SynthesisPeerJ2022
Ecological restoration stimulates environmental outcomes but exacerbates water shortage in the Loess Plateau.
Synthesis in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Restoration is the natural and intervention-assisted set of processes designed to promote and facilitate the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed. However, it can also have an adverse effect on the environment. Thus, assessing an ecological restoration project's impact is crucial to determining its success and optimum management strategies. We performed a meta-analysis concerning the environmental outcomes during the years 2000-2015 resulting from the "Grain for Green" Project (GFGP) implementation in the Loess Plateau (LP). Data were gathered from 40 peer-reviewed English-language articles chosen from a pool of 332 articles. The results showed that, on average, GFGP increased forest coverage by 35.7% (95% CI [24.15-47.52%]), and grassland by 1.05% (95% CI [0.8-1.28%]). At the same time, GFGP has a positive impact on soil carbon (C) sequestration, net ecosystem production (NEP), and net primary production (NPP), from the years 2000 to 2015 by an average of 36% (95% CI [28.96-43.18%]), 22.7% (95% CI [9.10-36.79%]), and 13.5% (95% CI [9.44-17.354%]), respectively. Soil erosion, sediment load, runoff coefficient, and water yield were reduced by 13.3% (95% CI [0.27-25.76%]), 21.5% (95% CI [1.50-39.99%]), 22.4% (95% CI [5.28-40.45%]) and 43.3% (95% CI [27.03-82.86%]), respectively, from the years 2000 to 2015. Our results indicate that water supply decreased with the increase of vegetation coverage. Therefore, to balance the needs for green space, GFGP policies and strategies should recover, enhance, and sustain more resilient ecosystems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.