2020 ESA Annual Meeting (August 3 - 6)

COS 10 Abstract - Biocrusts are the most influential soil surface stabilizing force in drylands

Matthew Bowker1, Bala Chaudhary2, Anita Antoninka1, Kristina E. Young3, Scott Ferrenberg4, Colin Tucker5, Fernando T. Maestre6, Emilio Rodriguez-Caballero7, Nichole N. Barger8, Jayne Belnap9, Anthony Darrouzet-Nardi3, David J. Eldridge10, Akasha Faist11, Caroline A. Havrilla12, Elisabeth Huber-Sannwald13, Oumarou Malam Issa14, Sasha Reed9, Bettina Weber15, Yunge Zhao16, Yuanming Zhang17, Xiaobing Zhou17, Michael Duniway9, Mark E. Miller18, Matthew Van Skoyoc19, Juan José Gaitán20, Gabrial Oliva21, Virginia Massara22 and German Cariac23, (1)School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, (2)Department of Environmental Science and Studies, DePaul University, Chicago, IL, (3)Biological Sciences, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX, (4)Department of Biology, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, (5)Northern Research Station, US Forest Service, Houghton, MI, (6)Multidisciplinary Institute for Environmental Studies “Ramon Margalef”, Universidad de Alicante, Alicante, Spain, (7)Departamento de Agronomía, Universidad de Almería, Almería, Spain, (8)Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, (9)Southwest Biological Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Moab, UT, (10)Evolution and Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth, and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia, (11)Department of Animal and Range Sciences, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, (12)Southwest Biological Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Flagstaff, AZ, (13)División de Ciencias Ambientales, Instituto Potosino de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica, A.C., San Luis Potosí, SL, Mexico, (14)Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, France, (15)Institute for Biology, University of Graz, Austria, (16)State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess Plateau, Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, China, (17)Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Urumqi, China, (18)Wrangell-St. Elias National Park & Preserve, National Park Service, AK, (19)Southeast Utah Group, National Park Service, Moab, UT, (20)Instituto de Suelos, INTA, Buenos Aires, Argentina, (21)Estación Experimental Santa Cruz, INTA, Río Gallegos, Argentina, (22)Estación Experimental Chubut, INTA, Trelew, Argentina, (23)Estación Experimental Valle Inferior, INTA, Viedma, Argentina
Background/Question/Methods

Soil is a non-renewable resource that is globally being lost to erosion many times faster than formed through pedogenesis. Soil aggregate stability is a key property conferring erosion resistance and a key indicator of soil health. The classic view holds that soil aggregate stability is determined by vascular plants (and their symbionts, exudates and residues) that generate soil organic matter, alongside soil texture and chemistry. Biological soil crust (biocrust) communities are the missing element in this view. Biocrusts are of particular importance in drylands where soils generally have low organic matter content and plant cover, and they may cover sizeable interspaces of exposed soil between plants. Interspace soil surfaces are often colonized by biocrusts. We conducted a synthesis comparing the contributions of plants, biocrusts, and abiotic soil properties to surface aggregate stability. We gathered nearly 100 original datasets from US and international drylands, spanning an aridity gradient. We fitted them with similar structural equation models and extracted coefficients for use in a subsequent meta-analysis. We asked: 1. Which influence – biocrusts, vascular plants, or abiotic soil properties– most strongly affects surface soil aggregation? and 2. How does aridity alter the magnitude of these effects?

Results/Conclusions

On average, our models explained 44% of the variation in soil aggregate stability with standardized direct effects as follows: biocrusts = |0.46|, vascular plants = |0.35|, abiotic soil properties = |0.23|. Across all models, the biocrust influence was stronger than all other effects, but plant and abiotic effects were not clearly distinguishable in magnitude. Biocrusts effects were the strongest influence on soil aggregate stability within 58% of the models in which they could be compared to plant effects, abiotic soil effects or both. Plant effects were the strongest influence within 36% of the models in which they could be compared to biocrust or abiotic effects or both. Direct effects of both biocrusts and plants on aggregate stability were prevailingly positive; however, plants also exerted substantial indirect effects through their effect on biocrusts (|0.36|), and these were a mixture of positive and negative effects. Further we found that the influence of biocrusts increases as sites become more arid (R2 = 0.09, P = 0.01), but the influence of the other effects was not sensitive to aridity. These results suggest that the generation of aggregate stability follows a different set of rules in drylands than the classic view based on mesic ecosystems.