Next Article in Journal
Measuring the Operational Efficiency and the Water Resources Management Efficiency for Industrial Parks: Empirical Study of Industrial Parks in Taiwan
Previous Article in Journal
Exploring the Individual Travel Patterns Utilizing Large-Scale Highway Transaction Dataset
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 21
10.3390/su142114200
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Variation in Row Spacing on Soil Wind Erosion, Soil Properties, and Cyperus esculentus Yield in Sandy Land

by
Yalan Liu
1,2,3,4,†,
Wei Ren
5,†,
Yue Zhao
1,2,3,4,
Xiangyi Li
1,2,3,4 and
Lei Li
1,2,3,4,*
1
Xinjiang Key Laboratory of Desert Plant Roots Ecology and Vegetation Restoration, Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Urumqi 830011, China
2
Cele National Station of Observation and Research for Desert-Grassland Ecosystem in Xinjiang, Cele 848300, China
3
State Key Laboratory of Desert and Oasis Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Urumqi 830011, China
4
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
5
Jilin Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Changchun 130124, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Sustainability 2022, 14(21), 14200; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114200
Submission received: 23 September 2022 / Revised: 23 October 2022 / Accepted: 27 October 2022 / Published: 31 October 2022
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Cyperus esculentus is highly adaptable to extremely arid conditions and functions of oil extraction and sand fixation. Numerous studies have investigated the influence of row spacing on traditional crop growth and soil physicochemical traits but have not determined how cultivation affects C. esculentus growth and soil properties. Therefore, we conducted a field experiment in a sandy land to explore the responses of the organ yields of C. esculentus, soil wind erosion, and soil properties to row spacing (30, 60, or 90 cm), and bare land was used as the control. The highest plant height, plant density, number of tillers, and organ yields were observed at 30 cm row spacing. However, the lowest degree of soil erosion was also observed at 30 cm row spacing, and the coverage of C. esculentus facilitated soil fixation and conservation. The levels of soil wind erosion in the control plot were 11.7, 3.1, and 4.9 times those at 30, 60, and 90 cm row spacing, respectively. The percentages of clay and silt increased, whereas sand particles decreased with decreasing levels of soil wind erosion. Soil texture improved, and soil nutrients and plant growth were altered. Soil nutrient concentrations, yields, and root nutrient concentrations were positively related to clay percentage and negatively related to sand particles. In addition, the microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen significantly increased in the C. esculentus treatment groups, suggesting that planting C. esculentus promotes the survival and development of microorganisms. Overall, this study indicated that planting C. esculentus can decrease the level of soil wind erosion and improve soil quality. Narrow row spacing (30 cm) has the highest crop yield and soil amelioration and produces optimal ecological and economic benefits.

1. Introduction

Desertification is one of the most serious global environmental problems and has caused soil nutrient loss and land degradation [1,2]. Maintaining plant coverage is an effective measure that reduces soil wind erosion [3] due to dust deposition and soil roughness [4,5]. In the past decades, most studies have focused on the relationships between plant coverage and soil wind erosion [4,6,7]. However, the traditional windbreak and sand-fixation species are trees and shrubs, which obviously improve the environment but have no economic benefits [8,9].
Cyperus esculentus is a widely used economic crop that can extract oil and feedstuff [10,11]. It has a developed root system, strong tillering ability, and adaptability, thereby having great potential as a windbreaker and soil stabilizer [12]. Predictably, the prospective expectations of planting C. esculentus are economic and ecological benefits. However, recent studies have mainly focused on the by-product quality, yields, and other economic benefits of C. esculentus [12,13], and the effect of windbreak and soil amelioration are rarely investigated. Therefore, studying the proper planting models of C. esculentus in the wind-sand front area may help in maximizing its ecological and economic benefits.
Optimizing row spacing is crucial to increasing crop yield and decreasing wind erosion [14,15]. Proper row spacing can ameliorate radiation, water condition, and wind flow field structure and facilitate plant growth [9,16,17,18]. Reducing row spacing can increase crop yields. For example, sugarcane yields and the N absorption rate in a 75 cm row spacing were 9.5% and 3% higher than those in a 90 cm row spacing, respectively [19]. However, many studies have shown that crop yields are higher in wide-row spacing than in narrow-row spacing because of intense interplant competition [20,21].
Soil wind erosion and soil properties are associated with plant yields and coverage [2,22]. Chen [11] showed that plant coverage is negatively related to soil erosion. Gao [23] reported that the survival and reproduction of soil microorganisms depend on soil nutrient concentration and plant biomass. Hence, the physical, chemical, and microbial properties of soil can be improved by growing plants on sandy land. However, studies about soil erosion prevention and soil amelioration have mainly focused on forests and shrubs [16,24], and crops in farmlands are rarely studied. Excessive plant biomass coverage may exacerbate soil drought and exert a negative influence on soil wind erosion [1,25]. Therefore, suitable row spacing is considered for C. esculentus to balance soil water consumption and mitigate soil wind erosion [26,27].
The southern edge of the Taklimakan Desert is one of the areas with the highest degree of desertification in China [28]. We established a field experiment in a newly cultivated sandy land to determine the most suitable row spacing for C. esculentus in terms of ecological and economic benefits. The objectives of this study were as follows: (1) to investigate the influence of row spacing on the growth of C. esculentus; (2) to explore the influence of row spacing on soil wind erosion; and (3) to assess the influence of row spacing on soil texture, nutrient concentration, and microbial biomass. This study may provide valuable insights into cultivated practices in sandy lands.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Experiment Site and Design

This experiment was conducted in TuanJie New Village in Hotan, Xin Jiang Province (81°06′18″ E, 37°25′99″ N). The mean annual air temperature was approximately 13.1 °C, the mean annual precipitation was 43.8 mm, and total evaporation was 2624.4 mm. The site belongs to a temperate continental desert climate and is a newly reclaimed sandy land.
The experimental species of C. esculentus was ‘XinKe No. 1’. Single-factor randomized experimental design using a control (bare land) and 30, 60, and 90 cm row spacing (three treatments were adapted for C. esculentus planter) were used. Each treatment had three replicates, and nine 10 m × 5 m plots were established. C. esculentus seeds were sown in the middle of June 2021, and the sowing rate was 300 kg·hm−2 in the planting treatments. Meanwhile, 300 kg·hm−2 urea (N ≥ 18%), 300 kg·hm−2 diammonium phosphate (P2O ≥ 48%) and 300 kg·hm−2 humic acid were applied as base fertilizers, and 2025 m3·hm−2 water was applied. During the plant growth period, fertilizers and water were distributed through drip irrigation. From early July to late September, fertilizers and water were added 20 times; 33.75 kg·hm−2 urea, 15 kg·hm−2 potassium sulfate (K ≥ 52%), and 187.5 m3·hm−2 water were applied each time.
A stepped sand collector was designed to measure soil wind erosion (WITSEG sampler). While the seeds were sown, a sand sampler was set in the middle of each planting plot. The sampler was 1.0 m high and sectioned into 10 openings. The leading edge was wedge shaped, and the width of the inlets was 3 cm. The width of the sand chamber was 10 cm. Each sand chamber had two screened vents connected to a vertical vent [29]. A segmented sand sampler was set in the center of each plot, and the amount of soil wind erosion was measured by the weight of sand in the sand chamber.

2.2. Sampling and Measurements

Plant, soil wind erosion, and soil samples were collected in late September 2021. Three sample points each with a buffer distance of at least 2 m were selected from each plot, and the points were 100 cm away from the boundary. Ten plants were selected randomly at one point, and plant height and tiller number were determined. Plant samples were collected at the centers of the points (0.5 m × 0.5 m) and dried at 75 °C 48 h after the removal of impurities. Dried organs were ground and sieved with a 1 mm mesh for elemental analysis after the yields were calculated. Total C and N concentrations were determined with a CN auto-analyzer (Eurovector, Milan, Italy). Total P was analyzed by Mo-Sb colorimetric method after persulfate oxidation [30].
Three points were collected from each plot randomly with a soil drilling sampler. Each point had a diameter of 2 cm and a depth of 0–20 cm. All soil samples were completely mixed into a single sample, passed through a 2 mm mesh for the removal of roots and debris, and dried at 105 °C for 48 h. Soil texture was analyzed with a top size laser particle analyzer. The pH was determined by pH meter. Soil bulk density was measured with soil cores (100 cm3). Soil organic C was tested using the potassium dichromate oxidation-heated external method. Available N concentration was determined through Kjeldahl determination. Available P was measured using the ammonium molybdate method after the samples were digested with H2SO4 [31]. The microbial biomass carbon (MBC) and microbial biomass nitrogen (MBN) were measured by the fumigation-extraction method [32].

2.3. Statistical Analysis

One-way ANOVA was used in detecting the influence of each row spacing on plant height, plant density, number of tillers, organ yields, soil wind erosion, soil texture, bulk density, pH, nutrient concentration, MBC, and MBN. The least significant difference method was used in testing significant differences among various nutrient addition rates. Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to determine the relationship between leaf and soil. R 4.0.4 software was used in all analyses, and the p of 0.05 indicated statistical significance.

3. Results

3.1. Yields and Nutrient Concentrations Response to Strip Spacing

Table 1 shows plant height in the 30 cm row spacing was 1.4 times that in the 60 and 90 cm row spacing, respectively . Plant density and number of tillers in the 30 cm row spacing were 2.3 and 1.6 times those in the 60 cm row spacing, respectively, and 2.6 and 2.1 times those in the 90 cm row spacing, respectively. The leaf yield in the 30 cm row spacing was 2.3 times that in the 60 cm row spacing and 2.3 times that in the 90 cm row spacing. Root yield in the 30 cm row spacing was 5.6 times that in the 60 cm row spacing and 6.2 times that in the 90 cm row spacing. Tuber yield in the 30 cm row spacing was 2.9 times that in the 60 cm row spacing and 2.6 times that in the 90 cm row spacing. No significant difference was found between the 60 and 90 cm groups.
Figure 1 shows row spacing exerted significant effects on leaf C, root C, root N, and tuber N, but had no effect on leaf N, leaf P, root P, tuber organic C, and tuber P. In the 30 cm treatment, leaf C was the highest, but root C was the lowest. In the 60 cm treatment, root N reached the maximum, but tuber N was the lowest. However, leaf C, root C, and tuber N had no difference between 60 cm and 90 cm.

3.2. Soil Wind Erosion and Soil Property Response to Strip Spacing

The amount of soil wind erosion under the canopy of C. esculentus is significantly lower than that in the control. Figure 2 shows the lowest soil wind erosion was observed at 30 cm row spacing. The amount of soil wind erosion in 60 cm and 90 cm were 27.6 g/cm2 and 17.5 g/cm2, which were 3.8 and 1.6 times greater than that in 30 cm, respectively. The change of soil wind erosion combined with soil texture. Since the plant coverage intercepts the suspension dust, planting treatments had more fine particles than the control. For example, the clay percentage in the control and three row spacing treatments were 7.5%, 44.5%, 15.4%, and 14.1%. The canopy of C. esculentus exerted negative effects on sand percentages. The very fine sand percentage in the control and three row spacings were 46.6%, 25.6%, 38.3%, and 39.7%. The medium and coarse sand in the control and three row spacings were 19.5%, 4.8%,10.4%, and 11.4%.
Table 2 shows that although soil bulk density in planting treatments was decreased, there was no significant difference between the three treatments and bare land. Compared to the control, the pH of planting treatments was significantly lower, and the lowest pH was observed at 30 cm row spacing. Soil nutrient concentrations in planting treatments were significantly higher than in the control. The highest soil organic C, available N, and available P concentrations were observed at 30 cm, and were 2.4, 10.0, and 8.0 times higher than in the control treatment.
Soil microbial biomass carbon (MBC) increased in 30 cm and 90 cm row spacing, but there was no significant difference between 60 cm and the control. Soil microbial biomass nitrogen (MBN) in the canopy of C. esculentus was higher than in the nonvegetable soil evidently, but there was no significant difference between the three treatments. The highest MBC and MBN were observed at 90 cm.

3.3. The Relationship between Plant and Soil

The analysis of the relationship between plant and soil in Figure 3 showed that plant height was positively related to root yields. Plant density, tiller number, and leaf yield were positively related to tuber yield. Root yield and tuber yield were positively related to leaf C and leaf N. In addition, except for leaf P and root nutrients, the residual indexes of the plant were positively related to root C and root N, and negatively related to root P.
The pH was negatively related to plant height, plant density, root yield, tuber yield, leaf C, leaf N, root P, tuber N, and clay percentage. There were positive relationships between root C and N and soil nutrients, and there were negative relationships between root P and soil nutrients. Soil wind erosion was positively related to plant height, tuber yield, and leaf C. Plant height, plant density, and organ yields were positively related to the percentage of clay and soil nutrient concentrations, and negatively related to the percentage of sand particles. Above all, clay percentage was positively related to soil nutrient concentrations, and sand particles were negatively related to soil nutrients.

4. Discussion

4.1. Plant Growth Response to Different Strip Spacing

In extremely arid regions, high temperatures, infertile soil, and high soil wind erosion limited the development of plants. Narrow row spacing has been suggested to play an important role in improving plant yields via changing microclimatic conditions and increasing soil quality [17,33]. In addition, narrow row spacing could reduce wind speed and improve the roughness of the soil surface by improving plant growth [9,18]. Consistency with previous studies, our study showed plant height, plant density, and tiller number were highest in 30 cm row spacing which indicated that narrow row spacing facilitates the colonization and development of C. esculentus. There was also a negative relationship between plant height and soil wind erosion which supported the previous view that higher plant height is one of the main reasons which could decrease soil wind erosion [34].
Paradoxically, although most studies reported that plant yield in narrow row spacing is higher than that in wider, some studies suggest that more intense interspecific competition contributes to decreasing plant yield in narrow row spacing [20]. In the present study, organ yields, including tuber of C. esculentus, were highest in 30 cm row spacing. That implied that C. esculentus could adapt to high plant density and the extreme environment, and the high plant density was not the main factor that limited the development of C. esculentus. Higher aboveground biomass would intensify the photosynthesis and C fixation abilities of plants [35,36]. Further, our results showed that leaf C concentration was highest at 30 cm row spacing, which confirmed the above conclusion. However, different from previous studies, our study showed root C and N concentrations in 30 cm row spacing were lower than in 60 cm and 90 cm. That might be because higher root biomass exerts dilutive effects on root nutrient concentrations [37].

4.2. Soil Wind Erosion and Soil Property Response to Different Strip Spacing

Vegetable coverage was a critical measure to control soil wind erosion. Yan [6] reported that vegetables could increase soil roughness and decrease the shear stress of wind, and many studies reported that plants can trap fine soil particles and inhibit the re-suspension of deposited dust [38,39]. Our results were consistent with the above studies that soil wind erosion in the control was significantly higher than in planting treatments. The amount of soil wind erosion in the control was 11.7, 3.1, and 4.9 times higher than that in 30 cm, 60 cm, and 90 cm row spacing. Continuous wind erosion of fine particles on the soil surface causes soil texture becomes coarser and less fertile [6,16,40]. Similar to previous studies, this study also showed that the percentage of clay significantly increased while sand particles decreased under the C. esculentus canopy. Moreover, the highest clay percentage and lowest sand percentages were observed at 30 cm. The major reason might be that plant coverage and plant height at 30 cm were the highest which could stabilize soil and trap dust more effectively [22,41,42].
Numerous studies have estimated the influence of soil texture change on soil quality, and they suggested the increase of fine particles would increase the ability of soil nutrients and water conservation [34,43]. However, although narrow row spacing had positive effects on plant yields, many studies had reported excessive plant coverage would cause a reduction in groundwater [1,25]. Not only that, wider row spacing also caused drought by increasing soil evaporation, hence, the balance of plant coverage and soil evaporation is important for decreasing soil wind erosion and improving soil quality. Soil bulk density was negatively related to soil water storage capacity [44,45]. In this study, soil bulk density in all planting treatments were significantly lower than that in bare land, although the differences were not significant. That implied that planting C. esculentus could improve the ability to maintain the moisture of soil, but the short experiment period limited the degree of change. Overall, the higher organ yields in 30 cm could obtain more economic benefits without exerting a negative effect on soil moisture. Soil pH was influenced by many factors such as external nutrient addition, litter decomposition, and acidic material released from roots and microorganisms [16,46]. In the present study, pH was lower in planting treatments than in bare land except for 60 cm row spacing, and the major reason might be more nitrogen accumulated [47].
Generally, smaller particles were thought to combine with soil nutrients through cementation and agglomeration, and large particles were thought to increase soil looseness permeability and reduce the rate of organic C decomposition [34,43]. Due to external nutrient addition, soil nutrient concentrations increased certainly. However, our study observed the other critical point: soil nutrient concentrations reached the maximum at 30 cm row spacing. Additionally, positive relationships were observed between soil nutrient concentrations and clay, and negative relationships were observed between soil nutrient concentrations and sand particles. These results confirm the conclusion that soils with higher clay percentage have greater soil nutrient retention capacity [48,49]. Moreover, fine particles positively influence soil nutrient enrichment has been studied widely [6,50]. Our results also indicate that the dust intercepted by C. esculentus might be a crucial nutrient source in this extremely arid zone.
Soil microorganisms play an important role in ecosystem nutrient cycling, which improves soil quality by processing litter decomposition and mineralizing organic nutrients [51]. In extremely arid regions, soil microorganism activity is limited by soil moisture and nutrients. MBC and MBN are crucial indexes to reflect soil microbial growth [52]. Our results showed that MBC and MBN increased with C. esculentus establishment. That supports the conclusion that root exudates provide energy for microorganisms, and facilitate nutrients accumulation and reproduction [53]. In addition, higher soil nutrient concentration is also conducive to microbial reproduction and accumulation, which also leads to the MBC and MBN being significantly higher in the canopy than in bare soil [54].

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, our results showed that (1) narrow strip spacing increased plant height, plant density, and organ yields, and the highest yields were observed at 30 cm; (2) the establishment of C. esculentus reduced soil wind erosion and change soil properties. Clay percentage, soil nutrient concentrations, MBC, and MBN were higher in planting treatments than in bare soil with these being highest in 30 cm row spacing. (3) Combined with the economic benefits and the effect of soil nutrients and water conservation, 30 cm was the recommended strip spacing in planting C. esculentus. However, the study we conducted was a short-term experiment, and the responsiveness of soil property on the plant establishment was dependent on the period of experiment time. Therefore, further studies were needed to improve understanding of the effects of long-term C. esculentus planting on the soil property in extremely arid zones.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.L., L.L. and X.L.; Methodology, Y.L., L.L. and X.L.; Software, Y.L.; Validation, Y.L., W.R. and L.L.; Formal analysis, Y.L.; Investigation, Y.L. and Y.Z.; Resources, L.L., W.R. and X.L.; Data curation, Y.L.; Writing—Original draft preparation, Y.L.; Writing—Review and editing, L.L.; Visualization, Y.L.; Supervision, L.L.; Project administration, L.L., W.R. and X.L.; Funding acquisition, L.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program (2019YFC0507602-2).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Chen, H.S.; Shao, M.G.; Li, Y.Y. Soil desiccation in the Loess Plateau of China. Geoderma 2008, 143, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. D’Odorico, P.; Bhattachan, A.; Davis, K.F.; Ravi, S.; Runyan, C.W. Global desertification: Drivers and feedbacks. Adv. Water Resour. 2013, 51, 326–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Chen, S.Y.; Zhang, X.Y.; Sun, H.Y.; Ren, T.S.; Wang, Y.M. Effects of winter wheat row spacing on evapotranspiration, grain yield and water use efficiency. Agric. Water Manag. 2010, 97, 1126–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zougmore, R.; Kambou, F.N.; Ouattara, K.; Guillobze, S. Sorghum-cowpea Intercropping: An Effective Technique Against Runoff and Soil Erosion in the Sahel (Saria, Burkina Faso). Arid. Soil Res. Rehabil. 2010, 14, 329–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Yan, Y.C.; Xin, X.P.; Xu, X.L.; Wang, X.; Yang, G.X.; Yan, R.R.; Chen, B.R. Quantitative effects of wind erosion on the soil texture and soil nutrients under different vegetation coverage in a semiarid steppe of northern China. Plant Soil 2013, 369, 585–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yan, Y.C.; Xin, X.P.; Xu, X.L.; Wang, X.; Yang, G.X.; Yan, R.R.; Chen, B.R. Effect of vegetation coverage on Aeolian dust accumulation in a semiarid steppe of northern China. Catena 2011, 87, 351–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Song, Y.Y.; Zhou, C.B.; Zhang, W.H. Vegetation coverage, species richness, and dune stability in the southern part of Gurbantünggüt Desert. Ecol. Res. 2011, 26, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wu, T.G.; Yu, M.K.; Wang, G.; Wang, Z.X.; Duan, X.; Dong, Y.; Cheng, X.G. Effects of stand structure on wind speed reduction in a Metasequoia glyptostroboides shelterbelt. Agrofor. Syst. 2013, 87, 251–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pan, X.; Wang, Z.; Gao, Y. Effects of row spaces on windproof effectiveness of simulated shrubs with different form configurations. Earth Space Sci. 2021, 8, e2021EA001775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ezeh, O.; Gordon, M.H.; Niranjan, K. Tiger nut oil (Cyperus esculentus L.): A review of its composition and physico-chemical properties. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 2014, 116, 783–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chen, J.; Li, Z.W.; Xiao, H.B.; Ning, K.; Tang, C.G. Effects of land use and land cover on soil erosion control in southern China: Implications from a systematic quantitative review. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 282, 111924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Aydar, E.F.; Tutuncu, S.; Ozcelik, B. Plant-based milk substitutes: Bioactive compounds, conventional and novel processes, bioavailability studies, and health effects. J. Funct. Foods 2020, 70, 103975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Carvalho, B.J.; Munekata, P.E.S.; de Carvalho, F.A.L.; Pateiro, M.; Barba, F.J.; Domínguez, R.; Trindade, M.A.; Lorenzo, J.M. Use of Tiger Nut (Cyperus esculentus L.) Oil Emulsion as Animal Fat Replacement in Beef Burgers. Foods 2020, 9, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Tursun, N.; Datta, A.; Budak, S.; Kantarci, Z.; Knezevic, S.Z. Row spacing impacts the critical period for weed control in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Phytoparasitica 2016, 44, 139–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yayeh, B.; Getachew, A.; Enyew, A.; Alemayehu, A.; Manuel, T.M. Effect of narrow-row planting patterns on crop competitive and economic advantage in maize–soybean relay strip intercropping system. Plant Prod. Sci. 2016, 20, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  16. Su, Y.Z.; Zhang, T.H.; Li, Y.L.; Wang, F. Changes in soil properties after establishment of Artemisia halodendron and Caragana microphylaon shifting sand dunes in semiarid Horqin Sandy Land, Northern China. Environ. Manag. 2005, 36, 272–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Eberbach, P.; Pala, M. Crop row spacing and its influence on the partitioning of evapotranspiration by winter-grown wheat in Northern Syria. Plant Soil 2005, 268, 195–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ma, R.; Wang, J.H.; Qu, J.J.; Liu, H.J. Effectiveness of shelterbelt with a non-uniform density distribution. J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2010, 98, 767–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Asokan, S.; Murthi, A.N.; Mahadevaswamy, M. Effect of nitrogen levels and row spacing on yield, ccs and nitrogen uptake in different sugarcane varieties. Sugar Tech 2005, 7, 44–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Birhanu, A.; Tadesse, T.; Tadesse, D. Effect of inter- and intra-row spacing on yield and yield components of mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) under rain-fed condition at Metema District, northwestern Ethiopia. Agric. Food Secur. 2018, 7, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. York, L.M.; Galindo, C.T.; Schussler, J.R.; Jonathan, P.L. Evolution of US maize (Zea mays L.) root architectural and anatomical phenes over the past 100 years corresponds to increased tolerance of nitrogen stress. J. Exp. Bot. 2015, 66, 2347–2358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Hou, J.; Wang, H.Q.; Fu, B.J.; Zhu, L.H.; Wang, Y.F.; Li, Z.H. Effects of plant diversity on soil erosion for different vegetation patterns. Catena 2016, 147, 632–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gao, G.L.; Ding, G.D.; Zhao, Y.Y.; Wu, B.; Zhang, Y.Q.; Guo, J.B.; Qin, S.G.; Bao, Y.F.; Yu, M.H.; Liu, Y.D. Characterization of Soil Particle Size Distribution with a Fractal Model in the Desertified Regions of Northern China. Acta Geophys. 2016, 64, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Jin, Z.; Dong, Y.S.; Qi, Y.C.; Liu, W.G.; An, Z.S. Characterizing variations in soil particle-size distribution along a grass-desert shrub transition in the Ordos Plateau of Inner Mongolia, China. Land Degrad. Dev. 2013, 24, 141–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Fu, W.; Huang, M.B.; Gallichand, J.; Shao, M.G. Optimization of plant coverage in relation to water balance in the Loess Plateau of China. Geoderma 2012, 173–174, 134–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sharratt, B.S.; McWilliams, D.A. Microclimatic and Rooting Characteristics of Narrow-Row versus Conventional-Row Corn. Agron. J. 2005, 97, 1129–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Zeng, Q.H.; Wei, Z.L.; Yi, C.; He, Y.F.; Luo, M.Z. The effect of different coverage of aquatic plants on the phytoplankton and zooplankton community structures: A study based on a shallow macrophytic lake. Aquat. Ecol. 2022, 56, 1347–1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Jiang, X.X. Wind erosion actuality and countermeasures in oases area of southern Xinjiang autonomous region. Bull. Soil Water Conserv. 2003, 1, 62–65. [Google Scholar]
  29. Dong, Z.B.; Sun, H.Y.; Zhao, A.G. WITSEG sampler: A segmented sand sampler for wind tunnel test. Geomorphology 2004, 59, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sparks, D. Methods of Soil Analysis; SSSA and ASA: Madison, WI, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  31. Liu, Q.; Yin, R.; Tan, B.; You, C.M.; Zhang, L.; Xu, Z.F.; Martin, S.; Stefan, S. Nitrogen addition and plant functional type independently modify soil mesofauna effects on litter decomposition. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2021, 160, 108340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Vance, E.D.; Brookes, P.C.; Jenkinson, D.S. An extraction method for measuring soil microbial biomass C. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1987, 19, 703–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Maddonni, G.A.; Otegui, M.E. Intra-specific competition in maize: Contribution of extreme plant hierarchies to grain yield, grain yield components and kernel composition. Field Crops Res. 2006, 97, 155–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wang, Y.J.; Chen, F.Q.; Zhang, M.; Chen, S.H.; Tan, X.Q.; Liu, M.; Hu, Z.H. The effects of the reverse seasonal flooding on soil texture within the hydro-fluctuation belt in the Three Gorges reservoir, China. J. Soils Sediments 2018, 18, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Kelly, G.J.; Holtum, J.A.M.; Latzko, E. Photosynthesis Carbon Metabolism: New Regulators of CO2 Fixation, the New Importance of Pyrophosphate, and the Old Problem of Oxygen Involvement Revisited. In Thirty Years of Photosynthesis; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1989; pp. 74–101. [Google Scholar]
  36. Wu, A.; Hammer, G.L.; Doherty, A.; Gaemmerer, S.V.; Farquhar, G.D. Quantifying impacts of enhancing photosynthesis on crop yield. Nat. Plants 2019, 5, 380–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Yang, H. Effects of nitrogen and phosphorus addition on leaf nutrient characteristics in a subtropical forest. Trees 2018, 32, 383–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Li, X.L.; Ma, Y.J.; Ma, R.; Zhang, Y.H.; Tang, W.D.; Yang, J.J. Wind flow field and windproof efficiency of shelterbelt in different width. J. Desert Res. 2018, 38, 936–944. [Google Scholar]
  39. Shao, H.; Shi, D.F.; Shi, W.J.; Ban, X.B.; Chen, Y.C.; Chen, F.J.; Mi, G.H. Genotypic difference in the plasticity of root system architecture of field–grown maize in response to plant density. Plant Soil 2019, 439, 201–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mendez, M.J.; Buschiazzo, D.E. Soil coverage evolution and wind erosion risk on summer crops under contrasting tillage systems. Aeolian Res. 2015, 16, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Liu, T.D.; Song, F.B. Maize photosynthesis and microclimate within the canopies at grain-filling stage in response to narrow-wide strip planting patterns. Photosynthetica 2012, 50, 215–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Jia, H.L.; Wang, G.; Li, G.; Zhuang, J.; Tang, L. Wind erosion control utilizing standing corn residue in Northeast China. Soil Tillage Res. 2015, 153, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ahmadi, A.; Neyshabouri, M.R.; Rouhipour, H.; Asadi, H. Fractal dimension of soil aggregates as an index of soil erodibility. J. Hydrol. 2011, 400, 305–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Williams, J.; Prebble, R.; Williams, W.; Hignett, C. Influence of texture, structure and clay mineralogy on the soil moisture characteristics. Aust. J. Soil Res. 1983, 21, 15–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tribals, S.; Nelson, S.O. Microwave Sensing Technique for Nondestructive Determination of Bulk Density and Moisture Content in Unshelled and Shelled Peanuts. Trans. ASABE 2006, 49, 1563–1568. [Google Scholar]
  46. Tornquist, C.G.; Hons, F.M.; Feagley, S.E. Agroforestry system effects on soil characteristics of the Sarapiqi region of Costa Rica. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1999, 73, 19–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Fu, G.; Shen, Z.X. Response of alpine soils to nitrogen addition on the Tibetan Plateau: A meta-analysis. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2017, 114, 99–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Su, Y.Z.; Zhao, H.L.; Li, Y.L.; Cui, J.Y. Influencing mechanisms of several shrubs on soil chemical properties in semiarid Horqin Sandy Land, China. Arid. Land Res. Manag. 2004, 18, 251–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Neyshabouri, M.; Ahmadi, A.; Rouhipour, H.; Asadi, H.; Irannajad, M. Soil texture fractions and fractal dimension of particle size distribution as predictors of interrill erodibility. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2011, 35, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Larney, F.J.; Bullock, M.S.; Janzen, H.H.; Benjamin, H.E.; Olson, E.C.S. Wind erosion effects on nutrient redistribution and soil productivity. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1998, 53, 133–140. [Google Scholar]
  51. Gang, C.; Zhu, H.L.; Yong, Z. Soil microbial activities and carbon and nitrogen fixation. Res. Microbiol. 2003, 154, 393–398. [Google Scholar]
  52. Wardle, D.A. A comparative assessment of factors which influence microbial biomass Carbon and Nitrogen levels in soil. Biol. Rev. 1992, 67, 321–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Cong, W.F.; Hoffland, E.; Li, L. Intercropping enhances soil carbon and nitrogen. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2015, 21, 1715–1726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Camenzind, T.; Httenschwiler, S.; Treseder, K.K.; Lehmann, A.; Rilling, M.C. Nutrient limitation of soil microbial processes in tropical forests. Ecol. Monogr. 2018, 88, 4–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 14200 g001 550
Figure 1. (a) Total C, (b) total N, and (c) total P concentration in leaf, root, and tuber of C. esculentus response to different row spacing. Different small letters indicate significant differences among the four treatments (p < 0.05).
Figure 1. (a) Total C, (b) total N, and (c) total P concentration in leaf, root, and tuber of C. esculentus response to different row spacing. Different small letters indicate significant differences among the four treatments (p < 0.05).
Sustainability 14 14200 g001
Sustainability 14 14200 g002 550
Figure 2. (a) Soil wind erosion response to different row spacing; (b) soil texture response to different row spacing. CK indicates the control and different small letters indicate the significant differences among the four treatments (p < 0.05).
Figure 2. (a) Soil wind erosion response to different row spacing; (b) soil texture response to different row spacing. CK indicates the control and different small letters indicate the significant differences among the four treatments (p < 0.05).
Sustainability 14 14200 g002
Sustainability 14 14200 g003 550
Figure 3. The relationships between plant and soil. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 3. The relationships between plant and soil. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Sustainability 14 14200 g003
Table
Table 1. Plant height, plant density, tiller number, and organ yields of C. esculentus response to row spacing.
Table 1. Plant height, plant density, tiller number, and organ yields of C. esculentus response to row spacing.
Treatment
30 cm60 cm90 cm
Plant height/cm74.77 ± 10.70 a54.73 ± 5.70 b54.27 ± 3.66 b
Plant density/plant·m−254.67 ± 16.17 a24 ± 10.78 b21.33 ± 2.31 b
Tiller number/individual·plant−17.67 ± 2.89 a4.67 ± 1.08 b3.67 ± 2.09 b
Leaf yield/kg·hectare−110614.9 ± 4377.0 a4697.4 ± 1471.1 b4613.3 ± 1816.4 b
Root yield/kg·hectare−17648.7 ± 3710.3 a1366.1 ± 379.8 b1244.4 ± 1356.3 b
Tuber yield/kg·hectare−16932.3 ± 2482.5 a2430.2 ± 688.7 b2709.3 ± 1228.5 b
Different small letters indicate significant differences among the four treatments (p < 0.05).
Table
Table 2. Bulk density, pH, nutrient concentrations, MBC, and MBN response to strip spacing.
Table 2. Bulk density, pH, nutrient concentrations, MBC, and MBN response to strip spacing.
Treatment
Control30 cm60 cm90 cm
Bulk density1.49 ± 0.03 a1.38 ± 0.08 a1.37 ± 0.07 a1.42 ± 0.06 a
pH8.72 ± 0.30 a8.35 ± 0.12 c8.60 ± 0.20 a8.46 ± 0.15 b
Organic C/g·kg−11.79 ± 0.41 b4.37 ± 0.65 a2.33 ± 0.67 b1.87 ± 0.24 b
Available N/mg·kg−11.33 ± 0.27 d13.31 ± 1.40 a9.48 ± 0.60 b6.77 ± 0.60 c
Available P/mg·kg−11.05 ± 0.07 d8.41 ± 0.20 a4.78 ± 0.38 b3.08 ± 0.51 c
MBC/mg·kg−133.59 ± 1.86 b42.04 ± 1.68 a31.63 ± 6.38 b47.67 ± 5.88 a
MBN/mg·kg−10.26 ± 0.05 b3.04 ± 0.54 a2.84 ± 0.44 a3.65 ± 0.33 a
Different small letters indicate significant differences among the four treatments (p < 0.05).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Liu, Y.; Ren, W.; Zhao, Y.; Li, X.; Li, L. Effect of Variation in Row Spacing on Soil Wind Erosion, Soil Properties, and Cyperus esculentus Yield in Sandy Land. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14200. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114200

AMA Style

Liu Y, Ren W, Zhao Y, Li X, Li L. Effect of Variation in Row Spacing on Soil Wind Erosion, Soil Properties, and Cyperus esculentus Yield in Sandy Land. Sustainability. 2022; 14(21):14200. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114200

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liu, Yalan, Wei Ren, Yue Zhao, Xiangyi Li, and Lei Li. 2022. "Effect of Variation in Row Spacing on Soil Wind Erosion, Soil Properties, and Cyperus esculentus Yield in Sandy Land" Sustainability 14, no. 21: 14200. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114200

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop