Advertisement

Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 133–142 | Cite as

Biocrusts resist runoff erosion through direct physical protection and indirect modification of soil properties

  • Liqian Gao
  • Hui Sun
  • Mingxiang Xu
  • Yunge ZhaoEmail author
Soils, Sec 2 • Global Change, Environ Risk Assess, Sustainable Land Use • Research Article
  • 63 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Biological soil crusts (biocrusts) are ubiquitous in arid and semi-arid regions and play many critical roles in soil stabilization and erosion prevention, greatly decreasing soil loss. Although sediments may be completely controlled by well-developed biocrusts, runoff loss is observed. Consequently, it is important to study how biocrusts resist runoff erosion in different developmental stages to evaluate and manage water erosion.

Materials and methods

In the Loess Plateau Region, we sampled 32 biocrust plots representing eight stages of biocrust development and 5 slope cropland soil plots as bare soil control plots. We then used a rectangular open channel hydraulic flume to test the effects of biocrust development on runoff erosion.

Results and discussion

As expected, the establishment of biocrusts enhanced soil stability, and accordingly, soil anti-scourability significantly increased with biocrust development. Biocrusts exhibiting more than 36% or 1.22 g dm−2 of moss coverage or biomass fully protected the soil from runoff erosion. Moreover, soil properties, such as soil organic matter, soil cohesion and soil bulk density, were also important in reducing erosion. The findings indicated that biocrusts inhibited runoff erosion through direct physical protection related to biocrust cover and biomass and through the indirect modification of soil properties. In the early biocrust development stage (when moss cover was less than 36%), cyanobacterial biocrust played a primary role in providing resistance to runoff erosion, with resistance being positively related to cyanobacterial biomass (chlorophyll a) and influenced by soil properties.

Conclusions

The relationship between soil anti-scourability and moss coverage or biomass can be divided into two stages based on a moss cover or biomass threshold. The capacity of biocrusts to resist runoff erosion was limited when moss cover was below the threshold value. Therefore, the stage corresponding to this level of moss cover should be of concern when estimating, predicting and managing water erosion.

Keywords

Cyanobacteria Development Loess Plateau Moss Water erosion 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We also express our gratitude to the anonymous reviewers and editors for their constructive comments and suggestions.

Funding information

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant nos. 41830758, 41571268) and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (grant no. 2018M643754).

References

  1. Belnap J, Rosentreter R, Leonard S, Kaltenecker JH, Williams J, Eldridge D (2001) Biological soil crusts: ecology and management. United States Department of the Interior Bureau of land management printed materials distribution center, Denver, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  2. Belnap J (2003) Biological soil crusts and wind erosion. In: Belnap J, Lange O (eds) Biological soil crusts: structure, function, and management. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 339–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belnap J (2006) The potential roles of biological soil crusts in dryland hydrologic cycles. Hydrol Process 20:3159–3178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belnap J, Büdel B (2016) Biological soil crusts as soil stabilizers. In: Weber B, Büdel B, Belnap J (eds) Biological soil crusts as an organizing principle in drylands. Springer International Publishing, pp 305–320Google Scholar
  5. Belnap J, Phillips SL, Witwicki DL, Miller ME (2008) Visually assessing the level of development and soil surface stability of cyanobacterially dominated biological soil crusts. J Arid Environ 72:1257–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Belnap J, Wilcox BP, Van Scoyoc MW, Phillips SL (2012) Successional stage of biological soil crusts: an accurate indicator of ecohydrological condition. Ecohydrol 6:474–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Belnap J, Walker BJ, Munson SM, Gill RA (2014) Controls on sediment production in two US deserts. Aeolian Res 14:15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Belnap J, Weber B, Büdel B (2016) Biological soil crusts as an organizing principle in drylands. In: Weber B, Büdel B, Belnap J (eds) Biological soil crusts as an organizing principle in drylands. Springer International Publishing, pp 3–13Google Scholar
  9. Bowker MA, Belnap J, Chaudhary VB, Johnson NC (2008) Revisiting classic water erosion models in drylands: the strong impact of biological soil crusts. Soil Biol Biochem 40:2309–2316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Castle SC, Morrison CD, Barger NN (2011) Extraction of chlorophyll a from biological soil crusts: a comparison of solvents for spectrophotometric determination. Soil Biol Biochem 43:853–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chaudhary VB, Bowker MA, O'Dell TE, Grace JB, Redman AE, Rillig MC, Johnson NC (2009) Untangling the biological contributions to soil stability in semiarid shrublands. Ecol Appl 19:110–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Danin A, Ganor E (1991) Trapping of airborne dust by mosses in the Negev Desert, Israel. Earth Surf Process Landf 16:153–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eldridge DJ, Greene B (1994) Microbiotic crusts: a view of roles in soil and ecological processes in the rangelands of Australia. Aust J Soil Res 32:389–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eldridge DJ, Zaady E, Shachak M (2000) Infiltration through three contrasting biological soil crusts in patterned landscapes in the Negev, Israel. Catena 40:323–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gao LQ (2017) Effects and the mechanism of biological soil crusts on water erosion prevention on the Loess Plateau. Doctor, Research Center of Soil and Water Conservation and Ecological Environment, the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences and Ministry of EducationGoogle Scholar
  16. Gao LQ, Zhao YG, Qin NQ, Zhang GX, Yang K (2012) Impact of biological soil crust on soil physical properties in the Hilly Loess Plateau Region. China J Nat Resour 27:1316–1326Google Scholar
  17. Gao LQ, Bowker MA, Xu MX, Sun H, Tuo DF, Zhao YG (2017) Biological soil crusts decrease erodibility by modifying inherent soil properties on the Loess Plateau, China. Soil Biol Biochem 105:49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greene R, Chartres CJ, Hodgkinson KC (1990) The effects of fire on the soil in a degraded semi-arid woodland. I. Cryptogam cover and physical and micromorphological properties. Aust J Soil Res 28:755–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Knapen A, Poesen J, Galindo-Morales P, De Baets S, Pals A (2007) Effects of microbiotic crusts under cropland in temperate environments on soil erodibility during concentrated flow. Earth Surf Process Landf 32:1884–1901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li Y, Wu Q, Zhu X, Tian J (1990) Studies on the intensification of soil anti-scourability by plant roots in the Loess Plateau-I. the increasing effect of soil anti-scourability by the roots of chinese pine. J Soil Water Conserv 4:1–5+10Google Scholar
  21. Li Q, Liu GB, Xu MX, Sun H, Zhang Z, Gao LQ (2013a) Effect of seasonal freeze-thaw on soil anti-scouribility and its related physical property in hilly Loess Plateau. Trans Chin Soc Agric Eng 29:105–112Google Scholar
  22. Li Q, Liu GB, Xu MX, Zhang Z, Sun H (2013b) Soil anti-scouribility and its related physical properties on abandoned land in the Hilly Loess Plateau. Trans Chin Soc Agric Eng 29:153–159Google Scholar
  23. Li L, Zhao YG, Wang YH, Wang Y (2015) Impact of different types of biological soil crusts on slope runoff generation. J Nat Resour 30:1013–1023Google Scholar
  24. Liu F, Zhang GH, Sun F, Wang H, Sun L (2017) Quantifying the surface covering, binding and bonding effects of biological soil crusts on soil detachment by overland flow. Earth Surf Process Landf 42:240–2648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mager DM, Thomas AD (2011) Extracellular polysaccharides from cyanobacterial soil crusts: a review of their role in dryland soil processes. J Arid Environ 75:91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Morgan RPC (2005) Soil Erosion and conservation, 3rd edn. Blackwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Munson SM, Belnap J, Okin GS (2011) Responses of wind erosion to climate-induced vegetation changes on the Colorado plateau. PNAS 108:3854–3859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ran MY, Zhao YG, Liu YL (2011) Soil anti-scourability of biological soil crust with different coverage in Loess hilly region. Soil Water Conserv China (12):43–45Google Scholar
  29. Rodríguez-Caballero E, Canton Y, Chamizo S, Afana A, Solé-Benet A (2012) Effects of biological soil crusts on surface roughness and implications for runoff and erosion. Geomorphology 145:81–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rodríguez-Caballero E, Cantón Y, Lazaro R, Solé-Benet A (2014) Cross-scale interactions between surface components and rainfall properties. Non-linearities in the hydrological and erosive behavior of semiarid catchments. J Hydrol 517:815–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wang Y, Zhao YG, Yao CZ, Zhang PP (2014) Surface roughness characteristics of biological soil crusts and its influencing factors in the hilly Loess Plateau region, China. Chin J Appl Ecol 25:647–656Google Scholar
  32. Wang YH, Zhao YG, Li L, Gao LQ, Hu ZX (2016) Distribution patterns and spatial variability of vegetation and biocrusts in revegetated lands in different rainfall zones of the Loess Plateau region, China. Acta Ecol Sin 36:377–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yang LN (2013) Diversity and ecological suitability of cyanophytes in biological soil crusts on the Loess Plateau. Master, Research Center of Soil and Water Conservation and Ecological Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Ministry of EducationGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhang G, Liu B, Liu G, He X, Nearing MA (2003) Detachment of undisturbed soil by shallow flow. Soil Sci Soc Am J 67:713–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zhang GH, Liu GB, Wang GL, Wang YX (2011) Effects of vegetation cover and rainfall intensity on sediment-bound nutrient loss, size composition and volume fractal dimension of sediment particles. Pedosphere 21:676–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhao YG, Xu MX (2013) Runoff and soil loss from revegetated grasslands in the hilly Loess Plateau region, China: influence of biocrust patches and plant canopies. J Hydrol Eng 18:387–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhao YG, Xu MX, Wang QJ, Shao MA (2006) Impact of biological soil crust on soil physical and chemical properties of rehabilitated grassland in hlly Loess Plateau. China J Nat Resour 21:441–448Google Scholar
  38. Zhao YG, Qin NQ, Weber B, Xu MX (2014) Response of biological soil crusts to raindrop erosivity and underlying influences in the hilly Loess Plateau region, China. Biodivers Conserv 23:1669–1686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhou ZC, Gan ZT, Shangguan ZP, Dong ZB (2010) Effects of grazing on soil physical properties and soil erodibility in semiarid grassland of the Northern Loess Plateau (China). Catena 82:87–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess Plateau, Institute of Soil and Water ConservationNorthwest A & F UniversityYanglingChina
  2. 2.College of Biological Science and EngineeringNorth University of NationalitiesYinchuanChina

Personalised recommendations