4.2 Article

Summer activity patterns of Antarctic and high alpine lichen-dominated biological soil crusts-Similar but different?

Journal

ARCTIC ANTARCTIC AND ALPINE RESEARCH
Volume 48, Issue 3, Pages 449-460

Publisher

INST ARCTIC ALPINE RES
DOI: 10.1657/AAAR0015-047

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. New Zealand Foundation for Research Science and Technology (Understanding, valuing and protecting Antarctica's unique terrestrial ecosystems: predicting biocomplexity in Dry Valley ecosystems) [UOWX0710]
  2. ERA Net BiodivERsA program , Improved appreciation of the functioning and importance of biological soil crusts in Europe: the Soil Crust International Project (SCIN) as part of BiodivERsA joint call

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Biological soil crusts (BSCs) are small-scale communities of lichens, mosses, algae, and cyanobacteria that cover much of the surface area in regions where vascular plant growth is restricted due to harsh environmental conditions, such as perpetually ice-free areas in terrestrial Antarctic environments and alpine areas above the tree line. To our knowledge, none of the available studies provides a direct Antarctic-alpine comparison of BSC activity periods and the water use, both key traits to understand their physiological behavior and therefore related growth and fitness. Here, activity patterns and water relations were studied at two sites, one in continental Antarctica (Garwood Valley 78 degrees S) and one in the High Alps of Austria (Hochtor, Grossglockner 2350m). BSCs in continental Antarctica were only rarely active, and if so, then during melt after snowfalls and by fog. In the Austrian Alps, BSCs were continuously active and additionally activated by rainfall, fog, and dew. Consequently, high alpine BSCs can be expected to have much higher photosynthetic productivity supporting higher growth rates than the same functional vegetation unit has in continental Antarctica.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available