Predicting spatial variability of species diversity with the minimum data set of soil properties in an arid desert riparian forest

Abstract

Species diversity has spatial heterogeneity in ecological systems. Although a large number of studies have demonstrated the influence of soil properties on species diversity, most of them have not considered their spatial variabilities. To remedy the knowledge gap, a 1 ha (100 m × 100 m) plots of arid desert riparian forest was set up in the Ebinur Wetland Nature Reserve (ELWNR) in the NW China. Then, the minimum data set of soil properties (soil MDS) was established using the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and the Norm Value Determination to represent the total soil property data set (soil TDS). The Geo-statistics and two models (i.e., Random Forest/RF and Multiple Linear Regression/MLR) were used to measure the spatial variability of species diversity, and predict its spatial distribution by the soil MDS, respectively. The results showed that the soil MDS was composed of soil salt content (SSC), soil total phosphorus (STP), soil available phosphorus (SAP), soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil nitrate nitrogen (SNN); which represented the soil TDS perfectly (R2 =0.62). Three species diversity indices (i.e., Shannon–Wiener, Simpson and Pielou indices) had a high spatial dependence (C0/(C0+C)< 25%; 0.72 m ≤ range≤ 0.77 m). Ordinary kriging distribution maps showed that the spatial distribution pattern of species diversity predicted by RF model was closer to its actual distribution compared with MLR model. RF model results suggested that the soil MDS had significant effect on spatial distribution of Shannon–Wiener, Simpson and Pielou indices (Varex= 56%, 49% and 36%, respectively). Among all constituents, SSC had the largest contribution on the spatial variability of species diversity (nearly 10%), while STP had least effect (< 5.3%). We concluded that the soil MDS affected spatial variability of species diversity in arid desert riparian forests. Using RF model can predict spatial variability of species diversity through soil properties. Our work provided a new case and insight for studying the spatial relationship between soil properties and plant species diversity.

Soil properties influence on diversity and structures of dominant woody species in riparian forests in Southwestern Nigeria

“…The only soil variable that correlated with diversity matrix was soil pH. However, this nding is contrary to the report of some authors who noted that species diversity to being predictors against soil variables in a non-linear relationship to improving the riparian ecosystems functionality and productivity (Li et al 2022). In riparian forest sites with high diversity indices, high community pliability could be preserved by the several interactions between vegetation and soil properties (Ding et al 2017).…”

Effects of Different Organic Materials on the Remediation and Improvement of Secondary Salinized Greenhouse Soil

“…The RF and MLR tools have been identified as valuable supplementary methods to conventional soil property monitoring [54]. Previous research has utilized MLR and RF models for assessing species diversity spatial variability, optimizing crop selection, and establishing relationships between environmental factors and soil properties [24,55,56]. The results of the study indicated that the RF model outperformed the MLR model in terms of accuracy when applied to both the training and validation datasets, consistent with Wang et al [57] This can be attributed to the effectiveness of soluble major ions complex as a predictor for soil salinity.…”

Cholecystohepatic shunt pathway reduces secondary bile acid accumulation to enhance natural killer T cell‐mediated anti‐hepatocellular carcinoma immunity

“…We then calculated the Simpson index, which was used to assess the alpha diversity of species and reflect species diversity within the habitat. 21 The Simpson index was higher in the OA group than in the control group (P < 0.05), suggesting that OA enriched the gut flora alpha diversity in mice (Fig. 4d).…”