Hubbry Logo
Biological soil crustBiological soil crustMain
Open search
Biological soil crust
Community hub
Biological soil crust
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Biological soil crust
Biological soil crust
Biological soil crust
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Biological soil crusts, often abbreviated as biocrusts, are communities of living organisms inhabiting the surface of soils in arid and semi-arid ecosystems, which form stable aggregates of soil particles in a thin layer millimeters to centimeters thick.[1] They are found throughout the world with varying species composition and cover depending on topography, soil characteristics, climate, plant community, microhabitats, and disturbance regimes. An estimated 12% of Earth's surface is covered by biocrusts.[2]

Key Information

Biological soil crusts perform important ecological roles including carbon fixation, nitrogen fixation and soil stabilization; they alter soil albedo and water relations and affect germination and nutrient levels in vascular plants. They can be damaged by fire, recreational activity, grazing and other disturbances and can require long time periods to recover composition and function. Other names for biological soil crusts include cryptogamic, microbiotic, microphytic, or cryptobiotic soils.

Natural history

[edit]

Biology and composition

[edit]

Biological soil crusts are most often[3] composed of fungi, lichens, cyanobacteria, bryophytes, and algae in varying proportions. These organisms live in intimate association in the uppermost few millimeters of the soil surface, and are the biological basis for the formation of soil crusts.

Cyanobacteria

[edit]
Main article: Cyanobacteria

Cyanobacteria are the main photosynthetic component of biological soil crusts,[4] in addition to other photosynthetic taxa such as mosses, lichens, and green algae. The most common cyanobacteria found in soil crusts belong to large filamentous species such as those in the genus Microcoleus.[3] These species form bundled filaments that are surrounded by a gelatinous sheath of polysaccharides. These filaments bind soil particles throughout the uppermost soil layers, forming a 3-D net-like structure that holds the soil together in a crust. Other common cyanobacteria species are as those in the genus Nostoc, which can also form sheaths and sheets of filaments that stabilize the soil. Some Nostoc species are also able to fix atmospheric nitrogen gas into bio-available forms such as ammonia.

Bryophytes

[edit]
Main article: Bryophyte

Bryophytes in soil crusts include mosses and liverworts. Mosses are usually classified as short annual mosses or tall perennial mosses. Liverworts can be flat and ribbon-like or leafy. They can reproduce by spore formation or by asexual fragmentation, and photosynthesize to fix carbon from the atmosphere.

About 250 moss species have been recorded in biocrust communities, mostly from the families Bryaceae, Pottiaceae, and Grimmiaceae.[2]

Lichens

[edit]
Main article: Lichen

Lichens are often distinguished by growth form and by their photosymbiont. Crust lichens include crustose and areolate lichens that are appressed to the soil substrate, squamulose lichens with scale- or plate-like bodies that are raised above the soils, and foliose lichens with more "leafy" structures that can be attached to the soil at only one portion. Lichens with algal symbionts can fix atmospheric carbon, while lichens with cyanobacterial symbionts can fix nitrogen as well. Lichens produce many pigments that help protect them from radiation.[5]

Fungi

[edit]

Microfungi in biological soil crusts can occur as free-living species, or in symbiosis with algae in lichens. Free-living microfungi often function as decomposers, and contribute to soil microbial biomass. Many microfungi in biological soil crusts have adapted to the intense light conditions by evolving the ability to produce melanin, and are called black fungi or black yeasts. Fungal hyphae can bind soil particles together.

Free-living green algae

[edit]
Main article: Green algae

Green algae in soil crusts are present just below the soil surface where they are partially protected from UV radiation. They become inactive when dry and reactivate when moistened. They can photosynthesize to fix carbon from the atmosphere.

Formation and succession

[edit]

Biological soil crusts are formed in open spaces between vascular plants. Frequently, single-celled organisms such as cyanobacteria or spores of free-living fungi colonize bare ground first. Once filaments have stabilized the soil, lichens and mosses can colonize. Appressed lichens are generally earlier colonizers or persist in more stressful conditions, while more three-dimensional lichens require long disturbance-free growth periods and more moderate conditions.

Recovery following disturbance varies. Cyanobacteria cover can recover by propagules blowing in from adjacent undisturbed areas rapidly after disturbance. Total recovery of cover and composition occurs more rapidly in fine soil textured, moister environments (~2 years) and more slowly (>3800 years)[6] in coarse soil textured, dry environments. Recovery times also depend on disturbance regime, site, and availability of propagules.

Distribution

[edit]

Geographical range

[edit]
Biological soil crust in Natural Bridges National Monument near Sipapu Bridge.

Biological soil crusts cover about 12% of the earth's landmass.[7] They are found on almost all soil types, but are more commonly found in arid regions of the world where plant cover is low and plants are more widely spaced. This is because crust organisms have a limited ability to grow upwards and cannot compete for light with vascular plants. Across the globe, biological soil crusts can be found on all continents including Antarctica.[8]

Variation throughout range

[edit]

The species composition and physical appearance of biological soil crusts vary depending on the climate, soil, and disturbance conditions. For example, biological soil crusts are more dominated by green algae on more acidic and less salty soils, whereas cyanobacteria are more favored on alkaline and haline soils. Within a climate zone, the abundance of lichens and mosses in biological soil crusts generally increases with increasing clay and silt content and decreasing sand. Also, habitats that are more moist generally support more lichens and mosses.

The morphology of biological soil crust surfaces can range from smooth and a few millimeters in thickness to pinnacles up to 15 cm high. Smooth biological soil crusts occur in hot deserts where the soil does not freeze, and consist mostly of cyanobacteria, algae, and fungi. Thicker and rougher crusts occur in areas where higher precipitation results in increased cover of lichen and mosses, and frost heaving of these surfaces cause microtopography such as rolling hills and steep pinnacles. Due to the intense UV radiation present in areas where biological soil crusts occur, biological soil crusts appear darker than the crustless soil in the same area due to the UV-protective pigmentation of cyanobacteria and other crust organisms.[8]

Ecology

[edit]

Ecosystem function and services

[edit]

Biogeochemical cycling

[edit]
Carbon cycling
[edit]

Biological soil crusts contribute to the carbon cycle through respiration and photosynthesis of crust microorganisms which are active only when wet. Respiration can begin in as little as 3 minutes after wetting whereas photosynthesis reaches full activity after 30 minutes. Some groups have different responses to high water content, with some lichens showing decreased photosynthesis when water content was greater than 60% whereas green algae showed little response to high water content.[6] Photosynthesis rates are also dependent on temperature, with rates increasing up to approximately 28 °C (82 °F).

Estimates for annual carbon inputs range from 0.4 to 37 g/cm*year depending on successional state.[9] Estimates of total net carbon uptake by crusts globally are ~3.9 Pg/year (2.1–7.4 Pg/year).[10]

Nitrogen cycling
[edit]

Biological soil crust contributions to the nitrogen cycle varies by crust composition because only cyanobacteria and cyanolichens fix nitrogen. Nitrogen fixation requires energy from photosynthesis products, and thus increase with temperature given sufficient moisture. Nitrogen fixed by crusts has been shown to leak into surrounding substrate and can be taken up by plants, bacteria, and fungi. Nitrogen fixation has been recorded at rates of 0.7–100 kg/ha per year, from hot deserts in Australia to cold deserts.[11] Estimates of total biological nitrogen fixation are ~ 49 Tg/year (27–99 Tg/year).[10]

Geophysical and geomorphological properties

[edit]
Soil stability
[edit]

Soils in arid regions are slow-forming and easily eroded.[12] Crust organisms contribute to increased soil stability where they occur. Cyanobacteria have filamentous growth forms that bind soil particles together, and hyphae of fungi and rhizines/rhizoids of lichens and mosses also have similar effects. The increased surface roughness of crusted areas compared to bare soil further improves resistance to wind and water erosion. Aggregates of soil formed by crust organisms also increase soil aeration and provide surfaces where nutrient transformation can occur.[13]

Soil water relations
[edit]

The effect of biological soil crusts on water infiltration and soil moisture depends on the dominant crust organisms, soil characteristics, and climate. In areas where biological soil crusts produce rough surface microtopography, water is detained longer on the soil surface and this increases water infiltration. However, in warm deserts where biological soil crusts are smooth and flat, infiltration rates can be decreased by bioclogging.[6]

Albedo
[edit]

The darkened surfaces of biological soil crusts decreases soil albedo (a measure of the amount of light reflected off of the surface) compared to nearby soils, which increases the energy absorbed by the soil surface. Soils with well-developed biological soil crusts can be over 12 °C (22 °F) warmer than adjacent surfaces. Increased soil temperatures are associated with increased metabolic processes such as photosynthesis and nitrogen fixation, as well as higher soil water evaporation rates and delayed seedling germination and establishment.[6] The activity levels of many arthropods and small mammals are also controlled by soil surface temperature.[13]

Dust-trapping
[edit]

The increased surface roughness associated with biological soil crusts increase the capture of dust. These Aeolian deposits of dust are often enriched in plant-essential nutrients, and thus increase both the fertility and the water holding capacity of soils.[13]

Hydration and dehydration cycles
[edit]

The biological soil crust is an integral part of many arid and semi-arid ecosystems as an essential contributor to conditions such as dust control, water acquisition, and contributors of soil nutrients. Biocrust is poikilohydric and does not have the ability to maintain or regulate its own water retention.[14] This causes the biocrust's water content to change depending on the water in the surrounding environment. Due to biological soil crust existing in mostly arid and semi-arid environments with the inability to hold water, the crust is mainly dormant except for short periods of activity when the crust receives precipitation.[15] Microorganisms like those that make up biological soil crust are good at responding quickly to changes in the environment even after a period of dormancy such as precipitation.

Desiccation can lead to oxidation and the destruction of nutrients, amino acids, and cell membranes in the microorganisms that make up biological soil crust.[16] However, the biological soil crust has adapted to survive in very harsh environments with the aid of cyanobacteria. Cyanobacteria have evolved the ability to navigate the extreme conditions of their surrounding environment by existing in a biocrust. A trait of the biological soil crust community is that it will activate from a dormant state when it is exposed to precipitation transforming from a dry, dead-looking crust to an actively photosynthetic community.[15][16] It will change its appearance to be vibrant and alive to the naked eye. Many crusts will even turn different shades of dark green.[15][16][17] The cyanobacterium Microcoleus vaginatus is one of the most dominant organisms found in biocrust and is fundamental to the crust's ability to reawaken from dormancy when rehydrated due to precipitation or runoff. Cyanobacteria have been found to outcompete the other components of biocrust when exposed to light and precipitation.[17] Cyanobacteria are primarily responsible for the pigment and rejuvenation of the crust during environmental changes that result in short spurts of rehydration for the biocrust.

A filamentous cyanobacterium called Microcoleus vaginatus was found to exist in a dormant, metabolically inactive state beneath the surface of the crust in periods of drought or water deficiency. When the biocrust eventually receives precipitation, it is able to perform hydrotaxis and appears to resurrect.[15] In this stage, the M. vaginatus migrates upward to the surface of the crust when hydrated, to perform oxygenic photosynthesis. In this photosynthetic process, the cyanobacteria carries with it a green-blue photosynthetic pigment to the surface of the crust. When inevitably there is a period of insufficient water again, the M. vaginatus is able to return to a dormant state, migrating back down into the crust and bringing the pigment with it. This process goes along with the rapid turning on of metabolic pathways allowing metabolic functions to occur within the cells in the short periods of time when the crust is hydrated and awakened from dormancy. Cyanobacteria are able to repeat this process over and over again in the event of rehydration in the future.[15][16][17]

The amount of time it takes for the greening process in biocrust to occur varies on the environmental conditions in which the biocrust lives. Biocrust can take anywhere from five minutes to 24 hours to awaken from dormancy.[14][16] The crusts will only awaken if the conditions are conducive to the biocrust.

Biological soil crust role in soil hydrology
[edit]

Biocrust influences a soil's microtopography, carbohydrate content, porosity, and hydrophobicity which are the major contributing factors to soil hydrology. The relationship between biocrust and soil hydrology is not fully understood by scientists. It is known that the biocrust does play a role in the absorption and retention of moisture in the soil. In arid and semi-arid environments biocrust can cover over 70% of the soil not being covered by plants, indicating that the relationship between soil, water, and biocrust is extremely pertinent to these environments.[18] Biocrusts has been shown to increase infiltration of water and pore space (or porosity) in soil but the opposite may occur depending on the type of biocrust. The effect biocrust has on water infiltration and the amount of water retained in the soil is greatly dependent on which microorganisms are most dominant in the specific forms of biocrust. Most research studies like that done by Canton et al. support that biological soil crust composed of large amounts of moss and lichens are better able to absorb water resulting in good soil infiltration. In comparison, biocrusts that aredominated by cyanobacteria is more likely to cause biological clogging where the pores of the soil are obstructed by the cyanobacteria responding to the presence of moisture by awakening from their dormancy and swelling. The darkening of the soil surface by biocrust can also raise the soil temperature leading to faster water evaporation. There is limited research, however, that indicates that the rough surface of cyanobacteria traps water runoff and lichen in cyanobacteria-dominant biocrust increase the porosity of the soil allowing for better infiltration than soil that does not have any biocrust.[18][19]

The type of soil and its texture is also a major determining factor in the biological soil crust's relationship with water retention and filtration. Soils with a large presence of sand (less soil and clay) have high levels of water retention in their surface levels but have limited downward movement of the water. Soils that were less than 80% sand had greater infiltration due to biocrust creating soil aggregates. Other factors like plant roots may play a role in water retention and soil moisture at depths below the soil crust.[18]

Role in the biological community

[edit]

Effects on vascular plants

[edit]
Germination and establishment
[edit]

The presence of biological soil crust cover can differentially inhibit or facilitate plant seed catchment and germination.[20] The increased micro-topography generally increases the probability that plant seeds will be caught on the soil surface and not blown away. Differences in water infiltration and soil moisture also contribute to differential germination depending on the plant species. It has been shown that while some native desert plant species have seeds with self-burial mechanisms that can establish readily in crusted areas, many exotic invasive plants do not. Therefore, the presence of biological soil crusts may slow the establishment of invasive plant species such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum).[21]

Nutrient levels
[edit]

Biological soil crusts do not compete with vascular plants for nutrients, but rather have been shown to increase nutrient levels in plant tissues, which results in higher biomass for plants that grow near biological soil crusts. This can occur through N fixation by cyanobacteria in the crusts, increased trapment of nutrient-rich dust, as well as increased concentrations of micronutrients that are able to chelate to the negatively charged clay particles bound by cyanobacterial filaments.[13]

Effects on animals

[edit]

The increased nutrient status of plant tissue in areas where biological soil crusts occur can directly benefit herbivore species in the community. Microarthropod populations also increase with more developed crusts due to increased microhabitats produced by the crust microtopography.[6]

Human impacts and management

[edit]

Human benefits

[edit]
Rammed-earth section of the Great Wall of China. Research shows that biocrust is a natural factor in preserving the structure.

A recent study in China shows that biocrusts have been an important factor in the preservation of sections of the Great Wall built using rammed earth methods.[22]

Human disturbance

[edit]

Biological soil crusts are highly susceptible to disturbance from human activities. Compressional and shear forces can disrupt biological soil crusts, especially when they are dry, leaving them to be blown or washed away. Thus, animal hoof impact, human footsteps, off-road vehicles, and tank treads can remove crusts, and these disturbances have occurred over large areas globally. Once biological soil crusts are disrupted, wind and water can move sediments onto adjacent intact crusts, burying them and preventing photosynthesis of non-motile organisms such as mosses, lichens, green algae, and cyanobacteria, and of motile cyanobacteria when the soil remains dry. This kills the remaining intact crust and causes large areas of loss.

Invasive species introduced by humans can also affect biological soil crusts. Invasive annual grasses can occupy areas once occupied by crusts and allow fire to travel between large plants. In contrast, previously, it would have just jumped from plant to plant and not directly affected the crusts.[13]

Climate change affects biological soil crusts by altering the timing and magnitude of precipitation events and temperature. Because crusts are only active when wet, some of these new conditions may reduce the amount of time when conditions are favorable for activity.[23] Biological soil crusts require stored carbon when reactivating after being dry. Suppose they do not have enough moisture to photosynthesize to make up for the carbon used. In that case they can gradually deplete carbon stocks and die.[24] Reduced carbon fixation also leads to decreased nitrogen fixation rates because crust organisms do not have sufficient energy for this energy-intensive process. Without carbon and nitrogen available, they cannot grow nor repair damaged cells from excess radiation.

Conservation and management

[edit]

Removing stressors such as grazing or protecting them from disturbance are the easiest ways to maintain and improve biological soil crusts. Protecting relic sites that have not been disturbed can serve as reference conditions for restoration. There are several successful methods for stabilizing soil to allow recolonization of crusts, including coarse litter application (such as straw) and planting vascular plants, but these are costly and labor-intensive techniques. Spraying polyacrylamide gel has been tried, but this has adversely affected photosynthesis and nitrogen fixation of Collema species and thus is less useful. Other methods, such as fertilization and inoculation with material from adjacent sites, may enhance crust recovery, but more research is needed to determine the local costs of disturbance.[25] Today, direct inoculation of soil native microorganisms, bacteria, and cyanobacteria is supposed to be a new step, a biological, sustainable, eco-friendly, and economically effective technique to rehabilitate biological soil crust.[26][27]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Biological soil crust

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Biological soil crusts, also known as biocrusts or cryptobiotic crusts, are communities of living organisms—including cyanobacteria, algae, lichens, mosses, microfungi, and bacteria—that bind soil particles into a cohesive layer on the surface of bare or sparsely vegetated ground, predominantly in arid, semi-arid, and other dryland ecosystems worldwide. These crusts form through the aggregation of soil by extremotolerant, poikilohydric organisms capable of withstanding repeated desiccation and extreme temperatures, creating a living skin that covers approximately 12% of Earth's terrestrial surface, with higher prevalence in drylands where vascular plant cover is limited. Biocrusts play critical roles in ecosystem functioning, stabilizing soil against wind and water erosion—often rendering crusted surfaces 2 to 130 times more resistant than bare —while facilitating (up to 365 kg/ha annually in some systems via cyanobacterial and activity) and through . They also modulate hydrological processes by enhancing water infiltration and retention in otherwise impermeable s, thereby supporting vascular plant , nutrient cycling, and overall dryland productivity. Despite their diminutive stature, biocrusts constitute a foundational component of dryland , influencing , microbial diversity, and resilience to environmental stresses, though they are highly vulnerable to mechanical disturbances such as , off-road vehicles, and , which can impede recovery for decades to centuries depending on and conditions.

Definition and Characteristics

Core Components and Structure

Biological soil crusts comprise a consortium of soil-surface-dwelling organisms, primarily cyanobacteria, eukaryotic algae, lichens, mosses, microfungi, and bacteria, which aggregate mineral particles in arid and semi-arid ecosystems. Cyanobacteria, such as the filamentous Microcoleus vaginatus and Nostoc species, dominate early developmental stages and function as foundational components by gliding across soil surfaces and secreting extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) in the form of gelatinous sheaths. These EPS bind soil particles into stable aggregates, forming a cohesive matrix that persists through wetting-drying cycles, with cyanobacterial filaments penetrating up to several millimeters into the soil. Lichens, symbiotic associations of fungi and or (e.g., nitrogen-fixing gelatinous types like Collema or crustose forms like Psora), and bryophytes such as short mosses (Bryum, Tortula) contribute to later successional layers, adding structural complexity and diversity. and supplement the community, aiding in and nutrient cycling, while colonize in slightly acidic conditions. The overall composition varies by environmental factors, but typically constitute the core binding element across crust types. Structurally, biological soil crusts form a thin (1-10 mm to several cm thick), layered "skin" at the -atmosphere interface, with vertical stratification evident in mature crusts: subsurface cyanobacterial networks provide foundational stability, overlaid by and canopies that create uneven microtopography such as pinnacles or rolls. This organization, reinforced by fungal hyphae, moss rhizoids, and cyanobacterial filaments, reduces soil erodibility by gluing particles and maintaining , particularly in sandy soils where it can occupy up to 70% of the surface cover. The resulting enhances resistance to and water erosion while facilitating water infiltration in undisturbed states.

Morphological and Functional Types

Biological soil crusts (biocrusts) are classified morphologically based on dominant organisms and surface structure, ranging from thin, smooth layers in arid environments to thicker, textured or pinnacled forms in semi-arid regions. , the most widespread pioneer type, consist of filamentous such as Microcoleus vaginatus forming a dark, cohesive matrix up to a few millimeters thick, appearing smooth and light when dry but darkening when moist. Lichen-dominated crusts exhibit greater structural diversity, including crustose (flat and appressed), squamulose (flaky scales), gelatinous (jelly-like upon wetting, e.g., Collema spp.), foliose (leafy lobes), and fruticose (upright, shrubby) forms, often creating rugose surfaces 1–5 cm high. Bryophyte crusts, dominated by mosses (e.g., Bryum spp.) or liverworts (e.g., Riccia spp.), develop cushion-like or turf morphologies, with heights exceeding 10 mm and pinnacled profiles up to 15 cm in mesic drylands, contributing to rolling micro-relief. Algal crusts, less common, feature green-tinted, single-celled forms that integrate with cyanobacterial layers in acidic soils. Functionally, these morphologies align with successional stages and ecological roles, with early cyanobacterial types prioritizing aggregation via extracellular , which increase shear resistance 2–130 times over bare and promote initial at rates of 2–10 kg N/ha/year in non-heterocystic strains. crusts advance nutrient dynamics, with gelatinous subtypes fixing up to 10 times more than cyanobacteria alone (e.g., 10–50 kg N/ha/year via Collema phytobionts) while modulating through rhizines that enhance infiltration yet reduce runoff compared to bare ground. crusts emphasize water retention—absorbing up to 10 times their volume—and , but their complex structures heighten vulnerability to trampling, with fruticose lichens and tall mosses showing lowest resistance to disturbance. Across types, darker, textured crusts lower to increase surface temperatures by 2–5°C, fostering microbial activity, whereas smooth cyanobacterial forms excel in rapid recolonization post-disturbance. In communities, ten distinct types (e.g., light cyanobacterial vs. moss-lichen mixes) vary in carbon uptake and stability, underscoring morphology-function linkages.

History of Research

Early Observations and Terminology

Botanical surveys in arid and semi-arid regions during the 19th and early 20th centuries documented lichens, mosses, and colonizing exposed surfaces, often describing them as individual taxa rather than integrated communities. These observations, primarily from taxonomic and phytosociological perspectives, noted the organisms' roles in binding particles and appearing in interspaces between vascular , but lacked recognition of collective functional dynamics. Soil scientists and agronomists later contributed by examining interactions between these surface dwellers and properties, such as resistance, though early accounts remained fragmented. Systematic ecological studies emerged in the mid-20th century, particularly in rangeland management, where researchers observed that these surface layers reduced wind and water erosion while influencing seedling establishment. In 1972, E.F. Kleiner and K.T. Harper introduced the term "cryptogamic soil crust" to denote assemblages of non-vascular cryptogams—such as lichens, bryophytes, and —forming cohesive surface layers in Utah's arid rangelands, highlighting their protective effects on soil stability. This terminology emphasized the hidden (crypto-) reproductive structures of the dominant organisms and marked a shift toward viewing the crust as a unified entity rather than disparate species. Parallel terms arose regionally; "microphytic crusts" referred to communities dominated by microscopic phototrophs like and , while "cryptobiotic crusts" gained traction in the American Southwest to underscore the concealed biotic activity beneath a seemingly inert surface. These descriptors, used interchangeably through the and , reflected varying emphases on organism size, vitality, or morphology but consistently denoted soil-binding microbial and cryptogamic layers. By the late , "biological soil crust" standardized the nomenclature, encompassing , , , lichens, and mosses in a holistic framework, facilitating broader recognition of their roles.

Key Milestones and Advances

The recognition of biological soil crusts' ecological roles advanced significantly in the mid-20th century through studies on their influence on soil hydrology in the U.S. Great Plains, particularly in the Red Plains region of Oklahoma, where researchers documented reduced infiltration and erosion on crusted surfaces compared to bare soil. These findings highlighted crusts' stabilization effects but were initially limited to descriptive field observations without detailed community analysis. By the late 1980s and 1990s, systematic research in the Colorado Plateau, led by ecologists like Jayne Belnap, expanded understanding of crust composition, nitrogen fixation by cyanobacteria, and responses to disturbance, establishing biocrusts as key drivers of arid ecosystem function. A pivotal synthesis occurred in 2001 with the publication of Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management, which compiled interdisciplinary data on crust , distribution, and management implications, emphasizing their contributions to and across global . Subsequent advances in the 2000s included quantification of biogeochemical cycles, such as large-scale nitric oxide emissions from cyanobacterial crusts, revealing their underappreciated role in atmospheric dynamics. In , research from the early 2000s onward documented biocrust succession and restoration potential in desertified areas, integrating eco-physiological experiments with field trials. Molecular techniques marked a breakthrough in the 2010s, with metagenomic analyses uncovering dynamic microbial responses to wetting and drying cycles in crusts, identifying resilient cyanobacterial networks that underpin community stability. Restoration methodologies advanced concurrently, including cultivation and field transplantation protocols tested in the U.S. Southwest, achieving measurable recovery of crust cover and function within years on disturbed sites. Recent efforts, such as refined biocrust definitions emphasizing consortium structure and for global mapping, have enabled predictive modeling of impacts and large-scale rehabilitation strategies.

Formation and Succession

Developmental Processes

Biological soil crusts (biocrusts) develop through sequential colonization and stabilization processes initiated by pioneer microorganisms on bare or disturbed surfaces, primarily in arid and semi-arid environments. , such as Microcoleus vaginatus, serve as initial colonizers, dispersed by wind, water, or animal vectors, and exhibit to establish on stable substrates. These organisms secrete extracellular (EPS) that bind soil particles, forming a cohesive matrix that reduces and creates microhabitats for subsequent community assembly. Early developmental stages feature sparse cyanobacterial and algal crusts, characterized by smooth surfaces, light gray to gray-white coloration, and thicknesses of 1-5 mm. This phase enhances soil stability via physical entanglement of filaments and EPS adhesion, while also initiating and accumulation, which improve . As biomass increases, the crust thickens and develops slight roughness, trapping fine particles like silt and clay, thereby altering and increasing water retention capacity. Intermediate and late stages involve the incorporation of lichens (e.g., gelatinous Collema species) and mosses, leading to pinnacled or undulated structures with darker pigmentation, greater thickness (>5 mm for cyanobacterial, >12 mm for mossy crusts), and higher cover. Lichens and mosses contribute to elevated photosynthetic rates, nutrient exchange, and structural complexity, with fungal networks stabilizing further as organic carbon rises up to 6.5-fold and 4.8-fold compared to bare soil. These advancements result from reduced disturbance and favorable microclimates fostered by initial stabilizers. Developmental timelines vary by site conditions, with cyanobacterial recovery taking 45-110 years in mesic areas like the , extending to centuries or millennia in arid low- zones such as the Lower . Fine-textured soils (e.g., silt-loams) and cool-season accelerate processes, while frequent disturbances like or hinder progression, emphasizing the role of environmental stability in crust maturation.

Succession Patterns and Influencing Factors

Biological soil crust (BSC) succession typically initiates with pioneer cyanobacterial communities that colonize bare or disturbed soils, secreting extracellular polysaccharides to bind particles and initiate stabilization. These early-stage crusts, often dominated by filamentous cyanobacteria such as Microcoleus species, exhibit high rates of nitrogen fixation and photosynthesis, facilitating soil fertility and microhabitat creation for later arrivals. As stability increases, transitional stages emerge with the incorporation of green algae and free-living lichens, leading to textured surfaces that enhance water retention and nutrient cycling. Late-successional phases feature gelatinous or squamulose lichens and mosses, such as Syntrichia species, which form denser, more resilient covers but are vulnerable to disruption; full development from bare soil to moss-dominated crusts can require 50–300 years in arid environments. This sequence reflects a continuum rather than discrete stages, with species exhibiting ruderal to stress-tolerant traits driving gradual community assembly. Precipitation and temperature regimes strongly dictate succession pace, as episodic wetting events trigger cyanobacterial and propagule , while prolonged droughts limit progression beyond pioneer phases; for instance, model simulations indicate net declines with rising temperatures in early stages. influences establishment, with sandy or loamy substrates favoring initial due to better drainage and lower compaction, whereas heavy clays hinder propagule penetration. Nutrient availability, particularly low initial and , selects for N-fixing pioneers, but enrichment from early crusts enables and ingress. Disturbance intensity and frequency reset or truncate succession, with light permitting mid-stage recovery within decades, but heavy or vehicular activity delaying lichen-moss dominance for centuries by reducing propagule viability and cohesion. Propagule dispersal limits, governed by and animal vectors, constrain recolonization in isolated patches, while topographic position affects —south-facing slopes advance faster due to higher insolation but face greater risks. Interactions with vascular can accelerate early stabilization but compete for light and moisture in later phases, altering trajectories in recovering ecosystems.

Distribution and Diversity

Global Geographical Extent

Biological soil crusts (biocrusts) are distributed across approximately 12% of Earth's terrestrial surface, spanning about 17.9 million km², with the majority occurring in dryland ecosystems characterized by indices between 0.05 and 0.5. Drylands themselves cover roughly 45% of global land area, and biocrusts occupy around 30% of these surfaces, thriving where cover is sparse due to low , high , and suitable soil textures like fine sands or gravels. Their presence extends beyond strict into savannas, Mediterranean woodlands, grasslands, polar regions, and alpine zones when microclimatic conditions—such as or inputs—permit colonization. Biocrusts occur on every continent, reflecting their adaptability to diverse climates from hot deserts to cold polar environments. In , they are extensive in the , including the , Mojave, and Sonoran Deserts. Across Asia, prominent distributions include China's and , where lichen-dominated crusts cover up to 28.7% of some areas, as well as the Desert in . In Africa, biocrusts characterize southern regions like the Kalahari, , and Deserts, alongside cyanobacterial forms in the . Australia's arid interior hosts widespread crusts, particularly in and outback expanses. European occurrences center on Mediterranean shrublands and semi-arid sites such as Spain's . In South America, they appear in the Brazilian Pampa's sandization areas and Patagonian steppes, though coverage can decline sharply (85–98%) under grazing pressure. Antarctic dry valleys support cold-adapted biocrusts, underscoring their global reach into extreme environments. Geospatial models and spectral mapping confirm these patterns, highlighting climate and soil as primary distributional controls over macro scales.

Environmental Drivers of Variation

Biological soil crusts exhibit significant variation in composition, cover, and diversity driven primarily by climatic factors such as and . In arid and semi-arid regions, crust abundance peaks under annual regimes of 50-300 mm, where limited cover allows microbial communities to dominate soil surfaces; higher favors competing vegetation, reducing crust extent. timing influences taxonomic shifts, with summer monsoons promoting heterocystic cyanobacteria and winter rains supporting diverse alongside Microcoleus vaginatus. Elevated , as simulated by experimental warming of 2.4°C over three years in a semi-arid Spanish site, decrease cover from approximately 70% to 40% while increasing cover from 0.3% to 7%, thereby altering overall community richness and diversity. Along elevational gradients in ecosystems, bacterial diversity rises with cooler, wetter conditions at higher altitudes (e.g., Shannon index increasing significantly from 1,170 m to 2,080 m), though crust cover diminishes from 58% in drier lowlands to 1% in uplands, reflecting adaptations to . Edaphic properties, including and chemistry, further modulate crust development and species assemblages. Fine-textured soils like silt-loams and gypsiferous types sustain higher crust cover and compared to coarse sandy substrates, which initially limit communities to pioneer before potential colonization. and gypsiferous soils particularly enhance diversity, while gradients—declining from 7.6 in warmer lowlands to 6.0 in cooler highlands—correlate with shifts in nitrogen-fixing taxa such as Rhizobiales. Topographic features interact with climate to drive local variation; north- and east-facing slopes retain more moisture, accelerating crust recovery and development relative to south- and west-facing exposures, with stable, shallow soils on gentle slopes further promoting higher cover by minimizing erosion and enhancing water percolation. Anthropogenic and biotic disturbances, notably grazing, impose additional controls, often interacting with aridity to suppress advanced crust stages. Heavy grazing reduces cover by 50% or more, diminishes species richness, and halts succession beyond cyanobacterial dominance by compaction and trampling, with recovery spanning decades in low-precipitation areas (e.g., 1,200 years for lichens under 100 mm annual rain); exclusion from grazing facilitates lichen recovery in intershrub spaces. While some studies detect no significant grazing impact on bacterial diversity in mesic contexts, broader evidence indicates intensified negative effects under high aridity, amplifying losses in functional groups like diazotrophs.

Ecological Functions

Nutrient Cycling and Biogeochemistry

Biological soil crusts (BSCs) play a pivotal role in nitrogen cycling within arid and semi-arid ecosystems, primarily through biological nitrogen fixation mediated by diazotrophic such as Microcoleus vaginatus and symbiotic associations in lichens. Fixation rates vary by crust type and environmental conditions; cyanobacterial crusts typically fix 1 kg N ha⁻¹ year⁻¹, while lichen-dominated crusts can achieve up to 10 kg N ha⁻¹ year⁻¹, representing a dominant nitrogen input in nutrient-poor where vascular plant fixation is limited. In the Tengger Desert, nitrogenase activity in BSCs ranges from 2.6 to 16.6 mmol m⁻² h⁻¹, translating to potential annual inputs of 3.7–13.2 g N m⁻². These processes elevate total soil pools, with crusted soils exhibiting up to sevenfold higher nitrogen content than adjacent bare soils, enhancing overall fertility. Additionally, BSCs facilitate nitrogen transfer via mutualistic exchanges, such as urea-based provisioning from heterotrophic diazotrophs to cyanobacteria, further integrating microbial communities into the cycle. In carbon biogeochemistry, BSCs act as primary producers and stabilizers of soil organic carbon (SOC), with photosynthetic activity by , , and lichens contributing to net . Studies indicate BSCs increase SOC by an average of 70.9% compared to uncrusted controls, driven by exopolysaccharide production that binds and reduces losses. In degraded systems, inoculation with BSC microbes has enhanced capacity by promoting aggregation and CO₂ uptake, positioning BSCs as potential tools for mitigating soil carbon loss in . However, emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO) and (HONO) from BSCs can accelerate carbon-nitrogen interactions, with dark crusts showing elevated rates—up to eightfold higher than light crusts—potentially influencing net carbon balance through gaseous losses. BSCs also influence phosphorus cycling, though less dominantly than or carbon, by harboring microbial communities that solubilize inorganic via organic acids and enzymes, increasing in -limited arid soils. Phototrophic organisms within BSCs contribute to turnover, with crust development correlating to shifts in soil pools and that favor microbial solubilization genes like phoD. In Chilean gradients, BSC enhances cycling efficiency, linking it to broader dynamics without quantified fixation rates comparable to . Overall, BSC-mediated biogeochemical processes boost microbial and retention, with crusts capturing aeolian dust to augment elemental inputs, though disturbance disrupts these functions.

Soil Stabilization and Hydrological Effects

Biological soil crusts (BSCs) stabilize soil surfaces primarily through the production of extracellular polysaccharides by and other microorganisms, which bind soil particles into aggregates, enhancing resistance to both wind and water erosion. Well-developed crusts dominated by and exhibit 2 to 130 times greater resistance to wind erosion compared to bare soil, with disturbed crusts leading to up to 35 times higher production. For water erosion, intact BSCs can reduce interrill erosion by approximately 50% relative to bare soils, as observed in studies from . This stabilization effect increases with crust succession, from cyanobacterial to lichen and moss stages, creating microtopographic roughness that traps and slows erosive flows. Across dryland regions, BSCs consistently lower yields, with and reducing sediment concentration in runoff by up to 87% compared to bare soil. The hydrological impacts of BSCs on infiltration, runoff, and soil water dynamics vary by crust type, developmental stage, regional climate, and rainfall intensity, reflecting differences in surface morphology and . In cool, semiarid deserts such as the , pinnacled crusts promote higher infiltration rates and lower runoff by enhancing surface roughness, whereas flat crusts in hot deserts like the Sonoran reduce infiltration and increase runoff due to sealing effects. Early-successional cyanobacterial crusts often facilitate greater water entry into soil, while advanced moss-dominated crusts may decrease infiltration through hydrophobicity and pore clogging, though they improve overall water retention with ecosystem succession. Empirical comparisons show mixed infiltration responses in arid zones, but BSCs generally mitigate extreme runoff events and support soil moisture conservation, with some studies reporting 20-30% higher infiltration in crusted sandy soils of the Negev Desert. These effects underscore BSCs' role as ecosystem engineers in modulating dryland water cycles, though disturbance can invert benefits, flattening surfaces and exacerbating hydrological losses.

Interactions with Vascular Plants and Fauna

Biological soil crusts (BSCs) facilitate the establishment and growth of vascular plants in arid ecosystems by stabilizing soil surfaces, trapping seeds, and enhancing nutrient availability through nitrogen fixation and organic matter accumulation. In cool deserts, BSCs improve seedling germination, survival, and biomass of native perennials, with leaf nitrogen content in associated plants 9-31% higher than in areas lacking crusts. Moss-dominated BSCs promote overall plant performance, while lichen-dominated crusts can inhibit it, reflecting differences in surface roughness and resource provision. However, BSCs may suppress emergence of exotic annuals like cheatgrass by creating physical barriers to germination, exerting weaker effects on native species under ambient dry conditions but potentially negative impacts with added irrigation. These interactions often form facilitation cascades, where BSCs enable shrub recruitment—such as all juveniles of occurring in crust patches—and shrubs in turn support grasses like Festuca idahoensis, doubling their via shade and improved soil conditions. BSCs elevate soil nitrate levels threefold and moisture by 1.7% compared to open interspaces, directly boosting grass fivefold and establishment fourfold in experiments. Vascular plant canopies reciprocally aid BSC recovery by providing shade and reducing , achieving 36% cover under shrubs versus 4% in open areas after 50 years, though dense canopies can limit light-dependent crust components. In hot deserts, disturbed cyanobacterial crusts favor annuals but reduce perennial survival, highlighting context-dependent outcomes. BSCs interact with fauna primarily through habitat provision and trophic linkages, serving as food for crustivores including isopods, beetles, termites, and , while such as nematodes and graze on crust , , and fungi, integrating into food webs. Detritivore activity, via and , elevates BSC respiration and nitrogen content by 9%, enhancing but potentially stressing crust integrity. by BSCs maintains microclimates, raising surface temperatures up to 13°C and supporting weak burrowers, indirectly benefiting herbivores through nutrient-enriched plants. Conversely, disrupts BSCs, slashing by 85-95% and maintaining early-successional states, with recovery hindered in trampled areas; communities vary with crust development, denser in mature crusts.

Human Interactions

Benefits for Human Land Use

Biological soil crusts (BSCs) enhance stability in arid and semi-arid , reducing and by binding particles through extracellular secreted by and other microbes. This stabilization preserves , supporting long-term productivity for and dryland where cover is sparse. In managed landscapes, intact BSCs minimize loss, which can otherwise degrade and infrastructure, as observed in southwestern U.S. rangelands where crust cover correlates with lower rates. BSCs also facilitate nutrient cycling via , primarily by , increasing soil nitrogen availability by up to 10-50 kg N ha⁻¹ year⁻¹ in some systems, which benefits production for and yields in nutrient-poor soils. This process supports sustainable by reducing the need for synthetic fertilizers in practices. In economic contexts, such as fruit orchards in arid regions, BSCs lower soil erodibility, protecting productive areas from degradation and sustaining yields. While BSCs may reduce infiltration rates compared to bare , their net effect promotes hydrological regulation by decreasing runoff and , aiding water retention for establishment in grazed or farmed lands. Effective that avoids heavy disturbance preserves these benefits, leading to resilient ecosystems with reduced rehabilitation costs and lower risks of invasive species establishment that could exacerbate .

Disturbances from Anthropogenic Activities

Anthropogenic activities pose significant threats to biological soil crusts (BSCs) primarily through mechanical compression and disruption of the soil surface, leading to reduced crust cover, impaired , and diminished . Livestock , a widespread practice in arid and semi-arid regions, causes that fragments BSC communities and exposes underlying soil to ; studies in ecosystems indicate an average direct reduction in biocrust cover of 7.4% under grazing pressure, with associated increases in sediment loss by approximately 50%. (ORV) traffic similarly compresses and abrades BSCs, reducing nitrogenase activity essential for cycling, with the magnitude of impact inversely related to pre-disturbance activity levels; such disturbances can persist for years, altering functions like retention. Human and recreational activities exacerbate these effects in protected areas, where footsteps mimic impacts by breaking cyanobacterial filaments and lichens, resulting in up to 42% reduced infiltration rates under disturbed conditions compared to intact crusts. operations directly remove or bury BSCs during excavation and soil handling, leading to near-total loss of crust cover in affected zones and hindering natural recovery due to altered substrate stability. and involve land clearing, , and development that eliminate BSCs across large scales, with urban disturbances further degrading microbial communities through and . These disturbances collectively slow BSC recovery, which can take decades to centuries depending on disturbance scale and environmental conditions, as larger disturbed areas limit propagule dispersal from remnant crusts. Empirical from long-term monitoring underscore that even moderate intensities of these activities—such as seasonal or infrequent ORV use—accumulate damage over time, underscoring the fragility of BSCs to repeated human-induced physical stress.

Restoration Techniques and Challenges

Restoration of biological soil crusts (biocrusts) primarily involves passive and active approaches to reestablish cyanobacterial, , and communities disrupted by disturbances such as , off-road vehicles, or . Passive restoration relies on excluding further anthropogenic pressures, such as through , to allow natural recolonization, though this process can take decades to centuries depending on moisture availability and disturbance severity. Active techniques include with cultured , which has been shown to accelerate biocrust formation and improve soil surface stability in arid environments, as demonstrated in field trials where microbial inoculation increased crust cover compared to controls. Cultivation methods further enhance restoration potential; greenhouse-cultivated inocula, often using substrates like or soil, have achieved at least doubling of biocrust cover (including and mosses) within 11 weeks, outperforming field-based methods in initial establishment. Field cultivation techniques, such as deploying inoculants on netting or combined with amendments like residues, aim to mimic natural substrates and promote adhesion, with some studies reporting expedited recovery of lichen-moss functions like retention. Assisted migration—translocating biocrusts from source sites to degraded areas—and chemical co-treatments (e.g., biostimulants) have also been tested to boost survival, though success varies with inoculum type (field-collected vs. lab-grown). Challenges in biocrust restoration stem from their slow growth rates and sensitivity to abiotic stressors, with field often failing due to limited and extreme temperatures, resulting in no significant cover increases even five months post-application in some trials. Recovery is highly context-dependent, varying by climate, , and disturbance scale; for instance, larger disturbances delay recolonization more than small-scale ones, and low-resource dryland conditions hinder establishment despite lab successes. Additionally, taxonomic mismatches between inocula and recipient sites, combined with from invasives or , reduce long-term viability, underscoring the need for site-specific strategies over generalized approaches. Overall, while shows promise in controlled settings, scaling to arid landscapes remains constrained by these ecological and logistical barriers.

Debates and Limitations

Controversies in Ecosystem Services

One primary controversy surrounding the services of biological soil crusts (biocrusts) concerns their dual and sometimes opposing effects on hydrological processes. While biocrusts enhance by binding particles and reducing wind and water erosion—preventing an estimated 700 Tg of global dust emissions annually—their surface sealing often decreases infiltration rates, limiting water penetration into the soil profile. Studies report reductions in constant infiltration by 29–52% under - and moss-dominated biocrusts, with saturated dropping 39–65%, potentially exacerbating stress for subsurface roots in arid environments. This has sparked , as early claimed biocrusts universally promote infiltration via microtopography, but subsequent empirical work highlights context-dependent suppression, varying by crust maturity, composition (e.g., vs. ), rainfall intensity, and . Methodological differences, such as disc infiltrometer vs. rainfall simulation, contribute to unresolved discrepancies, with no consensus on net hydrological benefits despite broad agreement on anti-erosional "armoring." A related contention involves biocrusts' interactions with establishment and productivity, where facilitative nutrient cycling and enhancements are countered by inhibitory physical and hydrological barriers. Biocrusts fix and cycle , supporting arid fertility, yet their dense cover can impede entrapment, , and emergence by acting as a mechanical barrier or reducing available moisture. Meta-analyses reveal no uniform positive or negative effect; instead, outcomes depend on biocrust community type, functional traits, and disturbance history, with intact biocrusts suppressing exotic species more than natives in some grasslands but hindering overall in others. For instance, crusts may promote long-term facilitation cascades via improved microhabitats, but short-term competition for light and water can delay colonization, raising questions about biocrusts' role in restoration versus natural succession. These variable responses challenge valuations, as biocrust dominance may stabilize barren soils against but perpetuate low-productivity states inhospitable to higher . Erosional dynamics further amplify these debates, as biocrusts' protective effects exhibit thresholds beyond which reduced infiltration increases runoff velocity, potentially undermining stability during extreme events. Empirical syntheses note that while biocrusts mitigate particle detachment under moderate rainfall, high-intensity storms can overwhelm this service, leading to conflicting model predictions (e.g., in RUSLE or WEPP frameworks) due to sparse integration of biocrust data across scales. and crust developmental stages exacerbate variability, with early-successional forms offering less robust services than mature ones, yet disturbance often resets communities to vulnerable states. Overall, these controversies underscore the need for context-specific assessments in dryland , where prioritizing biocrust conservation for may inadvertently constrain water and plant-related services, particularly amid climate-driven shifts in patterns.

Trade-offs in Managed Ecosystems

In rangeland management, biological soil crusts provide critical , resisting 2 to 130 times more effectively than bare , and contribute rates of 2 to 365 kg/ha annually, enhancing long-term productivity. However, these benefits conflict with grazing objectives, as trampling by can reduce crust cover by up to 95% in sandy soils, exacerbating wind and water while diminishing inputs. Additionally, intact crusts, particularly those dominated by lichens or mosses, inhibit seedling germination and establishment of vascular , including grasses, due to physical barriers and stabilized soil surfaces that limit seed-soil contact, thereby reducing short-term availability for herbivores. Managers face a between preserving crusts for sustained —via strategies like winter on frozen or moist soils to minimize damage—and permitting moderate disturbance to promote desirable cover, though excessive risks shifting ecosystems toward degraded, bare- states. In agricultural contexts, especially regenerative systems in arid and semi-arid regions, biological soil crusts improve , water retention, and —reducing losses by up to 90% in controlled settings—while fostering nutrient cycling and crop resilience through enhanced moisture and availability. Yet, conventional and intensive cropping disrupt crust formation, and their slow recovery (often decades to centuries post-disturbance) delays re-establishment, creating a tension between immediate yield demands and long-term soil restoration. Crusts can also compete with crop seedlings by covering surfaces, mirroring rangeland dynamics where they hinder large-seeded exotics or grasses, necessitating site-specific practices like minimal to balance microbial benefits against productivity losses. Hydrological trade-offs further complicate management, as crusts exhibit a influenced by density: in sparse-cover arid lands (<7% ), they generate runoff that redistributes water to , preventing desertification, whereas in denser patches (>25%), reduced infiltration heightens stress and decline. This context-dependency implies tailored interventions, such as regulated to foster crust recovery alongside (e.g., increasing cover from 5-7% to 20-25% over decades), but risks amplifying if crust dominance suppresses infiltration in recovering systems. Overall, these dynamics underscore the need for integrated approaches weighing mitigation and gains against constraints on productivity and hydrological flows in human-altered ecosystems.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9545944/
  2. https://www.usgs.gov/centers/southwest-biological-science-center/science/biological-soil-crust-biocrust-science
  3. https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/6112/biologicalSoilCrusts2.pdf
  4. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/crc_research/529/
  5. https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/pubs_series/rmrs/gtr/rmrs_gtr409/rmrs_gtr409_077_084.pdf
  6. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/SS719
  7. https://escholarship.org/content/qt2cs0f55w/qt2cs0f55w.pdf
  8. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70176217
  9. https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/rlmoe/cals6_2.html
  10. https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/rangelands/article/viewFile/10731/10004
  11. https://www.umt.edu/media/wilderness/toolboxes/documents/soil/Introduction-to-Microbiotic-Crusts.pdf
  12. https://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/uploads/231/CrustManual.pdf
  13. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550742420301007
  14. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70194302
  15. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1515818112
  16. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8656959/
  17. https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2013/06/14/biological-soil-crust-secrets-uncovered/
  18. https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/where-we-work/united-states/utah/stories-in-utah/growing-biocrust-in-utah/
  19. https://soil.copernicus.org/articles/10/763/2024/
  20. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2024.1347704/full
  21. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/1/180
  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8009985/
  23. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1184065/full
  24. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0038071719303293
  25. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jvs.12332
  26. https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03180.x
  27. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10434622/
  28. http://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/abs/10.1139/b06-131
  29. https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.15992
  30. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7518869/
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3479686/
  32. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2021.569791/full
  33. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1890/1540-9295%25282003%2529001%255B0181%253ATWAYFD%255D2.0.CO%253B2
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1164556311000227
  35. https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2014_warren_s002.pdf
  36. https://academic.oup.com/ismej/article/19/1/wrae246/7923456
  37. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969721051056
  38. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140196319300941
  39. https://ecologicalprocesses.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2192-1709-2-16
  40. https://www.mdpi.com/2571-8789/2/4/56
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11169694/
  42. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/fevo.2025.1524202/full
  43. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-022-00942-1
  44. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825223002052
  45. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70028986
  46. https://www.usgs.gov/publications/towards-a-predictive-framework-biocrust-mediation-plant-performance-a-meta-analysis
  47. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/fevo.2022.840324/full
  48. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-31967-0
  49. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0038071722002619
  50. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303486018_Microfauna_Within_Biological_Soil_Crusts
  51. https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/pubs_journals/rmrs/sycu/2017/sycu_023_2017_bust_crust.pdf
  52. https://evinerlab.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk10626/files/inline-files/Evans-et-al.-rangeland-soils.pdf
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11846762/
  54. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0341816224003977
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10157249/
  56. https://ecologicalprocesses.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2192-1709-2-2
  57. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03650340.2025.2508763
  58. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374290344_Biocrusts_Indicators_of_Livestock_Grazing_Effects_on_Soil_Stability_in_Sagebrush_Steppe_A_Case_Study_from_a_Long-Term_Experiment_in_the_Northern_Great_Basin
  59. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1550742419300648
  60. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70024273
  61. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303466646_Effects_of_Local-Scale_Disturbance_on_Biocrusts
  62. https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/publications/parts/0506006part4.pdf
  63. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045653524020745
  64. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969719360322
  65. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2688-8319.12389
  66. https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/61380
  67. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0929139324005924
  68. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/11/10/2570
  69. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acssuschemeng.1c02856
  70. https://bsapubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajb2.70055
  71. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1176760/full
  72. https://serdp-estcp.mil/projects/details/07b54883-cef2-4364-ab9f-225a80a15b8e
  73. https://www.usgs.gov/publications/inoculation-and-habitat-amelioration-efforts-biological-soil-crust-recovery-vary
  74. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1136322/full
  75. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022169418309065
  76. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/books/edited-volume/906/chapter/4660095/Role-of-biological-soil-crusts-in-desert-hydrology
  77. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016706125002216
  78. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/23/10468
  79. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%252F1365-2745.13269
  80. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015JG003185
  81. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1509150112
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.