IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i4p902-d137310.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of the Ecosystem Service Function of Sandy Lands at Different Times Following Aerial Seeding of an Endemic Species

Author

Listed:
  • Lei Zhang

    (School of Ecology and Environment, Inner Mongolia University, Hohhot 010021, China
    Inner Mongolia Academy of Forestry Sciences, Hohhot 010010, China)

  • Guangyu Hong

    (Inner Mongolia Academy of Forestry Sciences, Hohhot 010010, China
    College of Grassland, Resources and Environment, Inner Mongolia Agriculture University, Hohhot 010020, China)

  • Zhuofan Li

    (Inner Mongolia Academy of Forestry Sciences, Hohhot 010010, China)

  • Xiaowei Gao

    (Inner Mongolia Academy of Forestry Sciences, Hohhot 010010, China)

  • Yongzhi Wu

    (Inner Mongolia Academy of Forestry Sciences, Hohhot 010010, China)

  • Xiaojiang Wang

    (Inner Mongolia Academy of Forestry Sciences, Hohhot 010010, China)

  • Pingping Wang

    (Inner Mongolia Academy of Forestry Sciences, Hohhot 010010, China)

  • Jie Yang

    (School of Ecology and Environment, Inner Mongolia University, Hohhot 010021, China)

Abstract

Desertification is a global and pressing environmental problem in the course of environmental changes, and considerable efforts have been made to restore these degraded ecosystems. Aerial seeding has been widely used to accelerate ecological restoration around the world. However, few efforts have been made to assess the ecosystem service function after aerial seeding has occurred. In this study, we analyzed variations in the ecosystem service function after varying periods of elapsed time after aerial seeding of Hedysarum laeve Maxim. (14a, 30a and 38a) in the Mu Us Sandy Land, China. We also assessed the carbon sequestration ability, biodiversity, soil properties, wind-break and sand-fixation ability on a typical windward slope. We found that the overall assessment value of ecosystem services had generally increased with the elapsed time after aerial seeding. Additionally, the assessment values increased as the slope position moved downwards. Moreover, we observed a gradual replacement of H. laeve by Artemisia ordosica Krasch and grass species with the increase in elapsed years after aerial seeding, indicating a positive succession towards locally native vegetation. Compared with the local natural vegetation, our results suggest that the practice of aerial seeding stimulated vegetation restoration without the need for follow-up field interventions, and the practice of aerial seeding might fit more ecosystems with similar vegetation degradation problems.

Suggested Citation

  • Lei Zhang & Guangyu Hong & Zhuofan Li & Xiaowei Gao & Yongzhi Wu & Xiaojiang Wang & Pingping Wang & Jie Yang, 2018. "Assessment of the Ecosystem Service Function of Sandy Lands at Different Times Following Aerial Seeding of an Endemic Species," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:4:p:902-:d:137310
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/4/902/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/4/902/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hein, Lars & van Koppen, Kris & de Groot, Rudolf S. & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2006. "Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 209-228, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xue Xu & Luyao Liu & Peng Han & Xiaoqian Gong & Qing Zhang, 2022. "Accuracy of Vegetation Indices in Assessing Different Grades of Grassland Desertification from UAV," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Yina Ma & Lei Zu & Fayu Long & Xiaofan Yang & Shixiong Wang & Qing Zhang & Yuejun He & Danmei Chen & Mingzhen Sui & Guangqi Zhang & Lipeng Zang & Qingfu Liu, 2022. "Promotion of Soil Microbial Community Restoration in the Mu Us Desert (China) by Aerial Seeding," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-13, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cornelis Leeuwen & Jos Frijns & Annemarie Wezel & Frans Ven, 2012. "City Blueprints: 24 Indicators to Assess the Sustainability of the Urban Water Cycle," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(8), pages 2177-2197, June.
    2. Brunet, Lucas & Tuomisaari, Johanna & Lavorel, Sandra & Crouzat, Emilie & Bierry, Adeline & Peltola, Taru & Arpin, Isabelle, 2018. "Actionable knowledge for land use planning: Making ecosystem services operational," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 27-34.
    3. Gerd Lupp & Bernhard Förster & Valerie Kantelberg & Tim Markmann & Johannes Naumann & Carolina Honert & Marc Koch & Stephan Pauleit, 2016. "Assessing the Recreation Value of Urban Woodland Using the Ecosystem Service Approach in Two Forests in the Munich Metropolitan Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-14, November.
    4. Ping Shen & Lijuan Wu & Ziwen Huo & Jiaying Zhang, 2023. "A Study on the Spatial Pattern of the Ecological Product Value of China’s County-Level Regions Based on GEP Evaluation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-18, February.
    5. Rodríguez-Ortega, T. & Olaizola, A.M. & Bernués, A., 2018. "A novel management-based system of payments for ecosystem services for targeted agri-environmental policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 74-84.
    6. Brendan Fisher & Stephen Polasky & Thomas Sterner, 2011. "Conservation and Human Welfare: Economic Analysis of Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 151-159, February.
    7. Bhatta, Arun & Bigsby, Hugh R. & Cullen, Ross, 2011. "Alternative to Comprehensive Ecosystem Services Markets: The Contribution of Forest-Related Programs in New Zealand," 2011 Conference, August 25-26, 2011, Nelson, New Zealand 115350, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    8. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Tobias D. Ketterer, 2012. "Do Local Amenities Affect The Appeal Of Regions In Europe For Migrants?," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(4), pages 535-561, October.
    9. Lamprinakis, L. & Rodriguez, D. G. P. & Prestvik, A. S. & Veidal, A. & Klimek, B., 2017. "31 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18461/pfsd.2017.1705 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON FOOD SYSTEM DYNAMICS A Mixed Methods Approach Towards Mapping and Economic Valuation of the Divici-Pojejena Wetland Ecosystem," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276889, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    10. Bo Yang & Ming-Han Li & Shujuan Li, 2013. "Design-with-Nature for Multifunctional Landscapes: Environmental Benefits and Social Barriers in Community Development," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, October.
    11. Stapleton, L.M. & Hanna, P. & Ravenscroft, N. & Church, A., 2014. "A flexible ecosystem services proto-typology based on public opinion," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 83-90.
    12. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    13. Vahid Amini Parsa & Esmail Salehi & Ahmad Reza Yavari & Peter M van Bodegom, 2019. "An improved method for assessing mismatches between supply and demand in urban regulating ecosystem services: A case study in Tabriz, Iran," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-22, August.
    14. Matzek, Virginia & Wilson, Kerrie A. & Kragt, Marit, 2019. "Mainstreaming of ecosystem services as a rationale for ecological restoration in Australia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 79-86.
    15. McVittie, Alistair & Norton, Lisa & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Siameti, Ioanna & Glenk, Klaus & Aalders, Inge, 2015. "Operationalizing an ecosystem services-based approach using Bayesian Belief Networks: An application to riparian buffer strips," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 15-27.
    16. Bieling, Claudia & Plieninger, Tobias & Pirker, Heidemarie & Vogl, Christian R., 2014. "Linkages between landscapes and human well-being: An empirical exploration with short interviews," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 19-30.
    17. Min Fan & Li Chen & Qing Wang, 2019. "Assessing the high impacts of land use change: spatial characteristics of land uses and ecological compensation based on payment for ecosystem services model in a mountainous area, China," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 24(8), pages 1431-1460, December.
    18. de Groot, Rudolf & Brander, Luke & van der Ploeg, Sander & Costanza, Robert & Bernard, Florence & Braat, Leon & Christie, Mike & Crossman, Neville & Ghermandi, Andrea & Hein, Lars & Hussain, Salman & , 2012. "Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 50-61.
    19. Brown, Melanie G. & Quinn, John E., 2018. "Zoning does not improve the availability of ecosystem services in urban watersheds. A case study from Upstate South Carolina, USA," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 254-265.
    20. Florian Wagener, 2013. "Shallow lake economics run deep: nonlinear aspects of an economic-ecological interest conflict," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 423-450, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:4:p:902-:d:137310. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.