Canopy structure–biomass coupling strengthens with age under stage-dependent environmental controls during China's forest recovery

Kai Cheng; Ang Chen; Yixuan Zhang; Qinghua Guo

doi:10.59717/j.xinn-geo.2026.100228

The Innovation Geoscience > Accepted

ARTICLE Open Access

Cite PDF

Canopy structure–biomass coupling strengthens with age under stage-dependent environmental controls during China's forest recovery

1.
Institute of Remote Sensing and Geographic Information System, School of Earth and Space Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100087, China
2.
Institute of Ecology, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100087, China

More Information

Corresponding author: guo.qinghua@pku.edu.cn
Received Date: December 03, 2025

Accepted Date: May 08, 2026

Published Online: May 11, 2026

The Innovation Geoscience https://doi.org/10.59717/j.xinn-geo.2026.100228 | Cite this article

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

DownLoad: Full size image

PUBLIC SUMMARY

PUBLIC SUMMARY
1. Stand age significantly strengthens the coupling of canopy structural complexity and biomass density.
  
  Early-established structural fingerprints provide stable, biome-specific benchmarks for recovery.
  
  Forest structure recovery drivers shift dynamically from temperature, to soil, and precipitation.

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT

Forest restoration is a critical nature-based solution, yet our understanding of its structural development often relies on static, universal assumptions. This study challenges that paradigm by revealing the dynamic, context-dependent principles of forest recovery. By integrating multisource remote sensing data over China’s 30-year period of natural forest regeneration, we find that the positive coupling between canopy structural complexity and aboveground biomass strengthens significantly with stand age. We found that distinct forest biomes exhibit unique structural fingerprints that are established early and persist through early restoration. Crucially, these recovery pathways are characterized by a predictable shift in dominant environmental drivers: from initial filtering mainly by temperature to mid-stage limitation by soil resources, and finally to regulation by precipitation in more mature stands. This work presents a dynamic framework for establishing biome-specific restoration targets and developing adaptive management strategies to increase global ecosystem resilience.
- Forest restoration /
- canopy structure complexity /
- aboveground biomass density /
- remote sensing /
- environmental drivers

FullText(HTML)

REFERENCES

[1]	Hua F., Bruijnzeel L. A., Meli P., et al. (2022). The biodiversity and ecosystem service contributions and trade-offs of forest restoration approaches. Science 376:839−844. DOI:10.1126/science.abl4649 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[2]	Williams B. A., Beyer H. L., Fagan M. E., et al. (2024). Global potential for natural regeneration in deforested tropical regions. Nature 636:131−137. DOI:10.1038/s41586-024-08106-4 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[3]	Chazdon R. and Brancalion P. (2019). Restoring forests as a means to many ends. Science 365:24−25. DOI:10.1126/science.aax9539 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[4]	Erbaugh J. T., Pradhan N., Adams J., et al. (2020). Global forest restoration and the importance of prioritizing local communities. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4:1472−1476. DOI:10.1038/s41559-020-01282-2 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[5]	Robinson N., Drever C. R., Gibbs D. A., et al. (2025). Protect young secondary forests for optimum carbon removal. Nat. Clim. Change 15:793−800. DOI:10.1038/s41558-025-02355-5 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[6]	Camarretta N., Harrison P. A., Bailey T., et al. (2020). Monitoring forest structure to guide adaptive management of forest restoration: A review of remote sensing approaches. New For. 51:573−596. DOI:10.1007/s11056-019-09754-5 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[7]	Rodrigues R. R., Lima R. A. F., Gandolfi S., et al. (2009). On the restoration of high diversity forests: 30 years of experience in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Biol. Conserv. 142:1242−1251. DOI:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.12.008 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[8]	Chaves R. B., Durigan G., Brancalion P. H. S., et al. (2015). On the need of legal frameworks for assessing restoration projects success: New perspectives from São Paulo state (Brazil). Restor. Ecol. 23:754−759. DOI:10.1111/rec.12267 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[9]	Fu X., Zhang Z., Cao L., et al. (2021). Assessment of approaches for monitoring forest structure dynamics using bi-temporal digital aerial photogrammetry point clouds. Remote Sens. Environ. 255:112300. DOI:10.1016/j.rse.2021.112300 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[10]	Masek J. G., Hayes D. J., Joseph Hughes M., et al. (2015). The role of remote sensing in process-scaling studies of managed forest ecosystems. For. Ecol. Manage. 355:109−123. DOI:10.1016/j.foreco.2015.05.032 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[11]	Santoro G. B., Molin P. G., Viveiros J. M. S. M., et al. (2025). Monitoring the structure of restored forests and assessing aboveground carbon density through canopy metrics derived from digital aerial photogrammetry and LiDAR. Restor. Ecol. 33:e70077. DOI:10.1111/rec.70077 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[12]	Ruiz-Jaén M. C. and Aide T. M. (2005). Vegetation structure, species diversity, and ecosystem processes as measures of restoration success. For. Ecol. Manage. 218:159−173. DOI:10.1016/j.foreco.2005.07.008 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[13]	De Almeida D. R. A., Broadbent E. N., Ferreira M. P., et al. (2021). Monitoring restored tropical forest diversity and structure through UAV-borne hyperspectral and lidar fusion. Remote Sens. Environ. 264:112582. DOI:10.1016/j.rse.2021.112582 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[14]	Liu X., Ma Q., Wu X., et al. (2022). A novel entropy-based method to quantify forest canopy structural complexity from multiplatform lidar point clouds. Remote Sens. Environ. 282:113280. DOI:10.1016/j.rse.2022.113280 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[15]	Hu T., Liu X., Wu X., et al. (2025). Advance in forest canopy structural complexity research. J Remote Sens-Prc. 29:83−101. DOI:10.11834/jrs.20244007 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[16]	de Conto T., Armston J. and Dubayah R. (2024). Characterizing the structural complexity of the Earth’s forests with spaceborne lidar. Nat. Commun. 15:8116. DOI:10.1038/s41467-024-52468-2 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[17]	Liu X., Feng Y., Hu T., et al. (2024). Enhancing ecosystem productivity and stability with increasing canopy structural complexity in global forests. Sci. Adv. 10:eadl1947. DOI:10.1126/sciadv.adl1947 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[18]	Fahey C., Choi D., Wang J., et al. (2025). Canopy complexity drives positive effects of tree diversity on productivity in two tree diversity experiments. Ecology 106:e4500. DOI:10.1002/ecy.4500 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[19]	LaRue E. A., Fahey R. T., Alveshere B. C., et al. (2023). A theoretical framework for the ecological role of three-dimensional structural diversity. Front. Ecol. Environ. 21:4−13. DOI:10.1002/fee.2587 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[20]	Gough C. M., Atkins J. W., Fahey R. T., et al. (2019). High rates of primary production in structurally complex forests. Ecology 100:e02864. DOI:10.1002/ecy.2864 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[21]	Chazdon R. L., Letcher S. G., van Breugel M., et al. (2006). Rates of change in tree communities of secondary neotropical forests following major disturbances. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 362:273−289. DOI:10.1098/rstb.2006.1990 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[22]	Poorter L., Bongers F., Aide T. M., et al. (2016). Biomass resilience of Neotropical secondary forests. Nature 530:211−214. DOI:10.1038/nature16512 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[23]	Poorter H., Niklas K. J., Reich P. B., et al. (2012). Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: meta-analyses of interspecific variation and environmental control. New Phytol. 193:30−50. DOI:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03952.x View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[24]	Ehbrecht M., Seidel D., Annighöfer P., et al. (2021). Global patterns and climatic controls of forest structural complexity. Nat. Commun. 12:519. DOI:10.1038/s41467-020-20767-z View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[25]	Bazzaz F. A. (1990). The response of natural ecosystems to the rising global CO₂ levels. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. S. 21:167−196. DOI:10.1146/annurev.es.21.110190.001123 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[26]	Cheng K., Zhang Y., Ren Y., et al. (2025). Natural forest restoration potential to mitigate climate change in China. Earths Future 13:e2024EF005794. DOI:10.1029/2024EF005794 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[27]	Bastin J.-F., Finegold Y., Garcia C., et al. (2019). The global tree restoration potential. Science 365:76−79. DOI:10.1126/science.aax0848 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[28]	Cheng K., Zhang Y., Yang H., et al. (2025). China’s naturally regenerated forests currently have greater aboveground carbon accumulation rates than newly planted forests. Commun. Earth Environ. 6:345. DOI:10.1038/s43247-025-02323-z View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[29]	Nagy R. C., Rastetter E. B., Neill C., et al. (2017). Nutrient limitation in tropical secondary forests following different management practices. Ecol. Appl. 27:734−755. DOI:10.1002/eap.1478 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[30]	Phillips O. L., Aragão L. E. O. C., Lewis S. L., et al. (2009). Drought sensitivity of the amazon rainforest. Science 323:1344−1347. DOI:10.1126/science.1164033 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[31]	Stephenson N. L., Das A. J., Condit R., et al. (2014). Rate of tree carbon accumulation increases continuously with tree size. Nature 507:90−93. DOI:10.1038/nature12914 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[32]	Chazdon R. L., Broadbent E. N., Rozendaal D. M. A., et al. (2016). Carbon sequestration potential of second-growth forest regeneration in the Latin American tropics. Sci. Adv. 2:e1501639. DOI:10.1126/sciadv.1501639 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[33]	Pugh T. A. M., Lindeskog M., Smith B., et al. (2019). Role of forest regrowth in global carbon sink dynamics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 116:4382−4387. DOI:10.1073/pnas.1810512116 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[34]	Evans M. E. K., Adler P. B., Angert A. L., et al. (2025). Reconsidering space-for-time substitution in climate change ecology. Nat. Clim. Change 15:809−812. DOI:10.1038/s41558-025-02392-0 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[35]	Duncanson L., Kellner J. R., Armston J., et al. (2022). Aboveground biomass density models for NASA’s global ecosystem dynamics investigation (GEDI) lidar mission. Remote Sens. Environ. 270:112845. DOI:10.1016/j.rse.2021.112845 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[36]	Liang J., Gamarra J. G. P., Picard N., et al. (2022). Co-limitation towards lower latitudes shapes global forest diversity gradients. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 6:1423−1437. DOI:10.1038/s41559-022-01831-x View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[37]	Liu F., Wu H., Zhao Y., et al. (2022). Mapping high resolution national soil information grids of China. Sci. Bull. 67:328−340. DOI:10.1016/j.scib.2021.10.013 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[38]	Su Y., Guo Q., Hu T., et al. (2020). An updated vegetation map of China (1:1000000). Sci. Bull. 65:1125−1136. DOI:10.1016/j.scib.2020.04.004 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[39]	Chazdon and Lee R. (2014). Second growth: The promise of tropical forest regeneration in an age of deforestation. DOI:10.7208/chicago/9780226118109.001.0001 View in Article Google Scholar
[40]	Griscom B. W., Adams J., Ellis P. W., et al. (2017). Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114:11645−11650. DOI:10.1073/pnas.1710465114 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[41]	Perea S. (2025). Listening to forest recovery. Nat. Rev. Biodivers. 1:496−496. DOI:10.1038/s44358-025-00073-6 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[42]	Saatchi S. S., Harris N. L., Brown S., et al. (2011). Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions across three continents. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108:9899−9904. DOI:10.1073/pnas.1019576108 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[43]	Avitabile V., Herold M., Heuvelink G. B. M., et al. (2016). An integrated pan-tropical biomass map using multiple reference datasets. Global Change Biol. 22:1406−1420. DOI:10.1111/gcb.13139 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[44]	McDowell N. G., Allen C. D., Anderson-Teixeira K., et al. (2020). Pervasive shifts in forest dynamics in a changing world. Science 368:eaaz9463. DOI:10.1126/science.aaz9463 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[45]	Binkley D., Stape J. L., Ryan M. G., et al. (2002). Age-related decline in forest ecosystem growth: An individual-tree, stand-structure hypothesis. Ecosystems 5:58−67. DOI:10.1007/s10021-001-0055-7 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[46]	Wright I. J., Reich P. B., Westoby M., et al. (2004). The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428:821−827. DOI:10.1038/nature02403 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[47]	Kunstler G., Falster D., Coomes D. A., et al. (2016). Plant functional traits have globally consistent effects on competition. Nature 529:204−207. DOI:10.1038/nature16476 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[48]	Reich P. B. (2014). The world-wide ‘fast–slow’ plant economics spectrum: A traits manifesto. J. Ecol. 102:275−301. DOI:10.1111/1365-2745.12211 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[49]	Pretzsch H. (2014). Canopy space filling and tree crown morphology in mixed-species stands compared with monocultures. For. Ecol. Manage. 327:251−264. DOI:10.1016/j.foreco.2014.04.027 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[50]	Morin X. (2015). Species richness promotes canopy packing: A promising step towards a better understanding of the mechanisms driving the diversity effects on forest functioning. Funct. Ecol. 29:993−994. DOI:10.1111/1365-2435.12473 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[51]	Condit R., Engelbrecht B. M. J., Pino D., et al. (2013). Species distributions in response to individual soil nutrients and seasonal drought across a community of tropical trees. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110:5064−5068. DOI:10.1073/pnas.1218042110 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[52]	Seidl R., Thom D., Kautz M., et al. (2017). Forest disturbances under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 7:395−402. DOI:10.1038/nclimate3303 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[53]	Hatfield J. L. and Prueger J. H. (2015). Temperature extremes: Effect on plant growth and development. Weather Clim. Extremes 10:4−10. DOI:10.1016/j.wace.2015.08.001 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[54]	Buira A., Fernández-Mazuecos M., Aedo C., et al. (2021). The contribution of the edaphic factor as a driver of recent plant diversification in a Mediterranean biodiversity hotspot. J. Ecol. 109:987−999. DOI:10.1111/1365-2745.13527 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[55]	Indoria A. K., Sharma K. L. and Reddy K. S. (2020). Chapter 18 - Hydraulic properties of soil under warming climate. In climate change and soil interactions, M.N.V. Prasad, and M. Pietrzykowski, eds. (Elsevier), pp:473-508. DOI:10.1016/B978-0-12-818032-7.00018-7 View in Article Google Scholar
[56]	Štraus D., Redondo M. Á., Castaño C., et al. (2024). Plant–soil feedbacks among boreal forest species. J. Ecol. 112:138−151. DOI:10.1111/1365-2745.14224 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[57]	Nimalka Sanjeewani H. K., Samarasinghe D. P. and De Costa W. A. J. M. (2024). Influence of elevation and the associated variation of climate and vegetation on selected soil properties of tropical rainforests across a wide elevational gradient. CATENA 237:107823. DOI:10.1016/j.catena.2024.107823 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[58]	Muscarella R., Kolyaie S., Morton D. C., et al. (2020). Effects of topography on tropical forest structure depend on climate context. J. Ecol. 108:145−159. DOI:10.1111/1365-2745.13261 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[59]	Wang G., Yang L., Wu X., et al. (2025). Density-dependent selection effect of dominant species rather than species diversity increased aboveground biomass accumulation in a temperate oak forest. For. Ecol. Manage. 582:122563. DOI:10.1016/j.foreco.2025.122563 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[60]	Kang H., Xue Y., Cui Y., et al. (2024). Nutrient limitation mediates soil microbial community structure and stability in forest restoration. Sci. Total Environ. 935:173266. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.173266 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[61]	Spohn M. and Stendahl J. (2024). Soil carbon and nitrogen contents in forest soils are related to soil texture in interaction with pH and metal cations. Geoderma 441:116746. DOI:10.1016/j.geoderma.2023.116746 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[62]	Iroshaka Gregory Marcelus Cooray P. L., Chalmers G. and Chittleborough D. (2025). A review of properties of organic matter fractions in soils of mangrove wetlands: Implications for carbon storage. Soil Biol. Biochem. 201:109660. DOI:10.1016/j.soilbio.2024.109660 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[63]	Van Sundert K., Horemans J. A., Stendahl J., et al. (2018). The influence of soil properties and nutrients on conifer forest growth in Sweden, and the first steps in developing a nutrient availability metric. Biogeosciences 15:3475−3496. DOI:10.5194/bg-15-3475-2018 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[64]	Pan Y., Fan Y., Chen C., et al. (2024). Does soil nutrient heterogeneity affect the competition and adaptation of Vernicia montana. For. Ecol. Manage. 561:121877. DOI:10.1016/j.foreco.2024.121877 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[65]	Russo S. E., Davies S. J., King D. A., et al. (2005). Soil-related performance variation and distributions of tree species in a Bornean rain forest. J. Ecol. 93:879−889. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2005.01030.x View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[66]	Zhang B., Jackson T. D., Coomes D. A., et al. (2025). Soils and topography drive large and predictable shifts in canopy dynamics across tropical forest landscapes. New Phytol. 247:1666−1679. DOI:10.1111/nph.70300 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[67]	Tao S., Guo Q., Li C., et al. (2016). Global patterns and determinants of forest canopy height. Ecology 97:3265−3270. DOI:10.1002/ecy.1580 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[68]	Murphy B. A., May J. A., Butterworth B. J., et al. (2022). Unraveling forest complexity: Resource use efficiency, disturbance, and the structure-function relationship. J. Geophys. Res-biogeo. 127:e2021JG006748. DOI:10.1029/2021JG006748 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[69]	Jiang S., Zhao P., Ma Q., et al. (2025). Evidence of threat from short-timescale dry season drought on tree radial growth in China’s humid subtropical forest. Agric. For. Meteorol. 373:110744. DOI:10.1016/j.agrformet.2025.110744 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[70]	Su J., Gou X., HilleRisLambers J., et al. (2021). Increasing climate sensitivity of subtropical conifers along an aridity gradient. For. Ecol. Manage. 482:118841. DOI:10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118841 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[71]	Njoroge B., Li Y., Otieno D., et al. (2022). Seasonal droughts drive up carbon gain in a subtropical forest. J. Plant Ecol. 16:Page−range. DOI:10.1093/jpe/rtac088 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[72]	Laflower D. M., Hurteau M. D., Koch G. W., et al. (2016). Climate-driven changes in forest succession and the influence of management on forest carbon dynamics in the Puget Lowlands of Washington State, USA. For. Ecol. Manage. 362:194−204. DOI:10.1016/j.foreco.2015.12.015 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[73]	Campbell J. L., Driscoll C. T., Jones J. A., et al. (2022). Forest and freshwater ecosystem responses to climate change and variability at US LTER Sites. BioScience 72:851−870. DOI:10.1093/biosci/biab124 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[74]	Grimm N. B., Chapin III F. S., Bierwagen B., et al. (2013). The impacts of climate change on ecosystem structure and function. Front. Ecol. Environ. 11:474−482. DOI:10.1890/120282 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[75]	Xie Y., Wang X. and Silander J. A. (2015). Deciduous forest responses to temperature, precipitation, and drought imply complex climate change impacts. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112:13585−13590. DOI:10.1073/pnas.1509991112 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[76]	Gu H., Qiao Y., Xi Z., et al. (2022). Warming-induced increase in carbon uptake is linked to earlier spring phenology in temperate and boreal forests. Nat. Commun. 13:3698. DOI:10.1038/s41467-022-31496-w View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[77]	Zhang X., Rademacher T., Liu H., et al. (2023). Fading regulation of diurnal temperature ranges on drought-induced growth loss for drought-tolerant tree species. Nat. Commun. 14:6916. DOI:10.1038/s41467-023-42654-z View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[78]	Zhao F., Shi W., Xiao J., et al. (2025). Recent weakening of carbon-water coupling in northern ecosystems. npj Clim. Atmos. Sci. 8:161. DOI:10.1038/s41612-025-01059-z View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[79]	Cui J., Deng O., Zheng M., et al. (2024). Warming exacerbates global inequality in forest carbon and nitrogen cycles. Nat. Commun. 15:9185. DOI:10.1038/s41467-024-53518-5 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[80]	Foster D., Swanson F., Aber J., et al. (2003). The importance of land-use legacies to ecology and conservation. BioScience 53:77−88. DOI:10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0077:Tiolul]2.0.Co;2 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[81]	Perring M. P., De Frenne P., Baeten L., et al. (2016). Global environmental change effects on ecosystems: The importance of land-use legacies. Global Change Biol. 22:1361−1371. DOI:10.1111/gcb.13146 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[82]	Schimel D., Pavlick R., Fisher J. B., et al. (2015). Observing terrestrial ecosystems and the carbon cycle from space. Global Change Biol. 21:1762−1776. DOI:10.1111/gcb.12822 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[83]	Yang Q., Niu C., Liu X., et al. (2023). Mapping high-resolution forest aboveground biomass of China using multisource remote sensing data. GISci. Remote Sens. 60:2203303. DOI:10.1080/15481603.2023.2203303 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[84]	Liu A., Cheng X. and Chen Z. (2021). Performance evaluation of GEDI and ICESat-2 laser altimeter data for terrain and canopy height retrievals. Remote Sens. Environ. 264:112571. DOI:10.1016/j.rse.2021.112571 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[85]	Dietze M. C., Fox A., Beck-Johnson L. M., et al. (2018). Iterative near-term ecological forecasting: Needs, opportunities, and challenges. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115:1424−1432. DOI:10.1073/pnas.1710231115 View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar
[86]	Walker L. R., Wardle D. A., Bardgett R. D., et al. (2010). The use of chronosequences in studies of ecological succession and soil development. J. Ecol. 98:725−736. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01664.x View in Article CrossRef Google Scholar

Cited by

ABOUT THIS ARTICLE

Cite this article:

Cheng K., Chen A., Zhang Y., et al. (2026). Canopy structure–biomass coupling strengthens with age under stage-dependent environmental controls during China's forest recovery. The Innovation Geoscience 4:100228. https://doi.org/10.59717/j.xinn-geo.2026.100228

Cheng K., Chen A., Zhang Y., et al. (2026). Canopy structure–biomass coupling strengthens with age under stage-dependent environmental controls during China's forest recovery. The Innovation Geoscience 4:100228. https://doi.org/10.59717/j.xinn-geo.2026.100228

Welcome!

To request copyright permission to republish or share portions of our works, please visit Copyright Clearance Center's (CCC) Marketplace website at marketplace.copyright.com.

PDF

Figures(7)

Article Metrics

Article views(1026) PDF downloads(489)

Canopy structure–biomass coupling strengthens with age under stage-dependent environmental controls during China's forest recovery

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

PUBLIC SUMMARY

ABSTRACT

REFERENCES

ABOUT THIS ARTICLE

Cite this article:

Welcome!

Share

Article Metrics

Relative Articles

Cited by

Catalog

{{newsColumn.name}}

Official Account

{{newsColumn.name}}

Stay connected

{{newsColumn.name}}

Canopy structure–biomass coupling strengthens with age under stage-dependent environmental controls during China's forest recovery

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

PUBLIC SUMMARY

ABSTRACT

REFERENCES

ABOUT THIS ARTICLE

Cite this article:

Welcome!

Share

Article Metrics

Relative Articles

Cited by

Catalog

Export File

Citation

Format

Content

{{newsColumn.name}}

Official Account

{{newsColumn.name}}

Stay connected

{{newsColumn.name}}