4.4 Article

Vegetation as affected by groundwater depth and microtopography in a shallow aquifer area of the Great Basin

期刊

ECOHYDROLOGY
卷 5, 期 1, 页码 54-63

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/eco.196

关键词

desert vegetation; ecohydrology; Owens Valley; relative elevation; shallow aquifer; water table depth

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study was designed to better define the nature of the relationship among vegetation, groundwater level and microtopography in an arid area where depth to groundwater (DTW) was 04 m. Plant cover, DTW and relative elevations were jointly measured along 67 vegetation transects throughout the Owens Valley, CA, USA. These transects were dominated by major species of the area: Artemisia tridentata, Atriplex torreyi, Ericameria nauseosa, Distichlis spicata, Juncus arcticus, Leymus triticoides, Sarcobatus vermiculatus and Sporobolus airoides. Plant species occurrence was associated with different DTW. J. arcticus and D. spicata occurred more frequently in areas with the shallowest groundwater (< 1.5 m). A. torreyi, L. triticoides and E. nauseosa dominated areas with intermediate DTW (1.5-2.0 m); whereas S. airoides, S. vermiculatus and A. tridentata dominated areas with deeper water tables (> 2.0 m). Species were also linked to different microtopographic positions: L. triticoides and J. arcticus were mainly restricted to depressions whereas A. torreyi and A. tridentata were widely distributed in higher positions on the microtopographical gradient. Only 6% of the variation in vegetation cover was accounted for by DTW throughout the study area (N = 820). Cover of individual species was usually unaffected by DTW variation. Results suggest that species distribution is linked to groundwater conditions, but cover of vegetation is only partially affected by DTW variation. This is possible because water tables in our study area are within the rooting depth of most species and plants appear to be well adapted to shallow DTW variations. Copyright (c) 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

4.4
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