| Literature DB >> 30108289 |
Ruirui Li1, Wenjuan Zhang1, Siqian Yang1, Mengke Zhu1, Shasha Kan2, Jiao Chen1, Xiaoyan Ai3, Yingwei Ai4.
Abstract
External-soil spray seeding (ESSS), a technique of spraying artificial soil materials onto bare slopes for vegetation cover construction, has been widely used to restore rock-cut slopes. However, studies on the effect of the practical application of this technique on different topographic aspects have been rarely performed. In this study, two topographic aspects, namely, north-facing versus south-facing, were investigated under two railway lines, and two local natural slopes (north-facing versus south-facing) were selected as references. Vegetation and soil conditions, which are paramount aspects of ecological restoration assessment, were characterized in terms of the richness and diversity indices, vegetation canopy cover, basic soil physico-chemical properties, and structural characteristics of these slopes. Results showed that (1) the topographic aspect significantly affected the vegetation restoration and artificial soil quality of rock-cut slopes restored by ESSS; (2) the ecological restoration effect of north-facing slopes were better than that of south-facing slopes; and (3) the vegetation and soil conditions of natural slopes were better than those of rock-cut slopes. Therefore, additional scientific management measures should be implemented to promote the ecological restoration of rock-cut slopes, especially for south-facing slopes.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30108289 PMCID: PMC6092385 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-30651-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Detailed locations of the study site and sampling strategy. Notes: (a) Study sites. DC-1-N: Dazhou-Chengdu line–north-facing slope; DC-1-S: Dazhou-Chengdu line south-facing slope; DC-2-N: Dazhou-Chengdu second line–north-facing slope; DC-2-S: Dazhou-Chengdu second line–south-facing slope; NS-N: natural–north-facing slope; NS-S: natural–south-facing slope. The main part of this map was generated by the co-author (Yingwei Ai) using the ArcGIS software (version 10.0, ESRI Inc.; Redlands, CA, USA; homepage: https://www.esri.com/), and a part of this map was quoted from an article published by Huang et al.[2]. (b) Sectional drawing of rock-cut slopes. Plants in the drawing do not represent the actual growth of plants in sample areas. The photograph was taken by one of the authors (Jiao Chen). (c) Sampling strategy. Samples were collected from red stars and mixed together to obtain a homogenized weight sample of approximately 2 kg (replicate 1), as did green stars (replicate 2) and blue stars (replicate 3).
Figure 2The canopy coverage, Margalef index, and Shannon-Winner index of slopes. Notes: DC-1-N: Dazhou-Chengdu line–north-facing slope; DC-1-S: Dazhou-Chengdu line–south-facing slope; DC-2-N: Dazhou-Chengdu second line–north-facing slope; DC-2-S: Dazhou-Chengdu second line–south-facing slope; NS-N: natural–north-facing slope; NS-S: natural–south-facing slope. The Margalef index and Shannon-Winner index of natural slopes were not investigated and counted.
Selected basic soil properties and characteristic parameters of particle size distribution and aggregate stability.
| Topographic aspect | Variables | Dazhou-Chengdu line | Dazhou-Chengdu second line | Natural slopes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| North-facing | BD (g·cm−3) | 1.282 ± 0.020Ab | 1.339 ± 0.010Aa | 1.240 ± 0.023Ac |
| SWC (%) | 19.92 ± 0.11Aa | 17.30 ± 0.34Ab | 20.65 ± 1.64Aa | |
| pH | 7.88 ± 0.03Ba | 7.78 ± 0.01Aa | 7.60 ± 0.12Bb | |
| Clay (%) | 12.07 ± 1.58Ab | 9.70 ± 0.47Ac | 15.97 ± 0.44Aa | |
| Silt (%) | 28.59 ± 2.62Ab | 19.16 ± 2.09Bc | 32.83 ± 0.96Aa | |
| Sand (%) | 62.79 ± 3.18Ab | 71.14 ± 2.07Aa | 51.20 ± 1.06Bc | |
| Texture class | Sandy Loam | Sandy Loam | Clay Loam | |
|
| 2.716 ± 0.009Ab | 2.694 ± 0.003Ac | 2.753 ± 0.005Aa | |
| 96.96 ± 0.40Aa | 95.06 ± 0.83Aa | 96.21 ± 0.19Aa | ||
| 76.76 ± 0.61Ab | 72.58 ± 0.12Ac | 81.92 ± 0.69Aa | ||
| P (%) | 20.83 ± 0.65Bb | 23.65 ± 0.62Ba | 14.85 ± 0.87Bc | |
| South-facing | BD (g·cm−3) | 1.293 ± 0.024Ab | 1.357 ± 0.025Aa | 1.257 ± 0.002Ac |
| SWC (%) | 17.78 ± 0.60Bb | 16.05 ± 0.43Bc | 19.29 ± 0.50Ba | |
| pH | 7.91 ± 0.04Aa | 7.81 ± 0.02Ab | 7.84 ± 0.02Ab | |
| Clay (%) | 11.54 ± 0.69Aa | 8.31 ± 1.22Bb | 12.13 ± 1.59Ba | |
| Silt (%) | 26.99 ± 0.27Bb | 24.52 ± 0.65Ac | 28.73 ± 2.64Ba | |
| Sand (%) | 61.47 ± 0.72Ab | 67.17 ± 1.49Ba | 59.14 ± 2.04Ab | |
| Texture class | Sandy Loam | Sandy Loam | Sandy Loam | |
|
| 2.685 ± 0.011Ab | 2.686 ± 0.014Ab | 2.723 ± 0.012Ba | |
| 96.05 ± 0.54Aa | 90.81 ± 0.44Bb | 94.82 ± 0.05Aa | ||
| 70.88 ± 0.95Bb | 61.70 ± 0.25Bc | 77.24 ± 0.47Ba | ||
| P (%) | 26.20 ± 1.29Ab | 32.06 ± 0.33Aa | 18.54 ± 0.47Ac |
Notes: Numbers followed by different first capital letters within the same column have significant differences (P < 0.05) between different topographic aspects (north-facing versus south-facing), the same sample area for same variables (BD, SWC, pH, clay, silt, sand, Dm, a, b and P). Numbers followed by different second lowercase letters within the same line have significant differences (P < 0.05) between different sample areas, the same topographic aspect for same variables (BD, SWC, pH, clay, silt, sand, Dm, a, b and P).
Data are expressed as mean values ± standard deviation with n = 3.
BD: bulk density; SWC: soil water content; Dm: fractal dimension; a: percentages of soil aggregates >0.25 mm; b: percentages of soil water-aggregates >0.25 mm; P: structure failure rate.
Figure 3Selected basic soil chemical properties and enzyme activities of slope soils. Notes: DC-1-N: Dazhou-Chengdu line–north-facing slope; DC-1-S: Dazhou-Chengdu line–south-facing slope; DC-2-N: Dazhou-Chengdu second line–north-facing slope; DC-2-S: Dazhou-Chengdu second line–south-facing slope; NS-N: natural–north-facing slope; NS-S: natural–south-facing slope.
Figure 4Linear regression analysis for fractal dimension and particle size distribution. , sand, y = –208.81x + 627.75; , silt, y = 115x – 284.93; , clay, y = 93.759x – 242.68.
Figure 5Percentage of soil aggregate fraction and water-stable aggregate fraction. Notes: DC-1-N: Dazhou-Chengdu line–north-facing slope; DC-1-S: Dazhou-Chengdu line–south-facing slope; DC-2-N: Dazhou-Chengdu second line–north-facing slope; DC-2-S: Dazhou-Chengdu second line–south-facing slope; NS-N: natural–north-facing slope; NS-S: natural–south-facing slope.
Figure 6Cumulative distribution of soil aggregate weights after dry sieving and wet sieving. Notes: DC-1-N: Dazhou-Chengdu line–north-facing slope; DC-1-S: Dazhou-Chengdu line–south-facing slope; DC-2-N: Dazhou-Chengdu second line–north-facing slope; DC-2-S: Dazhou-Chengdu second line–south-facing slope; NS-N: natural–north-facing slope; NS-S: natural–south-facing slope. ∆S: area difference between the dry sieving and wet sieving curves.
Pearson correlation coefficients for soil nutrient, enzyme activities and basic soil properties.
| Protease | Urease | Sucrase | Catalase | BD | pH | SWC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AN | −0.047 | 0.841** | 0.792** | 0.647** | −0.551* | −0.735** | 0.608** |
| AP | 0.529** | 0.636** | 0.795** | 0.848** | −0.861** | −0.206 | 0.891** |
| AK | 0.818** | −0.293 | −0.102 | 0.583* | −0.220 | 0.415 | 0.327 |
| SOC | 0.619** | 0.208 | −0.541* | 0.936** | −0.713** | 0.134 | 0.685** |
Notes: AN: available nitrogen; AK: available potassium; AP: available phosphorus; SOC: soil organic carbon; BD: bulk density; SWC: soil water content. **Correlation is significant at P < 0.01; *Correlation is significant at P < 0.05.
Pearson correlation coefficients among characteristic parameters and selected soil properties.
| Clay | Silt | Sand | AP | AK | AN | SOC | P |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clay | 1 | ||||||||
| Silt | 0.683** | 1 | |||||||
| Sand | −0.864** | −0.958** | 1 | ||||||
| AP | 0.838** | 0.645** | −0.774** | 1 | |||||
| AK | 0.211 | 0.170 | −0.200 | 0.379 | 1 | ||||
| AN | 0.523* | 0.330 | −0.434 | 0.547* | −0.410 | 1 | |||
| SOC | 0.647** | 0.706** | −0.741** | 0.805** | 0.720** | 0.086 | 1 | ||
| P | −0.784** | −0.540* | 0.680** | −0.898** | −0.146 | −0.754** | −0.684** | 1 | |
|
| 0.810** | 0.646** | 0.764** | 0.770** | 0.045 | 0.776** | 0.561* | −0.854** | 1 |
Notes: AN: available nitrogen; AP: available phosphorus; AK: available potassium; SOC: soil organic carbon; P: structure failure rate; Dm: fractal dimension. **Correlation is significant at P < 0.01; *Correlation is significant at P < 0.05.
Figure 7Principal component analysis of soil properties, and first two component’s capacity score coefficients. AN: available nitrogen; AP: available phosphorus; AK: available potassium; SOC: soil organic carbon; BD: bulk density; SWC: soil water content.