1969
DOI: 10.1029/wr005i006p01373
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Infiltration Rates as Affected by Desert Vegetation

Abstract: Infiltration of water into two soils measured at radial distances from the stems of paloverde (Cercidium microphyllum) and creosote bush (Larrea tndentata) were found to average nearly three times greater under plants than in the openings. Bulk density was lower and organic matter content was higher in topsoil under plants than in the openings.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
49
2

Year Published

2000
2000
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 114 publications
(53 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
2
49
2
Order By: Relevance
“…During the past quarter century, considerable research has been focused on understanding the ecohydrological implications of this conversion (Huxman et al 2005;Wilcox et al 2006). It has generally been found (though not always-see Moran et al (2010)) that infiltration rates are higher beneath shrub canopies than in intercanopy areas (Lyford and Qashu 1969;Seyfried 1991;Bergkamp 1998b;Schlesinger et al 1999;Wilcox 2002;D'Odorico et al 2007;Wilcox et al 2008;Pierson et al 2010;Daryanto et al 2013;Eldridge et al 2013), primarily owing to the accumulation of organic matter under shrubs, root activity (Joffre and Rambal 1993;Martinez-Meza and Whitford 1996;Jackson et al 2000), and soil disturbance by fauna (see "Influence of Fauna" section). In some situations the chemical composition of the litter may cause water repellency (hydrophobicity), which reduces the infiltration capacity of soils beneath the canopy, at least in the short term (Doerr et al 2000).…”
Section: Infiltration: Water Regulation At the Soil Surfacementioning
confidence: 99%
“…During the past quarter century, considerable research has been focused on understanding the ecohydrological implications of this conversion (Huxman et al 2005;Wilcox et al 2006). It has generally been found (though not always-see Moran et al (2010)) that infiltration rates are higher beneath shrub canopies than in intercanopy areas (Lyford and Qashu 1969;Seyfried 1991;Bergkamp 1998b;Schlesinger et al 1999;Wilcox 2002;D'Odorico et al 2007;Wilcox et al 2008;Pierson et al 2010;Daryanto et al 2013;Eldridge et al 2013), primarily owing to the accumulation of organic matter under shrubs, root activity (Joffre and Rambal 1993;Martinez-Meza and Whitford 1996;Jackson et al 2000), and soil disturbance by fauna (see "Influence of Fauna" section). In some situations the chemical composition of the litter may cause water repellency (hydrophobicity), which reduces the infiltration capacity of soils beneath the canopy, at least in the short term (Doerr et al 2000).…”
Section: Infiltration: Water Regulation At the Soil Surfacementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Locations with low infiltration rate and low water storage capacity are potential sources for runoff, whereas locations with higher infiltration rates and a larger water storage capacity are potential sinks for water (Lyford and Qashu, 1969;Schlesinger and Pilmanis, 1998;Janeau et al, 1999). In arid areas with a homogeneous soil cover local redistribution of water occurs dominantly by shrub-crust interactions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This evaporative demand largely drives near-surface soil development processes in aridic (torric) moisture regimes (Liu et al, 1995). The thicker surface layer was possibly an artifact of grading activities involved in developing an adjacent roadbed, such that additional surface material was layered over the native soils (see Lyford and Qashu, 1969). The percolation of water into Usery was more thorough than that at White Tanks, which was limited by a relatively shallow impermeable horizon.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%