Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-rbxfs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T15:22:47.013Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Drought affects biocrust more than increased rainfall in the Tabernas Desert (SE Spain)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2025

Consuelo Rubio Gomez-Roso
Affiliation:
Department of Desertification and Geo-Ecology, Experimental Station of Arid Zones (EEZA-CSIC), Almeria, Spain
Roberto Alfonso Lázaro Suau*
Affiliation:
Department of Desertification and Geo-Ecology, Experimental Station of Arid Zones (EEZA-CSIC), Almeria, Spain
Clement Lopez-Canfín
Affiliation:
Biosphere 2, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA Dryland Ecology and Global Change Lab, University of Alicante, Alicante, Spain
*
Corresponding author: Roberto Alfonso Lázaro Suau; Email: lazaro@eeza.csic.es
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Composed of poikilohydric organisms, biocrusts have the ability to survive during periods of drought, making them particularly important in arid and semi-arid areas. However, despite recent research into climate change, the limits of this tolerance to desiccation and the effects of increased water availability, are not very well known. Our objectives were to analyze the effect of prolonged droughts on the cover and metabolism of various crust types, as well as the effect of increased precipitation. Five types of crusts representative of hypothetic successional stages were studied (Physical, Incipient, Cyanobacteria, Squamarina and Lepraria). Two representative areas were selected for each crust type. Nine plots were established in each area, delimited by a 10-cm-diameter ring, and distributed in sets of three plots. In each set, three treatments were applied (control, watering and rain exclusion), and changes in cover, CO2 fluxes and chlorophyll a fluorescence were analyzed. Rain exclusion led to cover losses due to respiration, although this effect differed among successional stages. However, increased precipitation did not increase biocrust cover, because both photosynthesis and respiration rates increased. Chlorophyll a fluorescence was higher in lichens; under watering, it was not different from the control but decreased under rain exclusion.

Topics structure

Information

Type
Research Article
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

Table 1. F-values in the results of GLMM analyses for cover of biocrust principal components (bare soil, cyanobacteria, lichens and mosses) and metabolism rates (net photosynthesis and dark respiration), and results of GLM analyses for chlorophyll a fluorescence

Figure 1

Figure 1. Cover of bare soil, cyanobacteria, lichens and mosses of each treatment, at the beginning (2018) and at the end (2021) of the experiment in each of the crust types (Physical, Incipient, Cyanobacteria, Squamarina and Lepraria). The bars represent the averages and error bars represent the average ± 95% confidence level. *indicates significant differences (p < .05) based on the Bonferroni test.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Evolution of net photosynthesis (with regression lines) per treatment and crust type in relation to the rainfall from the climate station representative of each crust type. Symbols represent the averages, and error bars represent the average ± 95% confidence level. In the legend of each graph at the upper left corner, C means control, W means watering treatment and RE means rain exclusion. The superscript letters in these treatment symbols indicate whether the differences between treatments are significant (two treatments are different if they do not share any letters).

Figure 3

Figure 3. Evolution of dark respiration (with regression lines) per treatment and crust type in relation to the rainfall from the climate station representative of each crust type. Symbols represent the averages, and error bars represent the average ± 95% confidence level. In the legend of each graph at the upper left corner, C means control, W means watering treatment and RE means rain exclusion. The superscript letters in these treatment symbols indicate whether the differences between treatments are significant (two treatments are different if they do not share any letters).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Comparison of chlorophyll a fluorescence of each treatment in each crust type. Symbols represent the averages and error bars represent the average ± 95% confidence level. P, Physical crust; I, Incipient crust; C, Cyanobacteria crust; S, Squamarina crust; L, Lepraria crust. In the legend at the upper right corner, C means control, W means watering treatment and RE means rain exclusion.

Author comment: Drought affects biocrust more than increased rainfall in the Tabernas Desert (SE Spain) — R0/PR1

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: Drought affects biocrust more than increased rainfall in the Tabernas Desert (SE Spain) — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The study presented in this manuscript contributes useful insights into the response of biocrusts to climate change, specifically in terms of their resilience to prolonged drought and increased precipitation. The authors offer an analysis of the differential responses among biocrust successional stages, which has significant implications for ecosystem functioning in arid and semi-arid environments. However, there are a number of areas that could benefit from further clarification and refinement to improve the overall quality of the manuscript. Below are some specific suggestions that I hope will be helpful.

The results show that both rain exclusion and increased precipitation led to increased respiration, but with different outcomes—rain exclusion resulted in a decline in biocrust cover, while increased precipitation did not impact cover. The underlying mechanisms driving these contrasting effects need more exploration. While it is understandable that photosynthesis may partially offset respiration under increased water availability, it remains unclear why rain exclusion would cause increased respiration. In these drought-prone regions, wouldn’t enhanced water availability typically stimulate respiratory processes? Elucidating this mechanism would improve the clarity and depth of the findings.

The manuscript would benefit from an expanded discussion on how the different biocrust successional stages respond to drought and precipitation changes. More detailed explanations of the mechanisms that drive these responses across stages would help readers grasp the ecological significance. Additionally, tying these findings more explicitly to ecosystem services—such as soil stabilization, nutrient cycling, and water retention—could make the practical applications of this research clearer.

The method used to calculate biocrust cover needs further elaboration. The authors state that photographs were used to evaluate cover, but more details are required to clarify how the different types of biocrusts—physical, early cyanobacterial, late cyanobacterial, and others—were distinguished in the images. Was there any additional method used to verify the accuracy of photographic assessments? A more detailed explanation of the method would improve confidence in the robustness of the cover data.

Clarification of statistical methods for CO2 flux and chlorophyll a fluorescence analysis: While the manuscript presents findings on CO2 fluxes and chlorophyll a fluorescence, the statistical methods used to analyze these data are not fully explained. A clearer explanation of the statistical approach would help ensure that the conclusions drawn are solid and transparent.

The results section lacks a coherent flow and can sometimes appear scattered. For example, the statement on lines 205-206, “Watering promoted an increase in cyanobacterial cover in most biocrusts, but not significantly,” is somewhat unclear. Did watering have an effect or not? If there was no significant effect, should this be interpreted as watering having no influence on cyanobacterial cover? Additionally, the phrase “in most biocrusts” is ambiguous—if cyanobacterial cover increased within lichen crusts, does that imply a decline in lichen cover, signaling degradation? Moreover, the subsequent section (lines 209-216) indicates that rain exclusion reduced lichen cover. Could this be interpreted as both increased and decreased water availability leading to a reduction in lichen cover? If so, the manuscript should explore whether these reductions are due to water variation or other environmental factors.

Deepening the discussion of underlying mechanisms:

The discussion section could provide more insight into the potential mechanisms driving the observed results. Currently, parts of the discussion seem to repeat the results without offering deeper interpretations (e.g., the first part of the second paragraph). Addressing the potential physiological and ecological drivers behind the varying biocrust responses would strengthen the discussion.

Long-term implications of drought and precipitation changes:

While the study focuses on short-term responses, it would benefit from discussing the potential long-term effects of prolonged drought and precipitation variability on biocrust communities. This would be especially relevant given the current projections for climate change. Including a perspective on how biocrusts might evolve or adapt under such conditions could significantly enrich the manuscript.

Review: Drought affects biocrust more than increased rainfall in the Tabernas Desert (SE Spain) — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

no competing interest

Comments

The authors presented a potentially important paper in which they tried to examine the cover and the photosynthesis of 4 types of biocrusts and one physical crust under water exclusion and high precipitation (double of the annual amount). Although potentially important, the manuscript suffers from numerous flaws that make the review extremely difficult. At the moment, I will only focus on the main points, which the authors will have to address. Major revision is therefore called for.

1. Evaluation of the cover of cyanobacteria is not easy. Visible observation may not be accurate, and I wonder whether the surface areas determined as bare were verified by chlorophyll measurements to be indeed bare.

2. Photosynthesis is moisture dependent and yet, each of the 5 crusts was examined in another day. Why expect a reliable comparison between the crusts?

3. By covering the loci of the crust with a 20 cm cover, the authors do not exclude the effect of rain on the relative humidity (RH). Following rain, the RH will be close to saturation and it will trigger respiration of the biocrusts despite the fact that they were shielded from direct rain. This is not the case under natural drought (dry and therefore of low RH) conditions.

4. Dew duration of 252 h a month (January 2020; l 241) implies an average of approx 8 h a day of dew, and that, if we assume that dew formed on a daily basis. Accordingly, dew persists also during midday and in essence most of the daylight hours. Are the authors familiar with other accounts that report such long hours for dew? References are required.

5. Results and Discussion: Table 1 should also include the real values; the rain distribution during each year and the dew distribution (daily duration) during each year should be indicated. The figures should be self explanatory. To what crust do the shaded areas in Figs. 2 and 3 belong to? How can the authors explain no photosynthesis (when compared to the physical crust) in the cyano crust not only under natural conditions but also once the amount of water was doubled? Also, why do the authors assume that the crusts can be necessarily regarded as successional stages (l 339-341)?

All in all, references that better cover the different topics dealt with by the authors should be presented.

Recommendation: Drought affects biocrust more than increased rainfall in the Tabernas Desert (SE Spain) — R0/PR4

Comments

This is potentially a good paper that could be published in Cambridge Prism: Drylands after major revisions following the reviewers' comments which I very much agree with. I would like to see a careful revision addressing all these points.

Decision: Drought affects biocrust more than increased rainfall in the Tabernas Desert (SE Spain) — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Drought affects biocrust more than increased rainfall in the Tabernas Desert (SE Spain) — R1/PR6

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: Drought affects biocrust more than increased rainfall in the Tabernas Desert (SE Spain) — R1/PR7

Conflict of interest statement

No.

Comments

The author’s responses are generally thorough and address most of the concerns raised by the reviewers. The corrections made to the manuscript, especially the clarification and expansion of the discussion on ecological mechanisms and biocrust succession, are commendable. The addition of citations to support the discussion enhances the manuscript’s credibility and depth.

Review: Drought affects biocrust more than increased rainfall in the Tabernas Desert (SE Spain) — R1/PR8

Conflict of interest statement

no competing interest

Comments

The authors conducted important modifications to their previous version. However, there are still some points that deserve clarification. I also suggest that the lit review will provide the reader with a wider scope regarding the examined issues. A minor revision is still called for.

Main points

1. Abstract and Introduction. According to the abstract and Introduction “the effects of increased water availability are still unknown” (l 28) and “the effects of prolonged droughts on biocrusts are still unknown” (l69), which led the authors to hypothesize that "increase in precipitation would lead to increase in net photosynthesis (l 81). These issues were already investigated in the Negev where water availability was shown to increase crust biomass and even to change the crust type (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2010.05.006) and where droughts were shown to drastically affect the crust structure and stability (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.016).

2. Due to the crucial role played by watering, a Table that indicates the distribution of rain during the research period should be presented including the time and amount during which water was added. Please also indicate in text the annual rain precipitation during each of the years.

3. While advocating the ‘succession hypothesis’ (l251-255), the reader will also benefit from being exposed to a different view point (https:doi.org/10.1002/eco.2610). I would also like to draw the authors' attention to an apparent contradiction in their claim. Stating that: “the space left by the lichen retreat would have particularly suitable conditions for cyanobacteria despite the drought due to the physical and chemical changes lichens produce in soil” (l 273-274) undermines the cyanobacteria role as the most xeric and resilient crust, which begins the succession.

4. The role played by dew is still not clear. While stating that “non-rainfall water inputs can be relevant for biocrust activity in drylands”, the authors state that 'indeed, in our study the highest net photosynthesis rates tended to coincide with rainfall periods (283-285) which apparently do not support the view that dew plays an important role. Please rephrase.

Recommendation: Drought affects biocrust more than increased rainfall in the Tabernas Desert (SE Spain) — R1/PR9

Comments

The revised version of the manuscript addressed most concerns raised by the first review. I invite the authors to address the issue raised by the second reviewer.

Decision: Drought affects biocrust more than increased rainfall in the Tabernas Desert (SE Spain) — R1/PR10

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Drought affects biocrust more than increased rainfall in the Tabernas Desert (SE Spain) — R2/PR11

Comments

Biocrusts are communities of microorganisms, algae, lichen, and mosses that develop in the top few millimeters of the soil. Their poikilohydric condition allows them to become inactive during dry periods and become active when water becomes available again, which is crucial in drylands, where water is a limiting factor for vegetation growth. Biocrusts are common in drylands around the world and are important because they perform multiple ecological functions. This high tolerance to desiccation suggests that biocrusts can survive long periods of drought. However, some observations seem to indicate changes in biocrust cover during drought periods. In the current context of climate change, knowing biocrust’s limits is essential for the conservation of these areas. This work provides evidence of the impact of increasing drought duration on these communities, analyzing the effects not only on their cover but also on their metabolism (net photosynthesis and dark respiration). On the other hand, analyzing the increase in precipitation brings us closer to understanding the limits of biocrust growth. In addition, analyzing various types of biocrusts allows us to better understand the dynamics of the Tabernas Desert’s biocrust communities, and provide information for the succession hypothesis.

Review: Drought affects biocrust more than increased rainfall in the Tabernas Desert (SE Spain) — R2/PR12

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The ms was substantially improved and I recommend publication in Cambridge Prism. I have some very minor comments:

Please add the main species of cyanobacteria. Also, the annual amount and average rain is not clear (l 191). Additionally, the frequent trampling of the incipient crust as reported in l330 should be also mentioned in the crust description (l 101).

L370-371: Shouldn’t the succession theory culminate in a Lepraria crust?

Unclear sentences (L 38, l130-131; l206)

Review: Drought affects biocrust more than increased rainfall in the Tabernas Desert (SE Spain) — R2/PR13

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Dear authors,

Thank you for your thorough responses and the revisions made to the manuscript. At this stage, the manuscript has been significantly improved, and most concerns raised in the previous reviews have been well addressed. Before final acceptance, I encourage a final proofreading to ensure clarity and consistency in language, as minor editorial refinements may further enhance readability.

Recommendation: Drought affects biocrust more than increased rainfall in the Tabernas Desert (SE Spain) — R2/PR14

Comments

Thank you for addressing the issues raised by the previous review. Please consider minor suggestion and recommendation by the two reviewers.

Decision: Drought affects biocrust more than increased rainfall in the Tabernas Desert (SE Spain) — R2/PR15

Comments

No accompanying comment.