4.6 Article

Can seed removal through soil erosion explain the scarcity of vegetation in the Chinese Loess Plateau?

Journal

GEOMORPHOLOGY
Volume 132, Issue 1-2, Pages 35-40

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.04.033

Keywords

Seed loss; Seed translocation; Seed shape; Natural revegetation; Rainfall simulation experiment

Funding

  1. NSFC [41030532, 40771126]
  2. Chinese Academy of Sciences [KZCX2-EW-406]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Seed removal by water erosion may explain the sparse vegetation cover in systems like the Chinese Loess Plateau, which is characterized by severe soil erosion. The seeds from 16 species found on the plateau were examined in relation to the likelihood of their removal by erosion, as tested by rainfall simulation experiments. The experiments were performed over 1-m(2) plots with slopes of 10 degrees, 15 degrees, 20 degrees and 25 degrees for 60 min at intensities of 50 mm h(-1), 100 mm h(-1) and 150 mm h(-1), respectively. Seed loss occurred at simulated rainfall intensities of 100 mm h(-1) and 150 mm h(-1), with total seed loss rates of 26-33% and 59-67%, respectively. Most seeds were displaced, even at 50 mm h(-1). The degrees of seed loss and displacement varied among species. These data, in combination with data from our former research on propagule, seedling and population development in these species, indicate that the species with high seed loss rates either compensate by having a soil seed bank that produces seedlings during the growing season or reproduce by vegetative propagation; the species with no seed loss are still sparsely distributed. Seed germination and seedling survival seem to be more important than seed loss in determining establishment in these regions of the Loess Plateau. Seed translocation by water erosion, however, contributes to the observed distribution of vegetation in this geographic region. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available