Search for: All records

Climate change is expanding drylands even as land use practices degrade them. Representing ∼40% of Earth’s terrestrial surface, drylands rely on biological soil crusts (biocrusts) for key ecosystem functions including soil stability, biogeochemical cycling, and water capture. Understanding how biocrusts adapt to climate change is critical to understanding how dryland ecosystems will function with altered climate. We investigated the sensitivity of biocrusts to experimentally imposed novel climates to track changes in productivity and stability under both warming and cooling scenarios. We established three common gardens along an elevational-climate gradient on the Colorado Plateau. Mature biocrusts were collected from each site and reciprocally transplanted intact. Over 20 months we monitored visible species composition and cover, chlorophyll a, and the composition of soil bacterial communities using high throughput sequencing. We hypothesized that biocrusts replanted at their home site would show local preference, and biocrusts transplanted to novel environments would maintain higher cover and stability at elevations higher than their origin, compared to at elevations lower than their origin. We expected responses of the visible biocrust cover and soil bacterial components of the biocrust community to be coupled, with later successional taxa showing higher sensitivity to novel environments. Only high elevation sourced biocrusts maintained higher biocrust cover and community stability at their site of origin. Biocrusts from all sources had higher cover and stability in the high elevation garden. Later successional taxa decreased cover in low elevation gardens, suggesting successional reversal with warming. Visible community composition was influenced by both source and transplant environment. In contrast, soil bacterial community composition was not influenced by transplant environments but retained fidelity to the source. Thus, responses of the visible and soil bacterial components of the biocrust community were not coupled. Synthesis: Our results suggest biocrust communities are sensitive to climate change, and loss of species and function can be expected, while associated soil bacteria may be buffered against rapid change. 

Biological soil crusts (biocrusts) are a complex community of algae, cyanobacteria, lichens, bryophytes, and assorted bacteria, fungi, archaea, and bacteriophages that colonize the soil surface. Biocrusts are particularly common in drylands and are found in arid and semiarid ecosystems worldwide. While diminutive in size, biocrusts often cover large terrestrial areas, provide numerous ecosystem benefits, enhance biodiversity, and are found in multiple configurations and assemblages across different climate and disturbance regimes. Biocrusts have been a focus of many ecologists, especially those working in semiarid and arid lands, as biocrusts are foundational community members, play fundamental roles in ecosystem processes, and offer rare opportunities to study biological interactions at small and large spatial scales. Due to these same characteristics, biocrusts have the potential to serve as an excellent teaching tool. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the utility of biocrust communities as a model system in science education. Functioning as portable, dynamic mini ecosystems, biocrusts can be used to teach about organisms, biodiversity, biotic interactions, abiotic controls, ecosystem processes, and even global change, and can be easy to use in nearly every classroom setup. For example, education principles, such as evolution and adaptation to stress, or structure and function (patterns and processes) can be applied by bringing biocrusts into the classroom as a teaching tool. In addition, discussing the utility of biocrusts in the classroom – including theory, hypothesis testing, experimentation, and hands-on learning – this document also provides tips and resources for developing education tools and activities geared toward impactful learning. 

Drylands are a widely degraded biome characterized by low productivity and high abiotic stress. Biological soil crust (biocrust) inoculants hold promise as a rehabilitation material in drylands, useful for boosting ecosystem functions including stabilization of eroding soil surfaces. However, biocrust materials cultivated ex situ by humans inconsistently establish under field conditions. We tested two approaches aimed at improving field establishment of biocrust inoculum: exposing the organisms within the inoculum to abiotic stress in an attempt to harden them, and applying habitat ameliorations intended to reduce the stressfulness of the environment. We hypothesized that both approaches in concert would lead to the most consistent field establishment of biocrusts. Overall, addition of biocrust inoculum did enhance biocrust establishment over the 1.5‐year duration of the study but did not result in full recovery. Generally, hardened biocrust inoculum performed no better than inoculum that was not hardened, although one indicator (chlorophylla) was enhanced by addition of hardened inoculum in some circumstances. Temporary irrigation was initially an effective habitat amelioration but had no effect on biocrust establishment by 1.5 years. In contrast, application of jute net to the soil surface promoted biocrust establishment both in synergy with and in the absence of inoculum addition. We hypothesize that jute net stabilizes the soil surface, reduces abiotic stress, and enhances resource availability, overcoming barriers to establishment of biocrusts. Currently, there is broad support for the efficacy of habitat amelioration approaches in biocrust rehabilitation, but effective hardening techniques remain elusive. 

Drylands encompass over 40% of terrestrial ecosystems and face significant anthropogenic degradation causing a loss of ecosystem integrity, services, and deterioration of social‐ecological systems. To combat this degradation, some dryland restoration efforts have focused on the use of biological soil crusts (biocrusts): complex communities of cyanobacteria, algae, lichens, bryophytes, and other organisms living in association with the top millimeters of soil. Biocrusts are common in many ecosystems and especially drylands. They perform a suite of ecosystem functions: stabilizing soil surfaces to prevent erosion, contributing carbon through photosynthesis, fixing nitrogen, and mediating the hydrological cycle in drylands. Biocrusts have emerged as a potential tool in restoration; developing methods to implement effective biocrust restoration has the potential to return many ecosystem functions and services. Although culture‐based approaches have allowed researchers to learn about the biology, physiology, and cultivation of biocrusts, transferring this knowledge to field implementation has been more challenging. A large amount of research has amassed to improve our understanding of biocrust restoration, leaving us at an opportune time to learn from one another and to join approaches for maximum efficacy. The articles in this special issue improve the state of our current knowledge in biocrust restoration, highlighting efforts to effectively restore biocrusts through a variety of different ecosystems, across scales and utilizing a variety of lab and field methods. This collective work provides a useful resource for the scientific community as well as land managers. 

Abstract The capture and use of water are critically important in drylands, which collectively constitute Earth's largest biome. Drylands will likely experience lower and more unreliable rainfall as climatic conditions change over the next century. Dryland soils support a rich community of microphytic organisms (biocrusts), which are critically important because they regulate the delivery and retention of water. Yet despite their hydrological significance, a global synthesis of their effects on hydrology is lacking. We synthesized 2,997 observations from 109 publications to explore how biocrusts affected five hydrological processes (times to ponding and runoff, early [sorptivity] and final [infiltration] stages of water flow into soil, and the rate or volume of runoff) and two hydrological outcomes (moisture storage, sediment production). We found that increasing biocrust cover reduced the time for water to pond on the surface (−40%) and commence runoff (−33%), and reduced infiltration (−34%) and sediment production (−68%). Greater biocrust cover had no significant effect on sorptivity or runoff rate/amount, but increased moisture storage (+14%). Infiltration declined most (−56%) at fine scales, and moisture storage was greatest (+36%) at large scales. Effects of biocrust type (cyanobacteria, lichen, moss, mixed), soil texture (sand, loam, clay), and climatic zone (arid, semiarid, dry subhumid) were nuanced. Our synthesis provides novel insights into the magnitude, processes, and contexts of biocrust effects in drylands. This information is critical to improve our capacity to manage dwindling dryland water supplies as Earth becomes hotter and drier. 

Abstract Understanding the importance of biotic interactions in driving the distribution and abundance of species is a central goal of plant ecology. Early vascular plants likely colonized land occupied by biocrusts — photoautotrophic, surface‐dwelling soil communities comprised of cyanobacteria, bryophytes, lichens and fungi — suggesting biotic interactions between biocrusts and plants have been at play for some 2,000 million years. Today, biocrusts coexist with plants in dryland ecosystems worldwide, and have been shown to both facilitate or inhibit plant species performance depending on ecological context. Yet, the factors that drive the direction and magnitude of these effects remain largely unknown.We conducted a meta‐analysis of plant responses to biocrusts using a global dataset encompassing 1,004 studies from six continents.Meta‐analysis revealed there is no simple positive or negative effect of biocrusts on plants. Rather, plant responses differ by biocrust composition and plant species traits and vary across plant ontogeny. Moss‐dominated biocrusts facilitated, while lichen‐dominated biocrusts inhibited overall plant performance. Plant responses also varied among plant functional groups: C₄grasses received greater benefits from biocrusts compared to C₃grasses, and plants without N‐fixing symbionts responded more positively to biocrusts than plants with N‐fixing symbionts. Biocrusts decreased germination but facilitated growth of non‐native plant species.Synthesis. Results suggest that interspecific variation in plant responses to biocrusts, contingent on biocrust type, plant traits, and ontogeny can have strong impacts on plant species performance. These findings have important implications for understanding biocrust contributions to plant productivity and community assembly processes in ecosystems worldwide.