Journal of Hydrology 623 (2023) 129877

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hydrology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol

Quantitative evaluation of drought risk related to vegetation productivity

in China
Wenyan Ge a, b, Xiuxia Li c, Mengxia Xie a, b, Bowen Yu d, Juying Jiao a, b, Jianqiao Han a, b,
Fei Wang a, b, *
a
Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, Shaanxi Province, China
b
Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Chinese Academy of Sciences & Ministry of Water Resources, Yangling 712100, Shaanxi Province, China
c
School of Management, Tianjin University of Commerce, Tianjin 300134, China
d
China Academy of Electronics and Information Technology, Beijing 100041, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Emmanouil Anagnostou Quantitative assessment of vegetation drought risk is crucial for addressing drought problems and vegetation
management under global warming. In this study, we employed a framework based on long-term (2001–2019)
Keywords: vegetation Gross Primary Productivity (GPP) and the Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI)
Vegetation to quantify drought risk, considering vegetation vulnerability, exposure, and hazard to drought. The results
Drought risk assessment
revealed that vegetation drought risk was influenced by drought hazard (55.15%), exposure (24.46%), and
Hazard
vulnerability (20.39%). Approximately 48% of study pixels experienced moderate to high drought risk, primarily
Vulnerability
Exposure concentrated in northeastern to southwestern China. In terms of vegetation types, forest suffered the highest
drought risk, followed by cropland, while grassland had the mildest drought risk. Notably, croplands in northern
China experienced relatively high drought risk, posing a threat to food security. Therefore, it is imperative to
consider appropriate crop management practices such as irrigation and crop rotation to mitigate the impact of
droughts. Temperature and precipitation are key climatic factors affecting vegetation drought risk in moderate-
to-high risk areas. Warming inhibited drought risk by promoting vegetation growth, but also consumed water to
promote drought risk. Meanwhile, increased rainfall in parts of northern China may be caused by extreme
weather events that intensify vegetation vulnerability, thus aggravating drought risk. Our research provided
scientific guidance to understand and cope with drought risk induced by climate change on vegetation.

1. Introduction
Global climate change worsens extreme hydrological events, such as
floods and droughts, with devastating consequences for agriculture,
ecosystems, economies, and societies (Abhishek and Kinouchi, 2022;
Song et al., 2019; van Dijk et al., 2013; Abhishek and Sayama, 2021). For
instance, unprecedented flooding in the Chao Phraya River Basin in
2011 killed more than 800 people and caused economic losses of more
than $45 billion (Abhishek and Sayama, 2021), while persistent
droughts in India exaggerate water scarcity (Abhishek and Kinouchi,
2022; Xiong et al., 2022). Drought, the most lethal and costly disaster
among natural disasters, is becoming more frequent and intense due to
climate change (Carrão et al., 2016; Van Dijk et al., 2013). Monitoring
and managing drought is challenging due to its prolonged duration,
gradual effects, and diffuse spatial distribution. Urbanization, coupled
with climate change, further aggravates water scarcity, amplifying the
occurrence and severity of droughts globally (Abhishek and Kinouchi,
2022; He et al., 2021).
Drought risk results from the intricate interplay of drought hazard,
vulnerability, and exposure, leading to potential adverse consequences
or losses (Carrão et al., 2016; Edenhofer, 2015). Drought hazard, the
likelihood of drought occurrences (Carrão et al., 2016), could be un­
derstood as the frequency, duration, intensity, and spatial range of
drought (Lavell et al., 2012; Li et al., 2020). The Probability Density
Function (PDF) coupled with relevant drought indices has proven
effective in assessing drought hazard (Islam et al., 2017). Drought
exposure pertains to the number of entities, such as populations and
livelihoods, susceptible to droughts (Field et al., 2012). Drought
vulnerability relates to the capacity to withstand and recover from
drought impacts (Zhao et al., 2020).

* Corresponding author at: Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, Shaanxi Province, China.
E-mail address: wafe@ms.iswc.ac.cn (F. Wang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129877

Available online 28 June 2023

0022-1694/© 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
W. Ge et al.
Vegetation is a crucial component of the terrestrial ecosystem, un­
dergoing significant shifts due to global climate change (Duo et al.,
2016; Ge et al., 2022; Piao et al., 2010). Droughts can severely hinder
plant growth, causing damage or even death (Wu et al., 2018). As global
warming continues and groundwater is overexploited (such as Penin­
sular India, (Xiong et al., 2022)), drought caused by climate change has
intensified and far-reaching impacts on vegetation (Xu et al., 2019),
posing risks to environmental balance and sustainable development
(Hanewinkel et al., 2013; Wan et al., 2018).
Gross Primary Productivity (GPP) quantifies the amount of carbon
fixed by terrestrial ecosystems through photosynthesis, serving as a
direct indicator of vegetation growth and health (Xiao et al., 2019;
Padfield et al., 2017). Under the background of climate change, persis­
tent and severe drought events caused huge destruction to the composite
and structure of ecosystems, weakening the carbon sink function of the
ecosystem, leading to reduction in GPP (Wei et al., 2023; Zhang et al.,
2023; Frank et al., 2015). Furthermore, droughts are expected to have
greater impacts on GPP in future climate models (Xu et al., 2019).
Evaluating the influence of drought risk on GPP offers valuable insights
into overall ecosystem health and functionality under dry conditions,
particularly in the context of climate change.
Being the most populous and rapidly urbanizing country in the
world, China faces a serious water crisis and water-related disasters (e.
g., drought) due to the severe freshwater deficit and uneven distribution
of water resources (He et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2023).
Implementing afforestation in China since 1999 has substantially
improved vegetation cover (Ge et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2021). However,
the significant water consumption associated with these large-scale
projects has also been identified as a major factor exacerbating
droughts, particularly in northern China (Feng et al., 2016; Zhou et al.,
2023). Meanwhile, increased temperature caused by climate change also
aggravates droughts in China by disrupting precipitation patterns and
increasing evapotranspiration (Gosling and Arnell, 2016; Zhang et al.,
2020; Zheng et al., 2022). Severe and recurrent drought events in China
have caused significant ecological damage to terrestrial ecosystems
(Fang et al., 2019; Jiang et al., 2021; Song et al., 2019). Quantitative
assessment of drought impact on vegetation in China is crucial for un­
derstanding ecosystem vulnerability and response to drought, and
Fig. 1. The Köppen-Geiger climate and vegetation type classification map of China (referenced from Beck et al., 2018), and the proportions of vegetation in climate
zones depicted by the pie chart.
2
Journal of Hydrology 623 (2023) 129877
guiding effective mitigation strategies.
In this study, building on the existing scheme proposed by Li et al.
(2020), we developed a framework of drought risk to assess the impacts
of drought on vegetation by quantifying three independent de­
terminants: drought hazard, vulnerability and exposure (Carrão et al.,
2016; Zhang et al., 2017b; Zhao et al., 2020) in different climate zones in
China, based on GPP and the Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspi­
ration Index (SPEI). In addition, we investigated the influence of cli­
matic factors on GPP and GPP-related drought risk in China. The
primary purposes of this study were: (1) to evaluate vegetation drought
risk by quantifying drought hazard, exposure and vulnerability in China;
(2) to analyze its characteristics in different climate-related vegetation
zones; (3) to identify the main climatic factors influencing vegetation
drought risk.
2. Study area and datasets
2.1. Study area
China, with its extensive territory and diverse climate, exhibits a
complex climatic landscape. Based on the current Köppen-Geiger
climate classification (Beck et al., 2018), China can be categorized into
five primary climate groups: tropical (A), dry (B), temperate (C), con­
tinental (D), and polar (E) (Fig. S1a). These primary groups can be
further subdivided into twelve climate-related vegetation subgroups,
taking into account the distribution of various vegetation types (Fig. 1;
(Liu et al., 2002)), including Af (forest in tropic), Bc (cropland in dry), Bf
(forest in dry), Bg (grass in dry), Cc (cropland in temperate), Cf (forest in
temperate), Cg (grass in temperate), Dc (cropland in continental), Df
(forest in continental), Dg (grass in continental), Ef (forest in polar), Eg
(grass in polar). Other subgroups (i.e., cropland and grass in tropical,
and cropland in polar) each take up a small percentage of area (<0.3%),
and were thereby excluded from this study. Additionally, this study
excluded vast desert regions in northwestern China, such as the Takli­
makan and Badain Jaran deserts, due to the absence of vegetation in
these areas (Zhang et al., 2017a).
W. Ge et al. Journal of Hydrology 623 (2023) 129877

2.2. Datasets
Here, we obtained the long-term (2001–2019) Terra GPP Gap-Filled
8-Day L4 Global 500 m SIN Grid (MOD17A2HGF v006) dataset and
Vegetation Continuous Fields (VCF) Yearly L3 250 m SIN Grid products
obtained from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA). The MODIS Gap-Filed GPP data and VCF products were
downloaded The GPP data were improved by filling the cloud-
contaminated LAI/FPAR gaps before calculation (DiMiceli et al., 2015;
Running and Zhao, 2015). Besides, the weekly Vegetation Health Index
(VHI) data during 2001–2019 at 4 km spatial resolution were derived
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The monthly VHI dataset was derived using the maximum value com­
posite (MVC) method.
We acquired monthly precipitation and mean temperature data at a
1 km spatial resolution from Peng et al. (2019), which has been vali­
dated using observations at the weather station across China and widely
applied in carbon budget accounting and ecosystem service evaluation
(Ge et al., 2022; Li et al., 2023; Yu et al., 2022). The monthly downward
surface shortwave radiation and potential evapotranspiration with 4 km
spatial resolution was obtained from the Climatology Lab (Abatzoglou
et al., 2018). To ensure data consistency, all datasets in this study were
resampled using the nearest neighbor interpolation method to a 4-km
spatial resolution and one-month temporal resolution.
The multiscalar drought index SPEI has been proved to be more
effective for drought types and impacts identification than other drought
indices such as the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) and Palmer
Drought Severity Index (PDSI), especially their sensitivity to droughts
(Wei et al., 2023; Zhao et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2023; Zhang et al.,
2017a). Therefore, we utilized SPEI to evaluate drought risk on GPP in
this study. To calculate SPEI at timescales ranging from 1 to 24 months,
we utilized monthly grid data of temperature and potential evapo­
transpiration and employed the SPEI calculator provided by Vicente-
Serrano et al.
2.3. Methodology
2.3.1. Drought risk assessment
Drought risk (DR) is the resulting representation of three indepen­
dent determinants (Edenhofer, 2015):
1 n∑
=10
DR = × DH i × DV i × DEi (1)
7 i=4
where DHi, DVi and DEi represent drought hazard, drought vulnerability
and drought exposure in the ith month, respectively, with the growing
Higher DVi value suggests more vulnerable vegetation to drought
and vice versa.
Here, we used the drought resistance feature of vegetation docu­
mented by Zhang et al. (2017a) to represent the drought sensitivity of
vegetation (DS):
( )
Ri,j = corr GPPi , SPEI i,j 4 ≤ i ≤ 10, 1 ≤ j ≤ 24 (4)
( )
DSi = max Ri,j (5)
where i refers the ith month, ranging from April to October; j represents
the drought timescale, ranging from 1 to 24 months; Ri, j is the Pearson
correlation coefficients of GPP and SPEI in the ith month with the
timescale of j month; and DSi represents the drought sensitivity of
vegetation productivity in the ith month.
DA is the adaptability of vegetation to drought (Li et al., 2020):
n ⃒ ⃒
1∑ ⃒(GPPi − GPPmean )/GPPmean ⃒
DA = ⃒ ⃒, SPEI ≤ − 1.0 (6)
n i ⃒ SPEI i − SPEI mean ⃒
where GPPi and SPEIi are timeseries of GPP and SPEI-12 in pixel i under
drought conditions (SPEI ≤ − 1.0), respectively. GPPmean and SPEImean
are the mean values of GPP and SPEI during the study period, respec­
tively. Higher DA value suggests less adaptable vegetation to drought.
Drought exposure refers to the number of physical entities located in
an area where drought events are likely to occur (Field et al., 2012; Zhao
et al., 2020). For vegetation, the drought exposure can be quantified by
the density of vegetation (VD) and the health condition of vegetation
(VHI):
1∑ n
DEi = VDi,y × (100 − VHI i ) (7)
n y=1
where VDi,y is the density of vegetation in pixel i of yth year, VHIi is the
vegetation health index of the study period in pixel i, and DEi is the
exposure of vegetation to drought in pixel i. A higher DE value dem­
onstrates a higher exposure.
Here, we used the vegetation structure quantitative product MODIS
VCF to quantify the density of vegetation (Hansen et al., 2003). Spe­
cifically, the monthly variations of vegetation were directly represented
by the yearly trees VCF data because of the perennial characteristics of
woody and its stable amount in the short term. Conversely, the density of
herbaceous vegetation (i.e., grass and crop) is unstable within a year
because of their annual characteristics. The monthly vegetation density
(VD) therefore were calculated as follows:
VDx,y = VCF tree,y + VCF non− × RatioGPP (8)
tree,y

season, i.e., from April to October (Piao et al., 2010). Here, we focused GPPx,y
on the drought risk of vegetation caused by meteorological droughts. RatioGPP = , 0≤ RatioGPP ≤ 1 (9)
GPPy,mean
Drought hazard (DH) is determined by drought frequency and
intensity: where VDx,y is the density of vegetation in xth month of yth year, VCFtree,y
∫ − 1.0 and VCFnon-tree, y are the yth year of the tree and non-tree VCF, respec­
DH = SPEI × f (SPEI) (2) tively. GPPx,y is the GPP in xth month of yth year, and GPP y, mean is the
mean value of GPP in yth year.
− 3.5

∫ − 1.0 To ensure data consistency, the monthly DH, DS, DA, DE and DR were
where − 3.5 SPEI is the drought frequency, and f(SPEI) is the drought
standardized to a dimensionless quantity within the range of 0–1 for the
intensity. The SPEI value less than − 1.0 in a specific period indicates
assessment:
drought condition. Hence, the drought frequency here is obtained by
integrating SPEI less than − 1.0 during the study period. Additionally, t′ =
t − tmin
(10)
SPEI-12 (i.e., SPEI with 12-month timescale) were used to calculate the tmax − tmin
drought frequency and intensity to evaluate drought hazard caused by
meteorological droughts (Islam et al., 2017; Li et al., 2020). where tmax and tmin are the maximum and minimum values of the same
The vulnerability of vegetation to drought (DV) could be character­ variable in all pixels from April to October, respectively.
ized by vegetation drought sensitivity (DS) and adaptability (DA) (Gao
et al., 2018; Li et al., 2020): 2.3.2. Analyses
Partial correlation examines the correlation between two variables
DV i = DSi × DAi (3) while accounting for the influence of one or more additional variables

3
W. Ge et al. Journal of Hydrology 623 (2023) 129877

(Adeyeri et al., 2022). It allows us to assess whether the observed rela­ 3. Results
tionship between the two variables is direct or influenced by the addi­
tional variables. We utilized partial correlation analysis to investigate 3.1. Drought risk components assessment
the key risk components (hazard, exposure, and vulnerability) as well as
climatic factors (temperature, precipitation, and solar radiation) in 3.1.1. Drought hazard
relation to drought risk: High drought hazard predominantly affected regions in south­
western China, the southeast coast, the Loess Plateau, and northeastern
rij|k= √̅̅̅̅̅̅ (11)
China (Fig. 2a, Fig. S3). There was also a notable rainfall deviation from
rij − rik
2
̅√̅̅̅̅̅̅2̅
1− r 1− r
northeast to southwest China, consistent with the patterns of drought
ik jk

where rij|k is the partial correlation coefficient between drought risk and hazard (Fig. S2). Drought hazard in northeastern China steadily
compositej (e.g., hazard) or climatej (e.g., temperature) by controlling increased from summer to autumn, while the Yungui Plateau experi­
compositek or climatek, rij is the correlation coefficient between drought enced moderate to high drought hazard in growing season. In contrast,
risk and compositej or climatej, rik is the correlation coefficient between the Tibetan Plateau and Hainan Province exhibited relatively low levels
drought risk and NDVI and compositek or climatek, and rjk is the corre­ of drought hazard throughout the study period.
lation coefficient between compositej (climatej) and compositek Drought hazard varied significantly across different climate zones
(climatek). (Fig. 2b and c). The continental zone suffered the highest drought haz­
The Conditional Permutation Importance (CPI) was employed to ard, followed by temperate, dry and tropical zones, while the polar zone
evaluate the primary risk component associated with drought risk. The suffered the mildest drought hazard (Fig. S3). Additionally, grass in the
CPI can be described as follows (Adeyeri et al., 2022). To calculate the continental zone faced the highest drought hazard (Fig. S3). Overall,
prediction error of regression trees in random forest, specifically the grass had the lowest drought hazard, while forests were most susceptible
to drought (Fig. S3). Throughout the growing season, drought hazard in
error R(t) and R(k) to tree t, based on predictors p and ntrees of trees using
(t)
the continental zone gradually weakened from May, reaching its lowest
the out of band sample β(t) , the following formula can be utilized before point in July, but then increased in subsequent months (Fig. S3). The
permuting the out-of-bag values Xk: drought hazard patterns in the dry and temperate zones showed similar
( ) variations.
∑ ŷi (t) − yi 2
R(t) = ⃒ (t) ⃒ (12)
⃒β ⃒
(t)
i∈β 3.1.2. Drought exposure
Overall, vegetation drought exposure showed similar patterns to the
( )2
(t) mean values of GPP throughout the growing season (Fig. 3). Southern
∑ ŷi (k) − yi
R(t) = ⃒ (t) ⃒ (13) China had high drought exposure for vegetation during the growing
(k) ⃒β ⃒
i∈β(t) season (Fig. 3, Fig. S4). In northern China, plants were more prone to
drought exposure in summer (Fig. S4). Additionally, vegetation in the
( )
ŷi (t) (t)
(14) Tibetan and Mongolian Plateaus experienced low levels of drought
(k) = f xi(k)
exposure.
(
xi(k) = xi1 , ⋯, xik− 1 , xp(i)k , xik+1 , ⋯, xip
)
(15) Vegetation in temperate and tropical zones was most vulnerable to
drought, while alpine vegetation exhibited the lowest exposure
⃒ ⃒
where ⃒β(t) ⃒ refers to the out-of-bag cardinal number sample for tree t; (Fig. 3b). The temporal variations of drought exposure during the
growing season were similar across climate zones, with peak values in
ŷi represents the function f (t) (xi ), which denotes the random forest
(t)
summer and decreasing values in autumn (Fig. S4). Forest, particularly
prediction of the out-of-bag observation i before permutation; xp(i)k is in the continental zone, had the highest drought exposure among
the ith Xk observation after permutation. vegetation types, while grassland, especially alpine grassland, had the
For the classification trees, the prediction error R(t) and R(k) can be lowest exposure (Fig. 3c, Fig. S4).
(t)

calculated as follows:
( )2 3.1.3. Drought vulnerability
∑ ŷi (t) ∕= yi Higher adaptability values indicate lower adaptability of vegetation
R(t) = ⃒ (t) ⃒ (16)
i∈β(t)
⃒β ⃒ to drought (Li et al., 2020). Vegetation in northern China and the Ti­
betan Plateau exhibited poorer adaptability compared to the southern
(
(t)
)2 region (Fig. 4a). Grass exhibited the lowest adaptability, while forest
∑ ŷi (k) ∕ = yi showed the highest adaptability to drought. Temporally, vegetation
R(t) = ⃒ (t) ⃒ (17)
(k)
i∈β(t)
⃒β ⃒ generally exhibited weaker adaptability to drought in summer
compared to spring and autumn (Fig. S5). Among the climate zones,
Then, the raw variable importance score PI(k) for each variable is vegetation in the polar zone had the least adaptability to drought, fol­
computed by taking the mean importance across all trees: lowed by the dry, continental, temperate, and tropical zones.
∑ntree (t) Vegetation in southern China exhibited the lowest sensitivity to
t=1 PI (k) drought (Fig. 4d). Forest demonstrated the lowest sensitivity to drought,
PI (k) = (18)
ntree while cropland and grass exhibited similar sensitivity throughout the
growing season (Fig. S6). Regarding climate zones, vegetation in the dry
where PI(k) = R(k) = R(t) .
(t) (t)
zone was most sensitive to drought (Fig. 4e and f), while alpine vege­
Additionally, we employed Partial Least Squares regression method tation exhibited the highest resistance to drought. Temporally, vegeta­
(PLSR) to analyze the influence of climatic factors on drought risk with tion in the dry and continental zones exhibited increased sensitivity to
two primary outputs, the variable importance projection (VIP) and the drought during summer compared to other seasons (Fig. S6).
standardized model coefficients (MC). VIP quantifies the importance of Drought vulnerability of vegetation was jointly determined by
each climatic factor in explaining the variation of drought risk, whose sensitivity and adaptability (Fig. 4, Fig. S7). Vegetation displayed higher
threshold was often set to one (Guo et al., 2019). Meanwhile, MC in­ susceptibility to drought in spring and early summer compared to other
dicates the effects of climatic factors on drought risk. seasons. Besides, vegetation in northern regions exhibited greater
vulnerability to drought during the growing season. Consistent with

4
W. Ge et al. Journal of Hydrology 623 (2023) 129877

Fig. 2. Spatial variations of drought hazard caused by meteorological droughts over the growing season across China from 2001 to 2019. (a) The spatial variation of
drought hazard; (b) and (c) violin plots of impacts of drought hazard on vegetation on climate zones and climate-related vegetation, respectively.

Fig. 3. Spatial variation of GPP and drought exposure over the growing season in China (2001–2019): (a) mean GPP values; (b) and (c) violin plots of mean GPP
values based on climate zones and climate-related vegetation, respectively; (d) spatial variations of drought exposure; (e) and (f) violin plots of drought exposure
impacts on climate zones and climate-related vegetation, respectively.

5
W. Ge et al. Journal of Hydrology 623 (2023) 129877

Fig. 4. Drought vulnerability assessment over the growing season across China from 2001 to 2019. (a) (d) and (g) are the spatial variations of drought adaptability,
sensitivity and vulnerability, respectively; (b), (c), (e), (f), (h) and (i) are violin plots of impacts of drought adaptability, sensitivity and vulnerability on climate zones
and climate-related vegetation, respectively.

6
W. Ge et al.
drought adaptability and sensitivity, grass demonstrated the highest
drought vulnerability, while forest showed the lowest (Fig. S7). Addi­
tionally, drought vulnerability varied across different climate zones,
with the dry zone exhibiting the highest vulnerability, followed by the
continental, polar, temperate, and tropical zones (Fig. 4h, Fig. S7).
3.2. Drought risk assessment
Regions with moderate to high vegetation drought risk (DS > 0.09,
the average drought risk value of China) were primarily located from
northeastern China to southwestern China (48%; Fig. 5, Fig. S8).
Conversely, vegetation on the Tibetan Plateau faced relatively low
drought risk. Vegetation in temperate zone suffered highest drought
risk, followed by continental, dry, tropical and polar zones (Fig. S8d).
Furthermore, cropland showed the highest drought risk, while grassland
exhibited the lowest. Temporally, drought risk increased from spring to
summer and then gradually declined in the continental and dry zones. In
contrast, drought risk in the tropical and temperate zones exhibited
insignificant variations throughout the growing season.
3.3. Driving forces analysis
3.3.1. Impacts of drought risk components on drought risk
Autocorrelation and multicollinearity of drought risk and its com­
ponents were assessed using correlation coefficient heatmap and var­
iogram inflation factor (VIF) in Fig. 6. Despite the strong correlation
between exposure and adaptability, the VIF values for all four risk
components were below 5, indicating the absence of significant multi­
collinearity. Thus, these components are suitable for explaining drought
risk.
The maximum partial correlation coefficients (Fig. 7a-c) were uti­
lized to identify the primary risk components of drought risk. Addi­
tionally, CPI analysis (Fig. 7d) was employed to determine the dominant
risk component. Drought hazard played a dominant role in drought risk
in central China, accounting for 55.15% of the study area. Exposure
dominated drought risk in 24.46% of the area, mainly in northeast China
and the Tibetan Plateau. Drought vulnerability determined drought risk
in southwest China, comprising 20.39% of the area. The CPI results in
Fig. 7d confirmed the dominant role of drought hazard in vegetation
drought risk, consistent with the partial correlation coefficients.
Fig. 5. Assessment of drought risk over the growing season across China from 2001 to 2019. (a) is the spatial variations of drought risk, (b) and (c) are violin plots of
impacts of drought risk on climate zones and climate-related vegetation, respectively. The dashed horizontal lines in plots b and c are the average drought risk values
of China (i.e., 0.08).
7
Journal of Hydrology 623 (2023) 129877
3.3.2. Impacts of climate variability on drought risk
Approximately 39.56% of the study area exhibited temperature-
dominated drought risk, primarily in the Loess Plateau, north, and
southwest China. Additionally, around 33.18% and 27.26% of vegeta­
tion pixels were dominated by precipitation and solar radiation,
respectively. The strongest relationships between precipitation risk and
solar radiation risk were predominantly observed in northeast China
(Fig. 8).
The critical impacts of climatic factors on drought risk were illus­
trated by the variable importance of PLSR projection (VIP) (Fig. S9).
Increased temperature significantly aggravated drought risk in the
North China Plain and southeast coast (18.4%), while significant
inhibiting effects were found in northeast China (25%) (Fig. S9a).
Increased precipitation generally promoted drought risk in north and
central China (23.9%), with significant inhibiting effects observed in
southwest China and the Tibetan Plateau (Fig. S9b). Solar radiation had
promoting effects on drought risk mainly in northern China (21.3%),
while scattered inhibiting effects were observed nationwide (26.1%)
(Fig. S9c).
4. Discussions
4.1. Impacts of drought risk in different climate-related vegetation zones
Drought is a destructive and widespread natural disaster that occurs
in nearly every corner of the world, even in humid areas and tropical
rainforests. Extensive work has been carried out to assess drought risk in
the current climate change context, particularly focusing on its impact
on humans and agriculture (Dai et al., 2020; Fang et al., 2019; Hoque
et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2020). However, limited attention has been
given to evaluating drought risk specifically for different vegetation
types. Hence, quantitative assessment of drought risk on vegetation in
this study is of great significance for vegetation management.
Previous studies have quantified agricultural drought exposure by
considering factors such as population density or irrigation conditions
(Hoque et al., 2021; Meza et al., 2020). However, in studies focused on
vegetation, it is essential to define drought exposure as the inventory of
elements (i.e., vegetation) under drought conditions, following the IPCC
definition (Field et al., 2012; Zhao et al., 2020). Human disturbances
like irrigation have been quantified by vegetation drought sensitivity in
this study (equations (4)–(5)) (Zhang et al., 2017a). Consequently, to
avoid mistakenly conflating exposure and vulnerability, we quantify
W. Ge et al. Journal of Hydrology 623 (2023) 129877

Fig. 6. The heatmap of (a) correlation coefficients and (b) the VIF test among the four components of drought risk.

Fig. 7. (a) Spatial variation of the dominant drought risk components based on maximum partial correlation coefficients, (b) area fractions dominated by hazard,
exposure and vulnerability, respectively, (c) patterns of pixels dominated by risk components in each climate-related vegetation type, and (d) conditional permu­
tation importance (CPI) of the drought risk components.

Fig. 8. (a) Spatial variation of the dominant climate factors on drought risk based on maximum partial correlation coefficients, (b) area fractions dominated by
climate factors, and (c) patterns of pixels dominated by climatic factors in each climate-related vegetation types.

8
W. Ge et al.
drought exposure of vegetation using the density of vegetation and its
health condition instead of irrigation status (Field et al., 2012). It is
important to note that exposure alone is insufficient for determining
risk, as vegetation can be exposed to drought without necessarily being
vulnerable to it (Field et al., 2012). For example, forest was more
exposed to drought than grass and cropland, but least vulnerable to it.
The drought adaptability refers to the loss of vegetation productivity
during drought events, while drought sensitivity measures the response
speed of vegetation to drought. Forests, characterized by their strong
resistance to droughts, generally exhibited the lowest adaptability and
sensitivity to drought (Zhang et al., 2017a), resulting in lower vulner­
ability. However, forest still faced higher drought risk than grass due to
its higher drought hazard and exposure (especially in northeastern
China).
The shallow roots of herbaceous plants limit them to access water
from deep soil layers, resulting in high sensitivity to water deficit (Zhang
et al., 2017a). Although irrigation systems in pastures can reduce the
vulnerability of grass to drought (Yu et al., 2011), the area covered by
irrigation for grass is much smaller compared to natural grasslands,
resulting in limited effectiveness in mitigating drought effects. Never­
theless, alpine vegetation exhibited relative low sensitivity to drought,
even though they are also dominated by meadow and grass, due to the
joint influences of precipitation and the melting of snowpack and frozen
soil on water availability (Zhang et al., 2017a). On the other hand,
alpine ecosystems have been identified as vulnerable and sensitive areas
to climate change (Crossman et al., 2012), leading to considerable losses
in droughts (i.e., the highest drought adaptability) for alpine vegetation
especially grass.
Cropland, similar to grass, exhibits short-term seasonal periodicity
and shallow root systems. However, its vulnerability to drought is
influenced not only by the nature of the vegetation itself but also by
human interventions such as irrigation (Ge et al., 2021). Consequently,
cropland has lower drought vulnerability compared to grass but higher
vulnerability compared to forest. In northern China (the Northeast Plain,
North China Plain, and Loess Plateau), cropland is exposed to significant
drought risk due to high drought hazard, posing threats to food security
in the country (Li et al., 2014). Besides, the renowned groundwater
funnel in the North China Plain exacerbates water shortages, posing
constraints on the sustainable development of food production and
ecological well-being (Zhou et al., 2023). To address these challenges,
appropriate agricultural practices such as efficient irrigation, crop
rotation, and fertilization should be implemented in the North China
Plain. Similarly, the Loess Plateau also faces a critical challenge of
increasing crop production with limited water resources due to water
scarcity and population growth (Zhang et al., 2014). Therefore, irriga­
tion management supported by check-dams/reservoirs and the alternate
crop system should be considered on the plateau to ensure food security.
4.2. Analysis of driving factors
Temperature and precipitation played crucial roles in shaping the
drought risk patterns in regions with moderate to high drought risk.
While insufficient rainfall is a direct cause of meteorological drought, it
was observed that increased precipitation significantly contributed to
drought risk in the dry and continental zones. This phenomenon can be
attributed to the occurrence of extreme precipitation events character­
ized by long intervals. These infrequent yet intense rainfall events
exacerbate within-season drought, leading to heightened drought haz­
ards and thus increased vegetation drought risk (Knapp et al., 2008).
Meanwhile, the increase in extreme precipitation events indicates
declining climate stability, which weakens vegetation resistance to
climate change and further intensifies its vulnerability to drought (Li
et al., 2020). Additionally, excessive waterlogging induced by deluges
poses risks to vegetation growth by damaging root, reducing soil oxygen
availability, and delaying crop planting/harvesting (Li et al., 2019;
Jabloun et al., 2015; Urban et al., 2015; Parent et al., 2008).
9
Journal of Hydrology 623 (2023) 129877
Furthermore, adverse weather events accompanying extreme precipi­
tation, such as hails and strong winds, pose additional threats to vege­
tation growth (Schlie et al., 2019; Botzen et al., 2010). Consequently,
increased extreme precipitation events intensifies vegetation vulnera­
bility and amplifies vegetation drought risk.
The impacts of temperature on vegetation drought risk also exhibited
a dual nature. On one hand, increased temperature can have positive
effects on vegetation growth, potentially enhancing resistance to climate
change and reducing vulnerability. However, higher temperatures also
lead to increased evapotranspiration, exacerbating drought conditions.
As a result, warming has both promoting and inhibiting effects on
vegetation drought risk in China.
4.3. Reliability, limitation and uncertainty of the assessment
We evaluated the vegetation-related drought risk in China by
considering drought hazard, vulnerability, and exposure (Edenhofer,
2015). Unlike previous studies (Li et al., 2020), we used the density of
vegetation and its health condition instead of vegetation types to
represent drought exposure, aiming to improve the accuracy and
repeatability of the assessment. The spatial variation of vegetation
drought vulnerability observed in our study is consistent with the
findings of previous quantitative studies (Fang et al., 2019; Gao et al.,
2018; Li et al., 2020), indicating a certain level of reliability. Further­
more, our study, with higher spatial resolution datasets, provides more
detailed insights into the impacts of drought risk on climate-related
vegetation, allowing for comparisons and discussions.
However, uncertainties remain. The coarse spatial resolution of
drought index limits the accuracy of risk evaluation. Many other factors
unaccounted in this study, such as bushfires, soil salinization or insect
pests, can also contribute to poor vegetation growth and increased
drought risk (Cao et al., 2022). Additionally, the assessment of drought
risk to vegetation was limited to the growing season, neglecting the
winter period when vegetation is absent in northern China, potentially
underestimating winter drought-induced risk on vegetation. Further­
more, quantifying the contrasting effects of climatic factors on drought
risk and addressing the uncertainties associated with their complex in­
teractions requires further investigation. The effects of groundwater and
irrigation on vegetation growth, particularly in crops, also warrant
further exploration. Therefore, further research is needed to quantify the
comprehensive driving factors influencing drought risk and assess the
risk of winter drought on vegetation in southern China.
5. Conclusion
We developed a framework to assess vegetation drought risk and
examined its spatial patterns in different climate-related vegetation
zones in China using GPP and multiscalar SPEI. Our findings revealed
that drought risk in vegetation was influenced by drought hazard
(55.15%), exposure (24.46%), and vulnerability (20.39%). Approxi­
mately 48% of the study area exhibited moderate to high drought risk,
primarily in dry, continental, and some temperate zones. Forest had the
highest drought risk, followed by cropland and grass. The pronounced
drought risk in cropland in northern China poses a threat to food secu­
rity, emphasizing the need for appropriate agricultural practices such as
irrigation, crop rotation, and fertilization to ensure sustainable crop
production.
While increased temperature promotes vegetation growth across
China, it also contributes to heightened drought risk by exacerbating
water depletion, particularly in northern regions. Additionally, the
increased rainfall observed in certain parts of northern China could be
attributed to extreme weather events, intensifying vegetation drought
vulnerability and exacerbating drought risk. Our study quantified
vegetation drought risk across various climate zones and shed light on
the influence of climatic factors on drought risk. These findings offer
valuable scientific insights for vegetation management in the face of
W. Ge et al.
climate change.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Wenyan Ge: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal
analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Xiuxia Li:
Formal analysis, Methodology, Software, Validation. Mengxia Xie:
Writing – original draft, Methodology, Software, Validation. Bowen Yu:
Software, Validation, Investigation. Juying Jiao: Writing – review &
editing, Investigation. Jianqiao Han: Investigation, Validation. Fei
Wang: Investigation, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The authors do not have permission to share data.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to National Aeronautics and Space Admin­
istration (NASA), National Earth System Science Data Center (http://
loess.geodata.cn/# (accessed 3 March 2023)), and the Climatology Lab
(http://www.climatologylab.org/ (accessed 3 March 2023)) for
providing dataset.
Funding
This research was jointly funded by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (42007063, U2243213), China Postdoctoral Sci­
ence Foundation (2020M673499), and Young Scholars of the West
(XAB2019B10).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129877.
References
Abatzoglou, J.T., Dobrowski, S.Z., Parks, S.A., Hegewisch, K.C., 2018. TerraClimate, a
high-resolution global dataset of monthly climate and climatic water balance from
1958–2015. Sci. Data 5, 1–12.
Abhishek, Kinouchi, T., 2022. Multidecadal land water and groundwater drought
evaluation in Peninsular India. Remote Sensing 14 (6), 1486.
Abhishek, Kinouchi, T., & Sayama, T. (2021). A comprehensive assessment of water
storage dynamics and hydroclimatic extremes in the Chao Phraya River Basin during
2002–2020. Journal of Hydrology, 603, 126868.
Adeyeri, O.E., Zhou, W., Wang, X., Zhang, R., Laux, P., Ishola, K.A., Usman, M., 2022.
The trend and spatial spread of multisectoral climate extremes in CMIP6 models. Sci.
Rep. 12 (1), 21000.
Beck, H.E., Zimmermann, N.E., McVicar, T.R., Vergopolan, N., Berg, A., Wood, E.F.,
2018. Present and future Köppen-Geiger climate classification maps at 1-km
resolution. Sci. Data 5, 1–12.
Botzen, W.J.W., Bouwer, L.M., Van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., 2010. Climate change and
hailstorm damage: empirical evidence and implications for agriculture and
insurance. Resour. Energy Econ. 32 (3), 341–362.
Cao, S., Zhang, L., He, Y., Zhang, Y., Chen, Y., Yao, S., Yang, W., Sun, Q., 2022. Effects
and contributions of meteorological drought on agricultural drought under different
climatic zones and vegetation types in Northwest China. Sci. Total Environ. 821,
153270.
Carrão, H., Naumann, G., Barbosa, P., 2016. Mapping global patterns of drought risk: an
empirical framework based on sub-national estimates of hazard, exposure and
vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Chang. 39, 108–124.
Crossman, N.D., Bryan, B.A., Summers, D.M., 2012. Identifying priority areas for
reducing species vulnerability to climate change. Divers. Distrib. 18, 60–72.
10
Journal of Hydrology 623 (2023) 129877
Dai, M., Huang, S., Huang, Q., Leng, G., Guo, Y., Wang, L., Fang, W., Li, P., Zheng, X.,
2020. Assessing agricultural drought risk and its dynamic evolution characteristics.
Agric. Water Manag. 231, 106003.
Dimiceli, C., Carroll, M., Sohlberg, R., Kim, D., Kelly, M., & Townshend, J. (2015).
MOD44B MODIS/terra vegetation continuous fields yearly L3 global 250m SIN grid
V006. NASA EOSDIS Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center, 10.
Duo, A., Zhao, W., Qu, X., Jing, R., Xiong, K., 2016. Spatio-temporal variation of
vegetation coverage and its response to climate change in North China plain in the
last 33 years. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 53, 103–117.
Edenhofer, O., 2015. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Cambridge
University Press.
Fang, W., Huang, S., Huang, Q., Huang, G., Wang, H., Leng, G., Wang, L., Guo, Y., 2019.
Probabilistic assessment of remote sensing-based terrestrial vegetation vulnerability
to drought stress of the Loess Plateau in China. Remote Sens. Environ. 232, 111290.
Feng, X., Fu, B., Piao, S., Wang, S., Ciais, P., Zeng, Z., Lü, Y., Zeng, Y., Li, Y., Jiang, X.,
Wu, B., 2016. Revegetation in China’s Loess Plateau is approaching sustainable
water resource limits. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6 (11), 1019–1022.
Field, C.B., Barros, V., Stocker, T.F., Dahe, Q., 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme
Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Special Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
Frank, D., Reichstein, M., Bahn, M., Thonicke, K., Frank, D., Mahecha, M.D., Smith, P.,
Velde, M., Vicca, S., Babst, F., Beer, C., Buchmann, N., Canadell, J.G., Ciais, P.,
Cramer, W., Ibrom, A., Miglietta, F., Poulter, B., Rammig, A., Seneviratne, S.I.,
Walz, A., Wattenbach, M., Zavala, M.A., Zscheischler, J., 2015. Effects of climate
extremes on the terrestrial carbon cycle: concepts, processes and potential future
impacts. Glob. Chang. Biol. 21 (8), 2861–2880.
Gao, J., Jiao, K., Wu, S., 2018. Quantitative assessment of ecosystem vulnerability to
climate change: methodology and application in China. Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (9),
094016.
Ge, W., Deng, L., Wang, F., Han, J., 2021. Quantifying the contributions of human
activities and climate change to vegetation net primary productivity dynamics in
China from 2001 to 2016. Sci. Total Environ. 773, 145648.
Ge, J., Hou, M., Liang, T., Feng, Q., Meng, X., Liu, J., Bao, X., Gao, H., 2022.
Spatiotemporal dynamics of grassland aboveground biomass and its driving factors
in North China over the past 20 years. Sci. Total Environ. 826, 154226.
Gosling, S.N., Arnell, N.W., 2016. A global assessment of the impact of climate change on
water scarcity. Clim. Change 134 (3), 371–385.
Guo, L., Wang, J., Li, M., Liu, L., Xu, J., Cheng, J., Gang, C., Yu, Q., Chen, J., Peng, C.,
Luedeling, E., 2019. Distribution margins as natural laboratories to infer species’
flowering responses to climate warming and implications for frost risk. Agric. For.
Meteorol. 268, 299–307.
Hanewinkel, M., Cullmann, D.A., Schelhaas, M.-J., Nabuurs, G.-J., Zimmermann, N.E.,
2013. Climate change may cause severe loss in the economic value of European
forest land. Nat. Clim. Chang. 3 (3), 203–207.
Hansen, M.C., DeFries, R.S., Townshend, J.R.G., Carroll, M., Dimiceli, C., Sohlberg, R.A.,
2003. Global percent tree cover at a spatial resolution of 500 meters: first results of
the MODIS vegetation continuous fields algorithm. Earth Interact. 7 (10), 1–15.
He, C., Liu, Z., Wu, J., Pan, X., Fang, Z., Li, J., Bryan, B.A., 2021. Future global urban
water scarcity and potential solutions. Nat. Commun. 12, 4667.
Hoque, M.-A., Pradhan, B., Ahmed, N., Sohel, M.S.I., 2021. Agricultural drought risk
assessment of Northern New South Wales, Australia using geospatial techniques. Sci.
Total Environ. 756, 143600.
Islam, A.R.M.T., Shen, S., Hu, Z., Rahman, M.A., 2017. Drought hazard evaluation in
boro paddy cultivated areas of western Bangladesh at current and future climate
change conditions. Adv. Meteorol. 2017, 1–12.
Jabloun, M., Schelde, K., Tao, F., Olesen, J.E., 2015. Effect of temperature and
precipitation on nitrate leaching from organic cereal cropping systems in Denmark.
Eur. J. Agron. 62, 55–64.
Jiang, W., Wang, L., Zhang, M., Yao, R., Chen, X., Gui, X., Sun, J., Cao, Q., 2021. Analysis
of drought events and their impacts on vegetation productivity based on the
integrated surface drought index in the Hanjiang River Basin, China. Atmos. Res. 254,
105536.
Knapp, A.K., Beier, C., Briske, D.D., Classen, A.T., Luo, Y., Reichstein, M., Smith, M.D.,
Smith, S.D., Bell, J.E., Fay, P.A., Heisler, J.L., Leavitt, S.W., Sherry, R., Smith, B.,
Weng, E., 2008. Consequences of more extreme precipitation regimes for terrestrial
ecosystems. Bioscience 58 (9), 811–821.
Lavell, A., Oppenheimer, M., Diop, C., Hess, J., Lempert, R., Li, J., Muir-Wood, R.,
Myeong, S., Moser, S., Takeuchi, K., Cardona, O.-D., Hallegatte, S., Lemos, M.,
Little, C., Lotsch, A., Weber, E., 2012. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and
Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation: Special Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,
pp. 25–64.
Li, Y., Zhang, W., Ma, L., Wu, L., Shen, J., Davies, W.J., Oenema, O., Zhang, F., Dou, Z.,
2014. An analysis of China’s grain production: looking back and looking forward.
Food Energy Secur. 3, 19–32.
Li, Y., Guan, K., Schnitkey, G.D., DeLucia, E., Peng, B., 2019. Excessive rainfall leads to
maize yield loss of a comparable magnitude to extreme drought in the United States.
Glob. Chang. Biol. 25 (7), 2325–2337.
Li, Y., Liu, W., Feng, Q., Zhu, M., Yang, L., Zhang, J., Yin, X., 2023. The role of land use
change in affecting ecosystem services and the ecological security pattern of the Hexi
Regions, Northwest China. Sci. Total Environ. 855, 158940.
Li, K., Tong, Z., Liu, X., Zhang, J., Tong, S., 2020. Quantitative assessment and driving
force analysis of vegetation drought risk to climate change: Methodology and
application in Northeast China. Agric. For. Meteorol. 282-283, 107865.
W. Ge et al.
Liu, J., Liu, M., Deng, X., Zhuang, D., Zhang, Z., Luo, D., 2002. The land use and land
cover change database and its relative studies in China. J. Geog. Sci. 12 (3),
275–282.
Meza, I., Siebert, S., Döll, P., Kusche, J., Herbert, C., Eyshi Rezaei, E., Nouri, H.,
Gerdener, H., Popat, E., Frischen, J., Naumann, G., Vogt, J.V., Walz, Y., Sebesvari, Z.,
Hagenlocher, M., 2020. Global-scale drought risk assessment for agricultural
systems. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 20 (2), 695–712.
Padfield, D., Lowe, C., Buckling, A., Ffrench-Constant, R., Jennings, S., Shelley, F.,
Ólafsson, J.S., Yvon-Durocher, G., Jeyasingh, P., 2017. Metabolic compensation
constrains the temperature dependence of gross primary production. Ecol. Lett. 20
(10), 1250–1260.
Parent, C., Capelli, N., Berger, A., Crèvecoeur, M., Dat, J.F., 2008. An overview of plant
responses to soil waterlogging. Plant Stress 2 (1), 20–27.
Peng, S., Ding, Y., Liu, W., Li, Z., 2019. 1 km monthly temperature and precipitation
dataset for China from 1901 to 2017. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 11, 1931–1946.
Piao, S., Ciais, P., Huang, Y., Shen, Z., Peng, S., Li, J., Zhou, L., Liu, H., Ma, Y., Ding, Y.,
Friedlingstein, P., Liu, C., Tan, K., Yu, Y., Zhang, T., Fang, J., 2010. The impacts of
climate change on water resources and agriculture in China. Nature 467 (7311),
43–51.
Running, S.W., Zhao, M. (2015). Daily GPP and annual NPP (MOD17A2/A3) products
NASA Earth Observing System MODIS land algorithm. MOD17 User’s Guide, 2015, 1-
28.
Schlie, E.E.J., Wuebbles, D., Stevens, S., Trapp, R., Jewett, B., 2019. A radar-based study
of severe hail outbreaks over the contiguous United States for 2000–2011. Int. J.
Climatol. 39 (1), 278–291.
Song, L., Li, Y., Ren, Y., Wu, X., Guo, B., Tang, X., Shi, W., Ma, M., Han, X., Zhao, L.,
2019. Divergent vegetation responses to extreme spring and summer droughts in
Southwestern China. Agric. For. Meteorol. 279, 107703.
Urban, D.W., Roberts, M.J., Schlenker, W., Lobell, D.B., 2015. The effects of extremely
wet planting conditions on maize and soybean yields. Clim. Change 130 (2),
247–260.
van Dijk, A.I.J.M., Beck, H.E., Crosbie, R.S., de Jeu, R.A.M., Liu, Y.Y., Podger, G.M.,
Timbal, B., Viney, N.R., 2013. The Millennium Drought in southeast Australia
(2001–2009): Natural and human causes and implications for water resources,
ecosystems, economy, and society. Water Resour. Res. 49 (2), 1040–1057.
Vicente-Serrano S.M., López-Moreno J.I., Beguería S., ’A multi-scalardrought index
sensitive to global warming: The standardized precipitation evapotranspiration
index - SPEI’ (in prep.).
Wan, J.-Z., Wang, C.-J., Qu, H., Liu, R., Zhang, Z.-X., 2018. Vulnerability of forest
vegetation to anthropogenic climate change in China. Sci. Total Environ. 621,
1633–1641.
Wang, X., Xiao, X., Zou, Z., Dong, J., Qin, Y., Doughty, R.B., Menarguez, M.A., Chen, B.,
Wang, J., Ye, H., Ma, J., Zhong, Q., Zhao, B., Li, B., 2020. Gainers and losers of
surface and terrestrial water resources in China during 1989–2016. Nat. Commun.
11 (1), 3471.
Wei, X., He, W., Zhou, Y., Cheng, N., Xiao, J., Bi, W., Liu, Y., Sun, S., Ju, W., 2023.
Increased sensitivity of global vegetation productivity to drought over the recent
three decades. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. e2022JD037504.
11
Journal of Hydrology 623 (2023) 129877
Wu, X., Liu, H., Li, X., Ciais, P., Babst, F., Guo, W., Zhang, C., Magliulo, V., Pavelka, M.,
Liu, S., Huang, Y., Wang, P., Shi, C., Ma, Y., 2018. Differentiating drought legacy
effects on vegetation growth over the temperate Northern Hemisphere. Glob. Chang.
Biol. 24 (1), 504–516.
Xiao, J., Chevallier, F., Gomez, C., Guanter, L., Hicke, J.A., Huete, A.R., Ichii, K., Ni, W.,
Pang, Y., Rahman, A.F., Sun, G., Yuan, W., Zhang, L.i., Zhang, X., 2019. Remote
sensing of the terrestrial carbon cycle: a review of advances over 50 years. Remote
Sens. Environ. 233, 111383.
Xiong, J., Guo, S., Kinouchi, T., 2022. Leveraging machine learning methods to quantify
50 years of dwindling groundwater in India. Sci. Total Environ. 835, 155474.
Xu, C., McDowell, N.G., Fisher, R.A., Wei, L., Sevanto, S., Christoffersen, B.O., Weng, E.,
Middleton, R.S., 2019. Increasing impacts of extreme droughts on vegetation
productivity under climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9 (12), 948–953.
Yu, Z., Ciais, P., Piao, S., Houghton, R.A., Lu, C., Tian, H., Agathokleous, E., Kattel, G.R.,
Sitch, S., Goll, D., Yue, X., Walker, A., Friedlingstein, P., Jain, A.K., Liu, S., Zhou, G.,
2022. Forest expansion dominates China’s land carbon sink since 1980. Nat.
Commun. 13 (1), 5374.
Yu, Y., Liu, J., Wang, H., Liu, M., 2011. Assess the potential of solar irrigation systems for
sustaining pasture lands in arid regions–A case study in Northwestern China. Appl.
Energy 88 (9), 3176–3182.
Zhang, L., Chen, F., Lei, Y., 2020. Climate change and shifts in cropping systems together
exacerbate China’s water scarcity. Environ. Res. Lett. 15 (10), 104060.
Zhang, Q., Kong, D., Singh, V.P., Shi, P., 2017a. Response of vegetation to different time-
scales drought across China: spatiotemporal patterns, causes and implications.
Global Planet. Change 152, 1–11.
Zhang, S., Sadras, V., Chen, X., Zhang, F., 2014. Water use efficiency of dryland maize in
the Loess Plateau of China in response to crop management. Field Crop Res 163,
55–63.
Zhang, Q., Zhang, J., Wang, C., 2017b. Risk assessment of drought disaster in typical area
of corn cultivation in China. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 128 (3-4), 533–540.
Zhang, T., Zhou, J., Yu, P., Li, J., Kang, Y., Zhang, B., 2023. Response of ecosystem gross
primary productivity to drought in northern China based on multi-source remote
sensing data. J. Hydrol. 616, 128808.
Zhao, A., Zhang, A., Cao, S., Liu, X., Liu, J., Cheng, D., 2018. Responses of vegetation
productivity to multi-scale drought in Loess Plateau, China. Catena 163, 165–171.
Zhao, J., Zhang, Q., Zhu, X., Shen, Z., Yu, H., 2020. Drought risk assessment in China:
evaluation framework and influencing factors. Geogr. Sustain. 1 (3), 220–228.
Zheng, X., Huang, S., Peng, J., Leng, G., Huang, Q., Fang, W., Guo, Y., 2022. Flash
droughts identification based on an improved framework and their contrasting
impacts on vegetation over the Loess Plateau China. Water Resour. Res. 58
e2021WR031464.
Zhou, Y., Fu, D., Lu, C., Xu, X., Tang, Q., 2021. Positive effects of ecological restoration
policies on the vegetation dynamics in a typical ecologically vulnerable area of
China. Ecol. Eng. 159, 106087.
Zhou, Y., Dong, J., Cui, Y., Zhao, M., Wang, X., Tang, Q., Zhang, Y., Zhou, S.,
Metternicht, G., Zou, Z., Zhang, G., Xiao, X., 2023. Ecological restoration exacerbates
the agriculture-induced water crisis in North China Region. Agric. For. Meteorol.
331, 109341.