4.5 Article

Biological soil crusts in grazed and ungrazed Wyoming sagebrush steppe

Journal

JOURNAL OF ARID ENVIRONMENTS
Volume 67, Issue 2, Pages 195-207

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2006.02.010

Keywords

lichen; moss; quadrat; rangeland exclosures; sandy loam soils; transect

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Biological soil crusts are regarded as an indicator of healthy landscapes. To understand the response of biological soil crusts to grazing in northern sagebrush steppe, we examined nine Artemisia-dominated sites in Wyoming where livestock have been excluded for 32-45 years. Using two common sampling methods (20 m line transects and 0.25 m(2) quadrats) we determined biological soil crust cover and richness inside and outside exclosures. Total biological soil crust cover did not differ inside and outside the exclosures at any of the nine sites, regardless of monitoring method. Cover of biological soil crusts using the transect method ranged from 2% to 8% inside and 1% to 6% outside the exclosure. Cover of biological soil crusts using the quadrat method ranged from 2% to 11% inside and 2% to 9% outside the exclosure. Fruticose lichen cover was greater outside the exclosure at two sites (Poison Spider and Lander Ant) using the quadrat method. Both methods show a decrease in moss outside exclosures when assessed across all sites. Lichen and moss richness ranged from 5 to 15 species at each site. Fourteen of the 34 species collected throughout the sites were found only at one of the nine sites, and they did not all occur together or at the same site. Our results suggest that 32-45 years of grazing removal has not increased soil lichen cover but did increase moss cover inside exclosures. Distinguishing biological soil crusts by morphological groups aided recognition of differences that would not be apparent in an analysis by species. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available