Ecological Indicators 141 (2022) 109116

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Application of soil quality index to determine the effects of different

vegetation types on soil quality in the Yellow River Delta wetland
Yinghu Zhang a, c, d, Lu Wang a, c, d, Jiang Jiang a, c, d, Jinchi Zhang a, c, d, Zhenming Zhang b,
Mingxiang Zhang b, *
a
Co-Innovation Center for Sustainable Forestry in Southern China, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037, PR China
b
School of Ecology and Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, PR China
c
Jiangsu Provincial Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Ecological Restoration, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037, PR China
d
Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu High Education Institutions (PAPD), Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037, PR China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Assessment of soil quality in different vegetation types of wetland ecosystems is essential for soil functioning,
Soil properties such as nutrient cycling and vegetation growth, particularly the maintenance of wetland ecosystem sustain­
Soil quality index ability. Wetland degradation can extremely influence soil quality. However, prediction of soil quality in terms of
Indicator
soil quality index in wetland soils remains obscure. In this study with the fundamental goal to assess soil quality,
Yellow River Delta wetland
we have intended to assemble a range of soil quality indicators to characterize the soil quality index (SQI). The
minimum data set (MDS) from the Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to determine the SQI. With such
objectives, three vegetation types: Robinia pseudoacacia community (tree), Tamarix chinensis community (bush),
and Suaeda salsa community (grass) were selected in the Yellow River Delta wetland, eastern of China. A total of
108 soil samples [3 sites (tree, bush and grass)—3 field plots—3 replicates—4 soil depth layers: 0–10 cm, 10–20
cm, 20–40 cm, and 40–60 cm] were collected for laboratory analyses. This study showed that there were high
variations in soil physical and chemical properties among the three sites. Soil organic carbon (SOC), silt, clay,
and pH at tree site, total soil porosity (TSP), soil organic carbon (SOC), pH, and soil bulk density (SBD) at bush
site, and total soil porosity (TSP), silt, and soil electronic conductivity (SEC) at grass site were retained in the
MDS. SOC and TSP were the key soil quality indicators. The values of the SQI at 0–10 cm soil depth at all three
sites (2.236, 0.895, and 2.573 respectively) were the highest compared with other soil depths, indicating the best
soil quality in the upper soil layers (0–10 cm). The values of the SQI at 0–10 cm soil depth at both tree site and
grass site were similar, and they were higher than those at bush site. At tree site, the values of the SQI decreased
with increasing soil depth, which indicated that soil quality became worse with depth. At bush site, the values of
the SQI decreased with increasing soil depth (0–40 cm), while the values increased at 40–60 cm depth, indicating
better soil quality in the deeper soil layers (40–60 cm). At grass site, the values of the SQI at 10–20 cm and 40–60
cm soil depth were lower than those at 20–40 cm soil depth, indicating better soil quality at 20–40 cm soil depth.
It is concluded that the SQI can be compared more accurately in different vegetation types of wetland ecosystems
based on its simplicity and quantitative flexibility. These findings are of importance because the assessment of
the SQI allows to quantify different vegetation effects on soil quality.

1. Introduction inadequate use of the resource can lead to the depletion of soil nutrients,
the loss of better soil quality, and the problem of soil pollution (Tauqeer
Land is a valuable natural resource that is essential for ecological et al., 2022a), ultimately resulting in land degradation (Tauqeer et al.,
balances based on its proper use (Jha et al., 2010). However, the 2022b). Land degradation is severe in the developing countries (Jha

Abbreviations: ISWC, initial soil water content; SBD, soil bulk density; TSP, total soil porosity; SCP, soil capillary porosity; SNCP, soil non-capillary porosity; SOC,
soil organic carbon; STN, soil total nitrogen; STP, soil total phosphorus; SAP, soil available phosphorus; SEC, soil electronic conductivity; RLD, root length density.
* Corresponding author at: School of Ecology and Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Qinghua East Road 35, Haidian District, Beijing 100083, PR
China.
E-mail address: pku2015hold@163.com (M. Zhang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109116
Received 10 March 2022; Received in revised form 24 June 2022; Accepted 26 June 2022
Available online 30 June 2022
1470-160X/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
Y. Zhang et al.
et al., 2010). This is because it can reduce soil carbon stocks (Tauqeer
et al., 2022a). For example, the area of land degradation is about 20% of
China’s total land due to unreasonable land use practices. The Yellow
River Delta in eastern China covers a total area of 26500 km2 and 85% of
the area is suffered from serious land degradation (Meng et al., 2019;
Deng, 2020). As one of the priority areas and the most active deltas in
China, the Yellow River Delta has been on the list of Ramsar Wetlands of
International Importance since 2013 (Zhao et al., 2019). It plays an
important role in ecological functions (i.e., water purification, biodi­
versity maintenance, and bird migration) (Chen et al., 2016) and eco­
nomic development potential (Bai et al., 2019). Since the 1950 s, Robinia
pseudoacacia and Tamarix chinensis communities were planted in the
area. However, Robinia pseudoacacia and Tamarix chinensis communities
have been seriously degraded since the 1990 s due to the activities
including agricultural exploration, urban residential area expansion,
and petroleum refining in the area, and the survival rate of vegetation in
the whole area is < 70%. Those activities can deteriorate the soil organic
carbon day by day (Tauqeer et al., 2022a). The soil organic carbon plays
a vital role in maintaining the soil nutrients availability and vegetation
production (Tauqeer et al., 2022b). The serious land degradation would
greatly affect the secondary soil salinization, which negatively in­
fluences the soil quality, and ultimately restricts the sustainable devel­
opment of society and economy (Bai et al., 2019). The change of soil
quality with time is essential for soil functioning, which results in sig­
nificant variation of soil properties in different vegetation types. How­
ever, a better knowledge on soil physical, chemical, and biological
properties in different vegetation types to reveal the mechanism behind
the degradation of wetland soils is rather unclear. Turan et al. (2019)
confirmed the complex relationship between soil physical, chemical,
biological properties and soil production, indicating their role in soil
quality. Turan (2022) also found that soil health and vegetation pro­
ductivity could be improved by the usage of various organic and inor­
ganic amendments, and that soil chemical and biological properties,
such as soil enzymatic activities, could be highly improved. Not only soil
physical and chemical properties can improve the soil quality, but also
soil biological properties can be treated as indicator evaluating soil
quality (Turan, 2021; Bilen and Turan, 2022). Different vegetation types
could cause significant difference in soil physical, chemical, and bio­
logical properties (Aon and Colaneri, 2001; Yifru and Taye, 2011;
Tauqeer et al., 2022a,b), and the shifts of soil physical, chemical, and
biological properties can be treated as a vital tool to assess soil quality
variation (Liu et al., 2018). Furthermore, these vegetation types usually
have long-lasting influences on soil properties and further disrupt soil
and water conservation by altering vegetation species composition and
soil management (Li et al., 2019).
Land degradation is a decrease in soil quality as measured by the
changes in soil properties (Ganiyu, 2018). Soil quality is defined as the
soil’s ability to function and to maintain plant and animal productivity
(Paul et al., 2020; Raiesi and Pejman, 2021). Soil quality assessment is
achieved by analyses of the properties of the soils, in combination with
the SQI. The SQI is a theoretical concept to assess sustainable land
management practices and ecosystem sustainability (Raiesi and Pejman,
2021). The SQI is also a diagnostic procedure to assess soil function and
overall health. However, selection of minimum physical and chemical
soil quality indicators remains a dispute in the course of determining the
SQI (Paul et al., 2020). The PCA is found to be a suitable method for
selecting the key soil quality indicators (Paul et al., 2020). The ability of
soil to function as a component of an ecosystem can be improved or
degraded depending on the changes of soil quality indicators. Soil
quality indicators that can reveal the soil productivity mainly include
soil bulk density, soil porosity, soil organic matter, and many others
(Ganiyu, 2018). Different vegetation types influence soil quality in­
dicators differently. Information about the effects of different vegetation
types on soil physical and chemical properties is vital for best land
management practices (Ganiyu, 2018).
Specially, we determined 14 soil quality indicators from 0 to 60 cm in
2
Ecological Indicators 141 (2022) 109116
soil depth and used the MDS approach to assess changes in soil quality.
We hoped to consider the following objectives: (1) Evaluate soil physical
and chemical properties of degraded wetland soils in the Yellow River
Delta wetland; (2) Imply the interrelationship between the physical and
chemical properties of the soils; and (3) Determine the soil quality by
soil quality index for the study area. The results of our study will be
useful for enabling local government to make reasonable decisions and
plans on the management of a series of wetland restoration projects.
Based on our results, we proposed alternative degraded wetland resto­
ration solutions in the Yellow River Delta wetland. Knowledge of the
assessment of stability of wetland ecosystems in this area can help other
regions avoid similar problems and improve the development of wetland
effectively.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study site description
The study area is located in the Yellow River Delta National Natural
Reserve (118◦ 32′ 981′′ –119◦ 20′ 450′′ E, 37◦ 34′ 768′′ –38◦ 12′ 310′′ N) in
northeastern Shandong Province, China (Fig. 1). The Yellow River Delta
National Natural Reserve covers an area of 153 km2. The main landform
types of the study area are the land zone, tidal flat zone, and subtidal
zone. The climate is warm-temperate continental with a mean annual
precipitation of 576.7 mm, a mean annual potential evapotranspiration
of 1,962 mm, a mean annual temperature of 12.1 ◦ C, and the frost-free
period 196 d (Bai et al., 2019). The main soil type in the study area is
mainly coastal saline soil, derived from the sediment. The three main
vegetation types are deciduous broad-leaved forests, marsh vegetation,
and salt-bearing vegetation. The dominant vegetation is Robinia pseu­
doacacia in the deciduous broad-leaved forest communities, Phragmites
australis in the marsh vegetation communities, and Tamarix chinensis and
Suaeda salsa in salt-bearing vegetation communities (Bai et al., 2019).
The study area has been on the list of Ramsar Wetlands of International
Importance since 2013. It plays an important role in water purification,
biodiversity maintenance, and bird migration. In addition to its
ecological functions, it also has economic development potential. In
recent years, a large area was seriously degraded and disappeared due to
the anthropogenic activities and climate change. The main degraded
wetland restoration in this area is designed to bring freshwater to the
degraded wetland and resist saltwater intrusion (Cui et al., 2009; Zhang
et al., 2021).
2.2. Field soil sampling
The field soil sampling was conducted in the Huanghekou Manage­
ment Station of the Yellow River Delta. Different vegetation types, three
types: Robinia pseudoacacia community (tree site), Tamarix chinensis
community (bush site), and Suaeda salsa community (grass site) were
selected. A standard quadrat (10.0 × 10.0-m) with a flat topography was
prepared at each site for field sampling on July 2017. A total of 108 soil
samples [3 sites (tree, bush and grass)—3 field plots—3 replicates—4
soil depth layers: 0–10 cm, 10–20 cm, 20–40 cm, and 40–60 cm] were
collected for laboratory analyses. Some soil samples with three repli­
cates were collected with cutting cylinders (7.0 cm in diameter and 10.2
cm in height) for the measurement of the soil physical properties (such
as soil particle distribution, initial soil water content, soil bulk density,
and soil porosity). The mean values were used to represent the accurate
value of each soil parameter. Other soil samples at each soil depth were
placed in plastic bags, brought to the laboratory, and air-dried at room
temperature (+20 ◦ C) for one month. All air-dried soil samples were
sieved through a 2 mm nylon sieve to remove coarse debris and deter­
mine the soil particle distribution.
Y. Zhang et al. Ecological Indicators 141 (2022) 109116

Fig. 1. Location of the study site (tree site represents Robinia pseudoacacia community, bush site represents Tamarix chinensis community, and grass site represents
Suaeda salsa community.

2.3. Soil physical properties measurement The soil particle size was analyzed using the aerometer methods (dry
sieving and sedimentation analysis) (Maier et al., 2020). We defined soil
The weights of the empty cutting cylinder and the cutting cylinder particles 0.05–2 mm as sand, 0.002–0.05 mm as silt, and < 0.002 mm as
with wet soil were measured as W1 and W2 (g) (Jiang et al., 2019). Soil clay.
bulk samples were placed in water for saturation for 2–3 h and 24 h and
weighted as W3 and W4 (g). Then, the samples were placed on sand 2.4. Soil chemical properties measurement
media and weighed again after 2 h (W5a, g), 12 h (W5b, g), and 5 days
(W5c, g) (Jiang et al., 2019). Finally, the weight W6 (g) was measured Air-dried soil samples were sieved through a 0.25-mm sieve to
after oven drying at 105 ◦ C for 24 h. Soil total porosity from soil depth of determine the soil chemical properties. The soil pH was measured using
0–10, 10–20, 20–40 and 40–60 cm was calculated in water-saturated a soil:water (1:5, m/v) slurry (Orion 3 Star, Thermo Electron) (Zhao
soil samples of 400 cm3 on the assumption that no air was trapped in et al., 2019). The SEC was measured using the conductometric method.
the soil pores. Then, initial soil water content, soil bulk density, and soil Another subsample was sieved through a 0.149 mm mesh to determine
porosity were determined with the following formulae (Jiang et al., the SOC and STN contents. The SOC content was analyzed using di­
2019). chromate oxidation-colorimetric determination (Sims and Haby, 1971).
W2 − W6 The STN content was determined using the Kjeldahl method (Bremner,
Initial soil water content (%) = × 100 (1)
W2 − W1 1960). The soil samples were digested in Teflon tubes using a mixture of
HClO4, HNO3, and HF for analysis of the STP content. The digested
( )
Soil bulk density g cm− 3 =
W6 − W1
(2) sample solutions were analyzed using inductively coupled plasma
400 (cm3 ) atomic emission spectrometry. The SAP contents of all of the extracts
were determined using the colorimetric method and 0.5 M NaHCO3
Total soil porosity (%) =
W4 − W1 − W6
× 100 (3) solution. Soil properties are concluded in Table 1.
400 (cm3 )

W3 − W1 − W6 2.5. Soil quality index characterization

Soil capillary porosity (%) = × 100
400 (cm3 )
Soil non − capillary porosity (%) = total soil porosity
− soil capillary porosity
(4)
To characterize the SQI, the Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
was used to determine the key different soil quality indicators, then
determined the weights of every indicator to be employed in the
(5)
assessment of the SQI. The SQI was characterized using three steps.
Firstly, a MDS was selected and determined from the PCA. Secondly, we

3
 Y. Zhang et al.
Table 1
Soil and root systems properties at 0–60 cm depth at the three sites.
Sites SD Sand Silt Clay ISWC SBD TSP SCP SNCP SOC STN STP SAP pH SEC RLD Litter
(cm)

Tree 0–10 0.211 ± 0.563 ± 0.226 ± 0.232 ± 0.948 ± 0.563 ± 0.520 ± 0.043 ± 12.204 ± 1.345 ± 0.614 ± 3.927 ± 8.470 ± 114.23 ± 2476.57 ± 11
0.100 0.141 0.053 0.013 0.091 0.024 0.049 0.037 5.374 0.631 0.033 1.933 0.175 26.82 1335.93
10–20 0.170 ± 0.623 ± 0.207 ± 0.217 ± 1.294 ± 0.483 ± 0.468 ± 0.014 ± 2.929 ± 0.358 ± 0.569 ± 2.398 ± 8.583 ± 145.50 ± 1610.46 ±
0.005 0.150 0.165 0.019 0.041 0.011 0.010 0.008 0.292 0.043 0.055 1.031 0.242 111.32 1111.08
20–40 0.228 ± 0.618 ± 0.154 ± 0.228 ± 1.398 ± 0.479 ± 0.471 ± 0.009 ± 2.237 ± 0.270 ± 0.538 ± 1.792 ± 8.803 ± 209.10 ± 1414.55 ±
0.138 0.137 0.059 0.016 0.025 0.016 0.012 0.005 0.729 0.094 0.045 0.111 0.186 71.88 983.91
40–60 0.426 ± 0.503 ± 0.071 ± 0.222 ± 1.429 ± 0.464 ± 0.454 ± 0.011 ± 1.561 ± 0.183 ± 0.518 ± 1.655 ± 8.703 ± 387.00 ± 601.23 ±
0.156 0.162 0.018 0.014 0.125 0.029 0.0212 0.015 0.411 0.039 0.038 0.231 0.182 125.39 81.10
Bush 0–10 0.202 ± 0.669 ± 0.129 ± 0.232 ± 1.384 ± 0.478 ± 0.472 ± 0.006 ± 6.522 ± 0.694 ± 0.694 ± 3.576 ± 8.960 ± 1160.00 ± 1625.62 ± 1
0.065 0.085 0.023 0.008 0.058 0.016 0.015 0.002 1.647 0.038 0.073 0.279 0.053 104.11 154.58
10–20 0.193 ± 0.688 ± 0.113 ± 0.217 ± 1.355 ± 0.468 ± 0.463 ± 0.004 ± 1.613 ± 0.200 ± 0.582 ± 1.749 ± 9.063 ± 770.67 ± 899.38 ±
4

0.087 0.094 0.009 0.014 0.060 0.017 0.016 0.001 0.402 0.033 0.003 0.181 0.246 125.72 527.33
20–40 0.325 ± 0.594 ± 0.080 ± 0.194 ± 1.412 ± 0.468 ± 0.461 ± 0.007 ± 1.470 ± 0.159 ± 0.584 ± 2.552 ± 9.137 ± 712.33 ± 811.02 ±
0.044 0.036 0.013 0.037 0.029 0.013 0.018 0.005 1.622 0.073 0.021 0.746 0.170 227.75 462.36
40–60 0.449 ± 0.490 ± 0.061 ± 0.257 ± 1.377 ± 0.491 ± 0.490 ± 0.001 ± 1.814 ± 0.188 ± 0.576 ± 2.781 ± 8.983 ± 996.33 ± 521.35 ±
0.121 0.112 0.010 0.011 0.044 0.006 0.005 0.001 0.777 0.052 0.027 0.292 0.304 716.52 103.21
Grass 0–10 0.417 ± 0.576 ± 0.007 ± 0.244 ± 1.361 ± 0.489 ± 0.478 ± 0.011 ± 2.971 ± 0.379 ± 0.595 ± 3.601 ± 8.314 ± 2116.00 ± 121.31 ± 0
0.008 0.008 0.001 0.010 0.094 0.026 0.018 0.008 0.970 0.072 0.047 0.010 0.493 430.92 3.26
10–20 0.418 ± 0.579 ± 0.003 ± 0.234 ± 1.441 ± 0.455 ± 0.454 ± 0.001 ± 1.315 ± 0.201 ± 0.561 ± 1.928 ± 8.977 ± 1771.33 ± 60.25 ±
0.021 0.021 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.005 0.005 0.001 0.308 0.023 0.015 0.869 0.150 125.03 13.11
20–40 0.443 ± 0.555 ± 0.002 ± 0.238 ± 1.421 ± 0.460 ± 0.458 ± 0.002 ± 2.044 ± 0.216 ± 0.594 ± 2.395 ± 8.966 ± 1990.67 ± 11.23 ±
0.023 0.022 0.001 0.009 0.053 0.006 0.006 0.001 0.279 0.021 0.074 0.051 0.082 770.33 1.21
40–60 0.479 ± 0.519 ± 0.002 ± 0.221 ± 1.529 ± 0.442 ± 0.440 ± 0.001 ± 1.127 ± 0.178 ± 0.559 ± 2.663 ± 9.173 ± 1352.67 ± 5.23 ± 1.01
0.012 0.012 0.000 0.018 0.049 0.030 0.030 0.001 0.781 0.049 0.057 0.327 0.167 367.71

ISWC: Initial soil water content; SBD: Soil bulk density; TSP: Total soil porosity; SCP: Soil capillary porosity; SNCP: Soil non-capillary porosity; SOC: Soil organic carbon; STN: Soil total nitrogen; STP: Soil total phosphorus;
SAP: Soil available phosphorus; SEC: Soil electronic conductivity; RLD: Root length density.

Ecological Indicators 141 (2022) 109116

Y. Zhang et al.
normalized the indicators in the MDS using a linear scoring function.
Finally, we characterized the SQI based on the indicators scores and
weights (Huang et al., 2021).
2.5.1. Determining the MDS
In this study, the total data set (TDS) method contained 14 soil
quality indicators (namely, sand, silt, clay, initial soil water content, soil
bulk density, total soil porosity, soil capillary porosity, soil non-capillary
porosity, soil organic carbon, soil total nitrogen, soil total phosphorus,
soil available phosphorus, soil pH, and soil electronic conductivity). We
determined the MDS to reduce the number of the indicators and select
the key soil quality indicators that contain sufficient information for the
characterization of the SQI (Huang et al., 2021). The PCA and Pearson
correlation analysis were performed in determining the MDS. After the
PCA, eigenvalues > 1 should be considered for the MDS. Within each PC,
only the indicators with absolute load values within 10% of the highest
indicator load value were selected. When more than one indicator was
retained in one PC, Pearson correlation analysis was used to determine
whether other indicators should be removed. If the retained indicators
were well correlated with each other (r > 0.6), only the highest weighted
indicator was retained in the PC. If the highly retained indicators were
not well correlated with each other (r < 0.6), all those indicators were
retained in the MDS (Huang et al., 2021).
2.5.2. Normalizing the indicators in the MDS
We used a linear scoring function to normalize the indicators (Ban­
dyopadhyay and Maiti, 2021). This is because the output of the linear
scoring function is better than the nonlinear scoring function to trans­
form and normalize soil quality indicators (Paul et al., 2020). The linear
scoring function converts the range of values of each indicator in the
MDS into dimensionless values that range between 0 and 1 (Bandyo­
padhyay and Maiti, 2021). The value of normalized indicator is referred
to as the indicator score. These scores represent the contribution of each
indicator to soil quality. Soil quality indicators were classified into 2
functions based on soil quality sensitivity. If the level of each indicator
increased with soil quality improvement, then a scoring curve “more is
better” was applied. On the contrary, a scoring curve of “less is better”
was applied (Bandyopadhyay and Maiti, 2021).
For “more is better”, each value was divided by the highest obser­
vation such that the highest observation received a score of 1 while the
rest received a score of < 1.
LSF = X/Xmax (6)
For “less is better”, the lowest observation is divided by each
observed value such that the lowest observation received a score of 1
and rest received the score of < 1.
LSF = Xmin /X (7)
where LSF represents linear scoring function varying from 0 to 1, X
represents value of each soil quality indicator, Xmax and Xmin represent
the highest and lowest value of each soil quality indicator.
2.5.3. Determining each indicator weights
Weights of each indicator in the MDS were determined from the PCA
results. The commonality of each indicator ranged from 0 to 1, where
the value indicated the contribution of each indicator to the overall
variance (Huang et al., 2021). Weights for the MDS were calculated as
follows:
∑ et al., 2020). Sand soil texture fractions had shown an increasing trend
n
W i = Ci / Ci (8)
i=1
where Wi is the indicator weight, Ci is the commonality value of the
indicator, and n is the number of indicators in the MDS.
5
Ecological Indicators 141 (2022) 109116
2.5.4. Characterizing SQI
A high SQI value indicates high soil quality. We calculated the SQI as
follows (Huang et al., 2021):
∑
n
SQI = Wi Si (9)
i=1
where Wi is the indicator weight; Si is the normalized indicator score
(represents LSF), and n is the number in the MDS.
2.6. Data analysis
Results of soil properties were determined by statistically analyzing
the data. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare
the differences of soil properties and the SQI among the soil depths and
different vegetation types. The results were reported at a 5% level of
significance. The coefficient of determination (R2) was used to evaluate
the performance of the applied regression equations. Data was analyzed
using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) statistical anal­
ysis software.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Soil physical properties
3.1.1. Soil particle distribution
Soil texture fractions mainly include three parts: sand, silt, and clay.
Sand soil texture fractions had shown significant difference between
grass site and tree and bush site at 0–40 cm soil depth (P < 0.05),
whereas were not significantly different among the three sites at 40–60
cm soil depth (P > 0.05). Silt soil texture fractions were not significantly
different among the three sites (P > 0.05), whereas clay soil texture
fractions had shown significant difference among the three sites (P <
0.05). The overall mean of sand soil texture fractions at 0–60 cm soil
depth was higher at grass site (0.439 ± 0.030), whereas it was relatively
lower at tree site and bush site (0.259 ± 0.144 and 0.292 ± 0.131),
which was consistent with the results of Xia et al. (2020). The lower sand
content at tree site and bush site should be due to forest soil management
(Yan et al., 2013). This is because forest vegetation coverage can have a
major impact on decreasing the loss of soil fine particles (Yan et al.,
2013). The presence of different vegetation communities can reduce the
contents of sand and increase the contents of silt and clay (Xia et al.,
2020). Studies have showed that forest vegetation coverage should be
maintained above 35% if the soil fine particles can be effectively pro­
tected (Yan et al., 2013). The overall mean of silt soil texture fractions
from soil depth 0–60 cm was similar among the three sites. Silt soil
texture fractions were found to be higher at all three sites and there was
no significant difference in terms of silt soil texture fractions (P > 0.05).
The overall mean of clay soil texture fractions from soil depth 0–60 cm
had the order: tree site (0.164 ± 0.101)＞bush site (0.096 ± 0.031)＞
grass site (0.003 ± 0.002). This would indicate that vegetation protects
the soil from erosion loss of highly erodible soil finer particles, and
improves soil aggregate stability in anti-erodibility and stabilizing soil
structure (Gu et al., 2019). Soil particle composition in different vege­
tation types is correlated to root system content (Xia et al., 2020). More
root system growth at tree site and bush site can affect soil physical,
chemical, and biological properties and facilitate the fixation of soil fine
particles, however, in places with grass vegetations, soil fine particles
are lost when the soil surface layer is dominated by sand particles (Xia
with increasing soil depth at all three sites, whereas silt and clay soil
texture fractions showed a decreasing trend. The increasing trend of
sand soil texture fractions is due to the deposition of soil particles from
the Yellow River watershed (Du et al., 2016). Soil particle distribution
can reflect soil physical, chemical and biological properties such as soil
structure and soil nutrient status (Xia et al., 2020). Soil particle
Y. Zhang et al.
distribution can also reflect the quality of the soil structure and control
the heterogeneity of soil quality (Ahirwal and Maiti, 2016).
3.1.2. Initial soil water content
Initial soil water content decreased at first, then increased and in
final decreased with increasing soil depth both at tree site and grass site.
Initial soil water content was the highest in the upper soil layers from
soil depth of 0–10 cm at the two sites. Initial soil water content
decreased with increasing soil depth at first and then increased at bush
site, with the highest from soil depth of 40–60 cm and the lowest from
soil depth of 20–40 cm (Table 1). Variations in soil water content with
soil depth was different in the soils among those three sites because of
rooting depth of these three vegetation types (Wang et al., 2013; Yang
et al., 2015). Due to extraction of soil water by root systems, soil water is
depleted at soil depth of 0–40 cm where root systems can expand into
the soils at bush site, whereas root systems of grass site with relatively
shorter root length can utilize soil water mainly from shallow layers
(Özkan and Gökbulak, 2017). Initial soil water content was observed
higher at grass site than both at tree site and bush site (Table 1). At tree
site, evapotranspiration can reduce soil water content by root water
uptake (Ni et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020). The lower soil water content
at tree site may be attributed to the higher potential evapotranspiration
via root water uptake (Chen et al., 2007; Ni et al., 2019). Tree consumes
large amounts of soil water, and the soil water content level is lower at
tree site than at grass site (Wang et al., 2020). In addition to root water
uptake, rainfall interception by tree canopy can also lead to lower soil
water content at tree site (Chen et al., 2007; Ni et al., 2019). The soil
water content variation of different vegetation types is also coupled with
soil and vegetation properties, such as rooting depth, soil particle dis­
tribution, and physiological vegetation characteristics (Porporato et al.,
2002; Yang et al., 2015). At bush site, the shallow layer at 0–40 cm soil
depth is the main layer providing soil water for vegetation growth, and
the soil water content in this layer can dynamically change with rainfall
and root water uptake. Higher soil water stored in deeper soil layer at
40–60 cm soil depth is a reliable water source for vegetation growth
(Yang et al., 2015). Compared with tree site and bush site, grass site has
a bit better soil water content (Chen et al., 2007). For soil water con­
servation, grass site is the best one, and bush site is the worst.
3.1.3. Soil bulk density
The overall mean values of soil bulk density in the soil profiles at
grass site (1.438 ± 0.081 g/cm3) were higher as compared to tree site
(1.267 ± 0.211 g/cm3) and bush site (1.382 ± 0.047 g/cm3). Tree site
had the lowest values of soil bulk density than other sites indicating
relatively low soil compaction (Jha et al., 2010). Higher proportions of
root length density and litters accumulation at tree site can reduce
surface soil bulk density (Li et al., 2019). Higher soil bulk density at soil
depth of 0–10 cm was recorded at bush site mainly due to the influences
of livestock compaction. Studies have shown that soil bulk density could
be lower in soils having higher soil organic matter (Li et al., 2019). Soil
organic matter has long been considered the key factor influencing the
physical, chemical, and biological properties of soils (Gajda et al., 2016).
Several authors have demonstrated that soil organic matter is negatively
correlated with soil bulk density, i.e., soil bulk density decreases with
increasing soil organic matter content (Ruehlmann and Körschens,
2009; Keller and Håkansson, 2010; Gajda et al., 2016). The highest soil
bulk density at grass site was also likely the result of the lowest soil
organic matter content in the soil profiles (Jiao et al., 2020). Soil bulk
density increased with the increase of soil depth at the three sites
(Table 1). This is because the content of soil organic matter decreased
extremely with increasing soil depth (Negasa et al., 2017). Besides soil
organic matter, soil particle distribution can also influence soil bulk
density. Some studies conclude that soil bulk density decreased with
increasing soil clay content, partly because of increasing soil organic
matter content with increasing soil clay content (Keller and Håkansson,
2010). Such supports the information that the lowest content of soil bulk
6
Ecological Indicators 141 (2022) 109116
density at tree site with the highest soil clay content (Ruehlmann and
Körschens, 2009).
3.1.4. Soil porosity
Total soil porosity, soil capillary porosity, and soil non-capillary
porosity were the highest at tree site compared to bush site and grass
site. Total soil porosity, soil capillary porosity, and soil non-capillary
porosity decreased with increasing soil depth. The higher soil porosity
at tree site compared with bush site and grass site may be related with
abundant belowground biomass (i.e., root length density) in the soil
profiles. Studies found that more continuous pores inside the soils could
be closely connected with root systems (Hu et al., 2020). Furthermore,
root systems can promote the formation of soil macropores and increase
soil macroporosity (Hu et al., 2019). For example, Bodner et al. (2014)
concluded that coarse root systems increased macroporosity (> 37.5
µm) by 30%. Hu et al. (2019) found that large number soil macropores in
the soils can be attributed to the great development of root systems. Root
systems affect soil macropore architecture through mechanical inter­
calation and by squeezing the surrounding soils during the intercalation
processes (Qiao et al., 2021). Furthermore, soil organic matter can
improve soil macropore architecture (Wang et al., 2018). Higher soil
organic matter content at tree site can result in increased total soil
porosity (Schulp et al., 2008). This is because soil organic matter can
increase the proportion of large and small macroaggregates (Wang et al.,
2018; Li et al., 2019). Soil organic matter can speed up the formation of
soil aggregates (Jiao et al., 2020). There is a close relationship between
soil aggregates and soil macroporosity. With the accumulation of soil
organic matter and the development of root systems, soil macropores
can form, which leading to an improvement of soil macropore properties
at tree site (Wang et al., 2018).
3.2. Soil chemical properties
3.2.1. Soil organic carbon and total nitrogen
Soil organic carbon content decreased with increasing soil depth.
Decrease in soil organic carbon with an increase in soil depth was
consistent with the results of Ahirwal and Maiti (2016). The soil organic
carbon content at 0–10 cm soil depth significantly differed among the
three sites (P < 0.05). The overall mean values of soil organic carbon
content in the soil profiles were the highest at tree site (4.733 ± 5.094 g/
kg) compared with bush site (2.855 ± 2.369 g/kg) and grass site (2.132
± 1.046 g/kg). The highest content of soil organic carbon at tree site was
due to high accumulation and formation of organic material and humus
(Zhou et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2018; Jiang et al., 2019; Li et al., 2019; Han
et al., 2020) and greater turnover of above and belowground biomass
(such as leafs, litters, and root systems) (Jha et al., 2010). For example,
tree site soils generally have well-developed root systems, which pro­
duces more organic matter as the root systems decompose (Jiao et al.,
2020). Root systems are near the soil surface and easily decompose,
increasing the content of soil organic matter (Zhang et al., 2018). At tree
site, litter accumulation may increase the content of soil organic carbon.
However, at bush site and grass site, there was no litter accumulation
that may reduce the content of soil organic carbon (Jiao et al., 2020). On
the other hand, the higher soil organic carbon content at tree site could
be probably also due to the lower organic matter turnover rate as a result
of thick litters that minimum soil disturbance (Negasa et al., 2017; Jiao
et al., 2020). The presence of more litters could reduce soil erosion and
contribute for higher soil organic carbon (Negasa et al., 2017).
The higher soil total nitrogen in the upper soil layers was directly
related to the addition of higher organic matter in surface soils (Negasa
et al., 2017). The decrease in soil total nitrogen with soil depth may be
associated with the decline of soil organic matter (Ahirwal and Maiti,
2017). Furthermore, thick litter biomass at tree site contributes to the
accumulation of soil total nitrogen (Zhong et al., 2021). Moreover, we
should note that more organic matter can increase soil total nitrogen
(Adugna and Abegaz, 2016; Khan et al., 2016). For example, Brown and
Y. Zhang et al. Ecological Indicators 141 (2022) 109116

Whitford (2003) reported a positive relationship between soil organic 3.3. Differences in soil quality between different vegetation types
matter and soil nitrogen. They also showed that soil nitrogen results
from the decomposition and mineralization of root systems (Brown and At tree site, there were four PCs with eigenvalues > 1 (values ranging
Whitford, 2003). from 1.298 to 7.656) from the PCA (Table 2). The four PCs contributed
89.2% cumulatively, explaining the variability of most soil quality in­
3.2.2. Soil total phosphorus and available phosphorus dicators. In the PC-1, SBD, TSP, SOC, STN, and SAP accounted for 54.7%
Variation in soil total phosphorus was observed with increase in soil of the total variance. SOC had the highest normal value and were highly
depth at the three sites. The factors like vegetation types may signifi­ correlated with the other retained indicators. Therefore, SOC was cho­
cantly affect the content of soil phosphorus in the soils (Ahirwal and sen to represent PC-1. In the PC-2, sand and silt accounted for 14.3% of
Maiti, 2017). The content of the soil phosphorus may vary with soil the total variance. Silt had the highest norm value and was correlated
depth due to the variation of root systems at the three sites (Jobbagy and with sand, so we only chosen silt to represent PC-2. In the PC-3, clay
Jackson, 2001). Soil total phosphorus content at tree site was higher accounted for 10.9% of the total variance. Therefore, we chosen clay to
compared with bush site and grass site. This is mainly true for the reason represent PC-3. In the PC-4, pH accounted for 9.3% of the total variance
that soil microbial activity protected by thick litters might be more and was chosen to represent PC-4. Therefore, the final MDS included
active at tree site (Yengwe et al., 2018), indicating that soil microbial SOC, silt, clay, and pH at tree site. At bush site, there were also four PCs
activity can affect more availability of soil phosphorus. Moreover, the with eigenvalues > 1 (values ranging from 1.425 to 4.912) from the
activity can promote soil phosphorus transformation (Teng et al., 2018). PCA. The four PCs contributed 87.8% cumulatively, explaining the
When litters decay, it will release the adsorbed phosphorus into the soils, variability of most soil quality indicators. In the PC-1, ISWC, TSP, and
increasing the phosphorus content in the soils (Wu et al., 2020). Tree site SCP accounted for 35.1% of the total variance. TSP had the highest
has higher available phosphorus content in the soil profiles. Firstly, even normal value and were highly correlated with the other retained in­
though available phosphorus can be removed by vegetation, there is a dicators (Table 3). Therefore, TSP was chosen to represent PC-1. In the
probability of phosphorus return through thick litters accumulation in PC-2, SOC and STN accounted for 31.8% of the total variance. SOC had
shallow soils. Secondly, microorganisms that are abundant in the litter the highest norm value and was correlated with STN, so we only chosen
layers could quickly add a high amount of phosphorus to the soils SOC to represent PC-2. In the PC-3, pH accounted for 10.8% of the total
(Adugna and Abegaz, 2016). Furthermore, organic acids exuded from variance. Therefore, we chosen pH to represent PC-3. In the PC-4, SBD
organic matter and dead root systems promote the release of soil accounted for 10.2% of the total variance and was chosen to represent
available phosphorus (Liu et al., 2014; Yang et al., 2020). Below the PC-4. Therefore, the final MDS included TSP, SOC, pH, and SBD at bush
rhizosphere, soil organic matter decreases significantly with increasing site. At grass site, there were three PCs with eigenvalues > 1 (values
soil depth, which also reduces the content of soil available phosphorus ranging from 1.487 to 8.855) from the PCA. The four PCs contributed
(Yang et al., 2020). 86.6% cumulatively, explaining the variability of most soil quality in­
dicators. In the PC-1, ISWC, SBD, TSP, SCP, SNCP, SOC, STN, and pH
3.2.3. Soil pH and electronic conductivity accounted for 63.3% of the total variance. TSP had the highest normal
Tree site had relatively the lowest mean soil pH values while grass value and were highly correlated with the other retained indicators
site had an intermediate soil pH values as compared to bush site. The (Table 4). Therefore, TSP was chosen to represent PC-1. In the PC-2, silt
lowest soil pH at tree site was probably due to its greater influence of and SAP accounted for 12.8% of the total variance. Silt had the highest
decomposition of soil organic matter with further release of organic normal value and was chosen to represent PC-2. In the PC-3, STP and
acids (Jha et al., 2010), which provide H isons to the soil solution and SEC accounted for 10.6% of the total variance. SEC had the highest
thereby lowers the soil pH as compared to bush site and grass site normal value and was chosen to represent PC-3. Therefore, the final
(Negasa et al., 2017). Soil pH had shown an increased trend with MDS included TSP, silt, and SEC at grass site. The correlation between
increasing soil depth. The upper soil layers (0–10 cm) had lower soil pH soil properties is showed in Table 5.
values, whereas they were the highest in deeper soil layers in the study The 14 soil quality indicators were reduced to 4, 4, and 3 in the MDS
area, which is consistent with the results of Negasa et al. (2017). The at tree site, bush site, and grass site, respectively. Here, SOC, silt, clay,
lower soil pH values in the upper soil layers could be due to the leaching and pH at tree site, TSP, SOC, pH, and SBD at bush site, and TSP, silt, and
of bases under high rainfall events. Increase in soil pH with soil depth SEC at grass site were retained in the MDS. Thus, our MDS reflected
indicates accumulation of bases. Generally, the soil pH of the study area comprehensive soil quality indicators, representing both physical and
was strongly alkaline (Negasa et al., 2017). We did not expect soil pH to chemical properties of the soils, for determining soil quality. The values
be higher in surface soils because we assumed that the surface soils can
be directly leached by rainfall, which results in the removal of some
metal cations. However, we suspect that higher soil pH in surface soils Table 2
can be related to the difference in the content of soil organic matter. The PCA of soil properties at 0–60 cm depth at tree site.
difference in soil pH among soil locations was due to the differences in Indicators PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4
the mineralization of soil organic matter and root systems exudation
Eigenvalue 7.656 2.004 1.530 1.298
(Takoutsing et al., 2016). Soil electrical conductivity significantly Percentage of variance 54.685 14.316 10.928 9.271
differed among the three sites. Grass site had relatively the highest mean Cumulative variance percentage 54.685 69.002 79.930 89.201
soil electrical conductivity values while bush site had an intermediate Sand − 0.459 0.713 0.467 − 0.194
electrical conductivity values as compared to tree site. The soil electrical Silt 0.305 − 0.887 0.188 0.229
Clay 0.246 0.176 − 0.922 − 0.032
conductivity of the study area was found outside the range of 80 us/cm
ISWC 0.716 0.123 0.475 0.337
and it was treated as saline soils (Negasa et al., 2017). Soil electrical SBD − 0.937 − 0.214 0.167 0.096
conductivity significantly increased with soil depths at tree site whereas TSP 0.914 0.313 − 0.094 0.030
at bush site and grass site such conductivity significantly decreased with SCP 0.696 0.466 − 0.133 0.441
soil depths. Higher soil electrical conductivity in the upper soil layers at SNCP 0.685 − 0.128 0.017 − 0.622
SOC 0.968 0.115 0.029 − 0.037
bush site and grass site could be attributed to the increased capillary STN 0.963 0.113 0.050 0.028
action of water resulting from absence of vegetation patches (Liu et al., STP 0.775 − 0.051 0.090 0.200
2018). SAP 0.899 − 0.097 0.233 0.116
pH − 0.610 0.018 − 0.220 0.663
SEC − 0.685 0.498 0.179 0.084

7
Y. Zhang et al. Ecological Indicators 141 (2022) 109116

Table 3

1.000
PCA of soil properties at 0–60 cm depth at bush site.

SEC
Indicators PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4

Eigenvalue 4.912 4.446 1.509 1.425

Percentage of variance 35.083 31.757 10.779 10.177

1.000
0.191
Cumulative variance percentage 35.083 66.840 77.619 87.796

pH
Sand 0.674 − 0.540 − 0.335 − 0.058
Silt − 0.640 0.458 0.399 0.143
Clay − 0.520 0.687 − 0.037 − 0.255

1.000
− 0.292
0.148
ISWC 0.894 0.273 0.229 0.102

SAP
SBD − 0.406 − 0.183 − 0.411 0.759
TSP 0.961 0.162 0.097 − 0.187
SCP 0.932 0.135 0.135 − 0.067
SNCP − 0.673 0.172 − 0.234 − 0.516

0.459**
SOC 0.008 0.967 − 0.260 0.239

1.000

− 0.013
0.054
STN 0.018 0.913 − 0.230 0.078

STP
STP − 0.039 0.785 − 0.166 − 0.407
SAP 0.421 0.704 − 0.254 0.383
pH − 0.558 − 0.116 0.613 0.209
SEC 0.276 0.630 0.587 0.156

0.424**
0.729**
-0.429**
1.000

− 0.258
STN
Table 4
PCA of soil properties at 0–60 cm depth at grass site.
Indicators PC1 PC2 PC3

0.988**

0.716**
-0.424**
0.400*
1.000

− 0.273
Eigenvalue 8.855 1.785 1.487

SOC
Percentage of variance 63.250 12.751 10.622
Cumulative variance percentage 63.250 76.001 86.622
Sand − 0.703 0.628 0.238
Silt 0.668 − 0.665 − 0.262

0.694**
0.676**

-0.556**
0.354*

-0.405*
Clay 0.841 0.071 0.174

1.000

0.097
SNCP
ISWC 0.867 − 0.123 − 0.186
SBD − 0.941 0.233 − 0.048
TSP 0.953 0.118 − 0.044
SCP 0.918 0.088 − 0.159

0.581**
0.605**

0.488**
SNCP 0.888 0.173 0.354

-0.413*
1.000
0.229

0.228

− 0.214
SOC 0.870 0.159 − 0.019
SCP

STN 0.933 0.253 0.033

STP 0.307 − 0.416 0.719
SAP 0.554 0.662 0.232
pH − 0.946 − 0.083 − 0.069
0.897**
0.635**
0.775**
0.785**

0.550**
-0.579**
SEC 0.325 0.339 − 0.751

-0.350*
1.000

0.227
TSP

of the SQI from soil depth of 0–10 cm at tree site and grass site were

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level, **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
similar (Fig. 2). The values of the SQI in surface soils (0–10 cm) at tree
-0.940**
-0.765**
-0.734**
-0.813**
-0.824**

-0.472**
0.538**
site and grass site were higher than that at bush site, indicating better
0.421*
1.000

− 0.259

soil quality in surface soils at tree site and grass site than bush site. At
SBD

tree site, the values of the SQI decreased with increasing soil depth,
which indicated that soil quality became worse. At bush site, the values
of the SQI decreased with increasing soil depth (0–40 cm), while the
Pearson correlation matrix between soil properties at the three sites.

0.554**
0.612**

0.456**
0.486**

0.547**

values increased at 40–60 cm depth, indicating better soil quality in

-0.404*

-0.381*
1.000

0.148

0.227

0.171
ISWC

deeper soils (40–60 cm). At grass site, the values of the SQI at 10–20 cm
and 40–60 cm depth were lower than those at 20–40 cm depth, indi­
cating better soil quality at 20–40 cm depth. So, the results clearly
indicated that the SQI among the three sites was not at par with each
-0.553**
0.464**

0.434**

-0.657**
0.366*
0.399*

0.414*
1.000
− 0.152

0.046
− 0.053
− 0.181

other. The better SQI at tree site is attributed to the high content of soil
Clay

organic matter (Chandel et al., 2018). It is well known that soil organic
matter is one of the important indicators which can maintain the better
soil quality via carbon sequestration and nutrient cycling (Chandel et al.,
2018). The lowest SQI at grass site was mainly attributed to no buildup
1.000
0.004
0.031
0.088
0.002
0.079
0.156
0.236
0.232
0.246
0.243
0.067
0.077

of soil organic matter (Chandel et al., 2018). From the results both at
Silt

−
−

tree site and bush site, SOC is used worldwide as a soil quality indicator
(Raiesi, 2017; Zhao et al., 2019). This is because SOC can directly in­
fluence soil physical, chemical, and biological properties (Johannes
-0.754**
-0.659**

0.428**

-0.460**
-0.443**

0.489**
-0.377*
1.000

0.126

− 0.303
− 0.178

− 0.214
− 0.143
0.065

et al., 2017; Duval et al., 2018). In addition, SOC is associated with soil
Sand

nutrient mineralization, availability, and cycling (Duval et al., 2018).

Studies showed that SOC could determine the soil structural quality due
to its great effects on soil structure aggregation, particularly on soil
Table 5

macro-aggregates (Duval et al., 2018). For example, Duval et al. (2018)

SNCP
ISWC
Sand

Clay

SOC
STN
SBD

SAP

SEC
SCP
TSP

STP
Silt

pH

concluded that SOC had a significantly positive correlation with soil

8
Y. Zhang et al.
Fig. 2. The comparison of the SQI at tree, bush, and grass site for each
soil depth.
porosity, and significant negative relationships were found with soil
bulk density. Thick litters, leafs, and root systems at tree site may pro­
mote the accumulation of organic matter of soil. Organic matter con­
tains various organic compounds and plays an important role in the
circulation of SOC, which improves the quality of soils (Panettieri et al.,
2014). TSP is the best indicator of soil structure quality at bush site and
grass site (Pagliai and Vignozzi, 2002). Soil quality is strictly related to
soil structure (Pagliai and Vignozzi, 2002). Soil structure determines the
depth that root systems can explore and the amount of water that can be
stored in the soils. The most important modifications of soil structure
mainly involve changes in soil porosity (Pagliai and Vignozzi, 2002).
Soil porosity is the best indicator of soil structure quality (Pagliai and
Vignozzi, 2002). Quantification of the pore attributes (i.e., the number
of pores, pore size, and pore shape) can define the complexity of soil
structure (Miralles-Mellado et al., 2011). At tree site and grass site, soil
particle distribution is treated as a key indicator for soil quality assess­
ment (Zhao et al., 2019). The silt and clay contents can increase the
stabilization of organic matter and prevent organic materials from being
decomposing (Xiong et al., 2015). Soil pH at tree site and bush site is also
an indicator of soil quality, which is consistent with Bünemann et al.
9
Ecological Indicators 141 (2022) 109116
(2018). This is because soil pH can influence biomass yield and return of
biomass to the soils (Shukla et al., 2006). Furthermore, soil pH can in­
fluence many soil processes, such as availability of plant nutrients,
decomposition of soil organic matter, and soil microbial activity (Kome
et al., 2018). Additionally, soil pH is also important because it can in­
fluence many soil properties, such as soil weathering and mineral
transformation (Kome et al., 2018). SEC at grass site can influence the
distribution and productivity of vegetation directly, which determines
the soil quality (Zhao et al., 2019). Furthermore, as an important
physical property of the soils, SBD at bush site is also chosen to represent
soil quality indicator (Rabot et al., 2018). This is because SBD is closely
related to the content of soil organic matter. SBD is also inversely pro­
portional to the soil porosity, which further significantly influences the
soil quality (Mariscal et al., 2007). If soil bulk density becomes too high,
it can limit root systems growth. For the reason, soil bulk density is
frequently regarded as an indicator of soil quality and included in the
MDS (Logsdon and Karlen, 2004).
4. Conclusions
High variations in soil physical and chemical properties at the three
sites were indicated to show their effects on soil quality in our study. The
14 soil quality indicators were reduced to 4, 4, and 3 in the MDS at tree
site, bush site, and grass site, respectively. Here, SOC, silt, clay, and pH
at tree site, TSP, SOC, pH, and SBD at bush site, and TSP, silt, and SEC at
grass site were retained in the MDS. SOC and TSP were the key soil
quality indicators. The values of the SQI from soil depth of 0–10 cm at
tree site and grass site were similar. The values of the SQI in surface soils
(0–10 cm depth) at tree site and grass site were higher than those at bush
site, indicating better soil quality at tree site and grass site than bush site.
At tree site, the values of the SQI decreased with increasing soil depth,
which indicated that soil quality became worse. At bush site, the values
of the SQI decreased with increasing soil depth (0–40 cm), while the
values increased at 40–60 cm depth. At grass site, the values of the SQI at
10–20 cm and 40–60 cm depth were lower than those at 20–40 cm
depth. Soil quality in surface soils (0–10 cm) at the three sites was better
than deeper soils. Future solutions should be conducted to restore
wetland soil functions of the deeper soil layers.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Yinghu Zhang: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft.
Lu Wang: Investigation, Software. Jiang Jiang: Methodology. Jinchi
Zhang: Review. Zhenming Zhang: Editing and critical revision of the
article. Mingxiang Zhang: Editing and critical revision of the article.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foun­
dation of China (41907007), the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu
Province (BK20190747), and the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (41771547). The authors are also grateful to the reviewers for
their comments and suggestions.
Y. Zhang et al. Ecological Indicators 141 (2022) 109116

References Johannes, A., Matter, A., Schulin, R., et al., 2017. Optimal organic carbon values for soil
structure quality of arable soils. Does clay content matter? Geoderma 302, 14–21.
Keller, T., Håkansson, I., 2010. Estimation of reference bulk density from soil particle size
Adugna, A., Abegaz, A., 2016. Effects of land use changes on the dynamics of selected soil
distribution and soil organic matter content. Geoderma 154 (3–4), 398–406.
properties in northeast Wellega, Ethiopia. Soil 2 (1), 63–70.
Khan, M.R., Koneshloo, M., Knappett, P.S.K., Ahmed, K.M., Bostick, B.C., Mailloux, B.J.,
Ahirwal, J., Maiti, S.K., 2016. Assessment of soil properties of different land uses
Mozumder, R.H., Zahid, A., Harvey, C.F., van Geen, A., Michael, H.A., 2016.
generated due to surface coal mining activities in tropical Sal (Shorea robusta)
Megacity pumping and preferential flow threaten groundwater quality. Nat.
forest, India. Catena 140, 155–163.
Commun. 7 (1).
Ahirwal, J., Maiti, S.K., 2017. Assessment of carbon sequestration potential of
Kome, G.K., Enang, R.K., Yerima, B.P.K., et al. (2018). Models relating soil pH
revegetated coal mine overburden dumps: a chronosequence study from dry tropical
measurements in H2O, KCl and CaCl2 for volcanic ash soils of Cameroon. Geoderma
climate. J. Environ. Manage. 201, 369–377.
Regional, 14, e00185.
Aon, M.A., Colaneri, A.C., 2001. II. Temporal and spatial evolution of enzymatic
Li, H., Liao, X., Zhu, H., Wei, X., Shao, M., Naeth, M.A., 2019. Soil physical and hydraulic
activities and physico-chemical properties in an agricultural soil. Appl. Soil Ecol. 18
properties under different land uses in the black soil region of Northeast China. Can.
(3), 255–270.
J. Soil Sci. 99 (4), 406–419.
Bai, J., Yu, Z., Yu, L.u., Wang, D., Guan, Y., Liu, X., Gu, C., Cui, B., 2019. In-situ organic
Liu, D., Huang, Y., An, S., Sun, H., Bhople, P., Chen, Z., 2018. Soil physicochemical and
phosphorus mineralization in sediments in coastal wetlands with different flooding
microbial characteristics of contrasting land-use types along soil depth gradients.
periods in the Yellow River Delta, China. Sci. Total Environ. 682, 417–425.
Catena 162, 345–353.
Bandyopadhyay, S., & Maiti, S.K. (2021). Application of statistical and machine learning
Liu, X., Meng, W., Liang, G., Li, K., Xu, W., Huang, L., Yan, J., Shah, V., 2014. Available
approach for prediction of soil quality index formulated to evaluate trajectory of
phosphorus in forest soil increases with soil nitrogen but not total phosphorus:
ecosystem recovery in coal mine degraded land. Ecological Engineering, 170,
evidence from subtropical forests and a pot experiment. PLoS ONE 9 (2), e88070.
106351.
Logsdon, S.D., Karlen, D.L., 2004. Bulk density as a soil quality indicator during
Bilen, S., & Turan, V. (2022). Enzymatic analyses in soils. In Practical Handbook on
conversion to no-tillage. Soil Tillage Res. 78 (2), 143–149.
Agricultural Microbiology (pp. 377-385). Humana, New York, NY.
Maier, F., van Meerveld, I., Greinwald, K., et al. (2020). Effects of soil and vegetation
Bodner, G., Leitner, D., Kaul, H.P., 2014. Coarse and fine root plants affect pore size
development on surface hydrological properties of moraines in the Swiss Alps.
distributions differently. Plant Soil 380 (1), 133–151.
Catena, 187, 104353.
Bremner, J.M., 1960. Determination of nitrogen in soil by the kjeldahl method. J. Agric.
Mariscal, I., Peregrina, F., Terefe, T., González, P., Espejo, R., 2007. Evolution of some
Sci. 55 (1), 11–33.
physical properties related to soil quality in the degraded ecosystems of “raña”
Brown, M.F., Whitford, W.G., 2003. The effects of termites and straw mulch on soil
formations from SW Spain. Sci. Total Environ. 378 (1-2), 130–132.
nitrogen in a creosotebush (Larrea tridentata) dominated Chihuahuan Desert
Meng, B.o., Liu, J.-L., Bao, K., Sun, B., 2019. Water fluxes of nenjiang river basin with
Ecosystem. J. Arid Environ. 53 (1), 15–20.
ecological network analysis: conflict and coordination between agricultural
Bünemann, E.K., Bongiorno, G., Bai, Z., Creamer, R.E., De Deyn, G., de Goede, R.,
development and wetland restoration. J. Cleaner Prod. 213, 933–943.
Fleskens, L., Geissen, V., Kuyper, T.W., Mäder, P., Pulleman, M., Sukkel, W., van
Miralles-Mellado, I., Cantón, Y., Solé-Benet, A., 2011. Two-dimensional porosity of
Groenigen, J.W., Brussaard, L., 2018. Soil quality-a critical review. Soil Biol.
crusted silty soils: Indicators of soil quality in semiarid rangelands? Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
Biochem. 120, 105–125.
J. 75 (4), 1330–1342.
Chandel, S., Hadda, M.S., Mahal, A.K., 2018. Soil quality assessment through minimum
Negasa, T., Ketema, H., Legesse, A., Sisay, M., Temesgen, H., 2017. Variation in soil
data set under different land uses of submontane Punjab. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant
properties under different land use types managed by smallholder farmers along the
Anal. 49 (6), 658–674.
toposequence in southern Ethiopia. Geoderma 290, 40–50.
Chen, L., Huang, Z., Gong, J., Fu, B., Huang, Y., 2007. The effect of land cover/vegetation
Ni, J., Cheng, Y., Wang, Q., Ng, C.W.W., Garg, A., 2019. Effects of vegetation on soil
on soil water dynamic in the hilly area of the loess plateau, China. Catena 70 (2),
temperature and water content: Field monitoring and numerical modelling.
200–208.
J. Hydrol. 571, 494–502.
Chen, A., Sui, X., Wang, D., Liao, W., Ge, H., Tao, J., 2016. Landscape and avifauna
Özkan, U., Gökbulak, F., 2017. Effect of vegetation change from forest to herbaceous
changes as an indicator of Yellow River Delta Wetland restoration. Ecol. Eng. 86,
vegetation cover on soil moisture and temperature regimes and soil water chemistry.
162–173.
Catena 149, 158–166.
Cui, B., Yang, Q., Yang, Z., Zhang, K., 2009. Evaluating the ecological performance of
Pagliai, M., Vignozzi, N., 2002. The soil pore system as an indicator of soil quality. Adv.
wetland restoration in the Yellow River Delta, China. Ecol. Eng. 35 (7), 1090–1103.
Geo Ecol. 35, 69–80.
Deng, X. (2020). Influence of water body area on water quality in the southern Jiangsu
Panettieri, M., Knicker, H., Murillo, J.M., et al., 2014. Soil organic matter degradation in
Plain, eastern China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 254, 120136.
an agricultural chronosequence under different tillage regimes evaluated by organic
Du, H., Dou, S., Deng, X., Xue, X., Wang, T., 2016. Assessment of wind and water erosion
matter pools, enzymatic activities and CPMAS 13C NMR. Soil Biol. Biochem. 78,
risk in the watershed of the Ningxia-Inner Mongolia Reach of the Yellow River,
170–181.
China. Ecol. Ind. 67, 117–131.
Paul, G.C., Saha, S., Ghosh, K.G., 2020. Assessing the soil quality of bansloi river basin,
Duval, M.E., Galantini, J.A., Martínez, J.M., Limbozzi, F., 2018. Labile soil organic
eastern india using soil-quality indices (sqis) and random forest machine learning
carbon for assessing soil quality: influence of management practices and edaphic
technique. Ecol. Ind. 118, 106804.
conditions. Catena 171, 316–326.
Porporato, A., D’Odorico, P., Laio, F., Ridolfi, L., Rodriguez-Iturbe, I., 2002.
Gajda, A.M., Czyz, E.A., Dexter, A.R., 2016. Effects of long-term use of different farming
Ecohydrology of water-controlled ecosystems. Adv. Water Resour. 25 (8-12),
systems on some physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of soil quality.
1335–1348.
Int. Agrophys. 30 (2), 165–172.
Qiao, J., Liu, X., Zhu, Y., et al. (2021). Three-dimensional quantification of soil pore
Ganiyu, S.A., 2018. Evaluation of soil hydraulic properties under different non-
structure in wind-deposited loess under different vegetation types using industrial X-
agricultural land use patterns in a basement complex area using multivariate
ray computed tomography. Catena, 199, 105098.
statistical analysis. Environ. Monit. Assess. 190 (10), 1–16.
Rabot, E., Wiesmeier, M., Schlüter, S., Vogel, H.-J., 2018. Soil structure as an indicator of
Gu, C., Mu, X., Gao, P., Zhao, G., Sun, W., Tatarko, J., Tan, X., 2019. Influence of
soil functions: a review. Geoderma 314, 122–137.
vegetation restoration on soil physical properties in the Loess Plateau, China. J. Soils
Raiesi, F., 2017. A minimum data set and soil quality index to quantify the effect of land
Sediments 19 (2), 716–728.
use conversion on soil quality and degradation in native rangelands of upland arid
Han, X., Liu, J., Srivastava, P., et al., 2020. Effects of critical zone structure on patterns of
and semiarid regions. Ecol. Ind. 75, 307–320.
flow connectivity induced by rainstorms in a steep forested catchment. Journal of
Raiesi, F., & Pejman, M. (2021). Assessment of post-wildfire soil quality and its recovery
Hydrology 587.
in semi-arid upland rangelands in Central Iran through selecting the minimum data
Hu, X., Li, X.Y., Li, Z.C., et al. (2020). Linking 3-D soil macropores and root architecture
set and quantitative soil quality index. Catena, 201, 105202.
to near saturated hydraulic conductivity of typical meadow soil types in the Qinghai
Ruehlmann, J., Körschens, M., 2009. Calculating the effect of soil organic matter
Lake Watershed, northeastern Qinghai–Tibet Plateau. Catena, 185, 104287.
concentration on soil bulk density. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 73 (3), 876–885.
Hu, X., Li, X.-Y., Wang, P., Liu, Y., Wu, X.-C., Li, Z.-C., Zhao, Y.-D., Cheng, Y.-Q., Guo, L.-
Schulp, C.J.E., Nabuurs, G.-J., Verburg, P.H., de Waal, R.W., 2008. Effect of tree species
L., Lyu, Y.-L., Liu, L.-Y., 2019. Influence of exclosure on CT-measured soil
on carbon stocks in forest floor and mineral soil and implications for soil carbon
macropores and root architecture in a shrub-encroached grassland in northern
inventories. For. Ecol. Manage. 256 (3), 482–490.
China. Soil Tillage Res. 187, 21–30.
Shukla, M.K., Lal, R., Ebinger, M., 2006. Determining soil quality indicators by factor
Huang, W., Zong, M., Fan, Z., et al., 2021. Determining the impacts of deforestation and
analysis. Soil Tillage Res. 87 (2), 194–204.
corn cultivation on soil quality in tropical acidic red soils using a soil quality index.
Sims, J.R., Haby, V.A., 1971. Simplified colorimetric determination of soil organic
Ecol. Indic. 125.
matter. Soil Sci. 112 (2), 137–141.
Jha, P., Mohapatra, K.P., Dubey, S.K., 2010. Impact of land use on physico-chemical and
Takoutsing, B., Weber, J.C., Tchoundjeu, Z., Shepherd, K., 2016. Soil chemical properties
hydrological properties of ustifluvent soils in riparian zone of river Yamuna, India.
dynamics as affected by land use change in the humid forest zone of Cameroon.
Agrofor. Syst. 80 (3), 437–445.
Agrofor. Syst. 90 (6), 1089–1102.
Jiang, X.J., Chen, C., Zhu, X., Zakari, S., Singh, A.K., Zhang, W., Zeng, H., Yuan, Z.-Q.,
Tauqeer, H.M., Turan, V., Farhad, M., Iqbal, M., 2022a. In: Managing Plant Production
He, C., Yu, S., Liu, W., 2019. Use of dye infiltration experiments and HYDRUS-3D to
Under Changing Environment. Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore, pp. 21–42.
interpret preferential flow in soil in a rubber-based agroforestry systems in
Tauqeer, H.M., Turan, V., Iqbal, M., 2022b. In: Production of safer vegetables from heavy
Xishuangbanna, China. Catena 178, 120–131.
metals contaminated soils: the current situation, concerns associated with human
Jiao, S., Li, J., Li, Y., Xu, Z., Kong, B., Li, Y.e., Shen, Y., 2020. Variation of soil organic
health and novel management strategies. Springer, Cham, pp. 301–312.
carbon and physical properties in relation to land uses in the Yellow River Delta,
Teng, Z., Zhu, Y., Li, M., Whelan, M.J., 2018. Microbial community composition and
China. Sci. Rep. 10 (1).
activity controls phosphorus transformation in rhizosphere soils of the Yeyahu
Jobbagy, E.G., Jackson, R.B., 2001. The distribution of soil nutrients with depth: global
Wetland in Beijing, China. Sci. Total Environ. 628-629, 1266–1277.
patterns and the imprint of plants. Biogeochemistry 53 (1), 51–77.

10
Y. Zhang et al.
Turan, V., 2021. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and pistachio husk biochar combination
reduces Ni distribution in mungbean plant and improves plant antioxidants and soil
enzymes. Physiol. Plant. 173 (1), 418–429.
Turan, V., 2022. Calcite in combination with olive pulp biochar reduces Ni mobility in
soil and its distribution in chili plant. Int. J. Phytorem. 24 (2), 166–176.
Turan, V., Schröder, P., Bilen, S., et al., 2019. Co-inoculation effect of Rhizobium and
Achillea millefolium L. oil extracts on growth of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris
L.) and soil microbial-chemical properties. Sci. Rep. 9 (1), 1–10.
Wang, K., Ma, Z., Zhang, X., et al. (2020). Effects of vegetation on the distribution of soil
water in gully edges in a semi-arid region. Catena, 195, 104719.
Wang, J., Qin, Q., Bai, Z., 2018. Characterizing the effects of opencast coal-mining and
land reclamation on soil macropore distribution characteristics using 3D CT
scanning. Catena 171, 212–221.
Wang, Y., Shao, M., Liu, Z., 2013. Vertical distribution and influencing factors of soil
water content within 21-m profile on the Chinese Loess Plateau. Geoderma 193–194,
300–310.
Wu, H., Gao, X., Wu, M., et al. (2020). The efficiency and risk to groundwater of
constructed wetland system for domestic sewage treatment-A case study in Xiantao,
China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 277, 123384.
Xia, J., Ren, R., Chen, Y., et al., 2020. Multifractal characteristics of soil particle
distribution under different vegetation types in the Yellow River Delta chenier of
China. Geoderma 368.
Xiong, Z., Li, S., Yao, L.u., Liu, G., Zhang, Q., Liu, W., 2015. Topography and land use
effects on spatial variability of soil denitrification and related soil properties in
riparian wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 83, 437–443.
Yan, Y., Xin, X., Xu, X., Wang, X.u., Yang, G., Yan, R., Chen, B., 2013. Quantitative effects
of wind erosion on the soil texture and soil nutrients under different vegetation
coverage in a semiarid steppe of northern China. Plant Soil 369 (1-2), 585–598.
11
Ecological Indicators 141 (2022) 109116
Yang, L., Chen, L., Wei, W., 2015. Effects of vegetation restoration on the spatial
distribution of soil moisture at the hillslope scale in semi-arid regions. Catena 124,
138–146.
Yang, X., Zhang, C., Gu, H., Chen, X., Guo, E., 2020. Organic acids promote phosphorus
release from Mollisols with different organic matter contents. Soil Water Res. 16 (No.
1), 59–66.
Yengwe, J., Gebremikael, M.T., Buchan, D., et al., 2018. Effects of Faidherbia albida
canopy and leaf litter on soil microbial communities and nitrogen mineralization in
selected Zambian soils. Agrofor. Syst. 92 (2), 349–363.
Yifru, A., Taye, B., 2011. Land use effects on soil organic carbon and nitrogen in some
soils of Bale, Southeastern Ethiopia. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyst. 14 (1), 229–235.
Zhang, Y., Zhang, Z., Ma, Z., Chen, J., Akbar, J., Zhang, S., Che, C., Zhang, M., Cerdà, A.,
Lupwayi, N., 2018. A review of preferential water flow in soil science. Can. J. Soil
Sci. 98 (4), 604–618.
Zhang, Y., Chen, J., Zhang, J., et al., 2021. Novel indicator for assessing wetland
degradation based on the index of hydrological connectivity and its correlation with
the root-soil interface. Ecol. Indic. 133.
Zhao, Q., Bai, J., Gao, Y., Zhao, H., Huang, Y., Zhang, W., Wang, J., Chen, G., 2019.
Effects of freshwater inputs on soil quality in the Yellow River Delta, China. Ecol.
Ind. 98, 619–626.
Zhong, Z., Wu, S., Lu, X., et al., 2021. Organic carbon, nitrogen accumulation, and soil
aggregate dynamics as affected by vegetation restoration patterns in the Loess
Plateau of China. Catena 196.
Zhou, W., Yang, K.e., Bai, Z., Cheng, H., Liu, F., 2017. The development of topsoil
properties under different reclaimed land uses in the Pingshuo opencast coalmine of
Loess Plateau of China. Ecol. Eng. 100, 237–245.