Impact of China’s Grain for Green Project on the landscape of vulnerable arid and semi-arid agricultural regions: a case study in northern Shaanxi Province

Cao, S. X., et al., 2009. Journal of Applied Ecology

Original research (primary data)
View External Publication Link

Abstract

China’s Grain for Green Project is a rapid landscape-scale shift in ground cover and land use with significant implications for biodiversity. From 1998 to 2005, we carried out field studies to examine the landscape-level impacts of this project, and to provide a practical example of the successes and failures of a large-scale attempt to restore a vulnerable environment. In a northern part of China’s Shaanxi Province, our results indicated that the total vegetation cover in areas covered by this project increased from 29.7% in 1998 to 42.2% in 2005. However, we also found evidence that large-scale afforestation in this vulnerable arid and semi-arid region could increase the severity of water shortages, decrease vegetation cover in afforestation plots, and adversely affect the number of species present. The exclusion of livestock from overgrazed areas and the elimination of cultivation in marginal areas had the biggest effects on the restoration of vegetation cover, whereas tree planting had a strong negative effect in vulnerable areas. Synthesis and applications. In practical terms, the destruction of natural vegetation cover during afforestation should be avoided, as this makes the soil surface more vulnerable to erosion and reduces species diversity. Managers should reduce the intensity of farming and grazing on fragile land rather than relying on afforestation as the primary tool for ecological restoration in arid and semi-arid areas. Afforestation remains a valuable tool but should be limited to the planting of native or other species that will not exacerbate soil water shortages such as stable communities of natural desert steppe, maximum water-use efficiency dwarf shrubs, and possibly even lichen species in more severely degraded environments.

Case studies

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-120-2
  • Intervention type: Created habitats
  • Intervention description:

    Afforestation plots: Five species of non-native trees were planted in single-species plantations (Robinia pseudoacacia, Prunus armeniaca, Hippophae rhamnoides, Platycladus orientalis, and Caragana korshinskii) and in mixed- species plantations (R. pseudoacacia with C. korshinskii)

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: No
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Reduced water availability  Negative Soil Moisture
    Biomass cover loss  Negative Change in vegetation (combined cover of tree and herbaceous vegetation, i.e. grasses, forbs, herbs) and lichen cover (%)
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    five randomly selected counties (Jingbian, Ansai, Baota, Yanchang, Luochuan) out of the 25 counties in northern Shaanxi Province

  • Country: China
  • Habitat/Biome type: Created forest |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: effectiveness for biomass cover evaluated by looking at outcome over time. looked at a correlation of rainfall to soil moisture, negative correlation, although precipitation was staying more or less the same, soil water content was decreasing - "Although correlation does not imply a causal relationship, the correlation could be causal in this case: when a grassland is restored using unsuitable tree species, there may be insufficient precipitation to permit a balance between the available soil moisture and the vegetation cover, leading to a risk of declining soil moisture." therefore coded as negative for biodiversity outcomes, although they say afforestation had negative effect on biodiversity, this appears to be in reference to the alternative NBS of restoration but in fact when compared to the baseline, indigenous species that were absent before were starting to re-appear and therefore coded as positive
  • 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: Yes
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Positive
  • Ecosystem measures: number of plant and lichen species (change in species numbers over time)
  • 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: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-120-1
  • Intervention type: Restoration
  • Intervention description:

    exclusion of livestock from overgrazed areas and the elimination of cultivation in marginal areas (abandoned land on which grazing and agriculture had been prohibited under the GGP)

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: No
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Reduced water availability  Unclear results Soil Moisture
    Biomass cover loss  Positive Change in vegetation (combined cover of tree and herbaceous vegetation, i.e. grasses, forbs, herbs) and lichen cover (%)
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    five randomly selected counties (Jingbian, Ansai, Baota, Yanchang, Luochuan) out of the 25 counties in northern Shaanxi Province

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

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: effectiveness for biomass cover evaluated by looking at outcome over time. water supply only measured compared to the alternative (afforestation) and looked at a correlation of rainfall to soil moisture but did not test effect of the intervention itself and therefore 'unclear'
  • 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: Yes
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Positive
  • Ecosystem measures: number of plant and lichen species (change in species numbers over time)
  • 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: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic: