Soil quality assessment and its response to water flow connectivity in different vegetation restoration types, eastern China

IF 5.4 1区 农林科学 Q1 GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Zhiying Tang, Wenqi Zhang, Jinhong Chen, Yinghu Zhang
{"title":"Soil quality assessment and its response to water flow connectivity in different vegetation restoration types, eastern China","authors":"Zhiying Tang,&nbsp;Wenqi Zhang,&nbsp;Jinhong Chen,&nbsp;Yinghu Zhang","doi":"10.1016/j.catena.2024.108477","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Vegetation restoration is the most widely used forest management practice for degraded soils, but the responses of soil quality in different vegetation restoration types may vary. In addition, the relationship between water flow paths connection and soil quality needs to be further explored. In this study, the soil quality index (SQI) and the index of water flow connectivity (IWFC) in the six water flow patterns (PFP, SSB, WSB, CPS, CPW, and CSW) were explored at three forest stands (oak, pine, and bamboo forests) with 50 years for enclosure. The results showed that the bamboo forest stand had the best soil quality as a whole (0.534 ± 0.135), followed by pine (0.530 ± 0.180) and oak forest stands (0.435 ± 0.205). The IWFC in PFP, CPS and CPW water flow patterns decreased gradually with increasing soil depth, while in SSB, WSB and CSB water flow patterns, the IWFC increased at first and then decreased. Finally, the IWFC in the CPW water flow pattern showed the largest positive correlation with the SQI (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.05). The IWFC in the CPW water flow pattern driven by soil physical properties could mainly control the changes in the SQI indirectly (average IE = 0.825) by influencing soil nutrient (average IE = 0.447) and biological (average IE = 0.485) properties, while its direct effects could be ignored (average DE = −0.074), which demonstrated that the joint effects of preferential flow paths and weak stream buffer zones can dramatically reflect the changes in soil quality. The better soil improvement effect of bamboo and pine forest stands compared to the oak forest stand should be given more consideration. This study provided new insights for the assessment of the relationship between soil hydrology and soil quality.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":9801,"journal":{"name":"Catena","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Catena","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S034181622400674X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Vegetation restoration is the most widely used forest management practice for degraded soils, but the responses of soil quality in different vegetation restoration types may vary. In addition, the relationship between water flow paths connection and soil quality needs to be further explored. In this study, the soil quality index (SQI) and the index of water flow connectivity (IWFC) in the six water flow patterns (PFP, SSB, WSB, CPS, CPW, and CSW) were explored at three forest stands (oak, pine, and bamboo forests) with 50 years for enclosure. The results showed that the bamboo forest stand had the best soil quality as a whole (0.534 ± 0.135), followed by pine (0.530 ± 0.180) and oak forest stands (0.435 ± 0.205). The IWFC in PFP, CPS and CPW water flow patterns decreased gradually with increasing soil depth, while in SSB, WSB and CSB water flow patterns, the IWFC increased at first and then decreased. Finally, the IWFC in the CPW water flow pattern showed the largest positive correlation with the SQI (P < 0.05). The IWFC in the CPW water flow pattern driven by soil physical properties could mainly control the changes in the SQI indirectly (average IE = 0.825) by influencing soil nutrient (average IE = 0.447) and biological (average IE = 0.485) properties, while its direct effects could be ignored (average DE = −0.074), which demonstrated that the joint effects of preferential flow paths and weak stream buffer zones can dramatically reflect the changes in soil quality. The better soil improvement effect of bamboo and pine forest stands compared to the oak forest stand should be given more consideration. This study provided new insights for the assessment of the relationship between soil hydrology and soil quality.

Abstract Image

中国东部不同植被恢复类型的土壤质量评估及其对水流连通性的响应
植被恢复是针对退化土壤最广泛采用的森林管理方法,但不同植被恢复类型对土壤质量的反应可能不同。此外,水流路径连通性与土壤质量之间的关系也有待进一步探讨。本研究探讨了围封 50 年的三种林分(栎林、松林和竹林)在六种水流模式(PFP、SSB、WSB、CPS、CPW 和 CSW)下的土壤质量指数(SQI)和水流连通指数(IWFC)。结果表明,竹林林分的整体土壤质量最好(0.534 ± 0.135),其次是松林(0.530 ± 0.180)和栎林(0.435 ± 0.205)。PFP、CPS 和 CPW 水流模式的 IWFC 随土壤深度的增加而逐渐降低,而 SSB、WSB 和 CSB 水流模式的 IWFC 则先增加后降低。最后,CPW 水流模式中的 IWFC 与 SQI 的正相关性最大(P < 0.05)。由土壤物理性状驱动的 CPW 水流格局中的 IWFC 主要通过影响土壤养分性状(平均 IE = 0.447)和生物性状(平均 IE = 0.485)来间接控制 SQI 的变化(平均 IE = 0.825),而其直接效应可忽略不计(平均 DE =-0.074),这表明优先流道和弱流缓冲带的共同作用可显著反映土壤质量的变化。与栎类林分相比,竹林和松林的土壤改良效果更好,这一点应得到更多考虑。这项研究为评估土壤水文与土壤质量之间的关系提供了新的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Catena
Catena 环境科学-地球科学综合
CiteScore
10.50
自引率
9.70%
发文量
816
审稿时长
54 days
期刊介绍: Catena publishes papers describing original field and laboratory investigations and reviews on geoecology and landscape evolution with emphasis on interdisciplinary aspects of soil science, hydrology and geomorphology. It aims to disseminate new knowledge and foster better understanding of the physical environment, of evolutionary sequences that have resulted in past and current landscapes, and of the natural processes that are likely to determine the fate of our terrestrial environment. Papers within any one of the above topics are welcome provided they are of sufficiently wide interest and relevance.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信