Plant Production in Arid and Semi-Arid Areas

  • M. Evenari
  • E.-D. Schulze
  • O. L. Lange
  • L. Kappen
  • U. Buschbom
Part of the Ecological Studies book series (ECOLSTUD, volume 19)


The determination of phytomass and the assessment of actual and potential primary production of a natural ecosystem has become an important part of modern ecological research. In order to understand the functioning of an ecosystem, to analyse it, and to build valid models (see van Keulen et al., this volume Part 6:B), exact phytomass and production data must be available. This general aim, however, is difficult to approach, since phytomass and primary production are not constant values (see Lieth, this volume Part 6: A). Even for the same habitat they depend upon the total environmental conditions which are changing from year to year. Therefore, the fluctuations of phytomass and production and their relation to the environmental parameters need to be considered. This problem may be of minor importance for ecosystems living in humid environments. It is of great significance, however, in arid and semi-arid areas, where the main factor limiting phytomass and production is the availability of water. It is precisely this factor which in these regions fluctuates to a very large degree from year to year.


Dwarf Shrub Desert Plant Desert Ecosystem Vegetation Unit Negev Desert 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bazilevich, N. J., Rodin, L. E.: Geographical regularities in productivity and the circulation of chemical elements in the earth’s main vegetation types. Am. Geogr. Soc. (Review and translation) 12, 24–52 (1971).Google Scholar
  2. Bazilevich, N. J., Rodin, L. E., Rozov, N. N.: Geographical aspects of biological productivity. Soviet Geography (Review and translation) 12, 293–317 (1971).Google Scholar
  3. Duvigneaud, P.: La synthèse écologique. Paris: Ed. Doin 1974.Google Scholar
  4. Evenari, M., Bamberg, S., Schulze, E.-D., Kappen, L., Lange, O. L., Buschbom, U.: The biomass production of some higher plants in Near-Eastern and American deserts. In: Photosynthesis and productivity in different environments (ed. J. P. Cooper), IBP, vol. 3, pp. 121–127, Cambridge-London-New York-Melbourne: Cambridge Univ. Press 1975 a.Google Scholar
  5. Evenari, M., Schulze, E.-D., Kappen, L., Buschbom, U., Lange, O. L.: Adaptive mechanisms in desert plants. In: Physiological adaptations to the environment (ed. F. J. Vernberg), pp. 111–129. New York: Intext Education Publ. 1975b.Google Scholar
  6. Evenari, M., Shanan, L., Tadmor, N.: The Negev. The challenge of a desert. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press 1971.Google Scholar
  7. Fahn, A., Wachs, N., Ginzburg, C.: Dendrochronological studies in the Negev, Israel. Explor. J. 13, 291–299 (1963).Google Scholar
  8. Holling, C. S.: Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Ann. Rev. of Ecol. Systematics 4, 1–23 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kappen, L., Lange, O. L., Schulze, E.-D., Evenari, M., Buschbom, U.: Primary production of lower plants (lichens) in the desert and its physiological basis. In: Photosynthesis and productivity in different environments (ed. J. P. Cooper), IBP, vol. 3, pp. 133–143. Cambridge-London-New York-Melbourne: Cambridge Univ. Press 1975.Google Scholar
  10. Koller, D.: The physiology of dormancy and survival of plants in desert environments. In: Dormancy and survival (ed. H. W. Woolhouse), Symp. Soc. Exper. Biol. vol. 23, pp. 449–469. Cambridge: Univ. Press 1969.Google Scholar
  11. Lieth, H.: Über die Primärproduktion der Pflanzendecke der Erde. Angew. Botan. 46, 1–37 (1972).Google Scholar
  12. Lieth, H.: Primary production: Terrestrial ecosystems. Human Ecology 1, 303–332 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Noy-Meir, I.: Desert ecosystems: Environment and producers. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Systematics 4, 25–51 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Orshan, G.: Note on the application of Raunkiaer’s system of life forms in arid regions. Palestine J. Bot. 6, 1–3 (1953).Google Scholar
  15. Orshan, G.: Seasonal dimorphism of desert and Mediterranean chamaephytes and its significance as a factor in their water economy. In: The water relations of plants (eds. A. J. Rutter, F. H. Whitehead), pp. 206–222. Oxford: Blackwell Sci. Publ. 1963.Google Scholar
  16. Orshan, G., Diskin, S.: Seasonal changes in productivity under desert conditions. In: Functioning of terrestrial ecosystems at the primary production level (ed. F. E. Eckardt), pp. 191–201. Paris: UNESCO 1968.Google Scholar
  17. Rodin, L. E., Bazilevich, N. J., Miroshnichenko, Y. M.: Productivity and biogeochemistry of Artemisieta in the Mediterranean area. In: Ecophysiological foundation of ecosystem productivity in arid zone (ed. L. E. Rodin), pp. 193–198. Leningrad: Nauka 1972.Google Scholar
  18. Shanan, L.: Rainfall and runoff relationship in small watersheds in the Avdat region of the Negev desert. Ph. D. Thesis, Jerusalem 1975.Google Scholar
  19. Shanan, L., Evenari, M., Tadmor, N. H.: Rainfall pattern in the central Negev desert. Israel Explor. J. 17, 163–184 (1967).Google Scholar
  20. Stocker, O.: Die “Stoffproduktion” in Urwäldern und anderen Pflanzengesellschaften im Gleichgewicht. Mitt. Florist.-Soziol. Arb. Gem., NF. 14, 422–434 (1969).Google Scholar
  21. Whittaker, R. H.: Communities and ecosystems. New York: MacMillan 1970.Google Scholar
  22. Zohary, M.: Die verbreitungsökologischen Verhältnisse der Pflanzen Palästinas I. Die antitele-chorischen Erscheinungen. Beih. Botan. Centralbl. 66, 1–155 (1937).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Evenari
  • E.-D. Schulze
  • O. L. Lange
  • L. Kappen
  • U. Buschbom

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations