Impacts of interrelated biotic and abiotic processes during the past 125000 years of landscape evolution in the Northern Mojave Desert, Nevada, USA

Variability of soil physical and hydraulic properties at the Mojave Global Change Facility, Nevada: Implications for water budget and evapotranspiration

“…Samples were not collected from underneath plant canopies, in part because a previous study conducted at a basin north of the MGCF, but still at the NTS, showed no statistically significant differences in soil textural components between canopy and intercanopy microsites for younger soils of the Nevada Test Site (Shafer et al, 2007). However, the Shafer et al (2007) study did show that soil hydraulic properties differed, and this was attributed to differences in soil structure.…”

“…Samples were not collected from underneath plant canopies, in part because a previous study conducted at a basin north of the MGCF, but still at the NTS, showed no statistically significant differences in soil textural components between canopy and intercanopy microsites for younger soils of the Nevada Test Site (Shafer et al, 2007). However, the Shafer et al (2007) study did show that soil hydraulic properties differed, and this was attributed to differences in soil structure. On the other hand, Titus et al (2002) found significant differences in infiltration capacity between interspace and undercanopy sites near MGCF; they attributed the differences to macropores from plant roots and/or animal burrows that could carry significant quantities of water.…”

“…Furthermore, Caldwell et al (2008) found higher unsaturated hydraulic conductivities at interspace locations across the MGCF. The main difference between these studies, from a hydrologic standpoint, is that Shafer et al (2007) and Caldwell et al (2008) conducted studies that focused on both saturated (non-ponded) and unsaturated conditions, whereas Titus et al (2002) used only ponded experiments, leading to saturated conditions. Differences in experimental conditions could potentially lead to different results.…”

Ecohydrology: Processes and Implications for Rangelands

“…These openings increase infiltration and percolation of water through the soil profile (Dean 1992;Angers and Caron 1998;Whitford and Kay 1999;O'Farrell et al 2010), in the same way as do the channels left by decayed plant roots (Beven and Germann 1982). Clearly, one cannot separate the roles played by animals from those played by plants; but, in combination, they significantly affect how water moves through the soil (Shafer et al 2007)-including processes such as groundwater recharge, which in turn affect plant productivity and other ecosystem services.…”

Recharge Data Package for Hanford Single-Shell Tank Waste Management Areas

“…We need to understand and be able to predict how disturbed and graveled soils alter recharge rates, how easily they allow vegetation to reestablish, and how soon they begin to develop true soil properties such that they start to resemble natural soils. Shafer et al (2007) 6.8 considered these questions at the Nevada Test Site and described a methodology that could be used at Hanford. Related to soil development is the potential for other processes (e.g., sand dune migration into WMAs) to occur that could affect conditions in the WMAs.…”