Objective Disruptive technologies are key variables for the construction of independent carbon control paradigms in forestry and the competition for green technology dominance under the “Dual Carbon” strategy. Their identification and cultivation hold significant practical value and far-reaching strategic significance for promoting the transformation of traditional forestry to independent carbon control. Aiming at the accurate identification of disruptive technologies in the “Dual Carbon” field, this study constructs a systematic identification framework, compares and analyzes the applicability of single-source data and multi-source heterogeneous data in technology topic extraction, and intends to provide a replicable and promotable methodological framework for the exploration of key technologies in complex scenarios such as forestry independent carbon control, as well as support for the establishment of an independent carbon control technology list.

Method This study improves the existing measurement indicator system based on the characteristics of disruptive technologies, adopts the TNG model (which considers both single-source data and multi-source heterogeneous data) to extract technology topics, and calculates the topic disruptive index. Combined with the knowledge background of the forestry sector for Dual Carbon goals (hereinafter referred to as “forestry Dual Carbon”), the identified disruptive technologies are subjected to classified interpretation and in-depth analysis according to two major technical paths: “source emission reduction” and “end-of-pipe treatment”.

Result Through comparative verification with third-party data, the method constructed in this study exhibits good identification performance, and the identification effect of multi-source heterogeneous data integration is significantly superior to that of single-source data. In the field of forestry Dual Carbon, core technology topics are successfully identified, including those under source emission reduction (integrated energy systems, smart distribution networks, biomass energy emission reduction) and end-of-pipe treatment (forest soil carbon sequestration technology, thermal reaction carbon dioxide capture, ionic liquid-carbon adsorption, composite electrocatalyst preparation). These technologies cover the entire chain of carbon emission reduction, carbon capture, carbon utilization, and carbon sequestration, providing support for the construction of an independent carbon control technology system in forestry.

Conclusion The identification framework proposed in this study demonstrates good applicability and stability in the exploration of disruptive technologies. It not only provides an accurate technical identification path and a list of core technologies for the “independent carbon control transformation” in the forestry Dual Carbon field, but also offers a theoretical foundation and practical basis for the transfer application of this method in other complex fields.