2021
DOI: 10.15244/pjoes/130339
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of Biological Crust on Soil Properties under Different Karst Rocky Desertification Habitats

Abstract: Biological crust is an important type of surface cover in karst ecosystems and plays a key role in the restoration of rocky desertification and ecological control projects. It is very important to study the influence of different types of biological crust on the physical and chemical properties of subsoil under different levels of rocky desertification to explore the formation and development of soil in karst ecologically fragile areas and the stability of soil environment. In the crust layer, total nitrogen, … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 15 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The curve is a fitting curve obtained by Gaussian equation fitting; Figure S2: Funnel plot of logarithmic response ratio of soil organic carbon (SOC), total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), available nitrogen (AN), available phosphorus (AP) content and Alkaline Phosphatase, Cellulase, Sucrase, Urease activity to biological crust, funnel plot effect value (natural logarithm of response ratio, lnR , horizontal axis) and standard error ( SE , vertical axis); Table S1: The overall heterogeneity ( Q T ) of the response of each explanatory variable to the biological crust, the percentage of heterogeneity caused by the real variation between the effect sizes ( I 2 ), and the heterogeneity between groups ( Q B ); Table S2: Kendall’s tau rank correlation tests for assessing publication bias; Table S3: Rosenthal’s fail-safe numbers for assessing publication bias; Table S4: The results of weighted regression analysis of the effect values ( lnR ) of response variables with annual average temperature, annual average rainfall and altitude; Table S5: Meta-analysis of initial data. References [ 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 ,…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The curve is a fitting curve obtained by Gaussian equation fitting; Figure S2: Funnel plot of logarithmic response ratio of soil organic carbon (SOC), total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP), available nitrogen (AN), available phosphorus (AP) content and Alkaline Phosphatase, Cellulase, Sucrase, Urease activity to biological crust, funnel plot effect value (natural logarithm of response ratio, lnR , horizontal axis) and standard error ( SE , vertical axis); Table S1: The overall heterogeneity ( Q T ) of the response of each explanatory variable to the biological crust, the percentage of heterogeneity caused by the real variation between the effect sizes ( I 2 ), and the heterogeneity between groups ( Q B ); Table S2: Kendall’s tau rank correlation tests for assessing publication bias; Table S3: Rosenthal’s fail-safe numbers for assessing publication bias; Table S4: The results of weighted regression analysis of the effect values ( lnR ) of response variables with annual average temperature, annual average rainfall and altitude; Table S5: Meta-analysis of initial data. References [ 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 ,…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%