Effects of Enclosure on Plant and Soil Restoration in the Junggar Desert

doi:10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2021.06.012

Abstract

Abstract:

Enclosure is commonly used in the restoration of degraded grasslands. However, the effects of enclosure on grassland plant and soil restoration remain controversial, particularly in deserts. To assess the effects of enclosure on desert plants and soil properties, using high throughput sequencing, the differences between plants and soil were systematically analyzed before and after enclosure construction. The soil organic carbon, total nitrogen and total phosphorus contents of the three desert flora increased and decreased, but the difference was not significant; enclosure increased plant height, coverage, aboveground biomass, and species richness by 58.99%, 59.35%, 33.29%, and 51.21%, respectively, in a Seriphidium transiliense formation; by 15.49%, 33.52%, 20.85%, and 5.13%, respectively, in a Haloxylon persicum formation; and by 83.80%, 31.51%, 76.66% and 33.33%, respectively, in an Anabasis salsa formation. For soil bacteria, enclosure significantly increased the average number of operational taxonomic units and Shannon-Wiener index by 12.74% and 2.92%, respectively, under S. transiliense formation and by 17.08% and 3.17%, respectively, under H. persicum formation. However, enclosure had no significant effect on the average number of operational taxonomic units or Shannon-Wiener index under A. salsa formation. Enclosure significantly increased desert plants, soil bacterial diversity, and desert plant community productivity; however, the increase in soil nutrient content was not significant. These results demonstrate that enclosure is effective for restoring desert ecosystems but may have little effect on the soil nutrient content.

Key words: diversity, plant community, soil bacteria, soil nutrient, Junggar Desert

WEI Peng, AN Shazhou, KE Mei, LI Chao, HOU Yurong, LAN Jiyong, KANG Shuai, JIN Junpeng. Effects of Enclosure on Plant and Soil Restoration in the Junggar Desert[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2021, 12(6): 840-848.

Figures/Tables 7

References 14

[1]	Bao S D. 2000. Soil and agricultural chemistry analysis (3rd edition). Beijing, China: China Agriculture Press. (in Chinese)
[2]	China Vegetation Map Committee of Chinese Academy of Sciences. 2007. 1/1000000 Vegetation map of the People’s Republic of China. Beijing, China: Geological Publishing House. (in Chinese)
[3]	Dong Y Q, Sun Z J, An S Z, et al. 2018. Effect of short-term grazing exclusion on community characteristics and stability in Artemisia desert on the northern slopes of the Tianshan Mountains. Pratacultural Science, 35(5): 996-1003. (in Chinese)
[4]	Gao Y H. 2007. Study on carbon and nitrogen distribution pattern and cyeling proeessinan alpine meadow ecosystem under different grazing intensity. Diss., Chengdu, China: University of Chinese Academy of Sciences.. (in Chinese)
[5]	Guo Q F. 2007. The diversity-biomass-productivity relationships in grassland management and restoration. Basic and Applied Ecology, 8(3): 199-208. DOI URL
[6]	Guo Y J, Du Q F, Li G D, et al. 2016. Soil phosphorus fractions and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi diversity following long-term grazing exclusion on semi-arid steppes in Inner Mongolia. Geoderma, 269: 79-90. DOI URL
[7]	Jeddi K, Chaieb M. 2010. Changes in soil properties and vegetation following livestock grazing exclusion in degraded arid environments of South Tunisia. Flora—Morphology, Distribution, Functional Ecology of Plants, 205(3): 184-189.
[8]	Jing Z B, Cheng J M, Su J S, et al. 2014. Changes in plant community composition and soil properties under 3-decade grazing exclusion in semi-arid grassland. Ecological Engineering, 64(3): 171-178. DOI URL
[9]	Li W. 2016. Effects of grazing management regime on vegetation characters, soil dynamics, carbon and nitrogen storage in alpine meadow of Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Diss., Lanzhou, China: Gansu Agricultural University.. (in Chinese)
[10]	Liang M W, Chen J Q, Smith N G, et al. 2019. Changes and regulations of net ecosystem CO₂ exchange across temporal scales in the Alxa Desert. Journal of Arid Environments, 164(5): 78-84. DOI URL
[11]	Semmartin M, Garibaldi L A, Chaneton E J. 2008. Grazing history effects on above- and below-ground litter decomposition and nutrient cycling in two co-occurring grasses. Plant and Soil, 303(1-2): 177-189. DOI URL
[12]	Shaltout K H, El-Halawany E F, El-Kady H F. 1996. Consequences of protection from grazing on diversity and abundance of the coastal lowland vegetation in eastern Saudi Arabia. Biodiversity and Conservation, 5(1): 27-36. DOI URL
[13]	Shi X M, Li X G, Li C T, et al. 2013. Grazing exclusion decreases soil organic C storage at an alpine grassland of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Ecological Engineering, 57(3): 183-187. DOI URL
[14]	Sigcha F, Pallavicini Y, Camino M J, et al. 2018. Effects of short-term grazing exclusion on vegetation and soil in early succession of a subhumid Mediterranean reclaimed coal mine. Plant and Soil, 426(1-2): 197-209. DOI URL
[15]	Taddese G, Saleem M, Abyie A. 2002. Impact of grazing on plant species richness, plant biomass, plant attribute, and soil physical and hydrological
	a)properties of vertisol in East African highlands.. Environmental Management, 29(2): 279-289.
[2]	Wang X B. 2015. The spatial pattern of soil microbial communities and its driving mechanism in the grassland of Northern China. Diss., Beijing, China: Chinese Academy of Sciences. (in Chinese)
[3]	Wei P, An S Z, Dong Y Q, et al. 2020. A high-throughput sequencing evaluation of bacterial diversity and community structure of desert soil in the Junggar Basin. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 29: 182-90. (in Chinese)
[4]	Xinjiang Comprehensive Investigation Team, The Chinese Academy of Sciences. 1978. Vegetation and utilization in Xinjiang. Beijing, China: Science Press. (in Chinese)
[5]	Xiong D P, Shi P L, Sun Y L, et al. 2014. Effects of grazing exclusion on plant productivity and soil carbon, nitrogen storage in alpine meadows in northern Tibet, China. Chinese Geographical Science, 24(4): 488-498. DOI URL
[6]	Xu P. 1993. Grassland resources and their utilization in Xinjiang. Urumqi, China: Xinjiang Science and Technology and Health Publishing House, 17-19. (in Chinese)
[7]	Xun Q L. 2017. Above-ground biomass model estimation based on modis and meteorological data in Xinjiang grassland. Diss., Urumqi, China: Xinjiang Agricultural University. (in Chinese)
[8]	Yang H L, Sun Z J, Chen Y P. 2015. Effects of enclosure years on the grassland community characteristics and pasture mass index of Seriphidium Transiliense desert grassland. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 23(2): 252-257. (in Chinese)
[9]	Yang J. 2017. Effects of enclosure on characteristics of vegetation and soil organic carbon, nitrogen fractions in sandy desert grassland. Diss., Urumqi, China: Xinjiang Agricultural University. (in Chinese)
[10]	Yin Y L, Wang Y Q, Li S X, et al. 2019. Effects of enclosing on soil microbial community diversity and soil stoichiometric characteristics in a degraded alpine meadow. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 30(1): 127-136. (in Chinese) DOI PMID
[11]	Yu Q, Chen Q S, Elser J J, et al. 2010. Linking stoichiometric homoeostasis with ecosystem structure, functioning and stability. Ecology Letters, 13(11): 1390-1399. DOI URL
[12]	Zhang L. 2019. Mechanism of the effects of typical temperate desert plant diversity on ecosystem function. Diss., Urumqi, China: Xinjiang University. (in Chinese)
[13]	Zhang Y J. 2010. Study on the change of artemisia grassland community and adaptability of Seriphidium transiliense under enclosure. Diss., Urumqi, China: Xinjiang Agricultural University. (in Chinese)
[14]	Zhou J Z, Bruns M A, Tiedje J M. 1996. DNA recovery from soils of diverse composition. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 62(2): 316-322. DOI PMID

Formation type	Plot	Dominant species	Location	MAT (℃)	MAP (mm)	Altitude (m)
Seriphidium transiliense				EN FG	S. transiliense Petrosimonia sibirica Carex turkestanica Ceratocarpus arenarius	46°58′N, 88°09′E	6.49	114.54	1015
Haloxylon persicum	EN FG	H. persicum, C. arenarius Seriphidium terrae-albae Salsola collina	44°23′N, 88°08′E	8.20	65.94	358
Anabasis salsa	EN FG	Salsa C. arenarius S. terrae-albae, Salsola arbuscula	44°01′N, 86°09′E	4.94	166.88	667

Formation type	Plot	Dominant species	Location	MAT (℃)	MAP (mm)	Altitude (m)
Seriphidium transiliense				EN FG	S. transiliense Petrosimonia sibirica Carex turkestanica Ceratocarpus arenarius	46°58′N, 88°09′E	6.49	114.54	1015
Haloxylon persicum	EN FG	H. persicum, C. arenarius Seriphidium terrae-albae Salsola collina	44°23′N, 88°08′E	8.20	65.94	358
Anabasis salsa	EN FG	Salsa C. arenarius S. terrae-albae, Salsola arbuscula	44°01′N, 86°09′E	4.94	166.88	667

Formation type	SOC	STN	STP
Seriphidium transiliense
EN	16.65 ± 0.33^a	1.12 ± 0.03^a	0.49 ± 0.04^a
FG	18.34 ± 0.64^a	1.31 ± 0.04^a	0.48 ± 0.03^a
Haloxylon persicum
EN	3.66 ± 0.10^a	0.88 ± 0.02^a	0.33 ± 0.02^a
FG	3.26 ± 0.09^a	0.82 ± 0.02^a	0.30 ± 0.01^a
Anabasis salsa
EN	13.44 ± 0.54^a	0.95 ± 0.02^a	0.48 ± 0.03^a
FG	13.37 ± 0.62^a	0.97 ± 0.03^a	0.47 ± 0.05^a

Formation type	SOC	STN	STP
Seriphidium transiliense
EN	16.65 ± 0.33^a	1.12 ± 0.03^a	0.49 ± 0.04^a
FG	18.34 ± 0.64^a	1.31 ± 0.04^a	0.48 ± 0.03^a
Haloxylon persicum
EN	3.66 ± 0.10^a	0.88 ± 0.02^a	0.33 ± 0.02^a
FG	3.26 ± 0.09^a	0.82 ± 0.02^a	0.30 ± 0.01^a
Anabasis salsa
EN	13.44 ± 0.54^a	0.95 ± 0.02^a	0.48 ± 0.03^a
FG	13.37 ± 0.62^a	0.97 ± 0.03^a	0.47 ± 0.05^a

Formation type	Plot	Number of OTUs	Chao 1 index	ACE index	Shannon-Wiener index
Seriphidium transiliense	EN	3309.40 ± 267.07^a	3586.51 ± 526.54^a	3770.91 ± 669.77^a	10.56 ± 0.11^a
Seriphidium transiliense	FG	2935.40 ± 166.31^b	3214.72 ± 463.41^a	3284.09 ± 478.19^a	10.26 ± 0.15^b
Haloxylon persicum	EN	3341.60 ± 172.30^a	3884.64 ± 242.39^a	4229.17 ± 297.79^a	10.41 ± 0.08^a
Haloxylon persicum	FG	2854.20 ± 182.94^b	3328.67 ± 543.53^b	3414.22 ± 558.59^b	10.09 ± 0.14^b
Anabasissalsa	EN	3127.80 ± 229.31^a	3692.70 ± 355.15^a	3997.36 ± 424.69^a	10.19 ± 0.29^a
Anabasissalsa	FG	2917.00 ± 250.42^a	3400.84 ± 554.56^a	3534.98 ± 555.67^a	10.26 ± 0.16^a