Extreme droughts, heat waves, frosts, precipitation, wind storms and other climate extremes may impact the structure, composition and functioning of terrestrial ecosystems, and thus carbon cycling and its feedbacks to the climate system. Yet, the interconnected avenues through which climate extremes drive ecological and physiological processes and alter the carbon balance are poorly understood. Here, we review the literature on carbon cycle relevant responses of ecosystems to extreme climatic events. Given that impacts of climate extremes are considered disturbances, we assume the respective general disturbance‐induced mechanisms and processes to also operate in an extreme context. The paucity of well‐defined studies currently renders a quantitative meta‐analysis impossible, but permits us to develop a deductive framework for identifying the main mechanisms (and coupling thereof) through which climate extremes may act on the carbon cycle. We find that ecosystem responses can exceed the duration of the climate impacts via lagged effects on the carbon cycle. The expected regional impacts of future climate extremes will depend on changes in the probability and severity of their occurrence, on the compound effects and timing of different climate extremes, and on the vulnerability of each land‐cover type modulated by management. Although processes and sensitivities differ among biomes, based on expert opinion, we expect forests to exhibit the largest net effect of extremes due to their large carbon pools and fluxes, potentially large indirect and lagged impacts, and long recovery time to regain previous stocks. At the global scale, we presume that droughts have the strongest and most widespread effects on terrestrial carbon cycling. Comparing impacts of climate extremes identified via remote sensing vs. ground‐based observational case studies reveals that many regions in the (sub‐)tropics are understudied. Hence, regional investigations are needed to allow a global upscaling of the impacts of climate extremes on global carbon–climate feedbacks.

Energy and water limitations of tree growth remain insufficiently understood at large spatiotemporal scales, hindering model representation of interannual or longer-term ecosystem processes. By assessing and statistically scaling the climatic drivers from 2710 tree-ring sites, we identified the boreal and temperate land areas where tree growth during 1930–1960 CE responded positively to temperature (20.8 ± 3.7 Mio km²; 25.9 ± 4.6%), precipitation (77.5 ± 3.3 Mio km²; 96.4 ± 4.1%), and other parameters. The spatial manifestation of this climate response is determined by latitudinal and altitudinal temperature gradients, indicating that warming leads to geographic shifts in growth limitations. We observed a significant (P < 0.001) decrease in temperature response at cold-dry sites between 1930–1960 and 1960–1990 CE, and the total temperature-limited area shrunk by −8.7 ± 0.6 Mio km². Simultaneously, trees became more limited by atmospheric water demand almost worldwide. These changes occurred under mild warming, and we expect that continued climate change will trigger a major redistribution in growth responses to climate.

In view of future changes in climate, it is important to better understand how different plant functional groups (PFGs) respond to warmer and drier conditions, particularly in temperate regions where an increase in both the frequency and severity of drought is expected. The patterns and mechanisms of immediate and delayed impacts of extreme drought on vegetation growth remain poorly quantified. Using satellite measurements of vegetation greenness, in‐situ tree‐ring records, eddy‐covariance CO₂ and water flux measurements, and meta‐analyses of source water of plant use among PFGs, we show that drought legacy effects on vegetation growth differ markedly between forests, shrubs and grass across diverse bioclimatic conditions over the temperate Northern Hemisphere. Deep−rooted forests exhibit a drought legacy response with reduced growth during up to 4 years after an extreme drought, whereas shrubs and grass have drought legacy effects of approximately 2 years and 1 year, respectively. Statistical analyses partly attribute the differences in drought legacy effects among PFGs to plant eco‐hydrological properties (related to traits), including plant water use and hydraulic responses. These results can be used to improve the representation of drought response of different PFGs in land surface models, and assess their biogeochemical and biophysical feedbacks in response to a warmer and drier climate.