<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">HESS</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Hydrology and Earth System Sciences</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">HESS</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1607-7938</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/hess-23-2481-2019</article-id><title-group><article-title>The influence of litter crusts on soil properties and hydrological processes
in a sandy ecosystem</article-title><alt-title>The influence of litter crusts on soil properties and hydrological processes</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{The influence of litter crusts on soil properties and hydrological processes}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{Y. Liu et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>Yu</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0706-4026</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Cui</surname><given-names>Zeng</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Huang</surname><given-names>Ze</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Miao</surname><given-names>Hai-Tao</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1 aff2 aff3">
          <name><surname>Wu</surname><given-names>Gao-Lin</given-names></name>
          <email>gaolinwu@gmail.com</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5449-7134</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the
Loess Plateau,<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> Northwest A&amp;F University, Yangling, Shaanxi
712100, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Chinese
Academy of Sciences<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> and Ministry of Water Resource, Yangling,
Shaanxi 712100, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>CAS Center for Excellence in Quaternary
Science and Global Change, Xi'an 710061, China</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Gao-Lin Wu (gaolinwu@gmail.com)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>27</day><month>May</month><year>2019</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>23</volume>
      <issue>5</issue>
      <fpage>2481</fpage><lpage>2490</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>18</day><month>November</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>21</day><month>November</month><year>2018</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>18</day><month>February</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>7</day><month>May</month><year>2019</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2019 Yu Liu et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2019</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/23/2481/2019/hess-23-2481-2019.html">This article is available from https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/23/2481/2019/hess-23-2481-2019.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/23/2481/2019/hess-23-2481-2019.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/23/2481/2019/hess-23-2481-2019.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>
    <p id="d1e134">Litter crusts are integral components of the water budget in terrestrial
ecosystems, especially in arid areas. This innovative study is designed to
quantify the ecohydrological effectiveness of litter crusts in desert
ecosystems. We focus on the positive effects of litter crusts on soil water
holding capacity and water interception capacity compared with biocrusts.
Litter crusts significantly increased soil organic matter compared to
biocrusts and bare lands, by 2.4 times and 3.8 times, respectively. Higher
organic matter content resulted in increased soil porosity and decreased soil
bulk density. Meanwhile, soil organic matter can help to maintain maximum
infiltration rates. Litter crusts significantly increased the water
infiltration rate under high water supply. Our results suggested that litter
crusts significantly improve soil properties, thereby influencing
hydrological processes. Litter crusts play an important role in improving
hydrological effectiveness and provide a microhabitat conducive to vegetation
restoration in dry sandy ecosystems.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e146">Desertification represents one of the most serious global environmental
issues as it leads to the degradation of ecosystem functioning and services
and impacts the livelihoods of more than 25 % of the world's population
(Geist and Lambin, 2004; Kefi et al., 2007; Huenneke et al., 2010). The
occurrence of desertification, high air temperature, low soil humidity, and
abundant solar radiation results in high potential evapotranspiration
(Reynolds et al., 2007). Moreover, soil nutrients are eroded by drastic
water loss, and soil fertility decreases with sand transport and dune
burial, consequently impeding vegetation growth. It is a challenge for
ecologists to stabilize mobile dunes and to transform them into productive
ecosystems.</p>
      <p id="d1e149">With the increasing harm of desertification, many measures have been
implemented to prevent and combat desertification, such as afforestation,
establishment of sand barriers, or spraying reinforcing agents. One widely
popular restoration technique establishes straw checkerboards (wheat straw,
reed and other materials are used in the desert to form a square wall) on
mobile sand dunes and eroded land. The straw checkerboards enhance dust
entrapment on the surface of stabilized dunes, which facilitates topsoil
development and makes it easier for biological soil crusts (biocrusts) to
form (Li et al., 2006). Biocrusts are soil surface communities composed of
microscopic and macroscopic poikilohydric organisms, are globally widespread
and are an important component of the soil community in many desert
ecosystems (Grote et al., 2010; Gao et al., 2017). Biocrusts are highly
specialized soil-surface plant-soil complex groups that are an important
component of desert ecosystems, especially in arid and semiarid regions.
Biocrusts provide important ecological functions including increasing soil
aggregation and stability, preventing soil loss, increasing the retention of
topsoil nutrients, and improving soil fertility (Chamizo et al., 2012).</p>
      <p id="d1e152">Large area afforestation is one effective measure used in the prevention and
control of desertification in arid and<?pagebreak page2482?> semi-arid regions. Deciduous trees
have been widely used in most of the sandy-land afforestation efforts (Liu et
al., 2018). In addition to biocrusts, afforestation also produces litter
crusts, which form from the accumulation of litter that results from the
common influences of wind and water (Jia et al., 2018). Unlike the common
litter layer, litter crust is a hard shell formed by mixing litter and sand
under external forces such as rain or wind. In this study, litter crust was
defined as the crust formed by all dead organic material consisting of both
decomposed and undecomposed plant parts which are not integrated into the
mineral soils, that is, the litter crust formed by the mixing of litter
organisms and soil. The interactions between precipitation, vegetation and
litter crust are important issues for hydrologists (Dunkerley, 2015). Litter
crusts have the capacity to store water on their surface, with this storage
being filled by rainfall and emptied by evaporation and drainage
(Guevara-Escobar et al., 2007; Gerrits et al., 2010; Li et
al., 2013). Previous studies have explored the interception of rainfall, the
water-holding capacity (WHC) of litter materials, and the degree of retention
within the litter (Makkonen et al., 2013; Dunkerley, 2015; Acharya et al.,
2016). The plant-litter input from above and below ground comprises the
dominant sources of energy and matter for a very diverse soil organism
community that are linked by extremely complex interactions
(Hättenschwiler et al., 2005). On the one hand, litter crusts can improve
microhabitat conditions (Chomel et al., 2016) and form soil organic matter
(SOM) through biochemical and physical pathways (Makkonen et al., 2013;
Cotrufo et al., 2015). On the other hand, litter crusts affect hydrological
processes by serving as a barrier that prevents precipitation from directly
reaching the soil and controls soil evaporation (Bulcock and Jewitt, 2012;
Van Stan et al., 2017), attenuating both directions of ground radiation flux,
and by increasing resistance to water flux from the ground (Juancamilo et
al., 2010). The combined effects of these mechanisms produced by litter
crusts provide strong controls on water transport. Consequently, interception
by litter crusts is a key component of the water budget in some vegetated
ecosystems (Gerrits et al., 2007; Bulcock and Jewitt, 2012; Acharya et al.,
2016).</p>
      <p id="d1e155">The Grain for Green Project was implemented to control soil erosion and
improve the ecological environment across a large portion of China (Chen et
al., 2015). This project increased vegetation coverage on the Loess Plateau
from 31.6 % in 1999 to 59.6 % in 2013 (Chen et al., 2015).
Consequently, the environmental conditions have improved and are suitable for
the development and growth of biocrusts and litter crusts in the arid areas.
Litter crusts and biocrusts were important contributors for the improvement
of the surface microhabitat conditions. Although the importance of biocrusts
in water processes has been recognized, the effect of litter crusts on sandy
lands has received little attention. Therefore, the objectives of the study
are (1) to determine the role of litter crust for soil properties (soil water
content, bulk density, soil total porosity, soil organic carbon) and
hydrological processes (WHC, water interception capacity (WIC), water
infiltration rate (WIR), and infiltration depth), and (2) to determine which
are the dominant control factors of litter crust that affect water
infiltration processes in sandy lands. The results will clarify the impact
exerted by crusts on hydrological process, which protect the soil against
erosion and improve soil microhabitats in sandy lands.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Materials and methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Study sites</title>
      <p id="d1e173">The experimental site was located in the southern Mu Us Desert
(110<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>21<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>–110<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>23<inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E,
38<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>46<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>–38<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>51<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N; 1080–1270 m a.s.l.), which is a
water–wind intersection erosion region of China. It has a continental
semi-arid monsoon climate, with a mean annual temperature of 8.4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C.
The minimum monthly temperature is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C in January and the
maximum monthly temperature is 23.7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C in July, and the mean annual
precipitation is 437 mm yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (minimum of 109 mm in winter and maximum
of 891 mm in summer), with approximately 77 % of the rainfall occurring
between June and September. A mean of 16.2 d has wind speed exceeding
Beaufort force 8, and they are predominant during the spring. The soils are
aeolian sandy soils, which are prone to wind–water erosion, with sand, silt,
and clay contents of the soil being 98.6, 1.3, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
respectively (Wu et al., 2016). The areas with sandy loess soil, loose
structure, and poor erosion resistance were given priority. The Chinese
government implemented several projects to reduce soil erosion and to prevent
the drifting of sand as well as to improve the fragile ecosystem. Vegetation
restoration has transformed the landscape from mobile sand dunes to shrubby
dunes, which are composed of fixed and semi-fixed sand dunes. The dominant
natural vegetation is psammophytic shrubs and grasses (e.g. <italic>Artemisia ordosica</italic>, <italic>Salix cheilophila</italic>, <italic>Lespedeza davurica</italic>). In many
of the sand dune sites <italic>Populus simonii </italic>was chosen for sand fixation.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Experimental design and soil sampling</title>
      <p id="d1e330">This study was conducted in the wind–water erosion intersection region, and
<italic>Populus simonii</italic> was chosen as the main species for wind speed
reduction at the surface. The region has suffered wind–water erosion in
consecutive years due to its unique geographical position, which has shaped
its specific landscape characteristics. There is abundant plant litter
gathered every year as a result of the interaction between wind transport and
water erosion. Many litter layers were mixed with sand and eventually were
fixed on the ground; this gradual process formed litter crusts. Soils covered
by two types of crusts represented the most common crusts in this region.
Biological soil crusts (biocrusts) were moss dominated, and litter crusts
were dominated by <italic>Populus simonii </italic>leaves. The litter crusts were
divided into two groups: a 2-year crust<?pagebreak page2483?> (covered by only litter, LC2) and a
4-year crust (covered by litter and a semidecomposed layer, LC4). For each
crust type (LC2, LC4 and biocrusts) as well as bare sandy land (BSL, as
control, Fig. 1), six experimental plots (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) were
selected. Five duplicate sample sites were selected in each experimental plot
for repeatability.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e360">The vertical soil profiles in bare sandy land and
different crusts in the southern Mu Us Desert.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/23/2481/2019/hess-23-2481-2019-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e369">After a sample site was selected, the crust thickness was measured using a
tape. In each sample site, the undisturbed crust layer was sampled using a
cylindrical container with a 15 cm diameter (with an area of
1.77 dm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). Moreover, biocrust mass was represented by moss biomass per
unit area (g dm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). The soil on the mosses was removed by wet sieving,
and the moss plants were used as the biocrust samples. Various types of
crusts from each plot were collected to determine the maximum water
interception capacity (Max WIC, g dm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and maximum water-holding
(storage) capacity (Max WHC, g dm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). Ten samples were collected for
analysis in each sample site and all samples collated. Soil samples were
collected using a soil drilling sample corer. The samples in the soil layers
were collected at depths of 0–3, 3–5, and 5–10 cm. Three replicates were
taken from each sample site, and the same layer samples were mixed into one
sample for each plot. Bulk density (BD, g cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) was measured using a
soil bulk sampler (100 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) stainless steel cutting ring and soil total
porosity (TP, %) was calculated by the (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> BD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> PD) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where BD
represents soil bulk density (g cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and PD represents particle
density (g cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), which was assumed to be 2.65 g cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The
samples were weighed and then oven-dried to a constant weight at
105 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C and then weighed to determine BD and soil water content (SWC,
weight – %). The analyses in each sample site were repeated five times.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Water interception and water holding capacity of litter crust</title>
      <p id="d1e520">Water interception was defined as the amount of rainfall temporarily stored
in the litter after drainage ceased (Guevara-Escobar et al., 2007; Acharya et
al., 2016). In the laboratory, collected litter was air-dried (65 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C
to constant weight) and weighed to obtain the dry weight. To measure the
amount of water intercepted by the litter, a circular quadrat with a
permeable mesh bottom (diameter of 15 cm) was used in such a way that the
quadrat area was equal to that of the soil corer. The collected litter was
then distributed uniformly over the entire quadrat. Simulated rainfall
(rainfall intensity was 20 mm h<inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) was applied to the quadrats for
30 min continuously and then allowed to rest for 10 min in order for the
moisture to stabilize before weighing to determine the Max WIC
(g dm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p>
      <p id="d1e556">To determine the Max WHC, all crust samples were submerged in water for 24 h. The samples were retrieved from the water and allowed to air dry and
drain for approximately 30 min. Then, the samples were weighed to obtain
the maximum weight. The Max WHC (g dm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) was calculated as the
difference between the maximum weight and the dry weight. The soil organic
matter content (SOM, g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) was determined by the dichromate oxidation
method.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <label>2.4</label><title>Quantitative infiltration design</title>
      <p id="d1e591">To investigate the influence of crusts on water infiltration, infiltration
experiments using five different amounts of water were conducted in each
plot. A cylinder with an inner diameter of 15 cm and a height of 15 cm was
used for single-ring infiltrometry. Single-ring infiltrometry has been
extensively applied as a basic infiltration measurement tool to measure the
soil infiltration process (Ries and Hirt, 2008). The infiltration device
was driven carefully to a depth of 5 cm by means of a plastic collar and a
rubber hammer. To prevent water leakage from the ring, the same soil
materials were used to support the outside of the ring.</p>
      <p id="d1e594">A paper board (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> cm) was placed in the ring above the crust and
soil to prevent scouring when the water was added into the ring. Specific
quantitative amounts of water (500, 1000, 1500, 2000 and 2500 mL in the
study) were carefully poured on the paper board until, as quickly as
possible, it was 3 cm deep (the depth of 500 mL of water in the ring is
close to 3 cm); this process was timed using a stopwatch. During the
infiltration process, water was added by hand to maintain the water level
within the ring. The amount of time required for water to infiltrate into the
ring was recorded to determine the water infiltration rate. The infiltration
measurement of each water quantity was repeated 3 times in each sample site.
After the infiltration experiment, the ring was removed, and then, a vertical
soil profile was quickly excavated and the infiltration depth (centimetres)
measured directly using a tape.</p>
      <p id="d1e609">Based on the water mass balance, the infiltration rate measured using the
ring method was estimated from</p>
      <p id="d1e612"><disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M36" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> represents the infiltration rate (mm min<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mi>W</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the amount of
water supplied for infiltration (mL), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the infiltration area (cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>),
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the infiltration time (min), and 10 is the conversion coefficient.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5">
  <label>2.5</label><title>Statistical analyses</title>
      <?pagebreak page2484?><p id="d1e700">Two types of crusts (biocrust and litter crusts) were selected to determine
the impact of crust components on hydrological process, and five BSL plots
were selected as controls. The normality of the data and
their homoscedasticity were tested
using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Levene tests. In these comparisons, we
conducted analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the data. Tukey's honestly test was
used to analyse the differences in SWC, BD and TP in the different crust
types at the different soil layers or within the same soil layer. Differences
in the crust thickness, Max WHC, and WIR of the crust types were also tested
using Tukey's honestly test. The difference in the Max WIC of LC2 and LC4 was
detected using an independent <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> test. All differences were tested at the
level of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Generalized linear model (GLM) analysis was used
to explain the interactions between crust types and water supply in
determining the water infiltration time, depth and rate. Correlation analysis
was performed to explore the relationships among the different soil
properties and the infiltration rates under different water supply scenarios.
All of these statistical analyses were completed using R statistical software
v 3.4.2 (R Development Core Team, 2017).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Results</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Influence of crusts on soil properties</title>
      <p id="d1e738">The contents of SOM were markedly higher in crust soils than in BSL (Fig. 2).
The highest SOM content was in LC4 at a depth of 0–3 cm, and was 3.8 times
greater than the content in BSL and 2.4 times greater than the content found
in biocrust. Compared to the BSL, the SOM contents in the subsurface layers
(3–10 cm) were 63.6 %–108.4 %, 18.2 %–20.8 % and
48.2 %–79.2 % greater in the biocrust groups, LC2 and LC4,
respectively. Within each type of crust, the SOM content clearly decreased
with increasing soil depth. Over the 4-year period, the litter significantly
reduced soil BD in both in surface soil and subsurface soil (Table 1). With
the decrease in BD, soil TP was significantly higher in LC4 than in the BSL
and in biocrust.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e743">Soil organic matter content (0–10 cm soil depth) in bare sandy
land and different crust soils (M <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> SE). Note: BSL, bare sandy land;
Bio, moss crust; LC2, litter crust for 2 years; LC4, litter crust for 4
years. Different uppercase letters indicate significant differences among the
various crust soils in the same soil layer at the level of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among
the different soil layers at the level of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=199.169291pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/23/2481/2019/hess-23-2481-2019-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e786">Soil water content and bulk density (mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> SE) at the
0–10 cm soil layer depth with different crust types. SWC, soil water
content; BD, bulk density; TP, soil total porosity; BSL, bare sandy land;
Bio, moss crust; LC2, litter crust for 2 years; LC4, litter crust for
4 years. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among
the various crust soils at the level of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and different
uppercase letters indicate significant differences among different depths at
the level of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Depth (cm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">BSL</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Bio</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">LC2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">LC4</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">SWC (%)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0–5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.86</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.22</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>Bb</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8.02</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.42</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>Aa</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.23</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.28</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>Aab</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7.22</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.60</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>Aa</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">5–10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.13</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.41</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>Aa</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.49</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.36</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>Ba</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.74</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.44</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>Aa</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.92</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.39</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>Aa</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">BD (g cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0–5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.52</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>Ba</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.53</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.02</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>Ba</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.55</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.02</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>Ba</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.33</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.04</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>Bb</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">5–10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.61</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.02</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>Aa</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.54</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.03</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>Aab</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.63</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>Aa</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.46</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.03</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>Ab</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">TP ( %)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0–5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">42.73</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.30</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>Ab</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">42.30</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>Ab</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">41.43</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.75</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>Ab</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">49.85</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.66</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>Aa</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">5–10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">39.38</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.74</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>Bb</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">42.04</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.08</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>Aab</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">38.64</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.52</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>Bb</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">44.82</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.27</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>Ba</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e1272">Soil properties did show differences between crust types (Table 1). Compared
to the BSL, both biocrusts and litter crusts significantly increased SWC in
surface soil (0–5 cm). However, SWC showed a decreasing trend in crusts and
showed an increasing trend in the BSL with increasing soil depth. The SWC in
the BSL was 33 % higher in surface soil than in subsurface soil
(5–10 cm), while the SWCs in biocrusts and LC4 were 44 % and 18 %
lower, respectively, in surface soil than in subsurface soil (5–10 cm).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Crusts improve hydrological effectiveness</title>
      <p id="d1e1283">The crust thickness, crust mass and Max WHC were clearly higher in the litter
crust than in the biocrust (Fig. 3).<?pagebreak page2485?> Moreover, LC4 had a mass 1.6 times
higher than the mass of LC2 (Fig. 3b). The Max WHC values in LC4 and LC2 were
3.2 and 2.0 times that of biocrust (Fig. 3c), respectively. Meanwhile, the
Max WIC in LC4 was 72.1 % higher than in LC2 (Fig. 3d). An analysis of
infiltration measurements showed that the effects of crust type and water
supply on infiltration time, depth and rate were all significant (Table 2).
While the water infiltration rate with a 500 mL water supply in various
crust types was ranked
LC4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> biocrust <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> BSL <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> LC2, the
infiltration rates with 1000, 1500, 2000 and 2500 mL water supplies in
different crust types were ranked
LC4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> LC2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> BSL <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> biocrust;
further, the rates in litter crusts and biocrust were significantly different
(Fig. 4). The water infiltration depth increased significantly with water
supply, but the trend of water infiltration depths was
BSL <inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> LC2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> LC4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> biocrust among
the different crust types (Fig. 5).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e1352">Thickness <bold>(a)</bold>, mass <bold>(b)</bold>, maximum water holding
capacity <bold>(c)</bold> and maximum water holding rate <bold>(d)</bold> in the bare
sandy land and different crust plots (M <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> SE). Note: BSL, bare sandy
land; Bio, moss crust; LC2, litter crust for 2 years; LC4, litter crust for
4 years. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among
the various crust plots at the level of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/23/2481/2019/hess-23-2481-2019-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e1395">Water infiltration rates (M <inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> SE) of different water
volumes (<bold>a</bold> – 500, <bold>b</bold> – 1000, <bold>c</bold> – 1500, <bold>d</bold> – 2000, and  <bold>e</bold> – 2500 mL) among bare
sandy land and crust types. Note: ns, no significant difference, BSL, bare
sandy land, Bio, moss crust; LC2, litter crust for 2 years; LC4, litter crust
for 4 years. Dashed lines represent the average values. Different lowercase
letters indicate significant differences among the various crust plots at the
level of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/23/2481/2019/hess-23-2481-2019-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e1442">Water infiltration depth of different water supplies among bare
sandy land and crust types. Note: BSL, bare sandy land, Bio, moss crust; LC2,
litter crust for 2 years; LC4, litter crust for 4 years; 500, 1000,
1500, 2000, and 2500 mL represent the quantities of water supplied at
different treatments.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=184.942913pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/23/2481/2019/hess-23-2481-2019-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d1e1454">The results of GLM analysis for effects of crust types and the
amount of water supply on the water infiltration time, infiltration depth
and infiltration rate in the study. Note: type – bare sandy land, moss
crust, litter crust for 2 years, litter crust for 4 years; water supply –
500, 1000, 1500, 2000 and 2500 mL.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="7">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col2" nameend="col3" align="center" colsep="1">Time </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col4" nameend="col5" align="center" colsep="1">Depth </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col6" nameend="col7" align="center">Rate </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Type</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.909</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">6.697</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">3.502</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Water</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">20.496</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">24.918</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.055</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><title>Soil properties affect infiltration rates of different water supplies</title>
      <p id="d1e1673">Infiltration rates of different water supplies were significantly correlated
with soil and crust properties as shown by Pearson's correlation analysis
(Fig. 6). Crust thickness and mass were significantly correlated with high
water supply (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1000</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mL) infiltration rates. An infiltration rate
with a 500 mL water supply was significantly positively correlated with TP
in the 0–5 cm soil layer and SOM content in the 0–3 cm soil layer, and
significantly negatively correlated with BD in the 0–5 and 5—10 cm soil
layers. The infiltration rates of the 1000, 1500, 2000 and 2500 mL water supplies were significantly correlated with the SWC in the 5–10 cm soil layer.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e1688">Correlation matrix among the different soil and crust properties and
water infiltration rates. Note: blue indicates positive correlations and red
indicates negative correlations; the numerical values represent correlation
coefficients. WIR500, WIR1000, WIR1500, WIR2000, and WIR2500 represent water
infiltration rates (mm min<inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) of the 500, 1000, 1500, 2000, and
2500 mL water supplies, respectively; CT and CB represent crust thickness
(cm) and crust mass (g dm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>); SW05 and SW510 represent soil water
content in the 0–5 and 5–10 cm soil layers (%); SOM03, SOM35, and
SOM510 represent soil organic matter content (g kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) in the 0–3,
3–5, and 5–10 cm soil layers, respectively; BD05 and BD510 represent soil
bulk density (g cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) in the 0–5 and 5–10 cm soil layers; TP05 and
TP510 represent soil total porosity (%) in the 0–5 and 5–10 cm soil
layers.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/23/2481/2019/hess-23-2481-2019-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Discussion</title>
      <p id="d1e1754">Biocrusts influence many soil properties that are also impacted by other
major ecosystem processes in dry lands, such as nutrient cycling and
hydrological processes (Gao et al., 2017). Previous studies have separately
reported an increase in water retention and SOM content due to the presence
of biocrusts (Chamizo et al., 2016). To our knowledge, few previous studies
have reported how soil properties change in the litter crusts or how litter
crust influences the hydrological processes in sandy lands (Jia et al.,
2018). We examined changes in soil properties and hydrological functions in
contrasting biocrusts and litter crusts in a desert ecosystem. Our results
will fill these gaps in knowledge and demonstrate that litter crusts
significantly influence soil properties and hydrological processes in sandy
lands.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <label>4.1</label><title>Influence of litter crusts on soil properties</title>
      <p id="d1e1764">As plant litter falls to the ground, it forms an assembly developing a porous
barrier that is structured by wind and water called litter crust. The litter
crust modifies the bidirectional fluxes of liquid water and water vapor and
affects water evaporation from the soil by insulating the soil surface from
the atmosphere and by intercepting radiation (Dunkerley, 2015; Van Stan et
al., 2017). Litter crusts play an important role in changing soil bulk
density and porosity, and they serve as a major source of soil organic matter
in surface soils. The present study showed that litter crusts decreased the
soil bulk density and increased soil porosity and SOM contents. Litter
decomposition is an important ecosystem process that is critical to
maintaining available nutrients. The SOM is formed through the partial
decomposition and transformation of plant litter by soil organisms (Cotrufo
et al., 2015). Fragments produced during litter decomposition can promptly
associate with the topsoil layer, while some brittle residues move to surface
soils by water and wind transfer before forming coarse particulate organic
matter in the soil. The addition of organic matter to the soil increases
porosity and decreases bulk density. This study demonstrated that SOM is
significantly higher in LC4 than in LC2. The decomposition times of the two
litter crusts are a powerful explanation for this result. Over time, the
increasing quantity of litter input forms a new
microclimate and promotes SOM accumulation in
surface soils (Liu et al., 2017). The Max WHC also contributes<?pagebreak page2486?> to the higher
SOM in LC4. In general, the higher water content enhanced the decomposition
rate in litter monocultures (Makkonen et al., 2013).</p>
      <p id="d1e1767">In our study, litter crusts and biocrusts significantly increased surface
soil moisture. However, the biocrusts showed obvious desiccation in the
subsurface soil layer not present in litter crusts. The higher moisture under
biocrusts can be attributed to biocrust-anchoring structures that bind soil
particles and form mats on the soil surface; these properties strongly
increase soil surface water retention (Chamizo et al., 2012). In arid and
semi-arid regions during low-intensity rainfall, dominant in our study area,
rainfall is completely intercepted by biocrusts and cannot penetrate the
crust to reach the subsurface soil. Moreover, biocrusts decrease subsurface
soil water by consuming water during growth, which results in the desiccation
of the subsurface soil layer. The change in soil properties (BD, porosity and
SOM) caused by litter crusts improved hydrological characteristics.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <label>4.2</label><title>Effect of litter crusts on hydrological processes</title>
      <p id="d1e1778">The litter crusts can develop a significant thickness depending on wind,
water and other factors. Our study showed that litter crusts could reach
5 cm in 2-year old and 9 cm in 4-year old <italic>Populus simonii </italic>forests.
Our study also demonstrated that there are significant differences in the
porosity of different aged litter crusts and that there are differences in
the interstitial spaces of litter crusts. These variations are major
contributors that can cause the observed differences in the WIC of litter
crusts. The WIC of litter crusts is an integral factor impacting litter
infiltration and the development of surface<?pagebreak page2487?> runoff (Gerrits et al., 2010;
Dunkerley, 2015). This is because litter interception of a certain amount of
water can satisfy early stage infiltration and runoff water requirements
(Gerrits et al., 2010). Litter crusts are continually broken down and
decomposed by microbial activities and, therefore, the frequency of movement
and recombination of litter crusts and other organic components can also be
considered to influence the porosity and hydrological characteristics of
litter crusts (Dunkerley, 2015). In our study, the Max WHC of litter crusts
was 48.7 g dm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. However, the maximum volume of litter crust was
1540 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, and only approximately 5 % of the available void space in
the litter was occupied by water. This result indicates that water is
retained only in smaller void spaces within the litter crusts and not in
large gaps, where gravity drainage is expected to dominate due to gravity and
cohesive forces, which primarily control interception (Li et al., 2013;
Dunkerley, 2015). The litter crust could store water equal to
154 %–200 % of its dry weight, so a large proportion of this storage
water is determined by the litter characteristics. In our study, the dominant
litter crusts were formed by broadleaf litter (<italic>Populus simonii </italic>leaves), which played an important role in determining the water dynamics of
the litter crusts (Sato et al., 2004). According to the findings of Li et
al. (2013), the Max WHC showed a strong linear relationship with litter mass,
whether the litter was a monoculture or a mixture. The maximum mass in LC4
was 28.3 g dm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, indicating the possibility of high water storage
levels.</p>
      <p id="d1e1820">The high WIC of litter crusts and soil organic matter help to maintain
maximum infiltration rates, allowing penetration of water into the soil
profile, thereby slowing soil desiccation caused by evaporation (Sayer,
2005). The litter and SOM can increase soil porosity and aeration indirectly,
thus increasing the WIR. Our results show that the SOM content is positively
correlated with porosity and negatively correlated with BD. Meanwhile,
compared to BSL, the litter crusts increased the WIR with water
supplies <inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1000</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mL. The low water supply (500 and 1000 mL)
was similar to low-intensity rainfall, and soil or litter crusts quickly
absorbed water. This observation is believed to be related to the amount of
available water and the empty storage spaces in soil or litter crusts that
have not yet reached their full water retention capacities (Dunkerley, 2015);
as a result, there were no significant differences in the WIRs between
different crust types. When the affected soil layer was saturated and water
was transported to deeper soil layers, the WIR could be considered a soil
characteristic that is dependent on the initial soil water content (Thompson
et al., 2010). Therefore, the TP and SOM contents in the surface soil layer
significantly influenced the WIR with low water supplies, and BD and SWC
significantly influenced the WIR with high water supply. The increased WHC
and WIC in litter crusts and surface soil layers are the main reason the WIR
in the litter crusts were slightly lower than in BSL. In addition, abundant
SOM results in a soil structure that is uncompacted, which can lead to the
partitioning of water into lateral flows in litter crusts.</p>
      <p id="d1e1833">More diverse litter crusts can reasonably be assumed to be structurally
richer than monospecific litter crusts (Hättenschwiler et al., 2005).
Different litter sizes, litter shapes and litter colours all contribute to
distinct geometric organization, WIC, WHC and radiative-energy balance in a
species-rich litter layer (Sato et al., 2004). In our study, a monoculture
litter was researched to analyse the impacts of litter crusts on soil
properties and hydrological functions. In the future, the effects of litter
crusts mixed with different species, not only on litter structure but also on
the movement of water within the litter crusts, should be considered.
Moreover, litter crusts affected vegetation properties, such as seed
germination, seedling emergence, establishment, and survival (Jia et<?pagebreak page2488?> al.,
2018), and this should receive more attention to improve the vegetation in
desert ecosystems.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>5</label><title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e1846">Litter crusts significantly influenced soil properties and hydrological
functions. The presence of litter crusts plays a critical role in soil
fertility and hydrological functions in sandy lands. Litter crusts increased
the soil water content in both the surface (0–5 cm) and subsurface
(5–10 cm) soils, but biocrusts increased the soil water content in the
surface soil and decreased the content in the subsurface soil. Litter crusts
significantly increased soil organic matter by 2.4 times and 3.8 times the
content in biocrusts and bare sandy lands, respectively. Higher organic
matter content resulted in increased soil porosity and decreased soil bulk
density. Meanwhile, soil organic matter can help to maintain maximum
infiltration rates. Litter crusts significantly increased the water
infiltration rates with high water supplies (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&gt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1000</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mL). With
low water supplies, the water infiltration rate was mainly determined by soil
organic matter and soil porosity. The water infiltration was mainly
determined by soil water content and crust properties when water supplies
were high. Our results suggested that litter crusts significantly improved
the soil properties, thereby influencing the hydrological processes. A number
of national ecological programs have improved vegetation recovery and litter
crust development extensively in China. The results indicate that litter
crusts are instrumental in many hydrological processes because of their
ability to increase organic matter and water infiltration. Therefore, it<?pagebreak page2489?> is
necessary to consider the hydrological effectiveness of litter crusts. In the
future, the effects of litter crusts mixed with different species, not only
on litter structure but also on the movement of water within the litter
crusts, should be considered. Moreover, the litter crusts effected vegetation
properties, such as seed germination, seedling emergence, establishment, and
survival, and these factors should receive more attention to improve the
vegetation in desert ecosystems.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e1863">All the data
used in this study can be requested by contacting the corresponding author
Gao-Lin Wu at gaolinwu@gmail.com.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e1869">GLW and YL conceived the study, and YL, ZC and HTM carried out the field experiments.
YL, ZH, and GLW analyzed data. YL wrote the paper with contributions from all
the co-authors.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e1875">The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e1881">We thank the editors and anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions on this work.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e1886">This research has been supported by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (NSFC grant nos. 41722107, 41525003, and
41390463), the West Light Foundation of the Chinese Academy of Science (grant
nos. XAB2015A04 and XAB2018B09), and the Youth Talent Plan Foundation of
Northwest A &amp; F University (grant no. 2452018025).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e1892">This paper was edited by Miriam Coenders-Gerrits and
reviewed by Darryl Carlyle-Moses and one anonymous referee.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Acharya, B. S., Stebler, E., and Zou, C. B.: Monitoring litter interception
of rainfall using leaf wetness sensor under controlled and field conditions,
Hydrol. Process., 31, 240–249, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.11047" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/hyp.11047</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Bulcock, H. H. and Jewitt, G. P. W.: Field data collection and analysis of
canopy and litter interception in commercial forest plantations in the
KwaZulu-Natal Midlands, South Africa, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16,
3717–3728, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-3717-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-16-3717-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Chamizo, S., Cantón, Y., Miralles, I., and Domingo, F.: Biological soil
crust development affects physicochemical characteristics of soil surface in
semiarid ecosystems, Soil Biol. Biochem., 49, 96–105,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.02.017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.02.017</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Chen, Y. P., Wang, K. B., Lin, Y. S., Shi, W. Y., Song, Y., and He, X.:
Balancing green and grain trade, Nat. Geosci., 8, 739–741,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2544" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/ngeo2544</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Chomel, M., Guittonny-Larchevêque, M., Desrochers, A., and Baldy, V.:
Effect of mixing herbaceous litter with tree litters on decomposition and n
release in boreal plantations, Plant Soil, 398, 229–241, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-015-2648-5" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s11104-015-2648-5</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Cotrufo, M. F., Soong, J. L., Horton, A. J., Campbell, E. E., Haddix, M. L.,
Wall, D. H., and Parton, W. J.: Formation of soil organic matter via
biochemical and physical pathways of litter mass loss, Nat. Geosci., 8,
776–779, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2520" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/ngeo2520</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Dunkerley, D.: Percolation through leaf litter: What happens during rainfall
events of varying intensity?, J. Hydrol., 525, 737–746,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.04.039" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.04.039</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Gao, L. Q., Bowker, M. A., Xu, M. X., Sun, H., Tuo, D. F., and Zhao, Y. G.:
Biological soil crusts decrease erodibility by modifying inherent soil
properties on the Loess Plateau, China, Soil Biol. Biochem., 105, 49–58,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.11.009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.11.009</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Geist, H. J. and Lambin, E. F.: Dynamic causal patterns of desertification,
Bioscience, 54, 817–829, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0817:DCPOD]2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0817:DCPOD]2.0.CO;2</ext-link>,
2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Gerrits, A. M. J., Savenije, H. H. G., Hoffmann, L., and Pfister, L.: New
technique to measure forest floor interception – an application in a beech
forest in Luxembourg, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 695–701,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-11-695-2007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-11-695-2007</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Gerrits, A. M. J., Pfister, L., and Savenije, H. H.: Spatial and temporal
variability of canopy and forest floor interception in a beech forest, Hydrol. Process., 24, 3011–3025, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7712" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/hyp.7712</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Grote, E. E., Belnap, J., Housman, D. C., and Sparks, J. P.: Carbon exchange
in biological soil crust communities under differential temperatures and soil
water contents: implications for global change, Glob. Change Biol., 16,
2763–2774, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02201.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02201.x</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Guevara-Escobar, A., Gonzalez-Sosa, E., Ramos-Salinas, M., and
Hernandez-Delgado, G. D.: Experimental analysis of drainage and water storage
of litter layers, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 1703–1716,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-11-1703-2007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-11-1703-2007</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Hättenschwiler, S., Tiunov, A. V., and Scheu, S.: Biodiversity and litter
decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. S., 36,
191–218, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.36.112904.151932" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.36.112904.151932</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Huenneke, L. F., Anderson, J. P., Remmenga, M., and Schlesinger, W. H.:
Desertification alters patterns of aboveground net primary production in
Chihuahuan ecosystems, Glob. Change Biol., 8, 247–264,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2002.00473.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1046/j.1365-2486.2002.00473.x</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Jia, C., Huang, Z., Miao, H. T., Lu, R., Li, J. J., Liu, Y., Shen, W. B., He,
H. H., and Wu, G. L.: Litter crusts promote herb species formation by
improving surface microhabitats in a desert ecosystem, Catena, 171, 245–250,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2018.07.024" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.catena.2018.07.024</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Juancamilo, V., Davidd, B., Zou, C, and Darinj, L.: Ecohydrological controls
of soil evaporation in deciduous drylands: How the hierarchical effects of
litter, patch and vegetation mosaic cover<?pagebreak page2490?> interact with phenology and season,
J. Arid Environ., 74, 595–602, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2009.09.028" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jaridenv.2009.09.028</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Kéfi, S., Rietkerk, M., Alados, C. L., Pueyo, Y., Papanastasis, V. P.,
Elaich, A., and de Ruiter, P. C.: Spatial vegetation patterns and imminent
desertification in Mediterranean arid ecosystems, Nature, 449, 213–217,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06111" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature06111</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Li, X., Niu, J. Z., and Xie, B. Y.: Study on hydrological functions of litter
layers in north China, PLoS One, 8, e70328, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070328" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1371/journal.pone.0070328</ext-link>,
2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Li, X. R., Xiao, H. L., He, M. Z., and Zhang, J. G.: Sand barriers of straw
checkerboards for habitat restoration in extremely arid desert regions, Ecol.
Eng., 28, 149–157, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.05.020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.05.020</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Liu, Y., Dang, Z. Q., Tian, F. P., Wang, D., and Wu, G. L.: Soil organic
carbon and inorganic carbon accumulation along a 30-year grassland
restoration chronosequence in semi-arid regions (China), Land Degrad.
Dev., 28, 189–198, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2632" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/ldr.2632</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Liu, Y., Miao, H. T., Huang, Z., Cui, Z., He, H. H., Zheng, J. Y., Han, F.
P., Chang, X. F., and Wu, G. L.: Soil water depletion patterns of artificial
forest species and ages on the Loess Plateau (China), Forest. Ecol. Manag.,
417, 137–143, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.03.005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.foreco.2018.03.005</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Makkonen, M., Berg, M. P., van Logtestijn, R. S. P., van Hal, J. R., and
Aerts, R.: Do physical plant litter traits explain non-additivity in litter
mixtures? A test of the improved microenvironmental conditions theory, Oikos,
122, 987–997, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2012.20750.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1600-0706.2012.20750.x</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Reynolds, J. F., Smith, D. M. S., Lambin, E. F., Nd, T. B., Mortimore, M.,
Batterbury, S. P., Downing, T. E., Dowlatabadi, H., Fernández, R. J.,
Herrick, J. E., Huber-Sannwald, E., Jiang, H., Leemans, R., Lynam, T.,
Maestre, F. T., Ayarza, M., and Walker, B.: Global desertification: building
a science for dryland development, Science, 316, 847–851,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1131634" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1131634</ext-link>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Ries, J. B. and Hirt, U.: Permanence of soil surface crusts on abandoned
farmland in the Central Ebro Basin Spain, Catena, 72, 282–296,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2007.06.001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.catena.2007.06.001</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Sato, Y., Kumagai, T., Kume, A., Otsuki, K., and Ogawa, S.: Experimental
analysis of moisture dynamics of litter layers-the effects of rainfall
conditions and leaf shapes, Hydrol. Process., 18, 3007–3018, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5746" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/hyp.5746</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Sayer, E. J.: Using experimental manipulation to assess the roles of leaf
litter in the functioning of forest ecosystems, Biol. Rev., 80, 1–31,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793105006846" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1017/S1464793105006846</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Thompson, S. E., Harman, C. J., Heine, P., and Katul, G. G.:
Vegetation-infiltration relationship across climatic and soil type gradients,
J. Geophys. Res., 115, G02023, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JG001134" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009JG001134</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Van Stan II, J. T., Coenders-Gerrits, M., Dibble, M., Bogeholz, P., and Norman,
Z.: Effects of phenology and meteorological disturbance on litter rainfall
interception for a Pinus elliottii stand in the Southeastern United States,
Hydrol. Process., 31, 3719–3728, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.11292" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/hyp.11292</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Wu, G. L., Wang, D., Liu, Y., Hao, H. M., Fang, N. F., and Shi, Z. H.:
Mosaic-pattern vegetation formation and dynamics driven by the water–wind
crisscross erosion, J. Hydrol., 538, 355–362,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.04.030" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.04.030</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>The influence of litter crusts on soil properties and hydrological processes in a sandy ecosystem</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>Litter crusts are integral components of the water budget in terrestrial
ecosystems, especially in arid areas. This innovative study is designed to
quantify the ecohydrological effectiveness of litter crusts in desert
ecosystems. We focus on the positive effects of litter crusts on soil water
holding capacity and water interception capacity compared with biocrusts.
Litter crusts significantly increased soil organic matter compared to
biocrusts and bare lands, by 2.4 times and 3.8 times, respectively. Higher
organic matter content resulted in increased soil porosity and decreased soil
bulk density. Meanwhile, soil organic matter can help to maintain maximum
infiltration rates. Litter crusts significantly increased the water
infiltration rate under high water supply. Our results suggested that litter
crusts significantly improve soil properties, thereby influencing
hydrological processes. Litter crusts play an important role in improving
hydrological effectiveness and provide a microhabitat conducive to vegetation
restoration in dry sandy ecosystems.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Acharya, B. S., Stebler, E., and Zou, C. B.: Monitoring litter interception
of rainfall using leaf wetness sensor under controlled and field conditions,
Hydrol. Process., 31, 240–249, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.11047" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.11047</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Bulcock, H. H. and Jewitt, G. P. W.: Field data collection and analysis of
canopy and litter interception in commercial forest plantations in the
KwaZulu-Natal Midlands, South Africa, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16,
3717–3728, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-3717-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-3717-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Chamizo, S., Cantón, Y., Miralles, I., and Domingo, F.: Biological soil
crust development affects physicochemical characteristics of soil surface in
semiarid ecosystems, Soil Biol. Biochem., 49, 96–105,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.02.017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.02.017</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Chen, Y. P., Wang, K. B., Lin, Y. S., Shi, W. Y., Song, Y., and He, X.:
Balancing green and grain trade, Nat. Geosci., 8, 739–741,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2544" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2544</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Chomel, M., Guittonny-Larchevêque, M., Desrochers, A., and Baldy, V.:
Effect of mixing herbaceous litter with tree litters on decomposition and n
release in boreal plantations, Plant Soil, 398, 229–241, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-015-2648-5" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-015-2648-5</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Cotrufo, M. F., Soong, J. L., Horton, A. J., Campbell, E. E., Haddix, M. L.,
Wall, D. H., and Parton, W. J.: Formation of soil organic matter via
biochemical and physical pathways of litter mass loss, Nat. Geosci., 8,
776–779, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2520" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2520</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Dunkerley, D.: Percolation through leaf litter: What happens during rainfall
events of varying intensity?, J. Hydrol., 525, 737–746,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.04.039" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.04.039</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Gao, L. Q., Bowker, M. A., Xu, M. X., Sun, H., Tuo, D. F., and Zhao, Y. G.:
Biological soil crusts decrease erodibility by modifying inherent soil
properties on the Loess Plateau, China, Soil Biol. Biochem., 105, 49–58,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.11.009" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.11.009</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Geist, H. J. and Lambin, E. F.: Dynamic causal patterns of desertification,
Bioscience, 54, 817–829, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0817:DCPOD]2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0817:DCPOD]2.0.CO;2</a>,
2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Gerrits, A. M. J., Savenije, H. H. G., Hoffmann, L., and Pfister, L.: New
technique to measure forest floor interception – an application in a beech
forest in Luxembourg, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 695–701,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-11-695-2007" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-11-695-2007</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Gerrits, A. M. J., Pfister, L., and Savenije, H. H.: Spatial and temporal
variability of canopy and forest floor interception in a beech forest, Hydrol. Process., 24, 3011–3025, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7712" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7712</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Grote, E. E., Belnap, J., Housman, D. C., and Sparks, J. P.: Carbon exchange
in biological soil crust communities under differential temperatures and soil
water contents: implications for global change, Glob. Change Biol., 16,
2763–2774, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02201.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02201.x</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Guevara-Escobar, A., Gonzalez-Sosa, E., Ramos-Salinas, M., and
Hernandez-Delgado, G. D.: Experimental analysis of drainage and water storage
of litter layers, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 1703–1716,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-11-1703-2007" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-11-1703-2007</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Hättenschwiler, S., Tiunov, A. V., and Scheu, S.: Biodiversity and litter
decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. S., 36,
191–218, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.36.112904.151932" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.36.112904.151932</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Huenneke, L. F., Anderson, J. P., Remmenga, M., and Schlesinger, W. H.:
Desertification alters patterns of aboveground net primary production in
Chihuahuan ecosystems, Glob. Change Biol., 8, 247–264,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2002.00473.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2002.00473.x</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Jia, C., Huang, Z., Miao, H. T., Lu, R., Li, J. J., Liu, Y., Shen, W. B., He,
H. H., and Wu, G. L.: Litter crusts promote herb species formation by
improving surface microhabitats in a desert ecosystem, Catena, 171, 245–250,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2018.07.024" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2018.07.024</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Juancamilo, V., Davidd, B., Zou, C, and Darinj, L.: Ecohydrological controls
of soil evaporation in deciduous drylands: How the hierarchical effects of
litter, patch and vegetation mosaic cover interact with phenology and season,
J. Arid Environ., 74, 595–602, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2009.09.028" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2009.09.028</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Kéfi, S., Rietkerk, M., Alados, C. L., Pueyo, Y., Papanastasis, V. P.,
Elaich, A., and de Ruiter, P. C.: Spatial vegetation patterns and imminent
desertification in Mediterranean arid ecosystems, Nature, 449, 213–217,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06111" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06111</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Li, X., Niu, J. Z., and Xie, B. Y.: Study on hydrological functions of litter
layers in north China, PLoS One, 8, e70328, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070328" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070328</a>,
2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Li, X. R., Xiao, H. L., He, M. Z., and Zhang, J. G.: Sand barriers of straw
checkerboards for habitat restoration in extremely arid desert regions, Ecol.
Eng., 28, 149–157, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.05.020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.05.020</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Liu, Y., Dang, Z. Q., Tian, F. P., Wang, D., and Wu, G. L.: Soil organic
carbon and inorganic carbon accumulation along a 30-year grassland
restoration chronosequence in semi-arid regions (China), Land Degrad.
Dev., 28, 189–198, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2632" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2632</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Liu, Y., Miao, H. T., Huang, Z., Cui, Z., He, H. H., Zheng, J. Y., Han, F.
P., Chang, X. F., and Wu, G. L.: Soil water depletion patterns of artificial
forest species and ages on the Loess Plateau (China), Forest. Ecol. Manag.,
417, 137–143, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.03.005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.03.005</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Makkonen, M., Berg, M. P., van Logtestijn, R. S. P., van Hal, J. R., and
Aerts, R.: Do physical plant litter traits explain non-additivity in litter
mixtures? A test of the improved microenvironmental conditions theory, Oikos,
122, 987–997, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2012.20750.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2012.20750.x</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Reynolds, J. F., Smith, D. M. S., Lambin, E. F., Nd, T. B., Mortimore, M.,
Batterbury, S. P., Downing, T. E., Dowlatabadi, H., Fernández, R. J.,
Herrick, J. E., Huber-Sannwald, E., Jiang, H., Leemans, R., Lynam, T.,
Maestre, F. T., Ayarza, M., and Walker, B.: Global desertification: building
a science for dryland development, Science, 316, 847–851,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1131634" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1131634</a>, 2007.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Ries, J. B. and Hirt, U.: Permanence of soil surface crusts on abandoned
farmland in the Central Ebro Basin Spain, Catena, 72, 282–296,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2007.06.001" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2007.06.001</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Sato, Y., Kumagai, T., Kume, A., Otsuki, K., and Ogawa, S.: Experimental
analysis of moisture dynamics of litter layers-the effects of rainfall
conditions and leaf shapes, Hydrol. Process., 18, 3007–3018, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5746" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5746</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Sayer, E. J.: Using experimental manipulation to assess the roles of leaf
litter in the functioning of forest ecosystems, Biol. Rev., 80, 1–31,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793105006846" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793105006846</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Thompson, S. E., Harman, C. J., Heine, P., and Katul, G. G.:
Vegetation-infiltration relationship across climatic and soil type gradients,
J. Geophys. Res., 115, G02023, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JG001134" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JG001134</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Van Stan II, J. T., Coenders-Gerrits, M., Dibble, M., Bogeholz, P., and Norman,
Z.: Effects of phenology and meteorological disturbance on litter rainfall
interception for a Pinus elliottii stand in the Southeastern United States,
Hydrol. Process., 31, 3719–3728, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.11292" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.11292</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Wu, G. L., Wang, D., Liu, Y., Hao, H. M., Fang, N. F., and Shi, Z. H.:
Mosaic-pattern vegetation formation and dynamics driven by the water–wind
crisscross erosion, J. Hydrol., 538, 355–362,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.04.030" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.04.030</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
