Evidence Platform
Exploring the effects of the “Grain for Green” program on the differences in soil water in the semi-arid Loess Plateau of China
An, W. M., et al., 2012. Ecological Engineering
Original research (primary data)View External Publication Link
Abstract
Land-use/vegetation is an essential variable on controlling the heterogeneities and distribution pattern of soil water content (SWC). Along with large-scale re-vegetation in arid and semi-arid areas, the variations of SWC ascribed to the land-use conversion have been considered as an important factor to assess the re-vegetation efforts. In this study, soil water data at the depth of 0–300 cm were obtained by field observation in two eco-hydrologic zones in Loess Plateau of China. The mean annual precipitation was 350–400 mm (zone-A) and 500–550 mm (zone-B), respectively. The differences in SWC were analyzed among different land-use types; and the SWC in different restoration years was also discussed using the method of space replacing time. Results indicated that (1) the differences in SWC between the two zones were lower in re-vegetated lands (2.76%, forestland and 4.22%, for shrub land) than in abandoned farmland (5.85%). The differences in re-vegetated lands diminished gradually as the soil depth (0–300 cm) increased, whereas the abandoned farmland represented an opposite trend. (2) Although the variation trends of SWC in abandoned farmland of the two zones were different as the restoration years increased, the differences in SWC between abandoned farmland and native grassland both diminished gradually. This meant the soil water deficit relative to native grassland would be alleviated as the progress of abandoned farmland. (3) As the restoration years increased, the differences in SWC between re-vegetated lands and native grassland increased gradually because of the continuous decrease of SWC in re-vegetated lands. The consequence will be that the soil water deficit in the re-vegetation lands is aggravated continually. From the perspective of soil water restoration and conservation in semi-arid areas, the abandoned farmland should be a more reasonable method than re-vegetated lands covered with introduced plants.
Case studies
Basic information
- Case ID: INT-167-4
- Intervention type: Restoration
- Intervention description:
Abandoned farmlands would progress under the driver of the natural succession without serious human disturbance....the abandoned farmland was a natural eco-restoration method belonging to positive sec- ondary succession
- Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: No
-
Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures Reduced water availability Negative soil water content at different depts (0-1m, 1-2m, 2-3m) - Approach implemented in the field: Yes
- Specific location:
The field experiment was conducted in the north Loess Plateau of Shaanxi Province, China Yang et al. (1994) divided the entire Loess Plateau into six eco-hydrological zones ... we designed the experiment in the Low soil water loss zone (marked as zone-A) and the Semi-equilibrium soil water compensation zone (marked as zone-B) Zone-A is located in Wuqi county of Shaanxi Province (36.92◦ –37.35◦ N, 10.7.8◦ –108.42◦ E) Zone-B is located in Yan’an of Shaanxi Province (36.09◦ –36.27◦ N, 109.24◦ –109.9◦ E).
- Country: China
- Habitat/Biome type: Temperate grasslands |
- Issue specific term: Not applicable
Evidence
- Notes on intervention effectivness: effectiveness determined by comparing to farmland that acts as reference to conditions before the intervention negative effectiveness because in one site it had a negative effect and in the other it had no effect (same soil water content as the cropland comparator) The key question the authors are interested in is how do we restore these lands to address soil erosion and avoid water depletion? The main issue they talk about is depletion of swc due to afforestation/revegetation, as an intervention to address erosion/soil loss driven by unsustainable farming. We agree to frame this as a climatic impact because water is framed as a limiting factor in this region, and they explicitly compare two zones one low water one w/ more rainfall We are coding this as one intervention with farmland as the comparator Effectiveness for native grassland and abandoned farmland are coded for as mixed because in zone b they are not statistically significantly different from the comparator (cropped farmland), but in size A cropped farmland has higher SWC then all other land use types, and this different stays overtime key results on effectiveness focus on comparison between abandoned farmland (passive restoration), and revegetation with artificial shrubland, and artificial afforestation Swc in plots of Abandoned farmland overtime approached similar values to plots of native grassland; so overtime abandoned farmland regains water (reduced SWC deficits) Vegetated lands (artificial revegetation) had lower SWC then all other land-use types swc zone A – farmland > abandoned grassland > native grassland > forestland > shrubland Zone b – farmland > native grassland > abandoned farmland > shrubland > forestland However, in zone b the only significant diff was lower swc in abandoned farmland vs native grassland; other diffs were not statistically significant Overtime in the dry zone SWC decreased w/ abandoned farmland, shrubland, forest In zone b however, swc increased overtime I abandoned farmland but not the other two where it decreased Overtime, in both zones, SWC of abandoned farmland reaches that of native grassland, as passive restoration progresses
- 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-167-3
- Intervention type: Protection
- Intervention description:
Native grassland consists of native species, and was protected from human disturbance for at least 50 years.
- Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: No
-
Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures Reduced water availability Negative soil water content at different depts (0-1m, 1-2m, 2-3m) - Approach implemented in the field: Yes
- Specific location:
The field experiment was conducted in the north Loess Plateau of Shaanxi Province, China Yang et al. (1994) divided the entire Loess Plateau into six eco-hydrological zones ... we designed the experiment in the Low soil water loss zone (marked as zone-A) and the Semi-equilibrium soil water compensation zone (marked as zone-B) Zone-A is located in Wuqi county of Shaanxi Province (36.92◦ –37.35◦ N, 10.7.8◦ –108.42◦ E) Zone-B is located in Yan’an of Shaanxi Province (36.09◦ –36.27◦ N, 109.24◦ –109.9◦ E).
- Country: China
- Habitat/Biome type: Temperate grasslands |
- Issue specific term: Not applicable
Evidence
- Notes on intervention effectivness: effectiveness determined by comparing to farmland that acts as reference to conditions before the intervention negative effectiveness because in one site it had a negative effect and in the other it had no effect (same soil water content as the cropland comparator) The key question the authors are interested in is how do we restore these lands to address soil erosion and avoid water depletion? The main issue they talk about is depletion of swc due to afforestation/revegetation, as an intervention to address erosion/soil loss driven by unsustainable farming. We agree to frame this as a climatic impact because water is framed as a limiting factor in this region, and they explicitly compare two zones one low water one w/ more rainfall We are coding this as one intervention with farmland as the comparator Effectiveness for native grassland and abandoned farmland are coded for as mixed because in zone b they are not statistically significantly different from the comparator (cropped farmland), but in size A cropped farmland has higher SWC then all other land use types, and this different stays overtime key results on effectiveness focus on comparison between abandoned farmland (passive restoration), and revegetation with artificial shrubland, and artificial afforestation Swc in plots of Abandoned farmland overtime approached similar values to plots of native grassland; so overtime abandoned farmland regains water (reduced SWC deficits) Vegetated lands (artificial revegetation) had lower SWC then all other land-use types swc zone A – farmland > abandoned grassland > native grassland > forestland > shrubland Zone b – farmland > native grassland > abandoned farmland > shrubland > forestland However, in zone b the only significant diff was lower swc in abandoned farmland vs native grassland; other diffs were not statistically significant Overtime in the dry zone SWC decreased w/ abandoned farmland, shrubland, forest In zone b however, swc increased overtime I abandoned farmland but not the other two where it decreased Overtime, in both zones, SWC of abandoned farmland reaches that of native grassland, as passive restoration progresses
- 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-167-2
- Intervention type: Created habitats
- Intervention description:
GFGP - slope farmlands converted to shrubland - sea-buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides)
- Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: No
-
Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures Reduced water availability Negative soil water content at different depts (0-1m, 1-2m, 2-3m) - Approach implemented in the field: Yes
- Specific location:
The field experiment was conducted in the north Loess Plateau of Shaanxi Province, China Yang et al. (1994) divided the entire Loess Plateau into six eco-hydrological zones ... we designed the experiment in the Low soil water loss zone (marked as zone-A) and the Semi-equilibrium soil water compensation zone (marked as zone-B) Zone-A is located in Wuqi county of Shaanxi Province (36.92◦ –37.35◦ N, 10.7.8◦ –108.42◦ E) Zone-B is located in Yan’an of Shaanxi Province (36.09◦ –36.27◦ N, 109.24◦ –109.9◦ E).
- Country: China
- Habitat/Biome type: Created other |
- Issue specific term: Not applicable
Evidence
- Notes on intervention effectivness: effectiveness determined by comparing to farmland that acts as reference to conditions before the intervention The key question the authors are interested in is how do we restore these lands to address soil erosion and avoid water depletion? The main issue they talk about is depletion of swc due to afforestation/revegetation, as an intervention to address erosion/soil loss driven by unsustainable farming. We agree to frame this as a climatic impact because water is framed as a limiting factor in this region, and they explicitly compare two zones one low water one w/ more rainfall We are coding this as one intervention with farmland as the comparator Effectiveness for native grassland and abandoned farmland are coded for as mixed because in zone b they are not statistically significantly different from the comparator (cropped farmland), but in size A cropped farmland has higher SWC then all other land use types, and this different stays overtime key results on effectiveness focus on comparison between abandoned farmland (passive restoration), and revegetation with artificial shrubland, and artificial afforestation Swc in plots of Abandoned farmland overtime approached similar values to plots of native grassland; so overtime abandoned farmland regains water (reduced SWC deficits) Vegetated lands (artificial revegetation) had lower SWC then all other land-use types swc zone A – farmland > abandoned grassland > native grassland > forestland > shrubland Zone b – farmland > native grassland > abandoned farmland > shrubland > forestland However, in zone b the only significant diff was lower swc in abandoned farmland vs native grassland; other diffs were not statistically significant Overtime in the dry zone SWC decreased w/ abandoned farmland, shrubland, forest In zone b however, swc increased overtime I abandoned farmland but not the other two where it decreased Overtime, in both zones, SWC of abandoned farmland reaches that of native grassland, as passive restoration progresses
- 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-167-1
- Intervention type: Created habitats
- Intervention description:
GFGP - slope farmlands converted to forests of black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia)
- Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: No
-
Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures Reduced water availability Negative soil water content at different depts (0-1m, 1-2m, 2-3m) - Approach implemented in the field: Yes
- Specific location:
The field experiment was conducted in the north Loess Plateau of Shaanxi Province, China Yang et al. (1994) divided the entire Loess Plateau into six eco-hydrological zones ... we designed the experiment in the Low soil water loss zone (marked as zone-A) and the Semi-equilibrium soil water compensation zone (marked as zone-B) Zone-A is located in Wuqi county of Shaanxi Province (36.92◦ –37.35◦ N, 10.7.8◦ –108.42◦ E) Zone-B is located in Yan’an of Shaanxi Province (36.09◦ –36.27◦ N, 109.24◦ –109.9◦ E).
- Country: China
- Habitat/Biome type: Created forest |
- Issue specific term: Not applicable
Evidence
- Notes on intervention effectivness: effectiveness determined by comparing to farmland that acts as reference to conditions before the intervention The key question the authors are interested in is how do we restore these lands to address soil erosion and avoid water depletion? The main issue they talk about is depletion of swc due to afforestation/revegetation, as an intervention to address erosion/soil loss driven by unsustainable farming. We agree to frame this as a climatic impact because water is framed as a limiting factor in this region, and they explicitly compare two zones one low water one w/ more rainfall We are coding this as one intervention with farmland as the comparator Effectiveness for native grassland and abandoned farmland are coded for as mixed because in zone b they are not statistically significantly different from the comparator (cropped farmland), but in size A cropped farmland has higher SWC then all other land use types, and this different stays overtime key results on effectiveness focus on comparison between abandoned farmland (passive restoration), and revegetation with artificial shrubland, and artificial afforestation Swc in plots of Abandoned farmland overtime approached similar values to plots of native grassland; so overtime abandoned farmland regains water (reduced SWC deficits) Vegetated lands (artificial revegetation) had lower SWC then all other land-use types swc zone A – farmland > abandoned grassland > native grassland > forestland > shrubland Zone b – farmland > native grassland > abandoned farmland > shrubland > forestland However, in zone b the only significant diff was lower swc in abandoned farmland vs native grassland; other diffs were not statistically significant Overtime in the dry zone SWC decreased w/ abandoned farmland, shrubland, forest In zone b however, swc increased overtime I abandoned farmland but not the other two where it decreased Overtime, in both zones, SWC of abandoned farmland reaches that of native grassland, as passive restoration progresses
- 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: