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 of degraded environments creates a challenge for thes...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Otros Autores: Faist, Akasha M., Antoninka, Anita J., Belnap, Jayne, Bowker, Matthew A., Duniway, Michael C., Garcia Pichel, Ferran, Nelson, Corey, Velasco Ayuso, Sergio
Formato: Artículo
Lenguaje:Inglés
Materias:
Acceso en línea:http://ri.agro.uba.ar/files/intranet/articulo/2020faist.pdf
LINK AL EDITOR
Aporte de:Registro referencial: Solicitar el recurso aquí
LEADER 04151nab a22004697a 4500
001 20210625174658.0
003 AR-BaUFA
005 20211228091047.0
008 210625t2020 xxkdo|||o|||| 00| 0 eng d
999 |c 54265  |d 54265 
999 |d 54265 
999 |d 54265 
999 |d 54265 
999 |d 54265 
999 |d 54265 
999 |d 54265 
022 |a 1526-100X 
024 |a 10.1111/rec.13087 
040 |a AR-BaUFA  |c AR-BaUFA 
245 1 0 |a Inoculation and habitat amelioration efforts in biological soil crust recovery vary by desert and soil texture 
520 |a 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 of degraded 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 study tested three different types of inoculum (field-collected, greenhouse-cultivated, and laboratory-cultivated biocrust) coupled with two treatments to augment soil stability and ameliorate habitat limitations: soil surface polyacrylamide additions and installation of straw barriers. This was done across two deserts (Great Basin and Chihuahuan) and separated into generally coarse- 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, it made no difference compared to natural recovery rates. Rather, the desert location and soil texture groupings were the most prominent factors in determining recovery trajectories. Recovery proportions were similar in the finer-textured sites in both the Great Basin and the Chihuahuan deserts, while the coarser-textured site in the Great Basin did show some recovery over time and the Chihuahuan coarser-textured site did not. This study demonstrates the importance of understanding site potential and identifying key limitations to biocrust recovery for successful restoration projects. 
650 |2 Agrovoc  |9 26 
653 |a BIOCRUST 
653 |a CHIHUAHUAN 
653 |a CYANOBACTERIA 
653 |a GREAT BASIN 
653 |a POLYACRYLAMIDE 
653 |a SOIL TEXTURE 
700 1 |a Faist, Akasha M.  |u New Mexico State University. Department of Animal and Range Sciences. Las Cruces, U.S.A.  |9 72769 
700 1 |a Antoninka, Anita J.  |u Northern Arizona University. School of Forestry. Flagstaff, AZ, U.S.A.  |9 72770 
700 1 |a Belnap, Jayne  |u Southwest Biological Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey. Moab, U.S.A.  |9 69538 
700 1 |a Bowker, Matthew A.  |u Northern Arizona University. School of Forestry. Flagstaff, AZ, U.S.A.  |9 72771 
700 1 |a Duniway, Michael C.  |u Southwest Biological Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey. Moab, U.S.A.  |9 72772 
700 1 |a Garcia Pichel, Ferran  |u Arizona State University. School of Life Sciences and Center for Fundamental and Applied Microbiomics, Biodesign Institute. Tempe, U.S.A.  |9 71467 
700 1 |a Nelson, Corey  |u Arizona State University. School of Life Sciences and Center for Fundamental and Applied Microbiomics, Biodesign Institute. Tempe, U.S.A.  |9 72773 
700 1 |a Velasco Ayuso, Sergio  |u Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura (IFEVA). Buenos Aires, Argentina.  |u CONICET – Universidad de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura (IFEVA). Buenos Aires, Argentina.  |9 71214 
773 |t Restoration ecology  |g Vol.28, Supl.2 (2020), p.S96–S105, grafs., tbls., fot. 
856 |f 2020faist  |i En reservorio  |q application/pdf  |u http://ri.agro.uba.ar/files/intranet/articulo/2020faist.pdf  |x ARTI202103 
856 |u https://www.wiley.com/  |z LINK AL EDITOR 
942 |c ARTICULO 
942 |c ENLINEA 
976 |a AAG