Hydraulic conductivity in a piñon-juniper woodland

Influence of vegetation

Bradford P. Wilcox, David D Breshears, H. J. Turin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

66 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In semiarid environments, vegetation affects surface runoff either by altering surface characteristics (e.g., surface roughness, litter absorption) or subsurface characteristics (e.g., hydraulic conductivity). Previous observations of runoff within a piñon-juniper [Pinus edulis Englem. and Juniperus monosperma (Englem.) Sarg.] woodland led us to hypothesize that hydraulic conductivity differs between vegetation types. Using ponded and tension infiltrometers, we measured saturated (Ks) and unsaturated [K(h)] hydraulic conductivity at three levels of a nested hierarchy: the patch (canopy and intercanopy), the unit (juniper canopy, piñon canopy, vegetated intercanopy, and bare intercanopy), and the intercanopy locus (grass, biological soil crust, bare spot). Differences were smaller than expected and generally not significant. Canopy and intercanopy Ks values were comparable with the exception of a small number of exceedingly high readings under the juniper canopy - a difference we attribute to higher surface macroporosity beneath juniper canopies. The unsaturated hydraulic conductivity, K(h), values were higher for canopy soils than for intercanopy soils, although differences were small. At the unit level, the only significant differences were for K(h) between juniper or piñon canopies vs. bare interspaces. Median K values for vegetated intercanopy areas were intermediate between but not significantly different from those for canopies and bare areas. There were no significant differences between grass, biological soil crust, and bare spots within the herbaceous intercanopy area. Overall, the observed differences in K between canopy and intercanopy patches do not account for differences in runoff observed previously.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1243-1249
Number of pages7
JournalSoil Science Society of America Journal
Volume67
Issue number4
StatePublished - Jul 2003
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

hydraulic conductivity
woodlands
woodland
canopy
vegetation
soil crusts
soil crust
runoff
Juniperus monosperma
Pinus edulis
grass
grasses
infiltrometer
infiltrometers
unsaturated hydraulic conductivity
surface roughness
vegetation types
vegetation type
soil
litter

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Soil Science
  • Earth-Surface Processes

Cite this

Hydraulic conductivity in a piñon-juniper woodland : Influence of vegetation. / Wilcox, Bradford P.; Breshears, David D; Turin, H. J.

In: Soil Science Society of America Journal, Vol. 67, No. 4, 07.2003, p. 1243-1249.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{460313d59287461da4ce4e868a2a4c23,
title = "Hydraulic conductivity in a pi{\~n}on-juniper woodland: Influence of vegetation",
abstract = "In semiarid environments, vegetation affects surface runoff either by altering surface characteristics (e.g., surface roughness, litter absorption) or subsurface characteristics (e.g., hydraulic conductivity). Previous observations of runoff within a pi{\~n}on-juniper [Pinus edulis Englem. and Juniperus monosperma (Englem.) Sarg.] woodland led us to hypothesize that hydraulic conductivity differs between vegetation types. Using ponded and tension infiltrometers, we measured saturated (Ks) and unsaturated [K(h)] hydraulic conductivity at three levels of a nested hierarchy: the patch (canopy and intercanopy), the unit (juniper canopy, pi{\~n}on canopy, vegetated intercanopy, and bare intercanopy), and the intercanopy locus (grass, biological soil crust, bare spot). Differences were smaller than expected and generally not significant. Canopy and intercanopy Ks values were comparable with the exception of a small number of exceedingly high readings under the juniper canopy - a difference we attribute to higher surface macroporosity beneath juniper canopies. The unsaturated hydraulic conductivity, K(h), values were higher for canopy soils than for intercanopy soils, although differences were small. At the unit level, the only significant differences were for K(h) between juniper or pi{\~n}on canopies vs. bare interspaces. Median K values for vegetated intercanopy areas were intermediate between but not significantly different from those for canopies and bare areas. There were no significant differences between grass, biological soil crust, and bare spots within the herbaceous intercanopy area. Overall, the observed differences in K between canopy and intercanopy patches do not account for differences in runoff observed previously.",
author = "Wilcox, {Bradford P.} and Breshears, {David D} and Turin, {H. J.}",
year = "2003",
month = "7",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "67",
pages = "1243--1249",
journal = "Soil Science Society of America Journal",
issn = "0361-5995",
publisher = "Soil Science Society of America",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Hydraulic conductivity in a piñon-juniper woodland

T2 - Influence of vegetation

AU - Wilcox, Bradford P.

AU - Breshears, David D

AU - Turin, H. J.

PY - 2003/7

Y1 - 2003/7

N2 - In semiarid environments, vegetation affects surface runoff either by altering surface characteristics (e.g., surface roughness, litter absorption) or subsurface characteristics (e.g., hydraulic conductivity). Previous observations of runoff within a piñon-juniper [Pinus edulis Englem. and Juniperus monosperma (Englem.) Sarg.] woodland led us to hypothesize that hydraulic conductivity differs between vegetation types. Using ponded and tension infiltrometers, we measured saturated (Ks) and unsaturated [K(h)] hydraulic conductivity at three levels of a nested hierarchy: the patch (canopy and intercanopy), the unit (juniper canopy, piñon canopy, vegetated intercanopy, and bare intercanopy), and the intercanopy locus (grass, biological soil crust, bare spot). Differences were smaller than expected and generally not significant. Canopy and intercanopy Ks values were comparable with the exception of a small number of exceedingly high readings under the juniper canopy - a difference we attribute to higher surface macroporosity beneath juniper canopies. The unsaturated hydraulic conductivity, K(h), values were higher for canopy soils than for intercanopy soils, although differences were small. At the unit level, the only significant differences were for K(h) between juniper or piñon canopies vs. bare interspaces. Median K values for vegetated intercanopy areas were intermediate between but not significantly different from those for canopies and bare areas. There were no significant differences between grass, biological soil crust, and bare spots within the herbaceous intercanopy area. Overall, the observed differences in K between canopy and intercanopy patches do not account for differences in runoff observed previously.

AB - In semiarid environments, vegetation affects surface runoff either by altering surface characteristics (e.g., surface roughness, litter absorption) or subsurface characteristics (e.g., hydraulic conductivity). Previous observations of runoff within a piñon-juniper [Pinus edulis Englem. and Juniperus monosperma (Englem.) Sarg.] woodland led us to hypothesize that hydraulic conductivity differs between vegetation types. Using ponded and tension infiltrometers, we measured saturated (Ks) and unsaturated [K(h)] hydraulic conductivity at three levels of a nested hierarchy: the patch (canopy and intercanopy), the unit (juniper canopy, piñon canopy, vegetated intercanopy, and bare intercanopy), and the intercanopy locus (grass, biological soil crust, bare spot). Differences were smaller than expected and generally not significant. Canopy and intercanopy Ks values were comparable with the exception of a small number of exceedingly high readings under the juniper canopy - a difference we attribute to higher surface macroporosity beneath juniper canopies. The unsaturated hydraulic conductivity, K(h), values were higher for canopy soils than for intercanopy soils, although differences were small. At the unit level, the only significant differences were for K(h) between juniper or piñon canopies vs. bare interspaces. Median K values for vegetated intercanopy areas were intermediate between but not significantly different from those for canopies and bare areas. There were no significant differences between grass, biological soil crust, and bare spots within the herbaceous intercanopy area. Overall, the observed differences in K between canopy and intercanopy patches do not account for differences in runoff observed previously.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0042129927&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0042129927&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 67

SP - 1243

EP - 1249

JO - Soil Science Society of America Journal

JF - Soil Science Society of America Journal

SN - 0361-5995

IS - 4

ER -