...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Ecological indicators >Comparing differences among three ecosystem service proxies for soil erosion prevention and their combination characteristics at local scales
【24h】

Comparing differences among three ecosystem service proxies for soil erosion prevention and their combination characteristics at local scales

机译：比较三种生态系统服务代理对地方尺度的土壤侵蚀防治及其组合特征的差异

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The diversity of soil erosion prevention (SEP) indicators may cause the incomparability of different research results. In this study, we first classified the six most commonly used methodological approaches for estimating SEP service into three broad categories. Then, we used the following three indicators: (1) amount of soil con- servation (C-s), (2) amount of soil loss (L-s), and (3) the ability of vegetation to prevent soil erosion (V-a) as ecosystem service (ES) proxies for SEP. A methodological framework was developed for analyzing the possible relationships between the three SEP indicators and their combination features at local scales to test the validity of the three hypotheses regarding the relationships among these indicators. Afterward, the mountainous area of southern Ningxia was chosen as the experimental area for testing the application of our framework. Results show the following: (1) the hypotheses regarding their associations are only valid under certain conditions when the corresponding indicators can be substituted for each other in the correlation analysis with other ESs; (2) the combinations of C-s, L-s, and V-a at local scales are conducive to the discovery of the local soil ecological problems and can help in the formulation of relevant improvement measures. Accordingly, when formulating regional soil conservation measures, we should consider not only the current situation of soil loss but also the trend of climate change. Meanwhile, when analyzing the impact of soil conservation policies, attention should be provided to distinguishing whether the changes in soil loss are due to changes in vegetation cover or potential soil loss.
机译：土壤侵蚀预防（SEP）指标的多样性可能导致不同研究成果的无效性。在这项研究中，我们首先将六种最常用的方法方法分为三个广泛类别的六种最常用的方法方法。然后，我们使用以下三个指标：（1）土壤包裹量（CS），（2）土壤损失量（LS），（3）植被防止土壤侵蚀（VA）作为生态系统的能力SEP的服务代理。开发了一种方法论框架，用于分析三个SEP指示符与其组合特征在本地秤上的可能关系，以测试三个假设关于这些指标之间关系的有效性。之后，宁夏南部的山区被选为测试我们框架应用的实验领域。结果表明：（1）关于其关联的假设仅在某些条件下有效，当相应的指标可以在与其他ESS中的相关分析中互相替换; （2）C-S，L-S和V-A的组合在本地尺度上有利于发现当地土壤生态问题，并有助于制定相关的改进措施。因此，在制定区域土壤保护措施时，不仅应考虑土壤损失的目前情况，也应考虑气候变化的趋势。同时，在分析土壤保护政策的影响时，应提供注意，以区分土壤损失的变化是由于植被覆盖的变化或潜在的土壤损失。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号