The Spatio-Temporal Evolution of the Soil Conservation Function of Ecosystems in the North–South Transition Zone in China: A Case Study of the Qinling-Daba Mountains
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Overview of the Study Area
3. Data and Methods
3.1. Data Sources
3.1.1. Remote Sensing Data
3.1.2. Meteorological Data
3.1.3. Soil and Land Use Data
3.1.4. Ecosystem and Vegetation Data
3.1.5. Administrative Division Data
3.2. Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation Model (RUSLE)
3.3. Grading Standard Method
4. Results
4.1. Characteristics of Soil Erosion in the Qinling-Daba Mountains and Temporal and Spatial Changes
4.1.1. Quantity and Structural Characteristics of Soil Erosion in the Qinling-Daba Mountains
4.1.2. Spatial and Temporal Characteristics of Soil Erosion in the Qinling-Daba Mountains
4.2. Soil Conservation and Spatio-Temporal Characteristics in the Qinling-Daba Mountains
4.3. Nutrients of Soil Conservation and Spatial Distribution in the Qinling-Daba Mountains
5. Discussions
5.1. Reliability of the Calculation Results of the Soil Maintenance Function in the Qinling-Daba Mountains
5.2. Factors Affecting the Soil Conservation Function in the Qinling-Daba Mountains
5.3. The Particularity of Soil Conservation Function in the Qinling-Daba Mountains Area
6. Conclusions
- The inter-annual variation of soil erosion in Qinling-Daba Mountains is noticeable, and there are obvious spatial and temporal agglomeration characteristics in the northeast and south, and in the northeast–southwest direction. During the study period, soil erosion in the Qinling-Daba Mountains fluctuated greatly throughout the year. Soil erosion in the Qinling-Daba Mountains has a clear spatial aggregation phenomenon and a temporal and spatial transfer phenomenon, and the soil erosion degree gradually deepens from the northeast to the southwest. The centroid of slight soil erosion was significantly concentrated in the northeast, while the centroid of the severe soil erosion area oscillated at the southern foot of the Qinling-Daba Mountains. The area with increased erosion was concentrated in the south of the study area, and the erosion was reduced in the northeast and in the central and western parts of the study area. This conclusion shows the key areas for soil erosion control in the Qinling-Daba Mountains.
- The high-value areas of soil conservation in the Qinling-Daba Mountains moved from the northeast and the southwest to the central and southern regions. Hanzhong and Ngawa were the key areas to strengthen soil conservation measures. In 1982, there were two high-value areas of soil conservation in the northeast and southwest of the study area. With the change of time, the soil conservation in the northeast gradually decreased, and the soil conservation in the central and southern parts gradually increased. During the study period, the soil conservation per unit area in Hanzhong and Ngawa was relatively low, and the total soil conservation accounted for a relatively high proportion, which should be the key remediation areas for promoting soil conservation measures in the future. Chongqing is rich in soil conservation functions in the Qinling-Daba Mountains. Chengdu, Deyang and other places belong to the marginal areas of the soil conservation function of the Qinling-Daba Mountains. This conclusion shows the key areas for improving the soil conservation function in the Qinling-Daba Mountains in different periods.
- The total amount of soil conservation in the Qinling-Daba Mountains was negatively correlated with elevation and slope, and was positively correlated with vegetation coverage. The total amount of soil conservation shows a trend of “short rise and long drop” with the increase of elevation. The total amount of soil conservation was the largest when the elevation was between 1000 m and 1500 m. When the elevation exceeded 3500 m, the amount of soil conservation began to decline. The spatial quantitative relationship between slope and total soil conservation was similar to elevation, and the total soil conservation reached a peak when the slope was 10°, and then gradually decreased as the slope became steeper. The relationship between the vegetation coverage and the total amount of soil conservation showed a trend of “long rise and short drop”. With the increase of vegetation coverage, the total amount of soil conservation was also found to increase. When the vegetation coverage reaches 70%, the total amount of soil conservation reached its peak, and then the total amount of soil conservation perhaps dropped sharply due to calculation errors or vegetation index compression. This conclusion showed the correlation between soil conservation function and some natural environment factors in the Qinling-Daba Mountains, which was helpful to provide a basis for engineering measures.
- Forest ecosystem and farmland ecosystem have a strong soil conservation capacity in the Qinling-Daba Mountains, but there are differences in the means of its realization; the composition and structure of different vegetation types in the same ecosystem affects soil conservation capacity. The forest ecosystem is mainly affected due to high vegetation coverage and relatively superior vegetation types, resulting in strong soil conservation function, while the farmland ecosystem is mainly affected with the establishment of a large number of soil and water conservation measures. The soil conservation capacity of the settlement ecosystem has weakened its soil conservation function due to the development of construction on the land. The soil conservation functions of different vegetation types are different. The soil conservation functions of mixed coniferous and broad-leaved forests is significantly weaker than that of broad-leaved forests and coniferous forests, and the soil conservation function of grasslands is significantly weaker than that of grasses and meadows. The soil holding capacity varies significantly. This conclusion is helpful to formulate soil conservation and protection measures from the perspective of different ecosystems or the composition of vegetation structures within different ecosystems.
- The soil nutrients in the Qinling-Daba Mountains are mainly concentrated in the southwest and south of the region, and the nutrient loss is more serious in the eastern region. Alpine plants have the strongest unit nutrients of soil conservation capacity, while shrubs, broad-leaved forests, and crops contribute more to the total nutrients of soil conservation. The spatial distribution of the three elements was consistent. The peak area of soil N was concentrated in the southwest. The soil P and K elements were concentrated in the southwest and southern regions, while the central region was the low value region of nutrients of soil conservation. There are differences in the effect of different vegetation types on nutrients of soil conservation. Alpine plants have the strongest ability to maintain soil N, P, and K elements, but shrubs, broad-leaved forests and crops have a large area. The cumulative contribution rate of nutrient retention capacity exceeded 70%. The analysis of soil nutrients in this conclusion enriches the research content of soil conservation function evaluation, and grasps the nutrient changes caused by soil erosion and conservation from a more microscopic perspective.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wei, X.; Bin, L.Z. The Effect of Soil Erosion on the Ecosystem. Res. Soil Water Conserv. 2006, 1, 245–247+264. [Google Scholar]
- Lal, R. Soil conservation and ecosystem services. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2014, 2, 36–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Trabu Cc Hi, M.; Comin, F.A.; O’Farrell, P.J. Hierarchical priority setting for restoration in a watershed in NE Spain, based on assessments of soil erosion and ecosystem services. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2013, 13, 911–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pimentel, D.; Harvey, C.; Resosudarmo, P.; Sinclair, K.; Kurz, D.; Mcnair, M.; Crist, S.; Shpritz, L.; Fitton, L.; Saffouri, R. Environmental and Economic Costs of Soil Erosion and Conservation Benefits. Science 1995, 267, 1117–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yao, H.R.; Yang, Z.F.; Cui, B.S. Spatial analysis on soil erosion of Lancang River Watershed in Yunnan Province under the support of GIS. Geogr. Res. 2006, 25, 421–429. [Google Scholar]
- Qiao, Y.; Yun, Q. Fast soil erosion investigation and dynamic analysis in the loess plateau of China by using information composite technique. Adv. Space Res. 2002, 29, 85–88. [Google Scholar]
- Dotterweich, M. The history of human-induced soil erosion: Geomorphic legacies, early descriptions and research, and the development of soil conservation—A global synopsis. Geomorphology 2013, 201, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, F.; Guo, S.; Zhang, Z. The distribution of soil erosion in China at the end of the 20th century. Acta Geogr. Sin. 2003, 58, 137–146. [Google Scholar]
- Ni, J.R.; Li, X.X.; Borthwick, A. Soil erosion assessment based on minimum polygons in the Yellow River basin, China. Geomorphology 2008, 93, 233–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pimentel, D. Soil Erosion: A Food and Environmental Threat. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2006, 8, 119–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pradhan, B.; Chaudhari, A.; Adinarayana, J.; Buchroithner, M.F. Soil erosion assessment and its correlation with landslide events using remote sensing data and GIS: A case study at Penang Island, Malaysia. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2012, 184, 715–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ma, G.; Shi, M.; Li, M. Economical Cost Evaluation of Ecological Environment Degradation in China. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2009, 19, 162–168. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, L.; Xie, G.D.; Sha, P.; Zhang, C.S.; Li, S.M. Ecosystem’s soil conservation function and its spatial distribution in Lancang River Basin, Southwest China. Yingyong Shengtai Xuebao 2012, 23, 2249–2256. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Rao, E.; Xiao, Y.; Ouyang, Z.; Zheng, H. Changes in ecosystem service of soil conservation between 2000 and 2010 and its driving factors in southwestern China. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2016, 26, 165–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sun, W.Y.; Shao, Q.Q.; Liu, J.Y. Assessment of Soil Conservation Function of the Ecosystem Services on the Loess Plateau. J. Nat. Resour. 2014, 29, 365–376. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, X.; Lan, W.; Rao, L.; Li, J.; Yang, R. Assessment methods of ecological functions of soil and water conservation measures. Sci. Soil Water Conserv. 2007, 5, 110. [Google Scholar]
- Schönbrodt, S.; Saumer, P.; Behrens, T.; Seeber, C.; Scholten, T. Assessing the USLE crop and management factor C for soil erosion modeling in a large mountainous watershed in Central China. J. Earth Sci. 2010, 11, 835–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kinnell, P.I.A. Modelling event soil losses using the QREI30 index within RUSLE2. Hydrol. Processes 2014, 28, 2761–2771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weige, Y.; Fe Nli, Z.; Zhanli, W.; Yong, H. Effects of Topography on Spatial Distribution of Soil Erosion and Deposition on Hillslope in the Typical of Black Soil Region. Acta Pedol. Sin. 2016, 53, 572–581. [Google Scholar]
- De Roo, A.P.J. The Lisem Project: An Introduction. Hydrol. Processes 1996, 10, 1021–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laflen, J.M.; Lane, L.J.; Foster, G.R. WEPP: A new generation of erosion prediction technology. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1991, 46, 34–38. [Google Scholar]
- Young, R.A.; Onstad, C.A.; Bosch, D.D.; Anderson, W.P. AGNPS: A nonpoint-source pollution model for evaluating agricultural watersheds. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1989, 44, 168–173. [Google Scholar]
- Renard, K.G.; Foster, G.R.; Weesies, G.A.; Mccool, D.K.; Yoder, D.C. Predicting soil erosion by water: A guide to conservation planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). Agric. Handb. 1996, 703, 23. [Google Scholar]
- Morgan, R.; Quinton, J.N.; Smith, R.E.; Govers, G.; Poesen, J.; Auerswald, K.; Chisci, G.; And, D.T.; Styczen, M.E. The European Soil Erosion Model (EUROSEM): A dynamic approach for predicting sediment transport from fields and small catchments. Earth Surf. Processes Landf. 1998, 23, 527–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baskan, O.; Cebel, H.; Akgul, S.; Erpul, G. Conditional simulation of USLE/RUSLE soil erodibility factor by geostatistics in a Mediterranean Catchment, Turkey. Environ. Earth Sci. 2010, 60, 1179–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tiwari, A.K.; Risse, L.M.; Nearing, M.A. Evaluation of WEPP and its comparison with USLE and RUSLE. Trans. Asae 2000, 43, 1129–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, D.; Kanae, S.; Oki, T.; Koike, T.; Musiake, K. Global potential soil erosion with reference to land use and climate changes. Hydrol. Processes 2003, 17, 2913–2928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, H.; Gallant, J.; Prosser, I.P.; Moran, C.; Priestley, G. Prediction of Sheet and Rill Erosion over the Australian Continent, Incorporating Monthly Soil Loss Distribution; CSIRO: Canberra, Australia, 2001; pp. 1–27. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, H.; Zhao, H. Dynamic Changes of Soil Erosion in the Taohe River Basin Using the RUSLE Model and Google Earth Engine. Water 2020, 12, 1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hao, C.H.E.N.; Oguchi, T.; Pan, W.U. Assessment for soil loss by using a scheme of alterative sub-models based on the RUSLE in a Karst Basin of Southwest China. J. Integr. Agric. 2017, 16, 377–388. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Quraishi, A. Soil Erosion Risk Prediction with RS and GIS for the Northwestern Part of Hebei Province, China. J. Appl. Sci. 2003, 3, 659–666. [Google Scholar]
- Xie, Y.; Lin, J. RUSLE model based quantitative evaluation on the soil erosion of Wen County of Gansu Province, China. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Geoinformatics, Beijing, China, 18–20 June 2010; pp. 450–455. [Google Scholar]
- Han, Y.; Gao, J.; Tuo, X.; Tian, M.; Feng, C. Study on the Assessment of Soil Conservation Service and Its Eco-Economic Value of Ecosystem in Mentougou. Res. Environ. Sci. 2007, 20, 144–147. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, L.; Xiong, K.; Chen, Q.; Shu, T.; Wu, J. Response Mechanism of Soil Conservation Function to Rocky Desertification Under Eco-Environmental Harness of Karst Areas. Resour. Environ. Yangtze Basin 2020, 29, 499–510. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, D.; Zou, C.; Cao, W.; Liu, L. Analysis of the Ecosystem Soil Conservation Function Based on the Major Function-Oriented Zones across the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, B. Ten major scientific issues concerning the study of China’s north-south transitional zone. Prog. Geogr. 2019, 38, 305–311. [Google Scholar]
- Yan, D.; Peng, S.; Ding, X.; Yu, Z. NDVI Variations and Its Responses to hydrothermal process in the Naqu River Basin, Qinghai-Tibet Plateau-Alpine Region. E3S Web Conf. 2021, 267, 01024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heilongjiang Meteorological Bureau of China. Compilation of 30-Year Conventional Surface Climate Data and Their Statistics; China Meterological Administration: Beijing, China, 2004; Volume QX/T 22-2004, pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Mcvicar, T.R.; Niel, T.; Li, L.T.; Hutchinson, M.F.; Mu, X.M.; Liu, Z.H. Spatially distributing monthly reference evapotranspiration and pan evaporation considering topographic influences. J. Hydrol. 2007, 338, 196–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Kang, S.; Zhang, L.; Liu, J. Spatial variation of climatology monthly crop reference evapotranspiration and sensitivity coefficients in Shiyang river basin of northwest China. Agric. Water Manag. 2010, 97, 1506–1516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, D.M.; Chen, Z.F.; Jiang, G.Y.; Jiang, D. Comparative study on estimation methods for soil erodibility K in purple hilly area. Bjing Linye Daxue Xuebao/J. Bjing For. Univ. 2012, 34, 32–38. [Google Scholar]
- Desmet, P.J.J.; Govers, G. A GIS procedure for automatically calculating the USLE LS factor on topographically complex landscape units. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1996, 51, 427–433. [Google Scholar]
- Wischmeier, W.H.; Smith, D.D. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses—A Guide to Conservation Planning; Agriculture Handbook (USA); United States Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, B.Y.; Zhang, K.L.; Jiao, J.Y. Soil erodibility and its use in soil erosion prediction model. J. Nat. Resour. 1999, 14, 345–350. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, L.; Xu, X.; Meng, X. Risk assessment of soil erosion in different rainfall scenarios by RUSLE model coupled with Information Diffusion Model: A case study of Bohai Rim, China. Catena 2013, 100, 74–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quansah, C.; Safo, E.Y.; Ampontuah, E.O.; Amankwah, A.S. Soil fertility erosion and the associated cost of NPK removed under different soil and residue management in Ghana. Ghana J. Agric. Sci. 2000, 33, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Department of Soil and Water Conservation, Ministry of Water Resources of the People’s Republic of China. Standards for classification and gradtion of soil erosion. In Industry Standard—Water Conservancy; Ministry of Water Resources of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2008; Volume SL 190-2007, pp. 11–16. [Google Scholar]
- He, W.; Wang, L.; Yang, X.; Gao, P.; Yao, Y.; Li, S.; Tian, Y.; Cui, N. Farmland Soil Fertility in Qinba Area in 30 Years: Variation Characteristics and Fertilization Countermeasures. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull. 2019, 35, 56–62. [Google Scholar]
- Rao, E.; Xiao, Y. Spatial characteristics and effects of soil conservation service in Sichuan Province. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2018, 38, 8741–8749. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, S.S. Evaluation of Ecological Service Function of Water Retention and Soil Convervation in Water Source Area for the South-to-North Water Transfer—A Case Study in Shangluo City. Ph.D. Thesis, Northwest University, Xi’an, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Shuangshuang, L.I.; Yang, S.; Liu, X. Spatiotemporal variability of extreme precipitation in north and south of the Qinling-Huaihe region and influencing factors during 1960–2013. Prog. Geogr. 2015, 34, 354–363. [Google Scholar]
- Junkai, D.U.; Jia, Y.; Xiaoxing, L.I.; Niu, C.; Liu, H.; Qiu, Y. Study on the spatial-temporal distribution pattern of precipitation in the Taihang Mountain region using TRMM data. Adv. Water Sci. 2019, 30, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, Q.; Zhou, Z.; Liu, T.; Bai, J. Vegetation restoration and ecosystem soil conservation service value increment in Yanhe Watershed, Loess Plateau. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2021, 41, 2557–2570. [Google Scholar]
- Shang, H.; Yin, Z.; Zhang, P. Analysis on Soil Erosion Characteristics of Different Types of Small Watersheds in Centre Sichuan Province. Res. Soil Water Conserv. 2015, 22, 5–8. [Google Scholar]
Factor | Equation | Explanation |
---|---|---|
Rainfall Erosion Factor (R) | i is the different months (i = 1, 2,..., 12); Pi is the monthly average rainfall; P is the annual average rainfall. | The rainfall data are all interpolated by the smooth thin disk spline method, which considers the influence of DEM and DCL (distance from the coastline) on rainfall [40], which can more accurately reflect the actual distribution of rainfall in space. |
Soil Erosion Factor (K) | SAN, SIL, CLA, and C are the sand content (%), silt content (%), clay content (%), and organic carbon content (%), respectively. | The EPIC model is the most widely used [41]. It was used to estimate the soil erosion factor in the study area. |
Use this equation to calculate SN. | ||
Terrain Factor (LS) | λ is the slope length of the unit pixel; θ is the slope of the DEM data, the unit is %. | The calculation method of the slope length factor proposed by Wischmeier and Smith is widely used [42,43], while the CSLE model proposed by Liu Baoyuan [44] combined with the actual situation in China is used for the calculation of the slope factor. |
Vegetation Cover Factor (C) | fc is the vegetation coverage; NDVI is the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index; NDVImax and NDVImin are the maximum NDVI and the minimum NDVI obtained by the maximum and the minimum combined method. | The NDVI is often used to represent the surface vegetation coverage [45,46]. |
Soil and Water Conservation Factor (P) | Arable land = 0.3; Woodland = 1; Grassland = 1; Waters = 0; Construction Land = 0.001; Unused Land = 0 The value range is 0–1, 0 means no soil erosion occurs after effective measures are implemented, 1 means no maintenance measures are taken. | Using a mixed empirical model, assigning P values based on relevant research [45]. |
Year | Erosion Degree (t·km−2 a−1) | Slight Erosion <1000 | Mild Erosion 1000–2500 | Moderate Erosion 2500–5000 | Intense Erosion 5000–8000 | Extremely Intense Erosion 8000–15,000 | Severe Erosion >15,000 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1982 | Percentage of Area (%) | 15.09 | 32.96 | 30.58 | 11.54 | 8.45 | 1.39 |
Average Erosion Modulus (t·km−2 a−1) | 526.84 | 1819.70 | 3382.30 | 6340.19 | 10,310.82 | 18,483.20 | |
Amount of Erosion (108 t) | 24.89 | 179.00 | 307.58 | 222.87 | 263.96 | 78.11 | |
1995 | Percentage of Area (%) | 13.06 | 25.06 | 34.07 | 13.67 | 9.54 | 4.60 |
Average Erosion Modulus (t·km−2 a−1) | 529.11 | 1867.34 | 3521.36 | 6280.16 | 10,789.77 | 21,170.22 | |
Amount of Erosion (108 t) | 21.50 | 141.51 | 354.56 | 259.71 | 314.68 | 290.43 | |
2005 | Percentage of Area (%) | 10.49 | 16.80 | 28.97 | 18.43 | 16.58 | 8.72 |
Average Erosion Modulus (t·km−2 a−1) | 550.09 | 1849.20 | 3605.69 | 6454.99 | 10,514.14 | 24,342.50 | |
Amount of Erosion (108 t) | 17.78 | 94.78 | 309.26 | 357.45 | 522.20 | 634.76 | |
2015 | Percentage of Area (%) | 21.21 | 32.73 | 23.57 | 10.16 | 8.75 | 3.57 |
Average Erosion Modulus (t·km−2 a−1) | 490.06 | 1668.80 | 3550.04 | 6234.47 | 10,846.89 | 20,208.44 | |
Amount of Erosion (106 t) | 32.08 | 162.63 | 249.76 | 193.34 | 288.29 | 216.09 |
Year | Erosion Degree (t·km−2 a−1) | Slight Erosion <1000 | Mild Erosion 1000–2500 | Moderate Erosion 2500–5000 | Intense Erosion 5000–8000 | Extremely Intense Erosion 8000–15,000 | Severe Erosion >15,000 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1982 | Percentage of Area (%) | 32.31 | 35.91 | 18.21 | 8.69 | 4.43 | 0.46 |
Average Erosion Modulus (t·km−2 a−1) | 415.34 | 1737.62 | 3468.91 | 6289.98 | 10,170.65 | 17,711.61 | |
Amount of Erosion (108 t) | 41.06 | 190.89 | 193.26 | 167.17 | 137.80 | 24.90 | |
1995 | Percentage of Area (%) | 28.63 | 29.70 | 24.17 | 8.83 | 6.60 | 2.06 |
Average Erosion Modulus (t·km−2 a−1) | 437.76 | 1776.99 | 3439.53 | 6238.08 | 10,637.35 | 19,991.45 | |
Amount of Erosion (108 t) | 38.35 | 161.50 | 254.40 | 168.55 | 214.64 | 126.27 | |
2005 | Percentage of Area (%) | 23.53 | 23.96 | 23.96 | 15.18 | 8.78 | 4.60 |
Average Erosion Modulus (t·km−2 a−1) | 450.16 | 1765.94 | 3554.62 | 6285.84 | 10,556.80 | 22,156.47 | |
Amount of Erosion (108 t) | 32.40 | 129.44 | 260.60 | 291.86 | 283.54 | 311.80 | |
2015 | Percentage of Area (%) | 37.75 | 31.02 | 16.94 | 6.92 | 5.95 | 1.42 |
Average Erosion Modulus (t·km−2 a−1) | 423.47 | 1613.407 | 3495.46 | 6321.81 | 10,587.2 | 19,232.16 | |
Amount of Erosion (106 t) | 48.91 | 153.14 | 181.15 | 133.86 | 192.77 | 83.28 |
Total Amount of Soil Conservation (108 t) | 1982 | 1995 | 2005 | 2015 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Farmland Ecosystem | 126.97 | 160.31 | 251.10 | 131.99 |
Forest Ecosystem | 139.95 | 190.71 | 286.19 | 153.56 |
Grassland Ecosystem | 69.46 | 88.68 | 128.67 | 80.60 |
Water and Wetland Ecosystem | 4.07 | 4.01 | 6.65 | 3.66 |
Settlement Ecosystem | 2.26 | 3.41 | 3.11 | 2.23 |
Other Ecosystems | 0.20 | 0.26 | 0.30 | 0.43 |
Total Amount of Soil Conservation (108 t) | 1982 | 1995 | 2005 | 2015 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Coniferous Forest | 40.42 | 50.62 | 72.01 | 45.43 |
Coniferous and Broad-leaved Mixed Forest | 0.64 | 0.66 | 0.94 | 0.69 |
Broad-leaved Forest | 85.31 | 93.63 | 142.24 | 78.68 |
Shrub | 75.52 | 101.70 | 157.28 | 90.39 |
Grassland | 1.53 | 1.66 | 2.15 | 1.24 |
Grass | 19.33 | 36.66 | 55.86 | 25.18 |
Meadow | 16.33 | 20.87 | 27.26 | 21.90 |
Swamp | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
Alpine Plant | 0.46 | 0.57 | 0.61 | 0.60 |
Crops | 93.25 | 127.89 | 194.54 | 97.77 |
Vegetation Type | N | P | K | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total Amount of Nutrients of Soil Conservation (104 t) | Percentage (%) | Amount of Nutrients of Soil Conservation per Unit Area (t·a−1) | Total Amount of Nutrients of Soil Conservation (104 t) | Percentage (%) | Amount of Nutrients of Soil Conservation per Unit Area (t·a−1) | Total Amount of Nutrients of Soil Conservation (104 t) | Percentage (%) | Amount of Nutrients of Soil Conservation per Unit Area (t·a−1) | |
Coniferous Forest | 10.96 | 14.50 | 2.97 | 3.35 | 13.21 | 0.91 | 91.86 | 12.46 | 24.92 |
Coniferous and Broad-leaved Mixed Forest | 0.19 | 0.25 | 4.05 | 0.05 | 0.20 | 1.10 | 1.39 | 0.19 | 29.66 |
Broad-leaved Forest | 17.51 | 23.17 | 2.53 | 5.79 | 22.85 | 0.84 | 165.98 | 22.51 | 24.02 |
Shrub | 19.37 | 25.63 | 3.15 | 6.11 | 24.09 | 0.99 | 178.98 | 24.28 | 29.07 |
Grassland | 0.34 | 0.45 | 2.72 | 0.11 | 0.44 | 0.89 | 2.87 | 0.39 | 23.10 |
Grass | 4.35 | 5.76 | 2.78 | 1.64 | 6.47 | 1.05 | 52.85 | 7.17 | 33.73 |
Meadow | 5.37 | 7.11 | 3.46 | 1.46 | 5.75 | 0.94 | 39.70 | 5.38 | 25.58 |
Swamp | 0.01 | 0.01 | 2.05 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.33 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 8.71 |
Alpine Plant | 0.18 | 0.24 | 5.52 | 0.04 | 0.17 | 1.32 | 1.24 | 0.17 | 37.73 |
Crops | 17.29 | 22.88 | 2.17 | 6.80 | 26.82 | 0.85 | 202.38 | 27.45 | 25.36 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 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
Li, Z.; Lu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Liu, J. The Spatio-Temporal Evolution of the Soil Conservation Function of Ecosystems in the North–South Transition Zone in China: A Case Study of the Qinling-Daba Mountains. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5829. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105829
Li Z, Lu Y, Wang Y, Liu J. The Spatio-Temporal Evolution of the Soil Conservation Function of Ecosystems in the North–South Transition Zone in China: A Case Study of the Qinling-Daba Mountains. Sustainability. 2022; 14(10):5829. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105829
Chicago/Turabian StyleLi, Zhengyang, Yafeng Lu, Yukuan Wang, and Jia Liu. 2022. "The Spatio-Temporal Evolution of the Soil Conservation Function of Ecosystems in the North–South Transition Zone in China: A Case Study of the Qinling-Daba Mountains" Sustainability 14, no. 10: 5829. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105829