Next Article in Journal
Remote Sensing Estimation of Forest Aboveground Biomass Based on Lasso-SVR
Previous Article in Journal
Community Assembly of Forest Vegetation along Compound Habitat Gradients across Different Climatic Regions in China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 13
Issue 10
10.3390/f13101596
forests-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

Positive Effects of Reforestation on the Diversity and Abundance of Soil Fauna in a Landscape Degraded Red Soil Area in Subtropical China

by
Huajian Xue
1,2,†,
Qiong Wang
1,2,†,
Kuncai Mao
3,
Yuanqiu Liu
1,2,
Xueru Jiang
1,2,
Philip J. Murray
4,
Lvshui Zhang
2 and
Wei Liu
1,2,*
1
Jiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory of Silviculture, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang 330045, China
2
College of Forestry, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang 330045, China
3
Jiangxi Provincial Center of Forestry Science and Technology Promotion and Publicity Education, Nanchang 330299, China
4
School of Agriculture, Food and Environment, Royal Agricultural University, Cirencester GL7 6JS, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Forests 2022, 13(10), 1596; https://doi.org/10.3390/f13101596
Submission received: 29 June 2022 / Revised: 20 September 2022 / Accepted: 20 September 2022 / Published: 29 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Forest Soil)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Serious soil degradation due to human intervention in subtropical China has resulted in a series of ecological problems. Soil fauna is an important part of forest soil ecosystems and plays a vital role in the maintenance of soil quality and can sensitively reflect the soil disturbances caused by human activities. This study assessed the long-term effects of reforestation on the soil fauna community and underground food web. Soil fauna was sampled from plots in a 30-year reforestation positioning test site. Six reforestation models (the pure Schima superba (Ss) forest, pure Liquidambar formosana (Lf) forest, pure Pinus massoniana (Pm) forest, mixed forest of Lf & Ss, mixed forest of Pm & Ss, and the mixed forest of Lf & Pm) were chosen in Taihe County, southern China. The results found that the mixed vegetation restoration of Lf & Pm significantly improved the soil fauna abundance and biomass when compared with other reforestation models in the degraded red soil region. Acari and Collembola accounted for 65.8% and 23.3%, respectively, of the total soil fauna abundance in the region. The mixed forest of Lf & Pm had a positive effect on the abundance of secondary decomposers and micro predators in Acari. Moreover, a significant increase in the abundance of Collembola was found in the Lf & Pm stand type. The stand type with the highest soil faunal population also had a higher soil fauna biomass. Therefore, reforestation in a degraded red soil area had positive effects on the soil fauna community.

1. Introduction

Red soil is a common soil type in the southern part of China and is distributed in most provinces south of China’s Yangtze River [1]. The red soil covers over 5 × 106 ha in Jiangxi Province alone [2]. Because of the dramatic human population increase with the associated anthropogenic disturbances, coupled with the increasing demand for food, timber, and firewood, the evergreen broadleaved forests which were historically found in this red soil region of Jiangxi Province have been destroyed. These forests are home to the local climax species like Cylobalanopsis spp., Quercus spp., Castanopsis spp., Schima spp., etc. As a result of these pressures, degradation and erosion of the red soil have became a common phenomena. Due to the lack of scientific management policies, the area has turned into a bare grassland landscape; the area was also known as the red desert by reason of the soil color and low productivity [3,4]. The proportions of moderate, mild, and serious degradation areas in the total red soil area were 49.5%, 21.5%, and 29.0%, respectively [5,6]. The degradation of red soil has caused a reduction in both soil quality and soil biodiversity, which may lead to some environmental problems, such as the emission of greenhouse gas, disruption of nutrient cycling, reduction of soil carbon sequestration, etc. [7,8]. Consequently, there is a pressing need to take ecological restoration measures. On the other hand, restoring the red desert by establishing forests, improving soil quality, and rebuilding vegetation has become a priority for the region under the new federal forestry policy [4,9,10,11]. Restoring such degraded landscapes can enhance the ecosystem function (i.e., biodiversity and soil fertility). A long-term forest restoration pilot project (FREP) was carried out in the red desert area (Taihe County, Jiangxi Province) to test the effectiveness of forest ecosystem restoration.
Ecological restoration based on vegetation reconstruction is widely used in southern China as the main technical way to control red soil degradation [12]. However, some reforestations that depend on single tree species can give rise to a decline in soil quality, productivity, and low biodiversity. For example, Cunninghamia lanceolata, Pinus massoniana, and exotic pine trees have been widely distributed in the red soil region of southern China in recent decades, however, long-term planting caused serious problems, including soil acidification, low soil fertility, plant diversity reduction, and plant death decrease, which led to forest ecological dysfunction and water and soil conservation function decline [13]. Yin et al. [14] explored the restorative effects of revegetation and vegetation types on the soil microbial functional diversity and enzyme activities of eroded red soil and noted that revegetation improved soil enzyme activities and microbial functional diversity. They also showed that the influence of various vegetation types on the underground soil environment was very different. Although different vegetation restoration models have been proven to play different roles in degraded ecosystems, the effects of forest restoration types on underground ecosystems are still rarely reported for the vast degraded red soil areas in China, and the underground ecosystems in this region are still regarded as a “black box”.
Soil fauna is typically included in engineering soil physical and chemical properties, which are considered to be an important part of soil ecosystems. The belowground faunal community exhibits various morphological forms that are included in various trophic interactions. In this process, disturbances and environmental changes, which are ubiquitous in terrestrial ecosystems, usually have effects on the soil fauna community diversity and composition, particularly in the forest ecosystem [15]. Soil fauna controls the soil food web and plays an important role in nutrient turnover, substance circulation, and energy chain transformation [16,17] in many ecosystems [18,19,20]. The fauna is extremely sensitive to changes in the external environment and responds to changes in various factors in the ecosystem, and are often used as biological indicators to detect environment sensibility [21,22,23]. Thus, the aim of this study was to explore whether different vegetation restoration measures in degraded red soil can positively influence the soil fauna community.
Against the above background, we hypothesized that vegetation restoration in degraded red soil areas will have a positive effect on the soil faunal community. The local nature reserves in the study area provide an ideal comparison for our FREP study. The focus of this study was to investigate the overall effect of forest restoration of local climax species on soil fauna communities and underground food webs. The aims of this study were to explore (1) whether forest restoration with local climax species increases soil fauna diversity; (2) whether the soil fauna community or trophic levels of the different soil fauna groups have a positive relationship with soil environmental changes in the process of restoration; and (3) what recovery pathways of soil fauna may exist for FREP restoration. This study aimed to explore the soil fauna community composition and diversity characteristics and the underground food web changes through the forest restoration process; additionally, we investigated the potential recovery pathways of the soil fauna community. Hence, this would provide scientific instruction to state the restoration potential for seriously degraded ecosystems in southern China and elsewhere.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site

The study site (26°55′12″ N, 114°49′48″ E) was located in Luoxi town, Taihe County, Ji’an city, Jiangxi Province (Figure 1). The soil is Quaternary red soil (Utisols), and the climate type belongs to a humid subtropical climate (Köppen–Geiger climate classification). The average annual rainfall is 1471.2 mm, the average annual temperature is 17.8 °C, the average annual relative humidity is 83%, and the annual sunshine hours are 1306 h [24]. Due to long-term multifarious human activities (e.g., overgrazing, removal of stumps, weeding, litter raking, and firewood collection) and serious soil erosion, there is almost no humus layer, and the soil is covered with a mass of gravel with a relatively low organic matter content (less than 6%). In 1991, a long-term restoration experiment was conducted in this grassland to explore forest restoration policies on ecosystem functions [4,9]. The forest restoration experiment was a completely random design with at least three replicates by forest type and planting density [9]. In this study, six forest types with the same original planting density were selected: pure Schima superba Gardn. et Champ. (1849) forest (Ss), pure Liquidambar formosana Hance (1866) forest (Lf), pure Pinus massoniana Lamb. (1803) forest (Pm), mixed L. Formosa and S. superba forest (Lf & Ss), mixed P. massioniana and S. superba forest (Pm & Ss), mixed L. Formosa and P. massioniana forest (Lf & Pm), and an experimental control (CK), with arid and semiarid grass-dominated grasslands, which were left for natural regeneration without human plantings, and no trees were planted after 19 years [4].

2.2. Soil Sample Collection

Four sample plots of 500–1000 m2 are repeated in each stand type. Random block distribution design is adopted in all plots. Therefore, the distance between each plot can be guaranteed to be above 50–100 m. Three plots of 20 m × 20 m were located in each of the six forest types and in the control sites for a total of 21 plots. Soil samples were collected once (12 November 2020). Deciduous tree species in the test area had begun to shed leaves when the soil samples were taken, but the leaves had not been completely dropped. The litter on the ground reached a certain thickness (up to 5 cm). Intact soil cores (10 cm deep, 8 cm diameter; wet weight, weighing on average 1.0 ± 0.02 kg) were randomly selected, and a single soil core was selected at each point from the six different forest restoration sites. There were 21 plots (18 from the 6 stand types and 3 from the abandoned control field), and 5 soil cores were extracted from each plot, which amount to 105 soil cores. Differences of soil physicochemical properties in different forest restoration types are showed in Table A1.

2.3. Soil Fauna Separation and Extraction

All soil cores were put in a Tullgren funnel system (mesh 5 mm; Burkard Manufacturing, Co., Ltd., Rickmansworth, UK). Each soil core was exposed to a continuous thermal light source for 14 days [25]. The extracted soil fauna was collected in saturated salt water and was identified, classified, and counted under a microscope. Collembola were divided into two orders (Entomobryomorpha and Symphypleona), while Acari were divided into Parasitiformes and Acariformes. Coleoptera were classified at the family level [26].
The trophic level and classification of Acari/Collembola were based on the study results of Crotty et al. [26]. Trophic level 0 (TL0) represents herbivores, trophic level 1 (TL1) represents primary decomposers, trophic level 2 (TL2) represents secondary decomposers, trophic level 3 (TL3) represents micro-predators, and trophic level 4 (TL4) represents macropredators. In this study, the Oribatida order and Prostigmata order in Acari were classified as secondary decomposers (TL2), the Mesostogmata order was classified as micro-predators (TL3), the Symphypleona order in Collembola was classified as herbivores (TL0), and the Entomobryomorpha order was classified as secondary decomposers (TL2).

2.4. Data Analysis

The richness of the soil fauna was expressed by the number of taxonomic groups at each sampling point. All data are expressed as the mean ± standard error (SE). Variations of abundance and the biomass of the total soil fauna, diversity indices of the soil faunal community, and abundance and relative abundance of the soil fauna at different trophic levels among different forest restoration types was used for one-way ANOVA and Duncan’s multiple comparison analysis. Logarithmic transformation has been performed for data that do not conform to normal distribution. The level of significant difference was 0.05 in this study. Redundancy analysis (RDA; model choice depending on length of first gradient) was performed to illustrate the influence of reforestation modes and soil physicochemical properties on the soil fauna community composition. The Shannon index was calculated with a natural logarithm. The formulas for calculating the Shannon index, evenness index, and Richness index of the soil fauna groups were referred to by Krebs [27]. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 22.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results

The total abundance of soil animals collected from all plots was 1499, including 2 phyla, 7 classes, and 14 orders. Acari (Parasitiformes and Acariformes) and Collembola accounted for 65.8% and 23.3% of the total number, respectively (Table 1). Among the seven stand types, the abundance and biomass of soil fauna in the Lf & Pm were significantly different from those in the other six stand types (p < 0.05). Concerning the pure forest plots, the abundance and biomass of soil fauna in the Pm were higher than those in the Ss and Lf (Figure 2). The Shannon index of Lf & Pm was significantly higher than that of Ss and the control check (CK) (p < 0.05), while the other forest types showed no variations. There was no significant variation in the evenness index among the seven stand types. The family richness in the Lf & Pm was the highest, significantly greater than that of Ss, Lf, Lf & Ss, Pm & Ss, and CK (p < 0.05, Figure 3).
Figure 4 and Figure 5 show that there was no significant difference between the populations of herbivores and primary decomposers in any of the stands. The striking difference between the seven stands was in the relative abundance of the micro predators and secondary decomposers in the Lf & Pm stand, which were significantly greater than in the other stands.
The abundance of the Acari/Collembola groups in seven experimental stand types is shown in Figure 6. In the Acari/Collembola groups, the abundance of Lf & Pm was significantly larger than that of the other six stand types (p < 0.05). Divergence analysis of the Acari/Collembola groups showed that the secondary decomposers and micro-predators of Acari in Lf & Pm were the highest among all of the experimental stand types. The primary decomposer of Acari in Ss was the highest among all of the experimental stand types. The Collembola secondary decomposers in Lf & Pm were significantly larger than those in the other experimental stand types. Similarly, the value of each trophic level of Collembola in mixed stands was not significantly higher than that in the pure forest.
The response of the soil fauna groups to environmental changes under different reforestation types was explored using RDA analyses, which found that reforestation types showed significant effects on the different taxonomic groups and soil fauna community (Figure 7). Both Acari and Collembola were positively correlated with Lf & Ss, Lf & Pm, and Pm & Ss. The RDA analysis showed that the interpretation of the soil fauna community by various reforestation types and environmental variables was 29.3% on the x-axis and 3.62% on the y-axis (Figure 7). Soil organic carbon, the total nutrient, and the total phosphorus were positively correlated with Ss, Lf, and CK treatments, and pH had strong positive correlations with Ss and CK.

4. Discussion

During the long-term experiment, the original vegetation changed from bare land to pure forest and mixed forest, resulting in changes in the forest environment such as plant growth, light intensity, and soil nutrients. The change in habitat affected the behavior and distribution of soil fauna both above and below ground. This study clearly revealed that forest restoration significantly improved the soil fauna abundance and biomass in the degraded red soil region (Figure 2). Successful restoration usually needs adventurous and pioneering actions to break the negative feedbacks that cause long-term sustainable degradation and to relieve the constraints imposed by abiotic conditions in the degraded system [28]. The response of the soil fauna to the environmental changes is helpful to explore the impact on soil quality [29]. A number of soil faunal taxa are widely used in the evaluation of soil quality, including nematodes, mites, grasshoppers, and earthworms [30,31]. Acari, considered today a polyphyletic group gathering Parasitiformes and Acariformes, encompass a broad range of feeding guilds, involving both polyphagous and specialized predators, omnivores, scavengers, detritivores, microbivores, fungivores, herbivores, and parasites [32]. Acari (Parasitiformes + Acariformes) were the numerically main soil invertebrate group in this region (Figure 4) and covered most trophic levels, including micro-predators, secondary decomposers, and primary decomposers in this region (Figure 6). Moreover, Acari can regulate its community structure by directly feeding on soil microorganisms, and can also feed on and break litter, thus increasing the contact area between microorganisms and litter surfaces and indirectly promoting the decomposition and nutrient cycling of litter [33]. The most abundant groups in Acari were Mesostogmata and Oribatida. Oribatida were one of the most numerically main arthropod groups in the organic horizons of most soils [34] and feed on a plentiful of particulate matter, including dead and living fungal material and plants, carrion, and lichens [35]. Mesostogmata were the second most main Acari group and primarily feed on small insects, insect larvae, soft-bodied mites, Collembola, and nematodes, and they rapidly respond to increased prey in the habitat [36]. In this study, the mixed forest of Lf & Pm had a positive effect on the abundance of secondary decomposers (TL2) and micro-predators (TL3) in Acari (Figure 6). This result may be due to the influence of coniferous and broad-leaf mixed forests on the soil animal community structure. The effect of mixed forest transformation on the soil animal community structure was mainly reflected by the following reason: soil fauna has a litter type food preference. After the mixed forest transformation, shrubs and grass increase and litter species are abundant, which can attract a richer and more abundant fauna to feed. Wu et al. [37] reported that the soil fauna abundance, richness, and diversity in a mixed forest of Aluns cremastogyne and Cupressus funebris were much higher than those in a pure Cupressus funebris forest. In belowground detritus food webs, Collembola can occupy all trophic levels [38], and together with Acari, they often account for approximately 95% of the microarthropods in soils [39]. Our study also supported this conclusion (Table 1), moreover, the results showed that the Lf & Pm stand type could cause a significant increase in the abundance of Collembola. The result may be because although they can occupy all trophic levels, most Collembola incline to be either microphages, feeding on soil microflora, and/or detritivores, scavenging on dead plant litter and organic matter [40]. Jörg-Alfred and Jörn [41] also reported that in mixed stands (Fagus sylvatica and Picea abies), the fungal biomass was improved, resulting in large densities of fungal-feeding Collembola (e.g., Mesaphorura spp.) and large species numbers of Collembola.
Compared with the pure forest, the change in the understory environment in the mixed forest can activate soil faunal activity and provide more space and abundant food resources for the survival of soil fauna [42]. In the Lf & Pm stand type, the total number of soil invertebrates reached a peak (approximately 3100 individuals per m2). Additionally, the Lf & Pm stand type had the highest biodiversity of the belowground soil fauna. Similarly to some previous references, Saetre et al. [43] showed that the density of soil fauna was larger in mixed forests than in spruce forests and that the composition differed. Hättenschwiler and Gasser [44] pointed out that different vegetation types could regulate the density and diversity of the soil fauna community from top to bottom based on litter. First, the soil physicochemical properties and nutrient content of litter changed after mixed transformation, which indirectly affected the dynamic change in the soil faunal community [45]. Second, the soil fauna groups had a feeding preference for litter types. After the pure forest was transformed into the mixed stand type, more shrubs and grasses were added and litter species were abundant, which could attract a more diverse soil fauna to feed on litter [46].
The soil fauna groups of different sizes play ecological functions in different ways in the soil, but there are complex interactions among soil animals, microorganisms, and plants, and they form a soil food web through feeding and being consumed by predators, thus maintaining the structure and function of the ecosystem [29]. To maintain the stability of the soil food web and the health of the soil environment, the energy from different food sources is transferred through different energy flow channels between different nutrient levels of the soil food web [38]. Collembola are highly active in soil ecosystems, and play a crucial role in the formation, development, and evolution of soil, and their community composition and structure are very sensitive to environmental changes [47]. A plentiful amount of dead plant materials support Collembola and the oribatid mites, all of which are among the most important decomposers and provide food sources for other soil invertebrates [34,35]. The comminution of dead plant materials by these organisms can influence the habitat in ways that improve microbial activity [48]. The improved numbers of primary and secondary decomposers and herbivores improved the abundance of some micro-predators, e.g., Mesostigmatid mites (Figure 5). Soil fauna can affect plant growth and soil health by changing the community structure of other biological components in the soil food web through predation or non-predation [15].
The stand type with the higher soil fauna community density also had higher soil fauna biomass. In this study, the soil fauna community density and soil fauna biomass had the same trend. The total invertebrate biomass of the Lf & Pm stand type reached its highest value among these stand types. The abundance of the Acari or Collembola groups in the Lf & Pm stand type was the highest among the seven stand types (Figure 6). This result is because the mixed stand type usually sustains an oribatid mite community that is somewhat richer in species than that found in pure forests [49]. The underground biomass of most pure forests will increase after mixed transformation, which provides a more suitable habitat for soil fauna [50]. The mixed vegetation restoration model can provide more abundant litter, which will be decomposed by oribatid mites and springtails. Additionally, oribatid mites and springtails are highly sensitive to the diversity of litter, and changes in litter diversity will affect their abundance [51,52,53]. As a consumer and decomposer of litter, soil fauna can, together with soil microorganisms, promote the decomposition of litter via their function of comminution and feeding. Different stand types can change the habitat environment and food sources of soil fauna, resulting in changes in the community structure of soil fauna.

5. Conclusions

In the studied degraded soil region, the diversity, biomass, and density of the soil fauna community were higher in the mixed vegetation restoration of Lf & Pm than in the pure vegetation restoration. Acari and Collembola had a higher abundance and diversity in the mixed forest restoration. At the trophic level, the mixed stand vegetation restoration was also different from the pure stand vegetation restoration model. The mixed forest of Lf & Pm had a good effect on the abundance of secondary decomposers and micro-predators in Acari. Moreover, the Lf & Pm stand type could cause a significant increase in the abundance of Collembola as well. This study emphasizes that vegetation restoration can improve the structure of the soil fauna community in degraded red soil areas, and mixed plantings have more potential to improve soil function.

Author Contributions

Q.W. and W.L. conceptualized the study, and H.X. identified, processed, and collected samples with help from K.M. and X.J.; Y.L. and H.X. primarily interpreted the data with help from P.J.M. and L.Z., H.X., W.L. and Q.W. wrote the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant nos. 31960302, 42007042), the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province (20202BAB205002, 20202BAB215008), the Science Foundation for Post Doctorate Research of Jiangxi Province (2019KY06), and the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2020M682107).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Differences of soil physicochemical properties in different forest restoration types.
Table A1. Differences of soil physicochemical properties in different forest restoration types.
Forest TypesWater Content (%)Total N (g·kg−1)Total P (g·kg−1)Soil Organic Carbon (g·kg−1)pHC/N
Lf12.69 ± 1.53 ab0.92 ± 0.01 b0.32 ± 0.02 b20.13 ± 1.45 b4.75 ± 0.03 a21.98 ± 1.60 b
Ss15.36 ± 1.68 a1.04 ± 0.03 a0.37 ± 0.01 a23.10 ± 0.87 a4.73 ± 0.03 a22.13 ± 0.34 b
Pm12.52 ± 0.57 ab0.74 ± 0.02 c0.33 ± 0.02 ab21.77 ± 0.66 ab4.58 ± 0.05 c29.37 ± 1.15 a
Lf & Ss15.56 ± 0.47 a1.07 ± 0.01 a0.35 ± 0.02 ab21.97 ± 0.93 ab4.64 ± 0.01 bc20.50 ± 0.65 b
Pm & Ss11.48 ± 0.98 b0.73 ± 0.03 c0.27 ± 0.01 c4.69 ± 0.15 d4.70 ± 0.01 ab6.50 ± 0.46 d
Lf & Pm13.04 ± 0.87 ab0.75 ± 0.02 c0.32 ± 0.01 bc10.17 ± 0.47 c4.62 ± 0.01 bc13.60 ± 0.22 c
CK12.54 ± 1.13 ab0.62 ± 0.02 d0.32 ± 0.01 b5.08 ± 0.03 d4.74 ± 0.02 a8.19 ± 0.23 d
Note: Data are means ± SE (n = 3). Different letters indicated significant differences among different forest types by using Duncan’s multiple range test (p < 0.05).

References

  1. Zhao, Q.G.; Huang, G.Q.; Ma, Y.Q. The problems in red soil ecosystem in southern of China and its countermeasures. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2013, 33, 7615–7622. [Google Scholar]
  2. Li, Z.A.; Zou, B.; Cao, Y.S.; Ren, H.; Liu, J. Nutrient properties of soils in typical degraded hilly land in South China. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2003, 23, 1648–1656. [Google Scholar]
  3. Land Use Administration Bureau of Jiangxi (LUAB). Soil of Jiangxi; China Agricultural Science and Technology Press: Beijing, China, 1991; pp. 58–59. [Google Scholar]
  4. Gong, X.; Liu, Y.Q.; Li, Q.L.; Wei, X.; Guo, X.; Niu, D.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, L. Zhang, Sub-tropic degraded red soil restoration: Is soil organic carbon build-up limited by nutrients supply. For. Ecol. Manag. 2013, 300, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Sun, B.; Zhao, Q. Evaluation indexes and methods of soil quality concerning red soil degradation. Prog. Geogr. 1999, 18, 118–128. [Google Scholar]
  6. Zhao, Q. Some Considerations for present soil and water conservation and ecology security of south China. Bull. Soil Water Conserv. 2006, 26, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  7. Lal, R. Degradation and resilience of soils. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 1997, 352, 997–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lal, R. Restoring soil quality to mitigate soil degradation. Sustainability 2015, 7, 5875–5895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Liu, Y.; Du, T.; Guo, X.; Yang, G.; Lou, L. Study on rehabilitating forest model and soil restoration on degraded Quaternary red soil. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2004, 18, 34–37. [Google Scholar]
  10. Zheng, H.; Ouyang, Z.Y.; Wang, X.K.; Miao, H.; Zhao, T.; Peng, T. Effects of forest restoration types on soil quality in red soil eroded region, Southern China. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2004, 24, 1994–2002. [Google Scholar]
  11. Yan, E.R.; Wang, X.H.; Chen, X.Y. Impacts of evergreen broad-leaved forest, degradation on soil nutrients and carbon pools in Tiantong, Zhejiang province. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2007, 27, 1646–1655. [Google Scholar]
  12. Lu, Y.; Gan, H.; Xu, S. Study on organic matter and nitrogen characteristics of red soil and its organic-inorganic complex. Chin. J. Soil Sci. 1996, 01, 29–32. [Google Scholar]
  13. Zhao, R.; Fan, J.; He, Y.; Song, C.; Tu, R.; Tan, B. Research on soil enzyme activities and limiting factors for restoration of degraded Pinus massoniana plantation. Acta Pedol. Sin. 2011, 48, 1287–1292. [Google Scholar]
  14. Yin, R.; Deng, H.; Wang, H.; Zhang, B. Vegetation type affects soil enzyme activities and microbial functional diversity following re-vegetation of a severely eroded red soil in sub-tropical China. Catena 2014, 115, 96–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bengtsson, J. Disturbance and resilience in soil animal communities. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2002, 38, 119–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Heneghan, L.; Coleman, D.C.; Zou, X.; Haines, B.L. Soil microarthropod contributions to decomposition dynamics: Trophic-temperate comparisons of a single substrate. Ecology 1999, 80, 1873–1882. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kautz, T.; Lpez-Fando, C.; Ellmer, F. Abundance and biodiversity of soil microarthtopods as influenced by different types of organic manure in a long-term field experiment in central Spain. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2006, 33, 278–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Carrillo, Y.; Ball, B.A.; Bradford, M.A.; Jordan, C.F.; Molina, M. Soil fauna alter the effects of litter composition on nitrogen cycling in a mineral soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2011, 43, 1440–1449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. García, R.R.; Ocharan, F.J.; García, U.; Osoro, K.; Celaya, R. Arthropod fauna on grassland-heathland associations under different grazing managements with domestic ruminants. Comptes Rendus Biol. 2010, 333, 226–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Basset, Y.; Cizek, L.; Cuénoud, P.; Didham, R.K.; Guilhaumon, F.; Missa, O.; Novotny, V.; Ødegaard, F.; Roslin, T.; Schmidl, J.; et al. Arthropod diversity in a tropical forest. Science 2012, 338, 1481–1484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cunha Neto, F.V.; Correia, M.E.F.; Pereira, G.H.A.; Pereira, M.G.; Leles, P.S.D.S. Soil fauna as an indicator of soil quality in forest stands, pasture and secondary forest. Rev. Bras. De Ciência Do Solo 2012, 36, 1407–1417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Elie, F.; Vincenot, L.; Berthe, T.; Quibel, E.; Zeller, B.; Saint-André, L.; Normand, M.; Chauvat, M.; Aubert, M. Soil fauna as bioindicators of organic matter export in temperate forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 429, 549–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Babenko, A.; Temnikova, I.; Bokova, U. Soil fauna as an indicator of disturbed forest areas in West Siberian industrial regions (the Kuznetsky Alatau case study). Int. J. Environ. Stud. 2014, 71, 671–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Liu, Y.; Yu, G.R.; Li, J.; Song, X.; Chen, Y. Study on surface energy balance closure of a coniferous forest plantation in red earth hilly area, China—Take Qianyanzhou, Taihe County, Jiangxi Province as an example. Sci. Silvae Sin. 2006, 42, 13–20. [Google Scholar]
  25. Liu, W.; Zhang, J.; Norris, S.L.; Murray, P.J. Impact of grassland reseeding, herbicide spraying and ploughing on diversity and abundance of soil arthropods. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 1200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Crotty, F.V.; Blackshaw, R.P.; Adl, S.M.; Inger, R.; Murray, P.J. Divergence of feeding channels within the soil food web determined by ecosystem type. Ecol. Evol. 2014, 4, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Krebs, C.J. Ecological Methodology, 2nd ed.; Benjamin-Cummings: Menlo Park, CA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  28. McVicar, T.R.; van Niel, T.G.; Li, L.T.; Wen, Z.M.; Yang, Q.K.; Li, R.; Jiao, F. Parsimoniously modelling perennial vegetation suitability and indentifying priority areas to support China’s re-vegetation program in the Loess Plateau: Matching model complexity to data availability. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 259, 1277–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sun, X.; Li, Q.; Yao, H.F.; Liu, M.Q.; Wu, D.H.; Zhu, D.; Zhu, Y.G. Soil fauna and soil health. Acta Pedol. Sin. 2021, 58, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  30. George PB, L.; Keith, A.M.; Creer, S.; Barrett, G.L.; Lebron, I.; Emmett, B.A.; Robinson, D.A.; Jonesa, D.L. Evaluation of mesofauna communities as soil quality indicators in a national-level monitoring programme. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2017, 115, 537–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lakshmi, G.; Joseph, A. Soil microarthropods as indicators of soil quality of tropical home gardens in a village in Kerala, India. Agrofor. Syst. 2017, 91, 439–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Krantz, G.W.; Lindquist, E.E. Evolution of phytophagous mites (Acari). Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1979, 24, 121–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Frouz, J. Effects of soil macro- and mesofauna on litter decomposition and soil organic matter stabilization. Geoderma 2018, 332, 161–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Norton, R.A. Aspects of the biology and systematics of soil arachnids, particularly saprophagous and mycophagous mites. Quaest. Entomol. 1985, 21, 523–541. [Google Scholar]
  35. Siepel, H. Niche relationships between two panphytophagous soil mites, Nothrus silvestris Nicolet (Acari, Oribatida, Nothridae) and Platynothrus peltifer (Koch) (Acari, Oribatida, Camisiidae). Biol. Fertil. Soils 1990, 9, 139–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Behan-Pelletier, V.M.; Kanashiro, D. Acari in grassland soils of Canada. Arthropods Can. Grassl. 2010, 1, 137–166. [Google Scholar]
  37. Wu, P.F.; Zhu, B. Comparison of soil animal community characteristics between alder and cypress mixed plantation and cypress pure plantation. Chin. J. Appl. Environ. Biol. 2008, 14, 488–493. [Google Scholar]
  38. Moore, J.C.; William Hunt, H. Resource compartmentation and the stability of real ecosystems. Nature 1988, 333, 261–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Seastedt, T.R. The role of microarthropods in decomposition and mineralization processes. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1984, 29, 25–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bardgett, R.D.; Frankland, J.C.; Whittaker, J.B. The effects of agricultural management on the soil biota of some upland grasslands. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1993, 45, 25–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jörg-Alfred, S.; Jörn, A. The Collembola community of a Central European forest: Influence of tree species composition. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2009, 45, 199–206. [Google Scholar]
  42. Zhang, P.; Tian, X.J.; He, X.B.; Song, F.; Ren, L.; Jiang, P. Effect of litter quality on its decomposition in broadleaf and coniferous forest. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2008, 44, 392–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Saetre, P.; Brandtberg, P.O.; Lundkvist, H.; Bengtsson, J. Soil organisms and carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus mineralisation in Norway spruce and mixed Norway spruce–birch stands. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1999, 28, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hättenschwiler, S.; Gasser, P. Soil animals alter plant litter diversity effects on decomposition. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 1519–1524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Ma, X.L.; Yang, J.Y.; Huang, X.R. Meso- and Micro-faunal communities of litter layer in the Pure and Mixed Larch Plantations, Saihanba area. J. Sichuan Agric. Univ. 2016, 34, 147–152. [Google Scholar]
  46. Hasegawa, M.T.; Ota, A.; Kabeya, D.; Okamoto, T.; Saitoh, T.; Nishiyama, Y. The effects of mixed broad-leaved trees on the collembolan community in larch plantations of central Japan. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2014, 83, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Chauvat, M.; Wolters, Z.V. Successional changes of Collembola and soil microbiota during forest rotation. Oecologia 2003, 137, 269–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Eisenhauer, N.; Partsch, S.; Parkinson, D.; Scheu, S. Invasion of a deciduous forest by earthworms: Changes in soil chemistry, microflora, microarthropods and vegetation. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2007, 39, 1099–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Migge, S.; Maraun, M.; Scheu, S.; Schaefer, M. The oribatid mite community (Acarina) of pure and mixed stands of beech (Fagus sylvatica) and spruce (Picea abies) of different age. Appl. Soil Ecol. 1998, 9, 115–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Tian, T.; Bai, Y.F.; Zhang, X.D.; Jiang, C.Q. The reason and countermeasure of the soil degradation of Chinese Fir plantation. For. Sci. Technol. 2019, 6–10. [Google Scholar]
  51. Hansen, R.A.; Coleman, D.C. Litter complexity and composition are determinants of the diversity and species composition of oribatid mites (Acari: Oribatida) in litterbags. Appl. Soil Ecol. 1998, 9, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hansen, R.A. Effects of habitat complexity and composition on a diverse litter microarthropod assemblage. Ecology 2000, 81, 1120–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kaneko, N.; Salamanca, E. Mixed leaf litter effects on decomposition rates and soil microarthropod communities in an oak–pine stand in Japan. Ecol. Res. 1999, 14, 131–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Forests 13 01596 g001 550
Figure 1. The map of the study site.
Figure 1. The map of the study site.
Forests 13 01596 g001
Forests 13 01596 g002 550
Figure 2. Biomass and abundance of total soil fauna in different forest restoration types. CK = bare land; Ss = pure S. superba forest; Lf = pure L. formosana. Forest; Pm = pure P. massoniana. Forest; Lf & Ss = mixed L. formosana and S. superba forest; Pm & Ss = mixed P. massoniana and S. superba mixed forest; and Lf & Pm = mixed L. formosana and P. massoniana forest. These forest restoration types are represented using the abbreviation letters in the following figures. Different lowercase letters show significant variations in different forest restoration types. Bars show mean values ± SE (n = 15 in abundance; n = 3 in biomass).
Figure 2. Biomass and abundance of total soil fauna in different forest restoration types. CK = bare land; Ss = pure S. superba forest; Lf = pure L. formosana. Forest; Pm = pure P. massoniana. Forest; Lf & Ss = mixed L. formosana and S. superba forest; Pm & Ss = mixed P. massoniana and S. superba mixed forest; and Lf & Pm = mixed L. formosana and P. massoniana forest. These forest restoration types are represented using the abbreviation letters in the following figures. Different lowercase letters show significant variations in different forest restoration types. Bars show mean values ± SE (n = 15 in abundance; n = 3 in biomass).
Forests 13 01596 g002
Forests 13 01596 g003 550
Figure 3. Diversity indices (A. Shannon-index; B. Evenness index; C. Richness) of the soil faunal community in different forest restoration types. Different lowercase letters show significant variations in different forest restoration types. Bars show mean values ± SE (n = 15).
Figure 3. Diversity indices (A. Shannon-index; B. Evenness index; C. Richness) of the soil faunal community in different forest restoration types. Different lowercase letters show significant variations in different forest restoration types. Bars show mean values ± SE (n = 15).
Forests 13 01596 g003
Forests 13 01596 g004 550
Figure 4. Relative abundance of soil fauna at different trophic levels in each forest restoration type. Different lowercase letters show significant variations in different forest restoration types of each trophic level.
Figure 4. Relative abundance of soil fauna at different trophic levels in each forest restoration type. Different lowercase letters show significant variations in different forest restoration types of each trophic level.
Forests 13 01596 g004
Forests 13 01596 g005 550
Figure 5. Abundance of soil fauna at different trophic levels in different forest restoration types. Different lowercase letters show significant variations in different forest restoration types of each trophic level. Bars show the stacked relative abundance ratio (n = 3).
Figure 5. Abundance of soil fauna at different trophic levels in different forest restoration types. Different lowercase letters show significant variations in different forest restoration types of each trophic level. Bars show the stacked relative abundance ratio (n = 3).
Forests 13 01596 g005
Forests 13 01596 g006 550
Figure 6. Abundance of various Collembola and Acari groups in different forest restoration types. Bars show the stacked sum values of different Acari/Collembola groups. Bars show the stacked mean values (n = 3). Different lowercase letters show significant variations in different forest types. Divergence analysis is listed in the table, and different lowercase letters of each row represent significant differences in different forest types in given Acari/Collembola groups.
Figure 6. Abundance of various Collembola and Acari groups in different forest restoration types. Bars show the stacked sum values of different Acari/Collembola groups. Bars show the stacked mean values (n = 3). Different lowercase letters show significant variations in different forest types. Divergence analysis is listed in the table, and different lowercase letters of each row represent significant differences in different forest types in given Acari/Collembola groups.
Forests 13 01596 g006
Forests 13 01596 g007 550
Figure 7. RDA analysis of the soil fauna community and soil physicochemical properties. Data are derived from soil fauna community abundance under different vegetation restoration patterns. WC: water content; C/N: carbon/nitrogen; SOC: soil organic carbon; TN: total nitrogen; TP: total phosphorus.
Figure 7. RDA analysis of the soil fauna community and soil physicochemical properties. Data are derived from soil fauna community abundance under different vegetation restoration patterns. WC: water content; C/N: carbon/nitrogen; SOC: soil organic carbon; TN: total nitrogen; TP: total phosphorus.
Forests 13 01596 g007
Table
Table 1. The individual number of soil fauna.
Table 1. The individual number of soil fauna.
PhylumClassSuperorderOrderFamilyIndividual Number (/core)Percentage of Total (%)Relative Abundance
ArthropodaArachnida Araneae 201.33++
AcariParasitiformesMesostogmata 1459.67++
AcariformesProstigmata 151.00++
Oribatida 82755.17+++
Pseudoscorpiones 90.60+
Collembola Entomobryomorpha 34823.22+++
Symphypleona 10.07+
Diplopoda Sphaerotheriida 10.07+
Chilopoda Lithobiomorpha 40.27+
Diplura Diplura 30.20+
Insecta Diptera larvae 60.40+
Hymenoptera 1077.14++
Hemiptera 10.07+
Thysanoptera 10.07+
ColeopteraLathridiidae10.07+
Carabidae20.13+
Staphylinidae10.07+
Coleoptera larvae 50.33+
AnnelidaOligochaeta Enchytraeidae20.13+
Total 1499100.00
"+" means the number of soil fauna accounts for less than 1% of the total number, "++" means the number of soil fauna accounts for 1-10% of the total number, and "+++" means the number of soil fauna accounts for more than 10% of the total number.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Xue, H.; Wang, Q.; Mao, K.; Liu, Y.; Jiang, X.; Murray, P.J.; Zhang, L.; Liu, W. Positive Effects of Reforestation on the Diversity and Abundance of Soil Fauna in a Landscape Degraded Red Soil Area in Subtropical China. Forests 2022, 13, 1596. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13101596

AMA Style

Xue H, Wang Q, Mao K, Liu Y, Jiang X, Murray PJ, Zhang L, Liu W. Positive Effects of Reforestation on the Diversity and Abundance of Soil Fauna in a Landscape Degraded Red Soil Area in Subtropical China. Forests. 2022; 13(10):1596. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13101596

Chicago/Turabian Style

Xue, Huajian, Qiong Wang, Kuncai Mao, Yuanqiu Liu, Xueru Jiang, Philip J. Murray, Lvshui Zhang, and Wei Liu. 2022. "Positive Effects of Reforestation on the Diversity and Abundance of Soil Fauna in a Landscape Degraded Red Soil Area in Subtropical China" Forests 13, no. 10: 1596. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13101596

APA Style

Xue, H., Wang, Q., Mao, K., Liu, Y., Jiang, X., Murray, P. J., Zhang, L., & Liu, W. (2022). Positive Effects of Reforestation on the Diversity and Abundance of Soil Fauna in a Landscape Degraded Red Soil Area in Subtropical China. Forests, 13(10), 1596. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13101596

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