Response of vegetation and soil properties following natural restoration to different past land uses in China: A meta-analysis

IF 3.9 2区环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY

Ecological Engineering Pub Date : 2025-04-29 DOI:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2025.107659

Huan Zhao , Rui Wang , Ning Wang , Zhengcai Zhang , Zhengyao Liu , Zhengchao Zhou , Zhibao Dong

{"title":"Response of vegetation and soil properties following natural restoration to different past land uses in China: A meta-analysis","authors":"Huan Zhao , Rui Wang , Ning Wang , Zhengcai Zhang , Zhengyao Liu , Zhengchao Zhou , Zhibao Dong","doi":"10.1016/j.ecoleng.2025.107659","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Past land uses play a crucial role in shaping alternative successional pathways for natural restoration. However, our understanding of how various past land uses affect natural restoration remains incomplete, particularly across restoration types. This study conducted a meta-analysis of 2112 experimental datasets from 212 published studies in China to examine the effects of five past land uses (farming, mining, burning, logging, and grazing) on vegetation and soil properties during natural restoration. The analysis also explored the influence of environmental factors and restoration duration on these responses. The results revealed significant differences in vegetation and soil properties depending on the past land use. Among land uses, natural restoration was the least effective after mining (vegetation properties: −164.33 %, soil properties: −153.44 %) and the most effective after logging (vegetation properties: 63.08 %, soil properties: −27.86 %). Furthermore, as natural succession progressed to different restoration types, vegetation and soil properties responded differently to past land uses. For example, when restoration led to grasslands, logging yielded the best outcomes, with vegetation coverage, diversity, soil moisture (SM), and total phosphorus (TP) exceeding reference levels by 39.06 %, 39.25 %, 32.08 %, and 13.70 %, respectively. When restored to shrubland, burning produced better outcomes, with plant diversity, bulk density (BD), pH, and TP exceeding reference levels by 23.16 %, 12.69 %, 2.85 %, and 7.15 %, respectively. For forest restoration, the vegetation and soil properties following farming, burning, and logging were similar to the reference levels, and the evenness index (17.15 %) significantly improved after logging (<em>p</em> < 0.05). Climate factors, specifically mean annual precipitation and temperature, were secondary only to past land use in influencing vegetation and soil properties during natural restoration. Although most vegetation and soil properties performed better in areas with high temperatures and precipitation, those following mining showed no significant spatial variations. The restoration outcomes were generally favorable for gentle slopes and moderately textured soils. However, when the slope gradient exceeded 25°, plant diversity improved by 18.33 % and 17.57 % after burning and logging, respectively. After burning and logging, vegetation and soil properties can reach or surpass pre-disturbance levels within a few years (< 5 years) and remain stable over the long term (> 30 years). Overall, natural restoration is most suitable for land recovery after logging and burning and is recommended for farming and grazing under favorable hydrothermal conditions and extended durations. However, natural restoration alone is insufficient for land recovery after mining.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11490,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Engineering","volume":"217 ","pages":"Article 107659"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925857425001478","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Past land uses play a crucial role in shaping alternative successional pathways for natural restoration. However, our understanding of how various past land uses affect natural restoration remains incomplete, particularly across restoration types. This study conducted a meta-analysis of 2112 experimental datasets from 212 published studies in China to examine the effects of five past land uses (farming, mining, burning, logging, and grazing) on vegetation and soil properties during natural restoration. The analysis also explored the influence of environmental factors and restoration duration on these responses. The results revealed significant differences in vegetation and soil properties depending on the past land use. Among land uses, natural restoration was the least effective after mining (vegetation properties: −164.33 %, soil properties: −153.44 %) and the most effective after logging (vegetation properties: 63.08 %, soil properties: −27.86 %). Furthermore, as natural succession progressed to different restoration types, vegetation and soil properties responded differently to past land uses. For example, when restoration led to grasslands, logging yielded the best outcomes, with vegetation coverage, diversity, soil moisture (SM), and total phosphorus (TP) exceeding reference levels by 39.06 %, 39.25 %, 32.08 %, and 13.70 %, respectively. When restored to shrubland, burning produced better outcomes, with plant diversity, bulk density (BD), pH, and TP exceeding reference levels by 23.16 %, 12.69 %, 2.85 %, and 7.15 %, respectively. For forest restoration, the vegetation and soil properties following farming, burning, and logging were similar to the reference levels, and the evenness index (17.15 %) significantly improved after logging (p < 0.05). Climate factors, specifically mean annual precipitation and temperature, were secondary only to past land use in influencing vegetation and soil properties during natural restoration. Although most vegetation and soil properties performed better in areas with high temperatures and precipitation, those following mining showed no significant spatial variations. The restoration outcomes were generally favorable for gentle slopes and moderately textured soils. However, when the slope gradient exceeded 25°, plant diversity improved by 18.33 % and 17.57 % after burning and logging, respectively. After burning and logging, vegetation and soil properties can reach or surpass pre-disturbance levels within a few years (< 5 years) and remain stable over the long term (> 30 years). Overall, natural restoration is most suitable for land recovery after logging and burning and is recommended for farming and grazing under favorable hydrothermal conditions and extended durations. However, natural restoration alone is insufficient for land recovery after mining.

查看原文本刊更多论文

自然恢复后中国不同土地利用方式对植被和土壤性质的响应：meta分析

过去的土地利用在形成自然恢复的替代演替途径方面起着至关重要的作用。然而，我们对过去各种土地利用如何影响自然恢复的理解仍然不完整，特别是在恢复类型之间。本研究对中国212项已发表研究的2112个实验数据集进行了荟萃分析，以检验自然恢复期间五种土地利用方式（农业、采矿、焚烧、伐木和放牧）对植被和土壤特性的影响。分析了环境因子和恢复时间对这些响应的影响。结果表明，不同土地利用方式的植被和土壤性质存在显著差异。在土地利用中，采伐后的自然恢复效果最差（植被属性：- 164.33%，土壤属性：- 153.44%），采伐后的自然恢复效果最好（植被属性：63.08%，土壤属性：- 27.86%）。此外，随着自然演替发展到不同的恢复类型，植被和土壤性质对过去土地利用的响应也不同。例如，当恢复为草地时，伐木效果最好，植被覆盖度、多样性、土壤水分（SM）和总磷（TP）分别比参考水平高出39.06%、39.25%、32.08%和13.70%。当恢复为灌木林地时，焚烧效果较好，植物多样性、容重、pH和TP分别比参考水平高出23.16%、12.69%、2.85%和7.15%。在森林恢复方面，耕作、焚烧和采伐后的植被和土壤性质与参考水平相近，采伐后的均匀度指数（17.15%）显著提高(p <；0.05)。在自然恢复期间，气候因子，特别是年平均降水和温度，在影响植被和土壤性质方面仅次于过去的土地利用。高温降水地区的植被和土壤性质表现较好，但采掘后的植被和土壤性质没有明显的空间差异。缓坡和中等质地土壤的恢复效果较好。而当坡度超过25°时，焚烧和砍伐后植物多样性分别提高了18.33%和17.57%。经过焚烧和砍伐，植被和土壤性质可以在几年内达到或超过干扰前的水平(<；5年)，并长期保持稳定(>；30年)。总的来说，自然恢复最适合采伐和焚烧后的土地恢复，建议在有利的热液条件和较长的持续时间下进行农牧。然而，仅靠自然恢复不足以恢复开采后的土地。

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

Ecological Engineering 环境科学-工程：环境

CiteScore

8.00

自引率

5.30%

发文量

293

审稿时长

57 days

期刊介绍： Ecological engineering has been defined as the design of ecosystems for the mutual benefit of humans and nature. The journal is meant for ecologists who, because of their research interests or occupation, are involved in designing, monitoring, or restoring ecosystems, and can serve as a bridge between ecologists and engineers. Specific topics covered in the journal include: habitat reconstruction; ecotechnology; synthetic ecology; bioengineering; restoration ecology; ecology conservation; ecosystem rehabilitation; stream and river restoration; reclamation ecology; non-renewable resource conservation. Descriptions of specific applications of ecological engineering are acceptable only when situated within context of adding novelty to current research and emphasizing ecosystem restoration. We do not accept purely descriptive reports on ecosystem structures (such as vegetation surveys), purely physical assessment of materials that can be used for ecological restoration, small-model studies carried out in the laboratory or greenhouse with artificial (waste)water or crop studies, or case studies on conventional wastewater treatment and eutrophication that do not offer an ecosystem restoration approach within the paper.