Paper · 2023 · Frontiers in Forests and Global Change

Tree growth as an effect indicator of silvopastoral systems in the low hilly area of western Henan province, China

Peisong Liu; Fan Cheng; Xinlong Wang; et al.

11
claims
44
verbatim quotes
3
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

The low hilly area is a major landform in the west of Henan province, China, and it is suffering soil and water loss because of human activities. The silvopastoral system that combines trees and grasses has been widely used to restore this fragile area. We conducted in situ field experiments in 2011 in the low hilly area of Henan province involving pure forests of Populus simonii (PS; Salicaceae), Platycladus orientalis (PO; Cupressaceae), Quercus variabilis (QV; Fagaceae), and Robinia pseudoacacia (RP; Fabaceae), and also with each forest tree species being combined with Medicago sativa (MS; Fabaceae) as silvopastoral systems, i.e., PS-MS, PO-MS, QV-MS, and RP-MS, respectively. We recorded tree diameter at breast height (DBH) and tree height (TH) in the years 2014–2016, 2018, 2020, and 2022 for all the different vegetation types. Tree biomass load (TBL, i.e., tree biomass per unit area) was estimated based on DBH and TH using allometric equations for each tree species. Generally, the results showed that the DBH, TH, and TBL were promoted in the silvopastoral systems PS-MS, PO-MS, and QV-MS. Specially, the DBH and TBL of PS-MS and PO-MS tended to be higher and were significantly higher than the pure forests of PS and MS, respectively, in 2014–2016; the silvopastoral systems were not significantly different from the pure forests for DBH in 2018 and 2022, and for TBL in 2018 and 2020. TH was lower in PS-MS and PO-MS than that in PS and PO in 2014–2016, while there was no difference of TH between PS-MS and PS in 2018 and 2022, and TH was higher in PO-MS than that in PO in 2018, 2020 and 2022. The DBH, TH, and TBL were all higher in QV-MS than QV. The TBL in RP-MS was non-significant or lower compared to that in RP. Moreover, TBL tended to be lower in upslope positions than downslope in the pure forests, while there was no difference in most silvopastoral systems. In summary, PS and PO may be suggested as the tree species selection in vegetation restoration processes for about five years, QV may be a better alternative for a long term, while RP is not recommended.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 11

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

PS-MS, PO-MS, and QV-MS generally promoted diameter, height, and biomass load.

Taxon
treet0
Treatment
silvopastoral systems PS-MS, PO-MS, and QV-MSe0
Outcome
DBH, TH, and TBLe0
Direction
promotede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“DBH, TH, and TBL were promoted in the silvopastoral systems PS-MS, PO-MS, and QV-MS.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1024–1108 · show in text ↑
t0

“Tree”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
t1

“Tree”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
e1

“DBH, TH, and TBL were promoted in the silvopastoral systems PS-MS, PO-MS, and QV-MS.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1024–1108 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

PS-MS and PO-MS had significantly higher diameter and biomass than pure stands in 2014–2016.

Taxon
treet0
Treatment
PS-MS and PO-MSe0
Outcome
DBH and TBLe0
Direction
highere0
Qualifier
2014–2016e0
Comparator
pure forests of PS and MSe0

Verbatim

e0

“the DBH and TBL of PS-MS and PO-MS tended to be higher and were significantly higher than the pure forests of PS and MS, respectively, in 2014–2016”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1120–1267 · show in text ↑
t0

“Tree”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
t1

“Tree”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
e1

“the DBH and TBL of PS-MS and PO-MS tended to be higher and were significantly higher than the pure forests of PS and MS, respectively, in 2014–2016”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1120–1267 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Silvopastoral diameter differences were nonsignificant in 2018 and 2022, and biomass differences in 2018 and 2020.

Taxon
treet0
Treatment
silvopastoral systemse0
Outcome
DBH in 2018 and 2022, and for TBL in 2018 and 2020e0
Direction
not significantly differente0
Comparator
pure forestse0

Verbatim

e0

“silvopastoral systems were not significantly different from the pure forests for DBH in 2018 and 2022, and for TBL in 2018 and 2020.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1273–1405 · show in text ↑
t0

“Tree”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
t1

“Tree”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
e1

“silvopastoral systems were not significantly different from the pure forests for DBH in 2018 and 2022, and for TBL in 2018 and 2020.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1273–1405 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

PS-MS and PO-MS had lower tree height than pure stands in 2014–2016.

Taxon
treet0
Treatment
PS-MS and PO-MSe0
Outcome
THe0
Direction
lowere0
Qualifier
2014–2016e0
Comparator
PS and POe0

Verbatim

e0

“TH was lower in PS-MS and PO-MS than that in PS and PO in 2014–2016”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1406–1473 · show in text ↑
t0

“Tree”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
t1

“Tree”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
e1

“TH was lower in PS-MS and PO-MS than that in PS and PO in 2014–2016”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1406–1473 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

PS-MS and PS had no tree height difference in 2018 and 2022.

Taxon
treet0
Treatment
PS-MSe0
Outcome
THe0
Direction
no differencee0
Qualifier
2018 and 2022e0
Comparator
PSe0

Verbatim

e0

“there was no difference of TH between PS-MS and PS in 2018 and 2022”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1481–1548 · show in text ↑
t0

“Tree”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
t1

“Tree”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
e1

“there was no difference of TH between PS-MS and PS in 2018 and 2022”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1481–1548 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

PO-MS tree height exceeded PO in 2018, 2020, and 2022.

Taxon
treet0
Treatment
PO-MSe0
Outcome
THe0
Direction
highere0
Qualifier
2018, 2020 and 2022e0
Comparator
POe0

Verbatim

e0

“TH was higher in PO-MS than that in PO in 2018, 2020 and 2022.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1554–1616 · show in text ↑
t0

“Tree”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
t1

“Tree”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
e1

“TH was higher in PO-MS than that in PO in 2018, 2020 and 2022.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1554–1616 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

QV-MS exceeded QV for diameter, height, and biomass load.

Taxon
treet0
Treatment
QV-MSe0
Outcome
DBH, TH, and TBLe0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
QVe0

Verbatim

e0

“The DBH, TH, and TBL were all higher in QV-MS than QV.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1617–1671 · show in text ↑
t0

“Tree”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
t1

“Tree”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
e1

“The DBH, TH, and TBL were all higher in QV-MS than QV.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1617–1671 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmixednot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

RP-MS biomass was nonsignificant or lower compared with RP.

Taxon
treet0
Treatment
RP-MSe0
Outcome
TBLe0
Direction
lowere0
Comparator
RPe0

Verbatim

e0

“The TBL in RP-MS was non-significant or lower compared to that in RP.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1672–1741 · show in text ↑
t0

“Tree”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
t1

“Tree”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
e1

“The TBL in RP-MS was non-significant or lower compared to that in RP.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1672–1741 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pure forest biomass tended to be lower upslope than downslope.

Taxon
treet0
Outcome
TBLe0
Direction
lowere0
Comparator
downslopee0
Setting
upslope positionse0

Verbatim

e0

“TBL tended to be lower in upslope positions than downslope in the pure forests”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1752–1830 · show in text ↑
t0

“Tree”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
t1

“Tree”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
e1

“TBL tended to be lower in upslope positions than downslope in the pure forests”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1752–1830 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Most silvopastoral systems showed no upslope versus downslope biomass difference.

Taxon
treet0
Outcome
no differencee0
Direction
no differencee0
Setting
silvopastoral systemse0

Verbatim

e0

“while there was no difference in most silvopastoral systems.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1832–1892 · show in text ↑
t0

“Tree”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
t1

“Tree”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
e1

“while there was no difference in most silvopastoral systems.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1832–1892 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors suggest PS and PO for approximately five years of restoration, QV for longer periods, and advise against RP.

Taxon
treet0
Outcome
tree species selection in vegetation restoration processese0
Qualifier
about five yearse0

Verbatim

e0

“PS and PO may be suggested as the tree species selection in vegetation restoration processes for about five years, QV may be a better alternative for a long term, while RP is not recommended.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1905–2096 · show in text ↑
t0

“Tree”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
t1

“Tree”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–4 · show in text ↑
e1

“PS and PO may be suggested as the tree species selection in vegetation restoration processes for about five years, QV may be a better alternative for a long term, while RP is not recommended.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1905–2096 · show in text ↑