Spatial modeling of biological soil crusts to support rangeland assessment and monitoring

Matthew A Bowker, Jayne Belnap, Mark E. Miller

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

29 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Biological soil crusts are a diverse soil surface community, prevalent in semiarid regions, which function as ecosystem engineers and perform numerous important ecosystem services. Loss of crusts has been implicated as a factor leading to accelerated soil erosion and other forms of land degradation. To support assessment and monitoring efforts aimed at ensuring the sustainability of rangeland ecosystems, managers require spatially explicit information concerning potential cover and composition of biological soil crusts. We sampled low disturbance sites in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (Utah, USA) to determine the feasibility of modeling the potential cover and composition of biological soil crusts in a large area. We used classification and regression trees to model cover of four crust types (light cyanobacterial, dark cyanobacterial, moss, lichen) and 1 cyanobacterial biomass proxy (chlorophyll a), based upon a parsimonious set of GIS (Geographic Information Systems) data layers (soil types, precipitation, and elevation). Soil type was consistently the best predictor, although elevation and precipitation were both invoked in the various models. Predicted and observed values for the dark cyanobacterial, moss, and lichen models corresponded moderately well (R 2 = 0.49, 0.64, 0.55, respectively). Cover of late successional crust elements (moss + lichen + dark cyanobacterial) was also successfully modeled (R2 = 0.64). We were less successful with models of light cyanobacterial cover (R2 = 0.22) and chlorophyll a (R2 = 0.09). We believe that our difficulty modeling chlorophyll a concentration is related to a severe drought and subsequent cyanobacterial mortality during the course of the study. These models provide the necessary reference conditions to facilitate the comparison between the actual cover and composition of biological soil crusts at a given site and their potential cover and composition condition so that sites in poor condition can be identified and management actions can be taken.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)519-529
Number of pages11
JournalRangeland Ecology and Management
Volume59
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2006

Fingerprint

soil crusts
soil crust
rangeland
rangelands
lichen
monitoring
moss
chlorophyll a
modeling
crust
lichens
mosses and liverworts
soil type
chlorophyll
soil types
ecosystem
land degradation
monument
semiarid region
ecosystem service

Keywords

  • Cryptobiotic soil crusts
  • Degradation thresholds
  • Drylands
  • Lichens
  • Mosses
  • Rangeland health

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Animal Science and Zoology
  • Ecology

Cite this

Spatial modeling of biological soil crusts to support rangeland assessment and monitoring. / Bowker, Matthew A; Belnap, Jayne; Miller, Mark E.

In: Rangeland Ecology and Management, Vol. 59, No. 5, 09.2006, p. 519-529.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{88f6b84c1c79456fb238e46359f0495a,
title = "Spatial modeling of biological soil crusts to support rangeland assessment and monitoring",
abstract = "Biological soil crusts are a diverse soil surface community, prevalent in semiarid regions, which function as ecosystem engineers and perform numerous important ecosystem services. Loss of crusts has been implicated as a factor leading to accelerated soil erosion and other forms of land degradation. To support assessment and monitoring efforts aimed at ensuring the sustainability of rangeland ecosystems, managers require spatially explicit information concerning potential cover and composition of biological soil crusts. We sampled low disturbance sites in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (Utah, USA) to determine the feasibility of modeling the potential cover and composition of biological soil crusts in a large area. We used classification and regression trees to model cover of four crust types (light cyanobacterial, dark cyanobacterial, moss, lichen) and 1 cyanobacterial biomass proxy (chlorophyll a), based upon a parsimonious set of GIS (Geographic Information Systems) data layers (soil types, precipitation, and elevation). Soil type was consistently the best predictor, although elevation and precipitation were both invoked in the various models. Predicted and observed values for the dark cyanobacterial, moss, and lichen models corresponded moderately well (R 2 = 0.49, 0.64, 0.55, respectively). Cover of late successional crust elements (moss + lichen + dark cyanobacterial) was also successfully modeled (R2 = 0.64). We were less successful with models of light cyanobacterial cover (R2 = 0.22) and chlorophyll a (R2 = 0.09). We believe that our difficulty modeling chlorophyll a concentration is related to a severe drought and subsequent cyanobacterial mortality during the course of the study. These models provide the necessary reference conditions to facilitate the comparison between the actual cover and composition of biological soil crusts at a given site and their potential cover and composition condition so that sites in poor condition can be identified and management actions can be taken.",
keywords = "Cryptobiotic soil crusts, Degradation thresholds, Drylands, Lichens, Mosses, Rangeland health",
author = "Bowker, {Matthew A} and Jayne Belnap and Miller, {Mark E.}",
year = "2006",
month = "9",
doi = "10.2111/05-179R1.1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "59",
pages = "519--529",
journal = "Rangeland Ecology and Management",
issn = "1550-7424",
publisher = "Society for Range Management",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Spatial modeling of biological soil crusts to support rangeland assessment and monitoring

AU - Bowker, Matthew A

AU - Belnap, Jayne

AU - Miller, Mark E.

PY - 2006/9

Y1 - 2006/9

N2 - Biological soil crusts are a diverse soil surface community, prevalent in semiarid regions, which function as ecosystem engineers and perform numerous important ecosystem services. Loss of crusts has been implicated as a factor leading to accelerated soil erosion and other forms of land degradation. To support assessment and monitoring efforts aimed at ensuring the sustainability of rangeland ecosystems, managers require spatially explicit information concerning potential cover and composition of biological soil crusts. We sampled low disturbance sites in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (Utah, USA) to determine the feasibility of modeling the potential cover and composition of biological soil crusts in a large area. We used classification and regression trees to model cover of four crust types (light cyanobacterial, dark cyanobacterial, moss, lichen) and 1 cyanobacterial biomass proxy (chlorophyll a), based upon a parsimonious set of GIS (Geographic Information Systems) data layers (soil types, precipitation, and elevation). Soil type was consistently the best predictor, although elevation and precipitation were both invoked in the various models. Predicted and observed values for the dark cyanobacterial, moss, and lichen models corresponded moderately well (R 2 = 0.49, 0.64, 0.55, respectively). Cover of late successional crust elements (moss + lichen + dark cyanobacterial) was also successfully modeled (R2 = 0.64). We were less successful with models of light cyanobacterial cover (R2 = 0.22) and chlorophyll a (R2 = 0.09). We believe that our difficulty modeling chlorophyll a concentration is related to a severe drought and subsequent cyanobacterial mortality during the course of the study. These models provide the necessary reference conditions to facilitate the comparison between the actual cover and composition of biological soil crusts at a given site and their potential cover and composition condition so that sites in poor condition can be identified and management actions can be taken.

AB - Biological soil crusts are a diverse soil surface community, prevalent in semiarid regions, which function as ecosystem engineers and perform numerous important ecosystem services. Loss of crusts has been implicated as a factor leading to accelerated soil erosion and other forms of land degradation. To support assessment and monitoring efforts aimed at ensuring the sustainability of rangeland ecosystems, managers require spatially explicit information concerning potential cover and composition of biological soil crusts. We sampled low disturbance sites in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (Utah, USA) to determine the feasibility of modeling the potential cover and composition of biological soil crusts in a large area. We used classification and regression trees to model cover of four crust types (light cyanobacterial, dark cyanobacterial, moss, lichen) and 1 cyanobacterial biomass proxy (chlorophyll a), based upon a parsimonious set of GIS (Geographic Information Systems) data layers (soil types, precipitation, and elevation). Soil type was consistently the best predictor, although elevation and precipitation were both invoked in the various models. Predicted and observed values for the dark cyanobacterial, moss, and lichen models corresponded moderately well (R 2 = 0.49, 0.64, 0.55, respectively). Cover of late successional crust elements (moss + lichen + dark cyanobacterial) was also successfully modeled (R2 = 0.64). We were less successful with models of light cyanobacterial cover (R2 = 0.22) and chlorophyll a (R2 = 0.09). We believe that our difficulty modeling chlorophyll a concentration is related to a severe drought and subsequent cyanobacterial mortality during the course of the study. These models provide the necessary reference conditions to facilitate the comparison between the actual cover and composition of biological soil crusts at a given site and their potential cover and composition condition so that sites in poor condition can be identified and management actions can be taken.

KW - Cryptobiotic soil crusts

KW - Degradation thresholds

KW - Drylands

KW - Lichens

KW - Mosses

KW - Rangeland health

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33749991832&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33749991832&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2111/05-179R1.1

DO - 10.2111/05-179R1.1

M3 - Article

VL - 59

SP - 519

EP - 529

JO - Rangeland Ecology and Management

JF - Rangeland Ecology and Management

SN - 1550-7424

IS - 5

ER -