生态系统恢复类型对土壤磷生物有效性的影响、植物和微生物多样性的作用:meta分析

IF 2.6 2区 生物学 Q2 ECOLOGY Ecology and Evolution Pub Date : 2025-04-25 DOI:10.1002/ece3.71172
Jinguo Hua, Wenyue Wang, Jinyu Huo, Lin Wu, Lingfeng Huang, Hongtao Zhong
{"title":"生态系统恢复类型对土壤磷生物有效性的影响、植物和微生物多样性的作用:meta分析","authors":"Jinguo Hua,&nbsp;Wenyue Wang,&nbsp;Jinyu Huo,&nbsp;Lin Wu,&nbsp;Lingfeng Huang,&nbsp;Hongtao Zhong","doi":"10.1002/ece3.71172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Strategies for restoring degraded ecosystems vary widely in the levels of human intervention. It has commonly been assumed that recovery with artificial inputs would be quicker and more efficient. However, is this truly the situation? We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the differences and applicability between ecological restoration and ecological rehabilitation. Relationships between soil phosphorus content, plant diversity, and soil microbial diversity were analyzed using 463 valid experimental data points collected from 72 publications. The results indicated that in grassland ecosystems, ecological restoration outperformed rehabilitation by 35%, 68%, 38%, and 48% in belowground biomass, community coverage, plant richness, and Shannon diversity, respectively. In forests, rehabilitation trailed behind restoration by 58%, 26%, and 92% in belowground biomass, Simpson diversity, and bacterial Shannon diversity. Furthermore, there was minimal difference in the recovery mode among different fungal and bacterial phyla. Rehabilitation demonstrated lower stability and efficiency in long-term phosphorus cycling compared to restoration. Overall, ecological restoration offers more stable and efficient long-term phosphorus cycling, thereby questioning the effectiveness of ecological rehabilitation for sustainable ecosystem recovery, especially for species diversity and phosphorus cycling.</p>","PeriodicalId":11467,"journal":{"name":"Ecology and Evolution","volume":"15 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ece3.71172","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of Ecosystem Recovery Types on Soil Phosphorus Bioavailability, Roles of Plant and Microbial Diversity: A Meta-Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Jinguo Hua,&nbsp;Wenyue Wang,&nbsp;Jinyu Huo,&nbsp;Lin Wu,&nbsp;Lingfeng Huang,&nbsp;Hongtao Zhong\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ece3.71172\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Strategies for restoring degraded ecosystems vary widely in the levels of human intervention. It has commonly been assumed that recovery with artificial inputs would be quicker and more efficient. However, is this truly the situation? We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the differences and applicability between ecological restoration and ecological rehabilitation. Relationships between soil phosphorus content, plant diversity, and soil microbial diversity were analyzed using 463 valid experimental data points collected from 72 publications. The results indicated that in grassland ecosystems, ecological restoration outperformed rehabilitation by 35%, 68%, 38%, and 48% in belowground biomass, community coverage, plant richness, and Shannon diversity, respectively. In forests, rehabilitation trailed behind restoration by 58%, 26%, and 92% in belowground biomass, Simpson diversity, and bacterial Shannon diversity. Furthermore, there was minimal difference in the recovery mode among different fungal and bacterial phyla. Rehabilitation demonstrated lower stability and efficiency in long-term phosphorus cycling compared to restoration. Overall, ecological restoration offers more stable and efficient long-term phosphorus cycling, thereby questioning the effectiveness of ecological rehabilitation for sustainable ecosystem recovery, especially for species diversity and phosphorus cycling.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11467,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecology and Evolution\",\"volume\":\"15 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ece3.71172\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecology and Evolution\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.71172\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecology and Evolution","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.71172","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

恢复退化生态系统的战略在人为干预程度上差别很大。人们通常认为,人工投入的复苏会更快、更有效。然而,情况真的是这样吗?我们通过meta分析来评价生态恢复与生态修复之间的差异和适用性。利用72篇文献中收集的463个有效实验数据点,分析了土壤磷含量、植物多样性和土壤微生物多样性之间的关系。结果表明:在草地生态系统中,生态恢复在地下生物量、群落盖度、植物丰富度和Shannon多样性方面分别比恢复高35%、68%、38%和48%;在森林中,地下生物量、辛普森多样性和细菌香农多样性的恢复分别落后于恢复58%、26%和92%。此外,不同真菌和细菌门之间的恢复模式差异很小。与恢复相比,恢复在长期磷循环中的稳定性和效率较低。总体而言,生态恢复提供了更稳定和高效的长期磷循环,从而质疑生态修复对生态系统可持续恢复的有效性,特别是对物种多样性和磷循环的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Effects of Ecosystem Recovery Types on Soil Phosphorus Bioavailability, Roles of Plant and Microbial Diversity: A Meta-Analysis

Strategies for restoring degraded ecosystems vary widely in the levels of human intervention. It has commonly been assumed that recovery with artificial inputs would be quicker and more efficient. However, is this truly the situation? We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the differences and applicability between ecological restoration and ecological rehabilitation. Relationships between soil phosphorus content, plant diversity, and soil microbial diversity were analyzed using 463 valid experimental data points collected from 72 publications. The results indicated that in grassland ecosystems, ecological restoration outperformed rehabilitation by 35%, 68%, 38%, and 48% in belowground biomass, community coverage, plant richness, and Shannon diversity, respectively. In forests, rehabilitation trailed behind restoration by 58%, 26%, and 92% in belowground biomass, Simpson diversity, and bacterial Shannon diversity. Furthermore, there was minimal difference in the recovery mode among different fungal and bacterial phyla. Rehabilitation demonstrated lower stability and efficiency in long-term phosphorus cycling compared to restoration. Overall, ecological restoration offers more stable and efficient long-term phosphorus cycling, thereby questioning the effectiveness of ecological rehabilitation for sustainable ecosystem recovery, especially for species diversity and phosphorus cycling.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
3.80%
发文量
1027
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Ecology and Evolution is the peer reviewed journal for rapid dissemination of research in all areas of ecology, evolution and conservation science. The journal gives priority to quality research reports, theoretical or empirical, that develop our understanding of organisms and their diversity, interactions between them, and the natural environment. Ecology and Evolution gives prompt and equal consideration to papers reporting theoretical, experimental, applied and descriptive work in terrestrial and aquatic environments. The journal will consider submissions across taxa in areas including but not limited to micro and macro ecological and evolutionary processes, characteristics of and interactions between individuals, populations, communities and the environment, physiological responses to environmental change, population genetics and phylogenetics, relatedness and kin selection, life histories, systematics and taxonomy, conservation genetics, extinction, speciation, adaption, behaviour, biodiversity, species abundance, macroecology, population and ecosystem dynamics, and conservation policy.
期刊最新文献
MaxEnt Projections of Climate-Driven Distribution Shifts for Daphniphyllum calycinum in China Unique Population or Unique Species? Genetic Insights Into the Pygmy Freshwater Crocodiles of Northern Australia Mito-Nuclear Discordance and Species Boundaries in the Freshwater Fish Genus Cyprinion Revealed by Genome-Wide SNPs Departing With the Wind: Spring Migration Timing in Brent Geese From Their Most Important Staging and Wintering Site, the Wadden Sea World Heritage Site Higher Temperature and Host Age Alter Infection Outcomes in a Multi-Pathogen System
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1