Avian Biodiversity Response Toward Ecological Restoration of Wetlands Through Farmland Abandonment Measures in the Sanjiang Plain, China
by
Xueying Sun
1,†, 
Jingli Zhu
2,†,
Qingming Wu
1,*,
Muhammad Suliman
1,
Xiaogang Lin
1,
Lu Chen
3 and
Hongfei Zou
1,* 1
College of Wildlife and Protected Area, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin 150040, China
2
Heilongjiang Vocational Institute of Ecological Engineering, Harbin 150025, China
3
Liaoning Forestry Survey and Planning Monitoring Institute, Shenyang 110122, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Diversity 2025, 17(10), 690; https://doi.org/10.3390/d17100690
Submission received: 11 September 2025
/
Revised: 30 September 2025
/
Accepted: 1 October 2025
/
Published: 2 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Animal Diversity)
Abstract
Large-scale agricultural development has led to a significant reduction in wetland areas, resulting in habitat fragmentation for birds and biodiversity loss. Recently, the implementation of farmland abandonment policies has helped in the restoration of wetland areas. In order to understand the ecological effects of farmland abandonment, this study investigated the bird communities in the Naoli River National Nature Reserve (NRNNR) in the Sanjiang Plain after abandonment. The field surveys (line transect and point count methods) of bird community diversity in the abandoned areas of the NRNNR showed 92 bird species from 37 families and 16 orders, including 4 species of national first-class protected birds and 17 species of national second-class protected birds (accounting for a combined 22.83%). Additionally, the bird community diversity displayed annual variation in individual and species richness over time, and the diversity indices order was 2019 > 2020 > 2018 > 2016 > 2015. Bird species richness and individual abundance were significantly higher in meadow habitats as compared to other habitat types. With prolonged restoration time after farmland withdrawal, the Pielou evenness index of bird communities significantly decreased, while the total number of individual birds significantly increased (p < 0.05). The abandoned time showed a positive impact on waterbird richness, while the longer abandoned duration led to higher waterbird richness. In conclusion, long-term ecological restoration measures revealed a significant enhancement in bird diversity over time.
1. Introduction
Wetlands are among the most biodiverse ecosystems on Earth, as they provide habitats, food resources, and breeding sites for numerous bird species [1,2]. Rapid urbanization and anthropogenic activities (such as land conversion, pollution, and overfishing) hurt wetland ecosystems and cause their degradation and loss of bird habitats and biodiversity [3,4,5,6]. To protect wetland ecosystems and bird diversity, wetland restoration projects have been widely implemented worldwide. The US Environmental Protection Agency defines wetland restoration as the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a former or degraded wetland to return natural and historic functions (https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/wetlands-restoration-definitions-and-distinctions (accessed on 2 August 2025)). Wetland restoration projects can be categorized into degraded-wetland recovery, wetland ecological restoration, and wildfowl habitat restoration. Wetland restoration is considered a key strategy in mitigating the decline in waterbird populations ecosystem services such as habitat and food [7]. Since 1970, more than 35% of the world’s wetlands have been lost, and this rate is three times higher than forest loss (https://researchoutput.csu.edu.au/files/29203717/29203696_Published_report.pdf (2 August 2025)). The 2022 Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (UNEP) calls for at least 30% restoration of degraded aquatic ecosystems by 2030. In European farm landscapes, bird communities showed a notable change after flood but vegetation restoration measures were implemented on abandoned wetlands and a noticeable increase in waterbird diversity was seen [8]. A global-scale study showed that the climate effect of restored wetlands shifts from net warming to net cooling [9]. The adaptation of a protection and restoration strategy for coastal wetlands can offer additional carbon-sequestration benefits within 10 years [9]. Wetland restoration is not only habitat repair but also a nature-based solution that simultaneously enhances biodiversity and climate regulation. However, long-term systematic monitoring is required to determine the effectiveness of wetland restoration, especially for migratory waterbirds.
The worldwide degradation of wetlands has garnered considerable research attention [10,11]. Currently, the restoration and assessment of wetland ecosystems lie in the field of ecology [12,13,14]. Wetland restoration projects have significantly increased the diversity of birds by restoring wetland vegetation and habitat conditions. Farley et al. found that moderate water-level fluctuations and alternating wet–dry phases are the optimal strategy for simultaneously maximizing vegetation productivity and bird diversity, providing a direct, transferable water-level management template for wetland restoration along the North American Atlantic Flyway [15]. Wetland area, edge complexity, water depth, and vegetation structure jointly determine wader habitat selection, while prey abundance interacting with wetland type is the primary factor explaining wader spatial distribution [16]. A wetland restoration of agricultural landscapes in Sweden showed that several components (restoration of open water, marsh, and surrounding meadow wetlands) collectively improved the survival conditions for birds that were at risk from wetland habitat degradation [17]. In the Yellow River Delta restoration zone, 35 waterbird species were recorded, 13 of which are under national key protection. In contrast, their abundance and encounter frequency of rare species, such as the Oriental Stork (Ciconia boyciana), Red-crowned Crane (Grus japonensis), and Saunders’s Gull (Saundersilarus saunfersi), were higher than in unrestored areas [18]. Since 2016, Myanmar’s Moe Yun Gyi Wetland has implemented ecological water replenishment, coupled with reed marsh vegetation restoration and microtopographic modification, for over ten years. As a result, the total waterbird population has increased seven-fold. As a result, the total waterbird population has increased seven-fold, with a significant recovery of threatened Pelecaniformes and other rare taxa [19]. One year after the restoration of Futian Mangrove National Important Wetland, waterbird species richness rose by 33% while the targeted species, Black-faced Spoonbill (Platalea minor) rebounded markedly, and coastal ecosystem service functions were simultaneously enhanced [20]. Research on bird community diversity is an essential indicator for evaluating the ecological balance and function of a region to some extent, and the dynamics of bird communities can be used to assess the effectiveness of wetland restoration [21,22].
The Sanjiang Plain is one of China’s largest and most concentrated distribution areas of freshwater marsh wetlands, and it is also a typical mid-latitude cold and wet (seasonally frozen and thawed) lowland marsh wetland region. The NRNNR is located in the heart of the Sanjiang Plain [23]. Since the 1950s, large-scale development and utilization have led to the gradual disappearance of vast areas of pristine wetlands, leading to the destruction of the ecological system and biodiversity loss [24]. Since 2014, a farmland reversion to wetlands project has been initiated to protect the biodiversity and maintain the environmental balance of the wetlands by relying on natural dispersal of native plants and supplementing with artificial planting, combined with environmental water replenishment [24,25].
To evaluate the effectiveness of farmland abandonment on bird community recovery in the Naoli River Nature Reserve, we compiled bird diversity survey data from the restored wetland areas from 2015 to 2020 (excluding 2017). By focusing on the reverted farmland wetlands, we analyzed the recovery trajectories of bird diversity along three axes: (i) a temporal gradient (five consecutive years), (ii) a spatial gradient (sites with different time since reversion), and (iii) habitat heterogeneity (different habitat types). This multidimensional approach provides a scientific basis for future wetland restoration, biodiversity conservation, and sustainable management.
2. Materials and Methods
Heilongjiang Niaoli River National Nature Reserve is located between 46°30′22″–47°24′32″ N and 132°22′29″–134°13′45″ E (Figure 1), covering a total area of 160,601 ha and located in the heart of the Sanjiang Plain [26]. The climate of the region is classified as a temperate humid and semi-humid continental monsoon climate, with an average annual temperature of 3.5 °C and annual precipitation of 518 mm. Wetland restoration and management in the reserve primarily rely on natural recovery, supplemented by artificial restoration measures [27,28]. The NRNNR includes 17 farms within its jurisdiction, such as Qixing, Hongwei, Shengli, and Hongqiling, which cover about 25% of the total wetland area in the Sanjiang Plain (major representative wetland ecosystems in the region). It plays an irreplaceable role in maintaining regional biodiversity and ensuring the stability of ecosystem functions. This area is a habitat for a variety of rare and endangered bird species, serving as an essential habitat for eight nationally protected bird species, including the Red-crowned Crane, Oriental Stork, and White-naped Crane (Grus vipio). As a key node on the migratory routes of birds, it attracts a large number of migratory birds to rest or breed each year by providing crucial support for the breeding and migration of migratory bird populations.
To cover the three critical phenological stages of birds in the Sanjiang Plain, spring migration, breeding season and autumn migration, this study fixed the survey windows from 2015 to 2020 (fieldwork was suspended in 2017 due to personnel adjustments) based on historical migration dynamics, April–May (spring migration peak, with large numbers of geese and cranes staging), July–August (breeding peak, with fledglings leaving the nest and community structure at its most complete), and October–November (autumn migration concentration, with overlapping migrants and post-breeding flocks). During each of these three annual windows, one complete bird community survey was conducted using transect lines combined with fixed-point counts to ensure temporal comparability and alignment with phenological nodes [29]. According to the area of retired farmland, a total of 21 line transects and 76 sampling points were designed to avoid double-counting. The distance between any two points exceeded by 500 m yield a total survey length of 29.3 km (Figure 1). The width of each transect was approximately 100 m/1000 m (representing the effective distance for identifying small birds with binoculars and medium-to-large birds with monoculars, respectively). The actual width observed on one side would be slightly adjusted to account for habitat, hydrology, and topography. During the surveys, observers walked at a speed of 1–2 km/h and recorded birds on both sides of the transects [30,31]. For areas with obstructed visibility, nearby elevated points were chosen for observation. Each observation point was theoretically observed for 10–20 min to cover all bird species within the observation area. The actual observation time was adjusted according to the specific conditions.
We chose the three management stations, Qixing, Hongwei, and Shengli, under the Naoli River Nature Reserve. Qixing Station has received no human intervention since 2008, and farmland has been progressively retired and left to recover naturally. The habitats mainly comprised farmland, reed swamp, and meadow. Hongwei Station initiated phased farmland retirement in 2015, relying primarily on natural reversion and supplementing it with afforestation. Its habitats include farmland, afforestation areas, meadows, and natural wetlands. Shengli Station initiated phased farmland retirement in 2017, also emphasizing natural reversion, with habitats that include farmland, meadow, marsh meadow, natural forests, and natural wetlands. To evaluate the effectiveness of farmland restoration in the reserve on bird community diversity recovery, we collected five years of bird resource data from 2015 to 2020 (2017 was excluded). First, we used annual bird resource data to analyze how bird diversity changes with increasing restoration duration. Second, integrating hydrological conditions, vegetation structure, and restoration measures, we classified the study area into seven types of habitats, such as farmland, meadow, marsh meadow, reed swamp, afforested area, natural forests, and natural wetland, followed by bird diversity difference analysis among these habitats. Finally, taking the meadow habitats of the three management stations as an example, we analyzed the effect of restoration duration on the recovery of bird diversity.
All bird resource data originate from field surveys conducted by the research team. Due to the varying farmland retirement timelines of the three management stations and the phased implementation of the retirement policy, the exact survey dates and habitats differed from year to year. Nevertheless, the same fixed transects and sampling points were used every year, and each annual survey period was aligned with the corresponding phenological window, covering spring migration, breeding season, and autumn migration. All individuals were identified to the species level. Where sub-specific identification was not possible in the field, we used the nominate subspecies sensu lato, the species level. Where sub-specific identification was not possible in the field, we used the nominate subspecies sensu lato, following the IOC (2023).
First, taking the Naoli River Nature Reserve as the unit, we calculated annual changes in bird species richness and individual abundance from 2015 to 2020 to assess the effectiveness of farmland retirement measures on bird diversity recovery (as the species count stayed consistently around 20 in 2015, 2016 and 2018, we assumed that the 2017 data point falls within the 2015–2018 trend range and treated it as a random missing value). Using the vegan package in R 4.3.3, we computed the Shannon–Wiener diversity index, Pielou evenness index, dominance index, species count, individual count, and the relative abundance of the top contributing species for the bird community, and analyzed inter-annual trends [32]. The Sørensen similarity coefficient was employed to evaluate bird community similarity.
Habitats have difference aspects due to differences in farmland retirement duration among management stations, and we used 2018–2020 bird resource data as the baseline. Species richness, individual counts, waterbird proportions, and diversity indices were calculated for each habitat type. To examine the effect of retirement duration on bird diversity, we focused on meadow habitats across three management stations, compared identical restoration approaches under different retirement intervals, and computed species richness, individual counts, waterbird proportions, and diversity indices driven by varying retirement durations. One-way ANOVA (SPSS 27) and t-tests were used to assess the difference between habitat and duration in bird community diversity. All data were visualized with the ggplot2 package in R 4.3.3 [32].
3. Results
3.1. Bird Communities in the NRNNR After Farmland Abandonment
During the study period, a total of 92 bird species from 37 families and 16 orders (Figure 2) were recorded in the NRNNR. The Passeriformes (33 species) were the most dominant species followed by Anseriformes (16 species) and Charadriiformes (13 species). Four species of nationally first-class protected birds were identified: Red-crowned Crane, Oriental Stork, White-naped Crane, and Yellow-breasted Bunting (Emberiza aureola). Seventeen species of nationally protected birds, classified as second-class, were also recorded. According to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, 11 out of 92 species have international protection status, of which six are classified as CR, EN, or VU on the IUCN Red List. Critically Endangered (CR): Yellow-breasted Bunting; Endangered (EN): Oriental Stork; Vulnerable (VU): Red-crowned Crane, White-naped Crane, Swan Goose (Anser cygnoides), and Lesser White-fronted Goose (Anser erythropus); Lower risk-Near Threatened (NT): Eurasian Curlew (Numenius arquata), Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa), Northern Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), Falcated Duck (Mareca falcata), and Japanese Quail (Coturnix japonica). The remaining types are classified as Least Concern (LC) (Appendix A, Table A1).
3.2. Annual Dynamics of Bird Communities in the NRNNR After Farmland Abandonment
Between 2015 and 2020, the study area exhibited a significant increase in both bird species richness and individual abundance. In 2015, 2016, and 2018, the number of bird species remained relatively stable at around 20, while the peak richness (73 species and 12,645 individuals) was noticed in 2019, whereas a slight decline (62 species (10,709 individuals) was recorded in 2020 (Figure 3a,b). From 2015 to 2020, the Shannon–Wiener diversity index fluctuated upward, reaching a trough in 2018, while the Shannon–Wiener diversity index and Pielou evenness index also reached a trough in 2018. The dominance index showed the opposite trend, peaking in 2018 (Figure 3c–e). Analysis of the relative abundance of the top contributing species revealed that the sharp rise in dominance in 2018 was mainly driven by Anser albifrons (49%) and Anas zonorhyncha (35%), whereas dominance was more evenly distributed and the community structure was more balanced in other years (Figure 4). In terms of bird composition, both waterbirds accounted for the overwhelming majority from 2015 to 2018, after species richness. The individual abundance of waterbirds showed an increasing trend, and waterbirds accounted for the overwhelming majority from 2015 to 2018, following the implementation of farmland retirement (Figure 3a,b). However, the community similarity was lowest in 2019–2015 while the highest value was observed in 2020–2019 (Table 1).
3.3. Habitat Heterogeneity of Bird Communities in the NRNNR
Bird surveys across habitats revealed that meadows supported the highest species richness and individual abundance, whereas afforestation and natural forest sites hosted comparatively fewer species and individuals. However, the difference in Shannon–Wiener diversity indices was not significant (Figure 5a–c). T-test results showed that both species richness and individual abundance in meadow habitats were significantly greater than those in other habitats (Figure 5a,b). In terms of the proportion of waterbirds, natural wetlands and marsh meadows had a higher proportion of waterbirds, followed by meadows and reed marshes. In comparison, other habitats had a significantly lower proportion of waterbirds compared to terrestrial birds (Figure 5d).
3.4. Responses of Bird Community Structure to Different Farmland Abandonment Times
Comparison of the effects of different farmland abandonment durations (Shengli 3 years, Hongwei 5 years, and Qixing 12 years) on bird community structure in the restoration of farmland to meadow habitat. It was found that both bird species richness, the number of individuals, and the proportion of waterbirds increased with longer abandoned times (Figure 6a–c). Bird individuals after 12 years of farmland retirement were significantly higher than those in plots retired for only 3 years (p < 0.05) (Figure 6b). Furthermore, the increase in retirement duration showed a significant decline (p < 0.05) in the Pielou evenness of bird communities, while the dominance was increased with a decrease in diversity indices (Figure 6c, Table 2).
4. Discussion
During the study period, a total of 92 bird species belonging to 16 orders and 37 families were observed. From 2015 to 2020, both species richness and individual abundance increased, indicating that farmland retirement has a pronounced positive effect on the recovery of different bird species. Crawford et al. found that habitats improve and stabilize over time after restoration measures, leading to a significant enhancement in bird diversity [33]. China has initiated a restoration program (farmland to wetland and wetland restoration) on a large scale since 2012, and the breeding population of the Oriental White Stork has grown from eight individuals (2000) to 192 (2021). Similarly, core wetlands, such as Dongting Lake, Poyang Lake, the Liao River Estuary, and Tianjin Binhai, have shown significant recoveries in waterbirds and rare species [34]. Ecological water supplementation began at Myanmar’s Moe Yun Gyi Wetland in 2016, accompanied by simultaneous reed marsh vegetation restoration and micro-topographic modification. Within a decade, the total waterbird population increased seven-fold, with threatened Pelecaniformes and other rare taxa rebounding significantly [19]. One year after, target species such as the Black-faced Spoonbill recovered markedly with the restoration of the Futian Mangrove National Important Wetland, and waterbird species richness increased by 33%. At the same time, coastal ecosystem service functions were simultaneously enhanced [20]. Farmland retirement significantly revives bird species and individuals, although the magnitude of this effect varies with specific environmental conditions and management practices [17,35,36,37]. Abandoned dryland fields often rapidly develop dense shrub cover and lose open-country birds [38]. However, our rice-paddy sites remained in an early wet–successional stage. Permanent shallow flooding inhibited woody establishment and preserved extensive mud-flats, allowing migratory waders to continue using the fields as feeding grounds. Consequently, we recorded no decline in bird abundance requiring open areas during the 3–12-years post-abandonment. This positive effect is likely transient; should water levels drop or shrub cover exceed 30%, the habitat will shift towards a closed marsh or shrubland and is expected to follow the negative trajectory reported elsewhere. Maintaining seasonal inundation or rotational mowing could prolong the benefits of the open phase for shorebirds [39].
The bird community structure analysis presents variation in both species richness and individual abundance during 2015–2020, while species richness and individual abundance were at their peaks in 2019. The lowest community similarity was observed from 2015 to 2019, whereas the highest similarity was noticed from 2020 to 2019. Natural environment data from WorldClim (https://worldclim.org/data/worldclim21.html (accessed on 2 April 2025)) indicate that 2019 had more rainfall, which may have improved the wetland ecological conditions and also provided a sufficient source of habitat and food, enabling substantial recovery of the bird community. Studies on bird diversity can offer critical references for wetland conservation and management [40,41,42]. The NRNNR is an important breeding, stopover and migratory corridor for wildlife in Northeast Asia [24,43]. In recent years, large areas of farmland have been restored to wetlands, attracting more birds for breeding and staging. The reserve now plays an irreplaceable role in biodiversity conservation and constitutes a vital component of the Sanjiang Plain ecosystem.
A comparative analysis of bird community structure among habitats revealed that meadow habitats exhibited significantly higher species richness and individual abundance than all other types. Natural wetlands and marsh meadows supported the most significant proportion of waterbirds, followed by meadows and reed swamps. These results highlight the crucial role of meadows and marsh meadows in conserving bird diversity. Meadows excel in restoring species diversity, whereas marsh meadows provide more suitable habitat for waterbirds, facilitating their recovery. The bird community structure differed markedly among the various habitat types. Our findings are consistent with previous findings that bird diversity is closely linked to wetland type, origin, and microhabitat heterogeneity [44]. Natural forests and afforestation areas had the lowest species richness and abundance, likely due to their uniform vegetation height, structure, and limited food resources [45].
Long-term farmland retirement significantly increases bird abundance and improves overall species richness, with an increase in waterbird richness. This pattern is likely linked to the recovery trajectory of wetland ecosystems [46]. In the short term, vegetation and hydrological conditions in abandoned farmland are still incomplete, yet as time progresses, vegetation gradually recovers and hydrology stabilizes, thereby promoting higher bird species richness [33]. Additional studies indicate that extended farmland retirement significantly increases both bird abundance and waterbird diversity, likely due to prolonged restoration measures that enhance habitat heterogeneity [47,48].
Moreover, bird communities showed a significant decline in Pielou evenness under different retirement durations, while a drop in the Shannon–Wiener index and a rise in dominance indicate that dominant species occupy most ecological niches, suppressing the relative abundance of others and thus lowering evenness and overall diversity. Studies also report a similar pattern in the ecology of the Loess Plateau, in which the Shannon index first rises and then drops as retirement longevity increases [46,49]. Previous studies have shown that increasing shrub cover competitively excludes open-habitat specialists while enhancing a few dominant waterbirds [38]. This shift reduces species diversity, signaling a conservation warning. To prevent the system from becoming monodominant, we recommend rotational cutting of reed beds every 4–5 years and periodic water-level drawdowns to recreate open mudflats [39,50]. Such interventions have successfully maintained waterbird populations in wetlands and could be piloted in our reserve. Wetland restoration is not a one-off intervention; dominance expansion and diversity decline can emerge in mid-to-late stages, necessitating long-term monitoring and adaptive management.
5. Conclusions
The field observations and analysis of the reverted areas in the NRNNR revealed the positive impact of farmland abandonment on the recovery of bird communities. Our findings suggest that farmland abandonment significantly enhanced bird diversity. A total of 92 bird species, including 21 nationally protected species, were observed, highlighting the importance of abandoned measures in rebuilding habitats for endangered birds. Bird species richness and diversity indices exhibited an increasing trend over time, likely due to the ecological restoration effects of abandoned measures. Additionally, habitat type has a significant impact on bird community diversity: meadows play a vital role in the recovery of diverse species, while marsh meadows provide a more suitable habitat for the recovery of waterbirds. Under the same habitat conditions (meadow), the impact of abandoned time on bird communities is primarily reflected in the number of bird individuals and species, especially with waterbird richness increasing with extended abandoned time, indicating that long-term abandonment significantly improves the habitat environment for waterbirds.
In summary, farmland abandonment appears to be an effective ecological restoration measure as it significantly enhances bird diversity and exerts positive effects on bird communities across different habitat types and temporal scales. Future research should focus on the long-term effects of abandoned measures, particularly the impact of habitat type and landscape pattern on bird community dynamics, to provide a scientific basis for the sustainable management of wetland ecosystems and biodiversity conservation.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, X.S., J.Z., X.L., H.Z. and Q.W.; methodology, X.S., L.C. and Q.W.; software, X.S., J.Z. and X.L.; validation, Q.W. and H.Z.; formal analysis, X.S., X.L. and J.Z.; investigation, X.S., M.S., J.Z., L.C. and Q.W.; resources M.S., X.S. and J.Z.; data curation, X.S., M.S., Q.W. and J.Z.; writing—original draft, X.S.; writing—review and editing, Q.W., M.S., X.S., H.Z. and J.Z.; visualization, X.S., M.S. and Q.W.; supervision, Q.W. and H.Z.; project administration, Q.W. and J.Z.; funding acquisition, Q.W. and H.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China, grant number 2023YFF1305000, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 32271557.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Data are contained within the article.
Acknowledgments
We are very thankful to the Naoli River National Nature Reserve Management Bureau Project in Heilongjiang for funding and support. We thank Aziz Ur Rahim Bacha for his assistance in polishing the English language of the manuscript. We are also very grateful for the comments and suggestions made by the anonymous reviewers.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1.
Avian community composition in Naoli River Reserve.
| Latin Name | Distribution | Residency Status | Protection Level | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qixing | Hongwei | Shengli | |||
| Pelecaniformes | |||||
| Ardeidae | |||||
| Ardea alba | √ | √ | √ | Summer | LC |
| Ardea cinerea | √ | √ | √ | Summer | LC |
| Ardea purpurea | √ | √ | Summer | LC | |
| Botaurus stellaris | √ | √ | Summer | LC | |
| Threskiornithidae | |||||
| Platalea leucorodia | √ | √ | Summer | LC, II | |
| Charadriiformes | |||||
| Charadriidae | |||||
| Vanellus vanellus | √ | √ | √ | Summer | NT |
| Vanellus cinereus | √ | Summer | LC | ||
| Laridae | |||||
| Larus ridibundus | √ | √ | √ | Summer | LC |
| Chlidonias leucopterus | √ | √ | √ | Summer | LC |
| Chlidonias hybrida | √ | √ | √ | Summer | LC |
| Larus crassirostris | √ | Passage | LC | ||
| Sterna hirundo | √ | √ | √ | Summer | LC |
| Scolopacidae | |||||
| Tringa totanus | √ | √ | Summer | LC | |
| Numenius phaeopus | √ | √ | √ | Passage | LC |
| Limosa limosa | √ | √ | Passage | NT | |
| Actitis hypoleucos | √ | √ | Summer | LC | |
| Numenius arquata | √ | Summer | NT, II | ||
| Recurvirostridae | |||||
| Himantopus himantopus | √ | Summer | LC | ||
| Gruiformes | |||||
| Gruidae | |||||
| Grus japonensis | √ | √ | √ | Summer | VU, I |
| Grus vipio | √ | √ | Summer | VU, I | |
| Rallidae | |||||
| Fulica atra | √ | √ | √ | Summer | LC |
| Anseriformes | |||||
| Anatidae | |||||
| Anas platyrhynchos | √ | √ | √ | Summer | LC |
| Anas zonorhyncha | √ | √ | √ | Summer | LC |
| Anser fabalis | √ | √ | √ | Passage | LC |
| Anser albifrons | √ | √ | Passage | LC, II | |
| Anas crecca | √ | √ | Summer | LC | |
| Mareca falcata | √ | √ | √ | Summer | NT |
| Sibirionetta formosa | √ | Passage | LC, II | ||
| Aix galericulata | √ | √ | √ | Summer | LC, II |
| Spatula querquedula | √ | √ | √ | Summer | LC |
| Anas acuta | √ | Passage | LC | ||
| Anser cygnoides | √ | √ | √ | Summer | VU, II |
| Mareca strepera | √ | √ | √ | Summer | LC |
| Anser erythropus | √ | Passage | VU, II | ||
| Aythya fuligula | √ | Summer | LC | ||
| Mareca penelope | √ | √ | √ | Summer | LC |
| Spatula clypeata | √ | √ | √ | Summer | LC |
| Columbiformes | |||||
| Columbidae | |||||
| Streptopelia orientalis | √ | √ | √ | Summer | LC |
| Suliformes | |||||
| Phalacrocoracidae | |||||
| Phalacrocorax carbo | √ | √ | √ | Summer | LC |
| Galliformes | |||||
| Phasianidae | |||||
| Phasianus colchicus | √ | √ | √ | Resident | LC |
| Coturnix japonica | √ | √ | √ | Summer | NT |
| Perdix dauurica | √ | Resident | LC | ||
| Passeriformes | |||||
| Laniidae | |||||
| Lanius excubitor | √ | √ | √ | Winter | LC |
| Lanius sphenocercus | √ | √ | √ | Summer | LC |
| Lanius cristatus | √ | √ | Summer | LC | |
| Emberizidae | |||||
| Emberiza spodocephala | √ | √ | √ | Summer | LC |
| Emberiza fucata | √ | √ | Summer | LC | |
| Emberiza schoeniclus | √ | √ | √ | Summer | LC |
| Emberiza cioides | √ | Summer | LC | ||
| Emberiza aureola | √ | √ | Passage | CR, I | |
| Calcariidae | |||||
| Plectrophenax nivalis | √ | Winter | LC | ||
| Muscicapidae | |||||
| Saxicola torquatus | √ | √ | √ | Summer | LC |
| Motacillidae | |||||
| Motacilla alba | √ | √ | √ | Summer | LC |
| Motacilla tschutschensis | √ | √ | Summer | LC | |
| Passeridae | |||||
| Latin Name | Distribution | Migrate Type | Protection Level | ||
| Qixing | Hongwei | Shengli | |||
| Passer montanus | √ | √ | √ | Resident | LC |
| Turdidae | |||||
| Turdus eunomus | √ | √ | Passage | LC | |
| Sturnidae | |||||
| Spodiopsar cineraceus | √ | Summer | LC | ||
| Corvidae | |||||
| Corvus corone | √ | √ | √ | Resident | LC |
| Pica pica | √ | √ | Resident | LC | |
| Garrulus glandarius | √ | √ | Resident | LC | |
| Hirundinidae | |||||
| Hirundo rustica | √ | √ | √ | Summer | LC |
| Cecropis daurica | √ | Summer | LC | ||
| Acrocephalidae | |||||
| Acrocephalus orientalis | √ | Summer | LC | ||
| Acrocephalus bistrigiceps | √ | Summer | LC | ||
| Paridae | |||||
| Poecile palustris | √ | √ | √ | Resident | LC |
| Poecile montanus | √ | √ | √ | Resident | LC |
| Parus cinereus | √ | √ | √ | Resident | LC |
| Periparus ater | √ | Resident | |||
| Sittidae | |||||
| Sitta europaea | √ | √ | √ | Resident | LC |
| Fringillidae | |||||
| Acanthis flammea | √ | √ | Winter | LC | |
| Carpodacus sibiricus | √ | Resident | LC | ||
| Carpodacus roseus | √ | Winter | LC, II | ||
| Alaudidae | |||||
| Alauda arvensis | √ | Summer | LC, II | ||
| Bombycillidae | |||||
| Bombycilla garrulus | √ | Winter | LC | ||
| Campephagidae | |||||
| Pericrocotus divaricatus | √ | Summer | LC | ||
| Accipitriformes | |||||
| Accipitridae | |||||
| Circus cyaneus | √ | √ | √ | Summer | LC, II |
| Circus melanoleucos | √ | √ | √ | Summer | LC, II |
| Buteo hemilasius | √ | Resident | LC, II | ||
| Buteo lagopus | √ | Winter | LC, II | ||
| Accipiter gentilis | √ | √ | √ | Winter | LC, II |
| Accipiter nisus | √ | Summer | LC, II | ||
| Falconiformes | |||||
| Falconidae | |||||
| Falco tinnunculus | √ | √ | √ | Summer | LC, II |
| Falco amurensis | √ | √ | Summer | LC, II | |
| Bucerotiformes | |||||
| Upupidae | |||||
| Upupa epops | √ | Summer | LC | ||
| Piciformes | |||||
| Picidae | |||||
| Dendrocopos major | √ | √ | √ | Resident | LC |
| Dryocopus martius | √ | Resident | LC | ||
| Picus canus | √ | Resident | LC | ||
| Podicipediformes | |||||
| Podicipedidae | |||||
| Podiceps cristatus | √ | √ | √ | Summer | LC |
| Tachybaptus ruficollis | √ | √ | Summer | LC | |
| Ciconiformes | |||||
| Ciconiidae | |||||
| Ciconia boyciana | √ | √ | √ | Summer | EN, I |
| Coraciiformes | |||||
| Alcedinidae | |||||
| Alcedo atthis | √ | √ | Summer | LC | |
| Cuculiformes | |||||
| Cuculidae | |||||
| Cuculus canorus | √ | Summer | LC | ||
Note: “Summer” indicates a summer visitor, “Winter” indicates a winter visitor, “Resident” indicates a resident, “Passage” indicates a passage migrant. “I” indicates a nationally first-class protected species, “II” indicates a nationally second-class protected species. “LC” indicates least concern, “NT” indicates near threatened, “VU” indicates vulnerable, “EN” indicates endangered, “CR” indicates critically endangered. “√” indicates presence.
References
- He, Q.; Li, Z.; Daleo, P.; Lefcheck, J.S.; Thomsen, M.S.; Adams, J.B.; Bouma, T.J. Coastal wetland resilience through local, regional and global conservation. Nat. Rev. Biodivers. 2025, 1, 50–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, T.; Zhou, L.Z. The spatial-temporal patterns of bird diversity and its determinants in the small wetlands in Hefei City. Biodivers. Sci. 2022, 30, 146–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Zhong, Z.; Zhang, M.L.; Zhao, F.; Wu, Y.; Sun, Y.; Luo, J.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, X.; Cai, J.; et al. Analysis of anthropogenic disturbance and spatial and temporal changes of bird communities in plateau wetlands fusing bird survey and nighttime light remote sensing data. J. Environ. Manag. 2025, 375, 124349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Squalli, W.; Mansouri, I.; Douini, I.; Achiban, H.; Saghrouchni, H.; El Agy, A.; Fadil, F.; Wink, M.; Dakki, M. Diversity and Population Sizes of Wintering Waterbirds in the Wetlands of the Saïss-Middle Atlas Region (North-Central Morocco): Main Survival Factors and Evaluation of Habitat Loss. Animals 2024, 14, 1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xu, H.; Dong, B.; Gao, X.; Xu, Z.; Ren, C.; Fang, L.; Wei, Z.; Liu, X.; Lu, Z. Habitat quality assessment of wintering migratory birds in Poyang Lake National Nature Reserve based on InVEST model. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 28847–28862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Choi, C.Y.; Xiao, H.; Jia, M.M.; Jackson, M.V.; Lai, Y.; Murray, N.J.; Gibson, L.; Fuller, R.A. An emerging coastal wetland management dilemma between mangrove expansion and shorebird conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2022, 36, e13905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.Z.; Fagherazzi, S.; He, Q.; Gourgue, O.; Bai, J.; Liu, X.; Miao, C.; Hu, Z.; Cui, B. A global meta-analysis on the drivers of salt marsh planting success and implications for ecosystem services. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 3643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Battisti, C.; Cento, M.; Circosta, A.; Coppola, M.; Muratore, S. Resurrecting seasonal dynamics in waterbirds after wetland restoration: Before-after monitoring highlights the role of a single dominant species. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 2023, 31, 203–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taillardat, P.; Thompson, B.S.; Garneau, M.; Trottier, K.; Friess, D.A. Climate change mitigation potential of wetlands and the cost-effectiveness of their restoration. Interface Focus 2020, 10, 20190129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zedler, J.B.; Kercher, S. Wetland Resources: Status, Trends, Ecosystem services, and Restorability. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2005, 30, 39–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davidson, C.N. How much wetland has the world lost? Long-term and recent trends in global wetland area. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2014, 65, 934–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nakamurak, K.; Tockner, K.; Amano, K. River and wetland restoration: Lessons from Japan. BioScience 2006, 56, 419–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kong, X.S.; Tian, K.; Jia, Y.Y.; He, Z.; Song, S.; He, X.; Xiang, C.; An, S.; Tian, X. Ecological improvement by restoration on the Jialu River: Water quality, species richness and distribution. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2020, 71, 1602–1615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, X.Z.; Jia, E.R.; Liu, Y.J.; Chen, S. Return of river life: Restoration of urban river ecosystem based on improvement of biodiversity. Landsc. Archit. 2020, 27, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farley, E.D. Influence of Water Level Management on Vegetation and Bird Use of Restored Wetlands in the Montezuma Wetlands Complex. Master’s Thesis, State University of New York, New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Herteux, C.E.; Gawlik, D.E.; Smith, L.L. Habitat characteristics affecting wading bird use of geographically isolated wetlands in the US Southeastern Coastal Plain. Wetlands 2020, 40, 1149–1159. [Google Scholar]
- Kacergyte, I.; Pärt, T.; Berg, Å.; Arlt, D.; Żmihorski, M.; Knape, J. Quantifying effects of wetland restorations on bird communities in agricultural landscapes. Biol. Conserv. 2022, 273, 109676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, A.; Sui, X.; Wang, D.S.; Liao, W.; Ge, H.; Tao, J. Landscape and avifauna changes as an indicator of Yellow River Delta Wetland restoration. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 86, 162–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marnn, P.; Ali, H.; Jiang, H.B.; Liu, Y.; Li, Z.; Ahmed, S.; Yang, T.; Li, Z.; He, C. Modeling the Impact of Ecological Restoration on Waterbird Diversity and Habitat Quality in Myanmar’s Moe Yun Gyi Wetland. Biology 2025, 14, 519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luan, B.; Liu, Y.; Che, D.; Zhou, W.; Hu, L.; Lin, Y. Exploring nature-based solutions on refined waterbird habitats restoration in high-density urban area: A case study of the Futian Mangrove National Important Wetland in Shenzhen, China. Landsc. Archit. Front. 2024, 12, 36–61. [Google Scholar]
- Vera, P.; Dies, I.J.; Ferrís, D.; Valentín, A. Long- and mid-term trends in the waterbird community: Functional and ecological turnovers after restoration of freshwater and brackish habitats in a Mediterranean Coastal Wetland. Environments 2024, 11, 298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, M.X.; Dai, Z.L.; Mo, X.Q.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, J.; Lei, W.; Meng, W.; Hu, B.; Xu, W. Annual dynamics of bird community at a coastal wetland and their relation to habitat types: The example of Beidagang Wetland, Northern China. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, J.H.; Liu, J.M.; Liu, M.H.; Cui, X.B.; Ma, H.; Liu, Z.; Zheng, X.; Xie, X.Y.; Wang, G.X. Effects of farmland to wetland conversion on benthic macroinvertebrates community structure in Heilongjiang Naolihe National Nature Reserve. Wetl. Sci. 2025, 23, 364–374. [Google Scholar]
- Cui, X.B.; Liu, M.H.; Ma, Y.K. Project of returning farmland to wet land in Naolihe National Nature Reserve of Heilongjiang River and its benefit analysis. Heilongjiang Sci. 2016, 7, 153–155. [Google Scholar]
- Jiang, H.X.; Liu, M.H.; Zhang, F.R.; Yu, W.R.; Liu, H.L. The study on the diversity of vascular plants in the early stage of wetland restoration in Naolihe Natural Reserve. Bot. Res. 2021, 10, 355–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, F.; Zhang, S.W.; Liu, X.J.; Yu, W.R.; Liu, H.L. Conservation priority evaluation and strategy for isolated marshes in the Sanjiang Plain. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2024, 44, 9122–9134. [Google Scholar]
- Hou, W.; Zhang, S.W.; Zhang, Y.Z.; Kuang, W.H. Analysis on the shrinking process of wetland in Naoli River Basin of Sanjing Plain since the 1950s and its driving forces. J. Nat. Resour. 2004, 199, 725–731. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Y.Z.; Wang, X. A review of ecological restoration studies on natural wetland. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2001, 21, 309–314. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, Z.H.; Ding, Z.F.; Zhou, Z.X.; Liang, J.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Hu, Y.; Hu, H. Development status and document analysis: A review on terrestrial vertebrate field surveys in China. Biodivers. Sci. 2023, 31, 202–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, G.; Guan, X.X.; Sun, K.; Wang, X.P. Investigation and characteristics of bird diversity in Laotie Mountain Nature Reserve. J. Green Sci. Technol. 2019, 8, 7–12. [Google Scholar]
- Duan, M.Y.; Zhu, H.; Qu, Y.K.; Wang, W.H.; Jia, S.Q.; Yuan, K.; Ren, B.Z. Diversity of butterfly communities in different habitats in the Songnen Plain and conservation suggestions. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2023, 43, 7682–7692. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, J.; Zhou, L.Z.; Xu, W.B. Diversity of wintering waterbirds enhanced by restoring aquatic vegetation at Shengjin Lake, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 737, 140190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Crawford, L.C.; Wiebe, A.R.; Yin, H.; Radeloff, V.C.; Wilcove, D.S. Biodiversity consequences of cropland abandonment. Nat. Sustain. 2024, 7, 1596–1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, H.; Wu, H.T.; Xing, X.X.; Xie, T.; Song, C.C.; Wang, G.G.; Jia, M. Achievement of wetland protection and restoration and development strategies in China. Bull. Chin. Acad. Sci. 2023, 38, 365–375. [Google Scholar]
- Hanioka, M.; Yamaura, Y.; Yamanaka, S.; Senzaki, M.; Kawamura, K.; Terui, A.; Nakamura, F. How much abandoned farmland is required to harbor comparable species richness and abundance of bird communities in wetland? Hierarchical community model suggests the importance of habitat structure and landscape context. Biodivers. Conserv. 2018, 27, 1831–1848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Broughton, R.K.; Bullock, J.M.; George, C.; Gerard, F.; Maziarz, M.; Payne, W.E.; Scholefield, P.A.; Wade, D.; Pywell, R.F. Slow development of woodland vegetation and bird communities during 33 years of passive rewilding in open farmland. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0277545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiu, J.; Zhang, Y.X.; Ma, J.W. Wetland habitats supporting waterbird diversity: Conservation perspective on biodiversity-ecosystem functioning relationship. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 357, 120663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dvořáková, L.; Hanzelka, J.; Romportl, D.; Reif, J. Habitat changes explain shifts in bird community composition in abandoned military training areas: Lessons for conservation. J. Nat. Conserv. 2024, 79, 126612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antoniazza, M.; Clerc, C.; Le Nédic, C.; Sattler, T.; Lavanchy, G. Long-term effects of rotational wetland mowing on breeding birds: Evidence from a 30-year experiment. Biodivers. Conserv. 2018, 27, 749–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bao, X.K.; Liao, J.C.; Duoerji, S.; Sun, Y.; Ding, L.; Zhuoma, J.; Maji, C. Responses of avian community to plateau wetland degradation in Zoige. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2021, 41, 781–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Q.; Ma, K.M.; Li, J.Y.; Zhang, Y.X. The effect of stopover wetlands on migratory waterbirds at different scales: A review. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2017, 37, 2520–2529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, Q.; Wu, H.; Zuo, T.J.; Tian, Z.; Wang, J.; Hou, J. Protection of Passeriformes birds in wetland ecological restoration: A case study of the Reed Parrotbill (Paradoxornis heudei) in Baiyangdian. Diversity 2025, 17, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.P.; Lv, X.G. Study on the spatial pattern of wetland bird richness and hotspots in Sanjiang Plain. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2011, 31, 5894–5902. [Google Scholar]
- Murillo-Pacheco, J.; López-Iborra, G.M.; Escobar, F.; Bonilla-Rojas, W.F.; Verdú, J.R. The value of small, natural and man-made wetlands for bird diversity in the east Colombian Piedmont. Aquat. Conserv.-Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2018, 27, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, Y.; Fan, X.X.; Ding, X.Y.; Sun, M. Ecological restoration of habitats based on avian diversity and landscape patterns-A case study of Haining Mining Pit Park in Zhejiang, China. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katayama, N.; Mashiko, M.; Koshida, C. Effects of rice-field abandonment rates on bird communities in mixed farmland-woodland landscapes in Japan. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021, 319, 107539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, W.J.; Liu, Q.; Yuan, X.; Tian, K. Effects of different restoration measures on the wintering waterfowl diversity in southern dianchi wetland. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2021, 41, 7180–7188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, S.Q.; Zhang, P.Y.; Pan, B.H.; Zou, Y.; Xie, Y.; Zhu, F.; Chen, X.; Li, F.; Deng, Z.; Zhang, H.; et al. Wetland restoration in the East Dongting Lake effectively increased waterbird diversity by improving habitat quality. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2021, 27, e01535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, L.B.; Hai, X.Y.; Wang, X.Z.; Deng, L.; Li, B.B.; Liu, Y.L.; Li, J.W.; Li, M.Y.; Lv, W.W.; Shangguan, Z.P. Effects of plant community dynamics on ecosystem carbon stocks since returning farmlands to grasslands on the Loess Plateau. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2020, 40, 8559–8569. [Google Scholar]
- Čížková, H.; Kučera, T.; Poulin, B.; Květ, J. Ecological Basis of Ecosystem Services and Management of Wetlands Dominated by Common Reed (Phragmites australis): European Perspective. Diversity 2023, 15, 629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Location of the study area.
Figure 2.
Composition of bird species in the study site of NRNNR.
Figure 3.
Annual changes in bird community metrics. (a) Change in species richness. (b) Change in individual abundance. (c) Change in Shannon–Wiener diversity index. (d) Change in Pielou evenness index. (e) Change in dominance index.
Figure 3.
Annual changes in bird community metrics. (a) Change in species richness. (b) Change in individual abundance. (c) Change in Shannon–Wiener diversity index. (d) Change in Pielou evenness index. (e) Change in dominance index.
Figure 4.
Relative abundance of the top contributing species in different years.
Figure 5.
Habitat differences in bird community metrics. (a) Differences in species richness. (b) Difference in individual abundance. (c) Difference in Shannon–Wiener diversity index. (d) Difference in proportion of species. Difference in species proportion. Different letters indicate there is a significant difference between groups (p < 0.05).
Figure 5.
Habitat differences in bird community metrics. (a) Differences in species richness. (b) Difference in individual abundance. (c) Difference in Shannon–Wiener diversity index. (d) Difference in proportion of species. Difference in species proportion. Different letters indicate there is a significant difference between groups (p < 0.05).
Figure 6.
Difference in bird community metrics under varying farmland abandonment period. (a) Difference in species richness. (b) Difference in individual abundance. (c) Difference in Shannon–Wiener diversity index. (d) Difference in species proportion. Different letters indicate there is a significant difference between groups (p < 0.05).
Figure 6.
Difference in bird community metrics under varying farmland abandonment period. (a) Difference in species richness. (b) Difference in individual abundance. (c) Difference in Shannon–Wiener diversity index. (d) Difference in species proportion. Different letters indicate there is a significant difference between groups (p < 0.05).
Table 1.
Similarity of bird communities in different years.
| 2015 | 2016 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | 1 | ||||
| 2016 | 0.56 | 1 | |||
| 2018 | 0.36 | 0.41 | 1 | ||
| 2019 | 0.18 | 0.3 | 0.37 | 1 | |
| 2020 | 0.32 | 0.4 | 0.39 | 0.68 | 1 |
Table 2.
The differences in bird community metrics at different times of farmland abandonment.
| Shannon–Wiener Index | Pielou’s Evenness | Dominance Index | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12 years | 2.261 ± 0.170 | 0.404 ± 0.078 | 0.166 ± 0.041 |
| 5 years | 2.289 ± 0.295 | 0.536 ± 0.119 | 0.157 ± 0.032 |
| 3 years | 2.429 ± 0.149 | 0.621 ± 0.085 | 0.124 ± 0.032 |
| F | 0.781 | 6.123 | 1.641 |
| p | 0.484 | 0.018 | 0.242 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Sun, X.; Zhu, J.; Wu, Q.; Suliman, M.; Lin, X.; Chen, L.; Zou, H. Avian Biodiversity Response Toward Ecological Restoration of Wetlands Through Farmland Abandonment Measures in the Sanjiang Plain, China. Diversity 2025, 17, 690. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17100690
AMA Style
Sun X, Zhu J, Wu Q, Suliman M, Lin X, Chen L, Zou H. Avian Biodiversity Response Toward Ecological Restoration of Wetlands Through Farmland Abandonment Measures in the Sanjiang Plain, China. Diversity. 2025; 17(10):690. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17100690
Chicago/Turabian StyleSun, Xueying, Jingli Zhu, Qingming Wu, Muhammad Suliman, Xiaogang Lin, Lu Chen, and Hongfei Zou. 2025. "Avian Biodiversity Response Toward Ecological Restoration of Wetlands Through Farmland Abandonment Measures in the Sanjiang Plain, China" Diversity 17, no. 10: 690. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17100690
APA StyleSun, X., Zhu, J., Wu, Q., Suliman, M., Lin, X., Chen, L., & Zou, H. (2025). Avian Biodiversity Response Toward Ecological Restoration of Wetlands Through Farmland Abandonment Measures in the Sanjiang Plain, China. Diversity, 17(10), 690. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17100690
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
