Thematic Workshop: Challenges, opportunities, and adaptation strategies to climatic changes in dryland forestry systems

As a part of networking activities of PEN-CAFoRR COST Action (CA19128), the combined meeting took place in Mitzpe Ramon, Israel from 15 to 16 March 2023. In addition to the Core Group and Working Groups Meeting, a Thematic Workshop was organized by the local organizer Dr Ilan Stavi

Soil functions and ecosystem services in conventional, conservation, and integrated agricultural systems. A review

International audienceAbstractSoil tillage, crop residue management, nutrient management, and pest management are among the core farming practices. Each of these practices impacts a range of soil functions and ecosystem services, including water availability for crops, weed control, insect and pathogen control, soil quality and functioning, soil erosion control, soil organic carbon pool, environmental pollution control, greenhouse gas refuse, and crop yield productivity. In this study, we reviewed relevant bibliography and then developed a simple conceptual model, in which these soil functions and ecosystem services were scored and compared between conventional, conservation, and integrated agricultural systems. Using this conceptual model revealed that the overall agro-environmental score, excluding crop yield productivity, is largest for conservation systems (71.9 %), intermediate for integrated systems (68.8 %), and the smallest for conventional systems (52.1 %). At the same time, the crop yield productivity score is largest for integrated systems (83.3 %), intermediate for conventional systems (66.7 %), and the smallest for conservation systems (58.3 %). This study shows the potential of moderate-intensity and integrated farming systems in carrying on global food security while adequately sustaining environmental quality and ecosystem services

A review of coupled hydrologic and crop growth models

Abstract Coupling hydrologic and crop models is becoming an increasingly important approach in the development of agro-hydrologic theme. Scientists and decision makers working to address issues in the areas of resource conservation and agricultural productivity are interested in the complementary processing of the two coupled systems. The objective of the present work is to review relevant studies related to hydrologic and crop models coupling, and to analyze the domain applicability, limitations, and other considerations

Soil indicators to assess the effectiveness of restoration strategies in dryland ecosystems

Soil indicators may be used for assessing both land suitability for restoration and the effectiveness of restoration strategies in restoring ecosystem functioning and services. In this review paper, several soil indicators, which can be used to assess the effectiveness of ecological restoration strategies in dryland ecosystems at different spatial and temporal scales, are discussed. The selected indicators represent the different viewpoints of pedology, ecology, hydrology, and land management. Two overall outcomes stem from the review. (i) The success of restoration projects relies on a proper understanding of their ecology, namely the relationships between soil, plants, hydrology, climate, and land management at different scales, which are particularly complex due to the heterogeneous pattern of ecosystems functioning in drylands. (ii) The selection of the most suitable soil indicators follows a clear identification of the different and sometimes competing ecosystem services that the project is aimed at restoring

Soil fungal abundance and plant functional traits drive fertile island formation in global drylands

Dryland vegetation is characterized by discrete plant patches that accumulate and capture soil resources under their canopies. These “fertile islands” are major drivers of dryland ecosystem structure and functioning, yet we lack an integrated understanding of the factors controlling their magnitude and variability at the global scale.EEA BarilocheFil: Ochoa-Hueso, Raúl. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Department of Ecology; EspañaFil: Eldridge, David J. University of New South Wales. School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences; AustraliaFil: Delgado-Baquerizo, Manuel. University of Colorado. Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences; Estados Unidos. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. Escuela Superior de Ciencias Experimentales y Tecnología. Departamento de Biología y Geología, Física y Química Inorgánica; EspañaFil: Soliveres, Santiago. University of Bern. Institute of Plant Sciences; SuizaFil: Bowker, Matthew A. Northern Arizona University. School of Forestry; Estados UnidosFil: Gross, Nicolás. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. Escuela Superior de Ciencias Experimentales y Tecnología. Departamento de Biología y Geología, Física y Química Inorgánica; España. Institut Nationale de la Recherche Agronomique; Francia. Université La Rochelle. Centre d’étude biologique de Chizé; FranciaFil: Le Bagousse-Pinguet, Yoann. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. Escuela Superior de Ciencias Experimentales y Tecnología. Departamento de Biología y Geología, Física y Química Inorgánica; EspañaFil: Quero, José L. Universidad de Córdoba. Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería Agronómica y de Montes. Departamento de Ingeniería Forestal: EspañaFil: García-Gómez, Miguel. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. Escuela Superior de Ciencias Experimentales y Tecnología. Departamento de Biología y Geología, Física y Química Inorgánica; EspañaFil: Valencia, Enrique. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. Escuela Superior de Ciencias Experimentales y Tecnología. Departamento de Biología y Geología, Física y Química Inorgánica; EspañaFil: Arredondo, Tulio. Instituto Potosino de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica. División de Ciencias Ambientales; MéxicoFil: Beinticinco, Laura. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Agronomía; ArgentinaFil: Bran, Donaldo Eduardo. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Bariloche; ArgentinaFil: Cea, Alex. Universidad de La Serena. Departamento de Biología; ChileFil: Coaguila, Daniel. Instituto de Ensino Superior de Rio Verde; BrasilFil: Dougill, Andrew J. University of Leeds. School of Earth and Environment; Gran BretañaFil: Espinosa, Carlos I. Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja. Departamento de Ciencias Naturales; EcuadorFil: Gaitan, Juan Jose. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Suelos; ArgentinaFil: Guuroh, Reginald T. University of Cologne. Botanical Institute. Range Ecology and Range Management Group; Alemania. CSIR-Forestry Research Institute of Ghana; GhanaFil: Guzmán, Elizabeth. Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja. Departamento de Ciencias Naturales; EcuadorFil: Gutiérrez, Julio R.. Universidad de La Serena. Departamento de Biología; Chile. Centro de Estudios Avanzados en Zonas Áridas (CEAZA); Chile. Instituto de Ecología y Biodiversidad; ChileFil: Hernández, Rosa M. Universidad Experimental Simón Rodríguez. Centro de Agroecología Tropical. Laboratorio de Biogeoquímica; VenezuelaFil: Huber-Sannwald, Elisabeth. Instituto Potosino de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica. División de Ciencias Ambientales; MéxicoFil: Jeffries, Thomas. Western Sydney University. Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment; AustraliaFil: Linstädter, Anja. University of Cologne. Botanical Institute. Range Ecology and Range Management Group; AlemaniaFil: Mau, Rebecca L. Northern Arizona University. Center for Ecosystem Science and Society: Estados UnidosFil: Monerris, Jorge. Université du Québec à Montréal. Pavillon des Sciences Biologiques. Département des Sciences Biologiques; CanadáFil: Prina, Anibal. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Agronomía; ArgentinaFil: Pucheta, Eduardo. Universidad Nacional de San Juan. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales. Departamento de Biología; ArgentinaFil: Stavi, Ilan. Dead Sea and Arava Science Center, IsraelFil: Thomas, Andrew. Aberystwyth University. Department of Geography and Earth Sciences; Gran BretañaFil: Zaady, Eli. Agricultural Research Organization. Gilat Research Center. Natural Resources; IsraelFil: Singh, Brajesh K. Western Sydney University. Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment; Australia. Western Sydney University. Global Centre for Land-Based Innovation; AustraliaFil: Maestre, Fernando T. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. Escuela Superior de Ciencias Experimentales y Tecnología. Departamento de Biología y Geología, Física y Química Inorgánica; Españ

Soil fungal abundance and plant functional traits drive fertile island formation in global drylands

International audience1.Dryland vegetation is characterised by discrete plant patches that accumulate and capture soil resources under their canopies. These “fertile islands” are major drivers of dryland ecosystem structure and functioning, yet we lack an integrated understanding of the factors controlling their magnitude and variability at the global scale.2.We conducted a standardized field survey across two hundred and thirty-six drylands from five continents. At each site, we measured the composition, diversity and cover of perennial plants. Fertile island effects were estimated at each site by comparing composite soil samples obtained under the canopy of the dominant plants and in open areas devoid of perennial vegetation. For each sample, we measured fifteen soil variables (functions) associated with carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus cycling and used the Relative Interaction Index to quantify the magnitude of the fertile island effect for each function. In eighty sites, we also measured fungal and bacterial abundance (quantitative PCR) and diversity (Illumina MiSeq).3.The most fertile islands, i.e. those where a higher number of functions were simultaneously enhanced, were found at lower-elevation sites with greater soil pH values and sand content under semiarid climates, particularly at locations where the presence of tall woody species with a low specific leaf area increased fungal abundance beneath plant canopies, the main direct biotic controller of the fertile island effect in the drylands studied. Positive effects of fungal abundance were particularly associated with greater nutrient contents and microbial activity (soil extracellular enzymes) under plant canopies.4.Synthesis. Our results show that the formation of fertile islands in global drylands largely depends on: (i) local climatic, topographic and edaphic characteristics, (ii) the structure and traits of local plant communities and (iii) soil microbial communities. Our study also has broad implications for the management and restoration of dryland ecosystems worldwide, where woody plants are commonly used as nurse plants to enhance the establishment and survival of beneficiary species. Finally, our results suggest that forecasted increases in aridity may enhance the formation of fertile islands in drylands worldwide

Inferring plant–plant interactions using remote sensing

Rapid technological advancements and increasing data availability have improved the capacity to monitor and evaluate Earth's ecology via remote sensing. However, remote sensing is notoriously ‘blind’ to fine-scale ecological processes such as interactions among plants, which encompass a central topic in ecology. Here, we discuss how remote sensing technologies can help infer plant–plant interactions and their roles in shaping plant-based systems at individual, community and landscape levels. At each of these levels, we outline the key attributes of ecosystems that emerge as a product of plant–plant interactions and could possibly be detected by remote sensing data. We review the theoretical bases, approaches and prospects of how inference of plant–plant interactions can be assessed remotely. At the individual level, we illustrate how close-range remote sensing tools can help to infer plant–plant interactions, especially in experimental settings. At the community level, we use forests to illustrate how remotely sensed community structure can be used to infer dominant interactions as a fundamental force in shaping plant communities. At the landscape level, we highlight how remotely sensed attributes of vegetation states and spatial vegetation patterns can be used to assess the role of local plant–plant interactions in shaping landscape ecological systems. Synthesis. Remote sensing extends the domain of plant ecology to broader and finer spatial scales, assisting to scale ecological patterns and search for generic rules. Robust remote sensing approaches are likely to extend our understanding of how plant–plant interactions shape ecological processes across scales—from individuals to landscapes. Combining these approaches with theories, models, experiments, data-driven approaches and data analysis algorithms will firmly embed remote sensing techniques into ecological context and open new pathways to better understand biotic interactions

Unforeseen plant phenotypic diversity in a dry and grazed world

23 páginas..- 4 figuras y 7 figuras.- 50 referencias y 90 referenciasEarth harbours an extraordinary plant phenotypic diversity1 that is at risk from ongoing global changes2,3. However, it remains unknown how increasing aridity and livestock grazing pressure—two major drivers of global change4,5,6—shape the trait covariation that underlies plant phenotypic diversity1,7. Here we assessed how covariation among 20 chemical and morphological traits responds to aridity and grazing pressure within global drylands. Our analysis involved 133,769 trait measurements spanning 1,347 observations of 301 perennial plant species surveyed across 326 plots from 6 continents. Crossing an aridity threshold of approximately 0.7 (close to the transition between semi-arid and arid zones) led to an unexpected 88% increase in trait diversity. This threshold appeared in the presence of grazers, and moved toward lower aridity levels with increasing grazing pressure. Moreover, 57% of observed trait diversity occurred only in the most arid and grazed drylands, highlighting the phenotypic uniqueness of these extreme environments. Our work indicates that drylands act as a global reservoir of plant phenotypic diversity and challenge the pervasive view that harsh environmental conditions reduce plant trait diversity8,9,10. They also highlight that many alternative strategies may enable plants to cope with increases in environmental stress induced by climate change and land-use intensification.This research was funded by the European Research Council (ERC Grant agreement 647038 1004 [BIODESERT]) and Generalitat Valenciana (CIDEGENT/2018/041). N.G. was supported by CAP 20–25 (16-IDEX-0001) and the AgreenSkills+ fellowship programme which has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement FP7-609398 (AgreenSkills+ contract). F.T.M. acknowledges support from the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), the KAUST Climate and Livability Initiative, the University of Alicante (UADIF22-74 and VIGROB22-350), the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (PID2020-116578RB-I00), and the Synthesis Center (sDiv) of the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research Halle–Jena–Leipzig (iDiv). Y.L.B.-P. was supported by a Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions Individual Fellowship (MSCA-1018 IF) within the European Program Horizon 2020 (DRYFUN Project 656035). H.S. is supported by a María Zambrano fellowship funded by the Ministry of Universities and European Union-Next Generation plan. L.W. acknowledges support from the US National Science Foundation (EAR 1554894). G.M.W. acknowledges support from the Australian Research Council (DP210102593) and TERN. M.B is supported by a Ramón y Cajal grant from Spanish Ministry of Science (RYC2021-031797-I). L.v.d.B. and K.T. were supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) Priority Program SPP-1803 (TI388/14-1). A.F. acknowledges the financial support from ANID PIA/BASAL FB210006 and Millenium Science Initiative Program NCN2021-050. A.J. was supported by the Bavarian Research Alliance for travel and field work (BayIntAn UBT 2017 61). A.L. and L.K. acknowledge support from the German Research Foundation, DFG (grant CRC TRR228) and German Federal Government for Science and Education, BMBF (grants 01LL1802C and 01LC1821A). B.B. and S.U. were supported by the Taylor Family-Asia Foundation Endowed Chair in Ecology and Conservation Biology. P.J.R. and A.J.M. acknowledge support from Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional through the FEDER Andalucía operative programme, FEDER-UJA 1261180 project. E.M.-J. and C.P. acknowledge support from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (PID2020-116578RB-I00). D.J.E. was supported by the Hermon Slade Foundation. J.D. and A.Rodríguez acknowledge support from the FCT (2020.03670.CEECIND and SFRH/BDP/108913/2015, respectively), as well as from the MCTES, FSE, UE and the CFE (UIDB/04004/2021) research unit financed by FCT/MCTES through national funds (PIDDAC). S.C.R. acknowledges support from the US Department of Energy (DE-SC-0008168), US Department of Defense (RC18-1322), and the US Geological Survey Ecosystems Mission Area. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US government. E.H.-S. acknowledges support from Mexican National Science and Technology Council (CONACYT PN 5036 and 319059). A.N. and C. Branquinho. acknowledge the support from FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (CEECIND/02453/2018/CP1534/CT0001, PTDC/ASP-SIL/7743/ 2020, UIDB/00329/2020), from AdaptForGrazing project (PRR-C05-i03-I-000035) and from LTsER Montado platform (LTER_EU_PT_001). Field work of G.P. and J.M.Z. was supported by UNRN (PI 40-C-873).Peer reviewe