| Literature DB >> 29064405 |
Ning Wang1,2, Juying Jiao3, Yanfeng Jia4, Dongli Wang5.
Abstract
The Chinese Loess Plateau region has long been suffering from serious soil erosion. Thus, large-scale afforestation has continued during the past decades in order to control soil erosion. Afforestation can dramatically alter nutrient cycles, affect soil-carbon storage, and change hydrology. However, it is unknown how afforestation influences species diversity of the soil seed bank and understory vegetation compared with spontaneous restoration of abandoned land. Forest land with trees planted 30 years ago, abandoned slope land restored spontaneously for 30 years, and the corresponding slopes with remnant natural vegetation were selected as sampling sites. The species richness both in the soil seed bank and vegetation was significantly higher on the afforested slope compared to the spontaneously restored abandoned land. The species similarity between the afforested slope and the remnant slope land was high both in the soil seed bank and standing vegetation compared to the abandoned land. The soil seed bank density varied from 1778 ± 187 to 3896 ± 221 seeds/m², and more than half of it was constituted by annual and biennial species, with no significant difference among sampling habitats. However, the afforested slope had higher seed density of grass and shrub/subshrubs compared to the abandoned slope. The present study indicates that in the study region, characterized by serious soil erosion, afforestation can better facilitate vegetation succession compared to spontaneously restoration of abandoned slope land.Entities:
Keywords: abandoned land; afforestation; soil erosion; soil seed bank; species diversity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29064405 PMCID: PMC5664785 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14101285
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Soil seed bank density and species richness varied among different habitats (Ps/Pn—south/north-facing afforested slope land, As/An—south/north-facing abandoned slope land with spontaneous restoration, Rs/Rn—south/north-facing slope lands with remnant natural vegetation. The letters “a, b, c” above the bar indicates significant difference at the 0.05 level).
Figure 2Vegetation coverage and species richness varied among different habitats (Ps/Pn—south/north-facing afforested slope land, As/An—south/north-facing abandoned slope land with spontaneous restoration, Rs/Rn—south/north-facing slope lands with remnant natural vegetation. The letters “a, b, c” above the bar indicates significant difference at the 0.05 level).
The characteristics of soil seed bank and vegetation in different habitats.
| Species | Soil Seed Bank (seeds/m2) | Vegetation Cover (%) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ps | Pn | As | An | Rs | Rn | Ps | Pn | As | An | Rs | Rn | |
| Annuals/biennials | ||||||||||||
| 2 | ||||||||||||
| 23 | 28 | 4 | ||||||||||
| 94 | 6 | 250 | 553 | 11 | 0.2 | |||||||
| 1701 | 966 | 983 | 2072 | 1463 | 1448 | 0.1 | 0.1 | |||||
| 3 | 6 | |||||||||||
| 5 | 31 | 4 | 4 | |||||||||
| 11 | 11 | 4 | 2 | |||||||||
| 2 | ||||||||||||
| 20 | 18 | 28 | 11 | 7 | 4 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.1 | ||||
| 2 | ||||||||||||
| 2 | 15 | 6 | 67 | 6 | 13 | |||||||
| 17 | 2 | 6 | 15 | |||||||||
| 0.3 | ||||||||||||
| 0.1 | ||||||||||||
| 2 | 11 | 11 | ||||||||||
| 3 | 2 | |||||||||||
| 17 | ||||||||||||
| 12 | 15 | 26 | ||||||||||
| 2 | 6 | 2 | ||||||||||
| 61 | 57 | 2 | 0.6 | 0.9 | ||||||||
| 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | ||||||||||
| 78 | 21 | 22 | 122 | 35 | 83 | 0.2 | ||||||
| 2 | ||||||||||||
| 123 | 370 | 133 | ||||||||||
| 2 | ||||||||||||
| 11 | 158 | 50 | ||||||||||
| Perennial herbs | ||||||||||||
| 12 | 6 | 2 | 41 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 9.4 | 1.2 | |||||
| 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.1 | ||||||||||
| 3 | 39 | 2 | 2 | |||||||||
| 0.1 | ||||||||||||
| 11 | 0.4 | |||||||||||
| 3 | 11 | 1.7 | 4.9 | |||||||||
| 0.0 | ||||||||||||
| 3 | ||||||||||||
| 7 | ||||||||||||
| 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.2 | |||||||||
| 3 | 18 | 6 | 78 | 20 | 20 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 0.1 | |||
| 57 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 55 | 13 | |||||||
| 149 | 48 | 22 | 37 | 175 | 0.1 | 0.1 | ||||||
| 2 | 0.3 | |||||||||||
| 2 | ||||||||||||
| 3 | 17 | 4 | 18 | 0.1 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 0.3 | ||||
| 2 | 0.1 | |||||||||||
| 12 | 23 | 6 | 9 | 74 | 2.1 | 0.8 | 3.6 | |||||
| 17 | 2 | 11 | 2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | |||||||
| 0.7 | 0.1 | |||||||||||
| 66 | 44 | 2 | 4 | 0.2 | 0.8 | 0.0 | ||||||
| 0.2 | ||||||||||||
| 2 | ||||||||||||
| 0.2 | ||||||||||||
| 0.7 | ||||||||||||
| 2 | 0.3 | 4.4 | ||||||||||
| 2 | 29 | 9 | 15 | 0.1 | ||||||||
| 0.1 | ||||||||||||
| Perennial grasses | ||||||||||||
| 3 | 11 | 556 | 103 | 4 | 0.2 | 29.0 | 1.3 | |||||
| 20 | ||||||||||||
| 0.2 | ||||||||||||
| 6 | 8 | 311 | 17 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 3.6 | 0.1 | |||||
| 6 | 0.3 | |||||||||||
| 17 | 1.0 | 1.3 | ||||||||||
| 0.1 | ||||||||||||
| 0.5 | ||||||||||||
| 2 | ||||||||||||
| 98 | ||||||||||||
| 54 | 9 | 24 | 0.2 | 0.4 | ||||||||
| 0.2 | ||||||||||||
| 0.7 | 0.4 | |||||||||||
| 63 | 193 | 907 | 134 | 1074 | 0.1 | |||||||
| 743 | 89 | 39 | 17 | 11 | 48 | 9.0 | 4.1 | 0.5 | 2.3 | 0.6 | 0.6 | |
| 2 | 0.1 | 0.0 | ||||||||||
| Shrubs/Sub-shrubs | ||||||||||||
| 0.8 | 1.7 | |||||||||||
| 52 | 180 | 11 | 89 | 41 | 326 | 1.3 | 11.8 | 2.2 | 30.0 | 7.7 | 8.5 | |
| 3 | 114 | 6 | 3.1 | |||||||||
| 1.2 | 3.3 | |||||||||||
| 4 | 2 | 0.9 | ||||||||||
| 2 | 0.1 | |||||||||||
| 5 | 9 | 44 | 33 | 77 | 13 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 3.3 | 3.4 | 0.3 | ||
| 3.9 | ||||||||||||
| 2 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.2 | |||||||||
| 2.3 | ||||||||||||
| 24 | 7.9 | |||||||||||
| 6 | ||||||||||||
| 0.1 | ||||||||||||
| 0.3 | ||||||||||||
| Trees | ||||||||||||
| 0.7 | ||||||||||||
| 71 | 2 | |||||||||||
| 3.3 | ||||||||||||
Note: Ps/Pn—south/ north-facing afforested slope land, As/An—south/north-facing abandoned slope land with spontaneous restoration, Rs/Rn—south/north-facing slope lands with remnant natural vegetation.
Figure 3Species diversity of the soil seed bank and standing vegetation in different habitats (Ps/Pn—south/north-facing afforested slope land, As/An—south/north-facing abandoned slope land with spontaneous restoration, Rs/Rn—south/north-facing slope lands with remnant natural vegetation. The letters “a, b, c” above the bar indicates significant difference at the 0.05 level).
Figure 4The Sorensen similarity coefficient between the soil seed bank and standing vegetation in different habitats (Ps/Pn—south/north-facing afforested slope land, As/An—south/north-facing abandoned slope land with spontaneous restoration, Rs/Rn—south/north-facing slope lands with remnant natural vegetation. The letters “a, b, c” above the bar indicates significant difference at the 0.05 level).
The soil seed bank density and vegetation coverage of different function groups vary among different habitats (A, Annuals/biennials, P, Perennial herbs, G, Perennial grasses, S, shrubs/sub-shrubs, T, Trees).
| Items | Ps | Pn | As | An | Rs | Rn | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soil seed bank density (seeds/m2) | A | 2109 | 1523 | 1061 | 2583 | 2277 | 1803 |
| P | 247 | 246 | 67 | 156 | 151 | 385 | |
| G | 870 | 310 | 594 | 941 | 560 | 1291 | |
| S | 60 | 190 | 56 | 122 | 260 | 354 | |
| T | 71 | 2 | |||||
| Soil seed bank species richness | A | 13 | 12 | 6 | 10 | 17 | 14 |
| P | 9 | 14 | 4 | 5 | 10 | 14 | |
| G | 6 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 9 | |
| S | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 6 | |
| T | 1 | 1 | |||||
| Vegetation cover (%) | A | 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 0.2 | ||
| P | 1.6 | 6.0 | 4.5 | 4.2 | 9.9 | 15.1 | |
| G | 10.3 | 5.3 | 30.7 | 3.8 | 5.5 | 2.1 | |
| S | 2.5 | 13.8 | 5.5 | 34.2 | 30.3 | 10.9 | |
| T | 3.3 | 0.7 | |||||
| Vegetation species richness | A | 6 | 3 | 3 | 2 | ||
| P | 6 | 12 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 12 | |
| G | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 7 | |
| S | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 9 | 6 | |
| T | 1 | 1 |
Note: Ps/Pn—south/north-facing afforested slope land, As/An—south/north-facing abandoned slope land with spontaneous restoration, Rs/Rn—south/north-facing slope lands with remnant natural vegetation.