## 4 Discussion
### Effect of the Transition Deformation Zone on CS Change
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Land Use Type**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Vegetation C (tons)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Soil CS (tons)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Total CS (tons)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Change in**} \\ \hline
**Transfer** & **Transfer to** & **Increase** & **Decrease** & **Increase** & **Decrease** & **Increase** & **Decrease** & **Area (km2)** & **Area (\%)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Grassland} & Arable land & & 1.82 & — & 13.30 & — & 11.48 & 230.44 & 24.36 \\  & Woodland & 231.87 & — & — & 322.98 & — & 554.85 & 677.33 & 71.61 \\  & Water & — & 2.39 & 0.78 & — & 3.16 & — & 12.43 & \\  & Construction & 3.67 & — & 1.60 & — & — & 2.07 & 25.67 & \\  & land & Other & 0.00 & — & 0.00 & — & 0.00 & 0.04 & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Water} & Arable land & 0.77 & — & — & 0.50 & — & 1.27 & 4.18 & 37.46 \\  & Woodland & 2.48 & — & — & 2.50 & — & 4.98 & 4.64 & 41.58 \\  & Grassland & 0.14 & — & — & 0.05 & — & 0.19 & 0.75 & \\  & Construction & 0.53 & — & 0.00 & — & — & 00.53 & 1.59 & \\  & land & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Construction} & Arable land & — & 1.17 & — & 0.93 & 0.24 & — & 7.75 & 82.45 \\  & Woodland & 0.30 & — & — & 0.81 & — & 1.11 & 1.501 & 15.97 \\  & Grassland & 0.00 & — & 0.00 & — & 0.00 & — & 0.02 & \\  & Water & — & 0.04 & 0.00 & — & 0.04 & — & 0.12 & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Other} & Arable land & 0.01 & — & — & 0.01 & — & 0.01 & 0.09 & \\  & Woodland & 0.09 & — & — & 0.11 & — & 0.0020 & 0.22 & \\  & Grassland & 0.02 & — & 0.00 & — & — & 0.0002 & 0.22 & \\  & Water & — & 00.18 & 0.0008 & — & 0.0026 & — & 1.45 & 73.23 \\ \hline Total & & 404.5 & 154.68 & 195.85 & 529.43 & 340.36 & 923.73 & 1.98 & \\  & Sum & 249.8178 & & –333.5792 & & –583.3696 & 1933.22 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: _Cont._altitude gradient, with soil CS becoming more dominant at higher altitudes [48]. The dramatic changes in the transition zone with increasing altitude make the climate increasingly unfavorable for crop growth. The grassland area continues to expand, and the agricultural system gradually shifts from crop-based to livestock-based. Livestock production increases carbon emissions while reducing CS capacity. This corresponds with the discoveries made by other scholars. [PERSON] et al. believe that trees in low-altitude forests have higher CS, and the highest soil CS occurs at higher altitudes [49]. Similar findings have been made by [PERSON] et al. [50]. Nevertheless, other academics have found partially contrasting conclusions, pointing to the possibility of other climate forces playing a key role in shaping the observed trade-offs [51], such as in regions like the high altitudes of Ecuador, where there is low seasonality in precipitation, organic matter accumulates in the soil, which increases soil CS [52]. Conversely, prolonged precipitation seasons at high altitudes in Peru may hinder the accumulation of organic matter in the soil [51]. Therefore, with the increase in altitude, the drastic change in climate in the transition zone is also an important factor affecting the regional vegetation CS and soil CS. In addition, plant community structure, biological drivers, and variables affecting soil dynamics (such as soil type, quantity and quality of soil organic matter) may also contribute significantly to CS, which is also a research direction that needs to be considered in the future to further improve the understanding of dynamic changes in CS.