Effects of different grassland restoration approaches on soil properties in the southeastern Horqin sandy land, northern China

Yuan, J. Y., et al., 2012. Applied Soil Ecology

Original research (primary data)
View External Publication Link

Abstract

In the semi-arid Horqin sandy grassland, continuous grazing has led to decreased ground cover. The bare land surface is then directly exposed to strong wind erosion, leading to desertification. Different restoration approaches have been used to recover these desertified sandy grasslands. This study compared soil properties subjected to different grassland restoration approaches, i.e., three restoration treatments and an unrestored control: FG, grassland enclosed by sheltering forest (Populus x beijingensis); MG, artificially sparse Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica grassland: UG, artificially sparse Ulmus pumila grassland; CK, desertified grassland. Soil samples were taken from depths of 0-20 cm, and physical (i.e., bulk density, particle size distribution, waterholding capacity, total porosity), chemical (i.e., pH, soil organic matter, total N, total P. total K, available N, available P. available K, cation exchange capacity, exchangeable Ca2+. exchangeable Mg2+, exchangeable Na+, exchangeable K+), and biological (i.e., microbial biomass carbon, substrate richness index, Shannon’s diversity index) properties were selected as soil indicators. The three different approaches to grassland restoration were confirmed to alleviate wind erosion and enhance sand surface stabilization, as well as improve soil physicochemical and biological properties, in comparison with unrestored control. Soil physical, chemical, and biological properties in two types of artificial sparsely forested grassland were significantly better than those in grassland enclosed by shelter forest: however, there was no significant difference between the two types of artificial sparsely forested grassland. These results suggest that an artificial sparsely forested grassland restoration approach may be more effective at restoring the poor and arid soils of desertified sandy grasslands, such as the Horqin sandy land.

Case studies

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-099-2
  • Intervention type: Restoration
  • Intervention description:

    creating a artificial sparsely wooded grassland. look at two types that differ in the tree species that is sparsely planted throughout the grassland: 1. artificially sparse Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica grassland (MG), in which the dominant species were Cleistogenes chinensis, Setaria viride, Artemisia scoparia, and Calamagrostis arundinacea; 2. artificially sparse Ulmus pumila grassland (UG), in which the dominant species were Setaria viride, Cleistogenes chinensis, Artemisia scoparia, and Artemisia lavan- dulaefolia. After tree planting, the grasslands were left alone to restore naturally, without human management or disturbance. ** each type of tree species variation on restoration intervention not coded separately

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: No
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Reduced soil quality  Positive Soil indicators: physical (i.e., bulk density, particle size distribution, waterholding capacity, total porosity) chemical (i.e., pH, soil organic matter, total N, total P, total K, available N, available P, available K, cation exchange capacity, exchangeable Ca2+, exchangeable Mg2+, exchangeable Na+, exchangeable K+) biological (i.e., microbial biomass carbon, substrate richness index, Shannon’s diversity index)
    Soil erosion  Positive Soil indicators: physical (i.e., bulk density, particle size distribution, waterholding capacity, total porosity) chemical (i.e., pH, soil organic matter, total N, total P, total K, available N, available P, available K, cation exchange capacity, exchangeable Ca2+, exchangeable Mg2+, exchangeable Na+, exchangeable K+)
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Daqinggou Ecological Station

  • Country: China
  • Habitat/Biome type: Temperate grasslands |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: effectiveness compared to a control plot with no restoration action
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: No
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: Yes
  • Experimental evalution done: In-situ/field
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-099-1
  • Intervention type: Restoration
  • Intervention description:

    grassland fenced with a shelter forest (Populus × beijingensis) (FG), in which the dominant species were Artemisia scoparia, Setaria viride, Agropy- ron cristatum, and Cleistogenes chinensis After tree planting, the grasslands were left alone to restore naturally, without human management or disturbance.

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: No
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Reduced soil quality  Positive Soil indicators: physical (i.e., bulk density, particle size distribution, waterholding capacity, total porosity) chemical (i.e., pH, soil organic matter, total N, total P, total K, available N, available P, available K, cation exchange capacity, exchangeable Ca2+, exchangeable Mg2+, exchangeable Na+, exchangeable K+) biological (i.e., microbial biomass carbon, substrate richness index, Shannon’s diversity index)
    Soil erosion  Positive Soil indicators: physical (i.e., bulk density, particle size distribution, waterholding capacity, total porosity) chemical (i.e., pH, soil organic matter, total N, total P, total K, available N, available P, available K, cation exchange capacity, exchangeable Ca2+, exchangeable Mg2+, exchangeable Na+, exchangeable K+)
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Daqinggou Ecological Station

  • Country: China
  • Habitat/Biome type: Temperate grasslands |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: effectiveness compared to a control plot with no restoration action
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Another NbS
  • Compare effectivness?: No
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: No
  • Economic appraisal conducted: No
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: No
  • Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: Yes
  • Experimental evalution done: In-situ/field
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Study is systematic: