Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-rv6c5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-28T06:59:21.955Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Biological soil crusts in the Arabian Peninsula: Ecological functions, current knowledge and research gaps

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2025

Javier Blanco-Sacristán*
Affiliation:
Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Biological and Environmental Science and Engineering Division, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology , Thuwal, Saudi Arabia
Corey Nelson
Affiliation:
Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Biological and Environmental Science and Engineering Division, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology , Thuwal, Saudi Arabia
Mario Corrochano-Monsalve
Affiliation:
Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Biological and Environmental Science and Engineering Division, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology , Thuwal, Saudi Arabia
Fernando T. Maestre
Affiliation:
Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Biological and Environmental Science and Engineering Division, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology , Thuwal, Saudi Arabia
*
Corresponding author: Javier Blanco-Sacristán; Email: javier.blancosacristan@kaust.edu.sa
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Biological soil crusts (biocrusts) are key components of dryland ecosystems worldwide, contributing to soil stabilization, nutrient cycling and enhancing ecosystem resilience. Despite their ecological importance, biocrusts in the Arabian Peninsula are largely underexplored, with much of the region’s biocrust diversity and functionality remaining undocumented. This review synthesizes current knowledge on biocrusts across the Arabian Peninsula, focusing on their major taxonomic groups (cyanobacteria, fungi, lichens, mosses and algae), their ecological roles and distribution patterns. It also discusses the potential for biocrust restoration through strategies such as cyanobacterial inoculation and passive protection, which could contribute to land degradation and desertification control in the Arabian Peninsula. Our work identifies significant research gaps in biocrust biodiversity, ecophysiology and their role in ecosystem functioning within this region, and calls for more focused research to integrate biocrusts into land management strategies for the Arabian Peninsula.

Information

Type
Review
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Temporal patterns in the literature on biocrust-forming organisms in the Arabian Peninsula. (a) Annual total number of references. (b) Year of reference publication by organism group. (c) Cumulative reference count associated with each organism group across the entire dataset. (d) Decadal proportional distribution of references by organism.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Examples of cyanobacteria-dominated biocrusts in (a) the Al Ula region (Saudi Arabia) and (b) central Saudi Arabia. Photographs by Corey Nelson.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Biocrusts along the Israel-Egypt border. The fenced, restricted-access zone on the Israeli side has allowed for passive long-term preservation of intact biocrust communities, in contrast to more heavily disturbed areas across the border (Noy et al., 2021).

Figure 3

Figure 4. Illustrating the dual-use strategy for large-scale biocrust cultivation beneath solar panel arrays in the Arabian Peninsula. The shaded microenvironments created under photovoltaic panels promote the establishment and growth of native biocrust communities, which, in turn, can enhance soil C and N levels while reducing dust emissions. These solar farms could serve as decentralized biocrust nurseries, enabling hectare-scale restoration efforts across the Arabian Peninsula. This approach has the potential to offer a scalable and sustainable model for integrating ecological restoration with solar energy infrastructure.

Figure 4

Figure 5. Biocrust probiotics are beneficial heterotrophic bacteria that can enhance soil aggregation, nutrient cycling and community resilience when co-inoculated with pioneer cyanobacteria. These probiotics complement phototrophic functions, accelerating biocrust formation and stabilization in degraded dryland soils. Incorporating biocrust probiotics into restoration efforts can significantly improve the establishment and ecological function of biocrusts, especially under the extreme environmental conditions typical of the Arabian Peninsula.

Supplementary material: File

Blanco-Sacristán et al. supplementary material 1

Blanco-Sacristán et al. supplementary material
Download Blanco-Sacristán et al. supplementary material 1(File)
File 373.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Blanco-Sacristán et al. supplementary material 2

Blanco-Sacristán et al. supplementary material
Download Blanco-Sacristán et al. supplementary material 2(File)
File 27.1 KB

Author comment: Biological soil crusts in the Arabian Peninsula: Ecological functions, current knowledge and research gaps — R0/PR1

Comments

Dear editors,

I am writing to inquire as to the suitability of our manuscript “Biological Soil Crusts in the Arabian Peninsula: Ecological Functions, Current Knowledge and Research Gaps” for submission as a Review to Drylands. In this work, we present the first comprehensive synthesis of biological soil crust (biocrust) diversity, composition and ecological roles across the Arabian Peninsula, a hyper-arid region that has remained largely underrepresented in global biocrust research.

Our review highlights critical knowledge gaps in biocrust biodiversity mapping, ecophysiological adaptations and restoration strategies specific to the Peninsula’s unique landscapes. We outline a research agenda that emphasizes regionally tailored approaches, like leveraging solar‐farm infrastructure for biocrust nurseries, to foster large‐scale land rehabilitation and dust mitigation. Given the rapid expansion of development and the intensification of climate pressures in across the Arabian Peninsula, a thorough understanding of biocrust communities is urgently needed to integrate these microscopic pioneers into land management and greening initiatives. We believe this work will be of interest to your readers because it (1) synthesizes disparate data into a coherent framework for conservation and restoration in arid environments, (2) identifies locally adapted biocrust taxa and their potential applications and (3) proposes innovative, scalable strategies that link renewable energy infrastructure with ecological restoration. Moreover, by situating Arabian biocrusts within a broader dryland context, our review offers insights that are applicable to other hyper-arid regions worldwide.

For the above reasons, we believe that our work aligns well with the scientific scope and objectives of Drylands and would be of great interest to your readership. We look forward to the opportunity to share our work with the broader scientific community through publication in your journal. We confirm that this manuscript is not under consideration for publication in any other journal and we declare no conflicts of interest.

Yours Sincerely,

Dr. Javier Blanco-Sacristán (on behalf of all authors)

Review: Biological soil crusts in the Arabian Peninsula: Ecological functions, current knowledge and research gaps — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Dear Blanco Sacristán et al., I have received your manuscript "Biological Soil Crusts in the Arabian Peninsula: Ecological Functions, Current Knowledge and Research Gaps” for review and possible publication in Drylands. There are elements to like in this paper, especially the fact that the review is quite complete in content, thoroughly listing known factors regarding the potential of biocrusts. It also successfully highlights new knowledge gaps that need to be addressed in this rich region of the planet, particularly the possibilities for restoration, the need to protect certain areas, and the identification of sites that could be targeted for ecological rehabilitation.

Overall, I think the paper is well written and that the review and Future perspectives are well done and conclusive. Therefore, I suggest the acceptance of this study for publication, after assessing some minor comments I list below by line number and section. I hope the authors find these comments helpful to improve the article.

1. Lines 226 — The section title refers to “biotic interactions,” but the content focuses exclusively on ecological functions. It may be more appropriate to revise the section title to better reflect its focus.

2. Lines 226 to 324 — How does the author envision the interaction among soil stabilization and the water, carbon, and nitrogen cycles mediated by biocrusts in the Arabian Peninsula? A concluding synthesis paragraph at the end of this section would be helpful to articulate how these processes are interconnected.

3. Line 494 — The cited surveys (Mouchacca 2005; Abu-Zinada 1986) are relatively old. Are there more recent data or ongoing initiatives that could be mentioned?

4. General comment — The manuscript would benefit from a synthesis paragraph connecting the main sections. The transitions between subsections and major sections are not always clear, and some parts feel overly compartmentalized. A more explicit integration could improve cohesion and overall flow.

Review: Biological soil crusts in the Arabian Peninsula: Ecological functions, current knowledge and research gaps — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

No definition of a biological soil coast is given, which leads to the listing of many non-crust-forming species. I assume that the number of studies reviewed by year should be revised, as they include species that do not form soil crusts. There is also a mix between the review for the Arabian Peninsula and the review of general studies for other parts of the world. Part of the work should be restructured to clarify what was done on the peninsula and what was not.

It is difficult to follow because all the subheadings are the same and there is no other subheading level.

The references have different formats, are incomplete, or include Google links rather than direct ones.

Recommendation: Biological soil crusts in the Arabian Peninsula: Ecological functions, current knowledge and research gaps — R0/PR4

Comments

### Handling editor ###

After reviewing the manuscript and considering the comments made by the two reviewers, I found this text very interesting and pioneering in presenting the current knowledge about biocrusts in a remote and under-studied area: the Arabian Peninsula. I also find it particularly interesting that the manuscript identifies several research gaps that need to be addressed to get a deeper understanding of biocrusts, not only at a regional scale, as the authors say, but also at a global scale, by using the biocrusts found in the Arabian Peninsula as a model. According to referee #2, I consider that this manuscript covers a diversity of relevant topics in the study of biocrusts, and is well written and easy to follow. However, the referee #1 is concerned about the lack of a clear definition of biological soil crusts. While this is open to discussion, what I have found, and what referee #1 also points out, is that some parts of the manuscript mix a review focused on the Arabian Peninsula with a general review of studies from other parts of the world. I consider that the authors need to make an extra effort to clearly distinguish what is known about biocrusts in the Arabian Peninsula from what is known in other regions of the world. If there are no studies conducted in the Arabian Peninsula on a specific topic, please state this clearly, and perhaps consider it as a future line of research. What is more relevant for referee #1, and I agree, is that this manuscript includes various taxa that do not truly belong to biocrusts, particularly when talking about lichens. This is an issue that authors need to consider in detail. Authors should carefully curate their references to include only studies that are truly focused on biocrusts and that present taxa considered part of biocrusts. All the studies that present taxa that are not part of biocrusts should be removed. According to these issues, I cannot approve this manuscript for its publication in Drylands at this stage. However, I encourage the authors to consider my comments, ideas and suggestions, both major and minor, as well as those provided by the two reviewers, to improve the quality of the manuscript. When authors have a new version, we will review it again.

After reading the manuscript, I also have some minor comments:

1. In the abstract section, consider choosing another word for remain, since “remain” is written later, very close.

2. In my opinion, the first two paragraphs of the introduction section could be rewritten into a single paragraph, as they provide very similar information.

3. In line 34, what authors want to say with higher plants? I would use plants, only plants, not higher.

4. In line 64, why is the Arabian Peninsula a pivotal region? This is related to a great climate diversity? Or to what? Please, explain.

5. In lines 80-81, the sentence is confused: “...or associated organisms…”. Did you include in your study taxa that are not associated with biocrusts? Please, explain.

6. In line 111, before and, please include a comma.

7. I normally prefer the term biocrust and not crust. In line 112 you have an example, probably not the only one. If authors prefer the term crust, please explain.

8. In the paragraph (lines 107-124) the idea of climate is a bit repetitive, please consider rewriting the entire paragraph.

9. But authors said earlier that there were no studies focused on cyanobacteria during the 1990s? Am I missing something? (lines 127-130).

10. The sentence in lines 142-144 is very interesting, do you have any work to support this statement?

11. In the paragraph focused on lichens (lines 170-193) authors say “...adapted to frog-prone rock surfaces.”. According to the current definition of biocruts, taxa growing on rock surfaces are not part of biocrusts. Authors need to clarify all this, as this is the main problem of the text found by the referee #1.

12. On Socotra or In Socotra (line 221)?

13. I would remove the whole sentence in line 228.

14. What authors mean with unpredictable in line 233, perhaps irregular? Please, clarify.

15. In the subsections “Vulnerability to physical disturbance” and “climate change” nothing is said on biocrusts of the Arabian Peninsula. Please, consider my previous comment, found at the beginning of this letter.

16. I have found several taxon names that are not italicized in references, please consider reviewing the format of all references.

I consider that the figures are OK and their captions are appropriate.

Finally, I want to say that this review is very interesting to broaden our knowledge on biocrusts.

###Reviewer 1###

Dear Blanco Sacristán et al., I have received your manuscript "Biological Soil Crusts in the Arabian Peninsula: Ecological Functions, Current Knowledge and Research Gaps” for review and possible publication in Drylands. There are elements to like in this paper, especially the fact that the review is quite complete in content, thoroughly listing known factors regarding the potential of biocrusts. It also successfully highlights new knowledge gaps that need to be addressed in this rich region of the planet, particularly the possibilities for restoration, the need to protect certain areas, and the identification of sites that could be targeted for ecological rehabilitation.

Overall, I think the paper is well written and that the review and Future perspectives are well done and conclusive. Therefore, I suggest the acceptance of this study for publication, after assessing some minor comments I list below by line number and section. I hope the authors find these comments helpful to improve the article.

1. Lines 226 — The section title refers to “biotic interactions,” but the content focuses exclusively on ecological functions. It may be more appropriate to revise the section title to better reflect its focus.

2. Lines 226 to 324 — How does the author envision the interaction among soil stabilization and the water, carbon, and nitrogen cycles mediated by biocrusts in the Arabian Peninsula? A concluding synthesis paragraph at the end of this section would be helpful to articulate how these processes are interconnected.

3. Line 494 — The cited surveys (Mouchacca 2005; Abu-Zinada 1986) are relatively old. Are there more recent data or ongoing initiatives that could be mentioned?

4. General comment — The manuscript would benefit from a synthesis paragraph connecting the main sections. The transitions between subsections and major sections are not always clear, and some parts feel overly compartmentalized. A more explicit integration could improve cohesion and overall flow.

###Reviewer 2###

No definition of a biological soil coast is given, which leads to the listing of many non-crust-forming species. I assume that the number of studies reviewed by year should be revised, as they include species that do not form soil crusts. There is also a mix between the review for the Arabian Peninsula and the review of general studies for other parts of the world. Part of the work should be restructured to clarify what was done on the peninsula and what was not.

It is difficult to follow because all the subheadings are the same and there is no other subheading level.

The references have different formats, are incomplete, or include Google links rather than direct ones.

Decision: Biological soil crusts in the Arabian Peninsula: Ecological functions, current knowledge and research gaps — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Biological soil crusts in the Arabian Peninsula: Ecological functions, current knowledge and research gaps — R1/PR6

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: Biological soil crusts in the Arabian Peninsula: Ecological functions, current knowledge and research gaps — R1/PR7

Conflict of interest statement

I declare that I have no competing interests in relation to this manuscript.

Comments

Dear Blanco Sacristán et al., I have received your manuscript "Biological Soil Crusts in the Arabian Peninsula: Ecological Functions, Current Knowledge and Research Gaps” for review and for possible publication in Drylands. I would like to thank you for the careful revisions made to the article. After reviewing the text and the attached materials, I consider that the corrections were carried out appropriately and that the manuscript is now sufficiently polished for publication.

Review: Biological soil crusts in the Arabian Peninsula: Ecological functions, current knowledge and research gaps — R1/PR8

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Overall, the revision has been greatly improved after the corrections. I found some things that I detail below:

General comment: The references throughout the text have different formats; in some cases they are ordered alphabetically and in others chronologically, and in others they are not ordered at all. Please unify them according to the journal’s standards.

Keywords: biocrust and biological soil crust are repeated. I recommend replacing biological soil crust since it is in the title.

-Line 32: Bryophytes include liverworts.

-Line 42: missing reference.

-Line 55: missing reference.

-Line 61: The entire final paragraph is confusing. The objective is left unfinished, and then a summary of what will be discussed is given. I don’t understand this, since that is what the abstract is for.

-Line 111: It is not clear whether all the cited lichens are included or only those found on land.

-Lines 197 to 207 do not name terrestrial species, but saxicolous and/or epiphytic species. This entire section should be removed.

-Line 334: N-fixation is used, but in the rest of the paragraph it is used without a -. In other parts of the manuscript, this is used interchangeably. Unify the form.

-Line 381: missing space in 45°C

-Line 382: missing space in <50

-Line 394: missing reference

-Lines 400 to 402: rearrange the sentence; it is confusing

-Line 406: missing reference

-Lines 420 to 421, missing reference

-Lines 500 to 502, missing reference

Recommendation: Biological soil crusts in the Arabian Peninsula: Ecological functions, current knowledge and research gaps — R1/PR9

Comments

Dear Dr. Blanco-Sacristán,

According to what I have read, and given that the authors fully considered my comments and suggestions, in addition to the fact that both referees agree with me, the paper entitled “Biological Soil Crusts in the Arabian Peninsula: Ecological Functions, Current Knowledge and Research Gaps” has significantly improved its quality. However, reviewer #2 has marked two details that must be addressed by the authors before the manuscript is ready for publication:

-Line 111: It is not clear whether all the cited lichens are included or only those found on land.

-Lines 197 to 207 do not name terrestrial species, but saxicolous and/or epiphytic species. This entire section should be removed.

The referee #2 also marks some minor points that should be reviewed by the authors:

General comment: The references throughout the text have different formats; in some cases they are ordered alphabetically and in others chronologically, and in others they are not ordered at all. Please unify them according to the journal’s standards.

Keywords: biocrust and biological soil crust are repeated. I recommend replacing biological soil crust since it is in the title.

-Line 32: Bryophytes include liverworts.

-Line 42: missing reference.

-Line 55: missing reference.

-Line 61: The entire final paragraph is confusing. The objective is left unfinished, and then a summary of what will be discussed is given. I don’t understand this, since that is what the abstract is for.

-Line 334: N-fixation is used, but in the rest of the paragraph it is used without a -. In other parts of the manuscript, this is used interchangeably. Unify the form.

-Line 381: missing space in 45°C

-Line 382: missing space in <50

-Line 394: missing reference

-Lines 400 to 402: rearrange the sentence; it is confusing

-Line 406: missing reference

-Lines 420 to 421, missing reference

-Lines 500 to 502, missing reference

Additionally, I would like that authors fully consider these six comments that can improve the quality of the paper.

LINE 71

What does “atmospheric aridity” mean? Because the term is not common, please consider providing a short explanation.

LINE 81

“Anthropogenic and climatic pressures” are independent stress factors? Or climatic pressures refer to climate change provoked by human activities? Please, explain and rewrite accordingly.

LINE 397

I found “crusts” and not “biocrusts” in this sentence, when the authors said that they rewrote this term (“crusts”) all along the manuscript.

LINE 589

Why “libraries” and not “banks”? Please, explain.

LINE 624

What does “longitudinal studies” mean? Perhaps the authors wanted to say “long-term studies”?

LINE 628

I found “crusts” and not “biocrusts” in this sentence, again, when the authors said that they rewrote this term (“crusts”) all along the manuscript.

I would like to congratulate the authors about their excellent work. I really enjoyed reading this manuscript. When the final version is ready, I would love to reread it and give the journal the green light for its publication.

All the best,

Sergio Velasco Ayuso

Decision: Biological soil crusts in the Arabian Peninsula: Ecological functions, current knowledge and research gaps — R1/PR10

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Biological soil crusts in the Arabian Peninsula: Ecological functions, current knowledge and research gaps — R2/PR11

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: Biological soil crusts in the Arabian Peninsula: Ecological functions, current knowledge and research gaps — R2/PR12

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

I consider that the corrections were carried out appropriately

and that the manuscript is now sufficiently polished for publication.

Review: Biological soil crusts in the Arabian Peninsula: Ecological functions, current knowledge and research gaps — R2/PR13

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The authors have done a great job improving the manuscript.

Recommendation: Biological soil crusts in the Arabian Peninsula: Ecological functions, current knowledge and research gaps — R2/PR14

Comments

Dear Dr. Blanco-Sacristán,

According to what I read, and given that both reviewers agree with me, the article titled “Biological Soil Crusts in the Arabian Peninsula: Ecological Functions, Current Knowledge, and Research Gaps” has significantly improved its quality and is ready for its publication.

I congratulate you all on the excellent work that you have done. You have opened the Arabian region to the biocruster community.

All the best,

Sergio Velasco Ayuso

Decision: Biological soil crusts in the Arabian Peninsula: Ecological functions, current knowledge and research gaps — R2/PR15

Comments

No accompanying comment.