Skip to main content
Log in

Impact of sand burial on maize (Zea mays L.) productivity and soil quality in Horqin sandy cropland, Inner Mongolia, China

  • Published:
Journal of Arid Land Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Croplands are often suffering from sand burial in dry regions of northern China. For studying this phenomenon, we carried out a case study of field experiment including four sand burial levels, i.e. shallow (1–3 cm), moderate (8–12 cm) and deep (15–20 cm) sand burials, and no sand burial (control, CK), in a typical agro-pastoral transitional zone in Naiman Banner of eastern Inner Mongolia. The aim of this study was to assess the impacts of sand burial on maize (Zea mays L.) productivity and the soil quality along a gradient of burial depths. Results showed that there was a strong negative effect of sand burial on maize productivity and soil quality, which significantly declined (P<0.05) under moderate and deep sand burial treatments. In comparison with the CK, the maize yield and above-ground biomass reduced by 47.41% and 39.47%, respectively. The soil silt and clay, soil water, soil organic carbon and total nitrogen contents under deep sand burial decreased by 67.85%, 40.32%, 86.52% and 82.11%, respectively, while microbial biomass carbon, microbial abundance and enzyme activity decreased by 89.78%, 42.28%–79.66% and 69.51%–97.71%, respectively. There was no significant effect on crop productivity and soil quality with shallow sand burial treatment. The correlations analysis showed that there was significant positive correlations of both maize yield and above-ground biomass with soil silt and clay, soil organic carbon and total nitrogen contents, pH, electrical conductivity, soil water content, microbial abundance and biomass and all tested soil enzyme activities. Stepwise regression analysis indicated that soil water and total nitrogen contents, urease, cellobiohydrolase and peroxidase activities were key determining factors for maize productivity. This combination of factors explains reason of the decreased maize productivity with deep sand burial. We found that degradation of cropland as a result of sand burial changed soil physical-chemical properties and soil enzyme activities in the plow layer, and decreased overall maize productivity. Furthermore, decreased soil enzyme activity was a better indicator to predict sandy cropland degradation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acosta-Martínez V, Klose S, Zobeck T M. 2003. Enzyme activities in semiarid soils under conservation reserve program, native rangeland, and cropland. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 166(6): 699–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aon M A, Colaneri A C. 2001. II. Temporal and spatial evolution of enzymatic activities and physico-chemical properties in an agricultural soil. Applied Soil Eclogy, 18(3): 255–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bach E M, Baer S G, Meyer C K, et al. 2010. Soil texture affects soil microbial and structural recovery during grassland restoration. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 42(12): 2182–2191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böhme L, Böhme F. 2006. Soil microbiological and biochemical properties affected by plant growth and different long-term fertilisation. European Journal of Soil Biology, 42(1): 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown J F. 1997. Effects of experimental burial on survival, growth, and resource allocation of three species of dune plants. Journal of Ecology, 85(2):151–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns R G. 1978. Soil Enzymes. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapin III F S, Matson P A, Vitousek P M. 2002. Principles of Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins C H, Lyne P M, Grange J M. 1995. Microbiological Methods (7th ed.). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Degens B P, Sparling G P, Abbott L K. 1996. Increasing the length of hyphae in a sandy soil increases the amount of water-stable aggregates. Applied Soil Ecology, 3(2): 149–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garbisu C, Alkorta I, Epelde L. 2011. Assessment of soil quality using microbial properties and attributes of ecological relevance. Applied Soil Ecology, 49(1): 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García-Orenes F, Guerrero C, Roldán A, et al. 2010. Soil microbial biomass and activity under different agricultural management systems in a semiarid Mediterranean agroecosystem. Soil and Tillage Research, 109(2): 110–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomes L, Arrúe J L, López M V, et al. 2003. Wind erosion in a semiarid agricultural area of Spain: the WELSONS project. Catena, 52(3–4): 235–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Sagasti M T, Alkorta I, Becerril J M, et al. 2012. Microbial monitoring of the recovery of soil quality during heavy metal phytoremediation. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 223(6): 3249–3262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guan S Y. 1986. Research Methods on Soil Enzymes. Beijing: Chinese Agriculture Press. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennessy J T, Kies B, Gibbens R P, et al. 1986. Soil sorting by forty-five years of wind erosion on a southern New Mexico range. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 50(2): 391–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Soil Sciences, CAS. 1978. Physical and Chemical Analysis Methods of Soils. Shanghai: Shanghai Science Technology Press. (in Chinese)

  • Kandeler E, Tscherko D, Spiegel H. 1999. Long-term monitoring of microbial biomass, N mineralisation and enzyme activities of a Chernozem under different tillage management. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 28(4): 343–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlen D L, Mausbach M J, Doran J W, et al. 1997. Soil quality: A concept, definition, and framework for evaluation (a guest editorial). Soil Science Society of America Journal, 61: 4–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larney F J, Bullock M S, Janzen H H, et al. 1998. Wind erosion effects on nutrient redistribution and soil productivity. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 53(2): 133–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li F R, Zhao L Y, Zhang H, et al. 2004. Wind erosion and airborne dust deposition in farmland during spring in the Horqin Sandy Land of eastern Inner Mongolia, China. Soil and Tillage Research, 75(74): 121–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li Y Q, Han J J, Wang S K, et al. 2014. Soil organic carbon and total nitrogen storage under different land uses in the Naiman Banner, a semiarid degraded region of northern China. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 94(1): 9–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore J M, Klose S, Tabatabai M A. 2000. Soil microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen as affected by cropping systems. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 31(3–4): 200–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson D W, Sommers L E. 1982. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In: Albert L. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties. Madison: Soil Science Society of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pajares S, Gallardo J F, Masciandaro G, et al. 2011. Enzyme activity as an indicator of soil quality changes in degraded cultivated Acrisols in the Mexican Trans-volcanic Belt. Land Degradation & Development, 22(3): 373–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul B K, Vanlauwe B, Ayuke F, et al. 2013. Medium-term impact of tillage and residue management on soil aggregate stability, soil carbon and crop productivity. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 164(1): 14–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powlson D S, Prookes P C, Christensen B T. 1987. Measurement of soil microbial biomass provides an early indication of changes in total soil organic matter due to straw incorporation. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 19(2): 159–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qu H, Zhao H L, Zhou R L, et al. 2012. Effects of sand burial stress on maize (Zea mays L.) growth and physiological responses. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 6: 869–876.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schloter M, Dilly O, Munch J C. 2003. Indicators for evaluating soil quality. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 98(1–3): 255–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinsabaugh R L, Lauber C L, Weintraub M N, et al. 2008. Stoichiometry of soil enzyme activity at global scale. Ecology Letters, 11(11): 1252–1264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stenberg B. 1999. Monitoring soil quality of arable land: microbiological indicators. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B–Plant and Soil Science, 49(1): 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Su Y Z, Zhao H L, Zhao W Z, et al. 2004. Fractal features of soil particle size distribution and the implication for indicating desertification. Geoderma, 122(1): 43–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabatabai M A. 1982. Soil enzymes. In: Albert L. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties. Madison: Soil Science Society of America, 903–947.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trasar-Cepeda C, Leirós M C, Gil-Sotres F. 2000. Biochemical properties of acid soils under climax vegetation (Atlantic oakwood) in an area of the European temperate-humid zone (Galicia, NW Spain): specific parameters. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 32: 747–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vance E D, Brookes P C, Jenkinson D S. 1987. An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass C. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 19(6): 703–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wezel A, Rajot J L, Herbrig C. 2000. Influence of shrubs on soil characteristics and their function in Sahelian agro-ecosystems in semi-arid Niger. Journal of Arid Environments, 44(4): 383–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu G H, Zheng H Y. 1986. A Manual of Soil Microbial Analysis Methods. Beijing: Agriculture Press. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao H L, Zhou R L, Zhang T H, et al. 2006. Effects of desertification on soil and crop growth properties in Horqin sandy cropland of Inner Mongolia, north China. Soil and Tillage Research, 87(2): 175–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao H L, Zhou R L, Drake S. 2007a. Effects of aeolian deposition on soil properties and crop growth in sandy soils of northern China. Geoderma, 142(3–4): 342–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao H L, Zhao X Y, Zhang T H, et al. 2007b. Bioprocess of Desertification and Restoration Mechanism of Degraded Vegetation. Beijing: Science Press. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao X Y, Wang S K, Luo Y Y, et al. 2015. Toward sustainable desertification reversion: A case study in Horqin Sandy Land of northern China. Sciences in Cold and Arid Regions, 7(1): 23–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu Z D, Chen G T. 1994. Sandy Desertification in China. Beijing: Science Press. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shaokun Wang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, S., Zhao, X., Zhao, H. et al. Impact of sand burial on maize (Zea mays L.) productivity and soil quality in Horqin sandy cropland, Inner Mongolia, China. J. Arid Land 8, 569–578 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40333-016-0011-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40333-016-0011-1

Keywords

Navigation