Next Article in Journal
Scenario-Based LULC Dynamics Projection Using the CA–Markov Model on Upper Awash Basin (UAB), Ethiopia
Previous Article in Journal
Economic Performance of Dairy Sheep Farms in Less-Favoured Areas of Greece: A Comparative Analysis Based on Flock Size and Farming System
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 2
10.3390/su15021682
sustainability-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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Coupling Effects of Terracing and Vegetation on Soil Ecosystem Multifunctionality in the Loess Plateau, China

by
Dan Wu
1,
Wei Wei
2,
Zongshan Li
2 and
Qindi Zhang
1,*
1
College of Life Sciences, Shanxi Normal University, Taiyuan 030031, China
2
State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100085, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(2), 1682; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021682
Submission received: 15 December 2022 / Revised: 10 January 2023 / Accepted: 11 January 2023 / Published: 16 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Social Ecology and Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In semi-arid and arid terrestrial ecosystems, terracing and vegetation may improve soil conditions and enhance habitats. Considerable recent works have focused on evaluating how terracing and vegetation affect individual ecosystem function, but none of these evaluations included soil ecosystem multifunctionality (SEMF), which has a positive significance for optimizing soil ecosystem management. Based on the survey data of six different combinations of terracing and vegetation in the Chinese Loess Plateau, 15 functional indicators related to soil fertility, nutrient transformation/cycling, and water conservation were selected. The maximum conversion of the mean value method was employed to quantify SEMF. Concerning individual ecosystem services, the capacities of half-moon terraces-Pinus tabulaeformis (Ht-P. tabulaeformis) and level benches-Caragana korshinskii (Lb-C. korshinskii) to maintain soil fertility were 43.25% and 42.01% higher than those of counter-slope terraces-Platycladus orientalis (Ct-P. orientalis). On the contrary, Ct-P. orientalis showed better nutrient transformation and cycling services, which was 9.23% higher than those of Ht-P. tabulaeformis, therefore, we observed the highest SEMF in the Ht-P. tabulaeformis. Terracing, with a 29.2% explained variation, had a greater influence than that of vegetation (12.6%), while the coupling effect of terracing and vegetation (37.9%) was the most important factor that determined the SEMF. Thus, Ht-P. tabulaeformis and Lb-C. korshinskii should be promoted in the Loess Plateau area. The results of this study have significance in terms of understanding the interactions between terracing, vegetation, and soil ecosystems.

1. Introduction

Semi-arid and arid regions have been impacted by geographical environments and climate for millennia, with low rainfall and uneven seasonal distribution of precipitation, which has resulted in serious soil erosion and fragile ecosystems [1]. This is totally inconsistent with the UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6, SDG 13 and SDG 15 [2]. To tackle climate change and restore the sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, a series of large-scale projects (e.g., the “Grain-for-Green” project, silt dam construction, and reconstruction of sloped landscapes) have been undertaken in semi-arid and arid areas, which have played significant roles in the control of soil erosion and ecological development [3,4]. In recent years, the ecologies of semi-arid and arid areas have been greatly improved (e.g., via a significant increase in vegetation coverage, a substantial decrease in runoff and sediment transport, and enhanced ecosystems) [5].
As the core process for ecological rejuvenation in semi-arid and arid areas, terracing and vegetation play critical roles in improving habitats, optimizing vegetation structures, and enriching soil ecosystem functionality [3,6]. Terracing measures can increase the soil water holding capacity by modifying localized topographies and leveling sloped land such that even little precipitation can be efficiently infiltrated, avoid runoff, achieve water storage, and reduce the quantity of sand [7,8]. In addition, terracing significantly affects biogeochemical nutrient cycles and effectively improves the quality of soil nutrients (e.g., organic matter content, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, total potassium, alkali-hydrolyzed nitrogen, available phosphorus, available potassium, etc.) [9,10,11]. Vegetation restoration can greatly reduce soil surface roughness by increasing vegetation coverage, thus, increasing soil water storage and porosity. Therefore, rather than the rainwater removing a large volume of surface soil in the form of runoff, it will permeate into the deeper soil layers via infiltration to increase the water storage capacity and maintain the integrity of water and soil [12,13]. Simultaneously, plant characteristics, including plant height, density, and roots, also play key roles in runoff and the accumulation of sediments [14].
In terms of the interactions between terracing and vegetation, they have respective and coupled effects on soil ecosystems [15]. Earlier studies revealed that soil moisture increased by 20.70%, while soil loss and soil nutrient loss decreased by 57.90–89.90% and 89.30–95.90%, respectively, which were among the most important indicators [16]. The soil quality of Cerasus humilis planted in level benches was higher than that of a Pinus tabulaeformis forest in the Loess hilly-gully region [17]. Thus, targeted restoration measures have obvious effects on the soil environment, which is of great significance in terms of researching the impacts of ecological restoration measures on soil quality and multifunctionality toward ecological development.
The Loess Plateau is situated in the semi-arid Loess region, which is one of the key areas for ecological restoration and development. An elucidation of the effects of terracing and vegetation on the structure and function of ecosystems is a prerequisite for the sustainable development of the Loess Plateau. Most previous studies on the ecological benefits of engineering measures in the Loess Plateau have set their focus on isolated ecological functions. This single-function approach often ignores the capacity of ecosystems to maintain themselves or provide other functions. One of the important values of a soil ecosystem is that it can simultaneously provide and maintain multiple ecological functions and services, namely soil ecosystem multifunctionality (SEMF) [18]. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) [19] identified 11 soil functions. Currently, there are five main soil functions that are typically recognized: (1) primary productivity [20]; (2) litter decomposition [21,22]; (3) soil properties and fertility [23]; (4) maintenance of soil biodiversity [24]; (5) nutrient supply and circulation [25]. A total of 14 functional indicators reflecting carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus cycling processes were employed to comprehensively evaluate ecosystem multifunctionality (EMF) in arid regions worldwide. In recent years, these indicators and the mean evaluation method have emerged as the most frequently utilized approaches for the study of EMF [26].
At present, there are few studies on the influencing mechanisms of the coupling of terracing and vegetation on SEMF in the Loess Plateau. Therefore, from the perspective of EMF, this study considers the restoration and management of a small semi-arid Loess watershed. We want to evaluate the ability of the soil ecosystem to perform multiple functions simultaneously and figure out the combinations of local valid terracing and vegetation restoration for optimal soil ecosystem management. Thus the hypothesis and objectives of this study were: (i) research how terracing and vegetation have coupled and independent impacts on SEMF; (ii) find the appropriate combination of terracing and vegetation types to ensure the sustainable development of the Loess Plateau. This study is a supplement, expansion, and enrichment of the current research into the mechanisms of ecological restoration in the Loess Plateau, which can provide a scientific theoretical basis and practical technical support for ecosystem management, and the optimization of land consolidation technology and vegetation species screening in the Loess region.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site

The study area is situated in the Longtan Watershed of Dingxi City, Gansu Province, China, which belongs to a typical hilly-gully region of the Loess Plateau. The geographical location is 35°72′–35°75′ N, 104°45′–104°51′ E, at altitudes that range from 1964–2212 m. This region is home to a typical semi-arid climate with an annual average precipitation of 386 mm and an annual average temperature of 6.8℃ [27]. The main soil type is loessal soil, which is composed of 11% sand (0.02–2 mm), 39% clay (<0.002 mm), and 50% silt (0.002–0.02 mm) with relatively loose soil due to serious soil erosion [28].
The study area resides in a typical steppe area, where the dominant species of natural vegetation mainly include Stipa bungeana, Leymus secalinus, Stipa grandis, and Thymus mongolicus. The restored artificial vegetation primarily includes Pinus tabuliformis, Armeniaca sibirica, Caragana korshinskii, and Medicago sativa.

2.2. Runoff Plot Design and Soil Sampling

To improve the ecological environment and reduce the soil erosion of this area, slope ladder and vegetation restoration projects began to be implemented in the 1950s. This study involved the design of hydrologic plots with different terracing measures along a hillside, which primarily included counter-slope terraces, level benches, level trenches, half-moon terraces, etc. [28,29]. According to the characteristics of artificial restoration and a field survey of the study area, four typical terracing techniques (i.e., level benches, half-moon terraces, level trenches, counter-slope terraces, and four representative restoration vegetation types (i.e., Caragana korshinskii, Platycladus orientalis, Armeniaca sibirica, Pinus tabulaeformis) were selected. Thus, six terracing plots combined with vegetation were designed, with three replicates for each combination, totaling 18 experimental plots. Namely, level benches with Caragana korshinskii (Lb-C. korshinskii), half-moon terraces with Platycladus orientalis (Ht-P. orientalis), level trenches with Armeniaca sibirica (Lt-A. sibirica), counter-slope terraces with Platycladus orientalis (Ct-P. orientalis), half-moon terraces with Pinus tabulaeformis (Ht-P. tabulaeformis), and counter-slope terraces with Pinus tabulaeformis (Ct-P. tabulaeformis) (Figure 1). The geographical data and specific conditions of the six plots are summarized in Table 1.
The basic material selected for the construction of the runoff plots was steel (0.5 m high ×17 mm thick). The steel was buried 0.3 m deep into the soil, with the remaining aboveground ~0.2 m used as a boundary to prevent runoff loss. Following each rainfall event (May to October each year in 2014 and 2015), the volume of surface runoff and soil loss samples were collected and measured in 1 m high ×0.55 m wide metal drums installed at the bottom of a gutter in each plot. Precipitates were separated from the water after 24 h of precipitation and dried in an oven at 105 °C for 8 h prior to being weighed.
Field investigations and sampling were conducted in mid-August 2015. In each fixed sample plot, the upper, middle, and lower slope positions were selected to set sampling points (to ensure the uniformity and scientific distribution of sample points) as three repetitions. A soil drill with a diameter of 8 cm was used in each sampling point to collect soil samples from six soil layers ranging from 0–100 cm (0–10 cm, 10–20 cm, 20–40 cm, 40–60 cm, 60–80 cm, and 80–100 cm). After drying, grinding, and sifting, the physical and chemical properties were measured in the laboratory. Soil particle sizes were quantified using a Malvern MasterSizer 2000 particle size analyzer (Malvern Instruments Ltd., Malvern City, UK), after which the percentages of clay, silt, and sand content were calculated.

2.3. Measurement of Soil Ecosystem Functions

For this study, a total of 15 indicators related to soil ecosystem functions were selected to quantify EMF, which could be utilized as the basis for biogeochemical processes and ecosystem-carrying capacities. These indicators were divided into three functional categories: soil fertility, nutrient transformation and cycling, and water conservation [30].

2.3.1. Soil Fertility

The soil organic carbon (SOC), total nitrogen (TN), available nitrogen (AN), organic matter (OM), total phosphorus (TP), available phosphorus (AP), total potassium (TK), available potassium (AK), soil N:P ratio, and soil loss (Em), are ten commonly used and easily measured indicators that were used to assess the impacts of different combinations on soil fertility. Among them, the SOC was determined using a concentrated sulphuric acid-potassium dichromate heating method [31]. The STN was quantified using a Vario MAX cube elemental analyzer [32]. The AN was measured via an alkali hydrolysis diffusion method, whereas the OM was determined using the potassium dichromate oxidation-volumetric technique [33]. The TP was determined via sodium hydroxide melting molybdenum-antimony resistance colorimetry, while the AP was measured using sodium bicarbonate extraction colorimetry [32]. The TK was quantified through alkali melting-atomic absorption spectrophotometry, and the AK was determined using ammonium acetate-atomic absorption spectrophotometry [31]. Further to the cumulative value of soil loss, the average value of other indicators was taken as the overall level of the plot.

2.3.2. Nutrient Transformation and Cycling

The soil bulk porosity (BP), N:P ratio, and pH were selected to reflect nutrient transformation and cycling processes. The BP was measured using the cutting ring method, whereas the pH was determined with a FE20/EL20 laboratory pH meter.
Soil   bulk   porosity   ( BP ) = 1 − B D S G × 100 %
where BD is the soil bulk density and SG is specific gravity of soil.

2.3.3. Water Conservation Function

The soil moisture content (SMC) and soil bulk density (BD) were selected as indicators of the water conservation function. The SMC was quantified using a portable time-domain reflectometer (TDR, a soil moisture monitoring system, TRIME-FM) at different soil depths (the same as the soil depths for soil nutrients, physical, and chemical properties). The mean value of the soil moisture content of each layer was taken as the overall soil moisture of the sample plot. The BD was measured using the cutting ring method.

2.4. Calculation of SEMF

To ensure the reliability of the results, 15 functional indicators needed to be standardized prior to calculating the SEMF index so that indicators of different units or levels could be compared and analyzed. In this study, the mean value method simply and intuitively reflected the ability of the community to maintain EMF [34]; thus, the average value method was used to calculate the SEMF index. The maximum conversion method was adopted to standardize the data for each functional index [30,35,36]. The average value of the top 5% observed values of each function is used as the maximum value of the function. The specific calculation process is shown in Equations (1) and (2).
f x = x i j m a x i
where, xij is the function value i in plot j, and maxi is the average of the observations of the top 5% of the i function.
E M F i = 1 F ∑ i = 1 F ∑ j = 1 N g ( r i   ( f i ) )
where, EMFi is SEMF index of plot i, F is the total number of functions being measured (15 were selected in this study), N is the total number of sample plots, fi is a measure of function i, ri is a mathematical function that sets fi to be positive, and g is the standardization of all the functions, which keeps EMFi on the scale of 0–1.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

For this study, SEMF was included as the dependent variable, while terracing (level benches, level trenches, counter-slope terraces, and half-moon terraces) and vegetation (C. korshinskii, P. orientalis, A. sibirica, and P. tabulaeformis) were included as two groups of independent variables.
One-way ANOVA was used to analyze whether there were significant differences in individual function and EMF between the different combinations. Prior to analyzing significant differences, the Levene test was used to test whether the variances were homogeneous. If the variances were homogeneous, Duncan’s Multiple Range Test was utilized for multiple comparisons, whereas if the variances were not homogeneous, Tamhane’s T2 was used for multiple comparisons (p < 0.05). To distinguish the impacts of terracing and vegetation types on SEMF, dummy variables (whether or not) were employed to represent terracing and vegetation variables. Variance partitioning analysis (VPA) was used to calculate the coupling and separate contributions of different terracings and vegetation. Both redundancy analysis (RDA) and VPA were performed in CANOCO 5.0. Furthermore, statistical analysis and mapping were performed in SPSS 17.0 and OriginPro 2018, respectively.

3. Results

3.1. Individual Ecosystem Services

The functional differences of single soil ecosystems with different combinations of terracing and vegetation are shown in Figure 2. Except for the water conservation function, there were significant differences in soil fertility, nutrient transformation, and cycling functions between different terracing and vegetation combinations (p < 0.05). Concerning soil fertility, Ht-P. tabulaeformis exhibited a significantly higher overall functional value than that of Lb-C. korshinskii > Lt-A. sibirica > Ct-P. tabulaeformis > Ht-P. orientalis > Ct-P. orientalis (Figure 2a). The capacities of Ht-P. tabulaeformis and Lb-C. korshinskii to maintain soil fertility were 43.25% and 42.01% higher than those of Ct-P. orientalis. On the contrary, Ct-P. orientalis showed better nutrient transformation and cycling services, which were 13.63% higher than those of the lowest Lb-C. korshinskii, and 9.23% higher than those of Ht-P. tabulaeformis (Figure 2b). No significant differences were found regarding the water conservation function between these six combinations of terracing and vegetation (p > 0.05) (Figure 2c).

3.2. Differences in SEMF

There were significant differences between the six terracing and vegetation combinations on soil multifunctionality with Ht-P. tabulaeformis and Lb-C. korshinskii being significantly higher than that of other combinations (p < 0.05), followed by Ht-P. orientalis > Lt-A. sibirica > Ct-P. tabulaeformis, with the lowest being Ct-P. orientalis (Figure 3). The soil multifunctionalities of Ht-P. tabulaeformis and Lb-C. korshinskii was 21.07% and 19.98% higher than those of Ct-P. orientalis, respectively. Additionally, the soil multifunctionality of Ht-P. tabulaeformis was 20.83% higher than that of Ct-P. tabulaeformis.

3.3. Influences of Terracing and Vegetation on SEMF

The results of variation partitioning analysis (VPA) are shown in Figure 4. For soil multifunctionality, the interactions of terracing and vegetation explained 37.9% of the variations (p < 0.01), followed by terracing and vegetation (29.2% and 12.6%, respectively, p < 0.05). This suggested that the effects of terracing were superior to those of vegetation, and their interactions contributed significantly to soil multifunctionality (Figure 4).

4. Discussion

4.1. Differences in Individual Ecosystem Function

Terracing can transform soil properties and abiotically increase land productivity by reducing soil water erosion, sediment transport, and runoff [37,38]. Different species of vegetation may affect soil properties through biological mechanisms with variable canopies, branches, and root activities that contribute to different soil attributes [39,40]. For this study, the various capacities of different terracing and vegetation combinations to facilitate distinct ecosystem functions and services were demonstrated, and the advantages and disadvantages of different combinations were quantified. Specifically, Ht-P. tabulaeformis exhibited the capacity to improve soil fertility. SOC, OM, AN, AK, AP, and Em were the primary factors that induced the differences in soil fertility between the various combinations. The OM content of Ht-P. tabulaeformis was significantly higher than that of other combinations. On the one hand, the potential reason was the high biomass of P. tabulaeformis. Under the high airtight status of trees, the surface temperatures of P. tabulaeformis forests are low, and the humidity is high, which is conducive to the accumulation of OM [41]. Conversely, half-moon terraces are designed to collect water and reduce sand [42]. The effects of terracing on available nutrients were dominant, which was consistent with earlier findings [43]. The available nutrient content was directly related to soil fertility, which indicated that terracings played a critical role in improving the availability of soil nutrients [44]. In this study, Ct-P. tabulaeformis had the lowest rate of Em, where from the perspective of vegetation, this was because, as a typical woodland in the Loess Plateau, this species had a greater canopy projection area than the other vegetation types [45]. The canopy cover serves as a buffer from rainfall, which tends to evaporate rather than reach the ground. Therefore, it is critical for the mitigation of rainfall erosion and the reduction of Em, a process that is more pronounced in woodlands [46,47]. From the perspective of terracing, counter-slope terraces can create micro-catchments that enhance rainwater collection [48]. On the other hand, the lengths of the platforms of the counter-slope terraces have a negative correlation with soil runoff. The longer platform of the counter-slope terraces can reshape the underlying surface, reduce sediment, and directly affect Em [49]. It was found that the nutrient transformation and cycling function of Ct-P. orientalis was highest, while that of Lb-C. korshinskii was the lowest. The difference was primarily induced by soil the C:N ratio. This may have been because of the soil surface layer of Lb-C. korshinskii contained a greater accumulation of litter. During the litter decomposition process, the total carbon was released, and the total nitrogen tended to exhibit enrichment; thus, the C:N ratio was the lowest [50]. In terms of water conservation, there were no significant differences between the six combinations, which may have been due to the coupling of terracing and vegetation, which increased water infiltration and reduced the evaporation area via soil turnover, resulting in a negligible difference in the shallow layer [51,52]. With further soil depth, the differences in soil moisture steadily decreased [53], and the average method made this difference even less obvious.

4.2. Differences in SEMF

The coupling of terracing and vegetation can redistribute slope precipitation, prevent sediment generation, regulate surface runoff, and increase the soil infiltration rate [54]. Further, the interactions between terracing and vegetation can alter the physical and chemical soil properties, significantly improve soil fertility, and facilitate nutrient transformation and circulation, thus, improving soil multifunctionality [55,56]. For the different combinations of terracing and vegetation, the SEMF index of Ht-P. tabulaeformis and Lb-C. korshinskii exhibited better performance, which was mainly because these two soil ecosystems possessed higher soil fertility and better nutrient transformation and cycling functions. Half-moon terraces have the advantages of less earthwork and less damage to the topsoil; thus, they are easy to be established and added to on slope [57]. Compared with traditional terraces, level benches have the advantages of simplicity, as well as labor and material savings [58]. In addition, Caragana korshinskii is a pioneer species of vegetation restoration in semi-arid and arid areas of China, with its biological characteristics of drought tolerance and resistance and developed root systems, which can play a significant role in soil and water conservation while improving fragile ecological environments [59]. Therefore, it was suggested that a larger range of Ht-P. tabulaeformis and Lb-C. korshinskii should be established in the runoff area as a development plan for future ecological restoration measures in the Loess Plateau. The low level of multifunctionalities of Ct-P. orientalis and Ct-P. tabulaeformis were primarily due to the low contribution of other single functions except for nutrient transformation and cycling functions.

4.3. Effects of Terracing and Vegetation on SEMF

Studies worldwide have found that the interactions between terracing and vegetation have individual and combined impacts on SEMF [15]. In this study, terracing had a stronger influence, which explained 67.1% of variations (p < 0.05). However, among this total explanation rate, the combination of terracing and vegetation accounted for 37.9%, which meant that terracing had a dominant influence on the SEMF, which needs to be grouped together with vegetation to achieve the best effects [60]. This indicated that combined terracing and vegetation could achieve the best ecological benefits and play important roles in ecological restoration and environmental improvement in the Loess Plateau [61,62,63]. In general, terracing can loosen soil, which has a profound impact on soil moisture, organic carbon, and soil nutrients [64]. For these combined terracing and vegetation measures, soil can become a sink for runoff water (or soil carbon) rather than a source under natural slope conditions [65]. Effective vegetation cover may assist with protecting against soil moisture or nutrient loss. Furthermore, root–soil interactions can improve the capacity of soil to retain water and nutrients and the ability of aboveground plant components to mediate soil and water loss [66]. In turn, a good soil environment provides rich nutrients for the growth of vegetation, maintains biodiversity, and promotes the sustainable development of ecosystems [60,67]. To sum up, there are differences and hierarchical characteristics between different soil ecosystems under the conditions of terracings and vegetation. These results compare and summarize the impacts of terracing and vegetation restoration on SEMF. This facilitates the emergence of insights into the interplay between terracing, vegetation, and soil, to identify the dominant environmental factors that affect soil ecosystems.

5. Conclusions

Three functional categories of soil fertility, nutrient transformation/cycling, and water conservation were selected to explore the differences in SEMF under different combinations of terracing and vegetation. Both individual and joint contributions of terracing and vegetation to EMF were calculated. Concerning individual ecosystem services, Ht-P. tabulaeformis exhibited the strongest capacity to maintain soil fertility, while Ct-P. orientalis had advantages in nutrient transformation and cycling. Meanwhile, the effects of terracing on available nutrients were dominant. In terms of EMF, Ht-P. tabulaeformis had a significantly higher overall functional value than Lb-C. korshinskii > Ht-P. orientalis > Lt-A. sibirica > Ct-P. tabulaeformis > Ct-P. orientalis. The coupling effect of terracing and vegetation was the most important factor that determined SEMF. Thus, the restoration measures of Ht-P. tabulaeformis and Lb-C. korshinskii should be promoted in the Loess Plateau area.
In conclusion, the results of this study have positive significance for the optimization of soil ecosystem management in semi-arid and arid regions while providing a theoretical basis for the identification of more sustainable typical and long-term terracing and vegetation combinations in the study region. In the future, prior to afforestation and terracing, the soil conditions should be analyzed in detail according to the actual situation of the restoration area. Further, a focus should be set on the selection of vegetation species and planting density in the restoration area, and technical designs should be optimized to better promote the sustainable development of the ecological environment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.W.; formal analysis, Z.L.; investigation, D.W.; supervision, Q.Z.; writing—original draft, D.W.; writing—review and editing, Q.Z.; project administration, W.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2022YFF1300403), Shanxi Scholarship Council of China (2021-097), and the Fundamental Research Program of Shanxi Province (20210302123333).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on reasonable request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Zhao, L.H.; Li, C.Z.; Kang, D.; Ren, C.J.; Han, X.H.; Tong, X.G.; Feng, Y.Z. Effects of vegetation restoration on soil soluble nitrogen in the Loess Hilly Region. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2017, 37, 3533–3542. [Google Scholar]
  2. Chen, L.; Yang, L.; Wei, W.; Wang, Z.; Mo, B.; Cai, G. Towards sustainable integrated watershed ecosystem management: A case study in Dingxi on the loess plateau, China. Environ. Manag. 2013, 51, 126–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Guobin, L.; Zhouping, S.; Wenyi, Y.; Qinke, Y.; Minjuan, Z.; Xiaohu, D.; Minghang, G.; Guoliang, W.; Bing, W. Ecological effects of soil conservation in Loess Plateau. Bull. Chin. Acad. Sci. 2017, 32, 11–19. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  4. Borah, D.K. Soil and water conservation engineering. Soil Sci. 1993, 156, 209–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wang, Z.J.; Jiao, J.Y.; Rayburg, S.; Wang, Q.L.; Su, Y. Soil erosion resistance of “Grain for Green” vegetation types under extreme rainfall conditions on the Loess Plateau, China. Catena 2016, 141, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Shi, H.; Shao, M. Soil and water loss from the Loess Plateau in China. J. Arid Environ. 2000, 45, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Baumhardt, R.; Jones, O. Residue management and tillage effects on soil-water storage and grain yield of dryland wheat and sorghum for a clay loam in Texas. Soil Tillage Res. 2002, 68, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lin, L.; Chen, J. The effect of conservation practices in sloped croplands on soil hydraulic properties and root-zone moisture dynamics. Hydrol. Process. 2015, 29, 2079–2088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chen, S.K.; Chen, Y.R.; Peng, Y.H. Experimental study on soil erosion characteristics in flooded terraced paddy fields. Paddy. Water. Environ. 2013, 11, 433–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Fuentes, J.P.; Flury, M.; Huggins, D.R.; Bezdicek, D.F. Soil water and nitrogen dynamics in dryland cropping systems of Washington State, USA. Soil Tillage Res. 2003, 71, 33–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhang, Y.J.; Guo, S.L.; Nan, Y.F.; Li, J.C. Effects of soil erosion control measures on soil organic carbon and total nitrogen in a small watershed. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2012, 32, 5777–5785. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Zheng, F.L. Effect of vegetation changes on soil erosion on the Loess Plateau. Pedosphere 2006, 16, 420–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zuazo, V.D.; Pleguezuelo, C.R.; Martínez, J.F.; Rodríguez, B.C.; Raya, A.M.; Galindo, P.P. Harvest intensity of aromatic shrubs vs. soil erosion: An equilibrium for sustainable agriculture (SE Spain). Catena 2008, 73, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Vannoppen, W.; Poesen, J.; Peeters, P.; De Baets, S.; Vandevoorde, B. Root properties of vegetation communities and their impact on the erosion resistance of river dikes. Earth. Surf. Process. Landf. 2016, 41, 2038–2046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Pulido, M.; Schnabel, S.; Contador, J.F.L.; Lozano-Parra, J.; Gómez-Gutiérrez, Á. Selecting indicators for assessing soil quality and degradation in rangelands of Extre-madura (SW Spain). Ecol. Indic. 2017, 74, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lü, H.; Zhu, Y.; Skaggs, T.H.; Yu, Z. Comparison of measured and simulated water storage in dryland terraces of the Loess Plateau, China. Agr. Water. Manag. 2009, 96, 299–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wang, P.F.; Jia, L.T.; Du, J.J.; Zhang, J.C.; Mu, X.P.; Ding, W. Improvement of soil quality by Chinese dwarf cherry cultivation in the Loess Plateau steep hill region. Acta Pratac. Sin. 2017, 26, 65–74. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  18. Li, Y.Z.; Zhang, J.Z.; Jia, J.Y.; Fan, F.; Zhang, F.S.; Zhang, J.L. Research Progresses on Farmland Soil Ecosystem Multifunctionality. Acta. Pedol. Sin. 2022, 59, 1177–1189. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  19. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Soil Functions: Soils Deliver Ecosystem Services That Enable Life on Earth-Infographics [EB/OL]. 2015. Available online: http://www.fao.org/resources/infographics (accessed on 28 September 2021).
  20. Hector, A.; Bagchi, R. Biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality. Nature 2007, 448, 188–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lucas-Borja, M.E.; Delgado-Baquerizo, M. Plant diversity and soil stoichiometry regulates the changes in multifunctionality during pine temperate forest secondary succession. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 697, 134–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mori, A.S.; Isbell, F.; Fujii, S.; Makoto, K.; Matsuoka, S.; Osono, T. Low multifunctional redundancy of soil fungal diversity at multiple scales. Ecol. Lett. 2016, 19, 249–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Chandregowda, M.H.; Murthy, K.; Bagchi, S. Woody shrubs increase soil microbial functions and multifunctionality in a tropical semi-arid grazing ecosystem. J. Arid Environ. 2018, 155, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Manning, P.; Van Der Plas, F.; Soliveres, S.; Allan, E.; Maestre, F.T.; Mace, G.; Whittingham, M.J.; Fischer, M. Redefining ecosystem multifunctionality. Nat. Ecol. Evolut. 2018, 2, 427–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Schulte, R.P.; Creamer, R.E.; Donnellan, T.; Farrelly, N.; Fealy, R.; O’Donoghue, C.; O’huallachain, D. Functional land management: A framework for managing soil-based ecosystem services for the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Environ. Sci. Policy 2014, 38, 45–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Maestre, F.T.; Castillo-Monroy, A.P.; Bowker, M.A.; Ochoa-Hueso, R. Species richness effects on ecosystem multifunctionality depend on evenness, composition and spatial pattern. J. Ecol. 2012, 100, 317–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Yu, Y.; Wei, W.; Chen, L.D.; Feng, T.J.; Yang, L.; Zhang, H.D. Coupling effects of different land preparation and vegetation on soil moisture characteristics in a semi-arid loess hilly region. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2016, 36, 3441–3449. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  28. Yu, Y.; Wei, W.; Chen, L.D.; Jia, F.Y.; Yang, L.; Zhang, H.D.; Feng, T.J. Responses of vertical soil moisture to rainfall pulses and land uses in a typical loess hilly area, China. Solid Earth 2015, 6, 595–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Mu, X.M. Interaction of soil and water conservation measures with soil water in the Loess Plateau in China. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2000, 16, 41–45. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  30. Xie, H.T.; Wang, G.G.; Yu, M.K. Ecosystem multifunctionality is highly related to the shelterbelt structure and plant species diversity in mixed shelterbelts of eastern China. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2018, 16, e00470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bao, S.D. Analysis of Soil Agrochemical, 3rd ed.; China Agriculture Press: Beijing, China, 2005; pp. 25–109. [Google Scholar]
  32. Shi, R.H.; Bao, S.D.; Qin, H.Y. Soil and Agricultural Chemistry Analysis; China Agriculture Press: Beijing, China, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  33. Lu, R.K. Agrochemical Analysis of Soil; China Agricultural Science and Technology Press: Beijing, China, 2000. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  34. Byrnes, J.E.K.; Gamfeldt, L.; Isbell, F.; Lefcheck, J.S.; Griffin, J.N.; Hector, A.; Cardinale, B.J.; Hooper, D.U.; Dee, L.E.; Emmett Duffy, J.; et al. Investigating the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem multifunctionality: Challenges and solutions. Meth. Ecol. Evol. 2014, 5, 111–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Maestre, F.T.; Quero, J.L.; Gotelli, N.J.; Escudero, A.; Ochoa, V.; Delgado-Baquerizo, M.; García-Gómez, M.; Bowker, M.A.; Soliveres, S.; Escolar, C.; et al. Plant species richness and ecosystem multifunctionality in global drylands. Science 2012, 335, 214–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Hooper, D.U.; Vitousek, P.M. Effects of plant composition and diversity on nutrient cycling. Ecol. Monogr. 1998, 68, 121–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhang, Z.; Chen, Y.; Xu, B.; Huang, L.; Tan, H.; Dong, X. Topographic differentiations of biological soil crusts and hydraulic properties in fixed sand dunes, Tengger Desert. J. Arid Land 2015, 7, 205–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bocchi, S.; Castrignano, A.; Fornaro, F.; Maggiore, T. Application of factorial kriging for mapping soil variation at field scale. Eur. J. Agron. 2000, 13, 295–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Burylo, M.; Rey, F.; Mathys, N.; Dutoit, T. Plant root traits affecting the resistance of soils to concentrated flow erosion. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2012, 37, 1463–1470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Guo, D.; Xia, M.; Wei, X.; Chang, W.; Liu, Y.; Wang, Z. Anatomical traits associated with absorption and mycorrhizal colonization are linked to root branch order in twenty-three Chinese temperate tree species. New Phytol. 2008, 180, 673–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Wang, X.Y.; Zhao, X.Y.; Li, Y.L.; Lian, J.; Qu, H.; Yue, X.F. Effects of environmental factors on litter decomposition in arid and semi-arid regions: A review. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2013, 24, 3300–3310. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  42. Hou, L.; Xie, X.L.; Yao, C.; Wu, F.Q. Erosion process and characteristics of different specifications of fish-scale pit slope. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2020, 36, 62–68. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  43. Feng, T.J.; Wei, W.; Chen, L.D.; Yu, Y.; Yang, L.; Zhang, H.D. Effects of land preparations and vegetation types on soil chemical features in a loess hilly region. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2016, 36, 3216–3225. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  44. Lan, D.Y.; Bi, H.X.; Zhao, D.Y.; Wang, N.; Yun, H.Y.; Wang, S.S.; Cui, Y.H. Evaluation on soil conservation function of Pinus tabulaeformis plantation with different densities in the loess area of western Shanxi province. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2022, 36, 189–196. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  45. Huo, X.Y.; Peng, S.Z.; Ren, J.Y.; Cao, Y.; Chen, Y.M. Dynamic change of Pinus tabulaeformis forest productivity and its response to future climate change in Shaanxi Province, China. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2018, 29, 412–420. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  46. Zhu, Q.; Zhou, Z.X.; Liu, T.; Bai, J.Z. Vegetation restoration and ecosystem soil conservation service value increment in Yanhe Watershed, Loess Plateau. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2021, 41, 2557–2570. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  47. Yu, Y.; Wei, W.; Chen, L.D.; Feng, T.J.; Daryanto, S.; Wang, L.X. Land preparation and vegetation type jointly determine soil conditions after long-term land stabilization measures in a typical hilly catchment, Loess Plateau of China. J. Soils Sediments 2016, 17, 144–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wang, J.X.; Huang, B.L.; Luo, W.X. Influence mechanism of reverse-slope terrace site preparation for afforestation on runoff formation of slope. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2004, 20, 292–296. [Google Scholar]
  49. Yu, Y.; Wei, W.; Chen, L.D.; Feng, T.J.; Yang, L.; Daryanto, S. Quantifying the effects of precipitation, vegetation, and land preparation techniques on runoff and soil erosion in a Loess watershed of China. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 652, 755–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zhu, Q.L.; Xing, X.; Zhang, H.; An, S. Soil ecological stoichiometry under different vegetation area on loess hilly-gully region. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2013, 33, 4674–4682. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  51. Wei, W.; Chen, D.; Wang, L.; Daryanto, S.; Chen, L.; Yu, Y.; Lu, Y.; Sun, G.; Feng, T. Global synthesis of the classifications, distributions, benefits and issues of terracing. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2016, 159, 388–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Xue, Z.; Akae, T. Maximum surface temperature model to evaluate evaporation from a saline soil in arid area. Paddy Water Environ. 2012, 10, 153–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Feng, T.J.; Wei, W.; Chen, L.D.; Chen, D.; Yu, Y.; Yang, L. Comparison of soil hydraulic characteristics under the conditions of long-term land preparation and natural slope in Longtan catchment of the Loess hilly region. Environ. Sci. 2017, 38, 3860–3870. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  54. Wang, Z.; Wang, K.Q.; Zhao, Y.Y.; Peng, S.X.; Wang, S.B.; Li, K. Responses of tree growth to artificial intervention on micro-topography in degraded wood-land on hillslope. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2019, 30, 2583–2590. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  55. Sun, L.; Wang, S.; Zhang, Y.; Li, J.; Wang, X.; Wang, R.; Lyu, W.; Chen, N.; Wang, Q. Conservation agriculture based on crop rotation and tillage in the semiarid Loess Plateau, China: Effects on crop yield and soil water use. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 251, 67–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Valentin, C.; Agus, F.; Alamban, R.; Boosaner, A.; Bricquet, J.P.; Chaplot, V.; De Guzman, T.; De Rouw, A.; Janeau, J.-L.; Orange, D. Runoff and sediment losses from 27 upland catchments in Southeast Asia: Impact of rapid land use changes and conservation practices. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2008, 128, 225–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Yang, Y.S.; Wang, J.M.; Wan, D.P. Micro-topography modification and its effects on the conservation of soil and water in artificially piled landform area: A review. Chin. J. Ecol. 2018, 37, 569–579. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  58. Gong, L.; Ran, Q.; He, G.; Tiyip, T. A soil quality assessment under different land use types in Keriya river basin, Southern Xinjiang, China. Soil Tillage Res. 2015, 146, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Cheng, J.; Wang, J.B.; Cheng, J.M.; Luo, Z.K. Spatial-Temporal variability of Caragana korshinskii vegetation growth in the Loess Plateau. Sci. Silvae Sin. 2013, 49, 14–20. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  60. Zhao, L.; Hou, R.; Wu, F.; Keesstra, S. Effect of soil surface roughness on infiltration water, ponding and runoff on tilled soils under rainfall simulation experiments. Soil Tillage Res. 2018, 179, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ding, D.Y.; Feng, H.; Zhao, Y.; Liu, W.Z.; Chen, H.X.; He, J.Q. Impact assessment of climate change and later-maturing cultivars on winter wheat growth and soil water deficit on the Loess Plateau of China. Clim. Chang. 2016, 138, 157–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wei, W.; Chen, L.D.; Yang, L.; Samadani, F.F.; Sun, G. Microtopography recreation benefits ecosystem restoration. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 10875–10876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Liu, Z.J.; Zhou, W.; Shen, J.B.; He, P.; Lei, Q.L.; Liang, G.Q. A simple assessment on spatial variability of rice yield and selected soil chemical properties of paddy fields in South China. Geoderma 2014, 235–236, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Jaiarree, S.; Chidthaisong, A.; Tangtham, N.; Polprasert, C.; Sarobol, E.; Tyler, S.C. Soil organic carbon loss and turnover resulting from forest conversion to maize fields in Eastern Thailand. Pedosphere 2011, 21, 581–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Huang, J.; Wu, P.T.; Zhao, X.N. Impact of slope biological regulated measures on soil water infiltration. Trans. CSAE 2010, 26, 29–37. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  66. Guner, S.T.; Erkan, N.; Karatas, R. Effects of afforestation with different species on carbon pools and soil and forest fioor properties. Catena 2021, 196, e104871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Bever, J.D.; Dickie, I.A.; Facelli, E.; Facelli, J.M.; Klironomos, J.; Moora, M.; Rillig, M.C.; Stock, W.D.; Tibbett, M.; Zobel, M. Rooting theories of plant community ecology in microbial in teractions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010, 25, 468–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 15 01682 g001 550
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of terracing and vegetation combinations in runoff plots.
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of terracing and vegetation combinations in runoff plots.
Sustainability 15 01682 g001
Sustainability 15 01682 g002 550
Figure 2. The difference of soil function indicators under different combinations of terracing and vegetation. (a) Soil fertility; (b) Nutrient transformation and cycling; (c) Water conservation. Abbreviations of terracings are as follows: Lb, Ht, Lt, and Ct are leveled benches, half-moon terraces, leveled trenches, and counter-slope terraces. Different letters among the same functional parameter indicate significant differences between each combination (p < 0.05).
Figure 2. The difference of soil function indicators under different combinations of terracing and vegetation. (a) Soil fertility; (b) Nutrient transformation and cycling; (c) Water conservation. Abbreviations of terracings are as follows: Lb, Ht, Lt, and Ct are leveled benches, half-moon terraces, leveled trenches, and counter-slope terraces. Different letters among the same functional parameter indicate significant differences between each combination (p < 0.05).
Sustainability 15 01682 g002
Sustainability 15 01682 g003 550
Figure 3. The difference in soil multifunctionality under different combinations of terracing and vegetation. Data are Mean ± SD. Different letters among the same functional parameter indicate significant differences between each combination (p < 0.05).
Figure 3. The difference in soil multifunctionality under different combinations of terracing and vegetation. Data are Mean ± SD. Different letters among the same functional parameter indicate significant differences between each combination (p < 0.05).
Sustainability 15 01682 g003
Sustainability 15 01682 g004 550
Figure 4. Variation partitioning analysis differentiated the influences of terracing and vegetation on the soil’s multifunctionality. The data represent percentages of variation explained by the factors. Note: REs means residuals, which indicate the unexplained part of variation.
Figure 4. Variation partitioning analysis differentiated the influences of terracing and vegetation on the soil’s multifunctionality. The data represent percentages of variation explained by the factors. Note: REs means residuals, which indicate the unexplained part of variation.
Sustainability 15 01682 g004
Table
Table 1. Basic characteristics of experimental plots (mean ± SD).
Table 1. Basic characteristics of experimental plots (mean ± SD).
Study SiteLevel
Benches-Caragana
korshinskii		Half-Moon Terraces-Platycladus
orientalis		Level Trenches-Armeniaca
sibirica		Counter-Slope
Terraces-Platycladus
orientalis		Half-Moon Terraces-Pinus
tabulaeformis		Counter-Slope
Terraces-Pinus
tabulaeformis
Study site area (m2)60100501005050
Slope (°)262018241816
Coordinates35°45′12.61″ N
104°33′37.35″ E		35°44′11.01″ N
104°30′24.94″ E		35°43′31″ N
104°29′18″ E		35°43′30.57″ N
104°29′29.71″ E		35°44′24.69″ N
104°30′39.11″ E		35°44′11.01″ N
104°30′24.94″ E
Plant height
(m)		1.14 ± 0.301.49 ± 0.381.97 ± 0.602.70 ± 0.485.98 ± 0.535.71 ± 0.41
DBH (cm)1.06 ± 0.953.31 ± 0.374.25 ± 0.664.72 ± 1.028.97 ± 0.988.71 ± 0.49
Forest age
(years)		394947494545
Terracing techniques
description		Slope distance was
3.5–4.0 m, the width
of the beach was
1.0–1.5 m, the
opposite slope
degree was 3–5°		The diameter,
length and width
were 135, 80
and 50 cm,
respectively		A 0.5–1.5 m
ditch surface
with a length
of 1.8 m		Slope distance
was 4.0 m and
the width of
the terrace was
0.6–1.0 m, the
opposite slope
degree was
5–8°		The diameter,
length and
width was
135, 80 and 50 cm,
respectively		Slope distance
was 1.5–2.0 m
and the width of
the terrace was
1.0–1.5 m, the
opposite slope
degree was
5–8°
Main
understory
vegetation		Stipa bungeana,
Heteropappus altaicus,
Peganum harmala,
Cymbaria dahurica		Ajania parviflora,
Heteropappus altaicus,
Stipa bungeana		Artemisia vestita,
Medicago sativa,
Stipa bungeana,
Artemisia capillaris		Stipa bungeana,
Thymus mongolicus,
Thermopsis lanceolala		Heteropappus altaicus,
Cleistogenes chinensis,
Leymus secalinus		Heteropappus altaicus,
Stipa bungeana,
Cleistogenes chinensis
Sand%20.75 ± 4.0321.68 ± 3.9817.38 ± 3.8921.96 ± 3.7014.87 ± 4.3818.38 ± 6.87
Clay%9.72 ± 1.378.20 ± 0.7310.77 ± 1.1910.25 ± 0.8811.72 ± 0.829.68 ± 1.92
Silt%69.53 ± 3.2670.12 ± 3.7171.84 ± 2.9667.79 ± 2.9573.41 ± 3.6371.94 ± 5.18
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

Wu, D.; Wei, W.; Li, Z.; Zhang, Q. Coupling Effects of Terracing and Vegetation on Soil Ecosystem Multifunctionality in the Loess Plateau, China. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1682. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021682

AMA Style

Wu D, Wei W, Li Z, Zhang Q. Coupling Effects of Terracing and Vegetation on Soil Ecosystem Multifunctionality in the Loess Plateau, China. Sustainability. 2023; 15(2):1682. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021682

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wu, Dan, Wei Wei, Zongshan Li, and Qindi Zhang. 2023. "Coupling Effects of Terracing and Vegetation on Soil Ecosystem Multifunctionality in the Loess Plateau, China" Sustainability 15, no. 2: 1682. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021682

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