4.6 Article

Stabilizing sand from dried-up lakebeds against wind erosion by accelerating biological soil crust development

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOIL BIOLOGY
卷 98, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2020.103189

关键词

Biocrust; Combating desertification; Ecosystem restoration; Lake Urmia; Soil cyanobacteria; Soil inoculation

资金

  1. Urmia Lake Research Institute, Urmia University, Iran [98/M/001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Land degradation and the resulting desertification often lead to sand flowing from deserts and/or dried-up lakebeds and into habitable zones; a problem that has intensified in recent decades. We cultivated locally collected biological soil crust (BSC) bacteria (Bacillus subtilis strain) and cyanobacteria (Nostoc sp. and Oscillatoria sp.) from the dried-up bed of Lake Urmia, northwest Iran. To evaluate the ability of BSC to stabilize the sandy lakebed soil, bacteria and cyanobacteria were used to inoculate experimental trays of sandy soil from the same area, under laboratory conditions. After 120 days, we simulated winds at a speed of 72 km h(-1) for three 10-min intervals (30 min in overall) to measure the sand transport rate as well as the durability and fragility of the BSCs during the wind erosion process, using an open circuit wind tunnel. We found that the bacteria, cyanobacteria, and cyanobacteria + bacteria inoculation reduced the sand flowing by 42.3, 96.6, and 95.9%, respectively, as compared to the control. We found that in addition to creating a protective cover on the soil surface, cyanobacteria created a strong bond between the soil particles through their exudation of exopolysaccharides and network of filaments, increasing the ability of the sand to withstand wind forces. Our inoculation technique was an effective and natural way to stabilize moving sand. Future research should replicate our methods under natural conditions to evaluate the potential for large-scale restoration.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据