4.5 Article

Riparian vegetation of ephemeral streams

Journal

JOURNAL OF ARID ENVIRONMENTS
Volume 138, Issue -, Pages 27-37

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2016.12.004

Keywords

Aridity; Climate change; Eragrostis lehmanniana; Savanna; Species richness; Riparian vegetation

Funding

  1. Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) [RC-1726]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ephemeral streams are abundant in drylands, yet we know little about how their vegetation differs from surrounding terrestrial zones and about their projected response to regional warming and drying. We assessed plant communities at seven ephemeral streams (and terrestrial zones) distributed among three climatic settings in Arizona. Compared to terrestrial zones, riparian zones had similar herbaceous cover but greater woody vegetation volume. They supported more plant species, with several woody taxa restricted to the ephemeral zone (consistent with the idea that herbaceous plants are rain-dependent while riparian trees rely on runoff stored in stream sediments). Their herbaceous communities had high compositional overlap with terrestrial zones and may sustain regional diversity as droughts intensify. Presumably owing to periodic flood disturbance, riparian plant communities had greater evenness than terrestrial zones, many of which were dominated by Eragrostis lehmanniana. Patterns along the climatic gradient suggest that increasing aridity will reduce the number of herbaceous (and total) plant species within riparian zones (110 species per stream in semihumid settings, 88 in semiarid, 48 in arid) and drive compositional shifts from perennials grasses and forbs to annuals. Hotter and drier conditions will drive sharp declines in herbaceous cover, converting riparian savanna to xeroriparian scrubland. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available