Welcome to Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology! Today is Share:

Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology ›› 2022, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (7): 1871-1877.doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202207.008

• Special Features of biological soil crusts • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Reduction of flow velocity by biological soil crust of revegetated grassland in the hilly Loess Plateau, China

GUO Ya-li1,2, ZHAO Yun-ge2*, GAO Li-qian2, YANG Kai1,2, SUN Hui2,3, GU Kang-min1,2   

  1. 1College of Resources and Environment, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, Shaanxi, China;
    2State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess Plateau, Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, Shaanxi, China;
    3College of Forestry, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, Shaanxi, China
  • Received:2021-12-22 Accepted:2022-04-27 Online:2022-07-15 Published:2023-01-15

Abstract: Biological soil crusts (biocrusts) are the common cover in arid and semiarid areas. Together with plants, biocrusts affect runoff and flow velocity. However, few studies have focused on the effects of the co-covering of plant and biocrust (plant+biocrust) on the flow velocity, with a knowledge gap in the study of driving factors for slope erosion in arid and semiarid areas. In this study, simulated rainfall experiments were used to investigate the effects of biocrust and three types of biocrusts (more cyanobacteria less moss, more moss less cyanobacteria, and moss) on the flow velocity of revegetated grassland in the hilly Loess Plateau. The results showed that plant and plant+biocrust significantly reduced flow velocity, with that of plants and plant+biocrust being 70.7% and 83.1% lower than bare soil. The reduction benefits of plant and biocrust on flow velocity were 70.7% and 12.4%, respectively, when they were co-covered. Biocrust composition under plant cover affected flow velocity. The reduction benefits of more cyanobacteria less moss, more moss less cyanobacteria, and moss crust on flow velocity were 11.5%, 12.4%, and 19.4%, respectively. There was a significant negative correlation between flow velocity and moss coverage and a significant positive correlation between flow velocity and cyanobacteria coverage. The relationship between moss cove-rage (x) and flow velocity (y) was y=-2.081x+0.03 (R2=0.469). The moss coverage was a key factor affecting the flow velocity of co-covering of plant and biocrust slope with similar plant coverage (40%±10%). In conclusion, biocrusts under plant cover significantly slowed flow velocity, and the effect magnitude was related to its composition, implying that the role of biocrusts should be considered in understanding the mechanism underlying slope erosion in revegetated grassland.

Key words: biocrust composition, revegetated grassland, flow velocity, flow velocity reduction benefit