Correlates of biological soil crust abundance across a continuum of spatial scales: support for a hierarchical conceptual model

160 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Biological soil crusts greatly contribute to small-scale soil heterogeneity along a grazing gradient (2013, background): “lichens, mosses and cyanobacteria (Bowker et al., 2006; Guo et al., 2008).”
Biological crusts as a model system for examining the biodiversity–ecosystem function relationship in soils (2010, methodology): “Original data collection methods for the various datasets is available in the original papers (Bowker et al., 2006a,b; Bowker and Belnap, 2007; Maestre et al., 2008), and is summarized in Appendix 1.”
Micro‐geomorphology determines community structure of biological soil crusts at small scales (2010, unknown): “However, Bowker et al. (2006) showed a positive correlation of mosses and lichens to potassium.”
Species richness effects on ecosystem multifunctionality depend on evenness, composition and spatial pattern (2012, methodology): “To facilitate comparison with previous studies conducted with BSCs, which often analyse their effects on soil variables at 0–1 cm depth (e.g. Bowker et al. 2006; Bowker et al. 2011; Maestre et al. 2010), and to evaluate whether the effects of BSCs varied with depth, we analysed the soils from the…”
Biological Soil Crust Rehabilitation in Theory and Practice: An Underexploited Opportunity (2007, methodology): “Bowker et al. (2006b) used precipitation, elevation, and soil type to quantitatively and spatially model the cover and richness of several crust types in semiarid Utah (Fig.”