Bibliometric Analysis of Desertification in the Period from 1974 to 2024 Based on the Scopus Database

Abstract

Desertification remains a critical global issue driven by climate change, unsustainable land use, and socio-economic pressures. This bibliometric review provides an in-depth analysis of desertification research from 1974 to 2024 using the Scopus database to identify trends, key players, and methodological advances. Publications grew exponentially during this period, from 21 in 1974 to a peak of 186 in 2023, demonstrating growing academic and policy attention. The analysis found that 4178 authors contributed to 2004 peer-reviewed articles, with China emerging as a leading research hub, contributing 386 publications and leading efforts in environmental restoration projects such as the Great Green Wall. Advanced methodologies, including remote sensing and geographic information systems (GIS), have facilitated large-scale monitoring, despite challenges such as data inconsistencies and limited resolution. Institutions such as Guizhou Normal University and Lanzhou University have led the global research effort, publishing 316 and 124 publications, respectively. Influential journals, including Land Degradation and Development and the Journal of Arid Environments, have played a key role in shaping the discourse. Historical analysis has highlighted the persistent threat of desertification to human societies, exemplified by the decline of civilizations such as the Sumerian and Khorezmian. Despite significant progress, regional differences in research attention persist, with Central Asia receiving limited attention despite its vulnerability. This review highlights the need for standardized methodologies, interdisciplinary approaches, and enhanced international collaboration. By leveraging advanced technologies and sustainable land management practices, the global community can mitigate the environmental and socio-economic impacts of desertification, promoting the resilience of ecosystems and communities while moving toward land degradation neutrality.

1. Introduction

1.1. Historical and Modern Impacts of Desertification: Lessons from Civilizations

According to the 2022 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), desertification, together with climate change, is one of the most important threats of our time [1]. It should be noted that the problem of desertification itself is not new. It has been present on Earth since time immemorial, long before the advent of modern humans, and has always evolved alongside climate change [2,3,4]. With the advent of human civilization, desertification processes have accelerated due to the fact that the natural processes are compounded by human activities such as grazing, deforestation [5], and the incompetent management of land and water resources [6]. The importance of this problem is further underscored by the fact that desertification affects vital areas of human activity, including economics, agriculture, medicine, politics, and human migration [1,7]. World history provides striking examples of how desertification has led to significant population movements and, in some cases, contributed to the decline of civilizations.

• The Sumerian Civilization: One of the oldest civilizations, located in Mesopotamia (modern Iraq), largely depended on the Euphrates and Tigris rivers for agriculture. Deforestation and intensive irrigation led to soil degradation, which is a hallmark of desertification processes. Salinization and soil erosion resulted in acute food shortages. Eventually, people abandoned agricultural lands and migrated to more fertile regions. The weakening of agricultural potential and the resulting population movements contributed to the decline of the Sumerian city-states [3,8].

• The Ancient Garamantes Civilization: Situated in what is now Libya, this civilization thrived in an arid region through an extensive irrigation system known as foggaras, which extracted groundwater to support agriculture. Around 500 CE, intensifying desertification in the Sahara led to the drying of groundwater sources. As water supplies dwindled, the Garamantes were unable to sustain their urban centers and agricultural activities, leading to their decline. Many abandoned their settlements in search of more reliable water sources [9].

• The Khorezmian Civilization: Existing along the Amu Darya River, this civilization dates back to the middle of the first millennium BCE and became a cultural and trading hub. Agricultural prosperity enabled the development of settlements, trade routes, and cultural achievements. However, environmental changes, including natural shifts in the Amu Darya’s course and desertification, challenged its sustainability. Over-irrigation led to soil salinization, reducing agricultural productivity. These pressures, exacerbated by the encroaching Kyzyl Kum desert, caused many cities to decline or be abandoned by the medieval period. Khorezm eventually became part of various empires, including the Achaemenid, Parthian, and later the Islamic Caliphate [10,11,12].

Historical evidence illustrates the profound impact of desertification on human societies. The collapse of civilizations such as the Sumerians, Garamantes, and Khwarezmians demonstrates how environmental degradation can lead to population displacement and socio-economic decline. These historical examples serve to highlight that desertification was an ongoing problem long before its formal recognition as a global environmental issue in the 1970s by the United Nations. The historical perspective emphasizes that the problem is not new but has increased in complexity and scope over time. However, while these historical examples highlight the long-standing nature of desertification, their role in this study is to contextualize its presence before scientific and policy discourse began to focus on it in recent decades and to note the lack of attention paid to the study of desertification processes in the past. Rather than serving as a central focus, these links provide a basis for understanding why desertification has attracted increasing attention in contemporary environmental research. Recognizing this historical precedent allows for a deeper appreciation of the socio-economic and environmental impacts that continue to unfold today.

1.2. Socio-Economic Indicators Drawing Attention to the Problem of Desertification

Based on the historical context, it is important to examine the contemporary socio-economic aspects of desertification, which reveal its far-reaching consequences. According to the results of the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) report for 2024, between 2000 and 2020, the share of forest cover decreased to 31.2% of the total land area, resulting in a net loss of almost 100 million hectares of forest [13]. According to the IPCC report, the population growth rate in areas affected by desertification increased by 200% from 1961 to 2017, drought frequency increased by 50%, and the extent of inland wetlands decreased by more than 25% [1]. Additionally, the extent of desertification fluctuates between 4% and 70% [14]. It is projected that by 2050, the population in drylands will reach 4 billion people [15]. Based on these indicators, we see how global and important the issue of desertification is. These indicators underscore how critical and global the issue of desertification is. As a result, this issue has received so much attention that in 2015, the UN included the problem of desertification in the 17 SDG [13,16].

Once the problem has been defined, the following question arises: what is desertification? In 1991, following the Glantz inventory, the term desertification had more than 100 definitions [17]. However, by 1994, this question was addressed with an official definition provided by the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) [18]. “Desertification means land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas resulting from various factors, including climatic variations and human activities”. However, even with the UNCCD definition, uncertainties remain regarding the nature and extent of desertification, which poses significant challenges for monitoring and managing this problem on a global scale [19]. The complexity of defining desertification arises from its interaction with diverse climatic, environmental, and socio-economic factors, which vary significantly across regions. For example, while desertification in sub-Saharan Africa may largely be driven by drought and overgrazing, in Central Asia, it may primarily result from poor water management and intensive agriculture [4,19]. This regional specificity complicates the creation of a universal definition and leads to discrepancies in assessing the extent and severity of desertification [20,21]. As a result, debates continue within the scientific and policy communities regarding what desertification truly constitutes, its thresholds, and the most appropriate indicators for its measurement [22,23,24,25,26].

1.3. Methodologies Challenges in Desertification Research

Definitional issues extend to the methodologies and models used to detect and measure desertification processes [19]. Traditional ground-based assessments, while accurate, are often labor-intensive and impractical for large-scale monitoring, particularly in remote or resource-poor areas [27,28]. In contrast, advanced technologies, such as remote sensing, machine learning models, and GIS, offer broader coverage but face limitations related to data resolution, validation requirements, and potential biases introduced by algorithmic models [29,30]. For instance, remote sensing is widely used to monitor vegetation loss and soil degradation, but it may misinterpret natural changes in vegetation cycles or fail to detect subsurface changes that signify early stages of desertification [31,32]. For example, NDVI is commonly used to assess vegetation health and monitor changes in land cover. However, it is sensitive to seasonal changes in vegetation cover, such as growth during the rainy season or dieback during dry periods. As a result, NDVI values can fluctuate significantly, which can lead to false indications of land degradation in areas where seasonal vegetation cycles are responsible for the changes. For example, in arid regions, an apparent decrease in NDVI during the dry season can be interpreted as degradation, even though the land is naturally dormant due to a lack of rainfall, rather than actually degrading.

Predictive models and methodologies used to assess desertification, such as soil moisture monitoring, acoustic methods, and spatiotemporal analysis, also have limitations [31]. While soil moisture data are critical indicators of desertification risk, they are often too localized to capture broader trends, particularly in areas with heterogeneous land conditions. Machine learning and ecological modeling provide powerful predictive tools but are highly dependent on the quality and consistency of data, which can be challenging to maintain across regions and over time [33,34]. These methodological limitations can result in varying and sometimes conflicting estimates of desertification severity and progression [35].

Uncertainties in defining desertification and challenges in monitoring it underscore the need for comprehensive, integrated approaches to combat the problem. Historically, global responses have included large-scale reforestation and sustainable land management efforts, such as Africa’s Great Green Wall initiative [36,37] and China’s Three—Northern Shelters Program [38,39,40], to restore degraded lands and prevent soil erosion. However, despite these initiatives, desertification continues to progress, destroying an estimated 100 million hectares of productive land each year and costing the global economy billions of dollars per year in lost productivity [20,41].

The socio-economic and environmental impacts of desertification are profound. Economically, land degradation impacts food security and agricultural productivity, particularly in regions such as the Sahel, Central Asia, and North Africa, where communities rely heavily on subsistence farming and grazing [13,15]. Environmentally, desertification leads to biodiversity loss and disrupts ecosystem services, diminishing the land’s ability to support both humans and wildlife. As climate change accelerates, the impacts of desertification are expected to worsen, exacerbating global inequalities and disproportionately affecting rural and indigenous communities, smallholder farmers, and women, who often play critical roles in land management [21]. Current strategies emphasize the need for land degradation neutrality (LDN), an approach promoted by the UNCCD that aims to balance land degradation with restoration [42]. Achieving LDN requires accurate and actionable data on desertification progression and its effectiveness. However, without addressing definitional issues and methodological inconsistencies, achieving LDN remains a significant challenge.

1.4. A Bibliometric Review and Unexplored Perspectives

As discussed in the previous chapters, the challenges in desertification research are numerous. Furthermore, prior works we have encountered have not addressed the specific issues we focus on in this bibliometric review. The term bibliometrics was first developed in the 1970s by Pritchard (1969) [43]. Today, it represents a widely used set of methods. The development of large reference databases, their accessibility via the Internet, and the widespread availability of computers have enabled the application of studies to the literature. The main goals of such studies generally include the following: analyzing structures and dynamics (e.g., searching for regularities to enable predictions); understanding these regularities (“order from documentary chaos”, “testing models, and validating assumptions”); and improving the justification for policy and its design.

To more effectively achieve the objectives, bibliometric analysis was chosen. Its ability to identify research trends, influential articles, and key actors through quantitative metrics contrasts with traditional narrative reviews, which often rely on qualitative summaries of key studies. In addition, bibliometrics can identify gaps in the existing literature that may not be immediately apparent through qualitative analysis alone, thereby guiding future research directions. By using bibliometric methods, this review can provide a more comprehensive and data-driven perspective on desertification research, shedding light on under-researched areas and highlighting the changing focus of the scientific community.

The present study attempts to raise questions that have not been previously addressed. Our analyses aim to highlight important related scientific disciplines in which researchers are working on desertification. Similar earlier works include Hu et al. (2021) [44] and Escadafal et al. (2015) [45]. However, these studies are limited in scope: Hu et al. (2021) analyze the period from 2000 to 2020, while Escadafal et al. (2015) cover the period from 1899 to 2012. In contrast, this study provides an analysis from the period of formation and popularization of the desertification problem up to October 2024. The work by Hu et al. (2021) focuses on graphs and key issues, identifying leading directions without thoroughly discussing the main problems. Escadafal et al. (2015), in comparison, is more in-depth, exploring issues related to different scientific groups and their varied research approaches. Other publications, such as those by Costa et al. (2023) [46], Shi et al. (2022) [47], Xu et al. (2023) [48], Xie et al. (2020) [49], and Juliev et al. (2024) [50], only address desertification indirectly.

1.5. Objective Review

The main objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of desertification research conducted over the past five decades (1974–2024). Desertification is a multifaceted global problem influenced by climate change, unsustainable land use, and socio-economic pressures. Despite the growing recognition of its importance, significant gaps remain in understanding its drivers, impacts, and mitigation strategies. In this review, we aim to highlight the current challenges of desertification and identify trends in research. It also seeks to bridge the gap between academic research and practical solutions by emphasizing the importance of global collaboration in achieving land degradation neutrality (LDN). The recommendations include strengthening research collaboration, adopting standardized methodologies, and integrating technological advances into policy frameworks. By addressing these areas, the review aims to contribute to a comprehensive knowledge base that can inform both academic research and practical interventions. These efforts are critical to mitigating the socio-economic and environmental impacts of desertification, promoting sustainable land management, and ensuring the resilience of vulnerable ecosystems and communities.

2. Materials and Methodology

To achieve the aims of this study, a bibliometric analysis was conducted. A bibliometric analysis is a rigorous and structured approach to reviewing existing published work that addresses a range of issues within a particular topic or area of research. The goal of a bibliometric analysis is to identify and critically appraise relevant studies and to analyze evidence from reliable sources. The results of the review should be reproducible and demonstrate the effects, impacts, and existing issues related to the topic under study [51].

Desertification was officially recognized as one of the most important environmental problems only in 1972 at the UN Conference on the Environment. The first article mentioning the desertification in Scopus databases was published in 1974. Based on these data, in our work, we used Scopus metadata between 1974 and October 15, 2024. Scopus was chosen for its rigorous selection criteria and extensive coverage of scientific publications. The search was conducted using the following criteria:

• Desertification must appear in the following fields: article title.

• Publications must be dated between 1974 and 2024, covering the full range of the databases.

• Only publications in English were including. English-language articles: We focused on English-language articles as the primary selection criterion due to the global reach of English in research, which ensures a comprehensive representation of the desertification literature. This choice is also consistent with common practice in bibliometric research, in which English is often the dominant publication language in international journals. While we recognize that valuable research may exist in other languages, limiting the analysis to English-language articles ensures consistency in data interpretation and comparison, especially for non-native speakers and for tools such as Bibliometrix, which primarily support English-language metadata.

• The analysis was conducted using the Bibliometrix application. Bibliometrix is an open-source tool programmed in R designed to facilitate complex science mapping analyses of scientific literature and to integrate with other statistical and graphics packages [51,52,53,54,55,56]. Bibliometrix was chosen over alternative tools such as VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and Gephi due to its advanced capabilities in trend analysis, citation mapping, and network visualization. Unlike VOSviewer, which is primarily optimized for network visualization, Bibliometrix provides a more holistic analysis by integrating statistical and graphical tools for deeper bibliometric insights. Compared to CiteSpace, which excels in co-citation analysis and spike detection, Bibliometrix offers greater flexibility in handling large datasets while allowing for customized trend analysis. Additionally, while Gephi is widely used for social network analysis, it lacks the specific bibliometric features that Bibliometrix offers, making it less suitable for tracking scientific developments in desertification research. By using Bibliometrix, this study provides a more robust and systematic approach to analyzing the evolution of desertification research. Additionally, while keyword analysis identifies commonly used terms such as “desertification”, “climate change”, and “remote sensing”, it does not track how research topics have changed over time. Analyzing keyword trends across decades can show whether certain topics, such as “machine learning applications”, have gained prominence in recent years. Including a keyword evolution graph illustrating the rise and fall of different research topics would enhance this section by providing a clearer picture of how the focus of desertification research has changed over time. This insight can guide future research efforts and policy development by highlighting new areas of interest and changing priorities in the field.

• Only peer-reviewed primary research papers that had reached the final stage of publication were considered.

Based on these criteria, Scopus metadata returned a total of 2735 papers on desertification-related research. As a first step, all duplicate documents and non-English publications were removed, leaving 2706 documents. Handling of duplicates: Duplicate records were identified and removed through a systematic process using reference management software. This step was necessary to avoid biasing the analysis with duplicate citations or publications. Duplicates were cross-checked based on publication title, author names, and Digital Object Identifier (DOI) to ensure that each publication was counted only once in the final dataset. Next, documents lacking title information, author data, abstracts, and keywords were excluded, ensuring that the remaining documents contained complete information. Incomplete records: Incomplete records, such as those missing titles, author information, abstracts, or keywords, were excluded from the analysis. These incomplete records would hinder accurate bibliometric analysis, as they are necessary to accurately map citation networks, author contributions, and keyword trends. By excluding incomplete records, we ensured that the dataset used in this study was robust and reliable for drawing meaningful conclusions. This process resulted in 2577 papers. The final step involved filtering out format-related papers, such as notes, retracted papers, letters, editorials, brief reviews, typos, conference papers, data papers, and review articles. After this filtering process, 2004 papers remained. The filtering process is clearly displayed in Figure 1.

3. Results

3.1. Evolution Analyses of the Growth Interest in the Published Papers

The concept of desertification is believed to have been introduced in the first half of the 20th century [4]. However, real interest and development of this concept began in the 1970s. This is clearly illustrated in Figure 2. To better understand what is happening, we can divide the figure into two distinct periods as follows:

In Figure 2, the period from 1974 to 2000 shows a relatively small number of publications compared with the period from 2001 to 2024. Despite this, it highlights the initial growing interest in desertification research. During this period, the number of publications ranged from 0 to 28 per year.

In the second period, from 2001 to 2024, the number of publications increased significantly, with a steady annual rise since 2017. The number of publications peaked at 186 in 2023. It should be noted that the year 2024 in the figure, showing 146 publications, represents data collected only up to 15 October, and the final count for the year may be higher. The growth in published works is closely associated with the emergence of new technologies and methods for recording and monitoring desertification processes. Innovations such as remote sensing and machine learning have simplified and scaled up the study of desertification, reducing costs and time requirements while increasing the capacity to gather new data in studied areas [29,57,58,59].

The discussion primarily focuses on the growth in scientific research output but does not consider periods of stagnation or decline in publication rates. If certain years experienced lower publication rates, it would be useful to examine potential reasons for these fluctuations, such as economic downturns, shifts in research funding, or changes in research priorities. Identifying years of slower growth and examining their contextual significance would provide a more balanced and nuanced view of publication trends, offering greater insight into the factors that may have influenced desertification research dynamics over time.

The analyzed data demonstrate exponential growth in interest in desertification research. This underscores the growing global significance of desertification as a critical environmental and socio-economic issue. The urgency to address desertification is evident, reinforcing the need for continued attention and action from academic and policy circles.

3.2. Journals Specializing in Desertification Research

A strong indicator of the multifaceted interest in desertification is the wide range of scientific journals contributing to the field, as demonstrated by the 750 journals publishing on this topic. This diversity highlights the interdisciplinary nature of desertification research, which spans environmental science, policy, ecology, and geology. From this broad range, we have identified the most active scientific journals that publish frequently and possess the highest impact metrics, as shown in Table 1. Journals with fewer articles or low impact indices may reflect emerging topics or niche research areas focused on combating desertification and addressing its environmental impacts.

Table 1 highlights 12 leading scientific journals in desertification research, ranked based on the number of publications, the starting year of their contributions, and the following three key indices:

• h-index: measures the productivity and citation impact of a journal’s publications. For instance, a journal with an h-index of 36 has at least 36 articles that have been cited 36 times or more.

• g-index: extends the h-index by giving more weight to highly cited articles. It reflects the overall influence of a journal’s top publications.

• m-index: normalizes the h-index by the number of years since the journal’s first publication. It reflects the average annual increase in the h-index, showing the journal’s productivity trend.

The 12 journals listed in Table 1 published a total of 477 articles, accounting for 23% of the 2004 articles identified in 750 journals. From these simple calculations, we draw the conclusion that the data show that a few core journals have a significant impact on advancing desertification research, as reflected by their high number of articles and impact indicators. Table 1 also highlights the existence of a concentrated knowledge base, while the broader contribution of additional journals ensures that diverse aspects of desertification are explored. This multifaceted academic engagement underscores the global and interdisciplinary efforts to address desertification issues, reflecting both established and emerging research areas.

This study lists the most influential journals in desertification research but does not examine whether the field is shifting toward open access publishing. Given that open access journals increase the visibility and accessibility of research, it is important to examine whether they are becoming more dominant in the field. Comparing publication trends in open access and subscription-based journals will provide valuable insights into how research dissemination is evolving. Open access journals, with their broader reach, have the potential to increase the impact of desertification research by making it more accessible to a global audience and supporting more inclusive knowledge sharing. Analyzing the growing role of open access platforms may offer new insights into the publication dynamics of desertification research.

It is worth noting the reasons that certain journals show higher impact factors or publication rates. This can be explained by several factors, including the journals’ areas of focus, their audience, and their methodologies. Policy-oriented research: Some journals may prioritize research that has an impact on policymaking and environmental management. These publications often attract contributions from a wide range of disciplines, including the social sciences, which can enhance their impact. For example, journals publishing research on the socio-economic impacts of desertification may attract the attention of policymakers and practitioners, leading to higher citation rates. Conversely, journals focused on remote sensing and technology applications may have a different audience, primarily consisting of researchers in environmental science and technology. The methodologies used, such as GIS and machine learning, may produce innovative results that attract specialized audiences, potentially leading to a different impact trajectory. A longitudinal analysis of journal rankings would provide insight into how the focus of desertification research has evolved over time. New journals may grow due to the increasing importance of certain methodologies or topics, such as climate change adaptation strategies or sustainable land management practices. Conversely, historically dominant journals may see their relevance fluctuate as new niches develop and gain momentum in the academic community.

3.3. Author Productivity and Impact on Desertification Research

According to our analysis, 4178 authors contributed to publications on desertification from 1974 to 2024. The data indicate that desertification research is driven by a core group of highly productive authors whose contributions significantly shape the academic discourse. The most prolific authors are shown in Figure 3, reflecting those who have laid the foundation for advancing knowledge. Meanwhile, an increasing number of early-career scholars are contributing to the growing body of literature, demonstrating the field’s expanding scope.

According to Table 2, the index classification slightly changes the ranking of the total citation leaders as follows:

• h-index (measuring effective contribution): Wang X leads with an h-index of 21, indicating a high-quality, frequently cited body of work.

• g-index (capturing cumulative influence): Wang X again dominates with a g-index of 42, followed by other active authors such as Li J, with 37, and Salvati L, with 36.

• m-index (measuring annual productivity of influential publications): Guo B shows the highest m-index (1.6), indicating his significant annual contribution, followed by Kong L (1.5) and Xu S (1.33).

• TC—total citations—refers to an author who has been cited the most times. In this category, the leaders are other scientists whose citation rates exceed those of the leaders in the number of publications and indices: Huenneke L., with 2241 citations, Schlesinger W., with 2241 citations, Reynolds J., with 2225 citations, Whitford W., with 2213 citations, Cunningham G., with 2046 citations, Jarrell W., with 2024 citations, and Virginia R.A., with 2024 citations, who are followed by the leaders from Table 2 and Figure 3.

This discrepancy between total citations (TC) and h-, g-, and m-index rankings arises because TC reflects a broader interdisciplinary impact that is not limited to desertification research. For example, the seminal work by Huenneke L., Schlesinger W., Reynolds J., Whitford W., Cunningham G., Jarrell W., and Virginia R.A., titled “Biological feedbacks in global desertification”, has been cited 2024 times. This study on the impact of cattle grazing on desertification in New Mexico has had a significant influence across multiple ecological disciplines [60]. In contrast, authors ranked by h-, g-, and m-index metrics tend to focus more specifically on desertification, limiting their interdisciplinary citation reach. This analysis underscores the dual nature of desertification research: a collaborative but concentrated effort led by key individuals and the broader impact of interdisciplinary work spanning multiple fields. The findings highlight the importance of integrating specialized and interdisciplinary perspectives to address the socio-economic and environmental challenges posed by desertification effectively.

3.4. Leading Affiliation Institutions in Desertification Research

Identifying the most active organizations studying desertification provides insight into the geographic and institutional hubs driving knowledge creation and policy recommendations. The institutional contribution analysis highlights the most significant affiliations based on the volume of articles published on desertification research. Out of 1537 affiliations, we identified 10, as shown in Figure 4. The data reveal the following key institutions:

• Guizhou Normal University—as a leader in the field, with 316 publications, this institution demonstrates a strong commitment to desertification research, likely due to its proximity to vulnerable ecosystems and its emphasis on environmental science.

• Beijing-based institutions—with a combined total of 158 articles, universities and research centers in Beijing represent China’s strategic investment in desertification control, aligning with the country’s ecological restoration policies.

• Guizhou University—with 155 publications, this institution collaborates with local and global partners to address the challenges of desertification in China’s diverse landscapes.

• Lanzhou University—known for its expertise in arid and semi-arid ecosystems, Lanzhou University has published 124 articles focusing on sustainable land management and desertification mitigation strategies.

• Northwest Institute of Ecology, Environment and Resources—with 122 publications, this institute specializes in arid region research, focusing on practical solutions to desertification and the impacts of climate change.

The dominance of Chinese institutions in desertification research reflects the country’s environmental concerns and strategic priorities. China’s Great Green Wall initiative [61,62] and other reforestation projects have facilitated extensive scientific collaboration among institutions. This analysis highlights the significant contributions of Chinese institutions in advancing desertification research, supported by government policies and substantial investments in environmental science. Future research could benefit from increased international collaboration, particularly in knowledge transfer to regions experiencing emerging desertification problems. Collaborative efforts between Chinese institutions and global partners can expand the impact of this research, enabling innovative solutions to address desertification worldwide.

3.5. Leading Countries in Desertification Research

An analysis of scientific output reveals significant disparities between countries in their contributions to desertification research. The main contributors, based on the number of publications and citations, are as follows:

China has emerged as a global leader and research hub for desertification studies. This can be attributed to the country’s unique environmental challenges, including its vast arid and semi-arid regions, as well as government initiatives such as the Great Green Wall and ecological restoration programs [63]. China’s leadership in scientific output is evident, accounting for approximately 52% of global publications, as illustrated in Figure 5. Furthermore, China leads in citations, representing 46% of the total. Figure 6 and Figure 7 demonstrate that while a significant number of Chinese publications are domestically focused, the country also actively collaborates on international projects. Key research topics include sustainable land management, erosion prevention, and large-scale reforestation projects [64,65].

Italy is the second most productive country in terms of desertification output, followed by the United States, with both countries contributing 5% of global publications. However, Figure 6 reveals that the United States ranks second in citation impact, contributing 10%, while Italy ranks fourth, with 4%. This discrepancy highlights the strong research base in these countries and their significant contributions to both single-country publications (SCP) and multi-country publications (MCP) [66,67,68].

Other notable contributors include countries from the European Union, India, Brazil, Iran, and the United Kingdom, as shown in Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7. These countries play critical roles in advancing desertification research through both domestic efforts and international collaborations. The leading global players—China, the United States, and Italy—are supported by significant contributions from European and Middle Eastern nations. The analysis of the corresponding authors further emphasizes the importance of international cooperation in advancing desertification research. Figure 7 illustrates the nature of collaboration in these studies. These results highlight the need for strengthened global partnerships to comprehensively address the environmental and socio-economic impacts of desertification.

Having identified the main participants in desertification research, we can see how they have influenced political decisions. For example, there is a significant impact on United Nations initiatives and international policy. The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) has become a key platform for integrating scientific research into policy frameworks. The study by Akhtar-Schuster et al. (2016) discusses the creation of a Science–Policy Interface (SPI) within the UNCCD to improve knowledge sharing between researchers and policymakers. This modular mechanism was designed to improve the synthesis and accessibility of scientific results, enabling them to inform policy action. However, the effectiveness of this mechanism in shaping specific policy initiatives remains unclear [69].

Another example is research linking desertification to forced migration, which has influenced policy debates in North Africa and Europe, particularly regarding the impact of land degradation on rural livelihoods and displacement patterns. Ecosystem assessments have highlighted that desertification is a driver of biodiversity loss and climate vulnerability, prompting several national governments to include land degradation neutrality (LDN) goals in their environmental policies [70].

3.6. Top Keywords in Desertification Research

An important aspect of this analysis is the segmentation of data to identify trends and draw meaningful conclusions. In this study, we examined frequently occurring words in the “Author’s keywords” and “Titles” sections, highlighting the thematic priorities and geographic focus of desertification research.

When analyzing the section “Author’s keywords”, the dominant term is “desertification”, which appears 619 times, followed by “land degradation”, which has 142 mentions, as illustrated in Figure 8. Emerging terms, such as “rock desertification” (75 mentions) and “karst rock desertification” (65 mentions), reflect specific regional or geomorphological challenges. Methodological terms like “remote sensing” (95 mentions) and “GIS” (61 mentions) emphasize the growing use of technological approaches. These terms demonstrate how researchers utilize innovative tools like GIS and remote sensing to understand complex phenomena and develop mitigation strategies.

In the “Titles” section, the term “desertification” is the most frequently mentioned word, with 1982 occurrences, underscoring its central importance, as shown in Figure 9. Other frequently mentioned terms include “China” (371 mentions), “soil” (260 mentions), “land” (254 mentions), and “rocky” (251 mentions). These words reflect a strong focus on specific ecosystems and regions. The prominence of terms like “soil” and “land” highlights the ecological and agricultural impacts of desertification as key areas of research.

The analysis confirms that “desertification” consistently ranks first across all categories, reaffirming its role as the cornerstone of this field of research. The second most frequently mentioned term is “China”, reflecting the significant research efforts and practical applications in this region. The third category focuses on ecosystems and climate, with terms such as “soil”, “land”, “climate change”, and “vegetation” illustrating the interdisciplinary nature of desertification research, which combines ecology, agriculture, and environmental sciences. This reflects the main focus of research in this area. In addition, new methodological approaches, such as “machine learning” and “GIS”, point to the growing role of advanced technologies in monitoring and mitigating desertification. However, while keyword analysis identifies dominant research topics, it does not reflect how these topics have evolved over time. Analyzing keyword trends across decades would provide a deeper understanding of the changing priorities in desertification research. For example, earlier studies may have focused more on “land use change” and “soil erosion”, while in recent years there has been an increasing emphasis on “artificial intelligence” and “climate change adaptation strategies”. Identifying the rise and decline of specific research areas can show how the research focus has shifted from descriptive case studies to data-driven approaches.

The frequency and prominence of these terms illustrate a focused yet diverse research landscape in desertification studies. Integrating geographic and technological aspects with environmental and climatic dimensions ensures that the research remains comprehensive and actionable. Future studies could build on these thematic priorities while addressing underrepresented areas, such as the socio-economic impacts of desertification and the development of policy frameworks.

3.7. Evolving Trends in Desertification Research

The thematic evolution in desertification research, as illustrated in Figure 10, highlights the dynamic and changing focus of the field over the decades. Each period reflects progress in the priorities, methodologies, and contextual factors that shape desertification research.

• Early Research Period (1974–1993): Key themes during this period included “crisis”, “overgrazing”, “land”, “sand”, “desert”, and “climate”. The focus was on identifying desertification as an urgent environmental problem. Overgrazing and land degradation were central themes, reflecting concerns about the environmental and economic consequences of unsustainable practices in drylands. These foundational studies laid the groundwork for understanding desertification processes and their socio-economic impacts.

• Thematic Shifts (1994–2003): During this period, the focus shifted to themes such as “Sudan”, “Africa”, “river”, “population”, “remoteness”, and “control”. Researchers began emphasizing regional studies, particularly in Africa (e.g., Sudan and Namibia), and explored the social and environmental impacts of desertification. Key research areas included population dynamics, water management, and the application of remote sensing techniques. The integration of these tools and regional case studies improved methodologies for assessing and addressing desertification.

• Integration of Climate Science (2004–2013): Themes during this era included “climate”, “restoration”, “assessment”, “river”, and “control”. This period marked the integration of climate science into desertification research, establishing a clear link between desertification and global climate change. Efforts to restore rivers and ecosystems and to conduct comprehensive assessments became more prominent. Research adopted a more holistic approach, incorporating environmental and human factors into strategies for mitigating desertification. Interdisciplinary studies gained traction, reflecting a more integrated understanding of the issue.

• Advanced Technologies and Global Recognition (2014–2023): During this period, themes such as “China”, “de-desertification”, “assessment”, and “modification” dominated the research landscape. Studies incorporated cutting-edge technologies and technology-based strategies for combating desertification. This phase reflects a growing global recognition of desertification’s impacts, with China emerging as a leader in scalable solutions like large-scale reforestation projects. The emphasis on large-scale interventions highlights the urgency of addressing desertification within a broader environmental and socio-economic framework.

• Current Trends (2024): Emerging themes in 2024 include “environment”, “rocky desertification”, “approach”, “processes”, “drivers”, “assessment”, and “plants”. Research during this period focuses on specific methodologies, such as addressing rocky desertification and using plant-based restoration techniques. Advanced analytical approaches are increasingly employed to ensure accurate assessments and a deeper understanding of the processes driving desertification. This reflects a refined and targeted approach to tackling desertification challenges.

3.8. Historiography of Desertification Research

An analysis of desertification research through its historiography provides a timeline of the evolution of the field, identifying key publications and their interconnections over time. This approach helps contextualize current methodologies and strategies while highlighting critical milestones. By examining influential works and their interrelationships, we can better understand the conceptual development and progress of the field.

As illustrated in Figure 11, the citation network reveals strong links between foundational research and contemporary studies, emphasizing the cumulative nature of the field. For instance, research on land use and climate change frequently references earlier work on desertification control and policy implementation. These interrelationships demonstrate how knowledge in the field has evolved iteratively, with each generation of research building on the findings of its predecessors.

The historiography of desertification research underscores a dynamic and interconnected academic landscape. Foundational works continue to inform contemporary research, bridging gaps between disciplines and fostering an interdisciplinary approach. This historical perspective provides a roadmap for addressing the complex challenges posed by desertification in the context of global environmental change.

3.9. Regional and Temporal Focus of Desertification Studies

The prominence of topics such as climate change and land degradation underscores their universal importance in desertification research. At the same time, regional studies and emerging topics provide the nuanced details necessary to address specific challenges. These insights reinforce the need for ongoing interdisciplinary collaboration and innovative methodologies to tackle the escalating issue of desertification. Figure 12 illustrates the interconnected and dynamic nature of desertification research.

The green cluster serves as the central hub, representing the main research topics. Key topics in this cluster include “desertification”, “climate change”, “land degradation”, and “remote sensing”. Its centrality within the network indicates that it acts as a bridge connecting the other clusters, highlighting its fundamental role in the broader context of desertification research.

The purple cluster focuses on methodologies for restoring ecosystems affected by desertification. Topics such as “vegetation”, “soil”, and “monitoring” suggest an applied research approach aimed at mitigating desertification through ecological restoration and sustainable practices.

The blue cluster is less connected to the central green cluster, representing region-specific research. Topics such as “Inner Mongolia”, “karst regions”, and “China” reflect localized studies with a geographic focus on areas heavily impacted by desertification. This cluster highlights the importance of addressing regional challenges through targeted interventions.

The red cluster addresses the intersection of land use, human activities, and policy interventions. This cluster emphasizes governance and socio-economic factors that influence desertification processes, suggesting a focus on policy-driven solutions and human-environment interactions.

The orange and gray clusters represent smaller, isolated clusters focused on emerging research areas or niche topics. For example, topics like “wind erosion” and “desiccation” reflect specialized studies that may gain greater significance as the field continues to evolve.

Clusters such as remote sensing and GIS highlight significant advancements in desertification monitoring and analysis. These tools are critical for developing targeted solutions and enhancing our ability to understand and manage desertification processes.

4. Discussion

4.1. Limited Research on Desertification Processes in the Past

In this chapter, we focus on the limited research interest in climate change and its role in causing desertification and its consequences. The concept of desertification was introduced in the first half of the 20th century but remained poorly understood and largely ignored until the 1970s. According to the literature, the term “desertification” gained prominence after severe droughts in the Sahel region of Africa during the 1970s, which highlighted the vulnerability of drylands to environmental and anthropogenic pressures. Before this period, desertification was often perceived as a natural and inevitable process rather than a result of human activities and climate change [71].

Analyzing data obtained from Scopus data, out of 2004 papers, only 25 included both the terms “desertification” and “history”. This demonstrates the potential for further research into the historical context of desertification processes and their impact on the socio-economic development of early civilizations and states. Previous work shows that while some early civilizations experienced the effects of land degradation, systematic research to understand the causes and consequences of desertification has been insufficient to create a comprehensive framework. This lack of early research has hindered the development of effective desertification mitigation strategies, contributing to the modern challenges we face today [72,73,74,75,76].

Several factors have contributed to the limited research on desertification processes in the past. One major factor was the lack of technological advancements. In the early and mid-20th century, researchers lacked access to modern tools and technologies, such as satellite remote sensing and GIS, which are critical for monitoring and analyzing desertification over large areas [59,77]. Consequently, the ability to study and monitor desertification processes on a regional or global scale was severely limited. Additionally, the lack of international cooperation and research funding further hampered progress in understanding desertification processes. The 1977 United Nations Conference on Desertification was one of the major events that brought global attention to desertification, recognizing it as a serious global problem requiring coordinated action [78,79,80].

The limited research into desertification processes in the past has had significant implications for our ability to understand and address this critical environmental issue. Early neglect of desertification, due to a lack of awareness, technological limitations, and inadequate international cooperation, created knowledge gaps that continue to impact efforts to combat land degradation today. Increased research attention since the second half of the 20th century has been critical to advancing our understanding of desertification, but much remains to be done. Moving forward, concerted efforts are needed to fill historical data gaps, improve monitoring capabilities, and develop effective, context-specific strategies to mitigate desertification.

4.2. Challenges and Advances in Desertification Detection and Monitoring

Detection and monitoring of desertification processes is considered a complex task due to the multifaceted nature of the phenomenon. Desertification is influenced by multiple factors, including climate change, land use, soil conditions, and socio-economic activities, each requiring distinct approaches to effectively assess its impact [81]. Diverse geographic and environmental conditions further complicate the development of a unified methodology [19]. Consequently, researchers and practitioners have adopted a range of methods, each with its own strengths and weaknesses, to detect and monitor desertification.

Historically, desertification detection has relied heavily on traditional ground-based assessments, including direct observations, soil sampling, and vegetation analysis [27,82]. While these methods provided detailed local insights, they were often labor-intensive, expensive, and limited in spatial and temporal coverage. Traditional methods are impractical for large-scale or remote areas due to logistical constraints and the significant resources required.

The advent of remote sensing technologies and machine learning techniques has revolutionized the detection and monitoring of desertification. Satellite imagery, combined with GIS technologies, provides a cost-effective means of assessing large areas over long periods [29,46,83]. Instruments such as Sentinel-2, MODIS, and Landsat satellites collect data on land cover, soil moisture, and land surface temperature, which are key indicators of desertification [57,58,84,85,86]. Recent studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of using these indicators to monitor desertification processes. For instance, in Central Asia, remote sensing data have revealed serious desertification trends [87].

Despite the prevalence of advanced technologies such as remote sensing and machine learning, challenges persist. Data quality and availability remain significant issues; remote sensing data often requires ground truthing to ensure accuracy [88,89,90]. The resolution of satellite images can limit the ability to detect small-scale changes in land conditions, which are critical for the early detection of desertification [91,92]. Furthermore, machine learning models rely heavily on the quality and diversity of training datasets [93].

One of the main challenges in detecting desertification is the lack of standardization in methodologies. Different researchers and organizations use various datasets, indicators, and analytical approaches (e.g., FAO/UNEP, MEDALUS, DSPIR, PESERA, LADA, and DRAST), making it difficult to compare results or develop consistent regional and global assessments [85,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101].

Moreover, the algorithms used to detect desertification have inherent biases. Machine learning models can be influenced by the type of data fed into them, potentially leading to the overestimation or underestimation of desertification in certain areas. This is particularly problematic in heterogeneous regions, where different land cover types and climate conditions require careful calibration of the models to local conditions [102,103,104].

The lack of a single, centralized methodology for detecting desertification processes poses significant challenges for researchers and policymakers. While traditional ground-based assessments, remote sensing technologies, and machine learning models make valuable contributions, their application varies greatly across regions and contexts [85,105]. Diverse environmental conditions, coupled with the complex interaction of natural and anthropogenic factors, require a flexible and multifaceted approach to desertification monitoring. Moving forward, closer collaboration among researchers, standardization of methodologies, and integration of multiple data sources are necessary to improve the accuracy and comparability of desertification assessments.

In the early decades of desertification research, studies primarily focused on the physical aspects of desertification, such as soil degradation, loss of vegetation cover, and the impact of climate variability. Over time, however, research has increasingly integrated interdisciplinary approaches, including environmental, socio-economic, and policy perspectives. More recent findings highlight the important role of human activities, such as agriculture, deforestation, and urbanization, in exacerbating desertification. In addition, there is growing recognition of the need for sustainable land management practices, leading to the development of new approaches aimed at reversing desertification.

For example, research in the last decade has introduced the concept of ”land restoration” and its potential to mitigate desertification. This represents a significant departure from previous research, which primarily focused on describing the problem rather than proposing specific solutions. Current research highlights strategies such as agroforestry, reforestation, and the rehabilitation of degraded lands as viable solutions to combat desertification.

The evolution of desertification research has also been marked by the continuous development of more sophisticated methodologies. Advances in satellite imagery and remote sensing have enabled researchers to monitor large-scale desertification processes with greater accuracy. These technologies have made it possible to detect desertification in real time, providing new insights into the rate and extent of land degradation in remote and inaccessible regions. Additionally, the rise of machine learning and data-driven models has enhanced predictive capabilities, offering better predictions of future desertification patterns under different climate and land use scenarios.

The integration of these methodologies has led to more nuanced findings. For example, the role of microclimate in desertification is becoming an increasingly prominent topic, as remote sensing and other technologies allow researchers to identify specific areas where desertification is occurring faster than previously thought. This technological evolution has significantly changed the way desertification is studied and has expanded the scope of research beyond traditional methods.

Another key area of change in desertification research is the evolving understanding of its global impacts. While earlier studies focused primarily on arid and semi-arid regions, the concept of desertification is now recognized as a more widespread and complex phenomenon that extends beyond traditional desert areas. Recent research has highlighted the transboundary nature of desertification, linking it to global issues such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and food security.

This shift in understanding has prompted the development of new frameworks for analyzing desertification, placing greater emphasis on holistic, systems approaches. For example, the inclusion of social and economic factors in desertification research is a relatively recent development but has proven essential for understanding root causes and finding effective solutions. This interdisciplinary approach has contributed to a more complete understanding of how desertification affects not only the environment but also the livelihoods of local populations and wider societal structures.

4.3. Desertification Research in Central Asia

Central Asia, a region largely covered by deserts and semi-arid landscapes, faces significant challenges related to desertification. It is becoming increasingly susceptible to these processes due to poor water management, overgrazing, and climate change, which together exacerbate the loss of fertile land [106,107]. Comprising Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, this region is well known for its fragile ecosystems and unique climatic conditions. The arid and semi-arid regions of these countries are particularly vulnerable to desertification due to a combination of harsh natural conditions and increasing anthropogenic pressure [108,109,110]. Desertification in this region is characterized by the deterioration of soil quality, reduction of vegetation cover, and increasing salinity, which primarily affect agricultural productivity and food security. According to a comprehensive review of desertification from 1974 to 2024, the Scopus database highlighted that while research on this region has been conducted, there remains considerable potential for further desertification studies. Comparing the numbers shown in Table 3 with those in Figure 5, it is evident that Central Asia is underrepresented in global desertification research.

Several interrelated factors contribute to desertification in Central Asia. Climate change is a major driver, leading to prolonged droughts, reduced precipitation, and more extreme weather patterns. According to the IPCC, the region has experienced rising temperatures and shifting precipitation patterns, increasing the risk of desertification [111,112]. Moreover, unsustainable agricultural practices, such as over-irrigation, have led to severe soil salinization, further degrading productive lands [88,113]. Historical records, including those of the Khorezm civilization, illustrate the adverse impacts of poor irrigation management on regional ecosystems, which ultimately lead to widespread land abandonment [10].

Desertification remains a major environmental and socio-economic problem in Central Asia, with far-reaching consequences for the region’s ecosystems, agriculture, and communities [109]. Addressing this issue requires a comprehensive understanding of its drivers, both natural and anthropogenic, as well as a commitment to sustainable land management practices. Moving forward, the integration of advanced technologies, transboundary cooperation, and community engagement will be essential to mitigate desertification and ensure a sustainable future for the Central Asian drylands. Given these challenges, there is an urgent need for increased research and monitoring of desertification processes in Central Asia. This research should focus on developing innovative solutions tailored to the unique environmental and socio-economic conditions of the region.

5. Conclusions

This bibliometric review of desertification research from 1974 to 2024 highlights significant progress in understanding and addressing this critical global issue. The analysis found an exponential increase in publications, from 21 in 1974 to a peak of 186 in 2023, underscoring the growing urgency of combating desertification. Key players in this field include institutions such as Guizhou Normal University, with 316 publications, and Lanzhou University, with 124 publications, demonstrating China’s leadership in this field.

This study also identified topic trends, with “desertification” being the most frequently mentioned term (1982 mentions). However, since desertification was the keyword used in the search, it is fair to discount it as a leading trend. Accordingly, “China” ranked second after desertification, with 371 mentions, highlighting the country’s key role in global desertification research. Advanced methodologies, such as remote sensing and GIS technologies, were highlighted as critical tools for enabling large-scale monitoring, despite ongoing challenges with data quality and methodological inconsistencies.

Furthermore, the review found regional differences in research focus, with Central Asia receiving comparatively limited attention despite its vulnerability. Historical examples, such as the Sumerian and Khorezmian civilizations, illustrate the long-standing impact of desertification on human societies, reinforcing the need for proactive and sustainable land management practices.

Moving forward, addressing methodological standardization, enhancing global collaboration, and integrating technological innovations will be critical for mitigating the socio-economic and environmental impacts of desertification. These efforts will pave the way toward achieving land degradation neutrality and maintaining the resilience of vulnerable ecosystems and communities.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.B.; methodology, A.B., Y.A.A.-M., and M.J.; software, A.B.; validation, A.B.; formal analysis, A.B. and Y.A.A.-M.; investigation, A.B. and Y.A.A.-M.; resources, A.B. and M.J.; data curation, A.B. and M.J.; writing—original draft preparation, A.B.; writing—review and editing, A.B. and M.J.; visualization, A.B.; supervision, M.J. and J.A.; project administration, J.A.; funding acquisition, J.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

We sincerely thank our data providers and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable contributions and constructive feedback, which greatly enhanced the quality of this work. This research was further supported by the UCAS Scholarship for International Students.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Methodology of the literature search and filtering process.

Figure 2. Trends in publications on desertification research from the period from 1974 to 2024.

Figure 3. Most published authors on desertification in the period from 1974 to 2024.

Figure 4. Most relevant affiliations in desertification research.

Figure 5. List of top countries in desertification research (a resource from www.mapchart.net was used).

Figure 6. Top cited countries in desertification research.

Figure 7. Countries of corresponding authors in desertification research.

Figure 8. World cloud of most frequently used author keywords.

Figure 9. Tree map of most frequently used words in titles.

Figure 10. Thematic evolution in desertification research by title.

Figure 11. Historiography of desertification research by title.

Figure 12. Thematic and institutional collaboration network in desertification research.

Table 1

Top journals contributing to desertification research.

Journals	Number of Publications	Publication Start Year	h-Index	g-Index	m-Index
Land Degradation and Development	85	1998	36	64	1.33
Journal of Arid Environments	61	1982	36	61	0.84
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment	45	1986	19	35	0.48
Catena	40	2003	19	38	0.86
Environmental Earth Sciences	38	2009	20	31	1.25
Science of the Total Environment	36	2009	21	36	1.31
Remote Sensing	33	2011	13	23	0.93
Ecological Indicators	32	2012	20	32	1.54
Sustainability (Switzerland)	30	2014	11	18	1
Arid Ecosystems	27	2011	9	12	0.64
Land	27	2019	9	15	1.5
Forests	23	2019	7	10	1.17

Table 2

List of the top authors by h, g, and m indices.

Authors	h-Index	g-Index	m-Index	TC	First Published
Wang X	21	42	1.11	1841	2006
Salvati L	19	36	1.12	1305	2008
Li J	18	37	1.06	1543	2008
Li S	16	27	0.53	818	1995
Yang X	14	24	0.7	838	2005
Wang T	14	23	0.67	929	2004
Li Y	13	20	0.68	444	2006
Liu Y	13	28	0.43	818	1995
Wang Y	12	17	0.92	312	2012
Wang J	12	24	0.71	590	2008

Table 3

List of publications in Central Asia.

Countries and Region	Publications	Period
Central Asia	14	2000–2024
Kazakhstan	3	2014–2020
Kyrgyzstan	0
Tajikistan	0
Turkmenistan	1	1980
Uzbekistan	2	2020, 2013

References

1. Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change and Land: IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems; 1st ed. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2019; ISBN 978-1-009-15798-8

2. Xu, D.; Li, C.; Zhuang, D.; Pan, J. Assessment of the Relative Role of Climate Change and Human Activities in Desertification: A review. J. Geogr. Sci.; 2011; 21, pp. 926-936. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11442-011-0890-1]

3. Issar, A.; Zohar, M. Climate Change: Environment and History of the Near East; 2nd ed. Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, New York, NY, USA, 2007; ISBN 978-3-540-69851-7

4. Herrmann, S.M.; Hutchinson, C.F. The Changing Contexts of the Desertification Debate. J. Arid. Environ.; 2005; 63, pp. 538-555. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2005.03.003]

5. Davis, D.K. Deserts and Drylands Before the Age of Desertification. The End of Desertification; Behnke, R.; Mortimore, M. Springer Earth System Sciences Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 203-223. ISBN 978-3-642-16013-4

6. Wang, N.; Zhang, C.; Li, G.; Cheng, H. Historical Desertification Process in Hexi Corridor, China. Chin. Geogr. Sci.; 2005; 15, pp. 245-253. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11769-005-0037-3]

7. United Nations Human Settlements Programme. Land Degradation and Conflict: Case Studies from Sudan, Jordan and Niger; United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) United Nations: Nairobi, Kenya, 2022; 29.

8. Carolin, S.A.; Walker, R.T.; Day, C.C.; Ersek, V.; Sloan, R.A.; Dee, M.W.; Talebian, M.; Henderson, G.M. Precise Timing of Abrupt Increase in Dust Activity in the Middle East Coincident with 4.2 Ka Social Change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 2019; 116, pp. 67-72. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1808103115]

9. Sadr, K. Who were the garamantes and what became of them? The Archaeology of Fazzan; Volume I: Synthesis. Edited by David J. Mattingly. London: Society for Libyan Studies, and Tripoli: Department of Antiquities, 2003. Pp. xxvi+426. No price given (ISBN 1-90097-102-X). J. Afr. Hist.; 2004; 45, pp. 492-493. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0021853704229930]

10. BRITE. Elizabeth Baker Khorezm’s Dark Age in the 3rd to 6th Centuries CE. Iran. Antiq.; 2021; 56, pp. 189-209. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2143/IA.56.0.3290275]

11. Yagodin, V.N.; Betts, A.V.G. Ancient Khorezm; UNESCO 2006 within the framework of the UNESCO Cross-Cutting project, Innovative and Intersectoral Approaches to the Aral Sea Basin, Uzbekistan UNESCO: Paris, France, 2006.

12. Altman, V. Ancient Khorezmian Civilization in the Light of the Latest Archaeological Discoveries (1937–1945). J. Am. Orient. Soc.; 1947; 67, 81. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/595306]

13. United Nations publication issued by the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA). The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2024; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2024; 51.

14. Safriel, U.N. The Assessment of Global Trends in Land Degradation. Climate and Land Degradation; Sivakumar, M.V.K.; Ndiang’ui, N. Environmental Science and Engineering Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 1-38. ISBN 978-3-540-72437-7

15. Stefan<monospace> </monospace>van der Esch, E.; Ten, B.B.; Elke, S.; Michel, B.; Annelies, S.; Bouwman, A.; Johanm, M.; Henk, W.; van den Maurits, B.; van den Gert Jan, B. et al. Exploring Future Changes in Land Use and Land Condition and the Impacts on Food, Water, Climate Change and Biodiversity; PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment: Hague, The Netherlands, 2017; 116.

16. Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, M.; Yuan, Z. The Global Situation of Karst Desertification Research Based on Forest Ecology. Forests; 2024; 15, 126. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f15010126]

17. Mainguet, M. Desertification; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1994; ISBN 978-3-642-86186-4

18. UNCCD UNCCD Convention Text. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. 1994; Available online: https://catalogue.unccd.int/936_UNCCD_Convention_ENG.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2020).

19. Reynolds, J.F. Desertification Is a Prisoner of History: An Essay on Why Young Scientists Should Care. Ecosistemas; 2021; 30, 2302. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7818/ECOS.2302]

20. Liu, S.; Wang, T.; Kang, W.; David, M. Several challenges in monitoring and assessing desertification. Environ. Earth Sci.; 2015; 73, pp. 7561-7570. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-3926-x]

21. Adeel, Z. Millennium Ecosystem AssessmentWorld Resources Institute. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Desertification Synthesis; A Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; ISBN 978-1-56973-590-9

22. Jain, S.; Srivastava, A.; Khadke, L.; Chatterjee, U.; Elbeltagi, A. Global-Scale Water Security and Desertification Management Amidst Climate Change. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2024; 31, pp. 58720-58744. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-34916-0]

23. Bestelmeyer, B.T.; Okin, G.S.; Duniway, M.C.; Archer, S.R.; Sayre, N.F.; Williamson, J.C.; Herrick, J.E. Desertification, Land Use, and the Transformation of Global Drylands. Front. Ecol. Environ.; 2015; 13, pp. 28-36. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1890/140162]

24. Bisaro, A.; Kirk, M.; Zdruli, P.; Zimmermann, W. Global drivers setting desertification research priorities: Insights from a stakeholder consultation forum. Land Degrad. Dev.; 2014; 25, pp. 5-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2220]

25. D’Odorico, P.; Bhattachan, A.; Davis, K.F.; Ravi, S.; Runyan, C.W. Global Desertification: Drivers and Feedbacks. Adv. Water Resour.; 2013; 51, pp. 326-344. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2012.01.013]

26. Rubio, J.L.; Bochet, E. Desertification Indicators as Diagnosis Criteria for Desertification Risk Assessment in Europe. J. Arid. Environ.; 1998; 39, pp. 113-120. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jare.1998.0402]

27. Ma, L.; Wang, Q.; Shen, S.; Li, F.; Li, L. Heterogeneity of Soil Structure and Fertility During Desertification of Alpine Grassland in Northwest Sichuan. Ecosphere; 2020; 11, e03161. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.3161]

28. Wischmeier, W.H.; Smith, D.D. Predicting Rainfall-Erosion Losses from Cropland East of the Rocky Mountains; US Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1965.

29. Rivera-Marin, D.; Dash, J.; Ogutu, B. The Use of Remote Sensing for Desertification Studies: A review. J. Arid. Environ.; 2022; 206, 104829. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2022.104829]

30. Hill, J.; Mégier, J.; Mehl, W. Land Degradation, Soil Erosion and Desertification Monitoring in Mediterranean Ecosystems. Remote Sens. Rev.; 1995; 12, pp. 107-130. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02757259509532278]

31. Mukhopadhyay, D.; Mishra, G. Monitoring Land Degradation and Desertification Using The State-of-the-Art Methods and Remote Sensing Data. Modern Cartography Series; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2024; Volume 12, pp. 627-654. ISBN 978-0-443-23890-1

32. Sterk, G.; Stoorvogel, J.J. Desertification–Scientific Versus Political Realities. Land; 2020; 9, 156. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land9050156]

33. Rukhovich, D.I.; Koroleva, P.V.; Rukhovich, D.D.; Kalinina, N.V. The Use of Deep Machine Learning for the Automated Selection of Remote Sensing Data for the Determination of Areas of Arable Land Degradation Processes Distribution. Remote Sens.; 2021; 13, 155. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs13010155]

34. Giannini, A.; Biasutti, M.; Verstraete, M.M. A Climate Model-Based Review of Drought in the Sahel: Desertification, the Re-Greening and Climate Change. Glob. Planet. Chang.; 2008; 64, pp. 119-128. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2008.05.004]

35. Verón, S.R.; Paruelo, J.M.; Oesterheld, M. Assessing Desertification. J. Arid. Environ.; 2006; 66, pp. 751-763. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2006.01.021]

36. Goffner, D.; Sinare, H.; Gordon, L.J. The Great Green Wall for the Sahara and the Sahel Initiative as an Opportunity to Enhance Resilience in Sahelian Landscapes and Livelihoods. Reg. Environ. Chang.; 2019; 19, pp. 1417-1428. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01481-z]

37. Ndeso-Atanga, A. Creating a Forest Landscape Restoration Movement in Africa: A Call to Heal Planet Earth; Gueye, N.; Ndeso-Atanga, A. Regional Office for Africa, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Accra, Ghana, 2018; ISBN 978-92-5-130632-1

38. Zhai, J.; Wang, L.; Liu, Y.; Wang, C.; Mao, X. Assessing the Effects of China’s Three-North Shelter Forest Program over 40 Years. Sci. Total Environ.; 2023; 857, 159354. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159354]

39. Qi, K.; Zhu, J.; Zheng, X.; Wang, G.G.; Li, M. Impacts of the World’s Largest Afforestation Program (Three-North Afforestation Program) on Desertification Control in Sandy Land of China. GISci. Remote Sens.; 2023; 60, 2167574. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15481603.2023.2167574]

40. Cao, S.; Liu, Y.; Yu, Z. China’s Successes at Combating Desertification Provide Roadmap for Other Nations. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev.; 2018; 60, pp. 16-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2018.1419002]

41. Grainger, A. Are Global Environmental Uncertainties Inevitable? Measuring Desertification for the SDGs. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 4063. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14074063]

42. Leal Filho, W.; Azul, A.M.; Brandli, L.; Özuyar, P.G.; Wall, T. Climate Action; Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; ISBN 978-3-319-95884-2

43. Alan, P. Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics?. J. Doc.; 1969; 25, pp. 348-349.

44. Hu, H.; Dai, J.; Jin, Y.; Liu, X. Bibliometric analysis on desertification restoration based on CiteSpace. Arab. J. Geosci.; 2021; 14, 72. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-06309-3]

45. Escadafal, R.; Barbero-Sierra, C.; Exbrayat, W.; Marques, M.J.; Akhtar-Schuster, M.; El Haddadi, A.; Ruiz, M. First Appraisal of the Current Structure of Research on Land and Soil Degradation as Evidenced by Bibliometric Analysis of Publications on Desertification. Land Degrad. Dev.; 2015; 26, pp. 413-422. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2351]

46. Costa, D.P.; Herrmann, S.M.; Vasconcelos, R.N.; Duverger, S.G.; Franca Rocha, W.J.S.; Cambuí, E.C.B.; Lobão, J.S.B.; Santos, E.M.R.; Ferreira-Ferreira, J.; Oliveira, M. et al. Bibliometric Analysis of Land Degradation Studies in Drylands Using Remote Sensing Data: A 40-Year Review. Land; 2023; 12, 1721. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land12091721]

47. Shi, X.; Zhang, X.; Lu, S.; Wang, T.; Zhang, J.; Liang, Y.; Deng, J. Dryland Ecological Restoration Research Dynamics: A Bibliometric Analysis Based on Web of Science Data. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 9843. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14169843]

48. Xu, Z.; Li, X.; Zhang, L. A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends and Hotspots in Alpine Grassland Degradation on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. PeerJ; 2023; 11, e16210. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.16210] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37901470]

49. Xie, H.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, Z.; Lv, T. A Bibliometric Analysis on Land Degradation: Current Status, Development, and Future Directions. Land; 2020; 9, 28. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land9010028]

50. Juliev, M.; Kholmurodova, M.; Abdikairov, B.; Abuduwaili, J. A Comprehensive Review of Soil Erosion Research in Central Asian Countries (1993–2022) Based on the Scopus Database. Soil Water Res.; 2024; 19, pp. 244-256. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17221/82/2024-SWR]

51. Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, D.; Pandey, N.; Lim, W.M. How to Conduct a Bibliometric Analysis: An Overview and Guidelines. J. Bus. Res.; 2021; 133, pp. 285-296. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070]

52. Madsen, D.Ø.; Berg, T.; Di Nardo, M. Bibliometric Trends in Industry 5.0 Research: An Updated Overview. Appl. Syst. Innov.; 2023; 6, 63. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/asi6040063]

53. Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Pattnaik, D. Forty-Five Years of Journal of Business Research: A Bibliometric Analysis. J. Bus. Res.; 2020; 109, pp. 1-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.039]

54. Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. bibliometrix: An R-Tool for Comprehensive Science Mapping Analysis. J. Informetr.; 2017; 11, pp. 959-975. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007]

55. Kannazarova, Z.; Juliev, M.; Muratov, A.; Abuduwaili, J. Groundwater in the Commonwealth of Independent States: A Bibliometric Analysis of Scopus-Based Papers from 1972 to 2023, emphasizing the significance of drainage. Groundw. Sustain. Dev.; 2024; 25, 101083. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2024.101083]

56. Jumaniyazov, I.; Juliev, M.; Orazbaev, A.; Reimov, T. Marginal Lands: A Review of Papers from the Scopus Database Published in English for the Period of 1979–2022. Soil Sci. Ann.; 2023; 74, 169657. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.37501/soilsa/169657]

57. Berdyyev, A.; Al-Masnay, Y.A.; Juliev, M.; Abuduwaili, J. Desertification Monitoring Using Machine Learning Techniques with Multiple Indicators Derived from Sentinel-2 in Turkmenistan. Remote Sens.; 2024; 16, 4525. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs16234525]

58. Wang, J.; Ding, J.; Yu, D.; Teng, D.; He, B.; Chen, X.; Ge, X.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, Y.; Yang, X. et al. Machine Learning-Based Detection of Soil Salinity in an Arid Desert Region, Northwest China: A Comparison Between Landsat-8 OLI and Sentinel-2 MSI. Sci. Total Environ.; 2020; 707, 136092. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136092]

59. Tripathy, G.K.; Ghosh, T.K.; Shah, S.D. Monitoring of Desertification Process in Karnataka state of India Using Multi-Temporal Remote Sensing and Ancillary Information Using gis. Int. J. Remote Sens.; 1996; 17, pp. 2243-2257. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01431169608948771]

60. Schlesinger, W.H.; Reynolds, J.F.; Cunningham, G.L.; Huenneke, L.F.; Jarrell, W.M.; Virginia, R.A.; Whitford, W.G. Biological Feedbacks in Global Desertification. Science; 1990; 247, pp. 1043-1048. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.247.4946.1043] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17800060]

61. Sileshi, G.W.; Dagar, J.C.; Kuyah, S.; Datta, A. The Great Green Wall Initiatives and Opportunities for Integration of Dryland Agroforestry to Mitigate Desertification. Agroforestry for Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture in Asia and Africa; Dagar, J.C.; Gupta, S.R.; Sileshi, G.W. Sustainability Sciences in Asia and Africa Springer Nature: Singapore, 2023; pp. 175-206. ISBN 978-981-19-4601-1

62. Jiang, H. Taking Down the “Great Green Wall”: The Science and Policy Discourse of Desertification and Its Control in China. The End of Desertification?; Behnke, R.; Mortimore, M. Springer Earth System Sciences Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 513-536. ISBN 978-3-642-16013-4

63. Cai, D.; Ge, Q.; Wang, X.; Liu, B.; Goudie, A.S.; Hu, S. Contributions of Ecological Programs to Vegetation Restoration in Arid and Semiarid China. Environ. Res. Lett.; 2020; 15, 114046. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abbde9]

64. Yu, X.; Lei, J.; Gao, X. An over review of desertification in Xinjiang, Northwest China. J. Arid. Land; 2022; 14, pp. 1181-1195. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40333-022-0077-x]

65. Bao, Y.; Yang, L.; Long, C.; Kong, Z.; Peng, P.; Xiao, J.; Jiang, L.; Lu, Q. Review of 60 years combating desertification in China and prospects on it. Sci. Soil Water Conserv.; 2018; 16, 6. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.16843/j.sswc.2018.02.019]

66. Halbac-Cotoara-Zamfir, R.; Smiraglia, D.; Quaranta, G.; Salvia, R.; Salvati, L.; Giménez-Morera, A. Land Degradation and Mitigation Policies in the Mediterranean Region: A Brief Commentary. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 8313. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12208313]

67. Salvia, R.; Egidi, G.; Vinci, S.; Salvati, L. Desertification Risk and Rural Development in Southern Europe: Permanent Assessment and Implications for Sustainable Land Management and Mitigation Policies. Land; 2019; 8, 191. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land8120191]

68. Fredrickson, E.; Havstad, K.M.; Estell, R.; Hyder, P. Perspectives on Desertification: South-Western United States. J. Arid. Environ.; 1998; 39, pp. 191-207. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jare.1998.0390]

69. Akhtar-Schuster, M.; Amiraslani, F.; Morejon, C.F.D.; Escadafal, R.; Fulajtar, E.; Grainger, A.; Kellner, K.; Khan, S.I.; Pardo, O.P.; Sauchanka, U. et al. Designing a New Science-Policy Communication Mechanism for the UN Convention to Combat Desertification. Environ. Sci. Policy; 2016; 63, pp. 122-131. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.03.009]

70. Adeel, Z.; Bogardu, J.; Braeuel, C.; Chasek, P.; Niamir-Fuller, M.; Gabriels, D.; King, C.; Knabe, F.; Kowsar, A.; Salem, B. et al. Overcoming One of the Greatest Environmental Challenges of Our Times: Re-Thinking Policies to Cope with Desertification; King, C.; Chasek, P.S.; Koswar, A. A Policy Brief Based on the Joint International Conference: “Desertification and the International Policy Imperative”, Algiers, Algeria, 17–19 December 2006 United Nations University International Network on Water, Environment and Health: Hamilton, ON, Canada, 2007; ISBN 978-92-808-6004-7

71. Usha, K.B. Desertification. The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Global Security Studies; Romaniuk, S.; Thapa, M.; Marton, P. Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 1-8. ISBN 978-3-319-74336-3

72. Gangneron, F.; Pierre, C.; Robert, E.; Kergoat, L.; Grippa, M.; Guichard, F.; Hiernaux, P.; Leauthaud, C. Persistence and Success of the Sahel Desertification Narrative. Reg Environ. Chang.; 2022; 22, 118. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10113-022-01969-1]

73. Erdkamp, P.; Manning, J.G.; Verboven, K. Climate Change and Ancient Societies in Europe and the Near East: Diversity in Collapse and Resilience; Palgrave Studies in Ancient Economies Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; ISBN 978-3-030-81102-0

74. McCormick, M. What Climate Science, Ausonius, Nile Floods, Rye, and Thatch Tell Us about the Environmental History of the Roman Empire. The Ancient Mediterranean Environment Between Science and History; Harris, W.V. BRILL: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 61-88. ISBN 978-90-04-25343-8

75. Aberth, J. An Environmental History of the Middle Ages; 1st ed. Routledge: London, UK, 2012; ISBN 978-1-136-26303-3

76. Ogilvie, A.E.J. Historical Climatology, Climatic Change, and Implications for Climate Science in the Twenty-First Century. Clim. Chang.; 2010; 100, pp. 33-47. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9854-1]

77. Shen, H.; Abuduwaili, J.; Ma, L.; Samat, A. Remote Sensing-Based Land Surface Change Identification and Prediction in the Aral Sea bed, Central Asia. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol.; 2019; 16, pp. 2031-2046. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13762-018-1801-0]

78. Glantz, M. Desertification: Environmental Degradation in and Around Arid Lands; 1st ed. Taylor and Francis: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2019; ISBN 978-0-429-05089-3

79. Kassas, M. Desertification: A General Review. J. Arid. Environ.; 1995; 30, pp. 115-128. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-1963(05)80063-1]

80. Mabbutt, J.A. A New Global Assessment of the Status and Trends of Desertification. Environ. Conserv.; 1984; 11, pp. 103-113. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0376892900013795]

81. Spinoni, J.; Vogt, J.; Naumann, G.; Carrao, H.; Barbosa, P. Towards Identifying Areas at Climatological Risk of Desertification Using the Köppen-Geiger Classification and FAO Aridity Index: Towards Identifying Areas at Climatological Risk of Desertification. Int. J. Clim.; 2015; 35, pp. 2210-2222. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/joc.4124]

82. Brandt, J.; Geeson, N. Desertification Indicator System for Mediterranean Europe: Science, Stakeholders and Public Dissemination of Research Results. Monitoring and Modelling Dynamic Environments; Dykes, A.P.; Mulligan, M.; Wainwright, J. Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 121-137. ISBN 978-0-470-71121-7

83. Liu, P.; Guo, B.; Zhang, R. Detection of the Evolution Process of Desertification in Gulang County Based on Long Series and Similar Time Images. Land; 2024; 13, 1652. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land13101652]

84. Jiang, Z.; Ni, X.; Xing, M. A Study on Spatial and Temporal Dynamic Changes of Desertification in Northern China from 2000 to 2020. Remote Sens.; 2023; 15, 1368. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs15051368]

85. Sibiya, S.; Clifford-Holmes, J.K.; Gambiza, J. Drivers of Degradation of Croplands and Abandoned Lands: A Case Study of Macubeni Communal Land in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Land; 2023; 12, 606. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land12030606]

86. Li, P.; Chen, P.; Shen, J.; Deng, W.; Kang, X.; Wang, G.; Zhou, S. Dynamic Monitoring of Desertification in Ningdong Based on Landsat Images and Machine Learning. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 7470. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14127470]

87. Li, S.; He, S.; Xu, Z.; Liu, Y.; Von Bloh, W. Desertification Process and its Effects on Vegetation Carbon Sources and Sinks Vary Under Different Aridity Stress in Central Asia During 1990–2020. Catena; 2023; 221, 106767. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2022.106767]

88. Alliouche, A.; Kouba, Y. Modelling the Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Land Susceptibility to Desertification in Algeria. Catena; 2023; 232, 107437. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2023.107437]

89. Mihi, A.; Ghazela, R.; Wissal, D. Mapping Potential Desertification-Prone Areas in North-Eastern Algeria Using Logistic Regression Model, GIS, and Remote Sensing Techniques. Environ. Earth Sci.; 2022; 81, 385. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-022-10513-7] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35891927]

90. Lahlaoi, H.; Rhinane, H.; Hilali, A.; Lahssini, S.; Moukrim, S. Desertification Assessment Using MEDALUS Model in Watershed Oued El Maleh, Morocco. Geosciences; 2017; 7, 50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/geosciences7030050]

91. Babayev, A.G.; Kharin, N.G. Remote sensing methods for compiling maps of desertification. Mapp. Sci. Remote Sens.; 1989; 26, pp. 325-330. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07493878.1989.10641780]

92. Kaushalya, R. Monitoring the Impact of Desertification in Western Rajasthan Using Remote Sensing. J. Arid. Environ.; 1992; 22, pp. 293-304. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-1963(18)30648-7]

93. Zaka, M.M.; Samat, A. Advances in Remote Sensing and Machine Learning Methods for Invasive Plants Study: A Comprehensive Review. Remote Sens.; 2024; 16, 3781. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs16203781]

94. Fadl, M.E.; Abuzaid, A.S.; AbdelRahman, M.A.E.; Biswas, A. Evaluation of Desertification Severity in El-Farafra Oasis, Western Desert of Egypt: Application of Modified MEDALUS Approach Using Wind Erosion Index and Factor Analysis. Land; 2021; 11, 54. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land11010054]

95. Jiboye, J.O.; Ikporukpo, C.O.; Olatubara, C.O. Causes of Environmental Degradation in the Coastal Areas of South West, Nigeria. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. Res.; 2019; 3, em0079. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.20897/ejosdr/3969] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39893277]

96. Bunning, S.; McDonagh, J.; Rioiux, A. Land Degradation Assessment In Drylands: Questionnaire for Mapping Land Degradation and Sustainable Land Management (Qm); FAO: Rome, Italy, 2011.

97. Tsara, M.; Kosmas, C.; Kirkby, M.J.; Kosma, D.; Yassoglou, N. An Evaluation of the Pesera Soil Erosion Model and Its Application to a Case Study in Zakynthos, Greece. Soil Use Manag.; 2005; 21, pp. 377-385. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1079/SUM2005322]

98. Kosmas, C.; Kirkby, M.J.; Geeson, N. The Medalus Project: Mediterranean Desertification and Land Use: Manual on Key Indicators of Desertification and Mapping Environmentally Sensitive Areas to Desertification; Directorate-General Science, Research and Development: Brussels, Belgium, 1999; ISBN 978-92-828-6349-7

99. Dregne, H.; Boyadgiev, T.G. Provisional Methodology for Assessment and Mapping of Desertification; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsGlobal Environment Monitoring System. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 1983; ISBN 92-5-101442-6

100. Karavitis, C.A.; Tsesmelis, D.E.; Oikonomou, P.D.; Kairis, O.; Kosmas, C.; Fassouli, V.; Ritsema, C.; Hessel, R.; Jetten, V.; Moustakas, N. et al. A Desertification Risk Assessment Decision Support Tool (DRAST). Catena; 2020; 187, 104413. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2019.104413]

101. Soltani, K.; Amiri, A.; Ebtehaj, I.; Cheshmehghasabani, H.; Fazeli, S.; Gumiere, S.J.; Bonakdari, H. Advanced Forecasting of Drought Zones in Canada Using Deep Learning and CMIP6 Projections. Climate; 2024; 12, 119. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cli12080119]

102. Zhang, C.; Tan, N.; Li, J. Aeolian Desertification Dynamics from 1995 to 2020 in Northern China: Classification Using a Random Forest Machine Learning Algorithm Based on Google Earth Engine. Remote Sens.; 2024; 16, 3100. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs16163100]

103. Yue, Y.; Li, M.; Wang, L.; Zhu, A.-X. A Data-Mining-Based Approach for Aeolian Desertification Susceptibility Assessment: A Case-Study from Northern China. Land Degrad. Dev.; 2019; 30, pp. 1968-1983. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3393]

104. Choudhary, K.; Shi, W.; Dong, Y.; Paringer, R. Random Forest for Rice Yield Mapping and Prediction Using Sentinel-2 data with Google Earth Engine. Adv. Space Res.; 2022; 70, pp. 2443-2457. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2022.06.073]

105. Falayi, M.; Gambiza, J.; Schoon, M. Unpacking Changing Multi-Actor and Multi-Level Actor Ties in Transformative Spaces: Insights from a Degraded Landscape, Machubeni, South Africa. Land; 2020; 9, 227. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land9070227]

106. Cai, D.; Wang, X.; Hua, T.; Jiao, L.; Geng, X. Baseline and Status of Desertification in Central Asia. Land Degrad. Dev.; 2022; 33, pp. 771-784. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ldr.4214]

107. Zhang, G.; Biradar, C.M.; Xiao, X.; Dong, J.; Zhou, Y.; Qin, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, F.; Ding, M.; Thomas, R.J. Exacerbated Grassland Degradation and Desertification in Central Asia During 2000–2014. Ecol. Appl.; 2018; 28, pp. 442-456. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eap.1660]

108. Zhang, P.; Wang, J.; Huang, L.; He, M.; Yang, H.; Song, G.; Zhao, J.; Li, X. Microplastic Transport During Desertification in Drylands: Abundance and Characterization of Soil Microplastics in the Amu Darya-Aral Sea Basin, Central Asia. J. Environ. Manag.; 2023; 348, 119353. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119353]

109. Alibekov, L.; Alibekov, D. Causes and Socio-Economic Consequences of Desertification in Central Asia. The Socio-Economic Causes and Consequences of Desertification in Central Asia; Behnke, R. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 33-41. ISBN 978-1-4020-8543-7

110. Babaev, A.G. Desert Problems and Desertification in Central Asia; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1999; ISBN 978-3-642-64268-5

111. Zhao, Y.; Wang, J.; Zhang, G.; Liu, L.; Yang, J.; Wu, X.; Biradar, C.; Dong, J.; Xiao, X. Divergent Trends in Grassland Degradation and Desertification Under Land Use and Climate Change in Central Asia from 2000 to 2020. Ecol. Indic.; 2023; 154, 110737. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110737]

112. Ma, X.; Zhu, J.; Yan, W.; Zhao, C. Projections of Desertification Trends in Central Asia Under Global Warming Scenarios. Sci. Total Environ.; 2021; 781, 146777. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146777] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33812115]

113. Saiko, T.A.; Zonn, I.S. Irrigation Expansion and Dynamics of Desertification in the Circum-Aral Region of Central Asia. Appl. Geogr.; 2000; 20, pp. 349-367. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0143-6228(00)00014-X]