Vegetation patterns, such as regular spots and bands, have been observed in arid and semiarid lands. One of the most common explanations for vegetation banding is that the homogeneous steady state solution of soil moisture and vegetation biomass density balance, expressed in the form of a bucket model, may be unstable under conditions of scarce mean annual rainfall. Even though the theory seems to support our intuitive explanation of the phenomenon, there are still unresolved questions concerning soil parameterization, relevant hydrological processes, and the way plant physiology should be modeled in arid and semiarid environments where vegetation patterns have been observed. This paper examines the interrelation between hydrological processes and plant physiology. The biomass growth rate resembles plant physiology within the bucket model and determines the survival plant strategy given a limited soil moisture availability. The fact that very different hypotheses concerning the biomass growth rate have been formulated has not yet been given the important consideration it deserves. Different models for vegetation banding will be considered here. They are formulated by introducing different growth rates within the same soil moisture and vegetation balance equations. Linear stability analysis and numerical integration of the different models showed some relevant interrelation between hydrological and physiological features. It was demonstrated that the relation between biomass growth rate and biomass density determines which hydrological process enables vegetation pattern initiation. The discussion of this result leads to a critical review of previously published hypotheses on plant physiology and hydrological processes inducing vegetation organization.

Modeling banded vegetation patterns in semiarid regions: Interdependence between biomass growth rate and relevant hydrological processes

URSINO, NADIA
2007

Abstract

Vegetation patterns, such as regular spots and bands, have been observed in arid and semiarid lands. One of the most common explanations for vegetation banding is that the homogeneous steady state solution of soil moisture and vegetation biomass density balance, expressed in the form of a bucket model, may be unstable under conditions of scarce mean annual rainfall. Even though the theory seems to support our intuitive explanation of the phenomenon, there are still unresolved questions concerning soil parameterization, relevant hydrological processes, and the way plant physiology should be modeled in arid and semiarid environments where vegetation patterns have been observed. This paper examines the interrelation between hydrological processes and plant physiology. The biomass growth rate resembles plant physiology within the bucket model and determines the survival plant strategy given a limited soil moisture availability. The fact that very different hypotheses concerning the biomass growth rate have been formulated has not yet been given the important consideration it deserves. Different models for vegetation banding will be considered here. They are formulated by introducing different growth rates within the same soil moisture and vegetation balance equations. Linear stability analysis and numerical integration of the different models showed some relevant interrelation between hydrological and physiological features. It was demonstrated that the relation between biomass growth rate and biomass density determines which hydrological process enables vegetation pattern initiation. The discussion of this result leads to a critical review of previously published hypotheses on plant physiology and hydrological processes inducing vegetation organization.
2007
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11577/1776206
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 28
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 26
social impact