Skip to main content
PMC home page
Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences logoLink to Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences
. 2016 Dec 24;25(6):1022–1026. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2016.12.015

Vegetation and condition of arid rangeland ecosystem in Central Saudi Arabia

SR Al-Rowaily a,⁎, AM Assaeed a, SA Al-Khateeb b, AA Al-Qarawi a, FS Al Arifi c
PMCID: PMC6116818  PMID: 30174497

Abstract

Saudi Arabia rangeland ecosystems have undergone intense processes of degradation for many decades because of extreme climate and human activities such as overgrazing and socioeconomic changes. In this study, Hail and Qassim Regions of Saudi Arabia covering an area about 79610.73 km2 were selected to study the rangeland vegetation and condition. Haloxylon salicornicum was the most dominant species, covering more than 56% of the total area. The second prominent community was Acacia-Lycium shawii, which covers about 21% of total area. It was found that about 65% of vegetation in the surveyed area is in good or very good condition compared with about 31% in poor or deteriorated condition. Effective measures such as determination of carrying capacities and development of grazing systems have to be implemented to ensure resources sustainably.

Keywords: Arid ecosystems, Vegetation communities, Haloxylon salicornicum, Saudi Arabia, Hail, Qassim

1. Introduction

Saudi Arabia occupies about 80 percent of the Peninsula (Abd El Rahman, 1986). In general, most of the country can be classified as an arid land ecosystem characterized by unpredictable and low-erratic precipitation and high temperatures (Shmida, 1985). High rainfall variability is the norm between and within years. Mean annual temperature of Saudi Arabia is about 20 °C (De Pauw, 2002). Rangelands of Saudi Arabia occur mainly in arid and hyper-arid regions that cover about 75% of the country (Al-Rowaily, 1999). These rangelands differ functionally because of differences in the spatial and temporal distribution of vegetation structure, soil and climate of each region. (Chaudhary and Le Houérou, 2006). Livestock grazing (mainly sheep, camels, and goats) is the prevalent form of land use in rangelands (Al-Rowaily, 1999, Al-Rowaily, 2003). Despite the relatively low productivity, rangeland ecosystems benefits derived from them are becoming increasingly recognized. These include watershed management (Al-Saud, 2009), wildlife conservation (Abuzinada, 2003) and eco-tourism (Seddon, 2000).

In the interior of Saudi Arabia, there were relatively very rich stands of communities of Haloxylon salicornicum and Rhanterium epapposum. The same areas now support dense stands of unpalatable shrubs or herbs such Rhazya stricta, Pulicaria undulata and Astragalus spinosus (Chaudhary and Le Houérou, 2006). Acacia woodlands cover extensive patches of wadi runnels and localized plain areas. The major species are the Acacia tortilis, Acacia ehrenbergiana and Leptadenia pyrotechnica. Woodland understory host several species of low shrubs, grasses, and annual and perennial herbs. This vegetation complex forms the major rangelands resources for livestock (Chaudhary and Le Houérou, 2006, Ghazanfar and Fisher, 2013).

Relatively low productivity per unit area with a high proportion of bare ground is a characteristic of these fragile rangelands. For example, Bayoumi (1986) estimated that 260 ha of rangelands are required per annum to support one camel. Earlier, Kingery (1971) had estimated that over two thirds of rangelands of Saudi Arabia had been destroyed by overgrazing and tree and shrub cutting for. By 1985, is was estimated that 75% of the whole country was seriously degraded due to destruction of the natural vegetation (Anon, 1985). Rapid social and economic changes during the past few decades, led to heavy and prolonged pressure on rangeland ecosystems. Overgrazing, fuelwood cutting and cultivation pressure brought intense processes of environmental degradation to nearly all of the rangelands in Saudi Arabia (Heady, 1963, Batanouny, 1991, Al-Rowaily, 2003, Chaudhary, 2010, Dregne, 2002, El-Keblawy et al., 2009). Increased human activity tends to over-stress land and vegetation which has increased steadily across the entire Arabian Peninsula leading to resources degradation, salinization, and erosion (Kingery, 1971, Khan, 1982, Hellden, 1991, Oatham et al., 1995, Ghazanfar, 2003, Kharbotly et al., 2003, Geist and Lambin, 2004). The result has been a drastic reduction of species diversity, density, composition and reduction of plant cover (Barth, 1999, Al-Rowaily, 1999). Several works describing the natural vegetation of Saudi Arabia are published (e.g. Miller and Cope, 1996, Kürschner, 1998, El-Ghanim et al., 2010, Watts and Al-Nafie, 2013). However, most of these studies were more generalized and lack details. The current study aimed to describe vegetation and asses the current condition of rangelands at Hail-Qassim region in Central Saudi Arabia.

2. Materials and methods

Natural vegetation in Hail and Qassim regions of Saudi Arabia was studied covering a total area of about 79610.73 km2. The area is located between 44° 30′–48° E and 24° 15′–28° 45′ N (Fig. 1). The two regions are characterized by several landscape units, such as isolated mountains (e.g. Aja, Salma, Abanat) plains, escarpments, wadis and sand dunes (Chapman, 1978).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Study area with field distribution of vegetation stands.

For rangeland assessment, SPOT 2 and 4 satellite imageries produced in 2004 were used. These images were utilized for initial reconnaissance and later to produce vegetation maps. Sampling sites were selected (to not more than 20 km a part) and stratified to accommodate heterogeneity of small microhabitats of the landscape. A total of 207 stands was selected in a relatively homogeneous area in terms of topography, and vegetation. Three transects placed in each stand measuring 100 m long where five quadrates (5 m × 5 m) systematically placed at 20 m intervals along the transect lines, 25 m2 each, with a total of 15 subplots in each stand.

Data recorded in each site included topography, soil erosion, plant species, and type of grazing animals. In addition, vegetation attributes were estimated in each quadrate included percent species cover, density and frequency (Bonham, 1989). Vegetation cover percentage was given a value using the Domin cover scales (Kent and Coker, 1992). The main dominant communities in each site were inferred from the calculated importance values. Importance value for perennial plants were calculated by summing up relative density, relative percent cover and relative frequency. Finally, rangeland condition was classified and given scale according to the method of Soil Conservation Service (now Natural Resources Conservation Service) as described by to Holechek et al. (1998). This method combines some features of both soil and vegetation attributes along a continuum of classes from excellent to deteriorated condition (Pieper and Beck, 1990).

3. Results and discussion

Haloxylon salicornicum is the most recurrent species and vegetation community which was found in over a large area (Table 1). This community was distributed all-over the surveyed area except the northern part (Fig. 2). It is not unexpected to note that H. salicornicum occupies such a large area as Watts and Al-Nafie (2013) stated that it is extensively distributed in several habitats throughout the deserts of Saudi Arabia. Further, having low palatability to livestock and broad ecological niches, H. salicornicum would have an advantage over other palatable species due to the reduced competition for water and nutrients (Belgacem and Louhaichi, 2013). The second prominent community was Acacia-Lycium shawii community (Fig. 2, Table 1). It is dominated by A. ehrenbergiana, A. tortilis and A. gerrardii. This community was distributed in wadis mostly in the northern part of the surveyed area (Fig. 2). The rest of the identified plant communities accounted for only 8.8% of the total surveyed area (Table 1).

Table 1.

Area of vegetation communities in Hail and Qassim Regions of Saudi Arabia and% from total surveyed area.

Vegetation Communities Area (km2) % of total area
Haloxylon salicornicum 47453.00 59.6
Acacia-Lycium shawii 17156.48 21.6
Haloxylon salicornicum-Lycium shawii 7973.98 10
Suaeda vermiculata 2561.75 3.2
Haloxylon salicornicum-Panicum turgidum 2445.57 3.1
Rhanterium epapposum 1147.94 1.4
Haloxylon salicornicum-Zilla spinosa 872.01 1.1
Open in a new tab

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

The main vegetation communities (a) and rangeland conditions (b) of Hail-Qassim area.

The palatable species were recorded in very low cover and density in small none reprehensive sites included such as Ziziphus nummularia, Stipagrostis plumosa, Salsola cyclophylla, Noaea mucronata, Seidlitiza rosmarinus, Suaeda vermiculata, Sasola tetrandra, and Atriplex leucoclada (data are not shown). In addition, less palatable species such as Haplophyllum tuberculatum, Fagonia bruguieri, Achillea fragrantissima, Teucrium polium and Astragalus spinosus were also recorded.

It was found that about 65% of the area surveyed is in good or very good condition. On the other hand, about 31% of the region under consideration was classified as in poor or deteriorated condition (Fig. 2, Table 2). These findings are comparable with those reported by other researchers (Abo-Hassan, 1981, Al-Rowaily et al., 2008).

Table 2.

Area of Hail and Qassim rangeland conditions and% from total area.

Range condition Area (km2) % of total area
Very good 13492.75 17
Good 38404.78 48
Fair 2796.37 3.5
Poor 5457.56 7
Deteriorated 19459.27 24.5
Open in a new tab

4. Conclusions

Saudi Arabia rangeland ecosystems have undergone intense degradation for the last few decades. Overgrazing is a common feature of Hail-Qassim rangeland. Field assessment and remote sensing analyses showed evidence of severity of rangeland ecosystem degradation. One third of the rangeland steppe is considered moderately to severely degraded. Socioeconomic and sociocultural constrains are part of factors hindering rehabilitation success. However, effective measures have to be implemented to ensure resources sustainably and restoring disturbed rangeland in these two regions. Ensuring environmental sustainability in Saudi Arabia represents a challenge for a balance between human needs and economic growth. Measures should include an interdisciplinary approach such as determination of carrying capacities and development of grazing systems socially acceptable to livestock herders with coordination among various government agencies.

Footnotes

Peer review under responsibility of King Saud University.

References

  1. Abd El Rahman A.A. The desert of the Arabian Peninsula. In: Evenari M., Noy-Meir I., Goodall D.W., editors. Ecosystems of the World, 12B, Hot Deserts and Arid Shrublands. B. Elsevier; Amserdam: 1986. pp. 29–54. [Google Scholar]
  2. Abo-Hassan A.A. Rangeland management in Saudi Arabia. Rangelands. 1981;3(2):51–53. [Google Scholar]
  3. Abuzinada A.H. The role of protected areas in conserving biological diversity in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. J. Arid Environ. 2003;54:39–45. [Google Scholar]
  4. Al-Rowaily S.L. Rangeland of Saudi Arabia and the “tragedy of commons”. Rangelands. 1999;21:27–29. [Google Scholar]
  5. Al-Rowaily S.L.R. Present condition of Rangelands of Saudi Arabia: degradation steps and management options. Arab Gulf J. Sci. Res. 2003;21(3):188–196. [Google Scholar]
  6. Al-Rowaily S.L., Al-Saud T., Al-Khateeb S.A., Al Arifi F.S., Assaeed A.M., Al-Qarawi A.A. Rangelands condition of the northern part of the eastern region of Saudi Arabia. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2008;15(3):17–32. [Google Scholar]
  7. Al-Saud M. Watershed characterization of Wadi Aurnah, Western Arabian Peninsula. J. Water Resour. Prot. 2009;1(5):316–324. [Google Scholar]
  8. Anon . Meteorological and Environmental Protection Administration; Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: 1985. The state of the environment in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Pat II. The terrestrial environment. Unpublished report. [Google Scholar]
  9. Barth H.J. Desertification in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. J. Arid Environ. 1999;43:399–410. [Google Scholar]
  10. Batanouny K.H. Vegetation of the Summan (Arabia): Pattern and Process as Affected by Human Impact and Modern Technology. IVth International Rangeland Congress, Montpellier, France. 1991;4:310–314. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bayoumi M.A. Roles of nomadism and settlement in conservation of arid and semi arid zones in some Arab countries. In: Joss P.J., Lynch P.W., Williams O.B., editors. Rangelands: A Resource Under Siege; Second International Rangeland Congress; Adelaide, South Australia, May 13-18, XV 634p. Cambridge University Press; New York, New York, USA; Cambridge, England, UK. Illus: 1986. pp. 318–319. [Google Scholar]
  12. Belgacem A.O., Louhaichi M. The vulnerability of native rangeland plant species to global climate change in the West Asia and North African regions. Climatic Change. 2013;119:451–463. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bonham C.D. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.; New York, N.Y.: 1989. Measurements for Terrestrial Vegetation. [Google Scholar]
  14. Chapman R.W. Geomorphology of Arabian Peninsula. In: Sayari A., Zotl J., editors. Quaternary Period in Saudi Arabia. Springer-Verlag; New York: 1978. pp. 19–29. [Google Scholar]
  15. Chaudhary S.A. Destructions of acacia woodlands and juniper forests in Asia and eastern Africa. Pak. J. Bot. 2010;42:259–266. [Google Scholar]
  16. Chaudhary S.A., Le Houérou H.N. The rangelands of the Arabian Peninsula. Secheresse. 2006;17(1):179–194. [Google Scholar]
  17. De Pauw Eddy. ICARDA; Aleppo, Syria: 2002. An Agroecological Exploration of the Arabian Peninsula; p. 77. [Google Scholar]
  18. Dregne H.E. Land Degradation in the Drylands. Arid Land Res. Manage. 2002;16:99–132. [Google Scholar]
  19. El-Ghanim W.M., Hassan L.M., Galal T.M., Abdelfattah Badr A. Floristic composition and vegetation analysis in Hail region north of central Saudi Arabia. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2010;17:119–128. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2010.02.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. El-Keblawy A., Ksiksi T., El Alqamy H. Camel grazing affects species diversity and community structure in the deserts of the UAE. J. Arid Environ. 2009;73:47–54. [Google Scholar]
  21. Geist H.J., Lambin E.F. Dynamic causal patterns of desertification. Bioscience. 2004;54(9):817–829. [Google Scholar]
  22. Ghazanfar S.A. vol. 25. Scripta Botanica Belgica; 2003. p. 262. (Flora of the Sultanate of Oman. Vol. 1: Piperaceae to Primulaceae). [Google Scholar]
  23. Ghazanfar S.A., Fisher M. Vol. 25. Springer Science & Business Media; 2013. (Vegetation of the Arabian Peninsula). [Google Scholar]
  24. Heady, H.F., 1963. Grazing resources and problems. A report to the Government of Saudi Arabia. FAO., Rep. No.1614, Rome.
  25. Hellden U. Desertification: time for an assessment. Ambio. 1991;20:372–381. [Google Scholar]
  26. Holechek J.L., Pieper R.D., Herbel C.H. Prentice Hall; Upper Saddle River, NJ: 1998. Range management – Principles and Practices; p. 587p. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kent M., Coker P. Belhaven Press; London: 1992. Vegetation Description and Analysis: A Practical Approach. [Google Scholar]
  28. Khan M.I.R. Management, conservation and development of agricultural resources in the United Arab Emirates. Emirates Nat. Hist. Group (Abu Dhabi) Bull. 1982;16:9–19. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kharbotly A.E., Mahgoub O., Al-Subhi A., Al-Halhali A. Indigenous grass species with potential for maintaining rangeland and livestock feeding in Oman. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2003;95:623–627. [Google Scholar]
  30. Kingery C.E. Food and Agriculture Organization; Rome: 1971. Report to the Government of Saudi Arabia on Proposals for Expanding and Improving Range, Pasture and Fodder Development and Management Program; p. 26. [Google Scholar]
  31. Kürschner H. Biogeography and introduction to vegetation. In: Ghazanfar S.A., Fisher M., editors. Vegetation of the Arabian Peninsula. Kluwer Academic Publishers; Dordrecht: 1998. pp. 63–98. [Google Scholar]
  32. Miller A.G., Cope T.A. vol. 1. Edinburgh University Press; Edinburgh: 1996. (Flora of the Arabian Peninsula & Socotra). [Google Scholar]
  33. Oatham M.P., Nicholls M.K., Swingland I.R. Manipulation of vegetation communities on the Abu Dhabi rangelands. I. The effects of irrigation and release from long-term grazing. Biodivers. Conserv. 1995;4:696–709. [Google Scholar]
  34. Pieper R.D., Beck R.F. Range condition from an ecological perspective: modifications to recognize multiple use objectives. J. Range Manage. 1990;43:550–552. [Google Scholar]
  35. Seddon P.J. Trends in Saudi Arabia: increasing community involvement and a potential role for eco-tourism. Parks. 2000;10:11–24. [Google Scholar]
  36. Shmida A. Biogeography of the desert flora. In: Evenari, editor. Hot Deserts and Arid Shrublands, A. Ecosystems of the World 12A. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.; Amsterdam, The Netherlands: 1985. pp. 23–77. [Google Scholar]
  37. Watts D., Al-Nafie A.H. Routledge Publisher; 2013. Vegetation and Biogeography of the Sand Seas of Arabia. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES