The impact of vegetation restoration succession on soil carbon composition and enzyme activity in the southwestern karst region


Abstract

Vegetation restoration enhances soil carbon sequestration in degraded karst ecosystems. However, how succession influences soil organic carbon (SOC) fractions and enzyme activities remains poorly understood in Southwest China's karst landscapes. We examined three successional stages (grassland, shrubland, and secondary forest) in Pingtang County, Guizhou Province. We quantified SOC fractions, enzyme activities, and their drivers using random forest modeling, partial correlation, and structural equation modeling.SOC content increased significantly from grassland to secondary forest, with forest soils containing 76.74% more SOC than grasslands (P < 0.05). Mineral-associated organic carbon dominated all successional stages (51.75% – 58.81% of total SOC), while microbial biomass carbon increased most during succession (63.84%). Particulate organic carbon remained stable across succession (P > 0.05). β-1,4-glucosidase and Cellobiohydrolase activities increased with succession, while dehydrogenase and catalase activities decreased.Random forest analysis identified carbon fractions as the dominant predictor of SOC variance (38%). Partial correlation analysis confirmed significant relationships between SOC, carbon fractions, and enzyme activities. Structural equation modeling showed that carbon fractions had the strongest direct effect on SOC accumulation, while soil nutrients had the largest total effect through indirect pathways, regulating enzyme activities and carbon fraction dynamics. These findings elucidate the pathways through which soil nutrients regulate SOC accumulation during karst vegetation succession, advancing understanding of carbon dynamics in degraded karst ecosystems.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].