Lydia N. Bailey, Anita Antoninka, Lara Kobelt, Boris Poff, Matthew A. Bowker
{"title":"为土地管理确定与生物土壤结壳兼容的除草剂:效果因机理系列而异","authors":"Lydia N. Bailey, Anita Antoninka, Lara Kobelt, Boris Poff, Matthew A. Bowker","doi":"10.1111/rec.14227","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Dryland degradation is a global problem, destabilizing ecosystems and disrupting coupled human‐natural systems in arid regions. Degradation, caused by livestock grazing, wildfire, vehicles, construction, climate perturbances, and other surface disturbances, open space for invasive plants to establish while damaging soils, biological soil crusts (biocrusts), and vascular plant communities. Due to the scale of invasive plant infestations and the cost of mechanical control, invasive plants are commonly treated with herbicides, but little is known about the consequences of herbicides on biocrust. Biocrusts are communities of biota that aggregate the soil surface and provide ecosystem services, including mitigating soil erosion and fixing nitrogen, making biocrust a promising and emerging tool to counteract degradation. To test biocrust compatibility with standard herbicide treatments, we conducted a organisms (mosses and the lichens <jats:italic>Placidium</jats:italic>/<jats:italic>Clavascidium</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>Enchylium</jats:italic>). We found that response varied based on the herbicide mechanistic family, with the magnitude of response varying for biocrust organisms. Mosses treated with amino acid disrupters (glyphosate and imazapic) had 65–75% less health tissue area than controls after 3 months. Surprisingly, mosses treated with synthetic auxins (2,4‐D and aminopyralid) had a similar or slightly greater healthy area. Blue dye and surfactants had no effect on any tested biocrust organism. This greenhouse study suggests that through careful selection of herbicides, biocrust restoration could be simultaneously used with herbicide treatments of invasive plants to improve soil health.","PeriodicalId":54487,"journal":{"name":"Restoration Ecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying herbicides compatible with biological soil crusts for land management: effects differ by mechanistic family\",\"authors\":\"Lydia N. Bailey, Anita Antoninka, Lara Kobelt, Boris Poff, Matthew A. Bowker\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/rec.14227\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Dryland degradation is a global problem, destabilizing ecosystems and disrupting coupled human‐natural systems in arid regions. Degradation, caused by livestock grazing, wildfire, vehicles, construction, climate perturbances, and other surface disturbances, open space for invasive plants to establish while damaging soils, biological soil crusts (biocrusts), and vascular plant communities. Due to the scale of invasive plant infestations and the cost of mechanical control, invasive plants are commonly treated with herbicides, but little is known about the consequences of herbicides on biocrust. Biocrusts are communities of biota that aggregate the soil surface and provide ecosystem services, including mitigating soil erosion and fixing nitrogen, making biocrust a promising and emerging tool to counteract degradation. To test biocrust compatibility with standard herbicide treatments, we conducted a organisms (mosses and the lichens <jats:italic>Placidium</jats:italic>/<jats:italic>Clavascidium</jats:italic> and <jats:italic>Enchylium</jats:italic>). We found that response varied based on the herbicide mechanistic family, with the magnitude of response varying for biocrust organisms. Mosses treated with amino acid disrupters (glyphosate and imazapic) had 65–75% less health tissue area than controls after 3 months. Surprisingly, mosses treated with synthetic auxins (2,4‐D and aminopyralid) had a similar or slightly greater healthy area. Blue dye and surfactants had no effect on any tested biocrust organism. This greenhouse study suggests that through careful selection of herbicides, biocrust restoration could be simultaneously used with herbicide treatments of invasive plants to improve soil health.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54487,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Restoration Ecology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Restoration Ecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.14227\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Restoration Ecology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.14227","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Identifying herbicides compatible with biological soil crusts for land management: effects differ by mechanistic family
Dryland degradation is a global problem, destabilizing ecosystems and disrupting coupled human‐natural systems in arid regions. Degradation, caused by livestock grazing, wildfire, vehicles, construction, climate perturbances, and other surface disturbances, open space for invasive plants to establish while damaging soils, biological soil crusts (biocrusts), and vascular plant communities. Due to the scale of invasive plant infestations and the cost of mechanical control, invasive plants are commonly treated with herbicides, but little is known about the consequences of herbicides on biocrust. Biocrusts are communities of biota that aggregate the soil surface and provide ecosystem services, including mitigating soil erosion and fixing nitrogen, making biocrust a promising and emerging tool to counteract degradation. To test biocrust compatibility with standard herbicide treatments, we conducted a organisms (mosses and the lichens Placidium/Clavascidium and Enchylium). We found that response varied based on the herbicide mechanistic family, with the magnitude of response varying for biocrust organisms. Mosses treated with amino acid disrupters (glyphosate and imazapic) had 65–75% less health tissue area than controls after 3 months. Surprisingly, mosses treated with synthetic auxins (2,4‐D and aminopyralid) had a similar or slightly greater healthy area. Blue dye and surfactants had no effect on any tested biocrust organism. This greenhouse study suggests that through careful selection of herbicides, biocrust restoration could be simultaneously used with herbicide treatments of invasive plants to improve soil health.
期刊介绍:
Restoration Ecology fosters the exchange of ideas among the many disciplines involved with ecological restoration. Addressing global concerns and communicating them to the international research community and restoration practitioners, the journal is at the forefront of a vital new direction in science, ecology, and policy. Original papers describe experimental, observational, and theoretical studies on terrestrial, marine, and freshwater systems, and are considered without taxonomic bias. Contributions span the natural sciences, including ecological and biological aspects, as well as the restoration of soil, air and water when set in an ecological context; and the social sciences, including cultural, philosophical, political, educational, economic and historical aspects. Edited by a distinguished panel, the journal continues to be a major conduit for researchers to publish their findings in the fight to not only halt ecological damage, but also to ultimately reverse it.