Effects of enclosure on vegetation and soil in Xilingol desertified grassland

doi:10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2025.00121

Journal of Desert Research ›› 2026, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (2): 143-154.DOI: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2025.00121

Effects of enclosure on vegetation and soil in Xilingol desertified grassland

Yuqing Mi¹^,²(), Hongbin Xu¹, Lei Zhang¹(), Zhiguo Yang¹, Yuekun Tang³, Haiguang Huang¹

^1.Inner Mongolia Key Laboratory of Sandy Land （Desert） Ecosystem and Ecological Engineering，Inner Mongolia Academy of Forestry Sciences，Hohhot 010010，China
^2.College of Ecology and Environment，Inner Mongolia University，Hohhot 010021，China
^3.Tongliao Forest Park Management Center，Tongliao 028000，Inner Mongolia，China

Received:2025-03-19 Revised:2025-05-19 Online:2026-03-20 Published:2026-04-13
Contact: Lei Zhang

Abstract

Abstract:

To analyze the mechanism of long-term grazing exclusion （10 years） on the ecological restoration of sandy grassland， this study was conducted in the Xilin Gol desertified grassland. Using the quadrat method for continuous observation and combining Redundancy Analysis （RDA） and Mantel test， we systematically investigated the relationships between vegetation structure/function and soil nutrients. The results indicated that：（1） After 10 years of grazing exclusion， the aboveground biomass increased by 46.5%， while community height， coverage， and density were significantly enhanced. The community stabilized with perennial grasses as the dominant functional group， but this was accompanied by significant decreases in species' Shannon-Wiener diversity index， Simpson dominance index， and Pielou evenness index by 14.10%， 9.40%， and 9.57%， respectively， compared to the control site. （2） Grazing exclusion for 10 years significantly enhanced the soil fertility of the desertified grassland. The contents of total carbon， organic matter， total nitrogen， and hydrolytic nitrogen in the grazing exclusion treatment were significantly increased across soil layers， with total contents increased by 26.31%， 22.78%， 16.08%， and 10.17%， respectively. （3） RDA and Mantel tests revealed that sand content and total nitrogen were key soil factors influencing plant community and functional group biomass. Soil pH and phosphorus content in the 0-5 cm layer showed significant negative correlations with vegetation community characteristics， while total carbon， total nitrogen， and organic matter in the 5-20 cm layer were significantly positively correlated with functional group biomass.

Key words: enclosure, redundancy analysis, plant functional groups, soil factors

CLC Number:

Q948

Yuqing Mi, Hongbin Xu, Lei Zhang, Zhiguo Yang, Yuekun Tang, Haiguang Huang. Effects of enclosure on vegetation and soil in Xilingol desertified grassland[J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2026, 46(2): 143-154.

Figures/Tables 9

References 47

[1]	江康威，张青青，王亚菲，等.放牧干扰下天山北坡中段植物功能群特征及其与土壤环境因子的关系［J］.植物生态学报，2024，48（6）：701-718.
[2]	林丽，张德罡，曹广民，等.高寒嵩草草甸植物群落数量特征对不同利用强度的短期响应［J］.生态学报，2016，36（24）：8034-8043.
[3]	熊炳桥，赵丽娅，高丹丹.围封对退化沙质草地植物群落的影响［J］.中国沙漠，2018，38（2）：324-328.
[4]	Zhao L P， Wang D， Liang F H，et al.Grazing exclusion promotes grasses functional group dominance via increasing of bud banks in steppe community［J］.Journal of Environmental Management，2019，251：109589.
[5]	Wairore J N， Mureithi S M， Wasonga O V，et al.Benefits derived from rehabilitating a degraded semi‐arid rangeland in private enclosures in West Pokot County，Kenya［J］.Land Degradation & Development，2016，27（3）：532-541.
[6]	Cheng J， Jing G， Wei L，et al.Long‐term grazing exclusion effects on vegetation characteristics，soil properties and bacterial communities in the semi‐arid grasslands of China［J］.Ecological Engineering，2016，97：170-178.
[7]	詹瑾，韩丹，杨红玲，等.科尔沁沙地植被恢复过程中群落组成及多样性演变特征［J］.中国沙漠，2022，42（2）：194-206.
[8]	刘晓娟，马克平.植物功能性状研究进展［J］.中国科学：生命科学，2015，45（4）：325-339.
[9]	马文静，张庆，牛建明，等.物种多样性和功能群多样性与生态系统生产力的关系：以内蒙古短花针茅草原为例［J］.植物生态学报，2013，37（7）：620-630.
[10]	Yongfei B， Francesca M C.Grassland soil carbon sequestration： Current understanding，challenges，and solutions［J］.Science，2022，377（6606）：603-608.
[11]	刘海强，李世雄，赵文，等.免耕补播对中度退化草地植被及土壤细菌群落特征的影响［J］.草地学报，2025，33（10）：3280-3290.
[12]	桑思月，杨沂杰，赵京东，等.围封对辽西北退化草地土壤有机碳含量的影响［J］.生态学杂志，2025，44 （3）：884-891.
[13]	Wang J， Ren X， Wu Q，et al.Linking fungal diversity with soil water repellency through grassland enclosure in Loess Hilly Region［J］.Catena，2025，250：108723-108723.
[14]	张建鹏，李玉强，赵学勇，等.围封对沙漠化草地土壤理化性质和固碳潜力恢复的影响［J］.中国沙漠，2017，37（3）：491-499.
[15]	侯扶江，宁娇，冯琦胜.草原放牧系统的类型与生产力［J］.草业科学，2016，33（3）：353-367.
[16]	Dong S K， Wang X X， Liu S L，et al.Reproductive responses of alpine plants to grassland degradation and artificial restoration in the Qinghai‐Tibetan Plateau［J］.Grass and Forage Science，2015，70（2）：229-238.
[17]	Altesor A， Oesterheld M， Leoni E，et al.Effect of grazing on community structure and productivity of a Uruguayan grassland［J］.Plant Ecology，2005，179（1）：83-91.
[18]	韩蓓蕾，李楠，王忠武，等.内蒙古放牧荒漠草原植物多样性调查方法的比较和优化［J］.草地学报，2024，32 （12）：3932-3940.
[19]	杨帆.基于植物群落特征的内蒙古荒漠草原适宜围封年限对比评价［D］.呼和浩特：内蒙古农业大学，2021.
[20]	方精云，沈泽昊，唐志尧，等.“中国山地植物物种多样性调查计划”及若干技术规范［J］.生物多样性，2004（1）：5-9.
[21]	Golodets C， Kigel J， Sternberg M.Recovery of plant species composition and ecosystem function after cessation of grazing in a Mediterranean grassland［J］.Plant and Soil，2010，329（1）：365-378.
[22]	吴婷，宋乃平，陈晓莹，等.围栏封育和放牧对盐池荒漠草原植物群落特征的影响［J］.草地学报，2019，27（3）：651-660.
[23]	赵哈林，大黑俊哉，李玉霖，等.科尔沁沙质草地植物群落的放牧退化及其自然恢复过程［J］.中国沙漠，2009，29（2）：229-235.
[24]	王益涛，刘建康，武志嘉，等.围封对荒漠草原典型植物群落特征及多样性的影响［J］.水土保持研究，2025，32（1）：121-130.
[25]	闫瑞瑞.不同放牧制度对短花针茅荒漠草原植被与土壤影响的研究［D］.呼和浩特：内蒙古农业大学，2008.
[26]	梁存柱，王炜，朱宗元，等.荒漠区一年生植物层片的组织格局与生态适应模式［J］.干旱区资源与环境，2002（1）：77-83.
[27]	苏艳龙.内蒙古荒漠草原不同围封年限围栏内外植被特征及土壤理化性质差异［D］.呼和浩特：内蒙古大学，2023.
[28]	Liao H， Luo W， Peng S，et al.Plant diversity，soil biota and resistance to exotic invasion［J］.Diversity and Distributions，2015，21（7）：826-835.
[29]	靳三玲，刁兆岩，吕世海，等.呼伦贝尔草原植物功能群对围封及放牧的响应特征［J］.干旱区资源与环境，2022，36（1）：151-158.
[30]	N J P， Judith S， Timothy O，et al.Evolutionary history of grazing and resources determine herbivore exclusion effects on plant diversity［J］.Nature Ecology & Evolution，2022，6（9）： 1290-1298.
[31]	贺聪.围封年限对高寒草甸植物功能性状、多样性和生产力的影响［D］.兰州：兰州大学，2023.
[32]	Zhang C， Liu G， Song Z，et al.Interactions of soil bacteria and fungi with plants during long-term grazing exclusion in semiarid grasslands［J］.Soil Biology and Biochemistry，2018，124 47-58.
[33]	周军建.不同水稻根系分泌物对根际土壤微生物群落多样性影响的研究［D］.福州：福建农林大学，2007.
[34]	Wang Y， Lambers H.Root-released organic anions in response to low phosphorus availability：recent progress，challenges and future perspectives［J］.Plant and Soil： An International Journal on Plant-Soil Relationships，2020，447（2）：135-156.
[35]	董雪，郝玉光，辛智鸣，等.浑善达克沙地3种灌木土壤分形特征与养分关系［J］.草业学报，2020，29（6）：172-181.
[36]	Reynolds L H， Packer A， Bever D J，et al.Grassroots ecology： plant-microbe-soil interactions as drivers of plant community structure and dynamics［J］.Ecology，2003，84（9）：2281-2291.
[37]	李佳秀，张青松，吴勇，等.围封对草地植被生长和土壤特性的影响研究进展［J］.中国草地学报，2023，45（5）：137-150.
[38]	余钱雯，王玉琴，王宏生，等.放牧和围封下黄帚橐吾型退化草地植物化学计量学及土壤养分特征的变化［J］.中国草地学报，2023，45（6）：73-82.
[39]	李学斌，陈林，樊瑞霞，等.围封条件下荒漠草原4种典型植物群落枯落物输入对土壤理化性质的影响［J］.浙江大学学报（农业与生命科学版），2015，41（1）：101-110.
[40]	马媛，辛智鸣，蔺方春，等.乌兰布和沙漠土壤粒径与植物群落多样性特征分析［J］.中国野生植物资源，2024，43（11）：98-105.
[41]	马艳萍，黄宁.植被与风蚀耦合动力学模型及其应用［J］.中国沙漠，2011，31（3）：665-671.
[42]	贺俊.毛乌素沙地樟子松人工林恢复过程中土壤粒径演变特征［J］.水土保持研究，2023，30（4）：110-114.
[43]	邹婧汝，赵新全.围栏禁牧与放牧对草地生态系统固碳能力的影响［J］.草业科学，2015，32（11）：1748-1756.
[44]	韩路，王海珍.塔里木荒漠河岸林物种多样性沿地下水埋深梯度的分布格局［J］.生态学报，2024，44（2）：832-843.
[45]	王燕，赵哈林，董治宝，等.荒漠绿洲农田盐渍化过程中土壤有机碳和全氮变化特征［J］.水土保持学报，2014，28（6）：200-205.
[46]	岳梅，德海山，叶贺，等.荒漠草原土壤原生生物群落对长期放牧的响应［J］.土壤学报，2025，62（4）：1221-1232.
[47]	任梓欢.不同放牧强度下内蒙古短花针茅荒漠草原生态系统健康评价［D］.呼和浩特：内蒙古农业大学，2024.

编号	物种	拉丁学名	功能群	物种重要值		功能群重要值
编号	物种	拉丁学名	功能群	围封	对照	围封	对照
1	无芒隐子草	Cleistogenes songorica	多年生禾草	—	0.0900	0.4475	0.5734
2	短花针茅	Stipa breviflora		0.1028	0.3390
3	糙隐子草	Cleistogenes squarrosa		0.2274	0.1254
4	稗草	Echinochloa crusgalli		0.0192	0.0117
5	寸草苔	Carex duriuscula		0.0981	0.0073
6	狗尾草	Setaria viridis	一、二年生草本	—	0.0085	0.1509	0.1223
7	栉叶蒿	Neopallasia pectinata		—	0.0195
8	蒺藜	Tribulus terrestris		0.1241	0.0604
9	猪毛菜	Kali collinum		0.0102	0.0066
10	画眉草	Eragrostis pilosa		0.0166	0.0273
11	草麻黄	Ephedra sinica	灌木及半灌木	0.0289	0.0503	0.1343	0.1022
12	木地肤	Bassia prostrata		0.0126	0.0049
13	狭叶锦鸡儿	Caragana stenophylla		0.0928	0.0470
14	碱韭	Allium polyrhizum	多年生杂类草	0.0221	0.0253	0.2672	0.2019
15	细叶韭	Allium tenuissimum		0.0050	0.0163
16	蒙古韭	Allium mongolicum		0.0327	0.0269
17	银灰旋花	Convolvulus ammannii		0.1314	0.0518
18	刺旋花	Convolvulus tragacanthoides		—	0.0065
19	鹤虱	Lappula myosotis		—	0.0036
20	北芸香	Haplophyllumdauricum		0.0136	0.0172
21	冬青叶兔唇花	Lagochilus ilicifolius		—	0.0066
22	天门冬	Asparagus cochinchinensis		0.0394	0.0477
23	支枝鸦葱	Takhtajaniantha austriaca		0.0230	—

编号	物种	拉丁学名	功能群	物种重要值		功能群重要值
编号	物种	拉丁学名	功能群	围封	对照	围封	对照
1	无芒隐子草	Cleistogenes songorica	多年生禾草	—	0.0900	0.4475	0.5734
2	短花针茅	Stipa breviflora		0.1028	0.3390
3	糙隐子草	Cleistogenes squarrosa		0.2274	0.1254
4	稗草	Echinochloa crusgalli		0.0192	0.0117
5	寸草苔	Carex duriuscula		0.0981	0.0073
6	狗尾草	Setaria viridis	一、二年生草本	—	0.0085	0.1509	0.1223
7	栉叶蒿	Neopallasia pectinata		—	0.0195
8	蒺藜	Tribulus terrestris		0.1241	0.0604
9	猪毛菜	Kali collinum		0.0102	0.0066
10	画眉草	Eragrostis pilosa		0.0166	0.0273
11	草麻黄	Ephedra sinica	灌木及半灌木	0.0289	0.0503	0.1343	0.1022
12	木地肤	Bassia prostrata		0.0126	0.0049
13	狭叶锦鸡儿	Caragana stenophylla		0.0928	0.0470
14	碱韭	Allium polyrhizum	多年生杂类草	0.0221	0.0253	0.2672	0.2019
15	细叶韭	Allium tenuissimum		0.0050	0.0163
16	蒙古韭	Allium mongolicum		0.0327	0.0269
17	银灰旋花	Convolvulus ammannii		0.1314	0.0518
18	刺旋花	Convolvulus tragacanthoides		—	0.0065
19	鹤虱	Lappula myosotis		—	0.0036
20	北芸香	Haplophyllumdauricum		0.0136	0.0172
21	冬青叶兔唇花	Lagochilus ilicifolius		—	0.0066
22	天门冬	Asparagus cochinchinensis		0.0394	0.0477
23	支枝鸦葱	Takhtajaniantha austriaca		0.0230	—

土壤理化指标	围封			对照
土壤理化指标	0~5 cm	5~10 cm	10~20 cm	0~5 cm	5~10 cm	10~20 cm
含水率	2.00±1.03^Ab	2.83±0.48^Aa	2.79±0.59^Aa	1.67±0.54^Ab	2.91±0.87^Aa	3.64±1.09^Aa
pH值	8.16±0.37^Aa	8.17±0.31^Aa	8.18±2.95^Aa	8.29±0.03^Aa	8.28±0.03^Aa	8.27±0.06^Aa
全碳/(g·kg^-1)	11.01±1.73^Aa	11.14±2.07^Aa	11.12±1.64^Aa	9.00±0.78^Ba	8.51±1.46^Ba	8.83±1.09^Ba
有机质/(g·kg^-1)	14.60±1.85^Aa	15.37±2.46^Aa	15.03±1.54^Aa	12.51±1.94^Ba	11.61±1.23^Ba	12.53±1.27^Ba
全磷/(g·kg^-1)	0.29±0.02^Ab	0.30±0.01^Ab	0.32±0.01^Ba	0.31±0.04^Ab	0.33±0.03^Aab	0.35±0.02^Aa
全钾/(g·kg^-1)	21.49±0.73^Aa	21.17±0.60^Aa	21.79±0.62^Aa	21.27±2.10^Aa	21.01±1.79^Aa	20.79±1.71^Aa
全氮/(g·kg^-1)	0.99±0.08^Aa	0.99±0.08^Aa	0.98±0.09^Aa	0.91±0.06^Ba	0.84±0.07^Bab	0.80±0.07^Bb
有效磷/(mg·kg^-1)	6.88±1.22^Bb	10.08±0.83^Aa	10.31±0.55^Aa	9.61±0.56^Aa	10.01±0.71^Ba	9.60±0.64^Ba
速效钾/(mg·kg^-1)	106.78±12.58^Aa	106.00±12.54^Aa	106.11±12.09^Aa	107.78±17.54^Aa	114.11±18.57^Aa	115.78±18.97^Aa
水解性氮/(mg·kg^-1)	56.33±4.06^Aa	53.33±4.16^Aa	56.33±3.07^Aa	49.78±5.80^Ba	51.67±4.27^Ba	49.22±4.44^Ba
砂粒(0.05~2 mm)/%	81.28±0.98^Aa	81.59±0.65^Aa	81.51±0.69^Aa	77.52±0.61^Aa	77.69±0.70^Aa	77.77±0.68^Aa
粉粒(0.02~0.05mm)/%	10.39±0.16^Aa	10.21±0.32^Aa	10.24±0.12^Ba	12.00±1.14^Aa	11.65±1.11^Aa	11.61±1.12^Aa
黏粒(<0.02 mm)/%	8.33±0.87^Aa	8.38±0.79^Aa	8.26±0.69^Aa	10.48±1.58^Aa	10.67±1.67^Aa	10.61±1.71^Aa

土壤理化指标	围封			对照
土壤理化指标	0~5 cm	5~10 cm	10~20 cm	0~5 cm	5~10 cm	10~20 cm
含水率	2.00±1.03^Ab	2.83±0.48^Aa	2.79±0.59^Aa	1.67±0.54^Ab	2.91±0.87^Aa	3.64±1.09^Aa
pH值	8.16±0.37^Aa	8.17±0.31^Aa	8.18±2.95^Aa	8.29±0.03^Aa	8.28±0.03^Aa	8.27±0.06^Aa
全碳/(g·kg^-1)	11.01±1.73^Aa	11.14±2.07^Aa	11.12±1.64^Aa	9.00±0.78^Ba	8.51±1.46^Ba	8.83±1.09^Ba
有机质/(g·kg^-1)	14.60±1.85^Aa	15.37±2.46^Aa	15.03±1.54^Aa	12.51±1.94^Ba	11.61±1.23^Ba	12.53±1.27^Ba
全磷/(g·kg^-1)	0.29±0.02^Ab	0.30±0.01^Ab	0.32±0.01^Ba	0.31±0.04^Ab	0.33±0.03^Aab	0.35±0.02^Aa
全钾/(g·kg^-1)	21.49±0.73^Aa	21.17±0.60^Aa	21.79±0.62^Aa	21.27±2.10^Aa	21.01±1.79^Aa	20.79±1.71^Aa
全氮/(g·kg^-1)	0.99±0.08^Aa	0.99±0.08^Aa	0.98±0.09^Aa	0.91±0.06^Ba	0.84±0.07^Bab	0.80±0.07^Bb
有效磷/(mg·kg^-1)	6.88±1.22^Bb	10.08±0.83^Aa	10.31±0.55^Aa	9.61±0.56^Aa	10.01±0.71^Ba	9.60±0.64^Ba
速效钾/(mg·kg^-1)	106.78±12.58^Aa	106.00±12.54^Aa	106.11±12.09^Aa	107.78±17.54^Aa	114.11±18.57^Aa	115.78±18.97^Aa
水解性氮/(mg·kg^-1)	56.33±4.06^Aa	53.33±4.16^Aa	56.33±3.07^Aa	49.78±5.80^Ba	51.67±4.27^Ba	49.22±4.44^Ba
砂粒(0.05~2 mm)/%	81.28±0.98^Aa	81.59±0.65^Aa	81.51±0.69^Aa	77.52±0.61^Aa	77.69±0.70^Aa	77.77±0.68^Aa
粉粒(0.02~0.05mm)/%	10.39±0.16^Aa	10.21±0.32^Aa	10.24±0.12^Ba	12.00±1.14^Aa	11.65±1.11^Aa	11.61±1.12^Aa
黏粒(<0.02 mm)/%	8.33±0.87^Aa	8.38±0.79^Aa	8.26±0.69^Aa	10.48±1.58^Aa	10.67±1.67^Aa	10.61±1.71^Aa

Effects of enclosure on vegetation and soil in Xilingol desertified grassland

RichHTML

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 9

References 47

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

[1]	Wenjie Cao, Yun Chen, Yuqiang Li, Xuyang Wang, Xiangwen Gong, Zichen Guo. Impact of long-term enclosure of severely desertified grasslands on plant communities in the Horqin Sandy Land [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2025, 45(4): 262-271.
[2]	Panyang Shi, Hongwei Chen, Jianrui Dong, Wenqin Zhao, Rong Li. Ecological response of short-lived plants in the Gurbantunggut Desert to rodent disturbances [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2024, 44(5): 236-244.
[3]	Min Chen, Zhengjiaoyi Wang, Jingjuan Qiao, Xujun Ma. Effect of floral traits on pollination efficiency of Ammopiptanthus mongolicus in enclosure [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2024, 44(5): 163-169.
[4]	Shuai Wang, Dengke Ma, Zhibin He, Weihao Sun, Jun Du, Rui Li, Wen Wang, Shuping Yang, Shuxuan Zhao. Vegetation diversity and its relationship with soil physical and chemical properties in Hedong Sandy Land， Ningxia [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2024, 44(4): 202-211.
[5]	Yuanzhong Zhu, Wenda Huang, Hailun Yu, Yuanzheng He, Huaihai Wang, Shangbin Shi, Zhiqiang Kou. Leaf functional traits of plant community with different hydrothermal gradients in Horqin sandy grassland [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2024, 44(2): 143-150.
[6]	Wang Guohua, Ren Yijun, Gou Qianqian. The changes of soil physical and chemical property during the enclosure process in a typical desert oasis ecotone of the Hexi Corridor in northwestern China [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2020, 40(2): 222-231.
[7]	Tian Haijing, Sun Tao, Liu Xusheng, Kong Xiangji. Effect Evaluation of the Enclosure-Rehabilitation of Desertification Land in Cuogang Based on Time Series Remote Sensing Data [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2019, 39(3): 155-162.
[8]	Xiong Bingqiao, Zhao Liya, Gao Dandan. Effect of Enclosure on the Structure of Plant Community in Degraded Sandy Grasslands of Eastern Inner Mongolia [J]. JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH, 2018, 38(2): 324-328.
[9]	Sun Dianchao, Li Yulin, Zhao Xueyong, Luo Yayong, Bi jingdong. Effects of Grazing and Enclosure on net Ecosystem Carbon Exchange in the Horqin Sandy Grassland [J]. JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH, 2016, 36(1): 93-102.
[10]	Sun Dianchao, Li Yulin, Zhao Xueyong, Mao Wei, Yue Xiangfei. Effects of Grazing and Enclosure on Soil Respiration Rate in the Horqin Sandy Grassland [J]. JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH, 2015, 35(6): 1620-1627.
[11]	ZHANG Pei-dong;XU Jing;MA Jin-bao;LI Xin-rong. Evaluation on Performance of Enclosure for Green Project based on Multi-objective Decision-making Model: A Case Study in Hanquangou Valley in Western China [J]. JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH, 2009, 29(5): 920-927.
[12]	LI Feng-rui;LIU Ji-liang;KANG Ling-fen;HUANG Zhi-gang. Responses of Soil Seed Banks and Above-ground Plant Communities to Grazing Exclusion in a Degraded Sandy Grassland [J]. JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH, 2008, 28(6): 1078-1085.
[13]	XU Li-heng;WANG Ji-he;LI Yi;MA Quan-lin;ZHANG De-kui;LIU You-jun;CHEN Fang. Variations of Soil Physical Properties in Desertification Reversion Process at South Edge of Tengger Desert [J]. JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH, 2008, 28(4): 690-695.
[14]	CHANG Hai-jun;CHEN Xin. Effect of Enclosing Desertified Grassland from Grazing in Semi-arid Desert Steppe [J]. JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH, 2007, 27(2): 206-209.
[15]	WANG Ji-he;MA Quan-lin;LIU Hu-jun;YANG Zi-hui;ZHANG De-kui. Effect of Wind-breaking and Sand-fixing of Vegetation in Progressive Succession on Desertification Land in Arid Area [J]. JOURNAL OF DESERT RESEARCH, 2006, 26(6): 908-909.