the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 12 Jun 2023
Response of soil nutrients and erodibility to slope aspect in the northern agro-pastoral ecotone, China
Abstract. Soil erosion, considered a major environmental and social problem, leads to the loss of soil nutrients and the degradation of soil structure, impacting plant growth. However, data on the effects of land use changes caused by vegetation restoration on soil nutrients and erodibility at different slope aspects is limited. This study was conducted to detect the response of soil nutrients and erodibility of different slope aspects in a typical watershed of the northern agro-pastoral ecotone in China. The following indexes were used to determine the improvement of soil nutrients and erodibility through a weighted summation method: comprehensive soil nutrient index and comprehensive soil erodibility index. The results showed that the vegetation types with the highest comprehensive soil quality index (CSQI) on the western, northern, southern, and eastern slopes were Pinus sylvestris and Astragalus melilotoides (1.45), Caragana korshinskii and Capillipedium parviflorum (2.35), Astragalus melilotoides (4.78), and Caragana korshinskii and Lespedeza bicolor (5.00), respectively. Slope aspect had a significant effect on understory vegetation characteristics, soil nutrients, and soil erodibility. Understory vegetation and soil characteristics could explain 50.86–74.56 % of the total variance in soil nutrients and erodibility of slope aspect. Mean weight diameter, total phosphorus, saturated hydraulic conductivity, and soil disintegration rate were the main factors affecting CSQI on different slope aspects. Our study suggested the combinations of species, such as C. korshinskii and L. bicolor, were the best species to include on any slope aspect in regards to improving soil nutrients and soil erodibility.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(3247 KB)
-
Supplement
(105 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(3247 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(105 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1006', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Aug 2023
I do not have any remarks. The manuscript is not so innovative but the results are applicable in practice. Congratulations to the authors!
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1006-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Guodong Jia, 23 Aug 2023
Thank you very much for your review.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1006-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Guodong Jia, 23 Aug 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1006', Anonymous Referee #2, 22 Aug 2023
Dear authors,
your work is interesting. Some parts are complete. The introduction adequately describes the problem and the state of the art. However, several issues need to solve and a clarification.
- You declare a "difficult to find" degraded land (20 m x 20 m sample site) in your study area (ROW 166). This sentence could be important because influence the experimental design. Probably, you must clarify better this point, "the vast majority of the degraded land had been converted to artificial forest and grass vegetation" is not enough ( and without reference). Further, a more accurate definition of degraded land is necessary.
- In your work, you analyze the role of the slope aspect in erodibility and soil nutrient availability. But, in the sample site selection, did you have taken into account the slope gradient? Could it be a driver of a statistical analysis? I think the sites must have comparable morphological and topographic conditions in order to perform statistical analysis.
- Please, provide further information about the soil (and geological too). Did you have used a soil map to define soil? Please, cite it. Provide a complete and correct WRB soil classification, a generic "chestnut soil" is very poor as a soil classification for the scale of your work. Did you open some soil profiles? further information could be necessary (depth, horizons, ...).
- The sites' position map is not so clear, the look like the sites are more or less at the same elevation but no further information emerges.
- You identify some species as the best candidates for restoration projects. I guess this choice regards soil loss. Which is the situation in this area concerning further natural hazards, such as wildfires and landslides, strictly connected to environmental conditions? Are reasonable to adopt a multi-risk approach in your study area?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1006-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Guodong Jia, 23 Aug 2023
尊敬的审稿人：
非常感谢您对我们论文的宝贵意见。
回复审稿人的评论：
我们修改了这部分（第 166 行）。我们原本想说的是，植被重建后该地区恢复得很好，在特定坡度和位置的每个坡度上都很难找到退化的土地，并且由于自然环境更加恶劣，西坡部分未解决。因此，我们选择了西坡的退化土地作为对比点。此外，我们还进一步定义了退化土地如下：第145-147行“退化的土地（风和水侵蚀造成的土壤材料损失，土壤的物理，化学和生物特性的退化）以前是退化的农田。
我们非常同意你的看法。我们在实地调查中考虑到了这一细节。例如：“在样本地点选择中，所有选定样本地点的坡度和位置相似。（第 168 行）。此外，我们还认为这些地点必须具有可比的形态和地形条件才能进行统计分析。
表S2显示了不同坡向下不同植被类型的土壤特征，包括土壤含水量;土壤容重、土壤质地（粘土、淤泥和沙子）、土壤有机碳、总归一化和总磷。另外，我们对每个采样点进行了挖掘和采样，部分图可以在提交文档中看到（图1-3）。
地图中的地点对应于从西到东的植被图（行：896-899 从西到东的采样点是：DAA，退化土地;气蒿;.GAM黄芪类黄芪;.WPS樟子松;WLG，落叶松;SHR，鼠李糖;SCK，卡拉加纳·科尔辛斯基).我们最初想在地图上标记每个采样点，但需要将地图放大到每个采样点。太多的采样点容易重叠，导致图表过多、难看和凌乱。
该地区有相应的恢复措施，包括谷物、淤泥坝和护坡工程，可以有效预防自然灾害。今后的工作将侧重于与该区域水和风暴造成的土壤侵蚀有关的土地退化。下一步，我们将对植被恢复、工程恢复和联合恢复措施进行比较研究。我们认为，多风险方法可能是可行的。
带着亲切的问候，
正弦，
贾国栋
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Guodong Jia, 23 Aug 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1006', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Aug 2023
I do not have any remarks. The manuscript is not so innovative but the results are applicable in practice. Congratulations to the authors!
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1006-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Guodong Jia, 23 Aug 2023
Thank you very much for your review.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1006-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Guodong Jia, 23 Aug 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1006', Anonymous Referee #2, 22 Aug 2023
Dear authors,
your work is interesting. Some parts are complete. The introduction adequately describes the problem and the state of the art. However, several issues need to solve and a clarification.
- You declare a "difficult to find" degraded land (20 m x 20 m sample site) in your study area (ROW 166). This sentence could be important because influence the experimental design. Probably, you must clarify better this point, "the vast majority of the degraded land had been converted to artificial forest and grass vegetation" is not enough ( and without reference). Further, a more accurate definition of degraded land is necessary.
- In your work, you analyze the role of the slope aspect in erodibility and soil nutrient availability. But, in the sample site selection, did you have taken into account the slope gradient? Could it be a driver of a statistical analysis? I think the sites must have comparable morphological and topographic conditions in order to perform statistical analysis.
- Please, provide further information about the soil (and geological too). Did you have used a soil map to define soil? Please, cite it. Provide a complete and correct WRB soil classification, a generic "chestnut soil" is very poor as a soil classification for the scale of your work. Did you open some soil profiles? further information could be necessary (depth, horizons, ...).
- The sites' position map is not so clear, the look like the sites are more or less at the same elevation but no further information emerges.
- You identify some species as the best candidates for restoration projects. I guess this choice regards soil loss. Which is the situation in this area concerning further natural hazards, such as wildfires and landslides, strictly connected to environmental conditions? Are reasonable to adopt a multi-risk approach in your study area?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1006-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Guodong Jia, 23 Aug 2023
尊敬的审稿人：
非常感谢您对我们论文的宝贵意见。
回复审稿人的评论：
我们修改了这部分（第 166 行）。我们原本想说的是，植被重建后该地区恢复得很好，在特定坡度和位置的每个坡度上都很难找到退化的土地，并且由于自然环境更加恶劣，西坡部分未解决。因此，我们选择了西坡的退化土地作为对比点。此外，我们还进一步定义了退化土地如下：第145-147行“退化的土地（风和水侵蚀造成的土壤材料损失，土壤的物理，化学和生物特性的退化）以前是退化的农田。
我们非常同意你的看法。我们在实地调查中考虑到了这一细节。例如：“在样本地点选择中，所有选定样本地点的坡度和位置相似。（第 168 行）。此外，我们还认为这些地点必须具有可比的形态和地形条件才能进行统计分析。
表S2显示了不同坡向下不同植被类型的土壤特征，包括土壤含水量;土壤容重、土壤质地（粘土、淤泥和沙子）、土壤有机碳、总归一化和总磷。另外，我们对每个采样点进行了挖掘和采样，部分图可以在提交文档中看到（图1-3）。
地图中的地点对应于从西到东的植被图（行：896-899 从西到东的采样点是：DAA，退化土地;气蒿;.GAM黄芪类黄芪;.WPS樟子松;WLG，落叶松;SHR，鼠李糖;SCK，卡拉加纳·科尔辛斯基).我们最初想在地图上标记每个采样点，但需要将地图放大到每个采样点。太多的采样点容易重叠，导致图表过多、难看和凌乱。
该地区有相应的恢复措施，包括谷物、淤泥坝和护坡工程，可以有效预防自然灾害。今后的工作将侧重于与该区域水和风暴造成的土壤侵蚀有关的土地退化。下一步，我们将对植被恢复、工程恢复和联合恢复措施进行比较研究。我们认为，多风险方法可能是可行的。
带着亲切的问候，
正弦，
贾国栋
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Guodong Jia, 23 Aug 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 329 | 111 | 24 | 464 | 41 | 24 | 20 |
- HTML: 329
- PDF: 111
- XML: 24
- Total: 464
- Supplement: 41
- BibTeX: 24
- EndNote: 20
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Yuxin Wu
Guodong Jia
Xinxiao Yu
Honghong Rao
Xiuwen Peng
Yusong Wang
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(3247 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(105 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper