Rangeland Ecology & Management, Volume 73, Number 4 (July 2020)

Rangeland Ecology & Management Table of Contents Volume 73, Number 4 (2020)

Wed, 01 Jul 2020 00:00:00 GMT

Rangeland Ecology & Management Table of Contents Volume 73, Number 4 (2020) Society for Range Management

Rangeland Ecology & Management Editorial Board Volume 73, Number 4 (2020)

Wed, 01 Jul 2020 00:00:00 GMT

Rangeland Ecology & Management Editorial Board Volume 73, Number 4 (2020) Society for Range Management

Ground Cover—What Are the Critical Criteria and Why Does It Matter?

Wed, 01 Jul 2020 00:00:00 GMT

Ground Cover—What Are the Critical Criteria and Why Does It Matter? Zobell, R.A.; Cameron, A.; Goodrich, S.; Huber, A.; Grandy, D. This publication is the result of concerns expressed regarding the definition and subsequent use of ground cover in rangeland monitoring. We reviewed 20 monitoring publications. All publications reviewed contained a definition of ground cover and/or direction on how to monitor ground cover. The majority of these publications also defined bare ground. In all cases, bare ground was defined as the opposite of ground cover. We identified critical criteria of ground cover based on the role it plays in soil conservation as it relates to water and wind erosion. Critical criteria identified included standing and nonstanding live vegetation, standing and nonstanding dead vegetation including litter, and rock. We compared these critical criteria to the 20 monitoring publications reviewed. We found 19 of these publications included the criteria standing live vegetation or similar words and standing dead vegetation or similar words in their definition and/or use of ground cover. The one source where standing live or dead vegetation or similar words were not included was “Indicators of Rangeland Health and Functionality in the Intermountain West.” This publication was produced by the US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Ground cover was limited to basal vegetation, litter, moss/lichen, or rock. We also found inconsistencies in the definition and subsequent use of ground cover in Forest Service Handbook 2209.21–Rangeland Ecosystem Analysis and Monitoring Handbook, Intermountain Region. We contend a large volume of literature supports the inclusion of critical criteria as identified in this report as ground cover. These criteria are essential components contributing to resistance of water and wind erosion important to soil conservation. This review demonstrates the importance of accurately defining and subsequently including critical criteria in rangeland attributes including ground cover. This paper addresses standardizing terms and calculations used in determining ground cover. © 2020

Trampling Disturbance of Biocrust Enhances Soil Carbon Emission

Wed, 01 Jul 2020 00:00:00 GMT

Trampling Disturbance of Biocrust Enhances Soil Carbon Emission Yang, X.; Xu, M.; Zhao, Y.; Bao, T.; Ren, W.; Shi, Y. Biocrusts play an important role in the carbon cycle in arid and semiarid ecosystems. Activities such as livestock grazing can disturb ecosystem functions of biocrusts. However, it is unclear whether disturbance intensity impacts carbon emission from these biocrusts. Few studies have investigated the transformation of carbon within biocrusts after disturbance. Here, we conducted a field experiment on the Loess Plateau, China, in which we artificially simulated different intensities of trampling to examine the response of biocrust carbon emissions to disturbance. Our results demonstrate that disturbance significantly reduced biocrust coverage. The largest decreases were observed in the second through fourth intensity, which declined significantly by 12.6–17.1%. Disturbance decreased soil organic carbon content in the biocrust layer by 2.6 g kg−1–3.7 g kg−1 depending on the disturbance intensity. Disturbance significantly increased the soil easily oxidizable carbon (SEOC) content in the biocrust layer. The soil microbial biomass carbon (SMBC) content of the fifth intensity increased significantly by 70.3%. The soil mineralizable carbon (SMC) content of the fourth intensity increased significantly by 78.8%. Soil carbon emissions increased significantly with increasing disturbance intensity, were higher at night than during the day, and were higher in the summer than in the fall. Together, these findings indicate that the increase of carbon emission was mainly due to increases in SEOC and SMC. Trampling disturbance increases carbon emissions from biocrust soils. These losses of CO2 from biocrust soils after disturbance may substantially reduce the biocrust contribution to the soil carbon budget. © 2020 The Society for Range Management