Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 68, Issue 4, pp 521–528 | Cite as

The influence of subterranean termites on the hydrological characteristics of a Chihuahuan desert ecosystem

  • Ned Z. Elkins
  • George V. Sabol
  • Timothy J. Ward
  • Walter G. Whitford
Original Papers

Summary

Rainfall simulation at an average intensity of 124 mm·h-1 was used to compare infiltration and run off on arid areas where subterranean termites had been eliminated four years prior to the initiation of the study (termite free) with adjacent areas populated by subterranean termites (termites present). Infiltration rates on termite free plots with less than 5% perennial plant cover were significantly lower 51.3±6.8 mm·h-1 than rates on comparable termites present plots 88.4±5.6 mm·h-1. On plots centered on Larrea tridentata shrubs, there were no differences in infiltration rates with or without termites. Plots with shrub cover had the highest infiltration rates 101±6 mm·h-1. Highest run-off volumes were recorded from termite free <5% grass cover plots and the lowest from plots with shrubs. There were no differences in suspended sediment concentrations from termites present and termite free plots. Average bed load concentration was more than three times greater from termite free, <5% cover plots than from termites present, <5% cover plots.

The reduction in infiltration, high run-off volumes and high bedloads from termite free areas without shrub cover is related to increased soil bulk density resulting from the collapse of subterranean galleries of the termites that provide avenues of bulk flow into the soil. Subterranean termites affect the hydrology of Chihuahuan desert systems by enhancing water infiltration and retention of top soil. The presence of a shrub canopy and litter layer cancels any effect of subterranean termites on hydrological parameters. Since approximately 2/3 of the area is not under shrub canopies, subterranean termites are considered to be essential for the maintenance of the soil water characteristics that support the present vegetation.

Keywords

Infiltration Rate Suspended Sediment Concentration Soil Bulk Density Shrub Cover Desert Ecosystem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Blake GR (1965) Bulk density. In: Methods of Soil Analysis. No. 9 Monograph Series Part II, Black (CA), American Society of Agronomy, 374–390Google Scholar
  2. Bowles JE (1978) Grain size analyses — mechanical and hydrometer methods. In: Engineering properties of soils and their measurement, McGraw-Hill, New York, 35–59Google Scholar
  3. Brown MF (1983) Relationship between termites, straw amendment and growth of Erioneuron pulchellum in a Chihuahuan desert ecosystem. M.S. Thesis, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, p. 109Google Scholar
  4. Brownlee KA (1965) Statistical Theory and Methodology in Science and Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York, pp 316–317, 467–481Google Scholar
  5. Chew RM (1974) Consumers as regulators of ecosystems: an alternative to energetics. Ohio J Sci 72:359–370Google Scholar
  6. Edwards WM, van der Ploeg RR, Ehlers W (1979) A numerical study of the effects of noncapillary-size pores upon infiltration. Soil Sci Soc Amer J 43:851–856Google Scholar
  7. Goodnight JH (1979) SAS procedure GLM. In: SAS User's Guide, 1979 edition, Helwig JT, Council KA (eds) SAS Institute, Inc, Raleigh, North Carolina, 245–265Google Scholar
  8. Haverty MI, Nutting WL (1975) Density, dispersion and composition of desert termite foraging populations and their relationship to superficial dead wood. Environ Entomol 4:480–486Google Scholar
  9. Horton RE (1939) Analysis of runoff-plat experiments with varying infiltration capacity. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 7:693–711Google Scholar
  10. Iverson RM, Hinckley BS, Webb RH, Hallet B (1981) Physical effects of Vehicular disturbances on arid landscapes. Science 212:915–916Google Scholar
  11. Johnson KA, Whitford WG (1975) Foraging ecology and relative importance of subterranean termites in a Chihuahuan desert ecosystem. Environ Entomol 4:66–70Google Scholar
  12. Lee JJ, Inman DL (1975) The ecological role of consumers and aggregated systems view. Ecology 56:1455–1458Google Scholar
  13. Ludwig JA (1975) Distributional adaptations of root systems in desert environments. In: The below ground ecosystem: A synthesis of plantassociated processes, Marshall JK, Proceedings of U.S./IBP Interbiome Symposium, Fort Collins, Colo. Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Stroudsburg, Pa.Google Scholar
  14. Lyford FP, Gashu HK (1969) Infiltration rates as affected by desert vegetation. Water Resources Research 5:1373–1376Google Scholar
  15. Paine RT (1969a) A note on trophic complexity and community stability. Amer Nat 103:92–93Google Scholar
  16. Paine RT (1969b) The Pisaster-Tegula interaction: prey patches, predator food reference and intertidal community structure. Ecology 50:950–961Google Scholar
  17. Parker LW, Fowler HG, Ettershank G, Whitford WG (1982) The effects of subterranean termite removal on desert soil nitrogen and ephemeral flora. J Arid Environ 5:53–59Google Scholar
  18. Schaefer DA, Whitford WG (1981) Nutrient cycling by the subterranean termites Gnathamitermes tubiformans in a Chihuahuan desert exosystem. Oecologia (Berlin) 48:277–283Google Scholar
  19. Schumm SA, Lusby GC (1963) Seasonal variation of infiltration capacity and runoff on hillsides in Western Colorado. J Geophysical Res 63:3655–3666Google Scholar
  20. Smith HL, Leopold LB (1942) Infiltration studies in the Pecos River Watershed, New Mexico and Texas. J Soil Sci 53:195–204Google Scholar
  21. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1969) Biometry. WH Freeman and Co, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  22. Thomas RL, Sheard RW, Moyer JR (1967) Comparison of conventional and automated procedures for nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium analysis of plant material using a single digestion. Agron J 59:240–243Google Scholar
  23. Tromble JM (1976) Semi-arid rangeland treatment and surface run-off. J Range Manage 29:251–255Google Scholar
  24. Tromble JM, Renard KG, Thatcher AP (1974) Infiltration for three rangeland soil-vegetation complexes. J Range Manage 27:318–321Google Scholar
  25. Vomocil JA (1965) Porosity. In: Methods of Soil Analysis. No. 9 Monograph Series Part II, Black CA, American Society of Agronomists, 299–314Google Scholar
  26. Watanabe FS, Olsen SR (1965) Phosphorus determination from soil. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 29:677–678Google Scholar
  27. Whitford WG, Steinberger Y, Ettershank G (1982) Contributions of subterranean termites to the ‘economy’ of Chihuahuan desert ecosystems. Oecologia (Berlin) 55:298–302Google Scholar
  28. Wood TG, Sands WA (1978) The role of termites in ecosystems. In: Production ecology of ants and termites, Brian MV (ed) Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, 245–292Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ned Z. Elkins
    • 1
  • George V. Sabol
    • 1
  • Timothy J. Ward
    • 1
  • Walter G. Whitford
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringNew Mexico State UniversityLas CrucesUSA

Personalised recommendations