Advertisement

Soil surface disturbance alters cyanobacterial biocrusts and soil properties in dry grassland and shrubland ecosystems

  • Y. Anny ChungEmail author
  • Bradly Thornton
  • Eva Dettweiler-Robinson
  • Jennifer A. Rudgers
Regular Article

Abstract

Aims

Biological soil crusts (biocrusts) dominate soil surfaces in drylands, providing services that include soil stabilization and carbon uptake. In this study, we investigated the direct and biocrust-mediated effects of anthropogenic disturbances in two dryland ecosystems.

Methods

We applied low intensity soil surface disturbance (twice-yearly footfalls) in grassland and shrubland ecosystems in northern Chihuahuan Desert, USA.

Results

After five years of disturbance, biocrust photosynthetic capacity (chlorophyll a) declined by 44%. Declines were largest in interspaces between grassland plants. Levels of scytonemin, a biocrust sunscreen pigment, were 38% greater in shrubland than grassland and 44% greater under grass canopy than in interspaces, but decreased only 5% with disturbance. Disturbance reduced soil surface stability 2 times more in the grassland than shrubland. Disturbance effects on other hydrologic and physical properties were indirectly mediated by the photosynthetic capacity of biocrusts. Disturbance indirectly increased infiltration depth and shallow (2–3 cm) soil moisture in the grassland but reduced surface moisture (<1 cm) in the shrubland.

Conclusions

Biocrusts were more sensitive to low intensity soil disturbance in a grassland than shrubland ecosystem. While biocrusts mediated the effects of soil disturbance on dryland soil hydrological and physical properties, the nature of their influence differed between ecosystem types.

Keywords

Biocrust Bouteloua Soil stability Ecohydrology Larrea tridentata Sevilleta LTER 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Jarek Kwiecinski, Elisa Gagliano, Katherine Anderson, Kendall Beals, Jennifer Bell, Katy Beaven, and UNM undergraduate students for lab and field work assistance. Thornton was funded by the Sevilleta REU program (NSF-DBI 1062564), and Chung by the Sevilleta LTER graduate fellowship and NSF Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant (NSF-1601210). Support for Dettweiler-Robinson was provided by NSF-1557135. This research was also partially supported by grants from the National Science Foundation to the University of New Mexico for Long-term Ecological Research (SEV-LTER, NSF-1748133, 1440478).

Supplementary material

11104_2019_4102_MOESM1_ESM.docx (63 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 63 kb)

References

  1. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belnap J (2003) The world at your feet: desert biological soil crusts. Front Ecol Environ 1:181–189.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3868062 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belnap J (2006) The potential roles of biological soil crusts in dryland hydrologic cycles. Hydrol Process 20:3159–3178.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6325 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belnap J, Lange OL (2003) Biological soil crusts: structure, function, and management. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  5. Belnap J, Phillips SL, Miller ME (2004) Response of desert biological soil crusts to alterations in precipitation frequency. Oecologia 141:306–316.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-003-1438-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Belnap J, Phillips SL, Witwicki DL, Miller ME (2008) Visually assessing the level of development and soil surface stability of cyanobacterially dominated biological soil crusts. J Arid Environ 72:1257–1264.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2008.02.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol 57:289–300.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x Google Scholar
  8. Bouyoucos GJ (1962) Hydrometer method improved for making particle size analyses of soils. Agron J 54:464–465.  https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1962.00021962005400050028x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bowker MA, Reed SC, Belnap J, Phillips SL (2002) Temporal variation in community composition, pigmentation, andFv/Fm of desert cyanobacterial soil crusts. Microb Ecol 43:13–25.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-001-1013-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brotherson JD, Rushforth SR (1983) Influence of cryptogamic crusts on moisture relationships of soils in Navajo National Monument, Arizona. Great Basin Nat 43:73–78Google Scholar
  11. Caesar J, Tamm A, Ruckteschler N et al (2018) Revisiting chlorophyll extraction methods in biological soil crusts – methodology for determination of chlorophyll a and chlorophyll a + b as compared to previous methods. Biogeosciences 15:1415–1424.  https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-1415-2018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Castle SC, Morrison CD, Barger NN (2011) Extraction of chlorophyll a from biological soil crusts: a comparison of solvents for spectrophotometric determination. Soil Biol Biochem 43:853–856.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.11.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chamizo S, Cantón Y, Lázaro R et al (2012) Crust composition and disturbance drive infiltration through biological soil crusts in semiarid ecosystems. Ecosystems 15:148–161.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-011-9499-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Couradeau E, Karaoz U, Lim HC et al (2016) Bacteria increase arid-land soil surface temperature through the production of sunscreens. Nat Commun 7:10373.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10373 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dettweiler-Robinson E, Nuanez M, Litvak ME (2018) Biocrust contribution to ecosystem carbon fluxes varies along an elevational gradient. Ecosphere 9:e02315.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2315 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Drewry JJ, Cameron KC, Buchan GD (2008) Pasture yield and soil physical property responses to soil compaction from treading and grazing—a review. Soil Res 46:237.  https://doi.org/10.1071/SR07125 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elbert W, Weber B, Burrows S et al (2012) Contribution of cryptogamic covers to the global cycles of carbon and nitrogen. Nat Geosci 5:459–462.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1486 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eldridge DJ, Kinnell PIA (1997) Assessment of erosion rates from microphyte-dominated calcareous soils under rain-impacted flow. Soil Res 35:475–490.  https://doi.org/10.1071/s96072 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eldridge DJ, Zaady E, Shachak M (2000) Infiltration through three contrasting biological soil crusts in patterned landscapes in the Negev, Israel. CATENA 40:323–336.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0341-8162(00)00082-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eldridge DJ, Bowker MA, Maestre FT et al (2010) Interactive effects of three ecosystem engineers on infiltration in a semi-arid Mediterranean grassland. Ecosystems 13:499–510.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-010-9335-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Faist AM, Herrick JE, Belnap J et al (2017) Biological soil crust and disturbance controls on surface hydrology in a semi-arid ecosystem. Ecosphere 8:n/a–n/a.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1691 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fernandes VMC, de Lima NMM, Roush D et al (2018) Exposure to predicted precipitation patterns decreases population size and alters community structure of cyanobacteria in biological soil crusts from the Chihuahuan Desert. Environ Microbiol 20:259–269.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.13983 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ferrenberg S, Reed SC, Belnap J (2015) Climate change and physical disturbance cause similar community shifts in biological soil crusts. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112:12116–12121.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1509150112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Garcia-Pichel F, Castenholz RW (1991) Characterization and biological implications of Scytonemin, a cyanobacterial sheath Pigment1. J Phycol 27:395–409.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3646.1991.00395.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Garcia-Pichel F, Loza V, Marusenko Y et al (2013) Temperature drives the continental-scale distribution of key microbes in topsoil communities. Science 340:1574–1577.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1236404 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hamza MA, Anderson WK (2005) Soil compaction in cropping systems: A review of the nature, causes and possible solutions. Soil Tillage Res 82:121–145.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2004.08.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Herrick JE, Whitford WG, de Soyza AG et al (2001) Field soil aggregate stability kit for soil quality and rangeland health evaluations. CATENA 44:27–35.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0341-8162(00)00173-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Herrick JE, Van Zee JW, Belnap J et al (2010) Fine gravel controls hydrologic and erodibility responses to trampling disturbance for coarse-textured soils with weak cyanobacterial crusts. CATENA 83:119–126.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2010.08.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Karsten U, Maier J, Garcia-Pichel F (1998) Seasonality in UV-absorbing compounds of cyanobacterial mat communities from an intertidal mangrove flat. Aquat Microb Ecol 16:37–44.  https://doi.org/10.3354/ame016037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kidron GJ (2015) The role of crust thickness in runoff generation from microbiotic crusts. Hydrol Process 29:1783–1792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kidron GJ, Vonshak A, Abeliovich A (2008) Recovery rates of microbiotic crusts within a dune ecosystem in the Negev Desert. Geomorphology 100:444–452.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2008.01.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kidron GJ, Monger HC, Vonshak A, Conrod W (2012) Contrasting effects of microbiotic crusts on runoff in desert surfaces. Geomorphology 139:484–494.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.11.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kuske CR, Yeager CM, Johnson S et al (2012) Response and resilience of soil biocrust bacterial communities to chronic physical disturbance in arid shrublands. ISME J 6:886–897.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2011.153 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lei SA (2004) Soil compaction from human traffic trampling, biking and off-road motor vehicle activity in a blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima) shrubland. West North Am Nat 64:125–130Google Scholar
  35. Maestre FT, Salguero-Gómez R, Quero JL (2012) It is getting hotter in here: determining and projecting the impacts of global environmental change on drylands. Philos Trans Royal Soc B 367:3062–3075.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0323 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Neher DA, Lewins SA, Weicht TR, Darby BJ (2009) Microarthropod communities associated with biological soil crusts in the Colorado plateau and Chihuahuan deserts. J Arid Environ 73:672–677.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2009.01.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, et al (2018) nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects ModelsGoogle Scholar
  38. Poesen J (2018) Soil erosion in the Anthropocene: research needs. Earth Surf Process Landf 43:64–84.  https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4250 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pugesek BH, Tomer A, Eye A von (2003) Structural equation modeling: applications in ecological and evolutionary biology. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  40. R Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  41. Robertson GP, Coleman DC, Sollins P, et al (1999) Standard soil methods for long-term ecological research. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  42. Rodríguez-Caballero E, Cantón Y, Chamizo S et al (2013) Soil loss and runoff in semiarid ecosystems: a complex interaction between biological soil crusts, micro-topography, and hydrological drivers. Ecosystems 16:529–546.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-012-9626-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rodriguez-Caballero E, Belnap J, Büdel B et al (2018) Dryland photoautotrophic soil surface communities endangered by global change. Nat Geosci 11:185–189.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0072-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rosseel Y (2012) Lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw 48Google Scholar
  45. Rossi F, Potrafka RM, Pichel FG, De Philippis R (2012) The role of the exopolysaccharides in enhancing hydraulic conductivity of biological soil crusts. Soil Biol Biochem 46:33–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.10.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rudgers JA, Chung YA, Maurer G et al (2018) Climate sensitivity functions and net primary production: a framework for incorporating climate mean and variability. Ecology 99:576–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rutherford WA, Painter TH, Ferrenberg S et al (2017) Albedo feedbacks to future climate via climate change impacts on dryland biocrusts. Sci Rep 7:44188.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep44188 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Scheffer M, Bascompte J, Brock WA et al (2009) Early-warning signals for critical transitions. Nature 461:53–59.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Searle SR, Speed FM, Milliken GA (1980) Population marginal means in the linear model: an alternative to least squares means. Am Stat 34:216–221.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1980.10483031 Google Scholar
  50. Warren SD (2003) Synopsis: influence of biological soil crusts on arid land hydrology and soil stability. In: Belnap J, Lange OL (eds) Biological soil crusts: structure, function, and management. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, pp 349–360Google Scholar
  51. Warren SD, Thurow TL, Blackburn WH, Garza NE (1986) The influence of livestock trampling under intensive rotationg grazing on soil hydrologic characteristics. J Range Manag 39:491–495.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3898755 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yaşar Korkanç S (2014) Impacts of recreational human trampling on selected soil and vegetation properties of Aladag Natural Park, Turkey. CATENA 113:219–225.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2013.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zaady E, Eldridge DJ, Bowker MA (2016) Effects of local-scale disturbance on biocrusts. In: Biological soil crusts: an organizing principle in drylands. Springer, Cham, pp 429–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zhang Y, Aradottir AL, Serpe M, Boeken B (2016) Interactions of biological soil crusts with vascular plants. In: Biological soil crusts: an organizing principle in drylands. Springer, Cham, pp 385–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departments of Plant Biology and Plant PathologyUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiologyTruman State UniversityKirksvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations