Inoculation and habitat amelioration efforts in biological soil crust recovery vary by desert and soil texture
As dryland degradation continues, it is increasingly important to understand how to effectively restore biocrust communities.Potential techniques include the addition of biocrust inoculum to accelerate biocrust recovery. Enhanced erosion typical ofdegraded environments creates a challenge for these...
| Autores: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión aceptada para publicación |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2019 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad Pública de Navarra |
| Repositorio: | Academica-e. Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Pública de Navarra |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:academica-e.unavarra.es:2454/56534 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/2454/56534 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Cyanobacteria Biocrust Polyacrylamide Great Basin Chihuahuan Soil texture |
| Sumario: | As dryland degradation continues, it is increasingly important to understand how to effectively restore biocrust communities.Potential techniques include the addition of biocrust inoculum to accelerate biocrust recovery. Enhanced erosion typical ofdegraded environments creates a challenge for these approaches, due to loss by wind or water and burial by saltating particles.To retain and protect added inoculum, the inclusion of habitat-amelioration techniques can improve recovery rates. This studytested three different types of inoculum (field-collected, greenhouse-cultivated, and laboratory-cultivated biocrust) coupledwith two treatments to augment soil stability and ameliorate habitat limitations: soil surface polyacrylamide additions andinstallation of straw barriers. This was done across two deserts (Great Basin and Chihuahuan) and separated into generallycoarse- or finer-textured soils in each desert, with results monitored for 3 years (2015, 2016, 2017). While the inoculum type,coupled with habitat ameliorations, occasionally enhanced biocrust growth across years and treatments, in other cases, itmade no difference compared to natural recovery rates. Rather, the desert location and soil texture groupings were the mostprominent factors in determining recovery trajectories. Recovery proportions were similar in the finer-textured sites in boththe Great Basin and the Chihuahuan deserts, while the coarser-textured site in the Great Basin did show some recovery overtime and the Chihuahuan coarser-textured site did not. This study demonstrates the importance of understanding site potentialand identifying key limitations to biocrust recovery for successful restoration projects. |
|---|