4.6 Article

SUCCESSIONAL TRAJECTORY OVER 10 YEARS OF VEGETATION RESTORATION OF ABANDONED SLOPE CROPLANDS IN THE HILL-GULLY REGION OF THE LOESS PLATEAU

期刊

LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT
卷 27, 期 4, 页码 919-932

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ldr.2356

关键词

vegetation succession; revegetation type; succession rate; soil erosion; ecosystem services

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of China [41030532, 41371280]
  2. Knowledge Innovation Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [KZCX2-EW-406]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Revegetation has been the primary management approach for solving the problems caused by severe soil erosion in the Loess Plateau. The objectives of this work were to explore the successional trajectory of the different types of restoration and discuss their potential effectiveness for the control of soil erosion. The presence and coverage of plants in 40 permanent plots were investigated during two periods (2003-2006 and 2013). The naturally and artificially revegetated communities studied in the two surveys were classified using two-way indicator species analysis, and their relationships were analyzed using detrended correspondence analysis. Under natural revegetation, the communities succeed in the following order: annual plants. perennial plants. short rhizome tufts and subshrubs. Under artificial revegetation, succession was interrupted by artificial planting, and a Gramineae herb layer persisted through the years with few changes in species composition. Additionally, species richness, diversity, and evenness increased, while ecological dominance decreased during succession in both revegetation types. Succession rate was rapid at the initial stage and then slowed down gradually. Succession followed different trajectories under natural and artificial revegetation, and based on the potential effects of the two approaches on soil erosion and soil desiccation, we suggest that natural revegetation is preferable over artificial revegetation. Copyright (C) 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据