# Short-Term Effects of Pine Plantations on Vegetation and Soil in Northern Mongolia
## 3 Results
### Understory Vegetation Composition and Its Change
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Plots** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**BBS**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**MGS**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**BDS**} \\ \hline
**Species** & **RE \%** & **RC, \%** & **IV, \%** & **RE, \%** & **RC, \%** & **IV, \%** & **RE \%** & **RC, \%** & **IV, \%** \\ \hline _Festuca valesiaca_ Gaud. & 17 & 2.1 & 9.4 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ _Galatella dahurica_ DC. & 17 & 1 & 8.9 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ _Heteropappus higidus_ ([PERSON].) [PERSON]. & 17 & 1 & 8.9 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 4.8 & 2.4 & 3.6 \\ _Its tigridia_ Bunge ex Ledebour. & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 4.8 & 2.4 & 3.6 \\ _Leprogram tunnirica_ (L.) [PERSON]. & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 4.8 & 1 & 2.9 \\ _Linux sibricum_ DC. & 17 & 2.1 & 9.4 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ _Papar nucleara_ Ldb. & 17 & 0.6 & 8.6 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ _Phlomis tuberosa_ L. & 0 & 0 & 0 & 7.1 & 2.7 & 4.9 & 4.8 & 2.4 & 3.6 \\ _Potentia availis_ L. & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 4.8 & 2.4 & 3.6 \\ _Sedum azizov_ L. & 17 & 0.4 & 8.5 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ _Sibuldia adressan_ Bunge. & 0 & 0 & 0 & 7.1 & 5.4 & 6.3 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ _Trifolium luminisner_ L. & 17 & 1 & 8.9 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: Vegetation variables: RF, %—relative frequency, RC, %—relative coverage, IV, %—importance value. Plots: BBS—2003 plantation stand, MGS—2004 plantation stand, BDS—2005 plantation stand.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: _Cont._ \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Plots** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**NRS**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**NFM**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**STP**} \\ \hline
**Species** & **RE \%** & **RC, \%** & **IV, \%** & **RF \%** & **RC, \%** & **IV, \%** & **RE \%** & **RC, \%** & **IV, \%** \\ \hline _Allium bidentatum_ Fisch.ex.Prokh. & 0 & 0 & 0 & 10 & 6.3 & 8.2 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ _Allium linare_ L. & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 13 & 2.6 & 7.5 \\ _Carangana microphylla_ Lam. & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 13 & 2.6 & 7.5 \\ _Carum carvi_ L. & 0 & 0 & 0 & 10 & 1.6 & 5.8 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ _Crisium esculentum_ ([PERSON].) [PERSON]. & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 13 & 1.3 & 6.9 \\ _Cleistocene squarrosa_ ([PERSON]) Keng. & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 13 & 2.6 & 7.5 \\ _Cymburria dahurica_ L. & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 13 & 1.8 & 7.2 \\ _Elymus sibricus_ L. & 10 & 8.9 & 9.4 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ _Festuca valesiaca_ Gaud. & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 13 & 2.6 & 7.5 \\ _Fraquia orientalis_ Losinsk. & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 13 & 1.3 & 6.9 \\ _Galatella dahurica_ DC. & 0 & 0 & 0 & 10 & 1.6 & 5.8 & 13 & 1.3 & 6.9 \\ _Galanum veram_ L. & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 13 & 1.3 & 6.9 \\ _Inula briatricna_ L. & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 13 & 0.3 & 6.4 \\ _Leontropodium ochducanum_ Beauverd. & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 13 & 1.3 & 6.9 \\ _Lespelae dahurica_ ([PERSON].) [PERSON]. & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 13 & 0.3 & 6.4 \\ _Linum sibricum_ DC. & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 13 & 2.6 & 7.5 \\ _Patrinia rupestris_ ([PERSON].) [PERSON]. & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 13 & 5.1 & 8.8 \\ _Plomis tuberosa_ L. & 10 & 3.3 & 6.7 & 10 & 1.6 & 5.8 & 13 & 1.3 & 6.9 \\ _Potentia aculis_ L. & 10 & 0 & 5 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ _Plantango major_ L. & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 13 & 1.3 & 6.9 \\ _Potentia aculis_ L. & 0 & 0 & 0 & 10 & 1.6 & 5.8 & 13 & 1.3 & 6.9 \\ _Stellera chamejassme_ ([PERSON]) [PERSON]. & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 13 & 0.3 & 6.4 \\ _Thalicrum petlaideum_ L. & 10 & 0.4 & 5.2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: Vegetation variables: RF, %—relative frequency, RC, %—relative coverage, IV, %—importance value. Plots: NBS—natural regeneration stand, NFM—natural forest edge, STP—steppe area.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Quantitative analysis for IV of herbaceous vegetation in NRS, NFM, and STP plots. has the lowest value (0.0855), indicating high dominance by a few species. As a result, BBS is the most diverse plot across all indices. MGS has high evenness but low diversity, suggesting fewer species are distributed evenly.