, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 499–510

Interactive Effects of Three Ecosystem Engineers on Infiltration in a Semi-Arid Mediterranean Grassland

  • David J. Eldridge
  • Matthew A. Bowker
  • Fernando T. Maestre
  • Patricia Alonso
  • Rebecca L. Mau
  • Jorge Papadopoulos
  • Adrián Escudero


The redistribution of water in semi-arid environments is critical for the maintenance and survival of vegetation patches. We used a systems approach to examine the interactive effects of three engineers—Stipa tenacissima, biological soil crusts, and the European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus)—on infiltration processes in a model gypseous semi-arid Mediterranean grassland. We measured the early (sorptivity) and later (steady-state infiltration) stages of infiltration at two supply potentials using disk permeameters, which allowed us to determine the relative effects of different engineers and soil micropores on water flow through large macropores. We detected few effects under tension when flow was restricted to matrix pores, but under ponding, sorptivity and steady-state infiltration adjacent to Stipa tussocks were 2–3 times higher than in intact or rabbit-disturbed biological soil crusts. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) showed that both Stipa and biological soil crust cover exerted substantial and equal positive effects on infiltration under ponding, whereas indirectly, rabbit disturbance negatively affected infiltration by reducing crust cover. Under tension, when macropores were prevented from conducting water, Stipa had a direct negative effect and biological soil crust cover was relatively unimportant. More complex SEM models demonstrated that (1) Stipa primarily influenced biological soil crusts by reducing their richness, (2) rabbits exerted a small negative effect on crust richness, and (3) lichens were negatively, and mosses positively, correlated with a derived “infiltration” axis. Our results highlight the importance of biological soil crusts as key players in the maintenance of infiltration processes in Stipa grasslands, and demonstrate the modulating role played by rabbits through their surface disturbances.


infiltration Oryctolagus cuniculus biological soil crust ecosystem engineering macropore Stipa tenacissima ponding permeameter 

Supplementary material


  1. Alexander RW, Calvo A. 1990. The influence of lichens on slope processes in some Spanish badlands. In: Thornes JB, Ed. Vegetation and erosion. New York: John Wiley. p 385–98.Google Scholar
  2. Allen TFH, Starr TB. 1982. Hierarchy: perspectives for ecological complexity. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bardgett RD, Anderson JM, Behan-Pelletier V, Brussaard L, Coleman DC, Ettema C, Moldenke A, Schimel JP, Wall DH. 2001. The influence of soil biodiversity on hydrological pathways and the transfer of materials between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Ecosystems 4:421–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhark EW, Small E. 2003. Association between plant canopies and the spatial patterns of infiltration in shrubland and grassland of the Chihuahuan Desert, New Mexico. Ecosystems 5:185–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bochet E, Rubio JL, Poesen J. 1999. Modified topsoil islands within patchy Mediterranean vegetation in SE Spain. Catena 38:23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bouma J. 1992. Influence of soil macroporosity on environmental quality. In: Sparks DL, Ed. Advances in agronomy, Vol. 46. New York: Academic Press. p 1–37.Google Scholar
  7. Bowker MA, Soliveres S, Maestre FT. 2010. Competition increases with abiotic stress and regulates the diversity of biological soil crusts. J Ecol 98:551–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brotherson JD, Rushforth SR. 1983. Influence of cryptogamic crusts on moisture relationships of soils in Navajo National Monument, Arizona. Great Basin Nat 43:73–8.Google Scholar
  9. Burnham KP, Anderson DR. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference. A practical information-theoretical approach. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  10. Cantón Y, Domingo F, Solé-Benet A, Puigdefábregas J. 2002. Influence of soil-surface types on the overall runoff of the Tabernas badlands (south-east Spain): field data and model approaches. Hydrol Process 16:2621–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cantón Y, Solé-Benet A, Domingo F. 2004. Temporal and spatial patterns of soil moisture in semiarid badlands of SE Spain. J Hydrol 285:199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Casmereiro MA, Molina JA, De la Cruz Caravaca MT, Hernando Costa J, Hernando Massanet MI, Moreno PS. 2003. Influence of scrubs on runoff and sediment loss in soils of Mediterranean climate. Catena 57:91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cerdá A. 1997. The effect of patchy distribution of Stipa tenacissima L. on runoff and erosion. J Arid Environ 36:37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cook FJ, Broeren A. 1994. Six methods for determining sorptivity and hydraulic conductivity with disc permeameters. Soil Sci 157:2–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Darby BJ, Neher DA, Belnap J. 2007. Soil nematode communities are ecologically more mature beneath late-than early-successional stage biological soil crusts. Appl Soil Ecol 35:203–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dean WRJ, Milton SJ. 1991. Patch disturbances in arid grassy dunes: antelope, rodents and annual plants. J Arid Environ 20:231–7.Google Scholar
  17. Dunkerley DL. 2000. Hydrological effects of dryland shrubs: defining the spatial extent of modified soil water uptake rates at an Australian desert site. J Arid Environ 45:159–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eldridge DJ, Freudenberger D. 2005. Ecosystem wicks: woodland trees enhance water infiltration in a fragmented agricultural landscape in eastern Australia. Austral Ecol 30:336–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eldridge DJ, Rosentreter RR. 2004. Shrub mounds enhance water flow in a shrub-steppe community in southwestern Idaho, USA. In: Hild AL, Shaw NL, Meyer S, Booth DT, McArthur ED, Eds. Seed and soil dynamics in shrubland ecosystems. Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Service RMRS-P-31. pp 77–83.Google Scholar
  20. Eldridge DJ, Rosentreter RR. 1999. Morphological groups: a framework for monitoring microphytic crusts in arid landscapes. J Arid Environ 41:11–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eldridge DJ, Zaady E, Shachak M. 2000. Infiltration through three contrasting biological soil crusts in patterned landscapes in the Negev, Israel. Catena 40:323–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eldridge DJ, Zaady E, Shachak M. 2002. The impact of disturbance on runoff and sediment production and its implications for the management of desert ecosystems. Landscape Ecol 17:587–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grace JB. 2006. Structural equation modeling and natural systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Herschel JR. 1998. Dune spiders of the Negev desert with notes on Cerbalus psammodes (Heteropodiae). Israel J Zool 44:243–57.Google Scholar
  25. James AI, Eldridge DJ, Hill BM. 2009. Foraging animals create fertile patches in an Australian desert shrubland. Ecography 32:723–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jégou D, Schrader S, Diestel H, Cluzeau D. 2001. Morphological, physical and biochemical characteristics of burrow walls formed by earthworms. Appl Soil Ecol 17:165–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jones CG, Lawton JH, Shachak M. 1994. Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos 69:373–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kerley GIH, Whitford WG, Kay FR. 2004. Effects of pocket gophers on desert soils and vegetation. J Arid Environ 58:155–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kidron GJ, Yair A. 1997. Rainfall-runoff relationship over encrusted dune surfaces, Nizzana, western Negev, Israel. Earth Surf Proc Land 22:1169–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lavelle P, Bignell D, Lepage M, Wolters V, Roger P, Ineson P, Heal OW, Dhillion S. 1997. Soil function in a changing world: the role of invertebrate ecosystem engineers. Eur J Soil Biol 33:159–93.Google Scholar
  31. Loope WL, Gifford GF. 1972. Influence of a soil microfloral crust on select properties of soils under piñon-juniper in southeastern Utah. J Soil Water Conserv 7:128–32.Google Scholar
  32. López-Portillo J, Montaña C. 1999. Spatial distribution of Prosopis glandulosa var. torreyana in vegetated stripes of the southern Chihuahuan Desert. Acta Oecol 20:197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Maestre FT, Bautista S, Cortina J, Bellot J. 2001. Potential of using facilitation by grasses to establish shrubs on a semiarid degraded steppe. Ecol Appl 11:1641–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maestre FT, Cortina J. 2002. Spatial patterns of surface soil properties and vegetation in a Mediterranean semi-arid steppe. Plant Soil 241:279–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maestre FT, Cortina J. 2003. Small-scale spatial variation in soil CO2 efflux in a Mediterranean semiarid steppe. Appl Soil Ecol 23:199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Maestre FT, Huesca M, Zaady E, Bautista S, Cortina J. 2002. Infiltration, penetration resistance and microphytic crust composition in contrasting microsites within a Mediterranean semi-arid steppe. Soil Biol Biochem 34:895–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mitchell PB. 1988. The influences of vegetation, animals and micro-organisms on soil processes. In: Viles HA, Ed. Biogeomorphology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. p 43–82.Google Scholar
  38. McCune B, Mefford MJ. 2004. PC-Ord version 5-multivariate analysis of ecological data. Gleneden Beach, Oregon, USA: MjM Software.Google Scholar
  39. Myers KI, Parer I, Wood D, Cooke BD. 1994. The rabbit in Australia. In: Thompson HV, King CM, Eds. The European rabbit: the history and biology of a successful coloniser. New York: Oxford University Press. p 108–57.Google Scholar
  40. Neher DA, Lewins SA, Weicht TR, Darby BJ. 2009. Microarthropod communities associated with biological soil crusts in the Colorado Plateau and Chihuahuan deserts. J Arid Environ 73:672–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nicolau JM, Solé-Benet A, Puigdefábregas J, Gutiérrez L. 1996. Effects of soil and vegetation on runoff along a catena in semi-arid Spain. Geomorphology 14:297–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Parsons AJ, Wainwright J, Schlesinger WH, Abrahams AD. 2003. The role of overland flow in sediment and nitrogen budgets of mesquite dunefields, southern New Mexico. J Arid Environ 53:61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Perroux KM, White I. 1988. Design of disc permeameters. Soil Sci Soc Am J 52:1205–13.Google Scholar
  44. Pugnaire FI, Haase P, Incoll L, Clark SC. 1996. Response of tussock grass Stipa tenacissima to watering in a semi-arid environment. Funct Ecol 10:265–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Puigdefábregas J, Solé-Benet A, Gutiérrez L, Del Barrio G, Boer M. 1999. Scales and processes of water and sediment redistribution in drylands: results from the Rambla Honda field site in Southeast Spain. Earth-Sci Rev 48:39–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Puigdefébregas J, Sanchez G. 1996. Geomorphological implications of vegetation patchiness on semi-arid slopes. In: Anderson MG, Brooks SM, Eds. Advances in hillslope processes, Vol. 2. Chichester, UK: Wiley. p 1027–60.Google Scholar
  47. Shepherd UL, Brantley SL, Tarleton CA. 2002. Species richness and abundance patterns of microarthropods on cryptobiotic crusts in a piñon-juniper habitat: a call for greater knowledge. J Arid Environ 52:349–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Scholte TS. 1989. Vegetation–soil relations in an area with sealed Chromic Luvisols, Kenya. Arid Soil Res Rehabil 3:337–48.Google Scholar
  49. Soil Survey Staff. 1994. Keys to soil taxonomy. 6th edn. Washington DC: Soil Conservation Service, USDA.Google Scholar
  50. Verdú JR, Numa C, Lobo JM, Martínez-Azorín M, Calante E. 2009. Interactions between rabbits and dung beetles influence the establishment of Erodium praecox. J Arid Environ 73:713–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Warren SD, Eldridge DJ. 2001. Biological soil crusts and livestock in arid regions: are they compatible? In: Belnap J, Lange O, Eds. Biological soil crusts: structure, management and function. Ecological Studies 150. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. p 401–16.Google Scholar
  52. Wesche K, Nadrowski K, Retzer V. 2007. Habitat engineering under dry conditions: the impact of pikas (Ochotona pallasi) on vegetation and site conditions in southern Mongolian steppes. J Veg Sci 18:665–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. White I. 1988. Tillage practices and soil hydraulic properties: why quantify the obvious? In: Loveday J, Ed. National soil conference review papers. Canberra, ACT: Australian Society of Soil Science Incorporated. pp 87–126.Google Scholar
  54. Whitford WG. 1996. The importance of the biodiversity of soil biota in arid ecosystems. Biodivers Conserv 5:185–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Whitford WG, Kay FR. 1999. Biopedturbation by mammals in deserts: a review. J Arid Environ 41:203–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wilkinson MT, Richards PJ, Humphreys GS. 2009. Breaking ground: pedological, geological, and ecological implications of soil bioturbation. Earth-Sci Rev 97:257–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wilson GV, Luxmore RJ. 1988. Infiltration, macroporosity and mesoporosity distributions on two forested watersheds. Soil Sci Soc Am J 52:329–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zaady E, Bouskela A. 2002. Lizard burrows association with successional stages of biological soil crusts in an arid study region. J Arid Environ 50:235–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • David J. Eldridge
    • 1
  • Matthew A. Bowker
    • 2
  • Fernando T. Maestre
    • 2
  • Patricia Alonso
    • 2
  • Rebecca L. Mau
    • 2
  • Jorge Papadopoulos
    • 2
  • Adrián Escudero
    • 2
  1. 1.Ecology and Evolution Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental SciencesUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Área de Biodiversidad y Conservación, Departamento de Biología y Geología, Escuela Superior de Ciencias Experimentales y TecnologíaUniversidad Rey Juan CarlosMóstolesSpain

Personalised recommendations