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

IF 2.8 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ECOLOGY Restoration Ecology Pub Date : 2024-07-04 DOI:10.1111/rec.14227
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

旱地退化是一个全球性问题,它破坏了生态系统的稳定,扰乱了干旱地区的人类-自然耦合系统。由放牧、野火、车辆、建筑、气候扰动和其他地表干扰造成的退化,为入侵植物提供了生存空间,同时破坏了土壤、生物土壤结壳(生物结壳)和维管束植物群落。由于入侵植物侵扰的规模和机械控制的成本,入侵植物通常使用除草剂来处理,但人们对除草剂对生物结壳的影响知之甚少。生物簇是聚集在土壤表面的生物群落,可提供生态系统服务,包括减轻土壤侵蚀和固氮,因此生物簇是一种很有前景的新兴抗退化工具。为了测试生物簇与标准除草剂处理的兼容性,我们对生物(苔藓、地衣 Placidium/Clavascidium 和 Enchylium)进行了研究。我们发现,除草剂机理系列不同,生物簇的反应程度也不同。经氨基酸干扰素(草甘膦和咪草烟)处理的苔藓在 3 个月后的健康组织面积比对照组少 65-75%。令人惊讶的是,用合成辅助剂(2,4-D 和氨基吡啶甲酸盐)处理过的苔藓,其健康组织面积与对照组相似或略有增加。蓝色染料和表面活性剂对任何测试的生物簇生物都没有影响。这项温室研究表明,通过精心选择除草剂,生物簇修复可与入侵植物的除草剂处理同时使用,以改善土壤健康。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Restoration Ecology
Restoration Ecology 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
15.60%
发文量
226
审稿时长
12-24 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
How does restoration ecology consider climate change uncertainties in forested ecosystems? Does decline and recovery process affect clonal and genetic diversity of a coastal plant population? Salt tolerance of native trees relevant to the restoration of degraded landscapes in the Monte region, Argentina Frequency of association: a key indicator for assessing livestock grazing effects on dryland plant interactions, applicable in restoration Low retention of restocked laboratory‐reared long‐spined sea urchins Diadema antillarum due to Spanish hogfish Bodianus rufus predation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1