\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[ngerman,english]{babel}



\usepackage{float}








\begin{document}

\title{Soil seed bank characteristics in relation to different shrub species in
semiarid regions}



\author[1]{Reza Erfanzadeh}%
\author[1]{Mahbubeh Hadinezhad}%
\author[2]{Hassan Ghelichnia}%
\affil[1]{Tarbiat Modares University}%
\affil[2]{Mazandaran Agriculture Research, Education and Extension Organization}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{May 19, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup





\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{abstract}
Little information is available about the effects of different species
of shrubs on the composition of the soil seed bank (SSB) and how the SSB
could contribute to the restoration of degraded area in semiarid
regions. We determined the role of three dominant shrub species on SSB
characteristics and evaluated their potential for their possible use in
rangeland restoration projects. Fifteen sites, each containing three
shrub species (Amygdalus scoparia, Daphne mezereum and Ebenus stellata)
and a herbaceous patch (control) in close proximity, were sampled and
their SSB density, species richness and diversity at 0-10 cm depth were
determined. The results showed that density of the SSB was highest under
A. scoparia (1133 seeds per m2) and lowest in herbaceous vegetation (110
seeds per m2). Species richness and diversity of the SSB was
significantly greater under E. stellata than under the other shrubs and
control. This study revealed that the extent to which vegetation
affected SSB characteristics did not only depend on the presence of
shrubs, but also on the species of shrub. These different roles of
different species of shrubs on SSB are advised to be considered in
restoration of degraded areas through conservation of shrubs in semiarid
regions.%
\end{abstract}%



\sloppy


\textbf{Introduction}

Arid and semi-arid ecosystems occupy 36\% of the land area of the globe
and shrubs function as foundation species within these ecosystems (Yang
and Williams, 2015). A foundation species in ecology was described as
species with significant impacts on the structure and functioning of an
ecosystem (Lortie et al., 2017). It has been frequently called shrubs as
fertile islands, since, they can strongly influence habitat conditions.
Shrubs have been shown to affect the quality and quantity of soil
microorganisms (Wardle and Zackrisson, 2005), control the soil erosion
and runoff amounts (Zuazo and Pleguezuelo, 2008; Garc\selectlanguage{ngerman}ía Ruiz et al.,
2013; Keesstra et al., 2016) and influence the soil seed bank (SSB)
(Erfanzadeh et al., 2014; Niknam et al., 2018; Funk et al., 2019). They
can be facilitators and alter SSB under their canopies by trapping seeds
or enhancing seed production by sub-canopy plants through ameliorating
the environment (Li et al., 2011; García-Sánchez et al., 2012; Mussa et
al., 2016).

Study on SSB is important, since, it is one of the most important
functional parts of any plant community and can be significant
components in the process of rehabilitating degraded lands (Mohammed and
Denboba, 2020). Bakker (1989) identified SSBs as non-mature seeds buried
in soil that can replace existing vegetation when they are degraded.

In semiarid regions, shrubs are able to change SSB characteristics.
According to some reports SSB density was much higher under the shrubs
than the surrounding areas (Pugnaire and Lázaro, 2000; Marone et al.,
2004). In overgrazing sites, particularly, shrubs accumulated large and
diverse SSBs beneath their canopy which were different in composition
from seed banks of the open matrix (Dreber and Esler, 2011). This
significant effect are induced by the ability of shrubs in seed trapping
and providing suitable microclimate and conditions for seed production
by other plant species (Erfanzadeh et al., 2014). However, different
shrubs with different canopy architectures (erect stems or recumbent,
open or dense canopy) could have different efficiency in trapping seeds
and could affect differently seed production by herbaceous species and
therefore, they play different roles in changing the characteristics of
SSB (density, species richness and diversity) in semiarid environments.
Nevertheless, none of the previous studies has focused on the effect of
different species of shrubs on affecting SSB characteristics.

In this study, we selected three dominant shrub species and determined
SSB density, species richness and diversity and, similarity between SSB
and above-ground vegetation (AGV) in their understory. Since the shrubs
were different in their canopy traits, we assumed that they affect SSB
characteristics, differently. Moreover, in semiarid areas, shrubs are
cleared and damaged by humans for many purposes including agriculture,
oil and gas production, and sustainable energy developments (Lortie et
al., 2017); we need to know whether these foundation species can recover
and consistently facilitate the abundance and diversity of other plants
through SSB and whether this effect is different between different
species of shrubs with different crown features and architectures. It
can be supposed that dwarf and procumbent shrubs have higher ability to
trap seeds comparing with erect stem and free canopies. In this study,
three dominant shrubs with different features and architectures in the
canopy were selected, i.e. \emph{Amygdalus scoparia} and \emph{Daphne
mezereum} with single-elongated main stems and, \emph{Ebenus
stellata}with procumbent canopy and multiple stems. We hypothesized that
the density and species richness and diversity of SSB under the canopy
of\emph{E. stellata} would be higher than \emph{A. scoparia} and
\emph{D. mezereum} .

\textbf{Materials and Methods}

\textbf{Introducing the study area}

This study was conducted in the rangelands of Chenarnaz, Yazd province,
Iran (30° 03\selectlanguage{english}' 51\selectlanguage{english}" N - 30deg 05\selectlanguage{english}' 89\selectlanguage{english}" N; 53deg 00\selectlanguage{english}' 16\selectlanguage{english}" E - 54deg 01\selectlanguage{english}' 23\selectlanguage{english}" E)
(Fig. 1). The average altitude is 2200 m asl. The average annual
temperature is 17.5degC and the average rainfall is 250 mm, which has a
semiarid climate based on Domarten index.

Sheep and goats are the dominant grazers in the region (ca. four heads
of sheep and/or goats per ha) during the year. Heavy grazing has led to
locally exposed soil. In addition, the previous examination of erosion
status in the study area showed that environmental and human factors had
a role in the occurrence of soil erosion and vegetation degradation.
Human activities such as intensive harvesting of medicinal plants and
the use of pharmaceutical products have reduced the density of plant
species and created empty gaps in the AGV in some places (Gravand et
al., 2016). Therefore, herbaceous revegetating bare soil and restoration
of degraded sites using of native plants is a priority. SSB has been
considered one of the major natural sources that facilitates the
recovery of degraded vegetation (Shang et al., 2016). We carried out
this study to quantify the potential of different species of shrubs to
increase the SSB associated with them and thus their potential use for
restoration. Therefore, it is important to identify firstly shrubs that
associated with larger and richer SSB and secondly, consider restoring
shrub species which have higher potential as SSB reservoir accompany
with higher palatability for grazing. Thereupon, three shrubs together
with surrounding herbaceous vegetation (hereafter called control) were
selected:

A) \emph{Amygdalus scoparia} Spach (Rosaceae family) is a wild species
of almond that occupies large areas in many parts of central Iran and
its neighbouring countries. The extraction and use of the oil from
the\emph{A. scoparia} is of interest due to their fatty acids
composition that is comparable to those of olive oil (Sorkheh et al.,
2016). The plant is attractive for grazing animals due to its shade,
fruits and high palatability of leaves. It is a deciduous large shrub
that grows to a height of up to 6 m, having a single-elongate main stem.
It produces numerous long and green branches. Fruits are drupes and are
1 to 1.5 cm long and 0.5 cm wide. They are ripened and dehiscent at the
end of July (Mozaffarian, 2012).

B) \emph{Daphne mezereum} L. (Thymelaeaceae family) is a rounded-upright
deciduous shrub with an erect and bushy habit that typically grows to
1.5 m tall. All parts of this plant are poisonous to humans if ingested,
especially the fruits, sap and bark. Therefore, this shrub is
unpalatable for grazing animals. Nevertheless, fruits are attractive to
birds with no resulting ill effects (Mozaffarian, 2012). This species is
found globally in dry and semi-dry areas and, in the provinces located
in the central Iran.

C) \emph{Ebenus stellata} Boiss. (Fabaceae family) is a thorny shrub
with a height of 30-120 cm, having short and oblong-leafy branches and
ternate leaves that are alternate and covered with dense silk flakes.
This species grows in large part of Iran including Kerman, Yazd,
Esfahan, Fars and Hormozgan provinces and some dry and semi-dry regions
of world (its native range is Oman and Iran to India). The canopy
structure is open with compact thorny branches that it is difficult to
graze livestock (Mozaffarian, 2012) (Fig. 2).

\textbf{Soil sampling and greenhouse experiments}

Soil sampling was carried out in the early autumn after the end of the
growing and seeding season. Thus, the germinable seeds contained
transient and persistent components of the SSB. After a field survey, we
randomly selected 15 replicate sampling areas, each containing the three
shrub species and a herbaceous patch (control) in close proximity to
each other (Fig. 2). The distance between any two sampling areas was at
least 100 m to exclude spatial autocorrelation. In each sampling area,
under each shrub, after removing coarse litter (\textgreater{} 2 cm) 10
soil cores (subsamples) were collected at random, to a depth of 10 cm,
with a 5 cm diameter auger and then the subsamples were pooled for each
patch (totally 60 soil samples were collected). The soil samples were
transported to the laboratory and were stored at ca. 4 oC for cold
stratification for a period of one month (Miller and Cummins, 2003).
Subsequently, soil samples were transported into the greenhouse and each
sample was spread over a mix of (1:1) sterilised potting soil and sand
of a thickness of 3 cm in free draining plastic trays of 25 cm x 35 cm
(totally 60 trays). Six control trays containing only sterile potting
soil and sand, were placed at random with the samples to test for
contamination of samples from greenhouse or nearby seed sources. All
trays were kept under natural light and temperature conditions and were
watered to keep them moist (Niknam et al., 2018). Air temperature varied
between 14 degC and 25 degC. Germinated seedlings were identified, counted
and removed once they reached an identifiable stage. Seedlings that
could not be identified immediately were transplanted to pots to allow
further growth until identification was possible. No seeds were
germinated in the control trays.

After a germination period of seven months, no further seedlings were
observed. Therefore, the trays were left to dry for two weeks and then
the samples were rewetted and kept for another one month to encourage
seed dormancy breaking.

\textbf{Soil seed bank characteristics measurements}

The density of SSB was expressed as the number of seeds per
m\textsuperscript{2} and SSB richness was measured as the number of
species for each soil sample.

SSB species diversity indices were calculated for each individual
under-shrub using greenhouse data. The Shannon index is most frequently
used to characterize the diversity of communities; it is sometimes
referred to as the Shannon-Wiener index (Equation 1).

Equation 1 H' =\(\sum_{i=1}^{s}\text{pi}\log\text{pi}\)

Where p\textsubscript{i} is the relative abundance of SSB of the ith
species in a soil sample, and S is the number of detected species in SSB
in that sample (Chernov et al., 2015). Another diversity index
frequently used in ecology is the Simpson index, which is frequently
determined as the probability of belonging to different taxa for two
plant species randomly selected from an indefinitely large community.
The Simpson index was calculated from the equation 2 (Chernov et al.,
2015).

Equation 2 S\textsubscript{I}\(=\)\(\sum_{i=1}^{s}\frac{ni\ (ni-1)}{N(N-1)}\)

Where n\textsubscript{i} is the individual number of each plant species
in the SSB in a sample, and N is the total number of all germinants of
all plant species in SSB in that sample.

The diversity indices were calculated using the Past software.

In addition, during the growth season, we recorded the presence of all
plant species within each of the patches sampled for SSB. Species
abundance of the AGV was not estimated because it was not possible to
place a sampling frame beneath the shrubs and we used presence-absence
data for AGV in the analyses. Qualitative similarity between the species
composition of the AGV and the SSB was assessed using the Jaccard
similarity index (Kent and Coker 1994) in each patch using equation 3.

Equation 3\(\text{IS}_{j}=\left[\frac{C}{\left(C+A+B\right)}\right]\times 100\)

Where C is the number species common between AGV and SSB, A, the number
of species found only in the AGV and B, the number of species found only
in the SSB.

We also estimated the mean canopy surface of our shrubs on ground and
the height of each individual shrub using metal tape measure.

\textbf{Data statistical analysis}

Firstly, normality of data (SSB density, species richness, diversity
indices and similarity between AGV and SSB) was examined using the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and homogeneity of variance using Levene's test.
Total seed density was transformed toto meet the normal distribution. To
evaluate the effect of shrub species on SSB properties one-way ANOVA and
LSD mean comparison tests were used. All statistical analyses were
performed in the SPSS software ver. 16.

\textbf{Results}

\textbf{Soil seed bank composition}

A total of 118 species were found in the SSB and AGV. 55 species were
present in SSB while they were absent in the AGV and 53 species were
present in the AGV while absent in the SSB (Appendix 1).

In total, 2316 seedlings of 67 species (22 families) were germinated in
soil samples: 910 seedlings belonging to 28 species in \emph{A.
scoparia} patch, 661 seedlings belonging to 30 species in \emph{D.
mezereum} patch, 637 seedlings belonging to 45 species in \emph{E.
stellata} patch and 108 seedlings belonging to 23 species in herbaceous
patch (control). There were 12 species, common in four patches. The
germinated seeds of \emph{A. scoparia} shrub was observed in the
greenhouse while seeds of \emph{D. mezereum} and \emph{E.
stellata}shrubs were absent in the SSB. Most observed species in SSB
belonged to Asteraceae (12 species, 17.91\% of total species), Poaceae
(9 species, 13.43\% of total species) and Lamiacea (9 species, 13.43\%
of total species), respectively (Appendix 1).

\textbf{Variation of soil seed bank characteristics under the shrubs}

The ANOVA results showed that the highest and lowest values of SSB
densities were found under \emph{A. scoparia} (1133 seeds
/m\textsuperscript{2}) and control (110 seeds /m\textsuperscript{2}),
respectively (df = 3, F = 3.56 and p\textless{}0.05) (Fig. 3). The
highest and lowest species number of SSB were observed under \emph{E.
stellata} (8.26 species per samples) and control (3.13 species per
samples), respectively (df = 3, F = 6.41 and P\textless{}0.01) (Fig. 4).
In addition, the results showed that the highest and lowest values of
Shannon-Wiener diversity index were observed beneath of \emph{E.
stellata} and control with 1.06 and 0.83, respectively (df = 3, F = 3.32
and P\textless{}0.05) (Fig. 5). The highest and lowest values of Simpson
diversity indices were found under canopy of \emph{E. stellata} (0.75)
and the control (0.44), respectively (df = 3, F = 5.02 and
P\textless{}0.01) (Fig. 5). The highest values of similarity between SSB
and AGV were found under three shrubs (18\% to 19\%) and the lowest was
observed in the control (8\%) (df = 3, F = 15.11 and P\textless{}0.01)
(Fig. 6).

In addition, the mean surface of shrub canopies on ground was ca. 7.5
m\textsuperscript{2}, 5.5 m\textsuperscript{2} and 4.00
m\textsuperscript{2} for \emph{A. scoparia, D. mezerum} and \emph{E.
stellata} , respectively, and amongst three shrubs, \emph{A.
scoparia}had the highest mean height with ca. 3.5 m comparing with
\emph{D. mezerum} and \emph{E. stellata} with ca. 2.60 m and ca. 1.83 m,
respectively

\textbf{Discussion}

Our results showed that among 22 plant families in SSB, the highest
number of species belonged to Asteraceae. Previous studies showed that
these plants were also widely present in the SSB (e.g. Gomaa et al.,
2012). One of the possible reasons for the increase of these plants in
SSB is the abundant seed production and morphological characteristics of
the seeds. Species of Asteraceae with small seed size and wing shape,
light and easy dispersal provide conditions for the presence of their
seeds in the SSB (Harper, 1977; Hong et al., 2012). Forbs were the most
abundant plants in the SSB composition. Our results showed that number
of forb species was higher (33, 27, 24 and 17 species beneath \emph{E.
stellata} , \emph{D. mezareum} , \emph{A. scoparia} and control,
respectively) than grasses (6, 7, 5 and 5 species beneath \emph{E.
stellata} , \emph{D. mezareum} , \emph{A. scoparia} and control,
respectively) in the study area. In accordance with the results of our
study, Bertiller et al. (2011), Parlak et al. (2011) and Tessema et al.
(2012) reported that forbs had the highest number of species in SSB.
Higher number of forbs in the AGV might be a reason for increasing the
seeds of these species in the SSB. In contrast, woody plant species
(trees and shrubs) were scarcely found in the greenhouse. Although,
Teketay and Granstrom (1997) and Chaideftou et al. (2009) attributed the
lack of woody species in the SSB to the lack of mature species in the
AGV, in our study, this cannot be the reason because woody species in
the AGV were frequent. Many factors are involved in reducing the density
and richness of woody species in the SSB in an area. These could include
the larger size of the seeds, the higher amount of predations and seed
dormancy (Esmailzadeh et al., 2011). Some studies have shown that
breaking seed dormancy of woody plants requires special conditions and
if these conditions are not provided, these plants will eventually be
removed from the SSB (Chaideftou et al., 2009).

In general, this study showed that the SSB density and species richness
and diversity under the shrubs was higher than control and this
differentiation was more pronounced for forbs. Previous studies (e.g.
Marone et al., 2004) showed that the seed density of forbs were often
higher under woody plants and positively correlated with the cover of
woody vegetation, whereas the seed density of grasses were less
associated by woody vegetation. Our results are consistent with some
previous studies (e.g. Erfanzadeh et al., 2014) and disagree with others
(e.g. Mndela et al., 2020). Positive effects of shrubs on SSB are
exerted through direct and indirect ways. They increase buried seeds in
soil by directly trapping seeds or by indirect mechanisms through an
intermediary animal or plant species (Bullock and Moy, 2004; Giladi et
al., 2013). Shrubs significantly influence the movement wind or water
around their canopy (Hoffman et al., 2013) and thus can trap seeds or
act as barrier for movement (Giladi et al., 2013). Shrubs can indirectly
facilitate seed arrival by acting as a perching site for seed-carrying
birds (Debussche and Isenmann, 1994) or as cache for granivorous rodents
(Beck and van der Wall, 2010) and ants (Vergara-Torres et al., 2018).
Additionally, shrubs can indirectly increase SSB by facilitating the
plants that are able to increase seed production or viability and
vigority of produced seeds (Pugnaire and Lazaro, 2000). Shrubs provide a
suitable conditions for growing, flowering and seeding of herbaceous
plants under their canopies through modifying the physical and chemical
properties of soil with litter and root exudation, improving soil
micro-relief, decreasing direct sunlight, increasing soil moisture,
protecting the surface soil from erosion and adding organic matter into
the soil (Ruiz et al., 2008; Barness et al., 2009; Olvera-Carrillo et
al., 2009; Li et al., 2011; Sylvain and Wall, 2011; Garcia-Sanchez et
al., 2012).

However, different effects of different shrubs on SSB characteristics
were observed in increasing SSB density under the canopy of \emph{A.
scoparia} and species richness and diversity under the canopy of\emph{E.
stellata.} Previous studies showed that the size of a shrub could impact
the arrival of seeds (Pugnaire and Lazaro, 2000) because larger shrubs
can provide greater facilitative effects. Larger shrubs can intercept
more solar radiation (Maestre and Cortina, 2005), have higher soil
nutrients (Zhang et al., 2015), or lower evapotranspiration (Kidron and
Gutschick, 2013) creating a favourable microclimate for seed production,
particularly by annuals (Filazzola et al., 2019). As a result, comparing
to the other shrubs, taller and larger canopy in\emph{A. scoparia} might
increase SSB density through higher seed production by plants. The seeds
of some annuals were found at strong frequent under \emph{A. scoparia} ,
i.e. \emph{Bromus tectorum} ,\emph{Galium aparine} and \emph{Veronica
anagalis} . However, procumbent canopy in \emph{E. stellata} might
increase species diversity and richness of SSB. It might be that
attached crown cover to the ground in\emph{E. stellata} physically
obstruct more seeds and enhance species diversity and richness in SSB.
Our results showed that the seeds of many species were found under
\emph{E. stellata} , while they were absent in control or under other
shrubs, e.g. \emph{Polygonum dumosum} , \emph{Poa sinaica} ,
\emph{Tragopogon jezdianus} and \emph{Dianthus orientalis}
,\emph{Tianthus crinitus} . Briefly, indirect effect of \emph{A.
scoparia}on seed production of few plant species (some annuals) and
direct effect of \emph{E. stellata} on seed trapping of many species
resulted these significant differences of SSB density, species richness
and diversity between shrubs.

Similarity between the seed bank and the AGV was generally low in three
shrubs and control. The low similarity between the AGV and the SSB in
our and other studies is usually due to the fact that some species were
present in the vegetation, while they were absent from the seed bank,
and vice versa (e.g. Valkoa et al., 2014; Erfanzadeh et al., 2016).
However, the similarity between the AGV and the SSB was lowest in the
control. In this area, many species, such as \emph{Acantholimon
scorpius} and \emph{Ebenus stellata} , were absent from the seed bank
while they were present in the AGV. Most of these species were
perennial, and these, especially shrubby ones, are well-known for their
transient seed bank (Thompson et al., 1997). Moreover some annuals such
as \emph{Bromus tectorum} and \emph{Galium aparine} were found in the
SSB in control and under three shrubs. These species were present in the
AGV under the shrubs while absent in the AGV of control. At the sampling
time, some annuals in the AGV might be grazed or dried and ended their
phenological stages in the control due to higher availability to grazers
or solar radiation, temperature and wind speed comparing with under the
canopies of shrubs.

\textbf{Conclusions}

AGV in the present study area suffers from human activities as over
grazing and collection of plants for medicinal purposes. This may lead
to habitat degradation and vegetation destruction in some part of the
area. Knowledge of the SSB and its temporal and spatial variation is a
useful tool for conservation and restoration efforts. This study showed
that shrubs played an important role in restoring of herbaceous seeds
under their canopies. However, the extent to which shrubs affects SSB
characteristics is dependent on the species of shrub and the type of SSB
characteristics. These different roles of shrubs on SSB are advised to
be considered in restoration of areas through conservation of native
shrubs in the semiarid regions. Highest SSB density under the canopy
of\emph{A. scoparia} with its potential in medical and grazing uses
increase the priority of using for degraded site restoration by this
shrub species. In addition, although \emph{E. stellata} has a low or
intermediate palatability for grazers, it can be of priority for
rangeland improvement if plant diversity conservation is of priority for
the manager.

\textbf{Acknowledgments}

We would like to acknowledge the Iranian University of Tarbiat Modares
for technical and financial support.

\textbf{References}

Bakker HG.1989. Ecology of Soil Seed Banks. Academic Press, Inc. San
Diego.462 pp.

Barness G, Zaragoza SR, Shmueli I, Steinberger Y. 2009. Vertical
distribution of a soil microbial community as affected by plant
ecophysiological adaptation in a desert system. \emph{Microbial
Ecology}\textbf{57} :36-49.

Beck MJ, van der Wall SB. 2010. Seed dispersal by scatter-hoarding
rodents in arid environments. \emph{Journal of Ecology}\textbf{98}
:1300-1309.

Bertiller M B, Ares J. 2011. Does Sheep Selectivity Along Grazing Paths
Negatively Affect Biological Crusts and Soil Seed Banks in Arid
Shrublands? A Case Study in the Patagonian Monte,
Argentina.\emph{Journal of Environmental Management} \textbf{92}
:2091-2096.

Bullock JM, Moy IL. 2004. Plants as seed traps: inter-specific
interference with dispersal. \emph{Acta Oecologica} \textbf{25} :35-41.

Chaideftou E, Thanos CA, Bergmeier E, Kallimanis A, Dimopoulos P. 2009.
Seed Bank Composition and Above-Ground Vegetation in Response to Grazing
in sub-Mediterranean Oak Forests (NW Greece). \emph{Plant
Ecology}\textbf{201} : 255-265.

Chernov T I, Tkhakakhova AK, Kutovaya OV. 2015. Assessment of diversity
indices for the characterization of the soil prokaryotic community by
meta-genomic analysis. \emph{Eurasian Soil Science} \textbf{48}
:410-415.

Debussche M, Isenmann P. 1994. Bird-dispersed seed rain and seedling
establishment in patchy Mediterranean vegetation.
\emph{Oikos}\textbf{69} :414-426.

Dreber N, Esler KJ. 2011. Spatial-Temporal Variation in Soil Seed Banks
under Contrasting Grazing Regimes Following Low and High Seasonal
Rainfall in Arid Namibia, \emph{Journal of Arid Environments}\textbf{13}
:174-184.

Erfanzadeh R, Shahbazian R, Zali H. 2014. Role of plant patches in
preserving flora from the soil seed bank in an overgrazed high-mountain
habitat in northern Iran. \emph{Journal of Agricultural Sciences and
Technology} \textbf{16} :229-238

Erfanzadeh R, Kamali P, Ghelichnia H, Petillon J. 2016. Effect of
grazing removal on aboveground vegetation and soil seed bank composition
in sub-alpine grasslands of northern Iran. \emph{Plant Ecology and
Diversity} \textbf{9} :309-320.

Esmailzadeh O, Hosseini S, Tabari M. 2011. Relationship Between Soil
Seed Bank and Above-Ground Vegetation of a Mixed-deciduous Temperate
Forest in Northern Iran. \emph{Journal of Agricultural Science and
Technology} \textbf{2} :399-409.

Funk FA, Loydi A, Peter G, Distel RA. 2019. Effect of grazing and
drought on seed bank in semiarid patchy rangelands of northern
Patagonia, Argentina. \emph{International Journal of Plant
Sciences}\textbf{180} :337-344

Garcia-Ruiz JM, Nadal-Romero E, Lana-Renault N, Begueria S. 2013.
Erosion in Mediterranean landscapes: changes and future
challenges.\emph{Geomorphology} \textbf{198} :20-36

Garcia-Sanchez R, Camargo-Ricalde SL, Garcia-Moya E, Luna-Cavazos M,
Romero-Manzanares A, Manuel Montano N. 2012. \emph{Prosopis
laevigata}and \emph{Mimosa biuncifera} (Leguminosae), jointly influence
plant diversity and soil fertility of a Mexican semiarid
ecosystem.\emph{Revista de Biologia Tropical} \textbf{60} :87-103

Giladi I, Segoli M, Ungar ED. 2013. Shrubs and herbaceous seed flow in a
semi-arid landscape: dual functioning of shrubs as trap and
barrier.\emph{Journal of Ecology} \textbf{101} :97-106.

Gomaa NH, 2012. Soil Seed Bank in Different Habitats of the Eastern
Desert of Egypt. Saudi. \emph{Journal of Biological Sciences}\textbf{19}
:211-220.

Gravand J, Hosseini SM, Ahmadi K, Avoili A, Ahmadi AR. 2016.
Investigation of the structure of \emph{Pistacia atlantica} masses in
enclosed and non-enclosed areas (Protected Region of Bagh Shad in
Yazd).\emph{Natural Ecosystems of Iran} \textbf{7} :89-102.

Harper JV. 1997. Papulation Biology of Plant. Academic Press, Ny,
pp.83-110.

Hoffman O, Yizhaq H, Boeken BR. 2013. Small-scale effects of annual and
woody vegetation on sediment displacement under field
conditions.\emph{Catena} \textbf{109} :157-163.

Hong J, Liu Sh, Shi G, Zhang Y. 2012. Soil Seed Bank Techniques for
Restoring Wetland Vegetation Diversity in Yeyahu
Wetland.\emph{Ecological Engineering} \textbf{5} : 192-202.

Keesstra S, Pereira P, Novara A, Brevik EC, Azorin-Molina C,
Parras-Alcantara L, Jordan A, Cerda A. 2016. Effects of soil management
techniques on soil water erosion in apricot orchards. \emph{Science of
the Total Environment} \textbf{551} :357-366

Kent M, Coker P. 1994. Vegetation description and analysis. A practical
approach. Wiley, Chichester. UK.

Kidron GJ, Gutschick VP. 2013. Soil moisture correlates with
shrub--grass association in the Chihuahuan Desert.
\emph{Catena}\textbf{107} :71-79.

Li C, Li Y, Ma J. 2011. Spatial heterogeneity of soil chemical
properties at fine scales induced by \emph{Haloxylon
ammodendron}(Chenopodiaceae) plants in a sandy desert. \emph{Ecological
Research}\textbf{26} :385-394

Lortie CJ, Gruber E, Filazzola A, Noble T, Westphal M. 2017. The Groot
effect: plant facilitation and desert shrub regrowth following extensive
damage. Ecology and Evolution. \textbf{8} :706-715.

Maestre FT, Cortina J. 2005. Remnant shrubs in Mediterranean semi-arid
steppes: effects of shrub size, abiotic factors and species identity on
understorey richness and occurrence. \emph{Acta Oecologica}\textbf{27}
:161-169.

Marone L, Cueto VR, Milesi FA, Lopez de Casenave J. 2004. Soil Seed Bank
Composition Over Desert Microhabitats, Patterns and Plausible
Mechanisms, \emph{Canadian} \emph{Journal of Botany}\textbf{20}
:1809-1816.

Miller, G.R., Cummins RP. 2003. Soil seed banks of woodland, heathland,
grassland, mire and montane communities, Cairngorm Mountains,
Scotland.\emph{Plant Ecology} \textbf{168} :255-266.

Mndela M, Madakadze CI, Nherera-Chokuda F, Dube S. 2020. Is the soil
seed bank a reliable source for passive restoration of bush-cleared
semi-arid rangelands of South Africa? \emph{Ecological
Processes}\textbf{9} :1.https://doi.org/10.1186/s13717-019-0204-6.

Mohammed SA, Denboba MA. 2020. Study of soil seed banks in ex-closures
for restoration of degraded lands in the central Rift Valley of
Ethiopia. \emph{Scientific Reports} \textbf{10} :956.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-57651-1.

Mozafarian M. 2012. Recognition of Medicinal and Aromatic Herbs in Iran,
Moaser Publisher, Iran.

Mussa M, Ebro A, Nigatu L. 2016. Impact of woody plants species on soil
phsico-chemical properties along grazing gradients in rangelands of
eastern Ethiopia. \emph{Tropical and Subtropical
Agroecosystems}\textbf{19} :343-355.

Niknam P, Erfanzadeh R, Ghelichnia H, Cerda A. 2018. Spatial Variation
of Soil Seed Bank under Cushion Plants in a Subalpine Degraded
Grassland. \emph{Land Degradation and Development} \textbf{29} :4-14.

Olvera-Carrillo Y, Mendez I, Sanchez-Coronado ME, Marquez-Guzman J,
Barradas VL, Huante P, Orozco-Segovia A. 2009. Effect of environmental
heterogeneity on field germination of \emph{Opuntia
tomentosa}(Cactaceae, Opuntioideae) seeds. \emph{Journal of Arid
Environments}\textbf{73} :414-420.

Parlak AO, Gokkus A, Demiray HC. 2011. Soil Seed Bank and Aboveground
Vegetation in Grazing Lands of Southern Marmara, Turkey. \emph{Notulae
Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca} \textbf{39} :96.

Pugnaire F, Lazaro R. 2000. Seed bank and understorey species
composition in a semi-arid environment: the effect of shrub age and
rainfall. Annals of Botany \textbf{86} :807-813.

Ruiz TG, Zaragoza SR, Cerrato RF. 2008. Fertility islands
around\emph{Prosopis laevigata} and \emph{Pachycereus hollianus} in the
drylands of Zapotitlan Salinas, Mexico. \emph{Journal of Arid
Environments} \textbf{72} :1202-1212

Shang ZH, Yang SH, Wang YL, Shi JJ, Ding LM, Long RJ. 2016. Soil seed
bank and its relation with above-ground vegetation along the degraded
gradients of alpine meadow. \emph{Ecological Engineering}\textbf{90}
:268-277.

Sorkheh K, Kiani S, Sofo A. 2016. Wild almond (\emph{Prunus scoparia}L.)
as potential oilseed resource for the future: Studies on the variability
of its oil content and composition. \emph{Food Chemistry}\textbf{212}
:58-64.

Sylvain ZA, Wall DH. 2011. Linking soil biodiversity and vegetation:
implications for a changing planet. \emph{American Journal of
Botany}\textbf{98} :517-527.

Teketay D, Granstrom A. 1997. Seed Viability of Afromontane Tree Species
in Forest Soils. \emph{Journal of Tropical Ecology} \textbf{13} :81-95.

Tessema ZK, de Boer WF, Baars RM, Prins HH. 2012. Influence of grazing
on soil seed banks determines the restoration potential of aboveground
vegetation in a semi\selectlanguage{english}-arid Savanna of Ethiopia.
\emph{Biotropica}\textbf{44} :211-219.

Thompson K, Bakker JP, Bekker RM. 1997. The soil seed bank of North West
Europe: methodology, density and longevity. CUP, Cambridge University
Press.

Valkoa O, Tothmereszb B, Kelemen A, Simon E, Miglecz T, Lukacsc BA,
Torok P. 2014. Environmental factors driving seed bank diversity in
alkali grasslands. \emph{Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment}\textbf{182} :80-87.

Vergara-Torres CA, Corona-Lopez AM, Diaz-Castelazo C, Toledo-Hernandez
VH, Flores-Palacios A.~2018. Effect of seed removal by ants on the
host-epiphyte associations in a tropical dry forest of central
Mexico.\emph{AoB PLANTS} 10: ply056; doi: 10.1093/ aobpla/ply056

Wardle DA, Zackrisson O. 2005. Effects of species and functional group
loss on island ecosystem properties. \emph{Nature} \textbf{435} :806-810

Yang, X., Williams M. 2015. Landforms and processes in arid and
semi-arid environments. \emph{Catena} \textbf{134} :1-3.

Zhang G, Yang Q, Wang X, Zhao W. 2015. Size-related change
in\emph{Nitraria sphaerocarpa} patches shifts the shrub-annual
interaction in an arid desert, northwestern China. \emph{Acta
Oecologica}\textbf{69} : 121-128.

Zuazo VHD, Pleguezuelo CRR. 2008. Soil-erosion and runoff prevention by
plant covers. A review. \emph{Journal of Sustainable
Agriculture}\textbf{28} :65-86

\textbf{Figures Captions}

\textbf{Fig. 1.} Geographical location of the study area and fifteen
sites in which all three shrub species were found closed to each other
in each site.

\textbf{Fig. 2.} Sampling areas had three shrub species
of\emph{Amygdalus scoparia} (A), \emph{Daphne mezereum} (B)
and\emph{Ebenus stellata} (C) that formed woody patches in the
surrounding herbaceous vegetation, used as control (D) for comparing
soil seed bank density and composition, Chenarnaz rangelands, Yazd
province, Iran (30deg 03\selectlanguage{english}' 51\selectlanguage{english}" N - 30deg 05\selectlanguage{english}' 89\selectlanguage{english}" N; 53deg 00\selectlanguage{english}' 16\selectlanguage{english}" E - 54deg 01\selectlanguage{english}'
23\selectlanguage{english}" E).

\textbf{Fig. 3.} Mean densities (+-SE) of seeds that germinated under
three shrubs (\emph{Amygdalus scoparia} , \emph{Daphne mezereum}
and\emph{Ebenus stellata} ) and herbaceous vegetation, Chenarnaz
Rangelands, Yazd province, Iran. Lower case letters indicate
statistically significant differences (\emph{P} \textless{}0.05) among
patch types.

\textbf{Fig. 4.} Mean species richness (+- SE) of germinants under three
shrubs (\emph{Amygdalus scoparia} , \emph{Daphne mezereum}
and\emph{Ebenus stellata} ) and herbaceous vegetation, Chenarnaz
Rangelands, Yazd province, Iran. Lower case letters indicate
statistically significant differences (\emph{P} \textless{}0.05) among
patch types.

\textbf{Fig. 5} . Mean (+- SE) Shannon and Simpson diversity indices
under three shrubs (\emph{Amygdalus scoparia} , \emph{Daphne mezereum}
and\emph{Ebenus stellata} ) and herbaceous vegetation, Chenarnaz
Rangelands, Yazd province, Iran. Lower case letters indicate
statistically significant differences (\emph{P} \textless{}0.05) among
patch types.

\textbf{Fig. 6.} Mean (+- SE) Jaccard similarity index between soil seed
bank and above-ground vegetation under three shrubs (\emph{Amygdalus
scoparia} , \emph{Daphne mezereum} and \emph{Ebenus stellata} ) and
herbaceous vegetation, Chenarnaz Rangelands, Yazd province, Iran. Lower
case letters indicate statistically significant differences (\emph{P}
\textless{}0.05) among patch types.

\textbf{Appendix. 1.} Average soil seed bank density of each species
under the canopy of each shrub (the digits). *presence of the species in
the above-ground vegetation.\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lllllll@{}}
\toprule
Species & Family & Growth habit & Seed density (seeds per
m\textsuperscript{2}) & Seed density (seeds per m\textsuperscript{2}) &
Seed density (seeds per m\textsuperscript{2}) & Seed density (seeds per
m\textsuperscript{2})\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
& & & \emph{Amygdalus} \emph{Scoparia} & \emph{Daphne} \emph{Mezareum} &
\emph{Ebenus} \emph{Stellata} & Control\tabularnewline
\emph{Acantholimon} sp. & Plumbaginaceae & Shrub & 0* & 0* & 0* &
0*\tabularnewline
\emph{Acantholimon scorpius} L. & Plumbaginaceae & Shrub & 0* & 0* & 0*
& 0*\tabularnewline
\emph{Acanthophyllum} \emph{spinosum} C. A. \emph{May} & Caryophyllaceae
& Shrub & 0* & 0* & 0* & 0*\tabularnewline
\emph{Aegopordon berardioides} Boiss. & Asteraceae & Forb & 0* & 0* & 0*
& 0*\tabularnewline
\emph{Allium inutiflorum} Regel. & Liliaceae & Forb & 0 & 0* & 0* &
18.67\tabularnewline
\emph{Allium} sp. & Liliaceae & Forb & 74.71* & 93.39* & 112.07* &
18.67\tabularnewline
\emph{Alkanna} sp. & Boraginaceae & Forb & 0 & 0 & 18.67 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Alyssum marginatum} L. & Brassicaceae & Forb & 0* & 0* & 0 &
0*\tabularnewline
\emph{Alyssum minus} (L.) Rothm. & Brassicaceae & Forb & 0* & 18.67* &
18.67 & 0*\tabularnewline
\emph{Alyssum} sp. & Brassicaceae & Forb & 0* & 0 & 0 &
0*\tabularnewline
\emph{Amygdalus lycioides} Spach. & Rosaceae & Shrub & 0* & 0* & 0* &
0*\tabularnewline
\emph{Amygdalus scoparia} Spach. & Rosaceae & Tree & 149.42* & 18.67* &
18.67* & 0*\tabularnewline
\emph{Angelonia} sp. & Plantaginaceae & Forb & 0 & 0* & 0 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Arrhenathrum kotschyi} Boiss & Poaceae & Grass & 0 & 18.67 & 18.67
& 0\tabularnewline
\emph{Artemisia aucheri} Boiss. & Asteraceae & Shrub & 74.71* & 74.71* &
112.07* & 74.71*\tabularnewline
\emph{Astragalus albispinus} Sirj \& Born. & Papilionaceae & Forb & 0* &
0* & 0* & 0\tabularnewline
\emph{Astragalus} sp. & Papilionaceae & Forb & 0* & 37.35* & 74.71 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Astragalus spachianus} Boiss. & Papilionaceae & Forb & 0* & 0* &
0* & 0*\tabularnewline
\emph{Astragalus terrestris} Kitam. & Papilionaceae & Forb & 0* & 0* &
0* & 0*\tabularnewline
\emph{Asperula orientalis} Boiss\emph{.}~\&~Hohen\emph{.} & Rubiaceae &
Grass & 56.03 & 18.67 & 0 & 0\tabularnewline
\emph{Brassica} sp. & Bracicaceae & Forb & 0 & 0* & 0 & 0\tabularnewline
\emph{Bromus danthonia} (L.) DC. & Poaceae & Grass & 0 & 0* & 0 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Bromus tectorum} L. & Poaceae & Grass & 11057.77* & 5360.77* &
3007.26* & 149.42\tabularnewline
\emph{Bromus scoparius} L. & Poaceae & Grass & 0* & 0* & 0* &
0*\tabularnewline
\emph{Carex} sp. & Cyperaceae & Forb & 56.03 & 18.67 & 56.03 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Carthamus glaucus} M.Bieb. & Asteraceae & Forb & 74.71 & 224.144 &
597.71 & 18.67\tabularnewline
\emph{Centaurea virgate} Lamarck. & Asteraceae & Forb & 0* & 0* & 0* &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Crepis} sp. & Asteraceae & Forb & 0 & 0 & 18.67 & 0\tabularnewline
\emph{Cicer oxyodon} Boiss \& Hohen. & Fabaceae & Forb & 0 & 18.67 &
18.67 & 0\tabularnewline
\emph{Clypeola aspera} (Grauer) Turrill. & Brassicaceae & Forb & 0 & 0 &
0 & 0*\tabularnewline
\emph{Convolvulus fruticosus} L. & Convolvulaceae & Forb & 0 & 0* & 0 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Crepis sancta} L. & Astaraceae & Forb & 0* & 0 & 0 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Daphne mezereum} L. & Thymelaeaceae & Shrub & 0* & 0* & 0* &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Dianthus crinitus} Sm. & Caryophyllaceae & Forb & 0 & 0 & 37.35 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Dianthus orientalis} Beitr. & Caryophyllaceae & Forb & 0 & 0 &
18.67 & 0\tabularnewline
\emph{Dichanthiu mannulatum} (Forssk.) Stapf. & Poaceae & Grass & 0 &
280.18 & 0 & 18.67\tabularnewline
\emph{Ebenus stellata} Bioss. & Fabaceae & Shrub & 0* & 0* & 0* &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Echinophora platyloba} DC. & Thymelaeacea & Forb & 0* & 0* & 0 &
0*\tabularnewline
\emph{Erymopyrum distans} (Ledeb) Jaub & Poaceae & Grass & 653.75 &
541.68 & 1288.82 & 149.42\tabularnewline
\emph{Erysimum} sp. & Brassicaceae & Forb & 74.71 & 0 & 0 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Erodium cicutarium} L. & Geraniaceae & Forb & 0* & 0 & 0 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Erodium} sp. & Geraniaceae & Forb & 0* & 0* & 0 & 0\tabularnewline
\emph{Eryngium} sp. & Umbelliferae & Forb & 0* & 0 & 0* &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Eryngium bangai} Bioss. & Umbelliferae & Forb & 0* & 0* & 0* &
0*\tabularnewline
\emph{Festuca ovina} L. & Poaceae & Grass & 597.71 & 280.18 & 74.71 &
448.28\tabularnewline
\emph{Galium aparine} L. & Rubiaceae & Forb & 859.21* & 1064.68* &
896.57* & 74.71\tabularnewline
\emph{Hertia angustifolia} (DC.) Kuntze & Asteraceae & Forb & 0* & 0* &
0 & 0\tabularnewline
\emph{Geranium} sp. & Geraniaceae & Forb & 0* & 0* & 0 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Isatis} sp. & Brassicaceae & Forb & 0 & 0 & 18.67 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Juncus inflexus} L. & Juncaceae & Forb & 37.35 & 0 & 0 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{kochia prostrata} (L.) Schrad & Chenopodiaceae & Forb & 0 & 18.67
& 0 & 0\tabularnewline
\emph{Lactuca glaucifolia} Boiss. & Asteraceae & Forb & 0 & 37.35 & 0 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Lappula microcarpa} (Ledebour) En \& Pr & Boraginaceae & Forb & 0
& 0 & 18.67 & 18.67\tabularnewline
\emph{Linum} sp. & Linaceae & Forb & 37.35 & 18.67 & 56.03 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Lactuca lanceolate} L. & Asteraceae & Forb & 0* & 0* & 0* &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Lactuca orientalis} Boiss. & Asteraceae & Forb & 0* & 0 & 0* &
0*\tabularnewline
\emph{Lactuca serriola} L. & Asteraceae & Forb & 0 & 0 & 0* &
0*\tabularnewline
\emph{Lolium perenne} L. & Poaceae & Grass & 0* & 0 & 0 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Lolium} sp. & Poaceae & Grass & 0* & 0 & 0* & 0*\tabularnewline
\emph{Loranthus grewinkii} Boiss \& Buhse & Loranthaceae & Forb & 0 & 0*
& 0 & 0\tabularnewline
\emph{Medicago radiata} L. & Fabaceae & Forb & 0* & 0* & 0* &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Micropus} sp. & Asteraceae & Forb & 0* & 0* & 0 &
0*\tabularnewline
\emph{Myosotis} sp. & Boraginaceae & Forb & 0 & 0* & 0 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Mentha longifolia} (L.)~Huds. & Lamiaceae & Forb & 0 & 18.67 & 0 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Minuartia} \emph{decipienc} (Fenzl) Bornm. & Caryophyllaceae &
Forb & 18.67 & 0 & 18.67 & 0\tabularnewline
\emph{Marrubium vulgare} L. & Lamiaceae & Forb & 18.67* & 0 & 168.10 &
18.67\tabularnewline
\emph{Marrubium} sp. & Lamiaceae & Forb & 0 & 0 & 130.75 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Medicago sativa} L. & Fabaceae & Forb & 0 & 0 & 37.35 &
93.39\tabularnewline
\emph{Medicago} sp. & Fabaceae & Forb & 18.67 & 0 & 37.35 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Nepeta pungens} (Bunge)Benth., Lab.Gen. & Lamiaceae & Forb & 0 &
56.03 & 0 & 0\tabularnewline
\emph{Nonea mucronata} Forssk. & Chenopodiaceae & Shrub & 18.67* & 0 &
56.03* & 56.03\tabularnewline
\emph{Onopordon} sp. & Asterace & Forb & 0* & 56.03* & 0* &
0*\tabularnewline
\emph{Papaver} sp. & Papaveraceae & Forb & 0* & 0 & 0 &
18.67\tabularnewline
\emph{Paracaryum} sp. & Boraginaceae & Forb & 0* & 0 & 0* &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Peganum harmala} L. & Zygophyllaceae & Forb & 56.03 & 0 & 0 &
18.67\tabularnewline
\emph{Pistacia atlantica} Desf. & Anacardiaceae & Tree & 0 & 112.07 &
56.03 & 0\tabularnewline
\emph{Pimpinella affinis} L. & Apiaceae & Forb & 93.39 & 0 & 0 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Phlomis olivieri} Benth. & Lamiaceae & Forb & 37.35 & 37.35 &
37.35 & 0\tabularnewline
\emph{Phlomis aucheri Boiss}. & Lamiaceae & Forb & 0 & 0 & 0 &
0*\tabularnewline
\emph{Polygonum erectum} L. & Polygonaceae & Forb & 18.67 & 18.67 & 0 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Polygonum} sp. & Polygonaceae & Forb & 18.67 & 0 & 74.71 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Polygonum dumosum} Boiss & Polygonaceae & Forb & 0 & 0 & 37.35 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Poa annual} L. & Poaceae & Grass & 0* & 0 & 0 & 0*\tabularnewline
\emph{Poa sinaica} Steud. & Poaceae & Grass & 0 & 0 & 18.67 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Psathyrostachys} sp. & Poaceae & Grass & 0* & 0* & 0* &
0*\tabularnewline
\emph{Ribes iebersteinii} Berland.exDC. & Grossulariace & Tree & 18.67 &
0 & 0 & 0\tabularnewline
\emph{Scariola paradoxa} L. & Asteraceae & Forb & 0 & 18.67 & 0 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Scoriola orientalis} (Boiss.) Sojak. & Asteraceae & Forb & 0 &
18.67 & 168.10 & 37.35\tabularnewline
\emph{Scandix aucheri} Boiss. & Apiaceae & Forb & 18.67 & 37.35 & 37.35
& 149.42\tabularnewline
\emph{Scorzonera mucida} L. & Asteraceae & Forb & 37.35 & 18.67 & 18.67
& 0\tabularnewline
\emph{Senecio destontainei} L. & Asteraceae & Forb & 18.67 & 0 & 0 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Saussurea heteromalla} DC. & Asteraceae & Forb & 0 & 18.67 & 0 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Silene spergulifolia} (Willd.) M.Bieb. & Caryophyllaceae & Forb &
224.14 & 448.28 & 298.85 & 242.82\tabularnewline
\emph{Silene} sp. & Caryophyllaceae & Forb & 149.42 & 242.82 & 242.82 &
130.75\tabularnewline
\emph{Sinapis} sp. & Brassicaceae & Forb & 0 & 18.67 & 0 &
18.67\tabularnewline
\emph{Solanum nigrum} L. & Solanaceae & Forb & 168.10 & 0 & 37.35 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Scabiosa olivieri} L. & Caprifoliaceae & Forb & 0* & 0 & 0 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Schismus arabicus} Ness. & Poaceae & Forb & 0 & 0* & 0 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Scirpoides holoschoenus} L. & Cyperaceae & Forb & 0* & 0 & 0 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Scorzonera} sp. & Asteraceae & Forb & 0 & 0* & 0 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Senecio} sp. & Asteraceae & Forb & 0* & 0 & 0 & 0\tabularnewline
\emph{Stachys inflata} Benth. & Lamiaceae & Forb & 0* & 18. 67 & 0 &
0*\tabularnewline
\emph{Stellaria blatteri} Mattf. & Caryophyllaceae & Forb & 0 & 0 &
37.35 & 74.71\tabularnewline
\emph{Stipagrostis plumose} (Linn.) & Poaceae & Forb & 0 & 298.85 &
37.35 & 18.67\tabularnewline
\emph{Stipa arabica} Trin\&Ru. & Poaceae & Grass & 933.93 & 2110.69 &
2521.62 & 93.39\tabularnewline
\emph{Sterigmostemum longistylum} & Brassicaceae & Forb & 0* & 0 & 0 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Stipa barbata} Desf. & Poaceae & Grass & 0* & 0* & 0* &
0*\tabularnewline
\emph{Stipa parviflora} Desf. & Poaceae & Grass & 0* & 0 & 0* &
0*\tabularnewline
\emph{Taraxacum montanum} (C.A. Mey.) & Asteraceae & Forb & 242.82 &
485.64 & 672.43 & 0\tabularnewline
\emph{Thymus trnascaucasicus} Ronniger. & Lamiaceae & Shrub & 112.07 &
149.42 & 93.39 & 56.0\tabularnewline
\emph{Tragopogon jezdianus} L. & Asteraceae & Forb & 0 & 0 & 18.67 &
0\tabularnewline
\emph{Valerianella oxyrhynchus} & Valerianaceae & Forb & 0* & 0* & 0* &
0*\tabularnewline
\emph{Veronica anagallis} L. & Plantaginaceae & Forb & 971.29 & 0 &
541.68 & 0\tabularnewline
\emph{Ziziphora clinopodioids} Lam. & Lamiaceae & Shrub & 18.67 & 0 & 0
& 0\tabularnewline
\emph{Ziziphora tenuior} L. & Lamiaceae & Forb & 0* & 0* & 0* &
18.67*\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Fig/Fig}

\end{center}
\end{figure}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Fih/Fih}

\end{center}
\end{figure}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Fii/Fii}

\end{center}
\end{figure}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Fij/Fij}

\end{center}
\end{figure}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Fik/Fik}

\end{center}
\end{figure}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Fil/Fil}

\end{center}
\end{figure}

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

