Soil erodibility influenced by natural restoration time of abandoned farmland on the Loess Plateau of China

Soil erodibility as impacted by vegetation restoration strategies on the Loess Plateau of China

“…Both Cl and Si of the restored lands increased significantly after restoration for 25 years, while Sa of the restored lands had a reverse trend (Table II). This result implied that vegetation restoration had significant effects on soil properties on the Loess Plateau, which is in accordance with the conclusions of some previous studies (Li and Shao, 2006;Wang et al, 2017aWang et al, , 2018a. The significant difference in soil texture among the five different restoration strategies was likely attributed to the differences in the effects of vegetation, animals, and microbes on soil properties (Li and Shao, 2006;Wang et al, 2008).…”

“…The difference in K s among the five restoration strategies was likely caused by the difference in microclimate and biological factors, such as vegetation type and worm activity (Li and Shao, 2006;Blouin et al, 2013;Wang et al, 2018a). Wang et al (2018a) also noted that LD and BD were the most important factors affecting the soil infiltration properties of the vegetation restored lands in the same watershed. Wang et al (2018a) also noted that LD and BD were the most important factors affecting the soil infiltration properties of the vegetation restored lands in the same watershed.…”

“…Wang et al (2013b) reported that the steady infiltration rate was significantly negatively correlated with BSC thickness, BD, and Cl, and it was positively related to RD. All these results indicated that soil erodibility was likely altered greatly by any changes in near soil surface characteristics produced by vegetation restoration and afforestation (Wang et al, 2013a(Wang et al, , 2014b(Wang et al, , 2018a. Gao et al (2017) demonstrated that soil erodibility reflected by the K factor decreased significantly with the development of BSCs, mainly due to the increase in OM on the Loess Plateau.…”

“…This result was attributed to the increase in soil porosity, especially macropores, with the accumulation of plant litter in the top soil layer on the restored lands Wang et al, 2018a). The difference in K s among the five restoration strategies was likely caused by the difference in microclimate and biological factors, such as vegetation type and worm activity (Li and Shao, 2006;Blouin et al, 2013;Wang et al, 2018a). The difference in K s among the five restoration strategies was likely caused by the difference in microclimate and biological factors, such as vegetation type and worm activity (Li and Shao, 2006;Blouin et al, 2013;Wang et al, 2018a).…”

“…The mean annual soil loss rates range from 5000 to 10 000 Mg km -2 yr -1 produced by the combined effects of natural factors (i.e. Consequently, the near soil surface characteristics changed significantly on abandoned farmlands (Wang et al, 2014b(Wang et al, , 2017a(Wang et al, , 2017b(Wang et al, , 2018aSun et al, 2016). Since the 1980s, many soil conservation measures (e.g.…”