## 3 Results
### Temporal Dynamics of NPP and ET for Different Vegetation Types
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scenario**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**RCP2.6**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**RCP4.5**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**RCP8.5**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Period**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**2006–2035**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**2036–2055**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**2006–2055**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**2006–2035**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**2036–2055**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**2006–2055**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**2006–2035**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**2036–2055**} \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{NPP} & TNF & 1.30 & 0.59 & 0.62 & 1.35 & \(-\)0.08 & 0.87 & 1.40 & 0.88 & 1.29 \\  & TBF & 1.24 & 0.30 & 0.50 & 1.02 & \(-\)0.77 & 0.69 & 0.89 & 0.43 & 0.94 \\  & GRS & 1.91 & \(-\)0.21 & 0.92 & 1.70 & 0.18 & 1.37 & 1.85 & 1.07 & 1.84 \\  & NPS & 2.93 & \(-\)1.17 & 1.16 & 1.37 & \(-\)0.52 & 1.52 & 0.70 & 1.27 & 2.06 \\  & PS & 3.13 & \(-\)0.59 & 1.08 & 2.41 & \(-\)1.91 & 1.18 & 0.72 & 2.21 & 2.33 \\  & CRP & 1.11 & 0.31 & 0.59 & 1.70 & \(-\)0.65 & 0.77 & 1.28 & 0.40 & 0.80 \\  & STL & 2.47 & 0.02 & 0.82 & 1.32 & \(-\)0.42 & 1.27 & 1.63 & 0.88 & 1.56 \\  & SPT & 1.34 & 0.28 & 0.72 & 1.14 & 0.34 & 0.87 & 1.61 & 0.86 & 1.43 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{ET} & TNF & 0.75 & 0.52 & 0.35 & 0.82 & \(-\)0.24 & 0.46 & 0.85 & 0.41 & 0.76 \\  & TBF & 0.67 & 0.10 & 0.22 & 0.35 & \(-\)0.64 & 0.21 & 0.37 & \(-\)0.16 & 0.35 \\ \cline{1-1}  & GRS & 0.83 & \(-\)0.04 & 0.33 & 0.59 & \(-\)0.12 & 0.42 & 0.63 & 0.07 & 0.60 \\ \cline{1-1}  & NPS & 1.11 & 0.06 & 0.34 & 0.62 & \(-\)0.56 & 0.39 & 0.65 & 0.07 & 0.55 \\ \cline{1-1}  & PS & 1.34 & 0.16 & 0.50 & 1.04 & \(-\)0.66 & 0.53 & 0.27 & 0.57 & 0.77 \\ \cline{1-1}  & CRP & 0.51 & 0.14 & 0.28 & 0.82 & \(-\)0.59 & 0.29 & 0.53 & \(-\)0.31 & 0.16 \\ \cline{1-1}  & STL & 0.99 & \(-\)0.10 & 0.26 & 0.33 & \(-\)0.37 & 0.35 & 0.60 & 0.08 & 0.49 \\ \cline{1-1}  & SPT & 0.56 & 0.14 & 0.28 & 0.42 & \(-\)0.02 & 0.26 & 0.63 & 0.10 & 0.55 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: The Normalized Rate for NPP and ET during Different Periods under Each RCP Scenario (%). Figure 9: The temporal variation of annual ET for different vegetation types from 2006 to 2055 under RCP2.6 (**a**), RCP4.5 (**b**), and RCP8.5 (**c**). TNF: temperate needle-leaf forest; TBF: temperate broadleaf forest; GRS: grass; NPS: non-pheatophyte shrub; PS: pheatophyte shrub; CRP: crop; STL: settlement; SPT: Summer pasture. the ET of TBF is least sensitive to those changes under RCP2.6 and RCP4.5 with a rate of 0.22% and 0.21%, respectively. Under RCP8.5, the ET of CRP is much less sensitive to the changes with a rate of 0.16%. Moreover, the ET increase rates of TBF, CRP, and SPT do not increase from the RCP2.6 to RCP4.5 to RCP8.5. The maximum increase rates of ET for TBF, CRP and SPT occur under RCP8.5, RCP4.5, and RCP8.5, respectively. Thus, the responses of ET for different vegetation types are more complex than those of NPP (Table 4). Similar to the temporal pattern of climate change, the vegetation types respond differently to the changes of climate and CO\({}_{2}\) concentration in different periods (Table 4). Here, we mainly analyzed the trends of NPP and ET for each vegetation type under different RCP scenarios. During the first 30 years, as the increase of the precipitation and temperature, the NPP and ET of each vegetation type show an increasing trend under each RCP scenario. However, in the next 20 years, the vegetation responds differently under different RCP scenarios. For NPP, the GRS, NPS, and PS show a declining trend under RCP2.6. Only GRS and SPT show an increasing trend under RCP4.5 while all vegetation types present an increasing trend under RCP8.5. For ET, the GRS and STL show a declining trend under RCP2.6, and the TBF and CRP present a declining trend under RCP4.5. All vegetation types present a declining trend under RCP4.5.