[1]

Bonan GB. 2008. Forests and climate change: forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests. Science 320:1444−1449

doi: 10.1126/science.1155121
[2]

Pan Y, Birdsey RA, Fang J, Houghton R, Kauppi PE, et al. 2011. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world's forests. Science 333:988−993

doi: 10.1126/science.1201609
[3]

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2019. Climate change and land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. doi: 10.1017/9781009157988
[4]

Running SW, Nemani RR, Heinsch FA, Zhao M, Reeves M, et al. 2004. A continuous satellite-derived measure of global terrestrial primary production. BioScience 54:547−560

doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0547:ACSMOG]2.0.CO;2
[5]

Randerson JT, Chapin FS III, Harden JW, Neff JC, Harmon ME. 2002. Net ecosystem production: a comprehensive measure of net carbon accumulation by ecosystems. Ecological Applications 12:937−947

doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0937:NEPACM]2.0.CO;2
[6]

Grant RF, Barr AG, Black TA, Gaumont-Guay D, Iwashita H, et al. 2007. Net ecosystem productivity of boreal jack pine stands regenerating from clearcutting under current and future climates. Global Change Biology 13:1423−1440

doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01363.x
[7]

Lehuger S, Gabrielle B, Cellier P, Loubet B, Roche R, et al. 2010. Predicting the net carbon exchanges of crop rotations in Europe with an agro-ecosystem model. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 139:384−395

doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2010.06.011
[8]

Battin TJ, Luyssaert S, Kaplan LA, Aufdenkampe AK, Richter A, et al. 2009. The boundless carbon cycle. Nature Geoscience 2:598−600

doi: 10.1038/ngeo618
[9]

Guenther AB, Jiang X, Heald CL, Sakulyanontvittaya T, Duhl T, et al. 2012. The model of emissions of gases and aerosols from nature version 2.1 (MEGAN2.1): an extended and updated framework for modeling biogenic emissions. Geoscientific Model Development 5:1471−1492

doi: 10.5194/gmd-5-1471-2012
[10]

Raymond PA, Hartmann J, Lauerwald R, Sobek S, McDonald C, et al. 2013. Global carbon dioxide emissions from inland waters. Nature 503:355−359

doi: 10.1038/nature12760
[11]

Regnier P, Friedlingstein P, Ciais P, Mackenzie FT, Gruber N, et al. 2013. Anthropogenic perturbation of the carbon fluxes from land to ocean. Nature Geoscience 6:597−607

doi: 10.1038/ngeo1830
[12]

Wang G, Oyana T, Zhang M, Adu-Prah S, Zeng S, et al. 2009. Mapping and spatial uncertainty analysis of forest vegetation carbon by combining national forest inventory data and satellite images. Forest Ecology and Management 258:1275−1283

doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2009.06.056
[13]

Marvin DC, Asner GP. 2016. Spatially explicit analysis of field inventories for national forest carbon monitoring. Carbon Balance and Management 11:9

doi: 10.1186/s13021-016-0050-0
[14]

Baldocchi D, Falge E, Gu L, Olson R, Hollinger D, et al. 2001. FLUXNET: a new tool to study the temporal and spatial variability of ecosystem-scale carbon dioxide, water vapor, and energy flux densities. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 82:2415−2434

doi: 10.1175/1520-0477(2001)082<2415:FANTTS>2.3.CO;2
[15]

Aubinet M, Vesala T, Papale D. 2012. Eddy covariance: a practical guide to measurement and data analysis. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-2351-1
[16]

Fayad I, Baghdadi N, Guitet S, Bailly JS, Hérault B, et al. 2016. Aboveground biomass mapping in French Guiana by combining remote sensing, forest inventories and environmental data. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 52:502−514

doi: 10.1016/j.jag.2016.07.015
[17]

Dupuis C, Lejeune P, Michez A, Fayolle A. 2020. How can remote sensing help monitor tropical moist forest degradation? − a systematic review. Remote Sensing 12:1087

doi: 10.3390/rs12071087
[18]

Yu K, Ciais P, Seneviratne SI, Liu Z, Chen HYH, et al. 2022. Field-based tree mortality constraint reduces estimates of model-projected forest carbon sinks. Nature Communications 13:2094

doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-29619-4
[19]

Ameray A, Bergeron Y, Valeria O, Montoro Girona M, Cavard X. 2021. Forest carbon management: a review of silvicultural practices and management strategies across boreal, temperate and tropical forests. Current Forestry Reports 7:245−266

doi: 10.1007/s40725-021-00151-w
[20]

Zhao J, Liu D, Zhu Y, Peng H, Xie H. 2022. A review of forest carbon cycle models on spatiotemporal scales. Journal of Cleaner Production 339:130692

doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130692
[21]

Curtis PS, Gough CM. 2018. Forest aging, disturbance and the carbon cycle. New Phytologist 219:1188−1193

doi: 10.1111/nph.15227
[22]

Mitchard ETA. 2018. The tropical forest carbon cycle and climate change. Nature 559:527−534

doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0300-2
[23]

Malhi Y. 2012. The productivity, metabolism and carbon cycle of tropical forest vegetation. Journal of Ecology 100:65−75

doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01916.x
[24]

Malhi Y, Doughty CE, Goldsmith GR, Metcalfe DB, Girardin CAJ, et al. 2015. The linkages between photosynthesis, productivity, growth and biomass in lowland Amazonian forests. Global Change Biology 21:2283−2295

doi: 10.1111/gcb.12859
[25]

Ming G, Zhang Q, Gong W, Wang B, Hu H, et al. 2023. The characteristics of ecosystem respiration and its components of a representative film-mulched and drip-irrigated cotton field in Northwest China. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 352:108506

doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2023.108506
[26]

Gourlez de la Motte L, Jérôme E, Mamadou O, Beckers Y, Bodson B, et al. 2016. Carbon balance of an intensively grazed permanent grassland in southern Belgium. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 228-229:370−383

doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.06.009
[27]

Zhang H, Lauerwald R, Ciais P, Van Oost K, Guenet B, et al. 2022. Global changes alter the amount and composition of land carbon deliveries to European rivers and seas. Communications Earth & Environment 3:245

doi: 10.1038/s43247-022-00575-7
[28]

Campeau A, Bishop K, Amvrosiadi N, Billett MF, Garnett MH, et al. 2019. Current forest carbon fixation fuels stream CO2 emissions. Nature Communications 10:1876

doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-09922-3
[29]

Peñuelas J, Asensio D, Tholl D, Wenke K, Rosenkranz M, et al. 2014. Biogenic volatile emissions from the soil. Plant, Cell & Environment 37:1866−1891

doi: 10.1111/pce.12340
[30]

Chen Q. 2019. Characteristics of soil profile CO2 concentrations in karst areas and their significance for global carbon cycles and climate change. Earth System Dynamics 10:525−538

doi: 10.5194/esd-10-525-2019
[31]

Zeng S, Kaufmann G, Liu Z. 2022. Natural and anthropogenic driving forces of carbonate weathering and the related carbon sink flux: a model comparison study at global scale. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 36:e2021GB007096

doi: 10.1029/2021GB007096
[32]

Ji Y, Li M, Zhao Q, Geng J, Liu J, et al. 2025. Forest carbon stock ecological risk assessment in Minjiang River basin based on the adaptive cycle model. Ecological Indicators 176:113668

doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2025.113668
[33]

Albrich K, Seidl R, Rammer W, Thom D. 2023. From sink to source: changing climate and disturbance regimes could tip the 21st century carbon balance of an unmanaged mountain forest landscape. Forestry 96:399−409

doi: 10.1093/forestry/cpac022
[34]

Pilli R, Vizzarri M, Chirici G. 2021. Combined effects of natural disturbances and management on forest carbon sequestration: the case of Vaia storm in Italy. Annals of Forest Science 78:46

doi: 10.1007/s13595-021-01043-6
[35]

Thom D, Rammer W, Garstenauer R, Seidl R. 2018. Legacies of past land use have a stronger effect on forest carbon exchange than future climate change in a temperate forest landscape. Biogeosciences 15:5699−5713

doi: 10.5194/bg-15-5699-2018
[36]

Schulze ED, Valentini R, Bouriaud O. 2021. The role of net ecosystem productivity and of inventories in climate change research: the need for 'net ecosystem productivity with harvest', NEPH. Forest Ecosystems 8:15

doi: 10.1186/s40663-021-00294-z
[37]

Ciais P, Bastos A, Chevallier F, Lauerwald R, Poulter B, et al. 2022. Definitions and methods to estimate regional land carbon fluxes for the second phase of the Regional Carbon Cycle Assessment and Processes Project (RECCAP-2). Geoscientific Model Development 15:1289−1316

doi: 10.5194/gmd-15-1289-2022
[38]

Heinrich V, House J, Gibbs DA, Harris N, Herold M, et al. 2023. Mind the gap: reconciling tropical forest carbon flux estimates from earth observation and national reporting requires transparency. Carbon Balance and Management 18:22

doi: 10.1186/s13021-023-00240-2
[39]

Sun W, Liu X. 2020. Review on carbon storage estimation of forest ecosystem and applications in China. Forest Ecosystems 7:4

doi: 10.1186/s40663-019-0210-2
[40]

Mohren G, Hasenauer H, Köhl M, Nabuurs GJ. 2012. Forest inventories for carbon change assessments. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 4:686−695

doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2012.10.002
[41]

Steenberg JWN, Ristow M, Duinker PN, Lapointe-Elmrabti L, MacDonald JD, et al. 2023. A national assessment of urban forest carbon storage and sequestration in Canada. Carbon Balance and Management 18:11

doi: 10.1186/s13021-023-00230-4
[42]

Pan Y, Birdsey RA, Phillips OL, Houghton RA, Fang J, et al. 2024. The enduring world forest carbon sink. Nature 631:563−569

doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07602-x
[43]

Ouyang M, Yang C, Tian D, Pan J, Chen G, et al. 2022. A field-based estimation of moso bamboo forest biomass in China. Forest Ecology and Management 505:119885

doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119885
[44]

Lehtonen A, Linkosalo T, Peltoniemi M, Sievänen R, Mäkipää R, et al. 2016. Forest soil carbon stock estimates in a nationwide inventory: evaluating performance of the ROMULv and Yasso07 models in Finland. Geoscientific Model Development 9:4169−4183

doi: 10.5194/gmd-9-4169-2016
[45]

Fu L, Zhao Y, Xu Z, Wu B. 2015. Spatial and temporal dynamics of forest aboveground carbon stocks in response to climate and environmental changes. Journal of Soils and Sediments 15:249−259

doi: 10.1007/s11368-014-1050-x
[46]

Luyssaert S, Ciais P, Piao SL, Schulze ED, Jung M, et al. 2010. The European carbon balance. Part 3: forests. Global Change Biology 16:1429−1450

doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02056.x
[47]

Hoffmann M, Jurisch N, Garcia Alba J, Albiac Borraz E, Schmidt M, et al. 2017. Detecting small-scale spatial heterogeneity and temporal dynamics of soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks: a comparison between automatic chamber-derived C budgets and repeated soil inventories. Biogeosciences 14:1003−1019

doi: 10.5194/bg-14-1003-2017
[48]

Khanal S, Boer MM. 2023. Plot-level estimates of aboveground biomass and soil organic carbon stocks from Nepal's forest inventory. Scientific Data 10:406

doi: 10.1038/s41597-023-02314-9
[49]

Ferster CJ, Trofymow J, Coops NC, Chen B, Black TA. 2015. Comparison of carbon-stock changes, eddy-covariance carbon fluxes and model estimates in coastal Douglas-fir stands in British Columbia. Forest Ecosystems 2:13

doi: 10.1186/s40663-015-0038-3
[50]

Röhling S, Dunger K, Kändler G, Klatt S, Riedel T, et al. 2016. Comparison of calculation methods for estimating annual carbon stock change in German forests under forest management in the German greenhouse gas inventory. Carbon Balance and Management 11:12

doi: 10.1186/s13021-016-0053-x
[51]

Zhu N, Wang J, Luo D, Wang X, Shen C, et al. 2024. Using eddy covariance observations to determine the carbon sequestration characteristics of subalpine forests in the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau. Biogeosciences 21:3509−3522

doi: 10.5194/bg-21-3509-2024
[52]

Baldocchi D. 2014. Measuring fluxes of trace gases and energy between ecosystems and the atmosphere – the state and future of the eddy covariance method. Global Change Biology 20:3600−3609

doi: 10.1111/gcb.12649
[53]

Baldocchi DD. 2020. How eddy covariance flux measurements have contributed to our understanding of Global Change Biology. Global Change Biology 26:242−260

doi: 10.1111/gcb.14807
[54]

Jung M, Schwalm C, Migliavacca M, Walther S, Camps-Valls G, et al. 2020. Scaling carbon fluxes from eddy covariance sites to globe: synthesis and evaluation of the FLUXCOM approach. Biogeosciences 17:1343−1365

doi: 10.5194/bg-17-1343-2020
[55]

van Gorsel E, Leuning R, Cleugh HA, Keith H, Kirschbaum MUF, et al. 2008. Application of an alternative method to derive reliable estimates of nighttime respiration from eddy covariance measurements in moderately complex topography. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 148:1174−1180

doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2008.01.015
[56]

Moffat AM, Papale D, Reichstein M, Hollinger DY, Richardson AD, et al. 2007. Comprehensive comparison of gap-filling techniques for eddy covariance net carbon fluxes. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 147:209−232

doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2007.08.011
[57]

Lehner M, Rotach MW. 2023. The performance of a time-varying filter time under stable conditions over mountainous terrain. Boundary-Layer Meteorology 188:523−551

doi: 10.1007/s10546-023-00824-y
[58]

Lucas-Moffat AM, Schrader F, Herbst M, Brümmer C. 2022. Multiple gap-filling for eddy covariance datasets. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 325:109114

doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2022.109114
[59]

Vekuri H, Tuovinen JP, Kulmala L, Papale D, Kolari P, et al. 2023. A widely-used eddy covariance gap-filling method creates systematic bias in carbon balance estimates. Scientific Reports 13:1720

doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-28827-2
[60]

Chu H, Luo X, Ouyang Z, Chan WS, Dengel S, et al. 2021. Representativeness of eddy-covariance flux footprints for areas surrounding AmeriFlux sites. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 301–302:108350

doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2021.108350
[61]

Hayek MN, Wehr R, Longo M, Hutyra LR, Wiedemann K, et al. 2018. A novel correction for biases in forest eddy covariance carbon balance. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 250–251:90−101

doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.12.186
[62]

Arriga N, Rannik Ü, Aubinet M, Carrara A, Vesala T, et al. 2017. Experimental validation of footprint models for eddy covariance CO2 flux measurements above grassland by means of natural and artificial tracers. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 242:75−84

doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.04.006
[63]

Casas-Ruiz JP, Bodmer P, Bona KA, Butman D, Couturier M, et al. 2023. Integrating terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems to constrain estimates of land-atmosphere carbon exchange. Nature Communications 14:1571

doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-37232-2
[64]

Xiao J, Chevallier F, Gomez C, Guanter L, Hicke JA, et al. 2019. Remote sensing of the terrestrial carbon cycle: a review of advances over 50 years. Remote Sensing of Environment 233:111383

doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2019.111383
[65]

Wang T, Zhang Y, Yue C, Wang Y, Wang X, et al. 2025. Progress and challenges in remotely sensed terrestrial carbon fluxes. Geo-Spatial Information Science 28:1−21

doi: 10.1080/10095020.2024.2336599
[66]

Lang N, Jetz W, Schindler K, Wegner JD. 2023. A high-resolution canopy height model of the Earth. Nature Ecology & Evolution 7:1778−1789

doi: 10.1038/s41559-023-02206-6
[67]

Su Y, Zhang W, Liu B, Tian X, Chen S, et al. 2022. Forest carbon flux simulation using multi-source data and incorporation of remotely sensed model with process-based model. Remote Sensing 14:4766

doi: 10.3390/rs14194766
[68]

Xue J, Su B. 2017. Significant remote sensing vegetation indices: a review of developments and applications. Journal of Sensors 2017:1353691

doi: 10.1155/2017/1353691
[69]

Gilabert MA, Sánchez-Ruiz S, Moreno Á. 2017. Annual gross primary production from vegetation indices: a theoretically sound approach. Remote Sensing 9:193

doi: 10.3390/rs9030193
[70]

Zhu W, Xie Z, Zhao C, Zheng Z, Qiao K, et al. 2024. Remote sensing of terrestrial gross primary productivity: a review of advances in theoretical foundation, key parameters and methods. GIScience & Remote Sensing 61:2318846

doi: 10.1080/15481603.2024.2318846
[71]

Huete A, Didan K, Miura T, Rodriguez EP, Gao X, et al. 2002. Overview of the radiometric and biophysical performance of the MODIS vegetation indices. Remote Sensing of Environment 83:195−213

doi: 10.1016/S0034-4257(02)00096-2
[72]

Wang M, Sun R, Xiao Z. 2018. Estimation of forest canopy height and aboveground biomass from spaceborne LiDAR and Landsat imageries in Maryland. Remote Sensing 10:344

doi: 10.3390/rs10020344
[73]

Konings AG, Rao K, Steele-Dunne SC. 2019. Macro to micro: microwave remote sensing of plant water content for physiology and ecology. New Phytologist 223:1166−1172

doi: 10.1111/nph.15808
[74]

Leng J, Chen JM, Li W, Luo X, Xu M, et al. 2024. Global datasets of hourly carbon and water fluxes simulated using a satellite-based process model with dynamic parameterizations. Earth System Science Data 16:1283−1300

doi: 10.5194/essd-16-1283-2024
[75]

Zhang Q, Xu L, Zhang M, Wang Z, Gu Z, et al. 2020. Uncertainty analysis of remote sensing pretreatment for biomass estimation on landsat OLI and Landsat ETM+. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 9:48

doi: 10.3390/ijgi9010048
[76]

Fassnacht FE, White JC, Wulder MA, Næsset E. 2024. Remote sensing in forestry: current challenges, considerations and directions. Forestry 97:11−37

doi: 10.1093/forestry/cpad024
[77]

Fu Y, Liao H, Tian X, Gao H, Jia B, et al. 2021. Impact of prior terrestrial carbon fluxes on simulations of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 126:e2021JD034794

doi: 10.1029/2021JD034794
[78]

Fang J, Fang J, Chen B, Zhang H, Dilawar A, et al. 2024. Assessing spatial representativeness of global flux tower eddy-covariance measurements using data from FLUXNET2015. Scientific Data 11:569

doi: 10.1038/s41597-024-03291-3
[79]

Campioli M, Malhi Y, Vicca S, Luyssaert S, Papale D, et al. 2016. Evaluating the convergence between eddy-covariance and biometric methods for assessing carbon budgets of forests. Nature Communications 7:13717

doi: 10.1038/ncomms13717
[80]

Zhu XJ, Fan RX, Chen Z, Wang QF, Yu GR. 2022. Eddy covariance-based differences in net ecosystem productivity values and spatial patterns between naturally regenerating forests and planted forests in China. Scientific Reports 12:20556

doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-25025-4
[81]

Familusi I, Gebremedhin M, Gyawali B, Chiluwal A, Brotzge J. 2025. A deciduous forest's CO2 exchange within the mixed-humid climate of Kentucky, USA. Forests 16:562

doi: 10.3390/f16040562
[82]

Yan Y, Wang X, Wohlfahrt G, Huang N. 2025. Seasonal and interannual variations of soil heterotrophic respiration and autotrophic respiration in subtropical forests of southeast China: independent process-based models. Geoscience Letters 12:27

doi: 10.1186/s40562-025-00399-1
[83]

Evans LR, Pierson D, Lajtha K. 2020. Dissolved organic carbon production and flux under long-term litter manipulations in a Pacific Northwest old-growth forest. Biogeochemistry 149:75−86

doi: 10.1007/s10533-020-00667-6
[84]

Tan S, Yue K, Peñuelas J, Svenning JC, Van Meerbeek K, et al. 2025. Forest streams may discharge one tenth of the annual total global forest carbon sink through dissolved organic carbon. The Innovation Geoscience 3:100148

doi: 10.59717/j.xinn-geo.2025.100148
[85]

Petersen RC, Holst T, Wu C, Krejci R, Chan JK, et al. 2025. BVOC and speciated monoterpene concentrations and fluxes at a Scandinavian boreal forest. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 25:17205−17236

doi: 10.5194/acp-25-17205-2025
[86]

Vorster AG, Evangelista PH, Stovall AEL, Ex S. 2020. Variability and uncertainty in forest biomass estimates from the tree to landscape scale: the role of allometric equations. Carbon Balance and Management 15:8

doi: 10.1186/s13021-020-00143-6
[87]

Saiz G, Albrecht A. 2016. Methods for smallholder quantification of soil carbon stocks and stock changes. In Methods for Measuring Greenhouse Gas Balances and Evaluating Mitigation Options in Smallholder Agriculture, eds. Rosenstock TS, Rufino MC, Butterbach-Bahl K, Wollenberg L, Richards M. Cham: Springer. pp.135–162 doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-29794-1_7
[88]

Yang RM, Zhang GL, Yang F, Zhi JJ, Yang F, et al. 2016. Precise estimation of soil organic carbon stocks in the northeast Tibetan Plateau. Scientific Reports 6:21842

doi: 10.1038/srep21842
[89]

Peri PL, Gaitán J, Mastrangelo M, Nosetto M, Villagra PE, et al. 2024. Soil organic carbon stocks in native forest of Argentina: a useful surrogate for mitigation and conservation planning under climate variability. Ecological Processes 13:1

doi: 10.1186/s13717-023-00474-5
[90]

Yao J, Gao Z, Huang J, Liu H, Wang G. 2021. Technical note: uncertainties in eddy covariance CO2 fluxes in a semiarid sagebrush ecosystem caused by gap-filling approaches. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 21:15589−15603

doi: 10.5194/acp-21-15589-2021
[91]

Wang H, Jia G, Zhang A, Miao C. 2016. Assessment of spatial representativeness of eddy covariance flux data from flux tower to regional grid. Remote Sensing 8:742

doi: 10.3390/rs8090742
[92]

Liu J, Chen Z, Zhao Z. 2025. Assessing the accuracy of forest above-ground biomass and carbon storage estimation by meta-analysis based close-range remote sensing. Forestry Research 5:e017

doi: 10.48130/forres-0025-0017
[93]

Su Y, Wu Z, Zheng X, Qiu Y, Ma Z, et al. 2025. Harmonizing remote sensing and ground data for forest aboveground biomass estimation. Ecological Informatics 86:103002

doi: 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2025.103002
[94]

Waqas MA, Hashemi F, Mogensen L, Brandão M, De Rosa M, et al. 2025. Methods for quantifying and incorporating biomass carbon sequestration by trees in life cycle assessments. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 30(12):2826−2848

doi: 10.1007/s11367-025-02549-1
[95]

Kurz WA, Dymond CC, White TM, Stinson G, Shaw CH, et al. 2009. CBM-CFS3: a model of carbon-dynamics in forestry and land-use change implementing IPCC standards. Ecological Modelling 220:480−504

doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.10.018
[96]

Keenan TF, Williams CA. 2018. The terrestrial carbon sink. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 43:219−243

doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-030204
[97]

Zhou Y, Lau Y, Tan ZD, Tang H, Taylor D. 2025. Transparency, robustness, and consistency in aboveground forest carbon quantification methodologies used for tropical forest carbon projects: a review in Southeast Asia. Carbon Balance and Management 20:60

doi: 10.1186/s13021-025-00352-x
[98]

Ma T, Zhang C, Ji L, Zuo Z, Beckline M, et al. 2024. Development of forest aboveground biomass estimation, its problems and future solutions: a review. Ecological Indicators 159:111653

doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2024.111653
[99]

Hou Y, Hu N, Teng C, Zheng L, Zhang J, et al. 2025. Monitoring and evaluation of ecological restoration effectiveness: a case study of the Liaohe River Estuary wetland. Sustainability 17:2973

doi: 10.3390/su17072973
[100]

Dokoohaki H, Morrison BD, Raiho A, Serbin SP, Zarada K, et al. 2022. Development of an open-source regional data assimilation system in PEcAn v. 1.7.2: application to carbon cycle reanalysis across the contiguous US using SIPNET. Geoscientific Model Development 15:3233−3252

doi: 10.5194/gmd-15-3233-2022
[101]

Liu J, Sleeter BM, Zhu Z, Cochrane MA, Zhou Q, et al. 2025. Land change, fire, and climate weaken carbon sink in the conterminous United States. Science Advances 11:eadx7823

doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adx7823
[102]

Cui J, Deng O, Zheng M, Zhang X, Bian Z, et al. 2024. Warming exacerbates global inequality in forest carbon and nitrogen cycles. Nature Communications 15:9185

doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53518-5