4.5 Article

Drainage size, stream intermittency, and ecosystem function in a Sonoran Desert landscape

期刊

ECOSYSTEMS
卷 9, 期 3, 页码 344-356

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10021-005-0167-6

关键词

Sonoran Desert; intermittent streams; primary production; soil organic matter; scale; Prosopis velutina

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding the interactions between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems remains an important research focus in ecology. In arid landscapes, catchments are drained by a channel continuum that represents a potentially important driver of ecological pattern and process in the surrounding terrestrial environment. To better understand the role of drainage networks in arid landscapes, we determined how stream size influences the structure and productivity of riparian vegetation, and the accumulation of organic matter (OM) in soils beneath plants in an upper Sonoran Desert basin. Canopy volume of velvet mesquite (Prosopis velutina), as well as overall plant cover, increased along lateral upland-riparian gradients, and among riparian zones adjacent to increasingly larger streams. Foliar delta C-13 signatures for P. velutina suggested that landscape patterns in vegetation structure reflect increases in water availability along this arid stream continuum. Leaf litter and annual grass biomass production both increased with canopy volume, and total aboveground litter production ranged from 137 g m(-2) y(-1) in upland habitat to 446 g m(-2) y(-1) in the riparian zone of the perennial stream. OM accumulation in soils beneath P. velutina increased with canopy volume across a broad range of drainage sizes; however, in the riparian zone of larger streams, flooding further modified patterns of OM storage. Drainage networks represent important determinants of vegetation structure and function in upper Sonoran Desert basins, and the extent to which streams act as sources of plant-available water and/or agents of fluvial disturbance has implications for material storage in arid soils.

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

4.5
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