in

Higher optimal temperature for vegetation transpiration than for photosynthesis


Abstract

Plants assimilate carbon through photosynthesis (gross primary productivity, GPP) while losing water via transpiration (Trans), with both processes responding nonlinearly to temperature. Although the air temperature optimum of GPP (({T}_{mathrm{opt}}^{mathrm{GPP}})) is well studied, the thermal response of Trans (({T}_{mathrm{opt}}^{mathrm{Trans}})) remains unknown. Here, using global eddy covariance observations and sap flow measurements along with simulations from an Earth system model, we find that ({T}_{mathrm{opt}}^{mathrm{Trans}}) is consistently higher than ({T}_{mathrm{opt}}^{mathrm{GPP}}) across biomes and climates, indicating greater heat tolerance in Trans. Despite a strong correlation, their divergence suggests carbon uptake is more vulnerable to warming than water loss. Machine learning identifies maximum air temperature as the key driver of both optima, while their difference (({Delta T}_{mathrm{opt}})) is associated with vegetation water content. The Earth system model predicts spatial patterns of ({T}_{mathrm{opt}}^{mathrm{Trans}}) and ({T}_{mathrm{opt}}^{mathrm{GPP}}) that align with observations, but the model significantly underestimates the magnitudes of ({T}_{mathrm{opt}}^{,mathrm{Trans}}), ({T}_{mathrm{opt}}^{mathrm{GPP}}) and ({Delta T}_{mathrm{opt}}). These results reveal a critical decoupling of carbon–water coordination under heat stress, with ecosystems sustaining Trans beyond ({T}_{mathrm{opt}}^{mathrm{GPP}}) to cool leaves, but ultimately reducing Trans to conserve water.

Access through your institution

Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: ({{boldsymbol{T}}}_{{bf{o}}{bf{p}}{bf{t}}}^{{bf{T}}{bf{r}}{bf{a}}{bf{n}}{bf{s}}}) and ({{boldsymbol{T}}}_{{bf{o}}{bf{p}}{bf{t}}}^{{bf{G}}{bf{P}}{bf{P}}}) derived from eddy covariance observations.
Fig. 2: ({{boldsymbol{T}}}_{{bf{opt}}}^{{bf{Trans}}}), ({{boldsymbol{T}}}_{{bf{opt}}}^{{bf{GPP}}}) and ({boldsymbol{Delta}} {boldsymbol{T}}_{bf{opt}}) across biomes and climate types.
Fig. 3: Derivation based on the Medlyn stomatal optimization theory for ({boldsymbol{T}}_{bf{opt}}^{bf{Trans}}), ({boldsymbol{T}}_{bf{opt}}^{bf{GPP}}) and ({boldsymbol{Delta}}{boldsymbol{T}}_{bf{opt}}).
Fig. 4: Factors influencing global variation of ({{boldsymbol{T}}}_{{bf{opt}}}^{{bf{Trans}}}), ({{boldsymbol{T}}}_{{bf{opt}}}^{{bf{GPP}}}) and ({boldsymbol{Delta}} {{boldsymbol{T}}}_{{bf{opt}}}).
Fig. 5: Global distribution, relationships and evaluation of ({{boldsymbol{T}}}_{{bf{o}}{bf{p}}{bf{t}}}^{{bf{T}}{bf{r}}{bf{a}}{bf{n}}{bf{s}}}) and ({{boldsymbol{T}}}_{{bf{o}}{bf{p}}{bf{t}}}^{{bf{G}}{bf{P}}{bf{P}}}) simulated by an ESM.

Similar content being viewed by others

Evidence for widespread thermal optimality of ecosystem respiration

Evidence for the acclimation of ecosystem photosynthesis to soil moisture

Dryland dominance in the slowdown of global vegetation carbon uptake

Data availability

The eddy covariance measurements are downloaded via ICOS at https://data.icos-cp.eu/portal, via AmeriFlux at https://ameriflux.lbl.gov/ and via FLUXNET2015 datasets at https://fluxnet.fluxdata.org/data/fluxnet2015-dataset/. Sap flow data are obtained via the SAPFLUXNET datasets at https://sapfluxnet.creaf.cat/. The independent Trans dataset is downloaded from the NEON datasets using five different flux partitioning methods via Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12191876 (ref. 31). The second-generation Köppen–Geiger climate classification dataset (1-km resolution) is available at https://www.gloh2o.org/koppen/. The third-generation global Aridity Index and potential ET dataset are accessible via figshare at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7504448.v5 (ref. 84). Vegetation optical depth data are available at https://doi.org/10.48436/t74ty-tcx62. LAI data are obtained via the MOD15A2H product at https://ladsweb.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/. LST data were obtained via the MOD11A1 Collection 6.1 daily product at https://ladsweb.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/. CH data are obtained from the global integrated CH map at https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000609802. Root mass fraction data are derived from the global root mass fraction map (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01485-1). Aboveground and belowground biomass data are obtained from the global 1-km root biomass dataset via figshare at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12199637.v1 (ref. 89). Root-zone water storage data are sourced from the global map of root-zone water storage capacity via Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5515246 (ref. 90). ESM outputs are accessed via CMIP6 archive at https://esgf-data.dkrz.de/search/cmip6-dkrz/. Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

The code used for this study is available via Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18604934 (ref. 91).

References

  1. Gentine, P. et al. Coupling between the terrestrial carbon and water cycles—a review. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 083003 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  2. De Kauwe, M. G. et al. Examining the evidence for decoupling between photosynthesis and transpiration during heat extremes. Biogeosciences 16, 903–916 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  3. Krich, C. et al. Decoupling between ecosystem photosynthesis and transpiration: a last resort against overheating. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 044013 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  4. Marchin, R. M., Medlyn, B. E., Tjoelker, M. G. & Ellsworth, D. S. Decoupling between stomatal conductance and photosynthesis occurs under extreme heat in broadleaf tree species regardless of water access. Glob. Change Biol. 29, 6319–6335 (2023).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  5. Wang, H. et al. Towards a universal model for carbon dioxide uptake by plants. Nat. Plants 3, 734–741 (2017).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  6. Lin, Y.-S. et al. Optimal stomatal behaviour around the world. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 459–464 (2015).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  7. Blonder, B. W. et al. Plant water use theory should incorporate hypotheses about extreme environments, population ecology, and community ecology. New Phytol. 238, 2271–2283 (2023).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  8. Drake, J. E. et al. Trees tolerate an extreme heatwave via sustained transpirational cooling and increased leaf thermal tolerance. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 2390–2402 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bennett, A. C. et al. Thermal optima of gross primary productivity are closely aligned with mean air temperatures across Australian wooded ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 4727–4744 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  10. Niu, S. et al. Thermal optimality of net ecosystem exchange of carbon dioxide and underlying mechanisms. New Phytol. 194, 775–783 (2012).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  11. Huang, M. et al. Air temperature optima of vegetation productivity across global biomes. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 772–779 (2019).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  12. Wang, Y. et al. Increasing optimum temperature of vegetation activity over the past four decades. Earths Future 12, e2024EF004489 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chen, A., Huang, L., Liu, Q. & Piao, S. Optimal temperature of vegetation productivity and its linkage with climate and elevation on the Tibetan Plateau. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 1942–1951 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  14. Way, D. A. Just the right temperature. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 718–719 (2019).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  15. Jones, H. G. Stomatal control of photosynthesis and transpiration. J. Exp. Bot. 49, 387–398 (1998).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ye, H. et al. The importance of slow canopy wilting in drought tolerance in soybean. J. Exp. Bot. 71, 642–652 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sadok, W., Lopez, J. R. & Smith, K. P. Transpiration increases under high-temperature stress: potential mechanisms, trade-offs and prospects for crop resilience in a warming world. Plant Cell Environ. 44, 2102–2116 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  18. Schönbeck, L. C. et al. Increasing temperature and vapour pressure deficit lead to hydraulic damages in the absence of soil drought. Plant Cell Environ. 45, 3275–3289 (2022).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  19. McDowell, N. et al. Mechanisms of plant survival and mortality during drought: why do some plants survive while others succumb to drought?. New Phytol. 178, 719–739 (2008).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  20. Choat, B. et al. Global convergence in the vulnerability of forests to drought. Nature 491, 752–755 (2012).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  21. Medlyn, B. E. et al. Reconciling the optimal and empirical approaches to modelling stomatal conductance. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 2134–2144 (2011).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  22. Wang, Z., Slot, M. & Wang, C. Decoupling of stomatal conductance, transpiration and photosynthesis in terrestrial plants under elevated temperature: a meta-analysis. Nat. Commun. 17, 1528 (2026).

  23. Novick, K. A. et al. The AmeriFlux network: a coalition of the willing. Agric. For. Meteorol. 249, 444–456 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  24. Pastorello, G. et al. The FLUXNET2015 dataset and the ONEFlux processing pipeline for eddy covariance data. Sci. Data 7, 225 (2020).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  25. Poyatos, R. et al. Global transpiration data from sap flow measurements: the SAPFLUXNET database. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 13, 2607–2649 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  26. Warm Winter 2020 Team & ICOS Ecosystem Thematic Centre. Warm Winter 2020 ecosystem eddy covariance flux product for 73 stations in FLUXNET-Archive format release 2022-1 (version 1.0). ICOS Carbon Portal https://doi.org/10.18160/2G60-ZHAK (2022).

  27. Seland, Ø. et al. Overview of the Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM2) and key climate response of CMIP6 DECK, historical, and scenario simulations. Geosci. Model Dev. 13, 6165–6200 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nelson, J. A. et al. Coupling water and carbon fluxes to constrain estimates of transpiration: the TEA algorithm. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 123, 3617–3632 (2018).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  29. Green, J. K. et al. Surface temperatures reveal the patterns of vegetation water stress and their environmental drivers across the tropical Americas. Glob. Change Biol. 28, 2940–2955 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sun, W., Maseyk, K., Lett, C. & Seibt, U. Restricted internal diffusion weakens transpiration–photosynthesis coupling during heatwaves: evidence from leaf carbonyl sulphide exchange. Plant Cell Environ. 47, 1813–1833 (2024).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  31. Zahn, E. & Bou-Zeid, E. Observational partitioning of water and CO2 fluxes at National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) sites: a 5-year dataset of soil and plant components for spatial and temporal analysis. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 16, 5603–5624 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  32. Zahn, E. et al. Numerical investigation of observational flux partitioning methods for water vapor and carbon dioxide. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 129, e2024JG008025 (2024).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  33. Reichstein, M. et al. On the separation of net ecosystem exchange into assimilation and ecosystem respiration: review and improved algorithm. Glob. Change Biol. 11, 1424–1439 (2005).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  34. Manzi, O. J. L. et al. Canopy temperatures strongly overestimate leaf thermal safety margins of tropical trees. New Phytol. 243, 2115–2129 (2024).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  35. Still, C. J. et al. No evidence of canopy-scale leaf thermoregulation to cool leaves below air temperature across a range of forest ecosystems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2205682119 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  36. Schwaab, J. et al. Increasing the broad-leaved tree fraction in European forests mitigates hot temperature extremes. Sci. Rep. 10, 14153 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  37. Huang, J. et al. Transpirational cooling and physiological responses of trees to heat. Agric. For. Meteorol. 320, 108940 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  38. Dodd, A. N., Borland, A. M., Haslam, R. P., Griffiths, H. & Maxwell, K. Crassulacean acid metabolism: plastic, fantastic. J. Exp. Bot. 53, 569–580 (2002).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  39. Katul, G., Manzoni, S., Palmroth, S. & Oren, R. A stomatal optimization theory to describe the effects of atmospheric CO2 on leaf photosynthesis and transpiration. Ann. Bot. 105, 431–442 (2010).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  40. Marchin, R. M., Esperon-Rodriguez, M., Tjoelker, M. G. & Ellsworth, D. S. Crown dieback and mortality of urban trees linked to heatwaves during extreme drought. Sci. Total Environ. 850, 157915 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  41. Wright, I. J. et al. The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428, 821–827 (2004).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  42. von Caemmerer, S., Berry, J. A. & Farquhar, G. D. A biochemical model of photosynthetic CO2 assimilation in leaves of C3 species. Planta 149, 78–90 (1980).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  43. Gong, X. Y. et al. Overestimated gains in water-use efficiency by global forests. Glob. Change Biol. 28, 4923–4934 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  44. Zotta, R.-M. et al. VODCA v2: multi-sensor, multi-frequency vegetation optical depth data for long-term canopy dynamics and biomass monitoring. Earth Sys. Sci. Data 16, 4573–4617 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  45. Malhotra, A. et al. Peatland warming strongly increases fine-root growth. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 17627–17634 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  46. Wang, J. et al. Fine-root functional trait responses to experimental warming: a global meta-analysis. New Phytol. 230, 1856–1867 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  47. Hobbie, S. E. & Chapin III, F. S. The response of tundra plant biomass, aboveground production, nitrogen, and CO2 flux to experimental warming. Ecology 79, 1526–1544 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Grünzweig, J. M. et al. Dryland mechanisms could widely control ecosystem functioning in a drier and warmer world. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6, 1064–1076 (2022).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  49. Fu, Z. et al. Atmospheric dryness reduces photosynthesis along a large range of soil water deficits. Nat. Commun. 13, 989 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  50. Liu, L. et al. Soil moisture dominates dryness stress on ecosystem production globally. Nat. Commun. 11, 4892 (2020).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  51. Olson, M. E. et al. Plant height and hydraulic vulnerability to drought and cold. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 7551–7556 (2018).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  52. Bjorkman, A. D. et al. Plant functional trait change across a warming tundra biome. Nature 562, 57–62 (2018).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  53. Quan, Q. et al. Plant height as an indicator for alpine carbon sequestration and ecosystem response to warming. Nat. Plants 10, 890–900 (2024).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  54. Liu, H. et al. Hydraulic traits are coordinated with maximum plant height at the global scale. Sci. Adv. 5, eaav1332 (2019).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  55. Detto, M. & Pacala, S. W. Plant hydraulics, stomatal control, and the response of a tropical forest to water stress over multiple temporal scales. Glob. Change Biol. 28, 4359–4376 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  56. Felton, A. J. et al. Global estimates of the storage and transit time of water through vegetation. Nat. Water 3, 59–69 (2025).

  57. Stocker, B. D. et al. Global patterns of water storage in the rooting zones of vegetation. Nat.Geosci. 16, 250–256 (2023).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  58. Jarvis, P. G. & McNaughton, K. G. in Advances in Ecological Research (eds MacFadyen, A. & Ford, E. D.) Vol. 15, 1–49 (Elsevier, 1986).

  59. Garen, J. C. & Michaletz, S. T. Temperature governs the relative contributions of cuticle and stomata to leaf minimum conductance. New Phytol. 245, 1911–1923 (2025).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  60. Schuster, A.-C. et al. Effectiveness of cuticular transpiration barriers in a desert plant at controlling water loss at high temperatures. AoB Plants 8, plw027 (2016).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  61. Vicente-Serrano, S. M., McVicar, T. R., Miralles, D. G., Yang, Y. & Tomas-Burguera, M. Unraveling the influence of atmospheric evaporative demand on drought and its response to climate change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 11, e632 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  62. Boyer, J. S. Turgor and the transport of CO2 and water across the cuticle (epidermis) of leaves. J. Exp. Bot. 66, 2625–2633 (2015).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  63. Bernacchi, C. J., Portis, A. R., Nakano, H., Von Caemmerer, S. & Long, S. P. Temperature response of mesophyll conductance. Implications for the determination of Rubisco enzyme kinetics and for limitations to photosynthesis in vivo. Plant Physiol. 130, 1992–1998 (2002).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  64. Evans, J. R. Mesophyll conductance: walls, membranes and spatial complexity. New Phytol. 229, 1864–1876 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  65. von Caemmerer, S. & Evans, J. R. Temperature responses of mesophyll conductance differ greatly between species. Plant Cell Environ. 38, 629–637 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  66. Evans, J. R., Kaldenhoff, R., Genty, B. & Terashima, I. Resistances along the CO2 diffusion pathway inside leaves. J. Exp. Bot. 60, 2235–2248 (2009).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  67. Tholen, D. et al. The chloroplast avoidance response decreases internal conductance to CO2 diffusion in Arabidopsis thaliana leaves. Plant Cell Environ. 31, 1688–1700 (2008).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  68. Tardieu, F. & Simonneau, T. Variability among species of stomatal control under fluctuating soil water status and evaporative demand: modelling isohydric and anisohydric behaviours. J. Exp. Bot. 49, 419–432 (1998).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  69. Konings, A. G. & Gentine, P. Global variations in ecosystem-scale isohydricity. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 891–905 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  70. Collatz, G. J., Berry, J. A. & Clark, J. S. Effects of climate and atmospheric CO2 partial pressure on the global distribution of C4 grasses: present, past, and future. Oecologia 114, 441–454 (1998).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  71. Duffy, K. et al. How close are we to the temperature tipping point of the terrestrial biosphere? Sci. Adv. 7, eaay1052 (2021).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  72. Sage, R. F. & Kubien, D. S. The temperature response of C3 and C4 photosynthesis. Plant Cell Environ. 30, 1086–1106 (2007).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  73. Sage, R. F. The evolution of C4 photosynthesis. New Phytol. 161, 341–370 (2004).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  74. Lu, X. & Keenan, T. F. No evidence for a negative effect of growing season photosynthesis on leaf senescence timing. Glob. Change Biol. 28, 3083–3093 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  75. Baldocchi, D. et al. FLUXNET: a new tool to study the temporal and spatial variability of ecosystem-scale carbon dioxide, water vapor, and energy flux densities. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 82, 2415–2434 (2001).

    2.3.CO;2″ data-track-item_id=”10.1175/1520-0477(2001)082<2415:FANTTS>2.3.CO;2″ data-track-value=”article reference” data-track-action=”article reference” href=”https://doi.org/10.1175%2F1520-0477%282001%29082%3C2415%3AFANTTS%3E2.3.CO%3B2″ aria-label=”Article reference 75″ data-doi=”10.1175/1520-0477(2001)082<2415:FANTTS>2.3.CO;2″>Article 

    Google Scholar 

  76. Stull, R. B. An Introduction to Boundary Layer Meteorology Vol. 13 (Springer, 2012).

  77. Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 5–32 (2001).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  78. Banks, H. T., Holm, K. & Robbins, D. Standard error computations for uncertainty quantification in inverse problems: asymptotic theory vs. bootstrapping. Math. Comput. Model. 52, 1610–1625 (2010).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  79. Xia, H. et al. Warming, rather than drought, remains the primary factor limiting carbon sequestration. Sci. Total Environ. 907, 167755 (2024).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  80. Luyssaert, S. et al. Land management and land-cover change have impacts of similar magnitude on surface temperature. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 389–393 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  81. Chen, Y., Sun-Mack, S., Minnis, P., Smith, W. & Young, D. Surface Spectral Emissivity Derived from MODIS Data Vol. 4891 ARS (SPIE, 2003).

  82. Friedl, M. & Sulla-Menashe, D. MCD12Q1 MODIS/Terra+Aqua Land Cover Type Yearly L3 Global 500m SIN Grid V006 [data set]. NASA Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MCD12Q1.006 (2019).

  83. Beck, H. E. et al. High-resolution (1 km) Köppen–Geiger maps for 1901–2099 based on constrained CMIP6 projections. Sci. Data 10, 724 (2023).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  84. Zomer, R. & Trabucco, A. Version 3 of the Global Aridity Index and Potential Evapotranspiration Database. Sci. Data 9, 409 (2022).

  85. Monteith, J. Evaporation and surface temperature. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 107, 1–27 (1981).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  86. Lasslop, G. et al. Separation of net ecosystem exchange into assimilation and respiration using a light response curve approach: critical issues and global evaluation. Glob. Change Biol. 16, 187–208 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  87. He, L. et al. Lagged precipitation effects on plant production across terrestrial biomes. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 9, 1800–1811 (2025).

    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 

  88. Guyon, I., Weston, J., Barnhill, S. & Vapnik, V. Gene selection for cancer classification using support vector machines. Mach. Learn. 46, 389–422 (2002).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  89. Huang, Y. et al. Supporting data and code for A global map of root biomass across the world’s forests. figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12199637.v1 (2020).

  90. Stocker, B. D. Global rooting zone water storage capacity and rooting depth estimates. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5515246 (2021).

  91. Xia, H. Higher optimal temperature for vegetation transpiration than for photosynthesis. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18604934 (2026).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (grant no. 2024YFF1309000 to Z.F.), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant nos. 42471122 and 32588202 to Z.F.) and the NSFC Excellent Young Scientists Fund (Overseas). J.P. was funded by the European Union grant CONCERTO (grant no. HORIZON-CL5-2024-D1-01). This work used global eddy covariance data acquired and shared by the FLUXNET community, including these networks: AmeriFlux, AfriFlux, AsiaFlux, CarboAfrica, CarboEuropeIP, CarboItaly, CarboMont, ChinaFlux, Fluxnet-Canada, GreenGrass, ICOS, KoFlux, LBA, NECC, OzFlux-TERN, TCOS-Siberia and USCCC. The ERA-Interim reanalysis data are provided by ECMWF and processed by LSCE. The FLUXNET eddy covariance data processing and harmonization were carried out by the European Fluxes Database Cluster, AmeriFlux Management Project and Fluxdata project of FLUXNET, with the support of CDIAC and ICOS Ecosystem Thematic Center and the OzFlux, ChinaFlux and AsiaFlux offices.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Z.F. designed the study. H.X. and F.Z. performed the data analysis. Z.F. and H.X. wrote the initial manuscript. F.Z., P.C., P.C.S., J.P., X.L., Y.-P.W., D.M., Y.L., S.N., G.Y., J.H., X.W. and E.Z. provided methodological suggestions and contributed to the interpretation of the results. All co-authors reviewed the paper and provided feedback.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to
Zheng Fu.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Plants thanks Ashley Ballantyne, Mirindi Eric Dusenge and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information (download PDF )

Supplementary Figs. 1–22 and Tables 1–3.

Reporting Summary (download PDF )

Peer Review File (download PDF )

Supplementary Data (download ZIP )

Statistical source data.

Source data

Source Data Figs. 1–5 (download ZIP )

Statistical source data.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Xia, H., Zhang, F., Ciais, P. et al. Higher optimal temperature for vegetation transpiration than for photosynthesis.
Nat. Plants (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-026-02263-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-026-02263-2


Source: Ecology - nature.com

What China’s Great Green Wall can teach the world

Heritable variation drives rapid evolution of thermal performance curves in the protist Tetrahymena thermophila