase in forest water-use efficiency as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rise, Nature, 499, 324–327, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12291" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature12291</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Kellner, J., Houska, T., Manderscheid, R., Weigel, H. J., Breuer, L., and Kraft, P.: Response of maize biomass and soil water fluxes on elevated CO<sub>2</sub> and drought-From field experiments to process-based simulations, Glob. Change Biol., 25, 2947–2957, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14723" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/gcb.14723</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Klein, T., Cohen, S., and Yakir, D.: Hydraulic adjustments underlying drought resistance of Pinus halepensis, Tree Physiol., 31, 637–648, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpr047" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1093/treephys/tpr047</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Knapp, A. K., Condon, K. V., Folks, C. C., Sturchio, M. A., Griffin-Nolan, R. J., Kannenberg, S. A., Gill, A. S., Hajek, O. L., Siggers, J. A., and Smith, M. D.: Field experiments have enhanced our understanding of drought impacts on terrestrial ecosystems – But where do we go from here?, Funct. Ecol., 38, 76–97, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.14460" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/1365-2435.14460</ext-link>, 2024.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Knauer, J., Zaehle, S., Medlyn, B. E., Reichstein, M., Williams, C. A., Migliavacca, M., De Kauwe, M. G., Werner, C., Keitel, C., Kolari, P., Limousin, J.-M., and Linderson, M.-L.: Towards physiologically meaningful water-use efficiency estimates from eddy covariance data, Glob. Change Biol., 24, 694–710, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13893" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/gcb.13893</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Li, D., An, L., Zhong, S., Shen, L., and Wu, S.: Declining coupling between vegetation and drought over the past three decades, Glob. Change Biol., 30, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17141" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/gcb.17141</ext-link>, 2024.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Li, F., Xin, Q., Yi, C., Kannenberg, S. A., Green, J. K., Migliavacca, M., Moore, D. J. P., Kemanian, A. R., Gentine, P., Stoy, P. C., Zhang, F., Xiong, Y., and Fu, Z.: Limited Regulation of Canopy Water Use Efficiency by Stomatal Behavior Under Drought Propagation, Glob. Change Biol., 31, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.70381" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/gcb.70381</ext-link>, 2025.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Li, F., Xin, Q., Green, J. K., Yi, C., Kemanian, A. R., Kannenberg, S. A., Stoy, P. C., Yang, Y., Lei, H., Xiong, Y., and Fu, Z.: Event-Specific Meteorological Drivers Shape Diverse Water-Use Efficiency Trajectories Under Drought Propagation, Glob. Change Biol., 32, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.70690" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/gcb.70690</ext-link>, 2026.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Li, W., Migliavacca, M., Forkel, M., Denissen, J. M. C., Reichstein, M., Yang, H., Duveiller, G., Weber, U., and Orth, R.: Widespread increasing vegetation sensitivity to soil moisture, Nat. Commun., 13, 3959, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-31667-9" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41467-022-31667-9</ext-link>, 2022a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Li, X. Y., Zou, L., Xia, J., Dou, M., Li, H. W., and Song, Z. H.: Untangling the effects of climate change and land use/cover change on spatiotemporal variation of evapotranspiration over China, J. Hydrol., 612, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128189" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128189</ext-link>, 2022b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>Liu, D., Yu, C., and Zhao, F.: Response of the water use efficiency of natural vegetation to drought in Northeast China, J. Geogr. Sci., 28, 611–628, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-018-1494-9" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s11442-018-1494-9</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Liu, J., Wang, Q., Zhan, W., Lian, X., and Gentine, P.: When and where soil dryness matters to ecosystem photosynthesis, Nat. Plants, 11, 1390–1400, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-025-02024-7" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41477-025-02024-7</ext-link>, 2025.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Liu, L., Gudmundsson, L., Hauser, M., Qin, D.-h., Li, S., and Seneviratne, S.  I.: Soil moisture dominates dryness stress on ecosystem production globally, Nat. Commun., 11, 4892, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18631-1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41467-020-18631-1</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Lu, X. and Zhuang, Q.: Evaluating evapotranspiration and water-use efficiency of terrestrial ecosystems in the conterminous United States using MODIS and AmeriFlux data, Remote Sens. Environ., 114, 1924–1939, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.04.001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.rse.2010.04.001</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Ma, F. and Yuan, X.: Vegetation Greening and Climate Warming Increased the Propagation Risk From Meteorological Drought to Soil Drought at Subseasonal Timescales, Geophys. Res. Lett., 51, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL107937" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2023GL107937</ext-link>, 2024.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>Ma, J., Jia, X., Zha, T., Bourque, C. P. A., Tian, Y., Bai, Y., Liu, P., Yang, R., Li, C., Li, C., Xie, J., Yu, H., Zhang, F., and Zhou, C.: Ecosystem water use efficiency in a young plantation in Northern China and its relationship to drought, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 275, 1–10, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.05.004" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.05.004</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Ma, W., Li, G., Wu, J., Xu, G., and Wu, J.: Response of soil labile organic carbon fractions and carbon-cycle enzyme activities to vegetation degradation in a wet meadow on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau, Geoderma, 377, 114565, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114565" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114565</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>Martínez-Vilalta, J., Poyatos, R., Aguadé, D., Retana, J., and Mencuccini, M.: A new look at water transport regulation in plants, New Phytol., 204, 105–115, 10.1111/nph.12912, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>Maurer, G. E., Hallmark, A. J., Brown, R. F., Sala, O. E., and Collins, S. L.: Sensitivity of primary production to precipitation across the United States, Ecol. Lett., 23, 527–536, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13455" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/ele.13455</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Miguez-Macho, G. and Fan, Y.: The role of groundwater in the Amazon water cycle: 1. Influence on seasonal streamflow, flooding and wetlands, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 117, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD017539" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2012JD017539</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Miller, D. L., Wolf, S., Fisher, J. B., Zaitchik, B. F., Xiao, J., and Keenan, T. F.: Increased photosynthesis during spring drought in energy-limited ecosystems, Nat. Commun., 14, 7828, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-43430-9" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41467-023-43430-9</ext-link>, 2023.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Miralles, D. G., Holmes, T. R. H., De Jeu, R. A. M., Gash, J. H., Meesters, A. G. C. A., and Dolman, A. J.: Global land-surface evaporation estimated from satellite-based observations, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 453–469, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-453-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-15-453-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation> Mokhtar, A., Jalali, M., He, H., Al-Ansari, N., Elbeltagi, A., Alsafadi, K., Abdo, H. G., Sammen, S. S., Gyasi-Agyei, Y., and Rodrigo-Comino, J.: Estimation of SPEI Meteorological Drought Using Machine Learning Algorithms, IEEE Access, 9, 65503–65523, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>Novick, K. A., Ficklin, D. L., Stoy, P. C., Williams, C. A., Bohrer, G., Oishi, A. C., Papuga, S. A., Blanken, P. D., Noormets, A., Sulman, B. N., Scott, R. L., Wang, L., and Phillips, R. P.: The increasing importance of atmospheric demand for ecosystem water and carbon fluxes, Nat. Clim. Change, 6, 1023–1027, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3114" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nclimate3114</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>Peters, W., van der Velde, I. R., van Schaik, E., Miller, J. B., Ciais, P., Duarte, H. F., van der Laan-Luijkx, I. T., van der Molen, M. K., Scholze, M., Schaefer, K., Vidale, P. L., Verhoef, A., Wårlind, D., Zhu, D., Tans, P. P., Vaughn, B., and White, J. W. C.: Increased water-use efficiency and reduced CO<sub>2</sub> uptake by plants during droughts at a continental scale, Nat. Geosci., 11, 744–748, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0212-7" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41561-018-0212-7</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>Piao, S., Wang, X., Park, T., Chen, C., Lian, X., He, Y., Bjerke, J. W., Chen, A., Ciais, P., Tømmervik, H., Nemani, R. R., and Myneni, R. B.: Characteristics, drivers and feedbacks of global greening, Nat. Rev. Earth Environ., 1, 14–27, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-019-0001-x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s43017-019-0001-x</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>Poppe Terán, C., Naz, B. S., Graf, A., Qu, Y., Hendricks Franssen, H.-J., Baatz, R., Ciais, P., and Vereecken, H.: Rising water-use efficiency in European grasslands is driven by increased primary production, Commun. Earth Environ., 4, 95, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00757-x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s43247-023-00757-x</ext-link>, 2023.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>Reichstein, M., Bahn, M., Ciais, P., Frank, D., Mahecha, M. D., Seneviratne, S. I., Zscheischler, J., Beer, C., Buchmann, N., Frank, D. C., Papale, D., Rammig, A., Smith, P., Thonicke, K., van der Velde, M., Vicca, S., Walz, A., and Wattenbach, M.: Climate extremes and the carbon cycle, Nature, 500, 287–295, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12350" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature12350</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation> Runge, J.: Discovering contemporaneous and lagged causal relations in autocorrelated nonlinear time series datasets, in: Proceedings of the 36th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI), PMLR, 124, 1388–1397, ISSN: 2640-3498, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>Runge, J., Bathiany, S., Bollt, E., Camps-Valls, G., Coumou, D., Deyle, E., Glymour, C., Kretschmer, M., Mahecha, M. D., Muñoz-Marí, J., van Nes, E. H., Peters, J., Quax, R., Reichstein, M., Scheffer, M., Schölkopf, B., Spirtes, P., Sugihara, G., Sun, J., Zhang, K., and Zscheischler, J.: Inferring causation from time series in Earth system sciences, Nat. Commun., 10, 2553, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10105-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41467-019-10105-3</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>Seddon, A. W. R., Macias-Fauria, M., Long, P. R., Benz, D., and Willis, K. J.: Sensitivity of global terrestrial ecosystems to climate variability, Nature, 531, 229–232, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16986" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature16986</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>Smith, T. and Boers, N.: Global vegetation resilience linked to water availability and variability, Nat. Commun., 14, 498, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-36207-7" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41467-023-36207-7</ext-link>, 2023.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>Tang, J., Niu, B., Hu, Z., and Zhang, X.: Increasing susceptibility and shortening response time of vegetation productivity to drought from 2001 to 2021, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 352, 110025, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2024.110025" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.agrformet.2024.110025</ext-link>, 2024.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>Trenberth, K. E., Dai, A., van der Schrier, G., Jones, P. D., Barichivich, J., Briffa, K. R., and Sheffield, J.: Global warming and changes in drought, Nat. Clim. Change, 4, 17–22, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2067" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nclimate2067</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation> Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Beguería, S., and López-Moreno, J. I.: A Multiscalar Drought Index Sensitive to Global Warming: The Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index, J. Climate, 23, 1696–1718, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Beguería, S., Lorenzo-Lacruz, J., Camarero, J. J., López-Moreno, J. I., Azorin-Molina, C., Revuelto, J., Morán-Tejeda, E., and Sanchez-Lorenzo, A.: Performance of Drought Indices for Ecological, Agricultural, and Hydrological Applications, Earth Interact., 16, 1–27, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2012EI000434.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2012EI000434.1</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Gouveia, C. M., Camarero, J. J., Beguería, S., Trigo, R. M., López-Moreno, J. I., Azorín-Molina, C., Pasho, E., Lorenzo-Lacruz, J., Revuelto, J., Morán-Tejeda, E., and Sanchez-Lorenzo, A.: Response of vegetation to drought time-scales across global land biomes, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 110, 52–57, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1207068110" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/pnas.1207068110</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>Walther, S., Duveiller, G., Jung, M., Guanter, L., Cescatti, A., and Camps-Valls, G.: Satellite Observations of the Contrasting Response of Trees and Grasses to Variations in Water Availability, Geophys. Res. Lett., 46, 1429–1440, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL080535" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2018GL080535</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>Wang, C., Min, L., Zhang, J., Li, Y., Liu, X., Lü, Y., Feng, X., and Fu, B.: Vegetation restoration dominates increase in water use efficiency in drylands of China, Ecol. Indic., 145, 109703, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109703" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109703</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>Wang, M., Ding, Z., Wu, C., Song, L., Ma, M., Yu, P., Lu, B., and Tang, X.: Divergent responses of ecosystem water-use efficiency to extreme seasonal droughts in Southwest China, Sci. Total Environ., 760, 143427, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143427" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143427</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>Wang, X., Fu, Z., Ciais, P., Peñuelas, J., Xiao, J., Li, X., Luo, X., Chen, C., Xia, H., Zhou, T., Stoy, P. C., Green, J. K., and Zhang, F.: Multi-satellite derived data reveals spatiotemporal dynamics of carbon-water coupling and its drivers in tropical ecosystems, Remote Sens. Environ., 334, 115242, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2026.115242" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.rse.2026.115242</ext-link>, 2026a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>Wang, X., Fu, Z., Ciais, P., Wang, L., Buchmann, N., Keenan, T. F., De Kauwe, M., Peñuelas, J., Chen, G., Gong, X., Xiao, J., Li, X., Xie, Q., Stoy, P. C., Makowski, D., Smith, W. K., Wang, H., Wang, S., Zhang, F., and Niu, S.: Global distribution and changes of leaf-level intrinsic water use efficiency and their responses to water stress, Nat. Commun., 17, 1530, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-68252-9" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41467-025-68252-9</ext-link>, 2026b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>Wang, Z., Fu, B., Wu, X., Li, Y., Feng, Y., Wang, S., Wei, F., and Zhang, L.: Vegetation resilience does not increase consistently with greening in China's Loess Plateau, Commun. Earth Environ., 4, 336, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01000-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s43247-023-01000-3</ext-link>, 2023.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>Wang, Z., Wu, R., Li, J., Liu, Y., Cui, C., and Liu, J.: Discriminating the impact of soil moisture and vapor pressure deficit on vegetation greening over multiple time scales, Global Planet. Change, 255, 105111, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2025.105111" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.gloplacha.2025.105111</ext-link>, 2025.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>Wilson, K. B., Carlson, T. N., and Bunce, J. A.: Feedback significantly influences the simulated effect of CO<sub>2</sub> on seasonal evapotranspiration from two agricultural species, Glob. Change Biol., 5, 903–917, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.1999.00280.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1046/j.1365-2486.1999.00280.x</ext-link>, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>Winkler, K., Fuchs, R., Rounsevell, M. D. A., Herold, M.: HILDA+ Global Land Use Change between 1960 and 2019, PANGAEA [data set], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.921846" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1594/PANGAEA.921846</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>Winkler, K., Fuchs, R., Rounsevell, M., and Herold, M.: Global land use changes are four times greater than previously estimated, Nat. Commun., 12, 2501, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22702-2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41467-021-22702-2</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>Wu, R., Wang, Z., Meng, F., Liu, Y., and Shi, H.: Strengthening Coupling Between Vegetation and Soil-Atmosphere Compound Drought Over the Past Two Decades, Earth's Future, 13, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2025EF006311" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2025EF006311</ext-link>, 2025. </mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>Xing, Y., Wang, S., Wang, A., and Wang, D.: Spatiotemporal dynamics of meteorological and groundwater droughts in Southwest China and their cumulative and lagged impacts on vegetation, J. Hydrol., 669, 135086, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2026.135086" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2026.135086</ext-link>, 2026.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation>Xue, Y., Liang, H., Zhang, B., and He, C.: Vegetation restoration dominated the variation of water use efficiency in China, J. Hydrol., 612, 128257, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128257" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128257</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation>Yan, W., Zhou, J., Lin, H., Luo, J., Duan, X., and Wu, R.: Drivers of the pre-season drought thresholds triggering earlier autumn foliar senescence in the Northern Hemisphere, Nat. Commun., 16, 7568, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-62847-y" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41467-025-62847-y</ext-link>, 2025a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><mixed-citation>Yan, Y., Li, B., Dechant, B., Xu, M., Luo, X., Qu, S., Miao, G., Leng, J., Shang, R., Shu, L., Jiang, C., Wang, H., Jeong, S., Ryu, Y., and Chen, J. M.: Plant traits shape global spatiotemporal variations in photosynthetic efficiency, Nat. Plants, 11, 924–934, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-025-01958-2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41477-025-01958-2</ext-link>, 2025b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><mixed-citation>Yang, S., Zhang, J., Han, J., Bai, Y., Xun, L., Zhang, S., Cao, D., and Wang, J.: The ratio of transpiration to evapotranspiration dominates ecosystem water use efficiency response to drought, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 363, 110423, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2025.110423" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.agrformet.2025.110423</ext-link>, 2025.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><mixed-citation>Yang, Y., Guan, H., Batelaan, O., McVicar, T. R., Long, D., Piao, S., Liang, W., Liu, B., Jin, Z., and Simmons, C. T.: Contrasting responses of water use efficiency to drought across global terrestrial ecosystems, Sci. Rep., 6, 23284, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/srep23284" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/srep23284</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><mixed-citation>Yuan, B., Guo, S., Zhang, X., Mu, H., Cao, S., Xia, Z., Pan, X., and Du, P.: Quantifying the drought sensitivity of vegetation types in northern China from 1982 to 2022, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 359, 110293, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2024.110293" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.agrformet.2024.110293</ext-link>, 2024.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><mixed-citation>Zeng, X., Hu, Z., Chen, A., Yuan, W., Hou, G., Han, D., Liang, M., Di, K., Cao, R., and Luo, D.: The global decline in the sensitivity of vegetation productivity to precipitation from 2001 to 2018, Glob. Change Biol., 28, 6823–6833, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16403" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/gcb.16403</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, H., Zhang, Y., Miralles, D. G., Tai, X., Koppa, A., Yang, H., Sitch, S., and O'Sullivan, M.: Increase in plant reliance on past precipitation associated with greening and drying, Nat. Ecol. Evol., <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-026-02997-4" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41559-026-02997-4</ext-link>, 2026.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib80"><label>80</label><mixed-citation>Zhou, Z., Shi, H., Fu, Q., Ding, Y., Li, T., Wang, Y., and Liu, S.: Characteristics of Propagation From Meteorological Drought to Hydrological Drought in the Pearl River Basin, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033959" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2020JD033959</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib81"><label>81</label><mixed-citation>Zhou, Z., Wang, P., Li, L., Fu, Q., Ding, Y., Chen, P., Xue, P., Wang, T., and Shi, H.: Recent development on drought propagation: A comprehensive review, J. Hydrol., 645, 132196, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2024.132196" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2024.132196</ext-link>, 2024.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Declining Sensitivity and Increasing Resistance Time of Ecosystem Water Use Efficiency  to Meteorological Drought</article-title-html>
<abstract-html/>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
      Bastos, A., Ciais, P., Friedlingstein, P., Sitch, S., Pongratz, J., Fan,
L., Wigneron, J. P., Weber, U., Reichstein, M., Fu, Z., Anthoni, P., Arneth,
A., Haverd, V., Jain, A. K., Joetzjer, E., Knauer, J., Lienert, S.,
Loughran, T., McGuire, P. C., Tian, H., Viovy, N., and Zaehle, S.: Direct
and seasonal legacy effects of the 2018 heat wave and drought on European
ecosystem productivity, Science Advances, 6, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba2724" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba2724</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
      Beer, C., Ciais, P., Reichstein, M., Baldocchi, D., Law, B. E., Papale, D.,
Soussana, J.-F., Ammann, C., Buchmann, N., Frank, D., Gianelle, D.,
Janssens, I. A., Knohl, A., Köstner, B., Moors, E., Roupsard, O.,
Verbeeck, H., Vesala, T., Williams, C. A., and Wohlfahrt, G.: Temporal and
among-site variability of inherent water use efficiency at the ecosystem
level, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 23,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GB003233" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GB003233</a>, 2009.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
      Beguería, S., Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Reig, F., and Latorre, B.:
Standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI) revisited:
parameter fitting, evapotranspiration models, tools, datasets and drought
monitoring, Int. J. Climatol., 34, 3001–3023,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.3887" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.3887</a>, 2014.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
      Boulton, C. A., Lenton, T. M., and Boers, N.: Pronounced loss of Amazon
rainforest resilience since the early 2000s, Nat. Clim. Change, 12,
271–278, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01287-8" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01287-8</a>, 2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
      Chen, C., Park, T., Wang, X., Piao, S., Xu, B., Chaturvedi, R. K., Fuchs,
R., Brovkin, V., Ciais, P., Fensholt, R., Tømmervik, H., Bala, G., Zhu,
Z., Nemani, R. R., and Myneni, R. B.: China and India lead in greening of
the world through land-use management, Nature Sustainability, 2, 122–129,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0220-7" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0220-7</a>, 2019.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
      Chen, T., Wang, Y., and Peng, L.: Advanced time-lagged effects of drought on
global vegetation growth and its social risk in the 21st century, J.
Environ. Manage., 347, 119253,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119253" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119253</a>, 2023.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
      Chen, Y., Qu, W., Zohner, C. M., Peñuelas, J., and Wu, C.: Increased
artificial illumination delays urban autumnal foliar senescence, Nat.
Commun., 17, 1526, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-68246-7" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-68246-7</a>, 2026.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
      De Keersmaecker, W., Lhermitte, S., Tits, L., Honnay, O., Somers, B., and
Coppin, P.: A model quantifying global vegetation resistance and resilience
to short-term climate anomalies and their relationship with vegetation
cover, Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 24, 539–548,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12279" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12279</a>, 2015.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
      Frank, D. C., Poulter, B., Saurer, M., Esper, J., Huntingford, C., Helle,
G., Treydte, K., Zimmermann, N. E., Schleser, G. H., Ahlström, A.,
Ciais, P., Friedlingstein, P., Levis, S., Lomas, M., Sitch, S., Viovy, N.,
Andreu-Hayles, L., Bednarz, Z., Berninger, F., Boettger, T., D`Alessandro,
C. M., Daux, V., Filot, M., Grabner, M., Gutierrez, E., Haupt, M.,
Hilasvuori, E., Jungner, H., Kalela-Brundin, M., Krapiec, M., Leuenberger,
M., Loader, N. J., Marah, H., Masson-Delmotte, V., Pazdur, A., Pawelczyk,
S., Pierre, M., Planells, O., Pukiene, R., Reynolds-Henne, C. E., Rinne, K.
T., Saracino, A., Sonninen, E., Stievenard, M., Switsur, V. R., Szczepanek,
M., Szychowska-Krapiec, E., Todaro, L., Waterhouse, J. S., and Weigl, M.:
Water-use efficiency and transpiration across European forests during the
Anthropocene, Nat. Clim. Change, 5, 579–583, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2614" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2614</a>, 2015.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
      Friedlingstein, P., O'Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Bakker, D. C. E., Hauck, J., Landschützer, P., Le Quéré, C., Luijkx, I. T., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Schwingshackl, C., Sitch, S., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Alin, S. R., Anthoni, P., Barbero, L., Bates, N. R., Becker, M., Bellouin, N., Decharme, B., Bopp, L., Brasika, I. B. M., Cadule, P., Chamberlain, M. A., Chandra, N., Chau, T.-T.-T., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Cronin, M., Dou, X., Enyo, K., Evans, W., Falk, S., Feely, R. A., Feng, L., Ford, D. J., Gasser, T., Ghattas, J., Gkritzalis, T., Grassi, G., Gregor, L., Gruber, N., Gürses, Ö., Harris, I., Hefner, M., Heinke, J., Houghton, R. A., Hurtt, G. C., Iida, Y., Ilyina, T., Jacobson, A. R., Jain, A., Jarníková, T., Jersild, A., Jiang, F., Jin, Z., Joos, F., Kato, E., Keeling, R. F., Kennedy, D., Klein Goldewijk, K., Knauer, J., Korsbakken, J. I., Körtzinger, A., Lan, X., Lefèvre, N., Li, H., Liu, J., Liu, Z., Ma, L., Marland, G., Mayot, N., McGuire, P. C., McKinley, G. A., Meyer, G., Morgan, E. J., Munro, D. R., Nakaoka, S.-I., Niwa, Y., O'Brien, K. M., Olsen, A., Omar, A. M., Ono, T., Paulsen, M., Pierrot, D., Pocock, K., Poulter, B., Powis, C. M., Rehder, G., Resplandy, L., Robertson, E., Rödenbeck, C., Rosan, T. M., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Smallman, T. L., Smith, S. M., Sospedra-Alfonso, R., Sun, Q., Sutton, A. J., Sweeney, C., Takao, S., Tans, P. P., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., Tsujino, H., Tubiello, F., van der Werf, G. R., van Ooijen, E., Wanninkhof, R., Watanabe, M., Wimart-Rousseau, C., Yang, D., Yang, X., Yuan, W., Yue, X., Zaehle, S., Zeng, J., and Zheng, B.: Global Carbon Budget 2023, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5301–5369, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023</a>, 2023.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
      Gentine, P., Green, J. K., Guérin, M., Humphrey, V., Seneviratne, S. I.,
Zhang, Y., and Zhou, S.: Coupling between the terrestrial carbon and water
cycles – a review, Environ. Res. Lett., 14, 083003,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab22d6" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab22d6</a>, 2019.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
      Gocic, M. and Trajkovic, S.: Analysis of changes in meteorological variables
using Mann-Kendall and Sen's slope estimator statistical tests in Serbia,
Global Planet. Change, 100, 172–182,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.10.014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.10.014</a>, 2013.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
      Gray, S. B., Dermody, O., Klein, S. P., Locke, A. M., McGrath, J. M., Paul,
R. E., Rosenthal, D. M., Ruiz-Vera, U. M., Siebers, M. H., Strellner, R.,
Ainsworth, E. A., Bernacchi, C. J., Long, S. P., Ort, D. R., and Leakey, A.
D. B.: Intensifying drought eliminates the expected benefits of elevated
carbon dioxide for soybean, Nat. Plants, 2, 16132,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2016.132" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2016.132</a>, 2016.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
      Guan, X., Li, Y., Chen, J. M., Ma, Y., and Shen, H.: A process model-guided
transfer learning framework for mapping global gross primary production,
Agr. Forest Meteorol., 372, 110678,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2025.110678" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2025.110678</a>, 2025.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
      Guo, X., Zhang, Z., Zhang, X., and Feng, S.: The inclusion of time-lag
response reveals contrasting effects of meteorological and agricultural
drought on agroecosystem water use efficiency in Africa, J.
Hydrol., 664, 134346, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2025.134346" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2025.134346</a>, 2026.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
      Huang, L., He, B., Han, L., Liu, J., Wang, H., and Chen, Z.: A global
examination of the response of ecosystem water-use efficiency to drought
based on MODIS data, Sci. Total Environ., 601–602, 1097–1107,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.084" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.084</a>, 2017.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
      Huang, M., Wang, X., Keenan, T. F., and Piao, S.: Drought timing influences
the legacy of tree growth recovery, Glob. Change Biol., 24, 3546–3559,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14294" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14294</a>, 2018.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
      Huang, M., Zhai, P., and Piao, S.: Divergent responses of ecosystem water
use efficiency to drought timing over Northern Eurasia, Environ.
Res. Lett., 16, 045016, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abf0d1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abf0d1</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
      Huxman, T. E., Smith, M. D., Fay, P. A., Knapp, A. K., Shaw, M. R., Loik, M.
E., Smith, S. D., Tissue, D. T., Zak, J. C., Weltzin, J. F., Pockman, W. T.,
Sala, O. E., Haddad, B. M., Harte, J., Koch, G. W., Schwinning, S., Small,
E. E., and Williams, D. G.: Convergence across biomes to a common rain-use
efficiency, Nature, 429, 651–654, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02561" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02561</a>, 2004.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
      Jaramillo, F., Licero, L., Åhlen, I., Manzoni, S.,
Rodríguez-Rodríguez, J. A., Guittard, A., Hylin, A., Bolaños,
J., Jawitz, J., Wdowinski, S., Martínez, O., and Espinosa, L. F.:
Effects of Hydroclimatic Change and Rehabilitation Activities on Salinity
and Mangroves in the Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta, Colombia, Wetlands,
38, 755–767, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-018-1024-7" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s13157-018-1024-7</a>, 2018.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
      Jiao, W., Wang, L., Smith, W. K., Chang, Q., Wang, H., and D'Odorico, P.:
Observed increasing water constraint on vegetation growth over the last
three decades, Nat. Commun., 12, 3777, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-24016-9" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-24016-9</a>,
2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
      Kannenberg, S. A., Schwalm, C. R., and Anderegg, W. R. L.: Ghosts of the
past: how drought legacy effects shape forest functioning and carbon
cycling, Ecol. Lett., 23, 891–901, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13485" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13485</a>,
2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
      Keenan, T. F., Hollinger, D. Y., Bohrer, G., Dragoni, D., Munger, J. W.,
Schmid, H. P., and Richardson, A. D.: Increase in forest water-use
efficiency as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rise, Nature, 499,
324–327, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12291" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12291</a>, 2013.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
      Kellner, J., Houska, T., Manderscheid, R., Weigel, H. J., Breuer, L., and
Kraft, P.: Response of maize biomass and soil water fluxes on elevated CO<sub>2</sub>
and drought-From field experiments to process-based simulations, Glob. Change
Biol., 25, 2947–2957, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14723" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14723</a>, 2019.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
      Klein, T., Cohen, S., and Yakir, D.: Hydraulic adjustments underlying
drought resistance of Pinus halepensis, Tree Physiol., 31, 637–648,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpr047" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpr047</a>, 2011.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
      Knapp, A. K., Condon, K. V., Folks, C. C., Sturchio, M. A., Griffin-Nolan,
R. J., Kannenberg, S. A., Gill, A. S., Hajek, O. L., Siggers, J. A., and
Smith, M. D.: Field experiments have enhanced our understanding of drought
impacts on terrestrial ecosystems – But where do we go from here?,
Funct. Ecol., 38, 76–97, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.14460" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.14460</a>,
2024.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
      Knauer, J., Zaehle, S., Medlyn, B. E., Reichstein, M., Williams, C. A.,
Migliavacca, M., De Kauwe, M. G., Werner, C., Keitel, C., Kolari, P.,
Limousin, J.-M., and Linderson, M.-L.: Towards physiologically meaningful
water-use efficiency estimates from eddy covariance data, Glob. Change
Biol., 24, 694–710, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13893" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13893</a>, 2018.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
      Li, D., An, L., Zhong, S., Shen, L., and Wu, S.: Declining coupling between
vegetation and drought over the past three decades, Glob. Change Biol., 30,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17141" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17141</a>, 2024.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
      Li, F., Xin, Q., Yi, C., Kannenberg, S. A., Green, J. K., Migliavacca, M.,
Moore, D. J. P., Kemanian, A. R., Gentine, P., Stoy, P. C., Zhang, F.,
Xiong, Y., and Fu, Z.: Limited Regulation of Canopy Water Use Efficiency by
Stomatal Behavior Under Drought Propagation, Glob. Change Biol., 31,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.70381" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.70381</a>, 2025.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
      Li, F., Xin, Q., Green, J. K., Yi, C., Kemanian, A. R., Kannenberg, S. A.,
Stoy, P. C., Yang, Y., Lei, H., Xiong, Y., and Fu, Z.: Event-Specific
Meteorological Drivers Shape Diverse Water-Use Efficiency Trajectories Under
Drought Propagation, Glob. Change Biol., 32, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.70690" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.70690</a>, 2026.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
      Li, W., Migliavacca, M., Forkel, M., Denissen, J. M. C., Reichstein, M.,
Yang, H., Duveiller, G., Weber, U., and Orth, R.: Widespread increasing
vegetation sensitivity to soil moisture, Nat. Commun., 13, 3959,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-31667-9" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-31667-9</a>, 2022a.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
      Li, X. Y., Zou, L., Xia, J., Dou, M., Li, H. W., and Song, Z. H.: Untangling
the effects of climate change and land use/cover change on spatiotemporal
variation of evapotranspiration over China, J. Hydrol., 612,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128189" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128189</a>, 2022b.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
      Liu, D., Yu, C., and Zhao, F.: Response of the water use efficiency of
natural vegetation to drought in Northeast China, J. Geogr.
Sci., 28, 611–628, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-018-1494-9" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-018-1494-9</a>, 2018.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
      Liu, J., Wang, Q., Zhan, W., Lian, X., and Gentine, P.: When and where soil
dryness matters to ecosystem photosynthesis, Nat. Plants, 11, 1390–1400,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-025-02024-7" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-025-02024-7</a>, 2025.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
      
Liu, L., Gudmundsson, L., Hauser, M., Qin, D.-h., Li, S., and Seneviratne, S.  I.: Soil moisture dominates dryness stress on ecosystem production globally, Nat. Commun., 11, 4892, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18631-1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18631-1</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
      Lu, X. and Zhuang, Q.: Evaluating evapotranspiration and water-use
efficiency of terrestrial ecosystems in the conterminous United States using
MODIS and AmeriFlux data, Remote Sens. Environ., 114, 1924–1939,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.04.001" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.04.001</a>, 2010.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
      Ma, F. and Yuan, X.: Vegetation Greening and Climate Warming Increased the
Propagation Risk From Meteorological Drought to Soil Drought at Subseasonal
Timescales, Geophys. Res. Lett., 51, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL107937" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL107937</a>, 2024.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
      Ma, J., Jia, X., Zha, T., Bourque, C. P. A., Tian, Y., Bai, Y., Liu, P.,
Yang, R., Li, C., Li, C., Xie, J., Yu, H., Zhang, F., and Zhou, C.:
Ecosystem water use efficiency in a young plantation in Northern China and
its relationship to drought, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 275, 1–10,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.05.004" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.05.004</a>, 2019.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
      Ma, W., Li, G., Wu, J., Xu, G., and Wu, J.: Response of soil labile organic
carbon fractions and carbon-cycle enzyme activities to vegetation
degradation in a wet meadow on the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau, Geoderma, 377,
114565, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114565" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114565</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
      Martínez-Vilalta, J., Poyatos, R., Aguadé, D., Retana, J., and
Mencuccini, M.: A new look at water transport regulation in plants, New
Phytol., 204, 105–115, 10.1111/nph.12912, 2014.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
      Maurer, G. E., Hallmark, A. J., Brown, R. F., Sala, O. E., and Collins, S.
L.: Sensitivity of primary production to precipitation across the United
States, Ecol. Lett., 23, 527–536, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13455" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13455</a>,
2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
      Miguez-Macho, G. and Fan, Y.: The role of groundwater in the Amazon water
cycle: 1. Influence on seasonal streamflow, flooding and wetlands, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 117,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD017539" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD017539</a>, 2012.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
      Miller, D. L., Wolf, S., Fisher, J. B., Zaitchik, B. F., Xiao, J., and
Keenan, T. F.: Increased photosynthesis during spring drought in
energy-limited ecosystems, Nat. Commun., 14, 7828,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-43430-9" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-43430-9</a>, 2023.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
      
Miralles, D. G., Holmes, T. R. H., De Jeu, R. A. M., Gash, J. H., Meesters, A. G. C. A., and Dolman, A. J.: Global land-surface evaporation estimated from satellite-based observations, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 453–469, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-453-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-453-2011</a>, 2011.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
      
Mokhtar, A., Jalali, M., He, H., Al-Ansari, N., Elbeltagi, A., Alsafadi, K.,
Abdo, H. G., Sammen, S. S., Gyasi-Agyei, Y., and Rodrigo-Comino, J.:
Estimation of SPEI Meteorological Drought Using Machine Learning Algorithms,
IEEE Access, 9, 65503–65523, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
      Novick, K. A., Ficklin, D. L., Stoy, P. C., Williams, C. A., Bohrer, G.,
Oishi, A. C., Papuga, S. A., Blanken, P. D., Noormets, A., Sulman, B. N.,
Scott, R. L., Wang, L., and Phillips, R. P.: The increasing importance of
atmospheric demand for ecosystem water and carbon fluxes, Nat. Clim.
Change, 6, 1023–1027, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3114" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3114</a>, 2016.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
      Peters, W., van der Velde, I. R., van Schaik, E., Miller, J. B., Ciais, P.,
Duarte, H. F., van der Laan-Luijkx, I. T., van der Molen, M. K., Scholze,
M., Schaefer, K., Vidale, P. L., Verhoef, A., Wårlind, D., Zhu, D.,
Tans, P. P., Vaughn, B., and White, J. W. C.: Increased water-use efficiency
and reduced CO<sub>2</sub> uptake by plants during droughts at a continental scale,
Nat. Geosci., 11, 744–748, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0212-7" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0212-7</a>, 2018.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
      Piao, S., Wang, X., Park, T., Chen, C., Lian, X., He, Y., Bjerke, J. W.,
Chen, A., Ciais, P., Tømmervik, H., Nemani, R. R., and Myneni, R. B.:
Characteristics, drivers and feedbacks of global greening, Nat. Rev.
Earth Environ., 1, 14–27, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-019-0001-x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-019-0001-x</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
      Poppe Terán, C., Naz, B. S., Graf, A., Qu, Y., Hendricks Franssen,
H.-J., Baatz, R., Ciais, P., and Vereecken, H.: Rising water-use efficiency
in European grasslands is driven by increased primary production,
Commun. Earth Environ., 4, 95, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00757-x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00757-x</a>,
2023.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
      Reichstein, M., Bahn, M., Ciais, P., Frank, D., Mahecha, M. D., Seneviratne,
S. I., Zscheischler, J., Beer, C., Buchmann, N., Frank, D. C., Papale, D.,
Rammig, A., Smith, P., Thonicke, K., van der Velde, M., Vicca, S., Walz, A.,
and Wattenbach, M.: Climate extremes and the carbon cycle, Nature, 500,
287–295, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12350" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12350</a>, 2013.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
      
Runge, J.: Discovering contemporaneous and lagged causal relations in
autocorrelated nonlinear time series datasets, in: Proceedings of the 36th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI), PMLR, 124, 1388–1397, ISSN:&thinsp;2640-3498, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
      
Runge, J., Bathiany, S., Bollt, E., Camps-Valls, G., Coumou, D., Deyle, E.,
Glymour, C., Kretschmer, M., Mahecha, M. D., Muñoz-Marí, J., van
Nes, E. H., Peters, J., Quax, R., Reichstein, M., Scheffer, M.,
Schölkopf, B., Spirtes, P., Sugihara, G., Sun, J., Zhang, K., and
Zscheischler, J.: Inferring causation from time series in Earth system
sciences, Nat. Commun., 10, 2553, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10105-3" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10105-3</a>, 2019.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
      
Seddon, A. W. R., Macias-Fauria, M., Long, P. R., Benz, D., and Willis, K.
J.: Sensitivity of global terrestrial ecosystems to climate variability,
Nature, 531, 229–232, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16986" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16986</a>, 2016.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
      
Smith, T. and Boers, N.: Global vegetation resilience linked to water
availability and variability, Nat. Commun., 14, 498,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-36207-7" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-36207-7</a>, 2023.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
      
Tang, J., Niu, B., Hu, Z., and Zhang, X.: Increasing susceptibility and
shortening response time of vegetation productivity to drought from 2001 to
2021, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 352, 110025,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2024.110025" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2024.110025</a>, 2024.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
      
Trenberth, K. E., Dai, A., van der Schrier, G., Jones, P. D., Barichivich,
J., Briffa, K. R., and Sheffield, J.: Global warming and changes in drought,
Nat. Clim. Change, 4, 17–22, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2067" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2067</a>, 2014.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
      
Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Beguería, S., and López-Moreno, J. I.: A
Multiscalar Drought Index Sensitive to Global Warming:
The Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index, J. Climate,
23, 1696–1718, 2010.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
      
Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Beguería, S., Lorenzo-Lacruz, J., Camarero, J.
J., López-Moreno, J. I., Azorin-Molina, C., Revuelto, J.,
Morán-Tejeda, E., and Sanchez-Lorenzo, A.: Performance of Drought
Indices for Ecological, Agricultural, and Hydrological Applications, Earth
Interact., 16, 1–27, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2012EI000434.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2012EI000434.1</a>, 2012.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
      
Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Gouveia, C. M., Camarero, J. J., Beguería, S.,
Trigo, R. M., López-Moreno, J. I., Azorín-Molina, C., Pasho, E.,
Lorenzo-Lacruz, J., Revuelto, J., Morán-Tejeda, E., and Sanchez-Lorenzo,
A.: Response of vegetation to drought time-scales across global land biomes,
P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 110, 52–57, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1207068110" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1207068110</a>, 2013.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
      Walther, S., Duveiller, G., Jung, M., Guanter, L., Cescatti, A., and
Camps-Valls, G.: Satellite Observations of the Contrasting Response of Trees
and Grasses to Variations in Water Availability, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 46, 1429–1440, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL080535" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL080535</a>, 2019.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>
      Wang, C., Min, L., Zhang, J., Li, Y., Liu, X., Lü, Y., Feng, X., and Fu,
B.: Vegetation restoration dominates increase in water use efficiency in
drylands of China, Ecol. Indic., 145, 109703,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109703" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109703</a>, 2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
      Wang, M., Ding, Z., Wu, C., Song, L., Ma, M., Yu, P., Lu, B., and Tang, X.:
Divergent responses of ecosystem water-use efficiency to extreme seasonal
droughts in Southwest China, Sci. Total Environ., 760, 143427,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143427" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143427</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>
      Wang, X., Fu, Z., Ciais, P., Peñuelas, J., Xiao, J., Li, X., Luo, X.,
Chen, C., Xia, H., Zhou, T., Stoy, P. C., Green, J. K., and Zhang, F.:
Multi-satellite derived data reveals spatiotemporal dynamics of carbon-water
coupling and its drivers in tropical ecosystems, Remote Sens.
Environ., 334, 115242, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2026.115242" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2026.115242</a>, 2026a.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>
      Wang, X., Fu, Z., Ciais, P., Wang, L., Buchmann, N., Keenan, T. F., De
Kauwe, M., Peñuelas, J., Chen, G., Gong, X., Xiao, J., Li, X., Xie, Q.,
Stoy, P. C., Makowski, D., Smith, W. K., Wang, H., Wang, S., Zhang, F., and
Niu, S.: Global distribution and changes of leaf-level intrinsic water use
efficiency and their responses to water stress, Nat. Commun., 17,
1530, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-68252-9" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-68252-9</a>, 2026b.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>
      Wang, Z., Fu, B., Wu, X., Li, Y., Feng, Y., Wang, S., Wei, F., and Zhang,
L.: Vegetation resilience does not increase consistently with greening in
China's Loess Plateau, Commun. Earth Environ., 4, 336,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01000-3" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01000-3</a>, 2023.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>
      Wang, Z., Wu, R., Li, J., Liu, Y., Cui, C., and Liu, J.: Discriminating the
impact of soil moisture and vapor pressure deficit on vegetation greening
over multiple time scales, Global Planet. Change, 255, 105111,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2025.105111" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2025.105111</a>, 2025.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>
      Wilson, K. B., Carlson, T. N., and Bunce, J. A.: Feedback significantly
influences the simulated effect of CO<sub>2</sub> on seasonal evapotranspiration from
two agricultural species, Glob. Change Biol., 5, 903–917,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.1999.00280.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.1999.00280.x</a>, 1999.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>
      
Winkler, K., Fuchs, R., Rounsevell, M. D. A., Herold, M.: HILDA+ Global Land Use Change between 1960 and 2019, PANGAEA [data set], <a href="https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.921846" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.921846</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>
      Winkler, K., Fuchs, R., Rounsevell, M., and Herold, M.: Global land use
changes are four times greater than previously estimated, Nat.
Commun., 12, 2501, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22702-2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22702-2</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>
      Wu, R., Wang, Z., Meng, F., Liu, Y., and Shi, H.: Strengthening Coupling
Between Vegetation and Soil-Atmosphere Compound Drought Over the Past Two
Decades, Earth's Future, 13, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2025EF006311" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2025EF006311</a>, 2025.


    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>
      Xing, Y., Wang, S., Wang, A., and Wang, D.: Spatiotemporal dynamics of
meteorological and groundwater droughts in Southwest China and their
cumulative and lagged impacts on vegetation, J. Hydrol., 669,
135086, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2026.135086" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2026.135086</a>, 2026.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation>
      Xue, Y., Liang, H., Zhang, B., and He, C.: Vegetation restoration dominated
the variation of water use efficiency in China, J. Hydrol., 612,
128257, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128257" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128257</a>, 2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation>
      Yan, W., Zhou, J., Lin, H., Luo, J., Duan, X., and Wu, R.: Drivers of the
pre-season drought thresholds triggering earlier autumn foliar senescence in
the Northern Hemisphere, Nat. Commun., 16, 7568,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-62847-y" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-62847-y</a>, 2025a.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><mixed-citation>
      Yan, Y., Li, B., Dechant, B., Xu, M., Luo, X., Qu, S., Miao, G., Leng, J.,
Shang, R., Shu, L., Jiang, C., Wang, H., Jeong, S., Ryu, Y., and Chen, J.
M.: Plant traits shape global spatiotemporal variations in photosynthetic
efficiency, Nat. Plants, 11, 924–934, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-025-01958-2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-025-01958-2</a>, 2025b.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><mixed-citation>
      Yang, S., Zhang, J., Han, J., Bai, Y., Xun, L., Zhang, S., Cao, D., and
Wang, J.: The ratio of transpiration to evapotranspiration dominates
ecosystem water use efficiency response to drought, Agr. Forest
Meteorol., 363, 110423, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2025.110423" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2025.110423</a>,
2025.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><mixed-citation>
      Yang, Y., Guan, H., Batelaan, O., McVicar, T. R., Long, D., Piao, S., Liang,
W., Liu, B., Jin, Z., and Simmons, C. T.: Contrasting responses of water use
efficiency to drought across global terrestrial ecosystems, Sci.
Rep., 6, 23284, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/srep23284" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/srep23284</a>, 2016.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><mixed-citation>
      Yuan, B., Guo, S., Zhang, X., Mu, H., Cao, S., Xia, Z., Pan, X., and Du, P.:
Quantifying the drought sensitivity of vegetation types in northern China
from 1982 to 2022, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 359, 110293,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2024.110293" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2024.110293</a>, 2024.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><mixed-citation>
      Zeng, X., Hu, Z., Chen, A., Yuan, W., Hou, G., Han, D., Liang, M., Di, K.,
Cao, R., and Luo, D.: The global decline in the sensitivity of vegetation
productivity to precipitation from 2001 to 2018, Glob. Change Biol., 28,
6823–6833, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16403" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16403</a>, 2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</label><mixed-citation>
      Zhang, H., Zhang, Y., Miralles, D. G., Tai, X., Koppa, A., Yang, H., Sitch,
S., and O'Sullivan, M.: Increase in plant reliance on past precipitation
associated with greening and drying, Nat. Ecol. Evol.,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-026-02997-4" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-026-02997-4</a>, 2026.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib80"><label>80</label><mixed-citation>
      Zhou, Z., Shi, H., Fu, Q., Ding, Y., Li, T., Wang, Y., and Liu, S.:
Characteristics of Propagation From Meteorological Drought to Hydrological
Drought in the Pearl River Basin, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033959" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033959</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib81"><label>81</label><mixed-citation>
      Zhou, Z., Wang, P., Li, L., Fu, Q., Ding, Y., Chen, P., Xue, P., Wang, T.,
and Shi, H.: Recent development on drought propagation: A comprehensive
review, J. Hydrol., 645, 132196,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2024.132196" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2024.132196</a>, 2024.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
