Comparison between artificial restoration and natural recovery in vegetation regrowth following high-frequency fire disturbances in the Hengduan Mountains, Southwest China

• Compared artificial restoration and natural regeneration in the Hengduan Mountains. • Vegetation recovering well from low-severity fires through natural regeneration. • The effectiveness of artificial restoration increased with the higher fire severity. • In fire-prone areas, demand for artificial restoration rises with higher fire risks. The Hengduan Mountains in Southwest China are currently facing a recurring and escalating threat of forest fires, posing a significant challenge to vegetation restoration efforts given the ecological value of this region. However, the effects of artificial restoration compared to natural regeneration on vegetation recovery dynamics have been less explored. This study focused on two sites in the Hengduan Mountains, primarily composed of conifer forests. One site employed a mix of artificial restoration measures, including tree planting, aerial grass seeding, and fertilizer application. The other site, which is relatively drier and colder, relied on natural regeneration. Four fire events in these two sites were compared to examine the effects of artificial restoration on vegetation recovery using remotely sensed data from Landsat and MODIS. Fire severity was classified using the differenced Normalized Burn Ratio (dNBR) and validated with field samples. Vegetation greenness loss and recovery trajectory were quantified using the near-infrared reflectance of vegetation (NIRv). The effects of artificial restoration were further analyzed after employing unburnt controls to minimize the impact of climate fluctuations. Results showed that fire severity mapping achieved an overall accuracy of 82%. The average NIRv loss across the four fires was 30%, 49%, and 69% in areas of low, moderate, and high severity, respectively. In low severity areas, natural and artificial recovery rates were similar, at 21% and 26% respectively, three years post-fire. In moderate severity areas, artificial restoration achieved a 46% recovery rate compared to 31% for natural recovery. In high severity areas, artificial restoration resulted in a 63% recovery rate versus 45% for natural recovery. Although the differences in recovery patterns may also be attributed to inherent variations in the vegetation composition, physical environment, and their interactions, this study suggests that high severity areas benefit significantly from artificial intervention for rapid recovery. Future studies should include more controlled experiments at the plot scale to further elucidate the processes of vegetation response to different artificial restoration measures.