Plant growth and biocrust-fire interactions across five North American deserts

McCann, Ellie; Reed, Sasha C.; Saud, Pradip; Reibold, Robin; Howell, Armin J.; Faist, Akasha M.

doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2021.115325

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is possible or perhaps likely that the biocrust and bunchgrass covers on Brown's Park NWR had not reached their maximum potential cover by 2021, and additional years of observation may reveal increases in perennials relative to cheatgrass—provided that wildfire does not impact the site as could be expected if cheatgrass continues to increase in abundance. Biocrust communities can be slow‐growing and this likely contributes to biocrust declines after fire (Johansen, 2001; McCann et al, 2021). Compared to our observations, Anderson et al (1982) and Yeo (2005) reported larger, 15%–30% increases in crusts up to 30–38 years after grazing exclusion, and Anderson and Inouye (2001) reported many‐fold increases in perennial bunchgrasses with additional decades of rest, minimal cheatgrass, and absence of fire—all in sagebrush steppe.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cheatgrass is shallow rooted, invades interspaces between perennials, and produces spatially continuous, fine‐textured fuel beds that cure relatively early in the growing season and thereby enhance fire risks in space and time (Brooks et al, 2004). The resulting increase in fire frequency further promotes cheatgrass invasion and loss of perennials, biocrusts, ecosystem stability and productivity, wildlife habitat, and biodiversity (Dettweiler‐Robinson et al, 2013; Germino et al, 2016; Johansen, 2001; McCann et al, 2021; Ponzetti et al, 2007). Several ecosystem types are impacted by cheatgrass invasion, but the most extensive impacts have occurred in sagebrush‐steppe rangelands, which once covered ~1,000,000 km 2 but have reduced already to half this extent due to the cheatgrass‐fire cycle and community state transitions to annual grasslands or to seeded perennial grasslands (Miller et al, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Plant community trajectories following livestock exclusion for conservation vary and hinge on initial invasion and soil‐biocrust conditions in shrub steppe

Germino

Kluender

Anthony

2022

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adjustments or complete withdrawal of livestock grazing are among the most common conservation actions in semiarid uplands, but outcomes can vary considerably with ecological context. Invasion by exotic annual grasses and the excessive wildfire they promote are increasing threats to semiarid shrub‐steppe, and plant‐community response to livestock exclusion in these areas may be complicated by the rapid colonization ability of invaders. We evaluated vegetation‐community changes over 14‐year interval (2007–2021) in a shrub‐steppe landscape where a >100‐year history of livestock grazing had been terminated in 1996. Field surveys revealed that bare‐soil exposure decreased >20% over the 14 years owing to biomass accumulation, but this was primarily due to large increases in exotic annual “cheatgrass” (Bromus tectorum, +1.8‐fold) and the litter it produces (+1.5‐fold). Soil biocrusts increased 11.9% and perennial bunchgrasses increased 3% over the 14 years. These community changes varied at the patch scale and entailed inverse relationships of (1) both cheatgrass and biocrusts to plant‐community basal cover, (2) cheatgrass to both biocrusts and perennial grasses, and (3) biocrusts to cheatgrass and litter. The spatiotemporal variability in vegetation constituted changes in plant‐community states, according to cluster analysis. The modeled probability of a community transitioning to a cheatgrass state was (1) strongly and positively related to the initial (2007) cover of cheatgrass in hotspots where initial cheatgrass cover was >20%, and (2) negatively related to biocrust cover where initial biocrust cover was >4% of ground area. The decision space for this landscape can be framed as a shifting from acceptance towards resisting further degradation by removing livestock and their trampling of soil surfaces and utilization of perennial herbs. However, cheatgrass appears to be the most impactful agent of change and continued invasion appears imminent. Active restoration may help resist further degradation and direct change towards tolerable conditions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plant community trajectories following livestock exclusion for conservation vary and hinge on initial invasion and soil‐biocrust conditions in shrub steppe

Germino

Kluender

Anthony

2022

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fire-induced soil warming will alter the resource allocation and dynamic growth mechanisms between biocrusts and vascular plants (McCann et al, 2021), which may cause a reduction in species richness and cover of biocrusts, especially cyanobacteria and algae (Abella et al, 2020;Brianne et al, 2020). Condon and Pyke (2018) showed that moss cover increases with time after fire, with no significant change in lichen cover.…”

Section: Influencing Factors Of Biocrusts Distributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing studies on global biocrusts distribution

Wang,

Ma,

Yang

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Biological soil crusts (biocrusts hereafter) cover a substantial proportion of dryland ecosystem and play crucial roles in ecological processes such as biogeochemical cycles, water distribution and soil erosion. Consequently, studying the spatial distribution of biocrusts holds great significance for drylands, which is still lacking, especially in a global scale. This study aimed to stimulate global-scale investigations of biocrusts distribution by introducing three major approaches: spectral characterization indices, dynamic vegetation models, and geospatial models, while discussing their applicability. Then, we summarized present understandings of biocrusts distribution. Finally, to further advance this field, we proposed several potential research topics and aspects, including building standardized database of biocrusts, enhancing non-vascular vegetation dynamic models, integrating multi-sensor monitoring, making full use of machine learning, and focusing on regional research co-development. This work is supposed to significantly contribute to mapping biocrusts distribution, and thereby to advance our understandings of dryland ecosystem management and restoration.

show abstract