Artificial Measures Are Not Necessarily Better Than Natural Recovery for the Extremely Degraded Alpine Meadow: The Results of Simulated Degradation Restoration After Three Years

Natural and artificial restoration measures are widely used to restore degraded ecosystems, such as degraded alpine meadow. The objective of this research was to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of natural and artificial measures for extremely degraded alpine meadows. We removed the surface soil (0–10 cm) of the alpine meadow to simulate the extremely degraded “black soil beach,” and set artificial measures (planting Festuca sinensis (E) and Elymus sibircus L. cv. chuan-cao No. 1 (F)) and natural recovery (N) (without any artificial auxiliary measures) in the northeastern part of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau (QTP), China. After 3 years, we determined the characteristics of community and soil in the artificial and natural treatment. The results show that the species number, above-and below-ground biomass (AB, BB), root-shoot ratio (R/S) in N is significantly higher than that in artificial restoration (E and F); while the community coverage and concentration of soil total carbon, total nitrogen, microbial biomass carbon, microbial biomass nitrogen and microbial biomass phosphorus (TC, TN, MBC, MBN and MBP) in artificial restoration is significantly higher than that in N. In conclusion, compared with N, artificial measures (E and F) are not completely beneficial to the development of plant community diversity and the restoration of soil nutrients in the extremely degraded meadow. Thus, the establishment of artificial grassland is not necessarily better than natural recovery for the extremely degraded alpine meadow.