4.7 Article

Comparison of deep soil moisture in two re-vegetation watersheds in semi-arid regions

Journal

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY
Volume 513, Issue -, Pages 314-321

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.03.049

Keywords

Soil moisture; Spatial variation; Vegetation restoration; Land use structure; Loess Plateau

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41371123, 41390462]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2013M530070]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Soil moisture stored below rainfall infiltration depth is a reliable water resource for plant growth in semi-arid ecosystems. Along with the large-scale ecological restoration in Chinese Loess Plateau, identifying the ecohydrological response to human-introduced vegetation restoration has become an important issue in current research. In this study, soil moisture data in depth of 0-5 m was obtained by field observation and geostatistical method in two neighboring re-vegetation watersheds. Profile characteristics and spatial pattern of soil moisture was compared between different land use types, transects, and watersheds. The results showed that: (1) Introduced vegetation drastically decreased deep soil moisture when compared with farmland and native grassland. No significant differences in deep soil moisture were found between different introduced vegetation types. (2) An analysis of differences in soil moisture for different land use patterns indicated that land use had significant influence on deep soil moisture spatial variability. Land use structure determined the soil moisture condition and its spatial variation. (3) Vegetation restoration with introduced plants diminished the spatial heterogeneity of deep soil moisture on watershed scale. The improvement of land use management was suggested to improve the water management and maintain the sustainability of vegetation restoration. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available