Abstract
Forest hydrology, the study of water dynamics within forested catchments, is crucial for understanding the intricate relationship between forest cover and water balances across different scales, from ecosystems to landscapes, or from catchment watersheds. The intensified global changes in climate, land use and cover, and pollution that occurred over the past century have brought about adverse impacts on forests and their services in water regulation, signifying the importance of forest hydrological research as a re-emerging topic of scientific interest. This article reviews the literature on recent advances in forest hydrological research, intending to identify leading countries, institutions, and researchers actively engaged in this field, as well as highlighting research hotspots for future exploration. Through a systematic analysis using VOSviewer, drawing from 17,006 articles retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection spanning 2000–2022, we employed scientometric methods to assess research productivity, identify emerging topics, and analyze academic development. The findings reveal a consistent growth in forest hydrological research over the past two decades, with the United States, Charles T. Driscoll, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences emerging as the most productive country, author, and institution, respectively. The Journal of Hydrology emerges as the most co-cited journal. Analysis of keyword co-occurrence and co-cited references highlights key research areas, including climate change, management strategies, runoff-erosion dynamics, vegetation cover changes, paired catchment experiments, water quality, aquatic biodiversity, forest fire dynamics and hydrological modeling. Based on these findings, our study advocates for an integrated approach to future research, emphasizing the collection of data from diverse sources, utilization of varied methodologies, and collaboration across disciplines and institutions. This holistic strategy is essential for developing sustainable approaches to forested watershed planning and management. Ultimately, our study provides valuable insights for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers, guiding future research directions towards forest hydrological research and applications.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The role of forests in the hydrological cycle is currently a topic of great interest within the scientific community (Bren 2023; Requena-Mullor et al. 2023). Forests play a crucial role in the hydrological cycle, and thus, water is a vital resource for biodiversity including human development on Earth (Chang 2006). Forest hydrology combines two distinct scientific disciplines: hydrology and forestry (Hewlett 1982). Hydrology is the science that studies the circulation of continental water, changes in its distribution over time, the chemical and physical properties of water, as well as the relationship of water to other ecosystem properties and functions (Brutsaert 2005). Forestry is the science and practice of managing the natural resources contained in or associated with forests which underpin human tangible and non-tangible benefits (Dodev et al. 2020). Traditionally, forestry has been considered a large-scale agricultural practice to improve wood yields (Young and Giese 2003), but more recently, forestry has been considered an approach to ecological management, including other aspects such as biodiversity and water use (Nocentini et al. 2022). Modern forest management, therefore, requires an interdisciplinary approach encompassing silviculture, hydrology, soil science, ecology and land use planning (Kattel and Wu 2024; Sun et al. 2023).
It is well established that carbon sequestration and water conservation are critical ecosystem services provided by forests that support both human well-being and wildlife (Costanza et al. 1997; Farooqi et al. 2020). Although expanding forests helps improve terrestrial carbon sequestration and other ecosystem services, establishing large-scale plantation forests involves trade-offs, such as reduced local water availability (Doelman et al. 2020; Jackson et al. 2005) and reduced streamflow on the affected watershed (Zhang et al. 2017). This is an issue of significant importance in areas susceptible to water scarcity and recurrent droughts (Schwärzel et al. 2020). On the other hand, it has been argued that forest cover increases water supply at regional and global scales through an increase in evapotranspiration and rainfall (Ellison et al. 2012; Teuling et al. 2019). Furthermore, forests also play a buffering role in the local water cycle by temporarily holding onto rainwater, which results in an increase in water storage in the litter layer (Wu et al. 2020).
Given the importance of the different ecosystem services that forests provide, especially their role in carbon storage, as well as their critical role in the water cycle, integrative forest management strategies are key to the sustainable regulation of water resources (Jenkins and Schaap 2018). For this reason, techniques have been developed to measure the impact of different forest management approaches (e.g., afforestation, cutting, etc.) in nearby watersheds. One well-established technique used for this purpose is paired watershed studies (PWS), in which one watershed serves as a reference, whereas one or more adjacent watersheds of similar features are treated (Neary 2016; Ssegane et al. 2013). However, PWS outcomes show only the local consequences of forest management on streamflow, lacking reliability for predictions at larger geographic scales, as noted by (Evaristo and McDonnell 2019). The lack of predictive power undermines forest management strategies and has favored the use of predictive models during the last years (Evaristo and McDonnell 2019).
To comprehensively assess scientific knowledge and map the current state of development in a research field, it is crucial to employ techniques capable of measuring research impact and citation processes. This study aims to thoroughly review the topic of forest hydrology. Despite the growing interest in forest hydrology, there is a lack of recent, globally focused studies in this field, which distinguishes the novelty of this research. The objective of this study is to analyze current global research trends in forest hydrology, elucidate various aspects of this discipline, and propose future research directions based on existing knowledge gaps in forest hydrological literature. To achieve this, scientometric analysis techniques were utilized to: (1) trace the evolution of research in forest hydrology; (2) identify pertinent keywords and research categories; (3) discern the primary countries, authors, institutions, co-cited journals, and articles associated with this field. This study offers valuable insights into the research hotspots within forest hydrology and is poised to guide researchers toward promising future research areas.
Approaches and methods
Scientometric analysis
The scientometric analysis involves massive bibliometric processing and can overcome some limitations of traditional review methods, such as lack of rigor due to subjectivity (Markoulli et al. 2017). Scientometrics has used a variety of methods and technologies such as CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and dynamic topic modeling to study trends in the literature (Kim and Zhu 2018). Several scientometric techniques were employed in this study. The collaboration network of countries, institutions, and authors is dedicated to increasing research productivity and making important contributions to academic development in a particular field of study. Co-citation network analysis includes references and journals for the identification of core ideas and prominent journals in the field (Farooqi et al. 2022). The process of identifying research hotspots involves analyzing co-occurring keywords and co-cited references (Farooqi et al. 2022; Zhang et al. 2021). Cluster analysis was used to identify the research themes. Finally, knowledge mapping was used to visualize the structure and dynamics of scientific knowledge in this field (Fig. 1).
Data collection and processing
The dataset used for this study was collected from the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection of Clarivate Analytics. This dataset contains bibliographic and citation information of research articles, required for bibliometric investigations (Van Leeuwen 2006). The retrieval formula consisted forest (Topic) AND hydrology (Topic) OR “forest hydrology” (Topic) OR forest (Topic) AND streamflow (Topic) OR forest (Topic) AND watershed (Topic) OR “forested watershed” (Topic) OR “forest management” (Topic) AND hydrology (Topic) OR forest (Topic) AND runoff (Topic) OR forest (Topic) AND ecohydrology (Topic) OR “forest eco-hydrology” (Topic) OR “forest hydrology” (Topic) AND “water quality” (Topic) OR “forest hydrology” (Topic) AND “blue water fluxes” (Topic) OR “forest hydrology” (Topic) AND “green water fluxes” (Topic) OR “Land use changes” (Topic) AND “forest hydrology” (Topic) OR “land cover changes” (Topic) AND “forest hydrology” (Topic) OR “forest hydrology” (Topic) AND “remote sensing” (Topic) OR “forest management” (Topic) AND “eddy flux” (Topic) OR hydrology (Topic) AND “forest management” (Topic) AND “climate change” (Topic) OR forest (Topic) AND “Hydrological Modeling” (Topic) AND “forest hydrology” (Topic) AND Biogeochemistry (Topic) AND forest (Topic) AND “hydrological processes” (Topic) AND catchment (Topic) AND forest (Topic) AND water (Topic). The analytic tool searches for the selected topic in the title, abstract, keywords, and keywords plus. The retrieval time ranged from January 2000 to December 2022. A total of 18,118 publications were initially collected, including research and review articles, proceedings and book chapters. Finally, only research articles and review articles were selected for analysis (N = 17,006, 93.03%), all of them are written in the English language.
Visualization tool
Bibliographic data were analyzed using VOSviewer 1.6.19. VOSviewer is a Java-based, open-access scientometric analysis software. This tool provides better visual representation than former tools when using large datasets, and it is employed for developing maps based on network data. Software is useful for analyzing a specific research field’s research hotspots through visualization and predicting evolution trends. It allows for identifying nodes for countries, institutions, authors, journals, articles and keywords (Liu et al. 2022; Mishra et al. 2021).
Results and insights from scientometric analysis
Temporal research trend, and the performance of co-cited journals and articles
Between 2000 and 2022, the scholarly literature concerning forest hydrology experienced a remarkable surge, as depicted in Fig. 2a, signaling a burgeoning global interest in this field. The temporal distribution reveals a compelling narrative of growth, delineated into three distinct stages. Initially, from 2000 to 2005, the publication rate exhibited a modest uptick, with only a handful of papers annually, yet still registering a 14% rise. Subsequently, the period spanning 2006–2013 witnessed substantial expansion, boasting a robust 30% annual growth rate. Finally, from 2014 to 2022, an accelerated growth trajectory of 56% was observed, culminating in the apex of publications in 2021. On average, an impressive 787 publications emerged each year, indicative of the heightened attention forest hydrology garnered within the scientific community.
Efforts to enhance the visualization of co-cited journals led us to establish a criterion encompassing top journals co-cited at least 100 times (Fig. 2b). We identified 751 leading academic journals that published articles in forest hydrological research with significant link strength. These co-cited papers, hosted within prestigious journals, serve as keystones embodying crucial research directions and developmental paradigms within the field. Notably, the “Journal of Hydrology” emerged as the most cited, boasting an impressive 38,324 citations, underscoring its authoritative standing and widespread acclaim within the scientific fraternity. Additionally, “Water Resources Research”, “Hydrological Processes”, “Forest Ecology and Management”, and “Science of the Total Environment” featured prominently among the top 20 co-cited journals, cited 31,457, 26,838, 15,300, and 12,213 times, respectively (Fig. 2c). Encompassing various disciplines such as forestry, ecology, hydrology, agriculture, and environmental science, these top journals collectively underscored the interdisciplinary nature of the field.
Among the top 20 co-cited journals, which contributed 35% to the dataset, eight hailed from the Netherlands and the USA, three from England, and one from Germany. Notably, 60% of these top co-citation journals originated from Europe, with the remaining 40% stemming from North America, highlighting the significant contributions from these regions to impactful international journals in forest hydrology. Moreover, while “Hydrology and Earth System Sciences” stands as the sole open-access journal among them, the rest are hybrid journals (Table S1).
The visual distribution of highly cited articles in forest hydrological research, depicted in Fig. 2d, sheds light on the pivotal contributions of authors, institutions, journals, and countries to the field’s evolution. The top five co-cited articles, predominantly emanating from developed nations, underscore their substantive role in propelling high-quality research in this promising domain (Table 1). Furthermore, the co-citation network of articles delineated into five major clusters elucidates diverse thematic emphases within forest hydrological research. Cluster 1 (red), comprising 19 publications, centers on water quality and aquatic biodiversity. Cluster 2 (green), encompassing 9 items, delves into the impacts of vegetation cover changes on water yield in paired catchment experiments. Cluster 3 (yellow), consisting of 7 items, elucidates hydrological and geomorphological changes arising from wildfire (fire-induced water repellency in soil). Lastly, Cluster 4 (blue), featuring 7 items, scrutinizes the accuracy of hydrological forecasting for large watershed areas.
Performance of countries, institutions, and authors
We established a criterion to encompass countries with a minimum of 5 research publications on forest hydrology, revealing the involvement of 112 countries in advancing knowledge exchange and international collaboration within this field. Notably, the United States of America (USA) stands out with the largest node size, indicating its prominence in research article frequency ranking (see Fig. 3a). Researchers from the USA lead the pack with 7805 publications, followed by the People’s Republic of China (2440), Canada (1756), Germany (1008), and Australia (893). The top 20 most productive countries collectively contribute 81% of the publications, with Europe and North America jointly accounting for 71% of this share. Specifically, North America boasts the highest total of 9561 articles, trailed by Europe (5270), Asia (4291), Oceania (893), and South America (842) (Table S2).
Moreover, the USA, China, Germany, England, and France exhibit higher link strength, underscoring their pivotal role in global research cooperation and advocacy. Conversely, countries like South Korea, Russia, Italy, Finland, and Portugal, while contributing substantially to the literature, exhibit relatively weaker influence in research promotion compared to the top countries (Table S2). This dichotomy suggests that developed and rapidly developing nations demonstrate higher research efficiency in this promising field, while many underdeveloped and developing countries with substantial forest cover display lower research productivity in this domain (Fig. 3b). This indicates significant potential for research growth in regions such as South America and Africa, where forest hydrology remains relatively underexplored.
For enhanced visualization, we focused on the top 50 institutions, revealing 692 links that signify effective collaboration and communication among international teams engaged in forest hydrological research (Fig. 4a). The Chinese Academy of Sciences emerges as the most productive institution, having 915 published articles on the topic. Notably, among the top 20 institutions, 16 are from North America, 3 from Asia, and 1 from Europe, highlighting the proactive engagement of institutions predominantly from the public sector (95%) in advancing forest hydrological research (Table S3), indicative of its status as a federal-level priority. Furthermore, the network map unveils five clusters representing the most productive research collaboration institutions. Notable entities include the US Forest Service, Chinese Academy of Science, Oregon State University, Duke University, University of Minnesota, University of Washington, University of Georgia, and the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), among others, demonstrating extensive collaboration across geographical boundaries and institutional affiliations.
Similarly, the analysis of co-authors, covering 48 individuals with at least 20 articles in collaboration, reveals nine clusters based on co-authorship frequency (Fig. 4b). Leading researchers such as Charles T. Driscoll, Ge Sun, Hjalmar Laudon, James B Shanley, and Peter M Groffman, among others (Table 2), underscore the concerted efforts of experts worldwide in advancing forest hydrological research. Notably, collaboration among these researchers spans across continents, with significant contributions from North America, Europe, Oceania, and Asia, indicating the expanding global footprint of forest hydrological research (Table S4).
Understanding global performance: insights into cooperative countries, authors and institutions
The analysis reveals the US as the foremost research-productive country in forest hydrology, with the top co-author also hailing from the US (Tables S2 & S4). Additionally, the Chinese Academy of Science, PR. China emerges as the most prolific research institution for fostering cooperation in forest hydrology (Table S3). The US boasts the fourth-largest forest cover globally, spanning approximately 36.21% of its land, totaling about 300 million ha (Jones et al. 2009; Tidwell 2016; Vogt and Smith 2016). This diverse forest ecosystem, encompassing various forest types across different climatic zones, serves as a fertile ground for researchers, offering abundant opportunities to delve into forest hydrological dynamics (Amatya et al. 2011). Notably, forests in the US play a pivotal role in freshwater provision, with around 80% of the nation’s scarce freshwater resources originating from these forests (Sedell 2000).
The US boasts a rich history spanning nearly a century in exploring the intricate relationship between forests and water. Pioneering experiments such as the Wagon Wheel Gap’s watershed (1910) paved the way for subsequent global generalizations regarding forest-water interactions throughout the twentieth century (Andréassian 2004). Legislative milestones like the Weeks Act of 1911 underscore the nation’s commitment to safeguarding watersheds, laying the foundation for operational responsibilities assumed by entities like the U.S. Forest Service over the ensuing century (Sedell 2000). The establishment of iconic research facilities such as the Coweeta Hydrological Laboratory, H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest, and Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest further solidifies the US’s leadership in the research domain of forest hydrology (Whitehead and Robinson 1993). Since the establishment of the first paired catchment experiments (Wagon Wheel Gap’s watershed (1910), a lot of the knowledge about the forested vegetation’s effects on the hydrologic cycle and man’s influences came from paired catchment studies, and it remains the reference for all future forest hydrology studies (including size, geology, morphology, climatic forcing, and land use) (Andréassian 2004; Chang 2006; Neary 2016). Moreover, in the US, several former experimental forests have been converted into Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) observatories (Andréassian 2004), playing their vital research contribution to forest hydrology at the National and Global level.
Institutionally, the US is supported by prominent organizations like the US Forest Service, National Science Foundation, and the US Geological Survey, which provide substantial funding for research endeavors in forest hydrology (Lindsey et al. 2023). These funding opportunities facilitate long-term studies and comprehensive data collection efforts, bolstering the nation’s research output in this field. Moreover, national and international research collaborations, facilitated by institutions like the US Geological Survey, contribute significantly to research productivity (Callegary et al. 2018). Similarly, the US Geological Survey (USGS) is among the world’s top prominent agencies working on landscape-level hydrologic monitoring (Council 2007; NRC 2007). Several of its monitoring stations have been collecting hydrologic and climatic data for over a century (Lins et al. 2010). It shows that, at present, the US, as a country, has a bulk of resources and its institutional maturity in forest hydrology is playing a vital role in the generation of novel research and dissemination of research findings worldwide. These technologies provide researchers with detailed information about forest ecosystems and their hydrological processes.
The rapid growth in forest hydrological research by Chinese institutions might be due to the current challenges they are facing in managing already established forests, particularly regarding the trade-off between carbon sequestration and water consumption, as well as in planning future afforestation projects based on lessons erudite from previous experiences. Because rapid population growth and economic development, have caused lasting pressure on forests and grasslands led to large-scale ecosystem degradation in China (Lu et al. 2018), resulting in a significant loss of biomass and carbon stocks (Fang et al. 2018). The restoration of these degraded ecosystems was of utmost importance to improve environmental conditions and mitigate the challenges of climate change. Therefore, to cater for these challenges, since the 1970s, China initiated six major forest planting and protection initiatives to protect the environment and restore the degraded ecosystem, costing billions of dollars (Lu et al. 2018). China has successfully developed the world’s biggest planted forests, accounting for around 23% of the total global forest plantation area (Peng et al. 2014; Zeng et al. 2015). However, massive afforestation efforts, while aimed at combating climate change, intensify water shortages in many water-limited areas of China (Yu et al. 2019), for instance, in semiarid areas of the Loess Plateau in China caused significant streamflow reduction that resulted in water limitation (Fu et al. 2017). Forthcoming climate change scenarios already predicted that warming may increase drought stress over water-limited regions of China, causing ecological deterioration and food shortage (Wang et al. 2023b; Xu et al. 2019).
Keyword co-occurrence network
This analysis delves into the intricate interplay of keywords extracted from abstracts, titles, authors, and keywords-plus fields to construct a co-occurring network. Among the 30 top keywords identified, each exhibiting at least 600 co-occurrences, the keyword “runoff” emerges as the most prominent, appearing a staggering 2234 times. Following closely behind is “climate change” (2021), “dynamics” (1484), “vegetation” (1321), “catchment” (1235), “nitrogen” (1203), “model” (1193), “land-use” (1183), “soil” (1161), “water” (1135), “impacts” (1008), “management” (998), and “climate” (975), as depicted in Fig. 5. With the help of clustering, we can collect related keywords and mimic their closer association (Ma and Zhang 2020). The top three significant clusters were identified from the cluster analysis of keyword co-occurrence; Cluster-1 (Climate Change Impacts) represented in red color with primary keywords “climate” “climate change” and “forest”, “Impact” and “model”. Cluster-2 (Management strategies) in green color with essential keywords “dynamics”, “carbon” and “land use”, “management” and “nitrogen”. Cluster-3 (run-off-erosion dynamics) in blue color shows prominent keywords “catchment” “erosion”, “forest”, “impact” and “run-off” (Fig. 5).
Current research knowledge, prospective and future challenges
Linking climate change and forest hydrology
The relationship between forest hydrology and climate change is complex and multifaceted. Temperature and precipitation patterns can alter forest ecosystem hydrological cycles (Barik et al. 2023). The amount and time of water available for infiltration, evapotranspiration, and groundwater recharge can be affected by changes in precipitation patterns (Raz-Yaseef et al. 2012; Wang et al. 2020) while changing temperatures can impact the rate of evapotranspiration and water availability for infiltration and groundwater recharge (Caltabellotta et al. 2022; Jiao et al. 2023). Climate change will probably intensify the hydrological cycle in the regions, where plants can’t use much water for energy, but in water shortage areas, it might lead to a net drying effect (Li et al. 2017). Thus, moisture deficit in various forested soils for a longer period results in a higher frequency of drought events (Szejner et al. 2020). Increased drought and heat-induced tree mortality is the most concerning effect of climate change on forests leading to significant losses of carbon and ecosystem function (Allen et al. 2010; Hartmann et al. 2015). Mainly, the mortality of big trees contributes significantly to these losses (Lindenmayer et al. 2012). Similarly, the stand’s properties may affect streamflow, like the thinner stand could help alleviate drought effects on tree growth and mortality (D’Amato et al. 2013) and enhance water supply (Hawthorne et al. 2013). The hydrological sensitivity of catchments to climate change is influenced by vegetation types, with mixed forests producing more stable water yields than monoculture (Creed et al. 2014). Many studies reported that global warming could directly influence species proportion, leading to potential changes in plant community diversity, composition and biomass production (Dieleman et al. 2015; Li et al. 2021). These changes could also alter the hydrological cycle in forest ecosystems (Wang et al. 2023a). Additionally, warm temperatures boost widespread insect outbreaks, for example, bark beetle (Bentz et al. 2010), which increases anthropogenic carbon emissions could intensify the forest fire (Overpeck et al. 1990), ultimately, leading to water repellency conditions, accelerating runoff and deteriorating water quality (Dahm et al. 2015; Caltabellotta et al. 2022). A recent comprehensive data analysis indicates that wildfires significantly increase annual streamflow in the semi-arid regions of the Western US with warm or humid climates. On the other hand, subtropical Southeastern US has limited effects on streamflow. This finding underscores the multifaceted influence of fire on water resources and its implications for climate change adaptation strategies (Hallema et al. 2018).
Impact of forest management on hydrological dynamics
Forest management practices (such as deforestation, afforestation, and thinning) can significantly alter the hydrological functions of forests (del Campo et al. 2022; Shah et al. 2022). Before initiating any afforestation project, it is imperative to ascertain specific objectives based on what, why and where to tree planting (Creed and van Noordwijk 2018). Because the trade-off between forest carbon sequestration and water loss can be considerably altered by changes in vegetation cover (Farooqi et al. 2021). A recent global synthesis study reported that the effect of forestation on annual streamflow varies; approximately 60% of watersheds observed decreases in annual water yield of 0.7–65.1% with 0.7–100% gain in forest cover, whereas 30% (predominantly small watersheds), showed upsurge of 7–167.7% with 0.7–100% gain in forest cover (Zhang et al. 2017; Zhang and Wei 2021). Zhang and Wei further explain that this variation in annual streamflow response surpasses that induced by deforestation, potentially because of site conditions before forestation and selection of tree species (Zhang and Wei 2021). The negative impacts of large-scale tree plantations on water yield (streamflow) may offset these impacts because of increased precipitation through improved atmospheric moisture (Hoek van Dijke et al. 2022). However, these impacts may be more prominent in energy-limited regions. Water-limited regions are more hydrologically sensitive to cover changes than energy-limited regions. For example., a modeling study conducted in China revealed that reforestation could reduce annual runoff by up to 50% in semi-arid areas, whereas this reduction was only 30% in humid regions (Sun et al. 2006). Similarly, a catchment experiment conducted in south-central Chile (Mediterranean regions) demonstrated that several decades of non-native Eucalyptus and Pinus species forest plantations decreased streamflow by an amount equal to 87% of the average annual precipitation (1381 mm) (Iroumé et al. 2021).
Timber harvesting operations can significantly affect streamflow mechanisms (Li et al. 2018). For instance, a 70-year research conducted in western Oregon, the US, revealed that the timing of road construction and clearcutting, past geomorphic events, and forest dynamics had a greater impact on the watershed’s response to floods than flood magnitude (Goodman et al. 2023). Forest harvesting also affects snow accumulation and snow melting processes, which ultimately increase the magnitude and frequency of snowmelt floods (Green and Alila 2012). Moreover, thinned forest stands can alter hydrological processes, but they are highly dependent on several variables such as climate, species, forest type, and management strategy (del Campo et al. 2022). According to a recent global meta-analysis, thinning generally enhances runoff and groundwater recharge but may have mixed effects on water use efficiency and water quality, depending on management practices and local conditions (del Campo et al. 2022). Therefore, it is important to adopt an appropriate and flexible management approach that can address the need to increase water yield and promote forest carbon sequestration. For this purpose, a detailed assessment of the diverse effects of forest management operations on ecohydrological processes is needed while considering spatiotemporal dynamics and balancing various ecosystem services.
Forested watershed, water quality and aquatic biodiversity
Forestry operations have both direct and indirect impacts on water quality and aquatic ecosystems. For instance, clear-cutting increases runoff and exposes soil to erosion, increases sedimentation and transfers contaminants due to fertilizer/pesticide applications on agriculture and forest lands (Shah et al. 2022). Recently, nearly a decade of monitoring in three catchments at Flanders Moss in Scotland revealed that clear felling of conifer stands for peatland restoration negatively impacted water quality by releasing more phosphate, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), suspended sediment and color whereas there is little increase in N concentration. The mechanisms driving these releases, including nutrient leaching from forest leftovers, soil disturbance, and other indirect effects of forest clearance, require further investigation (Shah and Nisbet 2019). Similarly, another long-term monitoring paired catchment experiment in Eastern Finland found that extensive clear-cutting (< 30%) significantly increased runoff and exports of phosphate, nitrate, total nitrogen, and total organic nitrogen (Palviainen et al. 2014). In contrast, a study conducted in the state forests of Latvia found no significant increase in dissolved nitrogen in the stream in the first two years after harvesting (Libiete et al. 2017). The reason might be vegetation recovery, a quantity of slash, soil properties, dilution and nutrient assimilation effects, and forested buffer between the harvested areas and the stream, which affect nitrogen leaching (Deval et al. 2021; Libiete et al. 2017). In a latest review researchers found that despite using Best Management Practices (BMPs), harvesting often results in significant increases in runoff and sediment release. The effect can persist for decades, particularly in cases of extensive clear-cutting (Picchio et al. 2021). This scenario could lead to damaging effects on sustaining ecological health and, ultimately, impacting aquatic biodiversity. For example, a study in the Acará-Capim basin found that sediment levels and forest cover changes influence ecological health. Certain fish species, especially strong swimmers and fitting to specific trophic guilds, thrived with greater forest cover and ecological health (Cantanhêde and de Assis Montag 2024). Another study indicated that logging in forest streams in Perak, Malaysia, has been shown to reduce the abundance and diversity of aquatic macroinvertebrate (Al-Shami et al. 2017). Thus, implementing advanced best management practices (BMPs) in forestry can accelerate the recovery of forested watersheds (Walsh et al. 2020), and ultimately safeguard aquatic species (Warrington et al. 2017).
Forest hydrological modeling
The growing demand for water services from forests in changing global climate highlighted the significance of developing robust hydrological modeling techniques. More recent models incorporate energy, vegetation, and ecohydrological processes for wider applications, whereas previous models can forecast hydrological responses to changes in climate and land cover (Sun et al. 2022). Despite the substantial progressions in forest hydrological simulations, there remain many challenges associated with uncertainty in estimations. For example, from the stand to the watershed scale, modeling forest hydrological processes depends on parameterization assumptions, these assumptions, can lead to uncertainties that are hard to measure (Ouyang et al. 2014). Empirical models of hydro-ecological interactions are usually not transferable beyond the original location of creation (Scoullar et al. 2010). Moreover, the lack of ground‐based observational data for validation itself is a big hurdle in accurate estimations and validations (Clark et al. 2011). Generally, physically based hydrological models (e.g., VIC, MIKE-SHE) are widely used in Large-scale watershed studies (Keller et al. 2023). Moreover, these models are greatly dependent on empirical data acquired from small watershed studies, which may be an issue when applying them to larger scales (Kirchner 2006). Complexity in operating these models also presents challenges for non-hydrology or non-computer science researchers due to a need for a skilled interdisciplinary team (Ma et al. 2016). However, recent studies have confirmed the potential of newly emerging computing methods such as machine learning algorithms are effective, quick and accurate in predicting forest parameters, which can be useful for accurate assessment of the complex interaction between forest ecosystems and hydrology (Li et al. 2020). Therefore, the development and upgradation of sophisticated, user-friendly simulation tools is crucial and can be applicable across large spatiotemporal scale monitoring and evaluation. To achieve this, an effective and appropriate integration of emerging computing techniques of big data along with other forest hydrological data sources such as modeling, field observation and spatial data, is paramount for mitigating uncertainty in our estimates with rapidly changing in climate.
Research outlook and practical challenges in forest hydrological research
In this final subsection, we outline a series of critical research and practical challenges within forest hydrology that necessitate resolution. While previous studies have predominantly focused on watershed-scale analyses, significantly advancing our comprehension of water quality, surface and sub-surface water pathways, carbon and nutrient cycling, sedimentation, and eco-hydrological modeling, they have stimulated watershed-scale processes such as soil moisture dynamics, runoff generation, and streamflow. However, further comprehensive investigations are required to address the following challenges in forest ecohydrological research. The challenges encompass examining the impacts of climate change, land use, and forest management practices, as well as understanding ecosystem services, employing cutting-edge monitoring techniques, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, and integrating data from various tools and methodologies. These represent the primary areas of focus for future research endeavors. By addressing these challenges, we can bolster the sustainable management of water resources and bolster the resilience and health of forest ecosystems. Following an in-depth analysis and comprehensive understanding of the subject, we propose several emerging frontiers. These key questions will guide future research endeavors in the field of forest hydrology (see Box 1).
Box 1 Emerging frontiers and outstanding questions.
1. How will global changes, including climate change, land use alterations, and biodiversity loss, impact forest hydrology influencing factors such as water availability, snowmelt patterns, and groundwater recharge across diverse forest types and climate zones? |
2. What strategies can we employ to deepen our understanding of the intricate relationship between ecohydrological processes and forest management practices within the context of global change, thereby facilitating the development of sustainable forest management strategies? |
3. How can we effectively integrate hydrological data collected through diverse methodologies and approaches across different spatiotemporal scales, encompassing ground-based monitoring, statistical modeling, GIS, remote sensing, and advanced computer/machine learning techniques? |
4. What methods can we utilize to assess and balance the trade-offs and synergies between ecosystem services provided by forests and their hydrological functions? |
5. How do human-induced changes in land use and cover, alongside natural long-term variations, influence the dynamics of large watersheds, and what implications do these changes hold for long-term hydrological studies? |
6. In what ways can the integration of adaptive management techniques and traditional ecological knowledge contribute to the development of effective strategies for sustainable integrated watershed management? |
7. What role does forest canopy interception play in regulating water flow and distribution within forested ecosystems, and how might changing climate patterns impact this crucial process? |
8. What are the impacts of forest disturbances, such as wildfires or deforestation, on hydrological processes, and what innovative approaches can be employed to mitigate their effects on water quality and quantity? |
9. How can we accurately quantify the invaluable contribution of forests to downstream water resources, encompassing aspects such as the provision of clean drinking water and the regulation of streamflow variability? |
10. In what ways can community-based participatory approaches be integrated into forest hydrology research to ensure inclusive stakeholder engagement and foster equitable water resource management practices? |
Limitations and conclusions
Our study has several limitations that should be addressed in future research endeavors. Firstly, it is confined to the research period from 2000 to 2022 and relies solely on data sourced from the Web of Science Core Collection. Additionally, it only considers publications in the English language. Therefore, it would be beneficial for future studies to extend the research period and utilize alternative data sources such as Scopus and Google Scholar, while also incorporating scientific literature in languages other than English, such as Chinese and Korean. Nonetheless, this study encapsulates the most crucial time frame and research trends written in English on a global scale, mitigating some of these limitations.
The analysis of forest hydrological research reveals its interdisciplinary nature, involving various fields of study, yet it warrants further exploration. Despite the widespread research on forest hydrology worldwide, there is an urgent need to involve more underrepresented nations and regions in future investigations to comprehensively grasp how the interaction between forest ecosystems and water can impact the entire planet. Key research areas include climate change, forest management practices, ecosystem services, cutting-edge monitoring techniques, interdisciplinary collaboration, and the integration of data from diverse tools and methodologies. Addressing these areas will be essential in bridging the substantial knowledge gap in forest hydrological research.
References
Allen CD, Macalady AK, Chenchouni H, Bachelet D, McDowell N, Vennetier M, Kitzberger T, Rigling A, Breshears DD, Hogg EH, Gonzalez P, Fensham R, Zhang Z, Castro J, Demidova N, Lim JH, Allard G, Running SW, Semerci A, Cobb N (2010) A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. For Ecol Manag 259(4):660–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.001
Al-Shami SA, Rawi CSM, Ahmad AH, Madrus MR, Hamid SA, Ghani WMHWA, Awwad Al-Harbi N, AlMutairi KA (2017) Biodiversity patterns of aquatic macroinvertebrates in tropical forests streams as a response to logging activities and deforestation. Acta Ecol Sin 37(5):332–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chnaes.2017.03.004
Amatya DM, Douglas-Mankin KR, Williams TM, Skaggs RW, Nettles JE (2011) Advances in forest hydrology: challenges and opportunities. Trans ASABE 54(6):2049
Andréassian V (2004) Waters and forests: from historical controversy to scientific debate. J Hydrol 291(1–2):1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2003.12.015
Barik SK, Behera MD, Shrotriya S, Likhovskoi V (2023) Monitoring climate change impacts on agriculture and forests: trends and prospects. Environ Monit Assess 195(1):174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-022-10754-w
Bentz BJ, Régnière J, Fettig CJ, Hansen EM, Hayes JL, Hicke JA, Kelsey RG, Negrón JF, Seybold SJ (2010) Climate change and bark beetles of the western United States and Canada: direct and indirect effects. Bioscience 60(8):602–613. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.8.6
Bren L (2023) Climate change, drought, and forest hydrology. Forest hydrology and catchment management: an australian perspective. Springer, New York, pp 329–357
Brown AE, Zhang L, McMahon TA, Western AW, Vertessy RA (2005) A review of paired catchment studies for determining changes in water yield resulting from alterations in vegetation. J Hydrol 310(1–4):28–61
Bruijnzeel LA (2004) Hydrological functions of tropical forests: not seeing the soil for the trees? Agr Ecosyst Environ 104(1):185–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2004.01.015
Brutsaert W (2005) Hydrology: an introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Callegary JB, Megdal SB, Tapia Villaseñor EM, Petersen-Perlman JD, Minjárez Sosa I, Monreal R, Gray F, Grijalva Noriega F (2018) Findings and lessons learned from the assessment of the Mexico-United States transboundary San Pedro and Santa Cruz aquifers: the utility of social science in applied hydrologic research. J Hydrol Reg Stud 20:60–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2018.08.002
Caltabellotta G, Iovino M, Bagarello V (2022) Intensity and persistence of water repellency at different soil moisture contents and depths after a forest wildfire. J Hydrol Hydromech 70(4):410–420. https://doi.org/10.2478/johh-2022-0031
Cantanhêde LG, de Assis Montag LF (2024) Effects of deforestation on environmental heterogeneity and its role in the distribution of fish species and functional groups in Amazonian streams. Hydrobiologia 851(2):327–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-023-05201-x
Chang M (2006) Forest hydrology: an introduction to water and forests. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Clark MP, McMillan HK, Collins DBG, Kavetski D, Woods RA (2011) Hydrological field data from a modeller’s perspective: Part 2: process-based evaluation of model hypotheses. Hydrol Process 25(4):523–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7902
Costanza R, d'Arge R, De Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O'neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG (1997) The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387(6630):253–260
Council NR (2007) River science at the US Geological Survey. National Academies Press, Washington
Creed IF, Spargo AT, Jones JA, Buttle JM, Adams MB, Beall FD, Booth EG, Campbell JL, Clow D, Elder K, Green MB, Grimm NB, Miniat C, Ramlal P, Saha A, Sebestyen S, Spittlehouse D, Sterling S, Williams MW, Winkler R, Yao HX (2014) Changing forest water yields in response to climate warming: results from long-term experimental watershed sites across North America. Glob Chang Biol 20(10):3191–3208. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12615
Creed IF, van Noordwijk M (2018) Forest and water on a changing planet: vulnerability, adaptation and governance opportunities. A global assessment report. Vienna: IUFRO, p 192. (IUFRO World Series; 38).
D’Amato AW, Bradford JB, Fraver S, Palik BJ (2013) Effects of thinning on drought vulnerability and climate response in north temperate forest ecosystems. Ecol Appl 23(8):1735–1742. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-0677.1
Dahm CN, Candelaria-Ley RI, Reale CS, Reale JK, Van Horn DJ (2015) Extreme water quality degradation following a catastrophic forest fire. Freshw Biol 60(12):2584–2599. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12548
del Campo AD, Otsuki K, Serengil Y, Blanco JA, Yousefpour R, Wei XH (2022) A global synthesis on the effects of thinning on hydrological processes: implications for forest management. For Ecol Manag 519:120324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2022.120324
Deval C, Brooks ES, Gravelle JA, Link TE, Dobre M, Elliot WJ (2021) Long-term response in nutrient load from commercial forest management operations in a mountainous watershed. For Ecol Manag 494:119312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119312
Dieleman CM, Branfireun BA, McLaughlin JW, Lindo Z (2015) Climate change drives a shift in peatland ecosystem plant community: implications for ecosystem function and stability. Glob Chang Biol 21(1):388–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12643
Dodev Y, Zhiyanski M, Glushkova M, Shin WS (2020) Forest welfare services—the missing link between forest policy and management in the EU. For Policy Econ 118:102249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102249
Doelman JC, Stehfest E, van Vuuren DP, Tabeau A, Hof AF, Braakhekke MC, Gernaat DEHJ, van den Berg M, van Zeist WJ, Daioglou V, van Meijl H, Lucas PL (2020) Afforestation for climate change mitigation: potentials, risks and trade-offs. Glob Chang Biol 26(3):1576–1591. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14887
Ellison D, N Futter M, Bishop K (2012) On the forest cover–water yield debate: from demand-to supply-side thinking. Glob Change Biol. 18(3):806–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02589.x
Evaristo J, McDonnell JJ (2019) RETRACTED ARTICLE: global analysis of streamflow response to forest management. Nature 570:455–461. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1306-0
Fang J, Yu G, Liu L, Hu S, Chapin FS (2018) Climate change, human impacts, and carbon sequestration in China. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115(16):4015–4020. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1700304115
FAO (2020) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 - Main Report. Rome, pp 136–142. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9825en
Farooqi TJA, Abbas H, Hussain S (2020) The hydrological influence of forest harvesting intensity on streams: a global synthesis with implications for policy. Appl Ecol Env Res 18(4):4987–5009. https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1804_49875009
Farooqi TJA, Li XH, Yu Z, Liu SR, Sun OJ (2021) Reconciliation of research on forest carbon sequestration and water conservation. J for Res 32(1):7–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-020-01138-2
Farooqi TJA, Irfan M, Portela R, Xu Z, Pan SL, Ali A (2022) Global progress in climate change and biodiversity conservation research. Glob Ecol Conserv 38:e02272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2022.e02272
Fu BJ, Wang S, Liu Y, Liu JB, Liang W, Miao CY (2017) Hydrogeomorphic ecosystem responses to natural and anthropogenic changes in the Loess Plateau of China. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 45:223–243. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-earth-063016-020552
Goodman AC, Segura C, Jones JA, Swanson FJ (2023) Seventy years of watershed response to floods and changing forestry practices in western Oregon, USA. Earth Surf Process Landf 48(6):1103–1118
Green KC, Alila Y (2012) A paradigm shift in understanding and quantifying the effects of forest harvesting on floods in snow environments. Water Resour Res 48(10):W10503. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012wr012449
Hallema DW, Sun G, Caldwell PV, Norman SP, Cohen EC, Liu YQ, Bladon KD, McNulty SG (2018) Burned forests impact water supplies. Nat Commun 9(1):1307. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03735-6
Hartmann H, Adams HD, Anderegg WRL, Jansen S, Zeppel MJB (2015) Research frontiers in drought-induced tree mortality: crossing scales and disciplines. New Phytol 205(3):965–969. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13246
Hawthorne SND, Lane PNJ, Bren LJ, Sims NC (2013) The long term effects of thinning treatments on vegetation structure and water yield. For Ecol Manag 310:983–993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.09.046
Hewlett JD (1982) Principles of forest hydrology. University of Georgia Press, Athens, p 1982
Hoek van Dijke AJ, Herold M, Mallick K, Benedict I, Machwitz M, Schlerf M, Pranindita A, Theeuwen JJE, Bastin JF, Teuling AJ (2022) Shifts in regional water availability due to global tree restoration. Nat Geosci 15:363–368. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-022-00935-0
Iroumé A, Jones J, Bathurst JC (2021) Forest operations, tree species composition and decline in rainfall explain runoff changes in the Nacimiento experimental catchments, south central Chile. Hydrol Process 35(6):e14257. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.14257
Jackson RB, Jobbágy EG, Avissar R, Roy SB, Barrett DJ, Cook CW, Farley KA, le Maitre DC, McCarl BA, Murray BC (2005) Trading water for carbon with biological carbon sequestration. Science 310(5756):1944–1947. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1119282
Jenkins M, Schaap B (2018) Forest Ecosystem Services: Background study prepared for the thirteenth session of the United Nations Forum on Forests. United Nations Secretariat. https://www.un.org/esa/forests/wpcontent
Jiao Y, Zhu G, Qiu D, Liu Y, Wang L, Lu S et al (2023) Hydrological effects of evapotranspiration in the Qilian Mountains forest belt. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-375
Jones JA, Achterman GL, Augustine LA, Creed IF, Ffolliott PF, MacDonald L, Wemple BC (2009) Hydrologic effects of a changing forested landscape—challenges for the hydrological sciences. Hydrol Process 23(18):2699–2704. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7404
Kattel GR, Wu CY (2024) Recon`uration of ecohydrology as a sustainability tool for Himalayan waterways. Ecohydrology 17(4):e2522. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.2522
Keller AA, Garner K, Rao N, Knipping E, Thomas J (2023) Hydrological models for climate-based assessments at the watershed scale: a critical review of existing hydrologic and water quality models. Sci Total Environ 867:161209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.161209
Kim MC, Zhu YJ (2018) Scientometrics of scientometrics: mapping historical footprint and emerging technologies in scientometrics. InTech, Chennai. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.77951
Kirchner JW (2006) Getting the right answers for the right reasons: Linking measurements, analyses, and models to advance the science of hydrology. Water Resour Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005wr004362
Li Q, Wei XH, Zhang MF, Liu WF, Fan HB, Zhou GY, Giles-Hansen K, Liu SR, Wang Y (2017) Forest cover change and water yield in large forested watersheds: a global synthetic assessment. Ecohydrology 10(4):e1838. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1838
Li Q, Wei XH, Zhang MF, Liu WF, Giles-Hansen K, Wang Y (2018) The cumulative effects of forest disturbance and climate variability on streamflow components in a large forest-dominated watershed. J Hydrol 557:448–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.12.056
Li M, Zhang YQ, Wallace J, Campbell E (2020) Estimating annual runoff in response to forest change: a statistical method based on random forest. J Hydrol 589:125168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125168
Li CY, Lai CM, Peng F, Xue X, You QG, Liu FY, Guo PL, Liao J, Wang T (2021) Dominant plant functional group determine the response of the temporal stability of plant community biomass to 9-year warming on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Front Plant Sci 12:704138. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.704138
Libiete Z, Bardule A, Murniece S, Lupikis A (2017) Impact of clearfelling on dissolved nitrogen content in soil-, ground-, and surface waters: initial results from a study in Latvia. Agron Res 15(3):767–787
Lindenmayer DB, Laurance WF, Franklin JF (2012) Ecology. Global decline in large old trees. Science 338(6112):1305–1306. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1231070
Lindsey R, Beth AM, Sally FD, Margaret G, Chelcy FM (2023) Perspectives on the contributions of women to the hydrologic sciences and their changing demographics at USDA Forest Service Experimental Forests and Ranges. J Hydrol 621:129469
Lins HF, Hirsch RM, Kiang J (2010) Water—the Nation’s Fundamental Climate Issue A White Paper on the US Geological Survey Role and Capabilities. US Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, 2010.
Liu CL, Li WL, Xu J, Zhou HK, Li CH, Wang WY (2022) Global trends and characteristics of ecological security research in the early 21st century: a literature review and bibliometric analysis. Ecol Indic 137:108734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.108734
Lu F, Hu HF, Sun WJ, Zhu JJ, Liu GB, Zhou WM, Zhang QF, Shi PL, Liu XP, Wu X, Zhang L, Wei XH, Dai LM, Zhang KR, Sun YR, Xue S, Zhang WJ, Xiong DP, Deng L, Liu BJ, Zhou L, Zhang C, Zheng X, Cao JS, Huang Y, He NP, Zhou GY, Bai YF, Xie ZQ, Tang ZY, Wu BF, Fang JY, Liu GH, Yu GR (2018) Effects of national ecological restoration projects on carbon sequestration in China from 2001 to 2010. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115(16):4039–4044. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1700294115
Ma Q, Zhang Y (2020) Global research trends and hotspots on submarine groundwater discharge (SGD): a bibliometric analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17(3):830. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17030830
Ma L, He CG, Bian HF, Sheng LX (2016) MIKE SHE modeling of ecohydrological processes: Merits, applications, and challenges. Ecol Eng 96:137–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.01.008
Markoulli MP, Lee CISG, Byington E, Felps WA (2017) Mapping Human Resource Management: Reviewing the field and charting future directions. Hum Resour Manag Rev 27(3):367–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.10.001
Mishra M, Sudarsan D, Santos CAG, Mishra SK, Kar D, Baral K, Pattnaik N (2021) An overview of research on natural resources and indigenous communities: a bibliometric analysis based on Scopus database (1979–2020). Environ Monit Assess 193(2):59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-020-08793-2
Neary D (2016) Long-term forest paired catchment studies: what do they tell us that landscape-level monitoring does not? Forests 7(8):164. https://doi.org/10.3390/f7080164
Nocentini S, Travaglini D, Muys B (2022) Managing Mediterranean forests for multiple ecosystem services: research progress and knowledge gaps. Curr for Rep 8(2):229–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-022-00167-w
NRC (National Research Council) (2007) River science at the U.S. geological survey. The National Academies Press, Washington. https://doi.org/10.17226/11773
Ouyang S, Puhlmann H, Wang SL, von Wilpert K, Sun OJ (2014) Parameter uncertainty and identifiability of a conceptual semi-distributed model to simulate hydrological processes in a small headwater catchment in Northwest China. Ecol Process 3(1):14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-014-0014-9
Overpeck JT, Rind D, Goldberg R (1990) Climate-induced changes in forest disturbance and vegetation. Nature 343:51–53. https://doi.org/10.1038/343051a0
Palviainen M, Finér L, Laurén A, Launiainen S, Piirainen S, Mattsson T, Starr M (2014) Nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon, and suspended solids loads from forest clear-cutting and site preparation: long-term paired catchment studies from eastern Finland. Ambio 43(2):218–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-013-0439-x
Peng SS, Piao S, Zeng Z, Ciais P, Zhou L, Li LZ, Myneni RB, Yin Y, Zeng H (2014) Afforestation in China cools local land surface temperature. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111(8):2915–2919. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1315126111
Picchio R, Jourgholami M, Zenner EK (2021) Effects of forest harvesting on water and sediment yields: a review toward better mitigation and rehabilitation strategies. Curr for Rep 7(4):214–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-021-00146-7
Raz-Yaseef N, Yakir D, Schiller G, Cohen S (2012) Dynamics of evapotranspiration partitioning in a semi-arid forest as affected by temporal rainfall patterns. Agric for Meteor 157:77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.01.015
Requena-Mullor JM, Steiner A, Keppel-Aleks G, Ibáñez I (2023) Tradeoffs in forest resilience to satellite-based estimates of water and productivity losses. Remote Sens Environ 285:113414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2022.113414
Schwärzel K, Zhang LL, Montanarella L, Wang YH, Sun G (2020) How afforestation affects the water cycle in drylands: a process-based comparative analysis. Glob Chang Biol 26(2):944–959. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14875
Scoullar K, Seely B, Welham C, Kimmins H, Blanco JA (2010) Forecasting forest futures: a hybrid modelling approach to the assessment of sustainability of forest ecosystems and their values. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849776431
Sedell JR (2000) Water & the forest service. Vol 660: The Service.
Shah NW, Nisbet TR (2019) The effects of forest clearance for peatland restoration on water quality. Sci Total Environ 693:133617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133617
Shah NW, Baillie BR, Bishop K, Ferraz S, Högbom L, Nettles J (2022) The effects of forest management on water quality. For Ecol Manag 522:120397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2022.120397
Ssegane H, Amatya DM, Chescheir GM, Skaggs WR, Tollner EW, Nettles JE (2013) Consistency of hydrologic relationships of a paired watershed approach. Am J Clim Change 2(2):147–164. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajcc.2013.22015
Sun G, Zhou GY, Zhang ZQ, Wei XH, McNulty SG, Vose JM (2006) Potential water yield reduction due to forestation across China. J Hydrol 328(3–4):548–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.12.013
Sun N, Zhang S, Peng T, Zhang N, Zhou JZ, Zhang HR (2022) Multi-variables-driven model based on random forest and Gaussian process regression for monthly streamflow forecasting. Water 14(11):1828. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14111828
Sun G, Wei XH, Hao L, Sanchis MG, Hou YP, Yousefpour R, Tang R, Zhang ZQ (2023) Forest hydrology modeling tools for watershed management: a review. For Ecol Manag 530:120755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2022.120755
Szejner P, Belmecheri S, Ehleringer JR, Monson RK (2020) Recent increases in drought frequency cause observed multi-year drought legacies in the tree rings of semi-arid forests. Oecologia 192(1):241–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-019-04550-6
Teuling AJ, De Badts EA, Jansen FA, Fuchs R, Buitink J, Hoek van Dijke AJ, Sterling SM (2019) Climate change, reforestation/afforestation, and urbanization impacts on evapotranspiration and streamflow in Europe. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 23(9):3631–52. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-3631-2019
Tidwell T (2016) World Conservation Congress, USDA, US Department of Agriculture.
van Leeuwen T (2006) The application of bibliometric analyses in the evaluation of social science research. Who benefits from it, and why it is still feasible. Scientometrics 66(1):133–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0010-7
Vogt JT, Smith WB (2016) Forest Inventory and Analysis Fiscal Year 2015 Business Report: Government Printing Office.
Walsh P, Jakeman A, Thompson C (2020) The effects of selective timber harvesting in buffer strips along headwater channels using best management practices on runoff, turbidity and suspended sediment yield in an intensively cut eucalypt forest in southeastern Australia. For Ecol Manag 458:117812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2019.117812
Wang JC, Huo AD, Zhang XZ, Lu YD (2020) Prediction of the response of groundwater recharge to climate changes in Heihe River Basin. China Environ Earth Sci 79:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-019-8752-8
Wang J, Zhang CY, Luo P, Yang H, Luo C (2023a) Water yield response to plant community conversion caused by vegetation degradation and improvement in an alpine meadow on the northeastern Tibetan Plateau. Sci Total Environ 856(Pt 2):159174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159174
Wang ZY, Xu DY, Peng DL, Zhang XY (2023b) Future climate change would intensify the water resources supply-demand pressure of afforestation in Inner Mongolia. China J Clean Prod 407:137145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137145
Warrington B, Aust W, Barrett S, Ford W, Dolloff C, Schilling E, Wigley T, Bolding M (2017) Forestry best management practices relationships with aquatic and riparian fauna: a review. Forests 8(9):331. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8090331
Whitehead PG, Robinson M (1993) Experimental Basin studies—an international and historical perspective of forest impacts. J Hydrol 145(3–4):217–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(93)90055-E
Wu X, Shi WJ, Guo B, Tao FL (2020) Large spatial variations in the distributions of and factors affecting forest water retention capacity in China. Ecol Indic 113:106152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106152
Xu HJ, Wang XP, Zhao CY, Zhang XX (2019) Responses of ecosystem water use efficiency to meteorological drought under different biomes and drought magnitudes in Northern China. Agric for Meteor 278:107660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.107660
Young R, Giese R (2003) Introduction to forest ecosystem science and management. Wiley, USA
Yu Z, Liu SR, Wang JX, Wei XH, Schuler J, Sun PS, Harper R, Zegre N (2019) Natural forests exhibit higher carbon sequestration and lower water consumption than planted forests in China. Glob Chang Biol 25(1):68–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14484
Zeng WS, Tomppo E, Healey SP, Gadow KV (2015) The national forest inventory in China: history - results - international context. For Ecosyst 2:23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-015-0047-2
Zhang MF, Wei XH (2021) Deforestation, forestation, and water supply. Science 371(6533):990–991. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe7821
Zhang L, Dawes WR, Walker GR (2001) Response of mean annual evapotranspiration to vegetation changes at catchment scale. Water Resour Res 37(3):701–708
Zhang MF, Liu N, Harper R, Li Q, Liu K, Wei XH, Ning DY, Hou YP, Liu SR (2017) A global review on hydrological responses to forest change across multiple spatial scales: importance of scale, climate, forest type and hydrological regime. J Hydrol 546:44–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.12.040
Zhang JH, Zhang YX, Hu LY, Huang XX, Liu YF, Li JY, Hu QM, Xu JP, Yu HB (2021) Global trends and performances of magnetic resonance imaging studies on acupuncture: a bibliometric analysis. Front Neurosci 14:620555. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2020.620555
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Farooqi TJA & Ali A: Conceptualization; Farooqi TJA: Draft whole MS; Farooqi TJA: Data curation, formal analysis; Farooqi TJA & Portela R: Methodology; Farooqi TJA & Irfan M: Visualisation; Farooqi TJA, Pan S & Ali A: Investigation; Ali A: Supervision; Farooqi TJA, Portela R, Zhou X, Pan S, Irfan M & Ali A: review and editing. All authors contributed to the discussions and writing of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding authors
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Project funding This work is supported by Yibin University, Sichuan, China and Hebei University, Baoding, China (Grant No. 521100221033).
The online version is available at https://springerlink.fh-diploma.de/.
Corresponding editor: Lei Yu.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary 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 licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence 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 licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Farooqi, T.J.A., Portela, R., Xu, Z. et al. Advancing forest hydrological research: exploring global research trends and future directions through scientometric analysis. J. For. Res. 35, 128 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-024-01771-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-024-01771-1