Next Article in Journal
An Operational Multi-Criteria Framework for the Adaptive Reuse of Quarry Landscapes: The Cutrofiano Case Study in Southern Italy
Previous Article in Journal
Temporal Matching of Unsupervised Cluster Structures for Monitoring Post-Catastrophic Floodplain Dynamics: A Case Study of Khortytsia Island
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 15
Issue 4
10.3390/land15040625
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Impact of Reforestation on Soil Quality with Emphasis on Mediterranean Mountain Habitats: Review and Case Studies

by
Jorge Mongil-Manso
*,
Raimundo Jiménez-Ballesta
and
María del Monte-Maíz
Forest, Water & Soil Research Group, Catholic University of Avila, 05005 Ávila, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2026, 15(4), 625; https://doi.org/10.3390/land15040625
Submission received: 27 February 2026 / Revised: 5 April 2026 / Accepted: 9 April 2026 / Published: 11 April 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Restoring Forests, Restoring Soils: Integrated Approaches for Sustainable Land Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Ecological restoration—whether active or passive—includes forest development, forest rehabilitation, and a range of other activities that contribute to ecosystem services. To provide a formal framework, we hypothesized how does reforestation (through different forestry practices) affect the conservation of soil functionality? That is, how does reforestation/afforestation/forest restoration improve soil quality? And, specifically, how do they improve physical properties (such as structural stability, infiltration) and chemical properties (such as acidity, electrical conductivity)? For this purpose, we conducted a bibliometric analysis review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and research reports of numerous articles in order to compile a large database of forest restoration studies, with an emphasis on the Mediterranean region. The final focus was to obtain conclusions about how it affects soil quality. Overall, our examination confirms that deforestation drives a decline in soil carbon and nitrogen, subsequently impairing microbial activity. Consequently, forest removal frequently leads to accelerated erosion, nutrient depletion, and compaction. In contrast, reforestation acts as a critical intervention, stabilizing soil structure, reestablishing fertility, and enhancing soil quality overall. Additionally, three case studies are synthetically presented concerning the short-, medium-, and long-term results of forest restoration projects carried out mainly in central and northern Spain. These cases corroborate the significant role of forest restoration in the control and enhancement of ecosystem services, particularly in relation to soil improvement, the enhancement of hydrological regulation processes within watersheds (runoff, infiltration, erosion), landscape amelioration, and the socio-economic aspects of rural environments. Ultimately, forest restoration is established as a necessary and essential practice in ecological restoration efforts to counteract the impacts of anthropogenic activities.

1. Introduction

The relationship between forests and healthy soils is fundamentally symbiotic, constituting the core foundation of global environmental stability and the resilience of terrestrial ecosystems [1]. Forests function as indispensable carbon sinks, reservoirs of immense biodiversity, critical regulators of hydrological cycles, and natural buffers against erosion [2]. However, widespread land degradation over recent decades—driven by deforestation, unsustainable agricultural practices, climate change, and various other anthropogenic pressures—has significantly undermined the ecological integrity of forest ecosystems and the health of soils on a global scale [3]. This deterioration often culminates in desertification, reduced agricultural productivity, a decline in biodiversity, and increased vulnerability to extreme climatic events [4].
Forests can be conceptualized and evaluated from multiple perspectives. They may be understood as sources of timber and non-timber products, as complex ecosystems composed of trees and diverse forms of biodiversity, as reservoirs for carbon storage, and, importantly, as providers of a wide range of ecosystem services. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization [5], a forest is defined as land that is not designated for agricultural or urban use, covering more than 0.5 hectares, with trees taller than five meters and a canopy cover of at least 10%, or with the potential to reach these thresholds in situ. Forests can be further classified into categories such as natural, primary, closed, permanent forest estate, or planted [6].
Soil is widely recognized as a complex system in which chemical, physical, and biological components interact to sustain a dynamic equilibrium. As such, it is a fundamental element of forest ecosystems and plays a crucial role in successful forest regeneration [7]. Maintaining and improving soil quality is essential for environmental sustainability and forest recovery; conversely, healthy forests are key to preserving soil quality and preventing its degradation [8]. Moreover, forests are indispensable for conserving biodiversity and mitigating climate change [9].
Today, we witness a series of natural disturbances such as wind, fire, and snow that are occurring with increasing frequency and intensity, which have a significant impact on forest condition. This, which affects both regional and local levels, ends with forest and soil degradation. Accordingly, it is unsurprising that the key findings of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment indicate a global decline in ecosystem services [10,11,12]. In light of the challenges posed by climate change and variability, rapid population growth, and increasing environmental degradation, the implementation of multifunctional and sustainable land management strategies appears essential. And of course, the conservation or rehabilitation of forests. However, for some authors such as Refs. [13,14,15], forest management practices do not always have a positive effect on the soil; sometimes they have a negative impact.
Using natural forests as a benchmark for evaluating the effects of reforestation on soil properties, quality, and functionality, this review aims to compile existing knowledge on forest rehabilitation, alongside an assessment of soil properties in selected rehabilitated Mediterranean mountain forests.
Following the introduction, the article is structured as follows: The next section outlines the research methodology, followed by a presentation of the descriptive and thematic findings. Additionally, three synthetic case studies from Mediterranean mountain forests are included.
Recognizing that soil quality assessment involves the monitoring and evaluation of soil attributes, functions, and conditions essential for ecosystem performance, this review addresses three key questions: To what extent do reforestation, afforestation, and forest restoration practices improve selected soil parameters? More specifically, how do these interventions influence physical properties (such as structural stability and infiltration capacity) and chemical properties (including cation exchange capacity and soil organic matter content)?
Accordingly, the primary objectives of this review are to examine the impacts of reforestation and to address a critical knowledge gap—namely, how forest ecosystem restoration contributes to the recovery of soil quality, with a particular emphasis on the Mediterranean region. The review also explores the concept of soil quality in-depth, tracing the influence of various factors and advances in technologies aimed at enhancing soil functionality.

2. Materials and Methods

In this study a bibliometric analysis of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and research reports of numerous articles have been carried out to gather data on forest restoration/rehabilitation and on the impact on the soil quality of forest habitats, with special reference to Mediterranean mountain regions.
The comprehensive search was carried out mainly across two renowned electronic databases: Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. The review process was conducted using the following keywords: “ecological restoration”, “restoration strategies”, “active restoration”, “passive restoration”, “soil quality”, “soil management”, “soil health”, “soil properties”, “forest management”, “forest habitat”, “forest restoration”, “forest recovery”, “forest regeneration”, “forest structure”, “forestry”, “afforestation”, “reforestation”, and “Mediterranean mountain regions”. We consider “afforestation” and “reforestation” to represent forms of active forest restoration. Obviously, both the titles and the abstracts were examined based on their relevance.
Of the reviewed articles, the largest proportion addressed forest restoration/forestation/afforestation (33%, n = 48) and soil health/soil properties (32%, n = 46). Categories with less representation include ecosystem services (14%, n = 20), deforestation (8%, n = 11), restoration ecology (5%, n = 7), and other (8%, n = 11). The sum of these values exceeds the total number of studies because some investigations reported multiple objectives or covered several thematic areas.

3. Forests: Ecosystem Services

Forests make vital contributions to both humanity and the planet by supporting livelihoods, providing clean air and water, conserving biodiversity, and mitigating climate change (Figure 1). Quantitative evidence shows that forests help advance the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by promoting livelihoods and food security for vulnerable rural populations, ensuring access to affordable energy, fostering sustainable economic growth and employment, encouraging sustainable consumption and production, supporting climate change mitigation, and enabling sustainable forest management. Additionally, forests contribute to the prevention and reversal of land degradation [12].
Broadly speaking, ecosystem services are defined as the range of benefits that people derive from ecosystems [10,16,17]. In the context of forests, forest ecosystem services can be understood as functions within a forest that provide direct or indirect benefits to society [18,19,20,21]. Within them four broad types can be established:
  • Provisioning services, which provide things like food, water, pharmaceutical products, genetic resources, wood and fibre.
  • Regulating services, which influence climate (e.g., through carbon sequestration), as well as pollination, biological pest control, flood regulation, disease management, waste decomposition, and water quality.
  • Cultural services (non-material benefits), which provide recreational, aesthetic and spiritual benefits.
  • Supporting services, which include soil formation, habitat provision, photosynthesis and nutrient cycling.
On a global scale, there is a growing movement to restore forest lands to enhance ecosystem services and mitigate the effects of human-induced global warming and climate change [22]. Ecosystem functioning encompasses critical processes such as carbon sequestration, water cycling, as well as the detoxification of harmful compounds.
According to Ref. [23], one of the primary functions of forest ecosystems is carbon fixation, which is directly linked to the ecosystem service of carbon sequestration—a topic of critical importance today. In line with Ref. [24], forests cover approximately thirty percent of the Earth’s surface and provide a wide range of values to human society. Specifically, they highlight the following ecosystem services [25].
  • Biodiversity conservation: Forest biodiversity includes the diverse array of plants, animals, and microorganisms found in forested areas, along with their genetic diversity, all of which are vulnerable to loss when forests are cleared.
  • Climate regulation: Forests and land use more broadly can act as either carbon sources or sinks, with the capacity to sequester carbon and reduce net CO2 emissions. Additionally, forests contribute to moderating local microclimates.
  • Soil conservation and prevention of degradation and desertification: Forests are essential for maintaining soil fertility and stability. The intricate root networks of healthy forests help anchor soil, reducing erosion even on steep slopes or during heavy rainfall. In contrast, when forests are cleared, exposed land becomes highly susceptible to soil degradation, which in severe cases can lead to desertification and render the land unsuitable for both agricultural and forestry uses. Therefore, forest restoration—for example, through the oasification strategy [26]—can represent a realistic and effective solution.
  • Water regulation and conservation: Healthy forest ecosystems contribute to filtering water pollutants, regulating river flows, recharging aquifers, and providing natural flood protection. Forests, along with wetlands, also enhance water quality by capturing and filtering sediments and contaminants before they reach surface waters.
  • Recreation: For millennia, human societies have valued forests for their aesthetic appeal, recreational opportunities, and spiritual significance.
  • Disaster risk reduction: Forest ecosystems serve as natural buffers, helping to prevent or lessen the impact of natural disasters that threaten human life, property, and infrastructure.
However, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [10] indicates that over 60% of ecosystem services are in decline, highlighting the critical reality that they are being degraded faster than they can naturally regenerate.

4. Deforestation

Globally, deforestation is commonly defined as the clearing or removal of forests to convert the land to other uses, whereas forest degradation describes a more gradual process driven by unsustainable resource extraction that diminishes a forest’s ability to produce timber or sustain biodiversity. Drawing on Brown and Brown [27] and FAO [28], Rodrigues et al. [29] argue that both deforestation and forest degradation originated around 20,000 years ago and continue to persist today.
The causes of deforestation are similar in many regions of the world [30,31,32,33]: removal of forests to meet the needs of a growing population, particularly for agriculture and urban development, logging, mining, extensive grazing, or timber supply for the industry [34]. Furthermore, of course, we must not forget wars and fires (Figure 2).
The removal of natural forest cover exposes soil directly to sunlight and rainfall, accelerating erosion and leading to severe soil degradation [35]. For instance, studies [36,37] indicate that the use of heavy machinery increases soil compaction, reducing air and water infiltration while also limiting the activity of soil organisms.
Many researchers emphasize that deforestation affects not only above-ground vegetation but also profoundly alters soil properties, particularly the biochemical cycles within soil ecosystems [38,39,40,41,42]. Similarly, other studies [43,44,45] identify deforestation in Mediterranean regions as a major driver of soil degradation, as it disrupts key processes such as nutrient availability and the carbon cycle.

5. Afforestation and Reforestation

Globally speaking, afforestation involves converting degraded and abandoned agricultural land into forests, including planting forests on land where they did not previously exist. Therefore, afforestation refers to the creation of new forests by planting trees on land that has not been forested for a long time, such as barren areas, burned land, croplands, or grasslands [12,28]. This process contributes to a substantial increase in carbon storage, as forests and rangelands generally sequester more carbon than agricultural or unvegetated lands. However, greater emphasis should perhaps be placed on key influencing factors such as vegetation cover type, geographical region, and ecological conditions. This is particularly important in Mediterranean mountain habitats like those studied here, where large-scale afforestation efforts have been carried out across Spain since the 1950s. Most of these afforestation programs were implemented on bare land and often involved the use of species that were not well-suited to the specific geographical conditions. Consequently, the outcomes of these initiatives should be reassessed, particularly regarding changes in soil carbon and nutrient dynamics. In this context, afforestation strategies should shift toward enhancing biodiversity while simultaneously reducing environmental risks in order to achieve greater sustainability. Therefore, investigating the potential consequences of past afforestation efforts is essential for meeting the increasing demands of ecosystem restoration and rehabilitation in the future.
Reforestation is the conversion of deforested land (where the forest has been removed) into forests. Reforestation (or forest restoration) refers to a set of processes that lead to, among other things, the restoration of the soil’s chemical, physical, and biological properties. Thus, reforestation improves soil through increased organic matter, better soil structure and aggregation, increased cation exchange capacity, and a more diverse and active microbial community. Consequently, soil health and functionality tend to improve. However, the degree and speed of recovery depend on various factors, especially the type of restoration and, naturally, the duration of the intervention.
In a certain way, restoration/reforestation practices have been carried out for centuries, although only in recent decades has a certain attention, focused on the so-called restoration ecology, been perceived by scientists as well as society [46,47,48]. Thus, today there is a real boom in reforestation practices internationally [49] in this way.
As noted by Kocsis et al. and Veldkamp et al. [15,50], reforestation has significant effects on soil systems. According to Le et al. [51], reforestation is the process of planting trees in areas where forests have previously been cleared. This process involves complex, sequential decision-making shaped by both ecological and socioeconomic considerations [52]. Reforestation is also aligned with sustainable development objectives, particularly Goal 15, “Life on Land” [53]. Moreover, ecological restoration has the potential to enhance and restore soil quality, thereby helping to mitigate soil degradation.
In general, the primary aim of forest restoration is to return deforested areas as closely as possible to their original condition while also ensuring a continuous supply of economically valuable wood and non-wood forest products. Restoration of trees in degraded landscapes can occur through several pathways, including ecological restoration planting (using native species to enhance biodiversity), more simplified planting approaches (involving selected native or exotic species for timber production and land rehabilitation), and the natural regeneration of vegetation on abandoned or marginal agricultural lands [42,54,55].
In response to increasing population pressure, there is a growing recognition that efforts must go beyond conservation to include the active restoration of forest ecosystems. Although forests cover nearly one-third of the Earth’s land surface and harbor more than 80% of terrestrial biodiversity [56], both their extent and overall quality continue to decline [57]. But at the same time, deforestation alters the original forest structure and plant communities, affecting both biodiversity and the regeneration capacity and vitality of forests [58]. Today we see the establishment of global restoration initiatives employing a gradient of interventions from natural regeneration to tree planting [7,59,60].
In the literature, there appear numerous works aimed at investigating the time series of forests at different periods (for example 5, 10, 15, 20 or more years after starting restoration by planting trees). And, generally, a whole series of soil properties are determined (such as pH, cation exchange capacity, infiltration), frequently including the soil C stocks. Obviously, a primary forest is used as reference. Bieluczyk et al. [61] report that, in addition to forest restoration over a period of 6–30 years leading to the recovery of 16–20 Mg C·ha−1 of soil carbon, key soil functions were also progressively restored. These include the capacity to support root growth, improve soil aeration, enhance nutrient storage, and supply carbon as an energy source for microbial activity. The authors further suggest that approximately 30 years of active restoration may be sufficient for soils to approach conditions similar to those of primary forests.
Finally, agroforestry deserves mention as it fundamentally emphasizes multifunctional land management to increase biodiversity and soil health. Consequently, when compared to intensive agriculture, agroforestry attenuates environmental impacts. The conceptual framework of agroforestry emerged in the early 1980s, based on the premise that it provides significant economic, ecological, and environmental benefits [62], while simultaneously enhancing physical, biological, and chemical properties of the soil.

6. Effects of Forest Restoration on Soil Properties and Soil Quality

Currently, there is a growing body of research focused on understanding the positive and negative impacts of reforestation, particularly in relation to soil quality [63,64,65,66,67,68,69]. Several authors, including [70,71,72,73,74], have shown that vegetation can significantly modify soil properties in degraded areas. These changes affect parameters such as soil texture, bulk density, porosity, electrical conductivity, pH, nutrient availability, cation exchange capacity, and organic matter content (Table 1). More recently, Mongil-Manso et al. [75] provided a detailed analysis of the effects of afforestation on soil properties in a Mediterranean mountain region.
Restoration strategies should aim to enhance physical, chemical, and biological properties of the soil. Regarding physical quality, efforts must focus on mitigating soil erosion and compaction. Ensuring the sustainability and stability of forest ecosystems necessitates appropriate measures, such as long-term soil quality monitoring. Recently, Gattoni et al. [76] pointed out that while shifts in soil carbon and nitrogen may take up to a decade to manifest, the response of other biotic indicators of soil health—such as nematode communities—remains largely unknown.
Generally, reforestation positively impacts soil properties by improving soil organic matter, nutrients, and microbial activity, although results vary based on factors like tree species and time. It generally enhances soil carbon sequestration, and can improve soil structure and water infiltration over time. However, reforestation can sometimes decrease soil moisture, especially in arid areas, and long-term recovery is a slow process.
Tree species are known to influence soil properties and biota, as well as changing litter inputs, influencing light availability [77,78,79,80,81]. It is therefore unsurprising that much research has examined how tree species influence forest soil characteristics. Indeed, accurately assessing the effects of tree species on soil is essential when planning afforestation projects.
Generally, establishing forest ecosystems on degraded or marginal lands significantly improves soil quality. This is largely because forests provide perennial ground cover, thereby contributing to the provision of multiple ecosystem services [82,83,84,85]. Indeed, the growing body of literature reports that forest restoration enhances soil properties relative to degraded lands, shifting soil conditions closer to those of natural forests [63,66,86,87,88,89,90,91]. The primary improvement is typically observed in organic matter content, driven by the accumulation of litterfall from the tree canopy [91]. Furthermore, studies such as those in Refs. [70,87,88,91] have demonstrated increased concentrations of key nutrients—including N, P, K, Na, Ca, and Mg—following forest restoration.
The studies in Refs. [92,93] have shown that afforesting arable or non-forest soils enhances soil porosity and capillarity while reducing bulk density. These changes lead to improved hydrological properties (e.g., water-holding capacity), soil aeration, and stability. Given that the degree of soil compaction is a determinant of plant growth success, compacted soils create stressful conditions for root development by impeding soil penetration [36]. Therefore, particular attention must be paid to soil bulk density and compaction, as they can constrain vegetation recovery [94]. Notably, soil bulk density often recovers (i.e., decreases) following restoration [95]. Regarding chemical properties, Ref. [96] investigated the influence of slope on soil biochemical characteristics in a Pinus laricio forest to determine the soil’s capacity to supply nutrients. Furthermore, several authors have documented the acidification effect of afforestation on various soil types [97,98]. Soil acidity is a fundamental indicator of soil quality and, as Ref. [99] points out, must be included in any land-use management evaluation.
There is extensive literature on carbon storage [100,101,102,103]. For instance, Ref. [104] discusses how reforestation, deforestation, and afforestation differently influence soil carbon storage. In a meta-analysis of 33 recent studies, Ref. [105] found that the primary factors influencing soil organic carbon restoration include previous land use, tree species, soil clay content, disturbance (e.g., plowing, mounding, trenching, or mechanical tree planting), and climate. Additionally, Ref. [106] reports that afforestation of agricultural land impacts soil structural stability.
Since the effects of afforestation on ecosystem functions—such as nutrient cycling—are closely tied to changes in soil pH, there is broad agreement on the importance of assessing its potential impacts. Consequently, numerous studies have examined regional and global patterns of soil pH dynamics following afforestation [107,108,109,110]. Notably, a meta-analysis [111], based on 1082 observations from 171 publications, reported a significant global soil pH decline of 0.23 after afforestation. This decrease was generally more pronounced in neutral soils (pH 6–7) than in acidic (pH < 6) or alkaline (pH > 7) soils and was more marked in boreal and temperate forests than in tropical regions. Although some studies [96,112,113] suggest that site-specific factors, such as geography and clay content, influence these shifts, a clear consensus on the primary drivers of soil pH change has yet to be reached.
Finally, regarding the influence of different forest types on soil biological properties, it should be noted that forests influence biological soil properties by increasing organic matter from leaf litter and roots, which increases microbial populations and activity. Consequently, this affects enhanced decomposition, nutrient cycling, and improved soil structure. In addition, tree roots also stabilize the soil, while the forest canopy creates a favorable microclimate [114,115]. More specifically, reforestation positively influences biological soil properties by increasing soil organic matter, which boosts fertility and microbial activity [116]. This leads to a better soil structure, improved water retention, and altered microbial community composition and function, although some soil properties may take decades to fully recover. Naturally, the effects of afforestation depend on the tree species and the time elapsed since reforestation. Studies have also shown that tree planting influences soil fauna communities, with these effects varying according to the type of previous ecosystem [117].
Globally, there is a growing trend toward adopting management practices that support forest restoration [118,119,120], often monitored using ecological indicators such as species richness, canopy structure, and biomass [121]. Within this framework, soil health—defined as “the continued capacity of soil to function as a vital living ecosystem that sustains plants, animals, and humans” [122]—is of central importance. As emphasized in Ref. [123], maintaining healthy soil is crucial for the establishment and long-term sustainability of functional forest ecosystems. Supporting this, Ref. [124] reported that, after 17 years of restoration, reforested sites exhibited significant improvements in key soil indicators, including organic matter (OM), potassium (K), cation exchange capacity (CEC), and total nutrient content.

7. Three Case Studies Under Mediterranean Mountain Environments

In the Mediterranean region, while many native forests persist, others have been converted into agroforestry systems. Additionally, abandoned agricultural lands have often been transformed through reforestation. All of this has led to reduced soil degradation, increasing the soil organic carbon (SOC) storage capacity. See, for example, Guo and Gifford [125]. Below we show three cases of forest restoration application in the Mediterranean mountain region.

7.1. Short-Term Forest Restoration in a Mediterranean Mountain Area: Navalperal (Avila Province, Central Spain)

A study was conducted in a Mediterranean mountain environment [75] to evaluate the effects of afforestation and associated land-use changes on soil infiltration capacity and edaphic evolution. Within the study area, four distinct vegetation types were examined: native holm oak forest, a 20-year-old pine plantation (afforestation), shrubland, and grassland. The non-forested areas resulted from centuries of progressive degradation of the native Quercus forest. Soil infiltration is governed by a variety of soil properties, with key factors including bulk density [126], total soil porosity [127], and initial soil water content [128].
The results show that infiltration rates are consistently highest in the pine-afforested areas (857.67 mm·h−1) compared to the native holm oak forest (660.67 mm·h−1), grasslands (280.00 mm·h−1), and shrubland (271.67 mm·h−1) (Figure 3). Despite these differences in hydrological response, no statistically significant variations were observed among the vegetation types in key edaphic parameters, including soil fertility, organic matter content, bulk density, or effective porosity. Nonetheless, pine afforestation clearly enhanced soil drainage, with infiltration rates exceeding even those of the native holm oak forest.
Consequently, this investigation demonstrated that forest restoration significantly optimized the soil’s capacity for water infiltration. Despite the observed improvement in infiltration, the young pine plantations derived from afforestation exhibited soils with more hydrophobic conditions than those found under holm oak, shrubland, or grassland. Interestingly, no direct correlation was established between soil infiltration rates and edaphic water repellency in the pine afforested plots. This complexity is likely attributable to the inherent intricacies of both processes and the specific site circumstances under examination. For instance, the observed heterogeneity may stem from differing historical trajectories of land use, the specific afforestation schemes implemented, or the slow kinetics of organic matter decomposition under the prevailing cold and dry climatic conditions, among other factors. Similarly, it was not feasible to establish conclusive differences in the remaining edaphic properties between the afforested areas and the cleared grounds. This suggests that the elapsed time of 20 years remains insufficient to induce significant alterations in soil properties, given the slow pace of pedogenetic processes and the sub-optimal climatic conditions (cold and dry).

7.2. Medium-Term Forest and Hydrologic Restoration in Corneja River Watershed (Avila Province, Central Spain)

A preceding study [90] focused on the edaphic evolution, vegetation dynamics, and hydrological characteristics of a badlands area within the Corneja River basin (central Spain), a site that underwent restoration efforts six decades ago. Subsequent work in the same locale [69] specifically highlighted the improved infiltration capacity observed in the restored plots of this watershed. The following sections summarize the key findings of these investigations, framing them within the objectives of the present review article.
Historical analysis of vegetation dynamics revealed that traditional land management—marked by the lack of effective legal protection for native holm oak (Quercus ilex subsp. ballota (Desf.) Samp.) and rebollo oak (Quercus pyrenaica Willd.) forests—led to the collapse of the original ecosystem in the study area. This extensive forest degradation caused a marked increase in bare, unprotected soil, which in turn intensified erosive processes, including sheet erosion, rill formation, gully initiation, and the eventual development of ravines.
The restoration intervention was carried out in a unique area featuring granitic-matrix soils with an arenaceous texture, subjected to a Mediterranean–continental climatic regime. The measures implemented involved the construction of 123 check dams and the reforestation of 730 hectares. Presently, the soils have embarked upon a regeneration trajectory. The thickness of the organic mantle (litter and humus) measures 3.7 cm under the established pine plantation, in stark contrast to the completely absent layer in degraded soil zones. The restored forest soil showed higher penetration resistance and increased concentrations of potassium (K) and phosphorus (P). However, no significant differences were observed in soil organic matter (down to 30 cm depth) or in the concentrations of calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), sodium (Na), and nitrogen (N), suggesting that a substantially longer period is needed for complete edaphic recovery. In terms of infiltration, rates were markedly higher in the 60-year-old pine reforestation sites (1198.00 mm·h−1) and in the sediment wedges behind check dams (1088.00 mm·h−1) compared to degraded slopes (365.00 mm·h−1) and scrubland areas (420.80 mm·h−1). In the reforested areas, infiltration rates closely approached those measured in remnant patches of native holm oak forest (770.40 mm·h−1) (Figure 4). The study further identified that soil organic matter, humus and litter layer depth, and vegetation height and cover enhance infiltration, whereas slope gradient, stoniness, coarse fragments, clay content, bulk density, and electrical conductivity act as limiting factors.
The results confirm the crucial role of forest restoration as an ecosystem service, specifically in regulating hydrological conditions in degraded watersheds by increasing edaphic infiltration and controlling surface runoff and erosion. Appropriate silviculture and edaphic management of the current pine stands are essential, as these measures will not only improve the edaphic conditions but also facilitate the successional recovery of the former native oak forest that predated the intensive historical degradation.

7.3. Long-Term Forest and Hydrological Restoration (Saldaña, Palencia Province, Northern Spain)

A detailed study [86] analyzed the historical trajectory of badlands development in the Saldaña region (northern Spain), alongside the successive changes in vegetation, soil, and erosive processes documented eight decades following the initiation of restoration efforts. The restoration effort combined intensive afforestation with the installation of more than 100 check dams and multiple wattle fences.
Today, the dense forest cover, which reaches 87%, stands in stark contrast to the heavily degraded and eroded landscape observed at the beginning of the 20th century (which presented a coverage below 5%). The forest restoration, executed primarily using conifers, has facilitated the accumulation of a substantial litter layer thickness that effectively protects the soil. Furthermore, the presence of certain indicator species serves as a valuable tool for ecosystem assessment [129]. In the present study, species such as Quercus pyrenaica, Paeonia broteroi, and the edible mushroom Lactarius deliciosus were observed, providing clear evidence of the ecosystem’s recovery and successional maturity.
Evidence exists for soil regeneration, particularly concerning the litter layer, organic matter content, a lower soil penetration resistance, improved shear strength, and an increase in infiltration rates, which are 43.4 times greater than the initial values. Despite these improvements, several key soil properties (such as erodibility, bulk density, pH, and electrical conductivity) showed no statistically significant differences relative to those in the degraded zones. This indicates that, although the soil has benefited from protection by vegetation and litter and shows increased biological activity, substantial changes in soil structure have not yet occurred within the study period, despite improvements in other edaphic properties. On the restored slopes, surface runoff is negligible. This fact is complemented by the near cessation of erosion, driven by the litter layer, the protective effect of the vegetative cover, and the improved infiltration capacity.
The erosive processes that were documented at the beginning of the 20th century—including rill erosion, gullying, piping, mudflows, creeping, and landslides—which characterized the area as badlands, are currently (after 80 years) relegated to marginal areas of small surface area and steep slope where restoration failed to establish forest cover.
The comprehensive analysis of short-, medium- and long-term restoration projects reveals its full achievement of initial objectives across eight decades (Table 2 and Figure 5). The strategy effectively controlled erosion, particularly gullying, and resulted in nearly complete forest vegetation cover, confirming the durability and efficacy of the employed restoration techniques for comparable degraded landscapes.
Specifically, the combination of pine reforestation and check dam construction significantly improved forest cover and critical soil properties. This intervention mitigated soil erosion, accelerated pedogenesis, and notably enhanced the soil’s infiltration capacity, bringing the watershed’s hydrological conditions close to the native forest’s baseline. The findings underscore the crucial ecosystem service role of forest restoration in regulating hydrological processes and controlling surface runoff in degraded areas. However, the studies suggest that the final soil evolution is modulated by forest age and historical land use, anticipating even more pronounced differences over longer temporal scales.
The comprehensive review presented here advances the understanding of forest restoration by providing key insights aimed at enhancing soil quality. Furthermore, it emphasizes the integration of restoration strategies with robust soil monitoring frameworks within Mediterranean mountain regions.

8. Conclusions

This review article aims to compile information on reforestation, afforestation, and forest restoration practices, with a focus on their impacts on overall soil quality in Mediterranean mountain forests. Although some criticisms exist regarding the potential negative impact of afforestation on soil quality, there is a general consensus that afforestation contributes to improved soil quality. For example, a significant amount of organic matter is transferred to the soil, leading to increased carbon storage, reduced bulk density, and, consequently, positive implications for water retention. However, the need to carry out reforestation according to the local context is recognized. Afforestation on bare land requires evidence-based information to support decision-making, especially in selecting suitable sites and appropriate tree species.
Studies have reported increased concentrations of nutrients such as nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), sodium (Na), calcium (Ca), and magnesium (Mg) following forest restoration. Other authors emphasize that maintaining healthy soil is crucial for the establishment and long-term sustainability of functional forest ecosystems. Data from three case studies are presented, highlighting that forest restoration significantly optimizes the soil’s capacity for water infiltration.
In conclusion, reforestation is crucial for improving soil quality, as the development of vegetation cover promotes organic matter accumulation, reinforces soil structure, and regulates the hydrological cycle. It is expected that this study contributes to knowledge in forest restoration, providing ideas aimed at improving soil quality and soil monitoring processes in Mediterranean mountain regions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.M.-M. and R.J.-B.; methodology, J.M.-M., R.J.-B. and M.d.M.-M.; validation, J.M.-M. and R.J.-B.; formal analysis, J.M.-M. and R.J.-B.; investigation, J.M.-M. and R.J.-B.; resources, J.M.-M. and R.J.-B.; data curation, J.M.-M. and R.J.-B.; writing—original draft preparation, J.M.-M., R.J.-B. and M.d.M.-M.; writing—review and editing, J.M.-M., R.J.-B. and M.d.M.-M.; visualization, J.M.-M. and R.J.-B.; supervision, J.M.-M. and R.J.-B.; project administration, J.M.-M. and R.J.-B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data and materials will be made available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the Universidad Católica de Ávila for its support in carrying out this work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Raj, A.; Jhariya, M.K.; Yadav, D.K.; Banerjee, A.; Meena, R.S. Soil for sustainable environment and ecosystems management. In Sustainable Agriculture, Forest and Environmental Management; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  2. Yan, J.; Lou, B.; He, X. Forest ecosystem health assessment: Frameworks, challenges, and strategies for the future. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2025, 11, 0414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kashian, D.M.; Zak, D.R.; Barnes, B.V.; Spurr, S.H. Forest Ecology; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  4. Safriel, U. Desertification. In Terrestrial Ecosystems and Biodiversity; NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security; Springer Science + Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  5. FAO. Global Resources Assessment 2010 Country Report: Malaysia; Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  6. Hertel, D.; Moser, G.; Culmsee, H.; Erasmi, S.; Horna, V.; Schuldt, B.; Leuschner, C.H. Below- and above-ground biomass and net primary production in a paleotropical natural forest (Sulawesi, Indonesia) as compared to neotropical forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2009, 258, 1904–1912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gatica-Saavedra, P.; Aburto, F.; Rojas, P.; Echeverría, C. Soil health indicators for monitoring forest ecological restoration: A critical review. Restor. Ecol. 2023, 31, 13836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Osman, K.T.; Osman, K.T. Forest Soils; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  9. Maes, J.; Bruzón, A.G.; Barredo, J.I.; Vallecillo, S.; Vogt, P.; Rivero, I.M.; Santos-Martín, F. Accounting for Forest Condition in Europe Based on an International Statistical Standard. Nat. Commun. 2023, 14, 3723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Scenarios; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  11. Helfenstein, J.; Kienast, F. Ecosystem service state and trends at the regional to national level: A rapid assessment. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 36, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. FAO. The State of the World’s Forests 2024—Forest-Sector Innovations Towards a More Sustainable Future; Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  13. Mayer, M.; Prescott, C.E.; Abaker, W.E.A.; Augusto, L.; Cécillon, L.; Ferreira, G.W.D.; James, J.; Jandl, R.; Katzensteiner, K.; Laclau, J.-P.; et al. Influence of forest management activities on soil organic carbon stocks: A knowledge synthesis. For. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 466, 118127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mäkipää, R.; Abramoff, R.; Adamczyk, B.; Baldy, V.; Biryol, C.; Bosela, M.; Casals, P.; Curiel Yuste, J.; Dondini, M.; Filipek, S.; et al. How does management affect soil C sequestration and greenhouse gas fluxes in boreal and temperate forests? A review. For. Ecol. Manag. 2023, 529, 120637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kocsis, I.A.; Tállai, M.; Zsuposné Oláh, Á.; László, Z.; Mokos, B.; Kincses, I.; Juhász, E.K.; Lowy, D.A.; Sándor, Z. Unveiling the transformative effects of forest restoration on the soil chemistry and biology of sandy soils in Southern Nyírség, Hungary. Agriculture 2025, 15, 1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Costanza, R.; dArge, R.; deGroot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; Oneill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4, August–December; EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003; University of Nottingham: Nottingham, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  18. Müller, A.; Knoke, T.; Olschewski, R. Can Existing Estimates for Ecosystem Service Values Inform Forest Management? Forests 2019, 10, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Taye, F.A.; Folkersen, M.V.; Fleming, C.M.; Buckwell, A.; Mackey, B.; Diwakar, K.C.; Le, D.; Hasan, S.; Saint Ange, C. The Economic Values of Global Forest Ecosystem Services: A Meta-Analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2021, 189, 107145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Nolander, C.; Lundmark, R. A Review of forest ecosystem services and their spatial value characteristics. Forests 2024, 15, 919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Martínez de Arano, I.; Maltoni, S.; Picardo, A.; Mutke, S. Non-Wood Forest Products for People, Nature and the Green Economy. Recommendations for Policy Priorities in Europe: A White Paper Based on Lessons Learned from Around the Mediterranean; EFI and FAO: Barcelona, Spain; FAO: Barcelona, Spain, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  22. Gosain, B.G.; Negi, G.; Dhyani, P.; Bargali, S.S.; Saxena, R. Ecosystem services of forests: Carbon stock in vegetation and soil components in a watershed of Kumaun Himalaya, India. Int. J. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 2015, 41, 177–188. [Google Scholar]
  23. Pan, Y.; Birdsey, R.A.; Fang, J.; Houghton, R.; Kauppi, P.E.; Kurz, W.A.; Phillips, O.L.; Shvidenko, A.; Lewis, S.L.; Canadell, J.G.; et al. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 2011, 333, 988–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jenkins, M.; Schaap, B. Forest Ecosystem Services. Background Study Prepared for the Thirteenth Session of the United Nations Forum on Forests. Global Forest Goal; United Nations Forum on Forests. 2018. Available online: https://www.un.org/esa/forests/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/UNFF13_BkgdStudy_ForestsEcoServices.pdf (accessed on 12 November 2025).
  25. Mwamulima, T.; Bennet, L.T.; Lane, P.N.J.; Sheridan, G.J. Quantifying forest structure effects on microclimate buffering across a climatic gradient in temperate Australia. For. Ecol. Manag. 2025, 586, 122686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Martínez de Azagra, A.; Mongil, J. Concepts, models and examples for oasification. In Congress Forests to Combat Desertification. Afforestation and Sustainable Forests as a Means to Combat Desertification; Jewish National Fund (JNF-KKL): Jerusalén, Israel, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  27. Brown, K.S.; Brown, G.G. Habitat alteration and species loss in Brazilian forests. In Tropical Deforestation and Species Extinction; Whitmore, T.C., Sayer, J.A., Eds.; Chapman & Hall: London, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  28. FAO. State of the World’s Forests; Forestry Department-Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  29. Rodrigues, R.R.; Lima, R.A.F.; Gandolfi, S.; Nave, A.G. On the restoration of high diversity forests: 30 years of experience in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 1242–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Allen, J.; Barnes, D. The causes of deforestation in developing countries. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 1985, 75, 163–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kaplan, J.; Krumhardt, K.; Zimmermann, N. The prehistoric and preindustrial deforestation of Europe. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2009, 28, 3016–3034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Busch, J.; Ferretti-Gallon, K. What drives deforestation and what stops it? A meta-analysis. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2017, 11, 3–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hosonuma, N.; Herold, M.; De Sy, V.; DeFries, R.; Brockhaus, M.; Verchot, L.; Angelsen, A.; Romijn, E. An assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in developing countries. Environ. Res. Lett. 2012, 7, 044009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yasuoka, J.; Levins, R. Impact of deforestation and agricultural development on anopheline ecology and malaria epidemiology. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 2007, 76, 450–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Jennings, S.B.; Brown, N.D.; Boshier, D.H.; Whitmore, T.C.; Lopes, J.D.A. Ecology provides a pragmatic solution to the maintenance of genetic diversity in sustainably managed tropical rain forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2001, 154, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Canillas, E.C.; Salokhe, V.M. Regression analysis of some factors influencing soil compaction. Soil Tillage Res. 2001, 61, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hamza, M.A.; Anderson, W.K. Soil compaction in cropping systems: A review of the nature, causes and possible solutions. Soil Tillage Res. 2005, 82, 121–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Vitousek, P.M.; Reiners, W.A. Ecosystem succession and nutrient retention: A hypothesis. Bioscience 1975, 25, 370–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Piccolo, M.C.; Neill, C.; Cerri, C.C. Net nitrogen mineralization and net nitrification along a tropical forest-to-pasture chronosequence. Plant Soil 1994, 162, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Arévalo-Gardini, E.; Canto, M.; Alegre, J.; Loli, O.; Julca, A.; Baligar, V. Changes in soil physical and chemical properties in long term improved natural and traditional agroforestry management systems of cacao genotypes in Peruvian Amazon. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0132147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Maloney, K.O.; Garten, C.T.; Ashwood, T.L. Changes in soil properties following 55 years of secondary forest succession at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA. Restor. Ecol. 2007, 16, 503–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Paul, M.; Catterall, C.P.; Pollard, P.C.; Kanowski, J. Recovery of soil properties and functions in different rainforest restoration pathways. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 259, 2083–2092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rezapour, S.; Alipour, O. Degradation of Mollisols quality after deforestation and cultivation on a transect with Mediterranean condition. Environ. Earth Sci. 2017, 76, 755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Christopoulou, O. Deforestation/reforestation in Mediterranean Europe: The case of Greece. In Soil Erosion Studies; Godone, D., Ed.; InTech: Vienna, Austria, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  45. Bruun, T.B.; Elberling, B.; De Neergaard, A.; Magid, J. Organic carbon dynamics in different soil types after conversion of forest to agriculture. Land Degrad. Dev. 2015, 26, 272–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Cairns, J., Jr.; Heckman, J.R. Restoration ecology: The state of an emerging field. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1996, 21, 167–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Palmer, M.A.; Falk, D.A.; Zedler, J.B. Ecological theory and restoration ecology. In Foundations of Restoration Ecology; Falk, D.A., Palmer, M.A., Zedler, J.B., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  48. Young, T.P.; Petersen, D.A.; Clary, J.J. The ecology of restoration: Historical links, emerging issues and unexplored realms. Ecol. Lett. 2005, 8, 662–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. White, P.S.; Walker, J.L. Approximating nature’s variation: Selecting and using reference information in restoration ecology. Restor. Ecol. 1997, 5, 338–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Veldkamp, E.; Schmidt, M.; Powers, J.S.; Corre, M.D. Deforestation and reforestation impacts on soils in the tropics. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2020, 1, 590–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Le, H.D.; Smith, C.; Herbohn, J.; Harrison, S. More than just trees: Assessing reforestation success in tropical developing countries. J. Rural Stud. 2012, 28, 5–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kersten, G.E.; Meister, D.; Mekonnen, G. Representation and support of reforestation processes. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 1994; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  53. Zhang, J.; Fu, B.; Stafford-Smith, M.; Wang, S.; Zhao, W. Improve forest restoration initiatives to meet Sustainable Development Goal. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2020, 5, 10–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Catterall, C.P.; Kanowski, J.; Wardell-Johnson, G.W. Biodiversity and new forests: Interacting processes, prospects and pitfalls of rainforest restoration. In Living in a Dynamic Tropical Forest Landscape; Stork, N.E., Turton, S.M., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  55. Kanowski, J.; Kooyman, R.M.; Catterall, C.P. Dynamics and restoration of Australian tropical and subtropical rainforests. In New Models for Ecosystem Dynamics and Restoration; Hobbs, R.J., Suding, K., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  56. United Nations International Year of Forests. 2. United Nations Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly 61/193 International Year of Forests. 2011. Available online: http://www.un.org/en/events/iyof2011/resolution.shtml (accessed on 12 November 2025).
  57. DeFries, R.S.; Rudel, T.; Uriarte, M.; Hansen, M. Deforestation driven by urban population growth and agricultural trade in the twenty-first century. Nat. Geosci. 2010, 3, 178–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Nepstad, D.C.; Verissimo, A.; Alencar, A.; Nobre, C.; Lima, E.; Lefebvre, P.; Schlesinger, P.; Potter, C.; Moutinho, P.; Mendoza, E.; et al. Large-scale impoverishment of Amazonian forests by logging and fire. Nature 1999, 398, 505–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gatica-Saavedra, P.; Echeverría, C.; Nelson, C.R. Ecological indicators for assessing ecological success of forest restoration: A world review. Restor. Ecol. 2017, 25, 850–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Giles, A.L.; Schietti, J.; Rosenfield, M.F.; Mesquita, R.C.; Vieira, D.L.; Vieira, I.C.; Poorter, L.; Brancalion, P.H.; Peña-Claros, M.; Siqueira, J.; et al. Simple ecological indicators benchmark regeneration success of Amazonian forests. Commun. Earth Environ. 2024, 5, 780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bieluczyk, W.; Merloti, L.F.; Cherubin, M.R.; Mendes, L.W.; Bendassolli, J.A.; Ribeiro Rodrigues, R.; Barbosa de Camargo, P.; van der Putten, W.; Mui Tsai, S. Forest restoration rehabilitates soil multifunctionality in riparian zones of sugarcane production landscapes. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 88, 164175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Cai, Z.; Aguilar, F.X. Economic valuation of agroforestry ecosystem services. In Agroforestry and Ecosystem Services; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 477–494. [Google Scholar]
  63. Vallauri, D.R.; Aronson, J.; Barbero, M. An analysis of forest restoration 120 years after reforestation on badlands in the Southwestern Alps. Restor. Ecol. 2002, 10, 16–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ludwig, J.A.; Wilcox, B.P.; Breshears, D.D.; Tongway, D.J.; Imeson, A.C. Vegetation patches and runoff–erosion as interacting ecohydrological processes in semiarid landscapes. Ecology 2005, 86, 288–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ilstedt, U.; Malmer, A.; Verbeeten, E.; Murdiyarso, D. The effect of afforestation on water infiltration in the tropics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. For. Ecol. Manag. 2007, 251, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Perkins, K.S.; Nimmo, J.R.; Medeiros, A.C. Effects of native forest restoration on soil hydraulic properties, Auwahi, Maui, Hawaiian Islands. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2012, 39, L05405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Laudicina, V.A.; De Pasquale, C.; Conte, P.; Badalucco, L.; Alonzo, G.; Palazzolo, E. Effects of afforestation with four unmixed plant species on the soil-water interactions in a semiarid Mediterranean region (Sicily, Italy). J. Soils Sediments 2012, 12, 1222–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Benegas, L.; Ilstedt, U.; Roupsard, O.; Jones, J.; Malmer, A. Effects of trees on infiltrability and preferential flow in two contrasting agroecosystems in Central America. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 183, 185–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Mongil-Manso, J.; Navarro-Hevia, J.; San Martín, R. Does forest restoration influence soil infiltrability? A case study in the restored woodland of Sierra de Ávila (Central Spain). J. Mt. Sci. 2021, 18, 1778–1793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Carter, C.T.; Ungar, I.A. Aboveground vegetation, seed bank and soil analysis of 31-year-ols forest restoration on coal mine spoil in Southeastern Ohio. Am. Midl. Nat. 2002, 147, 44–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zheng, H.; Chen, F.; Ouyang, Z.; Tu, N.; Xu, W.; Wang, X.; Miao, H.; Li, X.; Tian, Y. Impacts of reforestation approaches on runoff control in the hilly red soil region of Southern China. J. Hydrol. 2008, 356, 174–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. North, M.P.; Stevens, J.T.; Greene, D.F.; Coppoletta, M.; Knapp, E.E.; Latimer, A.M.; Restaino, C.M.; Tompkins, R.E.; Welch, K.R.; York, R.A.; et al. Tamm Review: Reforestation for resilience in dry western U.S. forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 432, 209–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Qasha, V.; Manyevere, A.; Flynn, T.; Mashamaite, C.V. Assessing the impact of ecological forest restoration on soil carbon stocks in Sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review. Carbon Manag. 2024, 15, 2404409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. van Meerveld, I.; Seibert, J. Reforestation effects on low flows: Review of public perceptions and scientific evidence. WIREs Water 2025, 12, e1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Mongil-Manso, J.; Navarro-Hevia, J.; San Martín, R. Impact of land use change and afforestation on soil properties in a Mediterranean mountain area of Central Spain. Land 2022, 11, 1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Gattoni, K.; Mann, M.; Sprunger, C.D. Which indicators are most effective at detecting rapid shifts in soil health? Agric. Environ. Lett. 2026, 11, e70056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Zinke, P.J. The pattern of influence of individual forest trees on soil properties. Ecology 1962, 43, 130–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Giardina, C.P.; Ryan, M.G.; Hubbard, R.M.; Binkley, D. Tree species and soil textural controls on carbon and nitrogen mineralization rates. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2001, 65, 1272–1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Deng, Q.; Cheng, X.L.; Yang, Y.H.; Zhang, Q.F.; Luo, Y.Q. Carbon-nitrogen interactions during afforestation in central China. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2014, 69, 119–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kooch, Y.; Samadzadeh, B.; Hosseini, S.M. The effects of broad-leaved tree species on litter quality and soil properties in a plain forest stand. CATENA 2017, 150, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Hu, M.; Wang, Y.; Li, H.; Hu, L.; Liu, Q.; Zhou, F.; Yang, A.; Yu, F.; Ouyang, X. The impacts of tree species on soil properties in afforested areas: A case study in Central Subtropical China. Forests 2024, 15, 895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Van Schoenholtz, S.H.; Miegroet, H.; Burger, J.A. A review of chemical and physical properties as indicators of forest soil quality: Challenges and opportunities. For. Ecol. Manag. 2000, 138, 335–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Teepe, R.; Dilling, H.; Beese, F. Estimating water retention curves of forest soils from soil texture and bulk density. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2003, 166, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Moussavou, B.I.N.; Brais, S.; Tremblay, F.; Gaussiran, S. Soil quality and tree growth in plantations of forest and agricultural origin. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2010, 74, 993–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Sauer, T.J.; James, D.E.; Cambardella, C.A.; Hernandez-Ramirez, G. Soil properties following reforestation or afforestation of marginal cropland. Plant Soil 2012, 360, 375–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Navarro, J.; Araújo, J.C.; Mongil, J. Assessment of 80 years of ancient-badlands restoration in Saldaña, Spain. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2014, 39, 1563–1575. [Google Scholar]
  87. Bierbaß, P.; Wündsch, M.; Michalzik, B. The impact of vegetation on the stability of dispersive material forming biancane badlands in Val d’Orcia, Tuscany, Central Italy. CATENA 2014, 113, 260–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Zhang, Y.; Zhou, Z.; Cheng, J.; Zhang, H. Soil quality and plant diversity inmanaged forest in the hilly purple soil Southwestern China. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2013, 11, 945–951. [Google Scholar]
  89. Jandl, R.; Lindner, M.; Vesterdal, L.; Bauwens, B.; Baritz, R.; Hagedorn, F.; Johnson, D.W.; Minkkinen, K.; Byrne, K.A. How strongly can forest management influence soil carbon sequestration? Geoderma 2007, 137, 253–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Mongil-Manso, J.; Navarro-Hevia, J.; Díaz-Gutiérrez, V.; Cruz, V.; Ramos-Diez, I. Badlands forest restoration in Central Spain after 50 years under a Mediterranean-continental climate. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 97, 313–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Zheng, H.; Ouyang, Z.Y.; Wang, X.K.; Zhao, T.Q.; Peng, T.B. How different reforestation approaches affect red soil properties in Southern China. Land Degrad. Dev. 2005, 16, 387–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Sparling, G.P.; Hart, P.B.S.; August, J.A.; Leslie, D.M. A comparison of soil and microbial carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus contents, and macro-aggregate stability of a soil under native forest and after clearance for pastures and plantation forest. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1994, 17, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Kalhoro, S.; Xu, X.; Chen, W.; Hua, R.; Raza, S.; Ding, K. Effects of different land-use systems on soil aggregates: A case study of the Loess Plateau (Northern China). Sustainability 2017, 9, 1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Hattori, D.; Kenzo, T.; Irino, K.O.; Kendawang, J.J.; Ninomiya, I.; Sakurai, K. Effects of soil compaction on the growth and mortality of planted dipterocarp seedlings in a logged-over tropical rainforest in Sarawak, Malaysia. For. Ecol. Manag. 2013, 310, 770–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Mendoza-Vega, J.; Ku-Quej, V.M.; Messing, I.; Pérez-Jiménez, J.C. Effects of native tree planting on soil recovery in tropical montane cloud forests. For. Sci. 2020, 66, 700–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Sidari, M.; Ronzello, G.; Vecchio, G.; Muscolo, A. Influence of slope aspects on soil chemical and biochemical properties in a Pinus laricio forest ecosystem of Aspromonte (Southern Italy). Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2008, 44, 364–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Labaz, B.; Kabala, C.; Waroszewski, J.; Dudek, M.; Bogacz, A.; Gruszka, D.; Mlynek, S. Medium-term transformation of Chernozems under broadleaf forests in the temperate climate of south-east Poland. Geoderma Reg. 2022, 30, e00535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Novák, T. Afforestation affects vertical distribution of basic soil characteristics and taxonomic status of sodic soils. Plant Soil Environ. 2022, 68, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Brunet, J.; Falkengren, V.; Tyler, G. Herb layer vegetation of south Swedish beech and oak forests-effects of management and soil acidity during one decade. For. Ecol. Manag. 1996, 88, 259–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Paul, K.I.; Polglase, P.J.; Nyakuengama, J.G.; Khanna, P.K. Change in soil carbon following afforestation. For. Ecol. Manag. 2002, 168, 241–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Nijnik, M. Carbon capture and storage in forests. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 29, 203. [Google Scholar]
  102. Li, D.; Niu, S.; Luo, Y. Global patterns of the dynamics of soil carbon and nitrogen stocks following afforestation: A meta-analysis. New Phytol. 2012, 195, 172–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Nave, L.E.; Swanston, C.W.; Mishra, U.; Nadelhoffer, K.J. Afforestation effects on soil carbon storage in the United States: A synthesis. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2013, 77, 1035–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Czimczik, C.I.; Mund, M.; Schulze, E.D.; Wirth, C. Effects of reforestation, deforestation, and afforestation on carbon storage in soils. In The Carbon Balance of Forest Biomes; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2005; pp. 319–330. [Google Scholar]
  105. Laganièere, J.; Angers, D.A.; Paré, D. Carbon accumulation in agricultural soils after afforestation: A meta-analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2010, 16, 439–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Holatko, J.; Holubik, O.; Hammerschmiedt, T.; Vopravil, J.; Kintl, A.; Brtnicky, M. Afforestation of agricultural land affects soil structural stability and related preconditions to resist drought. J. For. Sci. 2022, 68, 496–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Jobbágy, E.G.; Jackson, R.B. Patterns and mechanisms of soil acidification in the conversion of grasslands to forests. Biogeochemistry 2003, 64, 205–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Berthrong, S.T.; Jobbágy, E.G.; Jackson, R.B. A global meta-analysis of soil exchangeable cations, pH, carbon, and nitrogen with afforestation. Ecol. Appl. 2009, 19, 2228–2241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Hong, S.; Piao, S.; Chen, A.; Liu, Y.; Liu, L.; Peng, S.; Sardans, J.; Sun, Y.; Peñuelas, J.; Zeng, H. Afforestation neutralizes soil pH. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Yuan, C.; Wu, F.; Peng, Y.; Wu, Q.; Zhu, G.; Zhao, Z.; Wang, Y.; An, N.; Ni, X.; Yue, K. Pain or gain: The dual role of afforestation effects on soil pH at the global scale. Plant Soil 2023, 493, 617–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Huang, X.; Cui, C.; Hou, E.; Li, F.; Liu, W.; Jiang, L.; Luo, Y.; Xu, X. Acidification of soil due to forestation at the global scale. For. Ecol. Manag. 2022, 505, 119951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Muscolo, A.; Sidari, M. Soil ecosystem: Dynamic and sustainability. In Ecosystem ecology research trends; Chen, J., Guo, C., Eds.; Nova Science Publishers, Inc.: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 23–63. [Google Scholar]
  113. Fabian, C.; Reimann, C.; Fabian, K.; Birke, M.; Baritz, R.; Haslinger, E.; GEMAS Project Team. GEMS: Spatial distribution of the pH of European agricultural and grazing land soil. Appl. Geochem. 2014, 48, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Bargali, S.; Padalia, K.; Bargali, K. Effects of tree fostering on soil health and microbial biomass under different land use systems in the Central Himalayas. Land Degrad. Dev. 2019, 30, 1984–1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Shankar, A.; Garkoti, S. Influence of forest types on soil physicochemical and biological characteristics of associated agroecosystems in the central Himalaya. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 906, 167731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Liu, Y.; Wei, X.; Guo, X.; Niu, D.; Zhang, J.; Gong, X.; Jiang, Y. The long-term effects of reforestation on soil microbial biomass carbon in sub-tropic severe red soil degradation areas. For. Ecol. Manag. 2012, 285, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Li, Z.; Xiong, L.; Vesterdal, L.; Wu, Q.; Peñuelas, J.; Yue, K.; Zhang, S.; Li, Z.; Guo, K.; Heděnec, P.; et al. Global effects of tree planting on soil fauna communities depend on former ecosystem types. J. Plant Ecol. 2025, 19, rtaf147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Lohbeck, M.; Poorter, L.; Martínez-Ramos, M.; Bongers, F. Biomass is the main driver of changes in ecosystem process rates during tropical forest succession. Ecology 2015, 96, 1242–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Crouzeilles, R.; Curran, M.; Ferreira, M.S.; Lindenmayer, D.B.; Grelle, C.E.; Benayas, J.M.R. A global meta-analysis on the ecological drivers of forest restoration success. Nat. Commun. 2017, 7, 11666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Shao, P.; Liang, C.; Lynch, L.; Xie, H.; Bao, X. Reforestation accelerates soil organic carbon accumulation: Evidence from microbial biomarkers. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2019, 131, 182–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Londe, V.; de Sousa, H.C.; Kozovits, A.R. Key plant indicators for monitoring areas undergoing restoration: A case study at the Das Velhas River, Southeast Brazil. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 103, 191–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Lehmann, J.; Bossio, D.A.; Kögel-Knabner, I.; Rillig, M.C. The concept and future perspectives of soil health. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2020, 1, 544–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Nolan, M.; Stanton, K.J.; Evans, J.; Pym, L.; Kaufman, B.; Duley, E. From the ground up: Prioritizing soil at the forefront of ecological restoration. Restor. Ecol. 2021, 29, e13453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Aguilar-Garavito, M.; Isaacs-Cubides, P.J.; Peña-González, N.; Warren-Thomas, E. Challenges for policy and practice in meeting ambitious ecological restoration targets by 2030: A perspective from Colombia. Biol. Divers. Conserv. 2025, 302, 110973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Guo, L.B.; Gifford, R.M. Soil carbon stocks and land use change: A meta analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2002, 8, 345–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Cleophas, F.; Isidore, F.; Musta, B.; Mohd Ali, B.N.; Mahali, M.; Zahari, N.Z.; Bidin, K. Effect of soil physical properties on soil infiltration rates. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2022, 2314, 012020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Lesschen, J.P.; Cammeraat, L.H.; Kooijman, A.M.; van Wesemael, B. Development of spatial heterogeneity in vegetation and soil properties after land abandonment in a semi-arid ecosystem. J. Arid Environ. 2008, 72, 2082–2092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Jia, X.X.; Shao, M.; Zhu, Y.; Luo, Y. Soil moisture decline due to afforestation across the Loess Plateau China. J. Hydrol. 2017, 546, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Rueda, M.; Moreno Saiz, J.C.; Morales-Castilla, I.; Albuquerque, F.S.; Ferrero, M.; Rodriguez, M.A. Detecting fragmentation extinction thresholds for forest understory plant species in Peninsular Spain. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0126424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Land 15 00625 g001
Figure 1. Some examples of ecosystem services provided by healthy soils.
Figure 1. Some examples of ecosystem services provided by healthy soils.
Land 15 00625 g001
Land 15 00625 g002
Figure 2. Deforestation in the Mediterranean region. Left: A Pinus pinaster forest burned during a forest fire in 2005 (Riba de Saelices, Guadalajara, Spain); the subsequent autumn’s intense rainfall led to severe erosion of the unprotected soil. Right: Gullies in Gea de Albarracín (Teruel, Spain); the causal factors for deforestation in this case include historical land clearing for woody crops, intensive grazing and overgrazing, and the irrational exploitation of fuelwood and timber over centuries.
Figure 2. Deforestation in the Mediterranean region. Left: A Pinus pinaster forest burned during a forest fire in 2005 (Riba de Saelices, Guadalajara, Spain); the subsequent autumn’s intense rainfall led to severe erosion of the unprotected soil. Right: Gullies in Gea de Albarracín (Teruel, Spain); the causal factors for deforestation in this case include historical land clearing for woody crops, intensive grazing and overgrazing, and the irrational exploitation of fuelwood and timber over centuries.
Land 15 00625 g002
Land 15 00625 g003
Figure 3. Schematic representation of vegetation changes driven by human activity in the study area (adapted from Ref. [75]). Concurrently with the vegetation change, alterations in soil properties occur. Abbreviations: fc: steady state infiltration rate; OM: organic matter; EP: effective porosity; MFI: macrofertility index; SB: sum of bases.
Figure 3. Schematic representation of vegetation changes driven by human activity in the study area (adapted from Ref. [75]). Concurrently with the vegetation change, alterations in soil properties occur. Abbreviations: fc: steady state infiltration rate; OM: organic matter; EP: effective porosity; MFI: macrofertility index; SB: sum of bases.
Land 15 00625 g003
Land 15 00625 g004
Figure 4. Infiltration curves for different vegetation types present in the Corneja River Basin case study (central Spain). Adapted from Mongil-Manso et al. (2021) [69].
Figure 4. Infiltration curves for different vegetation types present in the Corneja River Basin case study (central Spain). Adapted from Mongil-Manso et al. (2021) [69].
Land 15 00625 g004
Land 15 00625 g005
Figure 5. Comparative images of the case studies. Short-term forest restoration in a Mediterranean mountain (central Spain): (a) shrubland and (b) forest restoration. Medium-term forest and hydrologic restoration in the Corneja River watershed (central Spain): (c) deforested terrain in 1964 (Duero Hydrographic Confederation Archive) and (d) current status of forest restoration. Long-term forest and hydrological restoration (northern Spain): (e) badlands in 1930 (Duero Hydrographic Confederation Archive) and (f) current status of forest restoration.
Figure 5. Comparative images of the case studies. Short-term forest restoration in a Mediterranean mountain (central Spain): (a) shrubland and (b) forest restoration. Medium-term forest and hydrologic restoration in the Corneja River watershed (central Spain): (c) deforested terrain in 1964 (Duero Hydrographic Confederation Archive) and (d) current status of forest restoration. Long-term forest and hydrological restoration (northern Spain): (e) badlands in 1930 (Duero Hydrographic Confederation Archive) and (f) current status of forest restoration.
Land 15 00625 g005
Table 1. Synthesis of the main potential effects of forest restoration/reforestation/afforestation on soil properties. These effects are neither universal nor consistently realized across all scenarios; rather, they are generally dependent on climate, the species planted, soil preparation techniques (or tillage practices), and previous land use (e.g., agricultural land, mine spoils, degraded soils, etc.).
Table 1. Synthesis of the main potential effects of forest restoration/reforestation/afforestation on soil properties. These effects are neither universal nor consistently realized across all scenarios; rather, they are generally dependent on climate, the species planted, soil preparation techniques (or tillage practices), and previous land use (e.g., agricultural land, mine spoils, degraded soils, etc.).
Physical PropertiesChemical PropertiesBiological Properties
Texture (changes)Increases capillarityElectric conductivity (changes)Increases microbial populations
Decreases bulk densityDecreases soil compactionpH (changes)
Increases acidification 		Increases microbial activity
Improves soil structureEnhances soil air capacityIncreases some nutrients levels (N, P, K, Na, Ca, Mg)Enhances soil fauna communities
Increases water retention Improves soil stabilityIncreases cations exchange capacity (CEC)
Improves water infiltrationReduces soil moistureIncreases plant debris
Increases porosity Increases organic matter
Increases C sequestration
Improves soil quality and edaphic ecosystem services
Table 2. Comparison of edaphic parameters across different forest restoration projects at short-, medium-, and long-term. The data were sourced from Refs. [69,75,86,90].
Table 2. Comparison of edaphic parameters across different forest restoration projects at short-, medium-, and long-term. The data were sourced from Refs. [69,75,86,90].
VariablesShort-Term
Navalperal
[75]		Medium-Term
Corneja River Basin
[69,90]		Long-Term
Saldaña
[86]
Forest
Restoration		GrasslandForest
Restoration		Gullies and HillslopesForest
Restoration		Bare
Slopes
fc (mm·h−1)85828929151560138.93.2
OM (%)5.796.430.640.341.110.03
P (mg·kg−1)8.3518.2015.718.13--
K (mg·kg−1)242.78284.00115.2241.67--
Ca (meq·100 g−1)2.673.856.188.77--
Mg (meq·100 g−1)1.100.931.262.64--
Na (meq·100 g−1)0.630.010.140.190.140.31
N (%)0.240.310.040.03--
fc = steady state infiltration rate; OM = organic matter.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mongil-Manso, J.; Jiménez-Ballesta, R.; Monte-Maíz, M.d. Impact of Reforestation on Soil Quality with Emphasis on Mediterranean Mountain Habitats: Review and Case Studies. Land 2026, 15, 625. https://doi.org/10.3390/land15040625

AMA Style

Mongil-Manso J, Jiménez-Ballesta R, Monte-Maíz Md. Impact of Reforestation on Soil Quality with Emphasis on Mediterranean Mountain Habitats: Review and Case Studies. Land. 2026; 15(4):625. https://doi.org/10.3390/land15040625

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mongil-Manso, Jorge, Raimundo Jiménez-Ballesta, and María del Monte-Maíz. 2026. "Impact of Reforestation on Soil Quality with Emphasis on Mediterranean Mountain Habitats: Review and Case Studies" Land 15, no. 4: 625. https://doi.org/10.3390/land15040625

APA Style

Mongil-Manso, J., Jiménez-Ballesta, R., & Monte-Maíz, M. d. (2026). Impact of Reforestation on Soil Quality with Emphasis on Mediterranean Mountain Habitats: Review and Case Studies. Land, 15(4), 625. https://doi.org/10.3390/land15040625

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop