Interactions between vegetation dynamic and edaphic factors in the Great Salt Desert of central Iran
Hossein BASHARI1,*(), SeyedMehrdad KAZEMI1, Soghra POODINEH1, Mohammad R MOSADDEGHI2, Mostafa TARKESH1, SeyedMehdi ADNANI3
1Department of Natural Resources, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan 8415683111, Iran 2Department of Soil Science, College of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan 8415683111, Iran 3Forests and Rangelands Research Department, Qom Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Qom 3716184729, Iran;
Investigating the relationships between vegetation dynamic and edaphic factors provide management insights into factors affecting the growth and establishment of plant species and vegetation communities in saline areas. The aim of this study was to assess the spatial variability of various vegetation communities in relation to edaphic factors in the Great Salt Desert, central Iran. Fifteen vegetation communities were identified using the physiognomy-floristic method. Coverage and density of vegetation communities were determined using the transect plot method. Forty soil samples were collected from major horizons of fifteen profiles in vegetation communities, and analyzed in terms of following soil physical and chemical characteristics: soil texture, soluble Na + concentration, sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), electrical conductivity (EC), pH, organic matter content, soluble Mg 2+ and Ca 2+ concentrations, carbonate and gypsum contents, and spontaneously- and mechanically-dispersible clay contents. Redundancy analysis was used to investigate the relationships between vegetation dynamic and edaphic factors. The generalized linear method (GLM) was used to find the plant species response curves against edaphic factors. Results showed that plant species responded differently to edaphic factors, in which soluble sodium concentration, EC, SAR, gypsum content and soil texture were identified as the most discriminative edaphic factors. The studied plant species were also found to have different ecological requirements and tolerance to edaphic factors, in which Tamarix aphylla and Halocnemum strobilaceum were identified as the most salt-resistant species in the region. Furthermore, the presence of Artemisia sieberi was highly related to soil sand and gypsum contents. The results implied that exploring the plant species response curves against edaphic factors can assist managers to lay out more appropriate restoration plans in similar arid areas.
Received: 15 April 2019
Published: 10 February 2021
Hossein BASHARI, SeyedMehrdad KAZEMI, Soghra POODINEH, Mohammad R MOSADDEGHI, Mostafa TARKESH, SeyedMehdi ADNANI. Interactions between vegetation dynamic and edaphic factors in the Great Salt Desert of central Iran. Journal of Arid Land, 2021, 13(2): 123-134.
Fig. 1Location of the study area (a) and sampling sites (b) in the Great Salt Desert, central Iran
4
3
2
1
Axis
0.27
0.46
0.90
1.00
Eigenvalue
2.21
1.69
2.52
0.40
Length of gradient
78.60
70.50
56.60
29.70
Cumulative variance of plant species (%)
0.00
0.00
54.80
33.70
Cumulative variance of soils (%)
Table 1 Results of DCA (detrended correspondence analysis) of vegetation coverage and edaphic factors in the Great Salt Desert, central Iran
Number
Vegetation community
Site
Elevation (m)
Vegetation coverage (%)
Plant density (stands/hm2)
S1
Phragmites australis-Halocnemum strobilaceum
Hoz-e Soltan
818
6.5
33,000
S2
Halocnemum strobilaceum-Tamarix aphylla
Moreh
822
10.8
2300
S3
Alhaji mannifera-Seidlitzia rosmarinus
Hoz-e Soltan
822
61.1
21,000
S4
Tamarix aphylla-Halocnemum strobilaceum
Moreh
824
2.6
3000
S5
Tamarix aphylla
Masileh
831
5.8
2000
S6
Artemisia sieberi-Stipagrostis plumosa
Moreh
850
2.8
10,000
S7
Artemisia sieberi
Hoz-e Soltan
855
3.4
6000
S8
Halostachys caspica-Halocnemum strobilaceum
Hoz-e Soltan
817
11.5
4000
S9
Halocnemum strobilaceum
Hoz-e Soltan
819
30.7
10,000
S10
Halocnemum strobilaceum-Seidlitzia rosmarinus
Hoz-e Soltan
820
32.9
8600
S11
Halocnemum strobilaceum-Tamarix aphylla
Moreh
800
3.4
2100
S12
Tamarix aphylla
Hoz-e Soltan
847
68.1
2900
S13
Tamarix aphylla-Seidlitzia rosmarinus
Masileh
840
7.6
700
S14
Artemisia sieberi
Masileh
855
4.7
9000
S15
Halocnemum strobilaceum
Masileh
819
6.9
3000
Table 2 Elevation, vegetation coverage and plant density of different vegetation communities in the Great Salt Desert, central Iran
Table 3 Soil physical and chemical properties of different vegetation communities in the Great Salt Desert, central Iran
Fig. 2Redundancy analysis (RDA) orientation diagram of different vegetation communities with environmental variables. EC, electrical conductivity; SAR, sodium adsorption ratio; OM, organic matter; SDC, spontaneously-dispersible clay; MDC, mechanically-dispersible clay; CCE, calcium carbonate equivalent. Mg2+, magmatism; Na+, sodium; Ca2+, calcium. S1-S15 represent the fifteen vegetation communities.
Index
Sand
Silt
Clay
OM
CCE
Gyp
EC
pH
SAR
Na+
Ca2+
Mg2+
SDC
MDC
Sand
1.00
Silt
-0.88*
1.00
Clay
-0.30*
0.00
1.00
OM
0.02
0.04
0.00
1.00
CCE
*-0.20
0.20
0.38
*-0.36
1.00
Gyp
0.28
-0.15
-0.30
-0.08
0.14
1.00
EC
*-0.42
0.40
0.10
-0.30
*-0.50
-0.30
1.00
pH
*-0.37
-0.54*
0.30
0.10
0.25
*-0.80
0.60*
1.00
SAR
-0.23
-0.16
0.67*
-0.23
-0.27
-0.30
0.50
0.22
1.00
Na+
*-0.40
0.29
0.26
-0.32
*-0.40
-0.24
0.90*
*0.43
0.65*
1.00
Ca2+
-0.20
0.51*
*-0.60
-0.17
*-0.38
-0.06
0.60*
0.90*
-0.29
*0.43
1.00
Mg2+
*-0.41
0.61*
-0.30
-0.13
-0.50
-0.10
0.70*
0.88*
-0.22
0.62*
0.78*
1.00
SDC
*-0.54
0.01
-0.40*
-0.07
-0.70*
-0.57*
0.19
*0.54
0.50*
0.22
*0.40
0.19
1.00
MDC
*-0.52
0.11
-0.10*
0.06
-0.84*
-0.64*
-0.25
*0.31
0.50*
*0.33
0.03
0.20
0.61*
1.00
Table 4 Correlation coefficients between edaphic factors through RDA
Fig. 3Relationships of spontaneously-dispersible clay (SDC, a) content and mechanically-dispersible clay (MDC, b) content with calcium carbonate equivalent (CCE)
Fig. 4Cluster analysis based on vegetation coverage in the Great Salt Desert, central Iran
Fig. 5Plant species response curves from generalized linear model (GLM) relating coverage of vegetation communities to edaphic factors. Ta.ap, Tamarix aphylla; Ha.st, Halocnemum strobilacum; Se.ro, Seidlitzia rosmarinus; Ar.si, Artemisia sieberi.
[1]
Abbas M S, Afefe A A, Hatab E B E, et al. 2016. Vegetation-soil relationships in wadi El-Rayan protected area, western desert, Egypt. Jordan Journal of Biological Sciences, 9(2):97-107.
[2]
Agarwal P, Dabi M, Kinhekar K, et al. 2020. Special adaptive features of plant species in response to salinity. In: Hasanuzzaman M, Tanveer M. Salt and Drought Stress Tolerance in Plants Signaling Networks and Adaptive Mechanisms. Switzerland: Springer, 53-76.
[3]
Allahgholi A, Asri Y . 2014. Changes in plant communities within the south east salt marshes of Orumieh Lake. Plant Ecophysiology, 5(15):74-87. (in Persian)
[4]
Apaydin Z, Kutbay H G, Ozbucak T, et al. 2009. Relationships between vegetation zonation and edaphic factors in a salt-marsh community (Black Sea Coast). Polish Journal of Ecology, 57(1):99-112.
[5]
Arevalo J R, Fernández-Lugo S, Reyes-Betancort J A, et al. 2017. Relationships between soil parameters and vegetation in abandoned terrace field vs. non-terraced fields in arid lands (Lanzarote, Spain): an opportunity for restoration. Acta Oecologica, 85:77-84.
[6]
Asrari A, Bakhshikhaniki G H, Rahmatizadeh A . 2012. Assessment of relationship between vegetation and salt soil in Qom Province. Iranian Journal of Range and Desert Research, 19(2):264-282. (in Persian)
[7]
Austin M P. 2005. Vegetation and environment: discontinuities and continuities. In: van der Maarel E. Vegetation Ecology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 52-84.
[8]
Cao Q Q, Yang B M, Li J R, et al. 2020. Characteristics of soil water and salt associated with Tamarix ramosissima communities during normal and dry periods in a semi-arid saline environment. CATENA, 193:104661.
[9]
Carter M R, Gregorich E G. 2008. Soil Sampling Methods of Analysis (2nd ed.). Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1224.
[10]
Cochran W G. 1977. The estimation of sample size. In: Cochran W G. Sampling Techniques (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 72-86.
[11]
Czyż E A, Dexter A R . 2015. Mechanical dispersion of clay from soil into water readily-dispersed and spontaneously-dispersed clay. International Agrophysics, 29(1):31-37.
[12]
de Martonne E . 1926. A new climatological function: the aridity index. La Météorologie, 2:449-458. (in French)
[13]
Flowers T J, Troke P, Yeo A R . 1977. The mechanism of salt tolerance in halophytes. Annual Review of Plant Physiology, 28(1):89-121.
[14]
Gonzalez-Alcaraz M N, Jimenez-Carceles F J, Alvarez Y, et al. 2014. Gradients of soil salinity and moisture, and plant distribution, in a Mediterranean semi-arid saline watershed: a model of soil-plant relationships for contributing to the management. CATENA, 115:150-158.
Hejcmanovā-Neźerková P, Hejcman M . 2006. A canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) of the vegetation-environment relationships in Sudanese savannah, Senegal. The South African Journal of Botany, 72(2):256-262.
Kent M . 2011. Vegetation Description and Data Analysis: A Practical Approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 414.
[19]
Khatibi R, Soltani S, Khodagholi M . 2017. Effects of climatic factors and soil salinity on the distribution of vegetation types containing Anabasis aphylla in Iran: a multivariate factor analysis. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 10(2):1-18.
[20]
Kleyer M, Dray S, Bello F, et al. 2012. Assessing species and community functional responses to environmental gradients: which multivariate methods? Journal of Vegetation Science, 23(5):805-821.
[21]
Koull N, Chehma A . 2016. Soil characteristics and plant distribution in saline wetlands of Oued Righ, northeastern Algeria. Journal of Arid Land, 8(6):948-959.
[22]
Magurran A E . 2004. Measuring Biological Diversity. Australia: Blackwell Science Ltd., 256.
[23]
Mokhtari-Asl A A F, Mesdaghi M, Akbarluo M, et al. 2008. Investigation on relationships between some soil characteristics and distribution of rangelands species (Case study: Eastern Azarbayjan-Marand Gherkhelar rangelands). Journal of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, 15(1):14-24. (in Persian)
[24]
Mueller-Dombois D, Ellenberg H . 1974. Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. New York: Wiley & Son, 93-135.
[25]
Park H J, Hong M G, Kim J G . 2020. Effects of soil fertility and flooding regime on the growth of Ambrosia trifida. Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 16(1):39-46.
[26]
Piernik A. 2012. Ecological Pattern of Inland Salt Marsh Vegetation in Central Europe. Poland: Nicolas Copernicus University Press, 229.
[27]
Quevedo D I, Frances F . 2008. A conceptual dynamic vegetation-soil model for arid and semiarid zones. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 12(5):1175-1187.
[28]
Rengasamy P, Greene R, Ford G, et al. 1984. Identification of dispersive behaviour and the management of red-brown earths. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 22(4):413-431.
[29]
Sahragard H P, Chahouki M Z . 2015. An evaluation of predictive habitat models performance of plant species in Hoz-e Soltan rangelands of Qom Province. Ecological Modelling, 309:64-71.
[30]
Salama F, Ghani M A E, Tayeh N E . 2013. Vegetation and soil relationships in the inland wadi ecosystem of central Eastern Desert, Egypt. Turkish Journal of Botany, 37(3):489-498.
[31]
Salama F, Ghani M A E, Gadallah M, et al. 2016. Characteristics of desert vegetation along four transects in the arid environment of southern Egypt. Turkish Journal of Botany, 40(1):59-73.
[32]
Sheikhzadeh A, Bashari H, Tarkesh-Esfahani M, et al. 2019. Investigation of rangeland indicator species using parametric and non-parametric methods in hilly landscapes of central Iran. Journal of Mountain Science, 16(6):1408-1418.
[33]
Ter Braak C J F. 1985. Correspondence analysis of incidence and abundance data: properties in terms of a unimodal response model. Journal of Biometrics, 41(4):859-873.
[34]
Ungar I A . 1967. Vegetation-soil relationships on saline soils in Northern Kansas. American Midland Naturalist, 78(1):98-120.
[35]
Weaver R W, Angel J S, Bottomley P S . 1994. Methods of Soil Analysis: Microbiological and Biochemical Properties. Madison: Soil Society of America, 1152.
[36]
Yang F, An F H, Ma H, et al. 2016. Variations on soil salinity and sodicity and its driving factors analysis under microtopography in different hydrological conditions. Water, 8(6):227.
[37]
Zhang L W, Wang B C . 2016. Intraspecific interactions shift from competitive to facilitative across a low to high disturbance gradient in a salt marsh. Plant Ecology, 217(8):959-967.
