The accurate assessment of the global gross primary productivity (GPP) of vegetation is the key to estimating the global carbon cycle. Temperature (Ts) and soil moisture (SM) are essential for vegetation growth. It is acknowledged that the global Ts has shown an increasing trend, yet SM has shown a decreasing trend. However, the importance of SM and Ts changes on the productivity of global ecosystems remains unclear, as SM and Ts are strongly coupled through soil‐atmosphere interactions. Using solar‐induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF) as a proxy for GPP and by decoupling SM and Ts changes, our investigation shows Ts plays a more important role in SIF in 60% of the vegetation areas. Overall, increased Ts promotes SIF by mitigating the resistance from SM’s reduction. However, the importance of SM and Ts varies, given different vegetation types. The results show that in the humid zone, the variation of Ts plays a more important role in SIF, but in the arid and semi‐arid zones, the variation of SM plays a more important role; in the semi‐humid zone, the disparity in the importance of SM and Ts is difficult to unravel. In addition, our results suggest that SIF is very sensitive to aridity gradients in arid and semi‐arid ecosystems. By decoupling the intertwined SM‐Ts impact on SIF, our study provides essential evidence that benefits future investigation on the factors the influence ecosystem productivity at regional or global scales.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Vegetation phenology is a key indicator of vegetation-climate interactions and carbon sink changes in ecosystems. Therefore, it is very important to understand the temporal and spatial variability of vegetation phenology and the driving climatic determinants [e.g., temperature (Ts) and soil moisture (SM)]. Vegetation greenness and photosynthetic phenology were derived using the double logistic (DL) method to enhance vegetation index (EVI) and solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF) spring and autumn phenology, respectively. The growing season length (GSL) of greenness phenology (about 100 days) derived EVI was longer than GSL of photosynthetic phenology (about 80 days) derived SIF. Although their overall spatiotemporal pattern trends were consistent, photosynthetic phenology varied 1.4 to 3.1 times more than greenness phenology over time. In addition, SIF-based photosynthetic phenology and EVI-based greenness phenology showed consistent factors of drivers but differed to some extent in spatial patterns and the most relevant preseason dates. Spring photosynthetic phenology was mainly influenced by pre-season mean cumulative Ts (about 90 days). However, greenness phenology was controlled by both pre-seasons mean cumulative Ts [(about 55 days) and mean cumulative SM (about 40 days)]. Autumn photosynthetic phenology was controlled by both periods’ mean cumulative Ts [(about 20 days) and SM (about 20 days)], but autumn greenness phenology was mainly influenced by pre-season mean cumulative Ts (85 days). The comparison analysis of SIF and EVI phenology helps to understand the difference between photosynthetic phenology and greenness phenology at a regional scale.