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.

doi 10.7717/peerj.8090/fig-8
Full Text
Abstract

Available in full text

Date

Unknown

Authors

Unknown

Publisher

PeerJ

Related search

Figure 6: The Differences of Micro-Aggregate Fractal Dimension Between the Natural Forest and Various Vegetation Restoration Patterns at Each Last Restoration Year.

English

Table 2: Tests of the Soil Particle Fractal Dimension, Micro-Aggregate Fractal Dimension, Erodibility Linkage With Time (Years Since Cropland Abandonment), Rehabilitation Pattern and Soil Depth.

English

Table 3: Relationships Between Particle Fractal Dimension, Micro-Aggregate Fractal Dimension, Erodibility and Soil Nutrients and Soil Bulk Density.

English

Figure 3: Micro-Aggregate Fractal Dimension Change With Time Since Cropland Abandonment in Various Vegetation Rehabilitation Patterns.

English

Figure 5: The Differences of Particle Fractal Dimension Between the Natural Forest and Various Vegetation Restoration Patterns at Each Last Restoration Year.

English

Figure 7: The Differences of Erodibility Between the Natural Forest and Various Vegetation Restoration Patterns at Each Last Restoration Year.

English

Figure 2: Particle Fractal Dimension Change With Time Since Cropland Abandonment in Various Vegetation Restoration Patterns.

English

Figure 4: Erodibility Change With Time Since Cropland Abandonment in Various Vegetation Rehabilitation Patterns.

English

Figure 4: Sample Scores (46 Vegetation Plots) of the First Two Axes of the Basic-Rlq.

English

Amanote Research

Note-taking for researchers

Follow Amanote

© 2024 Amaplex Software S.P.R.L. All rights reserved.

Privacy PolicyRefund Policy