Amanote Research
Register
Sign In
Figure 7: The Differences of Erodibility Between the Natural Forest and Various Vegetation Restoration Patterns at Each Last Restoration Year.
doi 10.7717/peerj.8090/fig-7
Full Text
Open PDF
Abstract
Available in
full text
Date
Unknown
Authors
Unknown
Publisher
PeerJ
Related search
Figure 5: The Differences of Particle Fractal Dimension Between the Natural Forest and Various Vegetation Restoration Patterns at Each Last Restoration Year.
Figure 6: The Differences of Micro-Aggregate Fractal Dimension Between the Natural Forest and Various Vegetation Restoration Patterns at Each Last Restoration Year.
Figure 8: Biplot of the First Two RDA Axes Between the Vegetation Rehabilitation Patterns, Soil Depth, Restoration Time and Fractal Dimension, Erodibility (K Factor), TC, TOC, TN, Each Classes Particles and Micro-Aggregate.
Figure 2: Particle Fractal Dimension Change With Time Since Cropland Abandonment in Various Vegetation Restoration Patterns.
Figure 4: Erodibility Change With Time Since Cropland Abandonment in Various Vegetation Rehabilitation Patterns.
Soil Fertility Quality Assessment Under Different Vegetation Restoration Patterns
Acta Ecologica Sinica
Evolution
Ecology
Systematics
Behavior
Figure 2: STRUCTURE Analysis of Three Fagaceae Species in Restoration Areas and Nearest Natural Forest.
Forest and Landscape Restoration at Pontal Do Paranapanema: Ecological Attributes of Forest Restoration in a Coffee Agroforestry System
Longleaf Pine Ground-Layer Vegetation in Francis Marion National Forest: Reintroduction, Restoration, and Vegetation Assembly
