Plant and Soil

, Volume 429, Issue 1–2, pp 175–185 | Cite as

Livestock grazing and aridity reduce the functional diversity of biocrusts

  • Max Mallen-CooperEmail author
  • David J. Eldridge
  • Manuel Delgado-Baquerizo
Regular Article


Background and aims

Livestock grazing and climate change are two of the most important global change drivers affecting ecosystem functioning in drylands. Grazing and climate are known to influence the cover and composition of biocrusts, which are substantial components of dryland soils globally. Much less is known, however, about how these global change drivers affect the functional diversity of biocrust communities in these ecosystems.


Here, we evaluate the role of increasing aridity and grazing intensity in driving the functional diversity of biocrusts. We collected data on multiple biocrust functional traits and community composition, recent and historic grazing intensity, and vascular plants at 151 sites from drylands in eastern Australia. We then used structural equation modelling and a fourth corner analysis to examine the combined effects of aridity and grazing on biocrust functional diversity and individual functional traits.


Aridity had a significant direct suppressive effect on biocrust functional diversity. Effects of grazing by livestock, kangaroos and rabbits on functional diversity were predominantly indirect and suppressive, mediated by a reduction in biocrust cover. Grazing did, however, promote functional diversity via an increase in vascular plant richness, with a concomitant increase in biocrust richness. The overall effect of grazing on biocrust functional diversity however was negative. Fourth corner analyses revealed that livestock grazing had a significant negative effect on the ability of biocrusts to stabilise the soil. Aridity had strong negative effects on biocrust height and their ability to absorb water and capture sediment. Few significant relationships were detected between enzyme-related traits and environmental variables.


Our findings provide novel evidence that the combination of increasing aridity and intensified livestock grazing will reduce the functional diversity and capabilities of biocrust communities, with resultant declines in ecosystem functioning.


Trait Biological soil crust Soil crusts Ecosystem function Functional diversity Livestock Drylands 



We thank Samantha Travers for helpful comments on the manuscript, and James Val, Samantha Travers, Marta Ruiz-Colmenero, James Glasier and staff from OEH, Umwelt and Ecology Australia for assistance with data collection and data entry. M.D.-B. acknowledges support from the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions of the Horizon 2020 Framework Program H2020-MSCA-IF-2016 under REA grant agreement n° 702057.

Supplementary material

11104_2017_3388_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 15.5 kb)
11104_2017_3388_MOESM2_ESM.docx (13 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 12.9 kb)


  1. Andrew M (1988) Grazing impact in relation to livestock watering points. Trends Ecol Evol 3:336–339CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Belnap J, Phillips SL, Miller ME (2004) Response of desert biological soil crusts to alterations in precipitation frequency. Oecologia 141:306–316CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bock CE, Jones ZF, Bock JH (2007) Relationships between species richness, evenness, and abundance in a southwestern savanna. Ecology 88:1322–1327CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. BOM (2017) Bureau of Meteorology, Australian Government Accessed 10 Jan 2017
  5. Bowker MA, Maestre FT, Escolar C (2010) Biological crusts as a model system for examining the biodiversity-ecosystem function relationship in soils. Soil Biol Biochem 42:405–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowker MA, Mau RL, Maestre FT et al (2011) Functional profiles reveal unique ecological roles of various biological soil crust organisms. Funct Ecol 25:787–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowker MA, Eldridge DJ, Val J, Soliveres S (2013) Hydrology in a patterned landscape is co-engineered by soil-disturbing animals and biological crusts. Soil Biol Biochem 61:14–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown AM, Warton DI, Andrew NR et al (2014) The fourth-corner solution-using predictive models to understand how species traits interact with the environment. Methods Ecol Evol 5:344–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coe KK, Sparks JP, Belnap J (2014) Physiological ecology of dryland biocrust mosses. In: Hanson DT, Rice SK (eds) Photosynthesis in bryophytes and early land plants (advances in photosynthesis and respiration). Springer, Dordrecht, pp 291–308Google Scholar
  10. Concostrina-Zubiri L, Pescador DS, Martínez I, Escudero A (2014) Climate and small scale factors determine functional diversity shifts of biological soil crusts in Iberian drylands. Biodivers Conserv 23:1757–1770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Concostrina-Zubiri L, Molla I, Velizarova E, Branquinho C (2016) Grazing or not grazing: implications for ecosystem services provided by biocrusts in Mediterranean cork oak woodlands. Land Degradation & Development
  12. Cornwell WK, Ackerly DD (2009) Community assembly and shifts in plant trait distributions across an environmental gradient in coastal California. Ecol Monogr 79:109–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Bello F, Lepš J, Sebastià M-T (2006) Variations in species and functional plant diversity along climatic and grazing gradients. Ecography 29:801–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Delgado-Baquerizo M, Covelo F, Maestre F, Gallardo A (2013) Biological soil crusts affect small-scale spatial patterns of inorganic N in a semiarid Mediterranean grassland. J Arid Environ 91:147–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Delgado-Baquerizo M, Gallardo A, Covelo F et al (2015) Differences in thallus chemistry are related to species-specific effects of biocrust-forming lichens on soil nutrients and microbial communities. Funct Ecol 29:1087–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Delgado-Baquerizo M, Maestre FT, Eldridge DJ et al (2016) Biocrust-forming mosses mitigate the negative impacts of increasing aridity on ecosystem multifunctionality in drylands. New Phytol 209:1540–1552CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Díaz S, Cabido M (2001) Vive la difference: plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem processes. Trends Ecol Evol 16:646–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Díaz S, Lavorel S, de Bello F et al (2007) Incorporating plant functional diversity effects in ecosystem service assessments. PNAS 104:20684–20689CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Eldridge D (1998) Trampling of microphytic crusts on calcareous soils, and its impact on erosion under rain-impacted flow. Catena 33:221–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eldridge D, Rosentreter R (1999) Morphological groups: a framework for monitoring microphytic crusts in arid landscapes. J Arid Environ 41:11–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eldridge DJ, Freudenberger D, Koen TB (2006) Diversity and abundance of biological soil crust taxa in relation to fine and coarse-scale disturbances in a grassy eucalypt woodland in eastern Australia. Plant Soil 281:255–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eldridge DJ, Delgado-Baquerizo M, Travers SK et al (2016a) Do grazing intensity and herbivore type affect soil health? Insights from a semi-arid productivity gradient. J Appl Ecol
  23. Eldridge DJ, Poore AG, Ruiz-Colmenero M et al (2016b) Ecosystem structure, function and composition in rangelands are negatively affected by livestock grazing. Ecol Appl 26:1273–1283CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Ernst R, Linsenmair KE, Rödel M-O (2006) Diversity erosion beyond the species level: dramatic loss of functional diversity after selective logging in two tropical amphibian communities. Biol Conserv 133:143–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. FAO (2013) Aridity Index Map Accessed 20 Dec 2016
  26. FAO (2017) Livestock and the environment Accessed 4 Feb 2017
  27. Ferrenberg S, Reed SC, Belnap J (2015) Climate change and physical disturbance cause similar community shifts in biological soil crusts. PNAS 112:12116–12121CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Gagic V, Bartomeus I, Jonsson T et al (2015) Functional identity and diversity of animals predict ecosystem functioning better than species-based indices. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 282:20142620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gavazov KS, Soudzilovskaia NA, van Logtestijn RS et al (2010) Isotopic analysis of cyanobacterial nitrogen fixation associated with subarctic lichen and bryophyte species. Plant Soil 333:507–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grime J (1998) Benefits of plant diversity to ecosystems: immediate, filter and founder effects. J Ecol 86:902–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kidron GJ, Tal SY (2012) The effect of biocrusts on evaporation from sand dunes in the Negev Desert. Geoderma 179:104–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Laliberté E, Legendre P (2010) A distance-based framework for measuring functional diversity from multiple traits. Ecology 91:299–305CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Laliberté E, Legendre P, Shipley B (2014) FD: measuring functional diversity (FD) from multiple traits, and other tools for functional ecology. R Package Version 1.0–12. Accessed 2 Feb 2017
  34. Legendre P, Galzin R, Harmelin-Vivien ML (1997) Relating behavior to habitat: solutions to the fourth-corner problem. Ecology 78:547–562Google Scholar
  35. Liu H, Han X, Li L et al (2009) Grazing density effects on cover, species composition, and nitrogen fixation of biological soil crust in an inner Mongolia steppe. Rangel Ecol Manag 62:321–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Loreau M (1998) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: a mechanistic model. PNAS 95:5632–5636CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Maestre FT, Escolar C, de Guevara ML et al (2013) Changes in biocrust cover drive carbon cycle responses to climate change in drylands. Glob Chang Biol 19:3835–3847CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Maestre FT, Eldridge DJ, Soliveres S et al (2016) Structure and functioning of dryland ecosystems in a changing world. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 47:215–237CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Mallen-Cooper M, Eldridge DJ (2016) Laboratory-based techniques for assessing the functional traits of biocrusts. Plant Soil 406:131–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mason NW, Mouillot D, Lee WG, Wilson JB (2005) Functional richness, functional evenness and functional divergence: the primary components of functional diversity. Oikos 111:112–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mason NW, Bello F, Mouillot D et al (2013) A guide for using functional diversity indices to reveal changes in assembly processes along ecological gradients. J Veg Sci 24:794–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Michel P, Payton IJ, Lee WG, During HJ (2013) Impact of disturbance on above-ground water storage capacity of bryophytes in New Zealand indigenous tussock grassland ecosystems. N Z J Ecol 37:114–126Google Scholar
  43. Ochoa-Hueso R, Delgado-Baquerizo M, Gallardo A et al (2016) Climatic conditions, soil fertility and atmospheric nitrogen deposition largely determine the structure and functioning of microbial communities in biocrust-dominated Mediterranean drylands. Plant Soil 399:271–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Oduor AMO, Gómez JM, Strauss SY (2010) Exotic vertebrate and invertebrate herbivores differ in their impacts on native and exotic plants: a meta-analysis. Biol Invasions 12:407–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Paquette A, Messier C (2011) The effect of biodiversity on tree productivity: from temperate to boreal forests. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 20:170–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pavoine S, Bonsall MB (2011) Measuring biodiversity to explain community assembly: a unified approach. Biol Rev 86:792–812CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Read CF, Duncan DH, Vesk PA, Elith J (2014) Biocrust morphogroups provide an effective and rapid assessment tool for drylands. J Appl Ecol 51:1740–1749CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Reed SC, Coe KK, Sparks JP et al (2012) Changes to dryland rainfall result in rapid moss mortality and altered soil fertility. Nat Clim Chang 2:752–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reisner MD, Grace JB, Pyke DA, Doescher PS (2013) Conditions favouring Bromus tectorum dominance of endangered sagebrush steppe ecosystems. J Appl Ecol 50:1039–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sarkar D (2008) Lattice: trellis graphics for R. R Package Version 0.20–34. Accessed 2 Feb 2017
  51. Shipley B (2000) Cause and correlation in biology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Siefert A, Violle C, Chalmandrier L et al (2015) A global meta-analysis of the relative extent of intraspecific trait variation in plant communities. Ecol Lett 18:1406–1419CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Tabeni S, Garibotti IA, Pissolito C, Aranibar JN (2014) Grazing effects on biological soil crusts and their interaction with shrubs and grasses in an arid rangeland. J Veg Sci 25:1417–1425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Thompson W, Eldridge D (2005) White cypress pine (Callitris glaucophylla): a review of its roles in landscape and ecological processes in eastern Australia. Aust J Bot 53:555–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Villéger S, Miranda JR, Hernández DF, Mouillot D (2010) Contrasting changes in taxonomic vs. functional diversity of tropical fish communities after habitat degradation. Ecol Appl 20:1512–1522CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Wang Y, Naumann U, Wright S, Warton D (2012) Mvabund: statistical methods for analysing multivariate abundance data R package version 3.11.9. Accessed 2 Feb 2017
  57. Weber B, Büdel B, Belnap J (2016) Biological soil crusts: an organizing principle in drylands. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wickham H (2009) ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Young KE, Grover HS, Bowker MA (2016) Altering biocrusts for an altered climate. New Phytol 210:18–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Zomer RJ, Trabucco A, Bossio DA, Verchot LV (2008) Climate change mitigation: a spatial analysis of global land suitability for clean development mechanism afforestation and reforestation. Agric Ecosyst Environ 126:67–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Max Mallen-Cooper
    • 1
    Email author
  • David J. Eldridge
    • 1
  • Manuel Delgado-Baquerizo
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental SciencesUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental SciencesUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA
  3. 3.Departamento de Biología y Geología, Física y Química Inorgánica, Escuela Superior de Ciencias ExperimentalesUniversidad Rey Juan CarlosMóstolesSpain

Personalised recommendations