Liu Xiaoxing, Ding Jingyi, Zhao Wenwu
State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875, China; Institute of Land Surface System and Sustainable Development, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875, China.
State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875, China; Institute of Land Surface System and Sustainable Development, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875, China.
J Environ Manage. 2023 Oct 15;344:118471. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118471. Epub 2023 Jun 24.
Afforestation and grassland restoration have been proposed as important pathways for nature-based solutions. However, the effects of different ecological restoration projects on multiple ecosystem services are poorly understood, inhibiting our ability to maximize ecosystem services for further restoration. Here, we provide a comprehensive assessment of the impact of different ecological projects on ecosystem services (carbon storage, water conservation, soil retention), using a pairwise comparative study of samples from 90 project-control pairs in the Tibetan Plateau. Our results found that afforestation increased carbon storage (31.3%) and soil retention (37.6%), but the effects of grassland restoration on services were mixed, while the overall changes in water conservation were negligible. Prior land use/measures and the age of project implementation were key factors in regulating ecosystem service responses. For example, afforestation on bare land increased carbon storage and soil retention but indirectly decreased water conservation by influencing vegetation cover, while cropland afforestation increased water and soil retention. Ecosystem services increased with project age after afforestation. For grassland restoration, short-term recovery increased carbon storage but was not effective in improving water and soil retention. Climate and topography also directly or indirectly controlled the response of ecosystem services by affecting the changes in total nitrogen, total porosity, clay and fractional vegetation cover following the projects. This study improves our current understanding of the mechanisms underlying the responses of ecosystem services to afforestation and grassland restoration. Our results suggest that sustainable restoration management taking into account prior land use/measures, implementation age, climate, topography and other resources is critical for optimizing ecosystem services.
造林和草地恢复已被提议作为基于自然的解决方案的重要途径。然而，不同生态恢复项目对多种生态系统服务的影响却鲜为人知，这限制了我们为进一步恢复而最大化生态系统服务的能力。在此，我们利用对青藏高原90个项目 - 对照样本对进行的成对比较研究，全面评估了不同生态项目对生态系统服务（碳储存、水源涵养、土壤保持）的影响。我们的研究结果发现，造林增加了碳储存（31.3%）和土壤保持（37.6%），但草地恢复对各项服务的影响不一，而水源涵养的总体变化可忽略不计。先前的土地利用/措施以及项目实施年限是调节生态系统服务响应的关键因素。例如，在裸地上造林增加了碳储存和土壤保持，但通过影响植被覆盖间接降低了水源涵养，而农田造林则增加了水土保持。造林后生态系统服务随项目年限增加。对于草地恢复，短期恢复增加了碳储存，但在改善水土保持方面效果不佳。气候和地形也通过影响项目后总氮、总孔隙度、黏土和植被覆盖度分数的变化，直接或间接地控制了生态系统服务的响应。本研究增进了我们目前对生态系统服务对造林和草地恢复响应机制的理解。我们的研究结果表明，考虑到先前的土地利用/措施、实施年限、气候、地形和其他资源的可持续恢复管理对于优化生态系统服务至关重要。
