Cargando…
Soil quality and ecological benefits assessment of alpine desertified grassland following different ecological restoration measures
INTRODUCTION: Soil quality plays an irreplaceable role in plant growth for restored grassland. However, few studies investigate the comprehensive effects considering soil and vegetation properties during the restoration of desertified grassland, which restrict the virtuous circle of restored grassla...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10634470/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37954986 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1283457 |
_version_ | 1785132836556111872 |
---|---|
author | Li, Yiran Hu, Sijia Lang, Shanxin Pu, Yulin Zhang, Shirong Li, Ting Xu, Xiaoxun Jia, Yongxia Wang, Guiyin Yuan, Dagang Li, Yun |
author_facet | Li, Yiran Hu, Sijia Lang, Shanxin Pu, Yulin Zhang, Shirong Li, Ting Xu, Xiaoxun Jia, Yongxia Wang, Guiyin Yuan, Dagang Li, Yun |
author_sort | Li, Yiran |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Soil quality plays an irreplaceable role in plant growth for restored grassland. However, few studies investigate the comprehensive effects considering soil and vegetation properties during the restoration of desertified grassland, which restrict the virtuous circle of restored grassland ecosystem. METHODS: By setting three restoration patterns of enclosure plus grass (EG), enclosure intercropping shrub-grass (ESG), and enclosure plus sand-barrier and shrub-grass (ESSG) with three different restoration years (≤5, 7–9, and ≥15 years), we selected 28 physicochemical and microbial indicators, and constructed a minimum data set (MDS) to analyze the influences of restoration measurements on soil quality and ecological benefits in alpine desertified grassland. RESULTS: The results showed that the MDS comprised seven soil quality indicators: silt, total nitrogen (TN), carbon–nitrogen ratio (C/N), total potassium (TK), microbial biomass carbon (MBC), microbial biomass phosphorus (MBP), and fungi. Soil quality index (SQI) and ecological restoration effect index (EREI) in restored grasslands significantly increased by 144.83–561.24% and 87.21–422.12%, respectively, compared with unrestored grassland, and their positive effects increased with extending restoration years. The increasing effects of SQI and EREI were the highest in ESSG, followed by EG and ESG. The increasing rate of SQI began to decrease after 5 years in EG and ESG, while it decreased after 7–9 years in ESSG, and that of EREI in EG was lower than ESSG in each restoration year. Our work revealed that ESSG was the optimum restoration pattern for desertified grassland, and anthropogenic monitoring and management measurements such as applying organic fertilization and mowing return reasonably should be carried out at the beginning of 5 years in EG and ESG as well as 7 years in ESSG to maintain sustainable ecological benefits. DISCUSSION: The study highlights that soil quality, including microbial properties, is a key factor to evaluate the restoration effects of desertified grassland. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10634470 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-106344702023-11-10 Soil quality and ecological benefits assessment of alpine desertified grassland following different ecological restoration measures Li, Yiran Hu, Sijia Lang, Shanxin Pu, Yulin Zhang, Shirong Li, Ting Xu, Xiaoxun Jia, Yongxia Wang, Guiyin Yuan, Dagang Li, Yun Front Plant Sci Plant Science INTRODUCTION: Soil quality plays an irreplaceable role in plant growth for restored grassland. However, few studies investigate the comprehensive effects considering soil and vegetation properties during the restoration of desertified grassland, which restrict the virtuous circle of restored grassland ecosystem. METHODS: By setting three restoration patterns of enclosure plus grass (EG), enclosure intercropping shrub-grass (ESG), and enclosure plus sand-barrier and shrub-grass (ESSG) with three different restoration years (≤5, 7–9, and ≥15 years), we selected 28 physicochemical and microbial indicators, and constructed a minimum data set (MDS) to analyze the influences of restoration measurements on soil quality and ecological benefits in alpine desertified grassland. RESULTS: The results showed that the MDS comprised seven soil quality indicators: silt, total nitrogen (TN), carbon–nitrogen ratio (C/N), total potassium (TK), microbial biomass carbon (MBC), microbial biomass phosphorus (MBP), and fungi. Soil quality index (SQI) and ecological restoration effect index (EREI) in restored grasslands significantly increased by 144.83–561.24% and 87.21–422.12%, respectively, compared with unrestored grassland, and their positive effects increased with extending restoration years. The increasing effects of SQI and EREI were the highest in ESSG, followed by EG and ESG. The increasing rate of SQI began to decrease after 5 years in EG and ESG, while it decreased after 7–9 years in ESSG, and that of EREI in EG was lower than ESSG in each restoration year. Our work revealed that ESSG was the optimum restoration pattern for desertified grassland, and anthropogenic monitoring and management measurements such as applying organic fertilization and mowing return reasonably should be carried out at the beginning of 5 years in EG and ESG as well as 7 years in ESSG to maintain sustainable ecological benefits. DISCUSSION: The study highlights that soil quality, including microbial properties, is a key factor to evaluate the restoration effects of desertified grassland. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-10-25 /pmc/articles/PMC10634470/ /pubmed/37954986 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1283457 Text en Copyright © 2023 Li, Hu, Lang, Pu, Zhang, Li, Xu, Jia, Wang, Yuan and Li https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Plant Science Li, Yiran Hu, Sijia Lang, Shanxin Pu, Yulin Zhang, Shirong Li, Ting Xu, Xiaoxun Jia, Yongxia Wang, Guiyin Yuan, Dagang Li, Yun Soil quality and ecological benefits assessment of alpine desertified grassland following different ecological restoration measures |
title | Soil quality and ecological benefits assessment of alpine desertified grassland following different ecological restoration measures |
title_full | Soil quality and ecological benefits assessment of alpine desertified grassland following different ecological restoration measures |
title_fullStr | Soil quality and ecological benefits assessment of alpine desertified grassland following different ecological restoration measures |
title_full_unstemmed | Soil quality and ecological benefits assessment of alpine desertified grassland following different ecological restoration measures |
title_short | Soil quality and ecological benefits assessment of alpine desertified grassland following different ecological restoration measures |
title_sort | soil quality and ecological benefits assessment of alpine desertified grassland following different ecological restoration measures |
topic | Plant Science |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10634470/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37954986 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1283457 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT liyiran soilqualityandecologicalbenefitsassessmentofalpinedesertifiedgrasslandfollowingdifferentecologicalrestorationmeasures AT husijia soilqualityandecologicalbenefitsassessmentofalpinedesertifiedgrasslandfollowingdifferentecologicalrestorationmeasures AT langshanxin soilqualityandecologicalbenefitsassessmentofalpinedesertifiedgrasslandfollowingdifferentecologicalrestorationmeasures AT puyulin soilqualityandecologicalbenefitsassessmentofalpinedesertifiedgrasslandfollowingdifferentecologicalrestorationmeasures AT zhangshirong soilqualityandecologicalbenefitsassessmentofalpinedesertifiedgrasslandfollowingdifferentecologicalrestorationmeasures AT liting soilqualityandecologicalbenefitsassessmentofalpinedesertifiedgrasslandfollowingdifferentecologicalrestorationmeasures AT xuxiaoxun soilqualityandecologicalbenefitsassessmentofalpinedesertifiedgrasslandfollowingdifferentecologicalrestorationmeasures AT jiayongxia soilqualityandecologicalbenefitsassessmentofalpinedesertifiedgrasslandfollowingdifferentecologicalrestorationmeasures AT wangguiyin soilqualityandecologicalbenefitsassessmentofalpinedesertifiedgrasslandfollowingdifferentecologicalrestorationmeasures AT yuandagang soilqualityandecologicalbenefitsassessmentofalpinedesertifiedgrasslandfollowingdifferentecologicalrestorationmeasures AT liyun soilqualityandecologicalbenefitsassessmentofalpinedesertifiedgrasslandfollowingdifferentecologicalrestorationmeasures |