in

Reply to: The size of tropical vegetation gross primary production


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: Comparison of the impact of PAR and VPD on LRU variations.
The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

References

  1. Tian, J. et al. The size of tropical vegetation gross primary production. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10562-z (2026).

  2. Lai, J. et al. Terrestrial photosynthesis inferred from plant carbonyl sulfide uptake. Nature 634, 855–861 (2024).

  3. Keenan, T. F. et al. Widespread inhibition of daytime ecosystem respiration. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 407–415 (2019).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  4. Wehr, R. et al. Seasonality of temperate forest photosynthesis and daytime respiration. Nature 534, 680–683 (2016).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 

  5. Zheng, Y. et al. Improved estimate of global gross primary production for reproducing its long-term variation, 1982–2017. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 12, 2725–2746 (2020).

    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 

  6. Zhang-Zheng, H. et al. Contrasting carbon cycle along tropical forest aridity gradients in West Africa and Amazonia. Nat. Commun. 15, 3158 (2024).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 

  7. Schimel, D. et al. Observing terrestrial ecosystems and the carbon cycle from space. Glob. Chang. Biol. 21, 1762–1776 (2015).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 

  8. Baldocchi, D., Chu, H. &Reichstein, M. Inter-annual variability of net and gross ecosystem carbon fluxes: a review. Agric. For. Meteorol. 249, 520–533 (2018).

    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 

  9. 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 

  10. Kooijmans, L. M. J. et al. Influences of light and humidity on carbonyl sulfide-based estimates of photosynthesis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 2470–2475 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 

  11. Maseyk, K. et al. Sources and sinks of carbonyl sulfide in an agricultural field in the Southern Great Plains. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 9064–9069 (2014).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 

  12. Sun, W., Maseyk, K., Lett, C. & Seibt, U. Stomatal control of leaf fluxes of carbonyl sulfide and CO2 in a Typha freshwater marsh. Biogeosciences 15, 3277–3291 (2018).

    Article 
    CAS 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 

  13. Wehr, R. et al. Dynamics of canopy stomatal conductance, transpiration, and evaporation in a temperate deciduous forest, validated by carbonyl sulfide uptake. Biogeosci. Discuss. 14, 389–401 (2016).

  14. Yang, F., Qubaja, R., Tatarinov, F., Rotenberg, E. & Yakir, D. Assessing canopy performance using carbonyl sulfide measurements. Glob. Chang. Biol. 24, 3486–3498 (2018).

    Article 
    PubMed 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 

  15. Berkelhammer, M. et al. Constraining surface carbon fluxes using in situ measurements of carbonyl sulfide and carbon dioxide. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 28, 161–179 (2014).

    Article 
    CAS 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 

  16. Commane, R. et al. Seasonal fluxes of carbonyl sulfide in a midlatitude forest. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 14162–14167 (2015).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sun, W., Berry, J. A., Yakir, D. & Seibt, U. Leaf relative uptake of carbonyl sulfide to CO2 seen through the lens of stomatal conductance-photosynthesis coupling. N. Phytol. 235, 1729–1742 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  18. Welp, L. R. et al. Interannual variability in the oxygen isotopes of atmospheric CO2 driven by El Niño. Nature 477, 579–582 (2011).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 

  19. Jian, J. et al. Historically inconsistent productivity and respiration fluxes in the global terrestrial carbon cycle. Nat. Commun. 13, 1733 (2022).

    Article 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

J.L. acknowledges the Saltonstall Fellowship from Soil and Crop Science Section at Cornell University; Y.S. acknowledges the funding from NSF Macrosystem Biology (award 1926488); and D.L. acknowledges funding from NSF (no. 2039932). Part of this work was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (80NM0018D0004). L.K. was supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), United States (ECOSTRESS Science and Applications Team: grant no. 80NSSC20K0215). L.G. at ORNL acknowledges the support from the US Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research Program. The funding for L.G. was through the ORNL Terrestrial Ecosystem Sciences Science Focus Area. This Article was co-authored by UT-Battelle under contract no. DE-AC05-00OR22725 with the US Department of Energy. This material is based on work supported by the NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), which is a major facility sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Cooperative Agreement no. 1852977. We acknowledge the members of the 2017 Keck Institute for Space Studies workshop “Next-Generation Approach for Detecting Climate-Carbon Feedbacks: Space-Based Integration of Carbonyl Sulfide (OCS), CO2, and Solar Induced Fluorescence (SIF)” and the discussion during the workshop.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

J.L. and Y.S. developed the methodology. J.L. conducted the analyses. J.L. and Y.S. interpreted the results. L.M.J.K., W.S., D.L., J.E.C., L.G., Y.L. and L.K. helped the interpretation. J.L. and Y.S. constructed the initial draft. L.M.J.K., W.S., D.L., J.E.C., L.G., Y.L. and L.K. contributed critically to the subsequent revision of manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to
Ying Sun.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

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 Methods for quantifying the effects of VPD and PAR on LRU, Supplementary Table 1, Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2 and Supplementary References.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lai, J., Kooijmans, L.M.J., Sun, W. et al. Reply to: The size of tropical vegetation gross primary production.
Nature 654, E5–E7 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10561-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10561-0


Source: Ecology - nature.com

Different planning scales for renewable expansion yield distinct biodiversity trade-offs in China

Early detection and community-based surveillance of Aedes albopictus in the Razmian region of Qazvin Province, Iran