ABSTRACT Ongoing changes in snow cover significantly affect vegetation productivity, but the actual effect of snow cover remains unclear due to a poor understanding of its lagged effect.

Here, we used multisource datasets to investigate the lagged effect of snow cover on vegetation productivity in Northern Hemisphere ( > 40°N) ecosystems from 2000 to 2018. We found a

widespread lagged effect of snow cover ( > 40%, _P_ < 0.05) on growing season vegetation productivity (mean ~73-day lag). The effect of snow cover on vegetation productivity was

underestimated by over 10% of the areas without considering regional lagged time differences. A longer lagged effect generally occurred in warm and humid areas, and areas with increased

WARMING-INDEPENDENT SHORTENED SNOW COVER DURATION ENHANCES VEGETATION GREENING ACROSS NORTHERN PERMAFROST REGION Article Open access 01 April 2025 WANING SNOWFIELDS HAVE TRANSFORMED INTO

HOTSPOTS OF GREENING WITHIN THE ALPINE ZONE Article 25 October 2024 WARMING-INDUCED CONTRASTS IN SNOW DEPTH DRIVE THE FUTURE TRAJECTORY OF SOIL CARBON LOSS ACROSS THE ARCTIC-BOREAL REGION

Article Open access 08 November 2024 INTRODUCTION Snow covers nearly half of the land surface in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) during winter1, and it plays a fundamental role in hydrological

and biogeochemical processes2,3,4. As one of the most sensitive indicators of climate, snow cover has experienced substantial changes in NH ecosystems over the past several decades5,6,7, and

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that spatiotemporal changes in snow cover significantly affect vegetation dynamics, thereby altering vegetation productivity8.

Specifically, snow cover affects vegetation productivity through various physiological and phenological processes. For example, a high snow water equivalent (SWE) not only improves soil

moisture and nitrogen status, but the deep snow layer also protects vegetation from frost damage and reduces root mortality in winter, promoting vegetation productivity9,10. Furthermore,

delayed snowmelt typically leads to a later spring vegetation phenology and a shorter growing season, which can limit vegetation productivity11. Understanding the interaction between snow

cover and vegetation productivity is critical for gaining insight into climate feedback mechanisms and thus has recently attracted widespread attention12,13,14,15,16. Numerous efforts have

been made to investigate the effect of snow cover on the growing season vegetation productivity (hereafter called vegetation productivity)17,18,19, but findings regarding the magnitude and

direction of vegetation productivity responses to snow cover changes are not always consistent. For example, in the European Alps and the Tibetan Plateau, snow cover changes were

significantly correlated with vegetation productivity when seasonal scales were used11,20, but no significant effect of snow cover was found at annual scales21,22. Such a biased result was

also obtained for different vegetation types at vegetation development stage scales, e.g., snow cover significantly affects the early vegetation productivity for grasslands in temperate

China but not for forests and shrublands23. The above studies chose to use fixed temporal scales to capture the sensitive period of snow cover affecting vegetation productivity, lacking a

comprehensive understanding of the lagged effect of snow cover (hereafter called lagged effect), which may lead to inconsistent results. In fact, vegetation productivity does not respond

directly to the changes in snow cover but instead responds to actual soil hydrothermal conditions (e.g., soil temperature and moisture), and the effect of snow cover on soil hydrothermal

conditions may take several weeks or months to dissipate after snowmelt24,25. This leads to a time lag between changes in snow cover and their effect on vegetation productivity (i.e., the

lagged effect of snow cover). Meanwhile, the direction of the lagged effect can be positive (increased snow cover increases vegetation productivity) or negative, depending on different

geographical conditions26. More importantly, the lagged time of snow cover (no direction) on vegetation productivity varies considerably regionally. Although the lagged effect is a common

climatic phenomenon27,28, it is still unclear how long the lagged response of vegetation productivity to snow cover changes is, especially over large areas. This severely limits the

understanding of snow cover-vegetation interactions and is a major knowledge gap recognized by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program29. Moreover, due to an insufficient understanding

of the lagged effect, snow cover information is rarely used correctly in climate change impact models4, which increases the uncertainty in quantifying the dynamics of the vegetation carbon

budget. Efforts to develop climate adaptation policies are also hampered by the difficulty of identifying the areas of NH ecosystems that may be most vulnerable to future changes in snow

cover. Here, we investigated the lagged effect on vegetation productivity in NH ecosystems (>40° N) based on multisource datasets from 2000 to 2018 and found that the main reason for

underestimation of the effect of snow cover on vegetation productivity was the neglect of regional differences in the lagged time of snow cover, which has received little attention to date.

Furthermore, we identified the spatiotemporal pattern of the lagged time of snow cover on vegetation productivity and used the random forest model to determine a series of biotic and abiotic

factors driving changes in the lagged time of snow cover. Our study is expected to contribute to a deeper understanding of how vegetation productivity responds to snow cover changes and to

provide crucial insight for improving the assessment of snow–vegetation interactions. RESULTS UNDERESTIMATED IMPACT OF SNOW COVER ON VEGETATION PRODUCTIVITY WITHOUT CONSIDERING LAGGED TIME

DIFFERENCES We first compared the lagged effect on vegetation productivity with and without considering regional differences in the lagged time of snow cover (WITH_LTSC and WITHOUT_LTSC).

The scenario WITHOUT_LTSC was conducted at four commonly used fixed temporal scales separately, including monthly, seasonal, vegetation development stage, and whole growing season scales

(Fig. 1b–m, “Methods”). The results showed that the proportion of pixels with significant correlations between snow cover and vegetation productivity was small, and the affected regions

varied in different periods, which led to a large inconsistency and uncertainty in the results. For instance, the highest proportion of significant correlations was only 11.6% (at the spring

scale) across different fixed temporal scales, giving the illusion that snow cover had no significant effect on vegetation productivity in most regions (Fig. 1h). In contrast, the area

proportion of the lagged effect on vegetation productivity was apparently larger (45.7%, Fig. 1a) under the scenario WITH_LTSC, indicating that the sensitive period of snow cover affecting

vegetation productivity cannot be captured at a fixed temporal scale. We further merged significant correlation pixels for each fixed temporal scale (Fig. 1n–p) to quantify the difference

between the two scenarios mentioned above. The results showed that the proportion of both positive and negative significant correlations between snow cover and vegetation productivity under

the scenario WITH_LTSC was 12.5–38.9% (~3.3–10.1 × 106 km2) greater than that of the scenario WITHOUT_LTSC. Spatially, the area proportion was the least underestimated (e.g., mean of ~0.3%

at monthly scale) in Europe compared to North America (~5.0%), Central Asia (~3.2%), and East Asia (~3.9%) (Fig. 1q). Among the different vegetation types, the underestimated areas of

forests and shrublands were greater than those of grasslands (Supplementary Fig. 1). In addition to significantly affected areas, the magnitude of lagged effect on productivity was

underestimated under the scenario WITHOUT_LTSC (Fig. 1r–u). The positive differences in absolute partial correlation coefficients between scenarios WITH_LTSC and WITHOUT_LTSC occurred in

most ecosystems, especially at the vegetation development stage and whole growing season scales (over 35%). The above results were generated from the Global Orbiting Carbon

Observatory-2-based solar-induced fluorescence (SIF) gross primary productivity (GPP) dataset (GOFGPP). Similarly, these underestimated phenomena were observed in three other independent

productivity datasets: Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer MOD17A2H GPP (MODGPP), Boreal Ecosystem Productivity Simulator model GPP (BEPSGPP), and clear-sky contiguous SIF (CSIF)

(Supplementary Fig. 2). SPATIAL PATTERNS OF THE LAGGED TIME OF SNOW COVER ON VEGETATION PRODUCTIVITY The time scale of lagged effect was further determined and showed high heterogeneity in

NH ecosystems. There was a widespread significant lagged effect (concentrated below the 105-day lag, mean ~73-day lag) on vegetation productivity (45.7% of the study area, _P_ < 0.05),

with a clear latitudinal pattern with a decreasing trend of 1.05-day lag from south to north (Fig. 2a). The positive lagged effect mainly occurred at relatively long lags (over a month) and

peaked at ~3-month, while the negative lagged effect mainly occurred at shorter lags, and its area proportion decreased with increasing lagged time scales (Fig. 2b). Meanwhile, the absolute

significant positive correlations between SWE and vegetation productivity was greater than negative correlations, which decreased with increasing lagged time scales. From the perspective of

vegetation types, the mean positive lagged effect on vegetation productivity in forests (76-day lag) and shrublands (73-day lag) was longer than that in grasslands (69-day lag) (Fig. 2c).

However, the mean negative lagged effect on grasslands (74-day lag) was longer than that on forests and shrublands. Additionally, the above-mentioned spatial patterns were generally similar

to the results of the MODGPP, BEPSGPP, and CSIF datasets (Supplementary Fig. 3). TEMPORAL DYNAMICS OF THE LAGGED TIME OF SNOW COVER ON VEGETATION PRODUCTIVITY In general, the temporal trends

in the time scale of positive and negative lagged effects from 2000 to 2018 were opposite in NH ecosystems. Specifically, four vegetation productivity proxies (GOFGPP, MODGPP, BEPSGPP, and

CSIF) generally showed significant increasing (mean of 0.39 d yr−1 lag) and decreasing (mean of −0.45 d yr−1 lag) trends for positive and negative lagged effects, respectively (Fig. 3a, b).

Among the different vegetation types, a consistent and significant increasing trend in the time scale of positive lagged effect was observed in forests, and a significant decreasing trend in

the time scale of negative lagged effect was observed in grasslands (Fig. 3c). In comparison, there was no significant increasing or decreasing trend for shrublands based on most of the

observational datasets. Spatially, most of Europe and Eastern North America showed decreasing trends in the lagged time of snow cover over the last two decades, while Central and East Asia

mainly showed increasing trends in the lagged time (Fig. 3d). In addition, we tested the robustness of temporal results by applying different moving windows (11-year and 12-year) and

consistent results were obtained (Supplementary Fig. 4). DRIVERS OF THE LAGGED TIME OF SNOW COVER ON VEGETATION PRODUCTIVITY Evaluating which environmental factors contribute to the lagged

time of snow cover was vital to understanding the effect and underlying mechanisms of snow cover on vegetation productivity. We thus constructed random forest models to predict the time

scales of positive and negative lagged effects using 12 biotic and abiotic variables closely related to snow cover status and vegetation carbon uptake (“Methods”). The models performed with

moderate to high accuracy in predicting the time scales of the positive lagged effect (_R_ = 0.65, _P_ < 0.05) and negative lagged effect (_R_ = 0.76, _P_ < 0.05) (Supplementary Fig. 

5), which successfully identified the most important drivers explaining positive and negative lagged effects on vegetation productivity (Fig. 4). Based on the built random forest models, the

ranked importance of the variable and the partial dependence of each variable were acquired. The results showed that climate factors played a vital role in regulating variations in the time

scales of positive (43%) and negative (39%) lagged effects (Fig. 4). The time scales of the lagged effect increased with increasing mean air temperature and precipitation and decreasing

wind. This was followed by topography and soil factors, but their importance for positive and negative lagged effects differed. For example, the topography factors accounted for a larger

proportion of variations in the time scale of the positive lagged effect, while soil factors did the opposite. Furthermore, some considerably important variables, such as biodiversity and

soil organic carbon, had opposite effects on variations in the time scales of positive and negative lagged effects. In addition, other related factors, including land cover and human

activity, showed relatively low contributions. DISCUSSION IMPORTANCE OF CONSIDERING LAGGED TIME DIFFERENCES WHEN ASSESSING THE EFFECT OF SNOW COVER ON VEGETATION PRODUCTIVITY Vegetation

dynamics are affected not only by concurrent climatic factors but also by previous climatic factors30,31. In this study, we found that the actual effect of snow cover cannot be fully

revealed without considering lagged time differences (i.e., directly using a fixed temporal scale, Fig. 1). The results showed that significant variations in vegetation productivity in

nearly one-half of the NH (45.7%) were related to snow cover changes (Fig. 1a). In contrast, the area proportion of the effect of snow cover on vegetation productivity was lower in the

scenario WITHOUT_LTSC, where the significant areas at monthly, seasonal, vegetation development stage, and whole growing season scales were 33.2%, 22.1%, 16.1%, and 8.8%, respectively. This

could explain why the document using the development stage scale reported that areas with significant snow–vegetation productivity correlations were relatively small and the magnitude of

significant correlations was spatially scattered32. In addition to finding the underestimation of the lagged effect on vegetation productivity under the scenario WITHOUT_LTSC, we improved

the understanding of the lagged effect and revealed the reasons for the inconsistent findings of previous studies. Since the response time of vegetation productivity to snow cover varied in

different ecosystems, the use of fixed temporal scales in previous studies proved inadequate in capturing the sensitive period of snow cover affecting vegetation productivity, even within

the same region. For example, a previous study based on a vegetation development stage scale reported that snow depth has a significant impact on early productivity for grasslands in

temperate China but not for forests and shrublands23. Conversely, another study found a significant effect of snow depth on productivity for these vegetation types using a seasonal scale20.

Although the lagged effect on vegetation productivity has been widely acknowledged12,16,19, most observational and model simulation studies, have only used fixed response time scales to

characterize the effect of snow cover. In light of these findings, we emphasize that lagged time differences should be considered to improve assessments of snow-vegetation productivity

interactions. DIFFERENCES IN SPATIOTEMPORAL PATTERNS OF THE LAGGED TIME OF SNOW COVER ON VEGETATION PRODUCTIVITY AND UNDERLYING MECHANISMS Based on multiple observational datasets, we found

that the time scales of the lagged effect on vegetation productivity mainly occurred below the ~4-month time scale (mean of 73-day lag) across NH ecosystems (>40°N, Fig. 2a). The lagged

effect was similar to the temporal effect of other climatic factors, such as air temperature, precipitation, and drought, which were generally shorter than a quarter of the year27,28,33. The

significant positive lagged effect (31% of the NH) predominated at a 2–3-month lag and was mainly distributed in Western North America, Central Siberia, and Eastern Asia, while the

significant negative lagged effect (14.7%) predominated at a short-term time scale (below 2 months) and was mainly distributed in Northern Europe and Northern Canada. This difference in

geographical distribution could be attributed to different major ecological processes of snow cover affecting vegetation productivity7,34,35. For example, previous studies found that the

“moisture effect” of snow cover predominated in Northeast China20, Eastern Asia, and Western North America32, with positive snow-productivity relations. However, the negative “growth period”

effect predominated in Central Europe15 and Northern Canada32, i.e., more snow cover delayed spring phenology and inhibited early vegetation productivity. Furthermore, there was a

significant increasing trend of positive lagged effect over the past two decades (Fig. 3a), especially for forests and shrublands. In comparison, a significant decreasing trend in the

negative lagged effect was observed only in grasslands (Fig. 3c). These phenomena may be related to root functional traits of different vegetation. Woody vegetation with deep roots can

benefit from deeper water from snowmelt infiltration, enabling them to grow in the later growing season36,37, while low herbaceous vegetation with shallow roots mainly absorbs water from

snowmelt in upper soil layers and may be covered by snow more completely, resulting in the early light and heat deficits and impeding vegetation recovery in spring26,38. Thus, under the same

environmental change conditions, the trend of positive lagged effect trend was greater in forests and shrublands than in grasslands, while the negative lagged effect trend was greater in

grasslands. Notably, the decreasing trend in the time scale of both negative and positive lagged effects mainly occurred in most parts of Northern Europe and Northern Canada (Fig. 3d). This

implies that these regions would likely be subject to greater water stress in the later growing season, and therefore, more attention should be given to maintaining their ecological

stability. Attribution analysis of which environmental factors influence the lagged effect was performed to better clarify the differences in spatiotemporal patterns of the lagged time of

snow cover on vegetation productivity. The factors associated with climate conditions (e.g., annual mean air temperature and precipitation) were the most important drivers of changes in the

lagged time of snow cover (Fig. 4), which agreed with previous documents that the lagged effect on vegetation growth was strongly related to heat-water conditions12,26,39. Specifically, the

longer-lagged effect tended to occur in high-temperature and precipitation regions. The was probably there is no permafrost in warm and humid regions40, where snowmelt water would not

immediately be lost to water runoff. This could result in more snowmelt water being retained, promoting or limiting vegetation growth32 and consequently longer positive and negative lagged

effects in these regions. It is noteworthy that some variables (biodiversity and soil organic carbon) had the opposite impact on changes in positive and negative lagged effects timescales.

Ecosystems with high biodiversity generally have a greater demand for water41, and thus, the positive lagged effect tends to have a shorter time. Similarly, high biodiversity could lead to

more intense competition for resources, which may exacerbate the negative lagged effect, particularly in some species struggling to obtain sufficient resources for environmental adaptation.

In comparison, an increase in soil organic carbon increased soil nutrient and water infiltration42,43, which in turn improved the adaptability of vegetation to snow cover and mitigated its

negative duration effect. Meanwhile, high water retention (reducing water runoff) was beneficial to prolong the moisture effect of snow cover in regions with a positive lagged effect. In

addition, although the human factor was identified as an important driver of vegetation productivity variations44,45, it showed relatively small contributions, which was largely due to the

exclusion of agricultural land and the relatively low level of human activity at mid-to-high latitudes. The deeper significance of understanding these control factors was to enable accurate

predictions of the future responses of vegetation productivity to lagged effect. UNCERTAINTIES AND PROSPECTS It is necessary to consider the uncertainties of our data and analyses. However,

most of the datasets used in this study showed good agreement with station observations and were regarded as state-of-the-art datasets currently available. It inevitably causes errors when

interpolated to the same spatiotemporal scale. Meanwhile, the applicability of our findings at other scales may need to be further explored due to different scale effects. The lagged effect

is also expected to be related to other factors such as soil freeze–thaw cycles46, fire disturbances47, and extreme climate events48. It is not feasible, however, to analyze these impacts

completely at hemisphere scales in this study, and they therefore warrant further study. Moreover, a combination of long-term in situ observations, higher quality remote sensing data, and

improved model simulations are needed to better understand the changes in the lagged effect on vegetation productivity in the future. CONCLUSION This study provided the first estimation of

the lagged time of snow cover on vegetation productivity and its drivers in NH ecosystems from 2000 to 2018. The results showed that snow cover had a significant lagged effect on vegetation

productivity in over 40% of NH ecosystems and that the lagged effect on vegetation productivity was underestimated when regional differences in the lagged time of snow cover were neglected.

The positive and negative lagged effect on vegetation productivity mainly predominated at lags of ~2–3 months and 1–2 months, respectively. Furthermore, the mean time scale of the positive

lagged effect increased significantly, mainly due to climate factors changes. If this trend continues, it could potentially alleviate water stress and promote vegetation productivity during

the later growing season, especially in arid regions. These findings have important implications for improving the modeling of the terrestrial carbon cycle, including the lagged effect and

developing effective climate adaptation strategies in NH ecosystems. MATERIALS AND METHODS DATASETS We used two vegetation indicators to enhance the robustness of our results, namely, GPP

and SIF, as proxies for vegetation productivity. Specifically, three types of GPP datasets were used, including the 8-day GOFGPP at a 0.05° spatial resolution49, the 8-day MODGPP product at

a 500 m spatial resolution50, and the daily BEPSGPP product at a ~0.07° spatial resolution51. These GPP products demonstrated good reliability through comparisons with ground observations in

different ecosystems and exhibited high agreement with one another (Supplementary Fig. 7 and Fig. 8). SIF data with a 0.05° spatial resolution were derived from the state-of-the-art 4-day

CSIF product52, which was widely used in ecological analysis. SWE was used to characterize snow cover status. This comprehensive parameter includes not only information on snow depth and

snow density but also allows calculations related to snow cover phenology. It refers to the amount of water (mm) contained in snow cover when it is completely melted and directly affects

hydrological and ecological processes53. SWE data were derived from the GlobSnow daily product with a 0.25° spatial resolution, which combined SWE retrieved from multi-satellite passive

microwave and ground snow depth data for non-mountainous regions. It demonstrated high stability and reliability compared to ground observations and other SWE products54,55 and was regarded

as the best SWE product currently available for climate analysis56. In addition to vegetation productivity and snow cover data, several types of datasets were collected to explore drivers of

the lagged effect of snow cover, including climate, soil, elevation, and human activity data. The daily air temperature, precipitation, wind, downward shortwave radiation, and soil

temperature data were obtained from the ERA5-Land daily product at a 0.1° grid57. The soil property data (soil organic carbon58, soil bulk density59, and soil pH60) were extracted from the

Open Land Map dataset at a 250-m grid. Elevation data were obtained from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (STRM) digital elevation dataset at a 90-m grid61. Human activity and

biodiversity data were obtained from the LandScan Global62 and the plant species63 datasets. DATA PREPROCESSING All datasets were aggregated to the same spatial resolution of 0.25°.

Vegetation productivity datasets with high temporal resolution were aggregated to 8-day temporal resolution using the mean value to reduce interpolation uncertainty. We focused on the

seasonal snow-dominated regions >40° N with snow cover duration >60 days (Supplementary Methods S1) and masked the non-vegetation, sparse vegetation, and cultivated areas using the ESA

CCI land cover map64. Moreover, pixels with a constant vegetation type (total study area of ~26 × 106 km2) were retained for analysis to minimize the influence of land cover changes.

ESTIMATION OF THE LAGGED EFFECT OF SNOW COVER Considering differences in the lagged time of snow cover on vegetation productivity in different regions, we applied an adaptive time scale

based on per-pixel partial correlation analysis to identify the lagged effect on vegetation productivity. Firstly, the maximum SWE (SWEmax) within snow cover duration was extracted to

indicate SWE status since it can reflect the amount of snowmelt for the whole snow cover season compared to the mean SWE. Secondly, the partial correlation coefficient (PCC) between SWEmax

and vegetation productivity of each period (_i_step) was computed (Eq. 1) during the growing season, removing the effects of the preseason and current mean air temperature, precipitation,

solar radiation, and wind. Additionally, all variable data were detrended before correlation analysis. Then, the optimal lagged effect on vegetation productivity was determined when the

absolute significant maximum PCC (|_R_max-lag| at _P_ < 0.05) occurred (Eq. 2), and the _R_max-lag was regarded as the magnitude of lagged effect (the direction of _R_max-lag could be

either positive or negative). Finally, the corresponding time (DOY) of _R_max-lag subtracted by snow cover end date (SCED, Supplementary Methods S1) was identified as the time scale of the

lagged effect (Eq. 3). Namely, the lagged time of snow cover was the difference between SCED and the date when the response of vegetation productivity to snow cover was the strongest.

$${r}_{i{{{{{\rm{step}}}}}}}={{{{{\rm{PCC}}}}}}(SW{E}_{\max },V{P}_{i{{{{{\rm{step}}}}}}}),\,i=(1,2,3,\cdots ,n),\,{{{{{\rm{SOS}}}}}}\le i{{{{{\rm{step}}}}}}\le {{{{{\rm{EOS}}}}}}$$ (1)

$${R}_{\max -{{{{{\rm{lag}}}}}}}=\,\max ({r}_{1{{{{{\rm{step}}}}}}},{r}_{2{{{{{\rm{step}}}}}}},{r}_{3{{{{{\rm{step}}}}}}},\cdots ,{r}_{n{{{{{\rm{step}}}}}}}),\,-1\le {R}_{\max

-{{{{{\rm{lag}}}}}}}\le 1$$ (2) $${{{{{\rm{Lagged}}}}}}\,{{{{{\rm{time}}}}}}\,=\,{{{{{\rm{DOY}}}}}}_{{R}_{{{{{\rm{max}}}}} -{{{{{\rm{lag}}}}}}}}\,-\,{{{{{\rm{SCED}}}}}}$$ (3) where

_r__i_step is the PCC with a lagged period of _i_step; EOS is the end of the growing season (Supplementary Methods S2); _VP__i_step is the vegetation productivity with a lagged time interval

of _i_step (_i_-step lag); and step is the temporal resolution of vegetation productivity datasets (8-day). Only pixels with SCED below the start of the growing season (SOS) were retained

for analysis. ANALYSIS OF SPATIOTEMPORAL DYNAMICS OF THE LAGGED TIME OF SNOW COVER ON VEGETATION PRODUCTIVITY We first calculated the partial correlation coefficient between snow cover and

vegetation productivity at four fixed temporal scales to investigate the lagged effect on vegetation productivity under scenarios WITH_LTSC and WITHOUT_LTSC. The fixed temporal scales

included monthly (six periods: May–October), seasonal (three periods: spring (May–June), summer (July–August), and autumn (September–October)), vegetation development stages (two periods:

growth and senescence), and the whole growing season. Growth and senescence were defined as the increasing and decreasing vegetation productivity phases, respectively65. Due to the regional

differences in the lagged effect on vegetation productivity at different fixed temporal scales, we then merged the lagged effect on vegetation productivity at monthly, seasonal, and

vegetation development stage scales, respectively, based on the significant partial correlation coefficient between snow cover and vegetation productivity, and quantified the difference

between the scenarios WITH_LTSC and WITHOUT_LTSC. Next, we analyzed the time scale of the lagged effect at different biome scales. Three typical vegetation types were analyzed, including

forests, shrublands, and grasslands. The classes of broadleaf, coniferous, and mixed forests were grouped into forest class based on the ESA CCI land cover map. Finally, temporal variations

in the lagged time of snow cover on vegetation productivity were examined using a 10-year moving window. We calculated the lagged effect over the NH with each moving window from 2000 to 2018

using four vegetation productivity datasets. The mean value of all pixels in each moving window was used to evaluate the overall temporal dynamics of the lagged time of snow cover.

Meanwhile, 11-year and 12-year moving windows were also used to enhance the temporal results (Supplementary Fig. 4). Furthermore, we used the Theil–Sen method66 for slope calculation and the

modified Mann–Kendall test method67 for trend detection in time series of the lagged effect. IDENTIFICATION OF DRIVERS OF THE LAGGED TIME OF SNOW COVER ON VEGETATION PRODUCTIVITY The random

forest method was used to quantify the relative contributions of drivers to the time scale of the lagged effect on vegetation productivity in NH ecosystems. It is a data-driven machine

learning algorithm based on a bootstrap aggregating strategy, which not only has a strong predictive ability but also evaluates the importance of features68. Four categories of environmental

factors were considered in the contribution analysis (Supplementary Table 1), including climate, soil, topography, and other related factors. Among these, we calculated the annual mean air

temperature, mean total precipitation, mean wind, and mean solar radiation as climate factors that were important limiting factors. For soil factors, we took soil properties such as soil

organic carbon, soil pH, and soil bulk density into account since they were strongly related to vegetation photosynthetic rates and dynamics of soil resource distribution. Topography factors

include elevation, slope, and aspect. Meanwhile, other factors closely related to snow cover changes and vegetation growth were extracted, including the human activity impact, land cover

types, and biodiversity (number of plant species). All variables were first standardized using the Z-score method to eliminate the effect of numerical differences in different variables. For

the time scales of positive and negative lagged effects, we separately developed two random forest regression models. The lagged time of snow cover and four types of factors were regarded

as response variables and explanatory variables, respectively. For each model, we randomly stratified to use 80%/20% of the data to train/test the model and used the correlation coefficient

and mean absolute error to evaluate the performance of models. Although collinearity between variables would not influence the accuracy of the random forest model, it did affect the ranking

of variable importance69. We further used the variance inflation factor (VIF) method to exclude the strong collinearity variable (i.e., solar radiation (VIF > 3), Supplementary Fig. 6).

The optimal parameters (numbers of estimators, maximum features, and maximum depth) for each model were then determined based on the training data (Supplementary Table 2). Finally, according

to the out-of-bag score of the model, we ranked the importance of each explanatory variable to characterize the contribution of drivers to lagged time and evaluated how variables regulated

its changes. Note that we repeated the run ten times for each model to avoid random errors and averaged the results of 10 runs as the final result. DATA AVAILABILITY All datasets used in the

study are openly available. The MODGPP, GOFGPP, BEPSGPP, and CSIF data are available at https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/products/mod17a2hv006,

https://cstr.cn/15732.11.nesdc.ecodb.2016YFA0600200.02.001, https://data.globalecology.unh.edu/data/GOSIF-GPP_v2/, and https://osf.io/8xqy6/, respectively. Snow cover data from the GlobSnow

v3.0 product are available at https://www.globsnow.info/swe/. Air temperature, precipitation, wind, solar radiation, and soil temperature data from the ERA5-Land product are available at

https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/dataset/reanalysis-era5-land?tab=form. The plant species datasets are available at

https://databasin.org/datasets/43478f840ac84173979b22631c2ed672/. The data for plotting the figures in the study are available at https://zenodo.org/records/10252501. CODE AVAILABILITY The

processing codes for analysis are available from the corresponding author on request. REFERENCES * Déry, S. J. & Brown, R. D. Recent Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent trends and

implications for the snow-albedo feedback. _Geophys. Res. Lett_. 34, L22504 (2007). * Bormann, K. J., Brown, R. D., Derksen, C. & Painter, T. H. Estimating snow-cover trends from space.

_Nat. Clim. Chang._ 8, 923–927 (2018). Article  Google Scholar  * Wieder, W. R. et al. Pervasive alterations to snow-dominated ecosystem functions under climate change. _Proc. Natl Acad.

Sci. USA_ 119, e2202393119 (2022). * Niittynen, P., Heikkinen, R. K. & Luoto, M. Decreasing snow cover alters functional composition and diversity of Arctic tundra. _Proc. Natl Acad.

Sci. USA_ 117, 21480–21487 (2020). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Pulliainen, J. et al. Patterns and trends of Northern Hemisphere snow mass from 1980 to 2018. _Nature._ 581, 294–298

(2020). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Mudryk, L. et al. Historical Northern Hemisphere snow cover trends and projected changes in the CMIP6 multi-model ensemble. _The Cryosphere_ 14,

2495–2514 (2020). Article  Google Scholar  * Rixen, C. et al. Winters are changing: snow effects on Arctic and alpine tundra ecosystems. _Arct. Sci_ 8, 572–608 (2022). Article  Google

Scholar  * Pörtner, H. et al. IPCC special report on the ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate. IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Geneva, Switzerland. 1, 3–35 (2019). *

Knowles, J. F., Lestak, L. R. & Molotch, N. P. On the use of a snow aridity index to predict remotely sensed forest productivity in the presence of bark beetle disturbance. _Water

Resour. Res._ 53, 4891–4906 (2017). Article  Google Scholar  * Brooks, P. D. et al. Carbon and nitrogen cycling in snow-covered environments. _Geogr. Compass_ 5, 682–699 (2011). Article 

Google Scholar  * Galvagno, M. et al. Phenology and carbon dioxide source/sink strength of a subalpine grassland in response to an exceptionally short snow season. _Environ. Res. Lett._ 8,

25008 (2013). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Kim, J. et al. Carbon response of tundra ecosystems to advancing Greenup and snowmelt in Alaska. _Nat. Commun_. 12, 6879 (2021). * Slatyer, R.

A., Umbers, K. D. L. & Arnold, P. A. Ecological responses to variation in seasonal snow cover. _Conserv. Biol_. 36, e13727 (2022). * Li, P. et al. Deepened winter snow cover enhances net

ecosystem exchange and stabilizes plant community composition and productivity in a temperate grassland. _Glob. Change Biol._ 26, 3015–3027 (2020). Article  Google Scholar  * Pulliainen, J.

et al. Early snowmelt significantly enhances boreal springtime carbon uptake. _Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA_ 114, 11081–11086 (2017). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Wu, X. et al. Uneven

winter snow influence on tree growth across temperate China. _Glob. Change Biol._ 25, 144–154 (2018). Article  Google Scholar  * Knowles, J. F., Molotch, N. P., Trujillo, E. & Litvak, M.

E. Snowmelt‐driven trade‐offs between early and late season productivity negatively impact forest carbon uptake during drought. _Geophys. Res. Lett._ 45, 3087–3096 (2018). Article  Google

Scholar  * Qiu, B. et al. Satellite-observed solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence reveals higher sensitivity of alpine ecosystems to snow cover on the Tibetan Plateau. _Agric. For.

Meteorol._ 271, 126–134 (2019). Article  Google Scholar  * Kelsey, K. C. et al. Winter snow and spring temperature have differential effects on vegetation phenology and productivity across

Arctic plant communities. _Glob. Change Biol._ 27, 1572–1586 (2021). Article  Google Scholar  * Chen, S., Huang, Y. & Wang, G. Response of vegetation carbon uptake to snow-induced

phenological and physiological changes across temperate China. _Sci. Total Environ._ 692, 188–200 (2019). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Wan, Y. et al. Change of snow cover and its impact

on alpine vegetation in the source regions of large rivers on the Qinghai-Tibetan plateau, China. _Arct. Antarct. Alpine Res._ 46, 632–644 (2014). Article  Google Scholar  * Rumpf, S. B. et

al. From white to green: snow cover loss and increased vegetation productivity in the European Alps. _Science._ 376, 1119–1122 (2022). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Peng, S., Piao, S.,

Ciais, P., Fang, J. & Wang, X. Change in winter snow depth and its impacts on vegetation in China. _Glob. Change Biol_. 16, 3004–3013 (2010). * Blankinship, J. C. & Hart, S. C.

Consequences of manipulated snow cover on soil gaseous emission and N retention in the growing season: a meta-analysis. _Ecosphere._ 3, art1 (2012). Article  Google Scholar  * Zhang, T. et

al. The weakening relationship between Eurasian spring snow cover and Indian summer monsoon rainfall. _Sci. Adv_. 5, eaau8932 (2019). * Wang, K. et al. Snow effects on alpine vegetation in

the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. _Int. J. Digit. Earth._ 8, 58–75 (2015). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Wu, D. et al. Time-lag effects of global vegetation responses to climate change. _Glob.

Change Biol._ 21, 3520–3531 (2015). Article  Google Scholar  * Ding, Y., Li, Z. & Peng, S. Global analysis of time-lag and -accumulation effects of climate on vegetation growth. _Int. J.

Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf._ 92, 102179 (2020). Google Scholar  * AMAP. Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA) 2017 (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP)). _Oslo,

Norway_. XIV+269PP, 26 (2017). * Buermann, W. et al. Widespread seasonal compensation effects of spring warming on northern plant productivity. _Nature_ 562, 110–114 (2018). Article  CAS 

Google Scholar  * Piao, S., Wang, J., Li, X., Xu, H. & Zhang, Y. Spatio‐temporal changes in the speed of canopy development and senescence in temperate China. _Glob. Change Biol._ 28,

7366–7375 (2022). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Wang, X. et al. Disentangling the mechanisms behind winter snow impact on vegetation activity in northern ecosystems. _Glob. Change Biol._

24, 1651–1662 (2018). Article  Google Scholar  * Ivits, E., Horion, S., Erhard, M. & Fensholt, R. Assessing European ecosystem stability to drought in the vegetation growing season.

_Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr._ 25, 1131–1143 (2016). Article  Google Scholar  * Callaghan, T. V. et al. Multiple effects of changes in arctic snow cover. _Ambio._ 40, 32–45 (2011). Article  Google

Scholar  * Choler, P. Growth response of temperate mountain grasslands to inter-annual variations in snow cover duration. _Biogeosciences_ 12, 3885–3897 (2015). Article  Google Scholar  *

Asbjornsen, H., Shepherd, G., Helmers, M. & Mora, G. Seasonal patterns in depth of water uptake under contrasting annual and perennial systems in the Corn Belt Region of the Midwestern

U.S. _Plant Soil_ 308, 69–92 (2008). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Wu, X. et al. Differentiating drought legacy effects on vegetation growth over the temperate Northern Hemisphere. _Glob.

Change Biol._ 24, 504–516 (2018). Article  Google Scholar  * Buus-Hinkler, J., Hansen, B. U., Tamstorf, M. P. & Pedersen, S. B. Snow-vegetation relations in a High Arctic ecosystem:

Inter-annual variability inferred from new monitoring and modeling concepts. _Remote Sens. Environ._ 105, 237–247 (2006). Article  Google Scholar  * Huang, K. et al. Impacts of snow cover

duration on vegetation spring phenology over the Tibetan. _Plateau. J. Plant Ecol._ 12, 583–592 (2019). Article  Google Scholar  * Ran, Y. et al. Biophysical permafrost map indicates

ecosystem processes dominate permafrost stability in the Northern Hemisphere. _Environ. Res. Lett._ 16, 95010 (2021). Article  Google Scholar  * Oliveira, R. S. et al. Linking plant

hydraulics and the fast–slow continuum to understand resilience to drought in tropical ecosystems. _New Phytol_ 230, 904–923 (2021). Article  Google Scholar  * Terrer, C. et al. Ecosystem

responses to elevated CO2 governed by plant–soil interactions and the cost of nitrogen acquisition. _New Phytol_ 217, 507–522 (2018). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Feldman, A. F. et al.

Moisture pulse-reserve in the soil-plant continuum observed across biomes. _Nat. Plants._ 4, 1026–1033 (2018). Article  Google Scholar  * Chen, Y. et al. Accelerated increase in vegetation

carbon sequestration in China after 2010: A turning point resulting from climate and human interaction. _Glob. Change Biol._ 27, 5848–5864 (2021). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Berdugo,

M., Gaitán, J. J., Delgado-Baquerizo, M., Crowther, T. W. & Dakos, V. Prevalence and drivers of abrupt vegetation shifts in global drylands. _Proc. Natl Acad. Sci_. _USA_ 119,

e2123393119 (2022). * Weintraub, M. N. & Schimel, J. P. Interactions between carbon and nitrogen mineralization and soil organic matter chemistry in arctic tundra soils. _Ecosystems_ 6,

129–143 (2003). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Maxwell, J. D., Call, A. & Clair, S. B. S. Wildfire and topography impacts on snow accumulation and retention in montane forests. _For.

Ecol. Manage._ 432, 256–263 (2019). Article  Google Scholar  * Frank, D. et al. Effects of climate extremes on the terrestrial carbon cycle: concepts, processes and potential future impacts.

_Glob. Change Biol._ 21, 2861–2880 (2015). Article  Google Scholar  * Li, X. & Xiao, J. Mapping photosynthesis solely from solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence: a global,

fine-resolution dataset of gross primary production derived from OCO-2. _Remote Sens._ 11, 2563 (2019). Article  Google Scholar  * Running, S., Mu, Q. & Zhao, M. MODIS/TERRA Gross

Primary Productivity 8-Day L4 Global 500 m SIN Grid V006. _USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center, Sioux Falls, South Dakota_ (2015). * Chen, J. M. et al. Vegetation

structural change since 1981 significantly enhanced the terrestrial carbon sink. _Nat. Commun_. 10, 4259 (2019). * Zhang, Y., Joiner, J., Alemohammad, S. H., Zhou, S. & Gentine, P. A

global spatially contiguous solar-induced fluorescence (CSIF) dataset using neural networks. _Biogeosciences._ 15, 5779–5800 (2018). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * You, Q. et al. Projected

changes in snow water equivalent over the Tibetan plateau under global warming of 1.5° and 2 °C. _J. Clim._ 33, 5141–5154 (2020). Article  Google Scholar  * Luojus, K. et al. GlobSnow v3.0

Northern Hemisphere snow water equivalent dataset. _Sci. Data_. 8, 163 (2021). * Mortimer, C. et al. Evaluation of long-term Northern Hemisphere snow water equivalent products. _The

Cryosphere_ 14, 1579–1594 (2020). Article  Google Scholar  * Hancock, S., Baxter, R., Evans, J. & Huntley, B. Evaluating global snow water equivalent products for testing land surface

models. _Remote Sens. Environ._ 128, 107–117 (2013). Article  Google Scholar  * Muñoz-Sabater, J. et al. ERA5-Land: a state-of-the-art global reanalysis dataset for land applications. _Earth

Syst. Sci. Data._ 13, 4349–4383 (2021). Article  Google Scholar  * Hengl, T. & Wheeler, I. Soil organic carbon content in x 5 g / kg at 6 standard depths (0, 10, 30, 60, 100 and 200 cm)

at 250 m resolution. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1475458 (2018). * Hengl, T. Soil bulk density (fine earth) 10 x kg / m-cubic at 6 standard depths (0, 10, 30, 60, 100 and 200 cm) at 250

m resolution. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2525665 (2018). * Hengl, T. Soil pH in H2O at 6 standard depths (0, 10, 30, 60, 100 and 200 cm) at 250 m resolution.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2525664 (2018). * JPL, N. NASADEM Merged DEM global 1 arc Second V001 [data set]. NASA eosdis Land Processes daac. (2020). * Rose, A. & Bright, E. The

LandScan Global Population Distribution Project: current state of the art and prospective innovation, Population Association of America 2014 Annual General Meeting. Available from [28

December 2015] (2014). * Kier, G. et al. Global patterns of plant diversity and floristic knowledge. _J. Biogeogr._ 32, 1107–1116 (2005). Article  Google Scholar  * ESA. Land Cover CCI

Product User Guide Version 2. Tech. Rep. Available at: maps.elie.ucl.ac.be/CCI/viewer/download/ESACCI-LC-Ph2-PUGv2_2.0.pdf., (2017). * Lee, B., Kwon, H., Miyata, A., Lindner, S. &

Tenhunen, J. Evaluation of a phenology-dependent response method for estimating leaf area index of rice across climate gradients. _Remote Sens_ 9, 20 (2017). Article  Google Scholar  * Sen,

P. K. Estimates of the regression coefficient based on Kendall’s tau. _J. Am. Stat. Assoc._ 63, 1379–1389 (1968). Article  Google Scholar  * Hamed, K. H. & Rao, R. A. A modified

Mann-Kendall trend test for autocorrelated data. _J. Hydrol._ 204, 182–196 (1998). Article  Google Scholar  * Breiman, L. Random forest. _Mach. Learn._ 45, 5–32 (2001). Article  Google

Scholar  * Strobl, C., Boulesteix, A., Kneib, T., Augustin, T. & Zeileis, A. Conditional variable importance for random forests. _BMC Bioinformatics_ 9, 1–11 (2008). Article  Google

Scholar  Download references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 42171307) and the “GeoX” Interdisciplinary Research Funds

for the Frontiers Science Center for Critical Earth Material Cycling, Nanjing University. AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Jiangsu Provincial Key Laboratory of Geographic

Information Science and Technology, Key Laboratory for Land Satellite Remote Sensing Applications of Ministry of Natural Resources, School of Geography and Ocean Science, Nanjing University,

Nanjing, Jiangsu, 210023, China Hao Liu, Pengfeng Xiao, Xueliang Zhang, Siyong Chen, Yunhan Wang & Wenye Wang * Frontiers Science Center for Critical Earth Material Cycling, Nanjing

University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, 210023, China Pengfeng Xiao & Xueliang Zhang * Jiangsu Center for Collaborative Innovation in Geographical Information Resource Development and Application,

Nanjing, Jiangsu, 210023, China Pengfeng Xiao Authors * Hao Liu View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Pengfeng Xiao View author publications

You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Xueliang Zhang View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Siyong Chen View author

publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Yunhan Wang View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Wenye Wang View

author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CONTRIBUTIONS P.X., X.Z., and H.L. conceived and designed the study. H.L. conducted the analysis and drafted

the paper. S.C., Y.W., and W.W. processed data. All authors contributed to the interpretation of results and paper revision. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to Pengfeng Xiao. ETHICS

DECLARATIONS COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare no competing interests. PEER REVIEW PEER REVIEW INFORMATION _Communications Earth & Environment_ thanks Katharine Kelsey and the

other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor: Aliénor Lavergne. A peer review file is available. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

PUBLISHER’S NOTE Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION PEER REVIEW FILE

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS OPEN ACCESS This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation,

distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and

indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to

the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will

need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE

CITE THIS ARTICLE Liu, H., Xiao, P., Zhang, X. _et al._ Winter snow cover influences growing-season vegetation productivity non-uniformly in the Northern Hemisphere. _Commun Earth Environ_

4, 487 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01167-9 Download citation * Received: 03 August 2023 * Accepted: 06 December 2023 * Published: 18 December 2023 * DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01167-9 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not

currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative