## 3 Results Analysis
### Influence Analysis of Soil Physico-Chemical Properties
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Treatments**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Soil Moisture (\%)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Bulk Density**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Porosity (\%)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Mechanical Composition (\%)**} \\  & & **(g cm \({}^{-3}\))** & & **0.05-2.0 mm** & & **0.002-0.05 mm** & & **0.002-0.05 mm** & & **0.002 mm** \\  & **Average** & **Error** & **Average** & **Error** & **Average** & **Error** & **Average** & **Error** & **Average** & **Error** & **Average** & **Error** \\ \hline AR & 19.29 ab & 1.08 & 1.20b & 0.04 & 54.63a & 1.60 & 33.71a & 2.53 & 59.42c & 4.01 & 3.62a & 0.22 \\ AM & 20.75a & 1.71 & 1.19b & 0.08 & 55.13a & 2.87 & 32.17 ab & 4.00 & 61.86 bc & 6.74 & 3.58a & 0.26 \\ MS & 17.77b & 0.34 & 1.36a & 0.08 & 48.77b & 3.08 & 17.57c & 4.25 & 77.64a & 3.64 & 4.46 & 1.45 \\ AR\&AM&MS & 20.45a & 1.31 & 1.15b & 0.07 & 56.45a & 2.83 & 29.38b & 1.77 & 65.54b & 2.20 & 4.72a & 0.56 \\ AL & 18.43b & 0.57 & 1.34a & 0.04 & 49.45b & 1.62 & 33.94a & 1.60 & 61.52 bc & 2.65 & 3.98a & 0.68 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: Letters represent significant differences between different soil layers in the same stand (\(p<0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Physical properties of soils in different restoration modes. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Treatments**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**pH**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Total Salt**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Total**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Available**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Total Potassium**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Available**} \\  & & & **(g kg\({}^{-1}\))** & & & **Phosphorus** & & **Phosphorus** & & **(mg kg\({}^{-1}\))** & & **Potassium** \\  & & **Average** & **Error** & **Average** & **Error** & **Average** & **Error** & **Average** & **Error** & **Average** & **Error** & **Average** & **Error** \\ \hline AR & 8.35b & 0.03 & 0.45 bc & 0.00 & 1.63 ab & 0.80 & 1.79a & 0.34 & 16.34a & 6.86 & 17.62b & 0.25 & 136.00b & 8.92 \\ AM & 8.36b & 0.07 & 0.46b & 0.03 & 0.63c & 0.24 & 2.20a & 0.61 & 14.82a & 4.49 & 18.14a & 0.23 & 155.20a & 17.94 \\ MS & 8.43a & 0.02 & 0.42c & 0.01 & 2.47a & 0.65 & 2.44a & 0.22 & 10.81 ab & 8.95 & 18.14a & 0.29 & 167.20a & 8.17 \\ AR\&AM&MS & 8.31b & 0.06 & 0.50a & 0.03 & 1.23 bc & 0.34 & 2.19a & 0.86 & 10.17 ab & 13.10 & 18.02a & 0.26 & 165.80a & 7.95 \\ AL & 8.47a & 0.06 & 0.45b & 0.02 & 2.32a & 1.04 & 1.75a & 0.62 & 9.98b & 8.32 & 17.64b & 0.23 & 154.00a & 14.20 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: Letters represent significant differences between different soil layers in the same stand (\(p<0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Chemical properties of soils in different restoration modes. Further, Figure 2a shows that the total carbon content was reduced in the MS treatment relative to AL, whereas the content was significantly increased in all three treatments, AR, AM, and AR&AM&MS, with significant differences (\(p<0.05\)). For organic carbon (Figure 2b), all four restoration modes had reduced content relative to the abandoned land, but the difference was not significant (\(p<0.05\)), implying that the vegetation in the four restoration modes utilized organic carbon. Figure 2c shows that the total nitrogen content of the AR, AM, and AR&AM&MS treatments was significantly higher than that of the AL treatment, and the difference was significant (\(p<0.05\)); while the MS treatment was lower than the AL treatment, the difference was also significant (\(p<0.05\)). This suggests that the restoration mode for tree treatments can significantly increase total nitrogen content, while shrub treatments may reduce total nitrogen content. Figure 2d shows that there is not much difference in the alkali-soluble nitrogen content of the AR, MS, and AL treatments. However, the alkali-soluble nitrogen content of the AM and AR&AM&MS treatments  
Figure 2: Chemical properties of soils in different restoration patterns.