Data from 199 plots in the semi-arid Karoo showed that relationships between soil infiltrability and plant cover/species richness, as depicted by boundary lines, yielded ecological insights not evident if only commonly measured soil properties such as pH, electrical conductivity and the content of clay, silt, sand, nitrogen and carbon were considered. For example, the common grass Stipagrostis obtusa, herb Lepidium africanum and shrub Pentzia incana showed potentially maximal cover at high, low and intermediate infiltrability, respectively (r2 > 0.65 for boundary lines derived by segmented quantile regression), but did not show distinct boundary lines for sand, silt or clay content data (r2 < 0.5). Potentially maximal species richness was revealed under soil conditions of low infiltrability, high nitrogen content and low pH. Distinct boundary lines suggested that the drivers of species richness at any particular point in the Karoo landscape may operate in opposing directions simultaneously.
Boundary lines Clay Niche Sand Silt Soil crusting
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We thank Tertius de Wet of the Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science at the University of Stellenbosch for statistical advice, and the Karoo landowners for permission to work on their farms. Financial support for this research was received from the NRF (Grant number FA2005040700027), BIOTA Southern Africa (sponsored by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research under promotion number 01 LC 0024A), the Conservation Farming Project within the South African National Biodiversity Institute, the Global Environment Facility and the Mazda Wildlife Fund.
Agassi M, Shainberg I, Morin J (1981) Effect of electrolyte concentration and soil sodicity on infiltration rate and crust formation. Soil Sci Soc Am J 45:848–851Google Scholar
Bühmann C, Rapp I, Laker MC (1996) Differences in mineral ratios between disaggregated and original clay fractions in some South African soils as affected by amendments. Aust J Soil Res 34:909–923. doi:10.1071/SR9960909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cade BS, Noon BR (2003) A gentle introduction to quantile regression for ecologists. Front Environ Ecol 1:412–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox JR, Martin-R MH, Ibarra-F FA, Fourie JF, Rethman NFG, Wilcox DG (1988) The influence of climate and soils on the distribution of four African grasses. J Range Manage 41:127–139. doi:10.2307/3898948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavers C, Field R (2006) A resource-based conceptual model of plant diversity that reassesses causality in the productivity-diversity relationship. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 15:213–224Google Scholar
Ludwig J, Tongway D, Freudenberger D, Noble JC, Hodgkinson K (1997) Landscape ecology function and management: principles from Australia’s rangelands. CSIRO, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
McIntyre DS (1958) Permeability measurements of soil crusts formed by raindrop impact. Soil Sci Soc Am J 85:185–189Google Scholar
McNaughton SJ (1983) Serengeti grassland ecology: the role of composite environmental factors and contingency in community organization. Ecol Monogr 53:291–320. doi:10.2307/1942533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michalet R, Brooker RW, Cavieres LA, Kikvidze Z, Lortie CJ, Pugnaire FI, Valiente-Banuet A, Callaway RM (2006) Do biotic interactions shape both sides of the humped-back model of species richness in plant communities? Ecol Lett 9:767–773. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00935.xPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills AJ, Fey MV, Grongroft A, Petersen A, Medinski TV (2006) Unravelling the effects of soil properties on water infiltration: segmented quantile regression on a large data set from arid south-west Africa. Aust J Soil Res 44:783–797. doi:10.1071/SR05180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Percival HJ, Parfitt RL, Scott NA (2000) Factors controlling soil carbon levels in New Zealand grasslands: Is clay content important? Soil Sci Soc Am J 64:1623–1630Google Scholar
Rhoades JD (1982) Soluble salts. In: Page AL, Miller RH, Keeney DR (eds) Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties. Soil Science Society of America, Inc., Madison, WI, pp 167–180Google Scholar