Investigating the Influence of Pioneer Plants’ Stemflow on Soil and Concomitant Plants in Arid Zones

Authors

1 MSc of Range Science, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran

2 Associate Professor of Forestry, Department of Natural Resources, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan

3 Ph.D. of Range Science, Department of Natural Resources, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran

10.22052/jdee.2024.253639.1094

Abstract

This study set out to investigate the influence of stemflow of Anabasis aphylla L. and Pteropyrum aucheri Jaub. & Spach on soil and concomitant plants in Central Iran. To this end, the stemflow was measured on ten mature plants with five replicates per species from March 21, 2014, to May 2, 2014. Moreover, the volume of collected flows was measured after each rainfall using measuring cylinders. Then, the volume was divided by the crown area to find the flow depth for each stem. On the other hand, to investigate the influence of stemflow on nursing understory plants, the plants were treated with and without stemflow at different depths. In this regard, the Lepidium sativum Linn was selected as the intended species to investigate the stemflow nursing effect of A. aphylla and P. aucheri.  The results of the study indicated that the average rate of stemflow in P.aucheri and A.aphylla ​​was 18.5% and 13.4% of gross rainfall, respectively. Furthermore, the average funneling ratio ​​was found to be 29 and 39.9 for A.aphylla and P.aucheri, respectively. The moisture, OM, and MWD obtained for the soil under A.aphylla and P.aucheri were significantly different when treated with stemflow in depths of 80 and 100 cm from the case when the underlying soil of the species was treated without streamflow. However, while the variations in soil’s pH were not significant at different depths in both treatments and bare soil, the variations showed a slight increase in A.aphylla compared to P.aucheri and bare soil. On the other hand, the investigation of the two treatments in terms of EC values ​​revealed that salinity was higher in the treatment without stemflow. It was also found that the efficiency of stemflow nursing was up to 10 cm and 7 cm in radius in P.aucheri and A.aphyll, respectively.

Keywords

References

  1. Carlyle-Moses, D.E. (2004). Throughfall, stemflow, andcanopy interceptionloss fluxes ina semi-arid Sierra Madre Oriental matorral community. Journal of Arid Environment, 58, 181-202.
  2. De Schrijver, A., et al. (2008). Effect of vegetation type on throughfall deposition and seepage flux. Environmental Pollution, 153(2), 295-303.
  3. Garcia-Estringana, P., Alonso-Blázquez, N., & Alegre, J. (2010). Water storage capacity, stemflow and water funneling in Mediterranean shrubs. Journal of Hydrology, 389, 363–372.
  4. Gersper, P.L., & Holowaychuk, N. (1971). Some effects of stem flow from forest canopy trees on chemical properties of soils. Ecology, 52(4), 691-702.
  5. Goodall, D. (1965). Plot-less tests of interspecific associations. Journal of Ecology, 53, 197-210.
  6. Herwitz, S.R. (1986). Infiltration-excess caused by stemflow in a cyclone-prone tropical rainforest. Earth Surf. Process. Landf, 11, 401-
  7. Jafari, M., & Tavili. A. (2019). Rehabiliation of arid and desert areas. Tehran University Press.
  8. Levia DF, Frost EE. (2003) A review and evaluation of stemflow literature in the hydrologic and biogeochemical cycles of forested and agricultural ecosystems. J Hydrol, 274, 1-29
  9. Levia, D.F., & Germer, S. (2015). A review of stemflow generation dynamics and stemflowenvironment interactions in forests and shrublands. Rev. Geophys, 53, 673-714.
  10. Le Bissonnais, Y. (1996). Aggregate stability and assessment of soil crustability and erodibility. I. Theory and methodology. J. Soil Sci, 47, 425-437.
  11. Li, X.-Y., et al. (2008). Stemflow in three shrubs and its effect on soil water enhancement in semiarid loess region of China. Agricultural and forest meteorology, 148(10), 1501-1507.
  12. Li, X.Y., Yang, Z.P., Li, Y.T., & Lin, H. (2009). Connecting ecohydrology and hydropedology in desert shrubs: stemflow as a source of preferential flow in soils. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 13(7), 1133-1144.
  13. Ma, B., Li, C.D., Ma, F., Li, Z.B., & Wu, F.Q. (2016). Influences of rainfall intensity and leaf area on corn stemflow: development of a model. CLEAN - Soil Air Water, 44(8), 922-929.
  14. Martinez-Meza, E., & Whitford, W.G. (1996). Stemflow, throughfall and channelization of stemflow by roots in three Chihuahuan desert shrubs. Journal of Arid Environments, 32(3), 271-287.
  15. Navar, J. (2011). Stemflow variation in Mexico’s northeastern forest communities: its contribution to soil moisture content and aquifer recharge. Journal of Hydrology, 40, 35–42.
  16. Schwärzel, K., Ebermann, S., Schalling, N. (2012). Evidence of double-funneling effect of beech trees by visualization of flow pathways using dye tracer. Journal of Hydrology, 470, 184-
  17. Siegert, C.M., & Levia, D.F. (2014). Seasonal and meteorological effects on differential stemflow funneling ratios for two deciduous tree species. Journal of Hydrology, 519, 446-
  18. Slavich, P., & Petterson, G. (1993). Estimating the electrical conductivity of saturated paste extracts from 1: 5 soil, water suspensions and texture. Soil Research, 31, 73-81.
  19. Swaffer, B.A., Holland, K.L., Doody, T.M., & Hutson, J. (2014). Rainfall partitioning, tree form and measurement scale: a comparison of two co-occurring, morphologically distinct tree species in a semi-arid environment. Eco-hydrology, 7, 1331–
  20. Walkley, A., & Black, I.A. (1934). An examination of Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci., 37, 29-37.
  21. Wang, X.P., Zhang, Y.F., Wang, Z.N., Pan, Y.X., Hu, R., Li, X.J., & Zhang, H., (2013). Influence of shrub canopy morphology and rainfall characteristics on stemflow within a revegetated sand dune in the Tengger Desert, NW China. Process, 27, 1501–1509.
  22. Xiao, Q., & McPherson, E.G., (2011). Rainfall interception of three trees in Oakland, California. Urban Ecosyst, 14, 755-769.
  23. Yang, X., Shao, M.A., & Wei, X. (2019). Stemflow production differ significantly among tree and shrub species on the Chinese Loess Plateau. Journal of hydrology, 568, 427-436.
  24. Yuan, C., Gao, G.Y., & Fu, B.J. (2017). Comparisons of stemflow and its bio-/abiotic influentialfactorsbetweentwoxerophyticshrubspecies. EarthSyst.Sci.21, 1–42.
  25. Zhang, Y.F., Wang, X.P., Hu, R., Pan, Y.X., & Zhang, H. (2013). Stemflow in two xerophytic shrubs and its significance to soil water and nutrient enrichment. Res, 28, 567-579.
  26. Zhang, Y.F., Wang, X.P., Hu, R., Pan, Y.X., & Paradeloc, M. (2015). Rainfall partitioning into throughfall, stemflow and interception loss by two xerophytic shrubs within a rainfed re-vegetation desert ecosystem, northwestern China. Journal of Hydrology, 527, 1084–1095.
  27. Zheng, J., Fan, J., Zhang, F., Yan, S., Wu, Y., Lu, J., Guo, J., Cheng, M., & Pei, Y. (2019). Throughfall and stemflow heterogeneity under the maize canopy and its effect on soil water distribution at the row scale. Science of The Total Environment, 660, 1367-1382.
Desert Ecosystem Engineering
Volume 13, Issue 43
October 2024
Pages 79-92

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics