The influence of fertilization on the sandy farmland productivity and stability of corn in semi-arid areas

doi:10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2025.00103

Journal of Desert Research ›› 2025, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (4): 109-117.DOI: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2025.00103

The influence of fertilization on the sandy farmland productivity and stability of corn in semi-arid areas

Rui Zhang¹^,²^,³^,⁴(), Yalin Wu¹^,²^,⁴, Yulin Li¹^,²^,⁴, Jie Lian¹^,²^,⁴

^1.State Key Laboratory of Ecological Safety and Sustainable Development in Arid Lands /, Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources，Chinese Academy of Sciences，Lanzhou 730000，China
^2.Naiman Desertification Research Station /, Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources，Chinese Academy of Sciences，Lanzhou 730000，China
^3.Urat Desert-Grassland Research Station, Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources，Chinese Academy of Sciences，Lanzhou 730000，China
^4.University of Chinese Academy of Sciences，Beijing 100049，China

Received:2025-06-03 Revised:2025-07-10 Online:2025-07-20 Published:2025-08-18

Abstract

Abstract:

To explore the effect of fertilization on high and stable yields in sandy corn farmland in semi-arid areas and optimize the fertilization regime， six treatments， namely no fertilization （CK）， straw returning to the field （ST）， chemical fertilizer （CH）， farmyard manure （FA）， decrease 50% of chemical fertilizer and farmyard manure （CF_2）， and decrease 50% of chemical fertilizer （CH_2）， were positioned and set up in the sandy farmland ecosystem. The results showed that：（1） Chemical fertilizer， farmyard manure and combination of chemical fertilizer and farmyard manure increased the plant height， stem diameter， ear height， ear length， ear diameter， row number of grains and 100 grains weight of corn. The combination of chemical fertilizer and farmyard manure had a stronger promoting effect on plant height and ear height， while the single application of chemical fertilizer had a more obvious promoting effect on ear length and 100 grains weight. （2） Chemical fertilizer， farmyard manure and their combination increased the aboveground biomass and total biomass by 68.2%-196.3% and 54.9%-163.0%， respectively， compared with CK and ST. Chemical fertilizer， farmyard manure and their combination increased the root biomass by 108.0%-126.9% compared with CK. The chemical fertilizer only and the combination of chemical fertilizer and farmyard manure increased the grain yield by 29.9%-292.6% compared with CK， ST and FA. Fertilization has a significant impact on the temporal stability of aboveground biomass and total biomass. （3） Plant traits， ear characteristics have a strong positive correlation with biomass/grain yield and their stability. Comprehensive analysis suggests that halving the application of chemical fertilizer and farmyard manure can significantly enhance the productivity of corn in sandy farmland.

Key words: fertilization, plant traits, yield, stability, sandy land

CLC Number:

S513

Rui Zhang, Yalin Wu, Yulin Li, Jie Lian. The influence of fertilization on the sandy farmland productivity and stability of corn in semi-arid areas[J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2025, 45(4): 109-117.

Figures/Tables 7

References 35

[1]	邹原东，张海娇，韩振芹，等.玉米产业的可持续发展［J］.农业科学，2024，14（11）：1199-1206.
[2]	张曲薇.东北地区玉米种植面积调整及影响因素研究［D］.哈尔滨：东北农业大学，2019.
[3]	吴昊磊.不同品种玉米间混作对养分吸收和生产力稳定性的影响［D］.哈尔滨：东北农业大学，2020.
[4]	王树涛.区域耕地生产力稳定性评价体系研究［D］.保定：河北农业大学，2008.
[5]	朱兆良，金继运.保障我国粮食安全的肥料问题［J］.植物营养与肥料学报，2013，19（2）：259-273.
[6]	张维理，徐爱国，张认连，等.中国耕地保育技术创新不足已危及粮食安全与环境安全［J］.中国农业科学，2015，48（12）：2374-2378.
[7]	中华人民共和国国家统计局.中国农村统计年鉴［G］.北京：中国统计出版社，2018：121-217.
[8]	Huang J K， Huang Z R， Jia X P，et al.Long-term reduction of nitrogen fertilizer use through knowledge training in rice production in China［J］.Agricultural Systems，2015，135：105-111.
[9]	Gu B J， Sutton M A， Chang S X，et al.Agricultural ammonia emissions contribute to China's urban air pollution［J］.Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment，2014，12（5）：265-266.
[10]	张富仓，严富来，范兴科，等.滴灌施肥水平对宁夏春玉米产量和水肥利用效率的影响［J］.农业工程学报，2018，34（22）：111-120.
[11]	叶优良，王玲敏，黄玉芳，等.施氮对小麦干物质累积和转运的影响［J］.麦类作物学报，2012，32（3）：488-493.
[12]	Wang N， Zhang T H， Li Y Q，et al.Integrated application of fertilization increased maize （Zea mays L.） yield by improving soil quality，particularly under limited water conditions in a semi-arid sandy area［J］.Agricultural Water Management，2025，309：109334.
[13]	王维钰.秸秆周年投入与施肥对小麦-玉米轮作温室气体排放效应及农田生产力的影响［D］.杨凌：西北农林科技大学，2019.
[14]	詹瑾，韩丹，杨红玲，等.科尔沁沙地植被恢复过程中群落组成及多样性演变特征［J］.中国沙漠，2022，42（2）：194-206.
[15]	Wei W， Yan Y， Cao J，et al.Effects of combined application of organic amendments and fertilizers on crop yield and soil organic matter： an integrated analysis of long-term experiments［J］.Agriculture，Ecosystems Environment，2016，225：86-92.
[16]	董春华，曾希柏，文石林，等.长期施肥对早稻产量和杂草群落的影响［J］.生态学杂志，2015，34（11）：3079-3085.
[17]	Guo L， Wu G， Li Y，et al.Effects of cattle manure compost combined with chemical fertilizer on topsoil organic matter，bulk density and earthworm activity in a wheat-maize rotation system in Eastern China［J］.Soil and Tillage Research，2016，156：140-147.
[18]	Zhang R， Li Y L， Zhao X Y，et al.Fertilizers have a greater impact on the soil bacterial community than on the fungal community in a sandy farmland ecosystem，Inner Mongolia［J］.Ecological Indicators，2022，140：108972.
[19]	李明悦，金修宽，高伟，等.有机肥替代部分氮化肥对鲜食玉米产量、干物质和氮吸收的影响［J］.天津农业科学，2020，26（9）：56-60.
[20]	王家宝，孙义祥，李虹颖，等.生物有机肥用量及部分替代化肥对小麦产量效应的研究［J］.中国农学通报，2020，36（36）：6-11.
[21]	王忍，黄璜，伍佳，等.稻草还田对土壤养分及水稻生物量和产量的影响［J］.作物研究，2020，34（1）：8-15.
[22]	刘斌祥，王兴龙，周芳，等.减氮配施不同种类有机肥对玉米物质分配、转运与产量的影响［J］.生态学杂志，2020，39（1）：130-138.
[23]	董文，张青，罗涛，等.不同有机肥连续施用对土壤质量的影响［J］.中国农学通报，2020，36（28）：106-110.
[24]	何苏南.氮源替代对甜玉米农田生产力、品质和固碳减排的影响研究［D］.广州：华南农业大学，2021.
[25]	李晓慧，韩晓增，王树起，等.小麦-不同施肥方式对黑土微生物数量和酶活性的影响［J］.生态学杂志，2010，29（6）：1143-1148.
[26]	赵亚南，宿敏敏，吕阳，等.减量施肥下小麦产量，肥料利用率和土壤养分平衡［J］.植物营养与肥料学报，2017，23（4）：864-873.
[27]	战秀梅，李亭亭，韩晓日，等.不同施肥方式对春玉米产量，效益及氮素吸收和利用的影响［J］.植物营养与肥料学报，2011，17（4）：861-868.
[28]	黄婷苗，郑险峰，王朝辉.还田玉米秸秆氮释放对关中黄土供氮和冬小麦氮吸收的影响［J］.中国农业科学，2015，48（14）：2785-2795.
[29]	Li S， Zhang S， Pu Y，et al.Dynamics of soil labile organic carbon fractions and C-cycle enzyme activities under straw mulch in Chengdu Plain［J］.Soil and Tillage Research，2016，55：289-297.
[30]	黄容，高明，万毅林，等.秸秆还田与化肥减量配施对稻-菜轮作下土壤养分及酶活性的影响［J］.环境科学，2016，37（11）：4446-4456.
[31]	张素瑜，王和洲，杨明达，等.水分与玉米秸秆还田对小麦根系生长和水分利用效率的影响［J］.中国农业科学，2016，49（13）：2484-2496.
[32]	隋鹏祥，有德宝，安俊朋，等.秸秆还田方式与施氮量对春玉米产量及干物质和氮素积累、转运的影响［J］.植物营养与肥料学报，2018，24（2）：316-324.
[33]	Zhang K， Jie Z， Wang X Q，et al.Estimates on nitrogen uptake in the subsequent wheat by above-ground and root residue and rhizodeposition of using peanut labeled with ¹⁵N isotope on the North China Plain［J］.Journal of Integrative Agriculture，2019，18（3）：571-579.
[34]	张亚丽，吕家珑，金继运，等.施肥和秸秆还田对土壤肥力质量及春小麦品质的影响［J］.植物营养与肥料学报，2012，18（2）：307-314.
[35]	周怀平，杨治平，李红梅，等.秸秆还田和秋施肥对旱地玉米生长发育及水肥效应的影响［J］.应用生态学报，2004，15（7）：1231-1235.

处理	基肥（玉米播种前）	追肥（拔节期）
CK	—	—
ST	1 000 g玉米秸秆/m²	—
CH	44.4 g (NH₄)₂HPO₄/m²	59.3 g CO(NH₂)₂/m²
FA	0.006 m³牛粪/m²	—
CF_2	22.2 g (NH₄)₂HPO₄/m²+0.003 m³牛粪/m²	29.7 g CO(NH₂)₂/m²
CH_2	22.2 g (NH₄)₂HPO₄/m²	29.7 g CO(NH₂)₂/m²

处理	基肥（玉米播种前）	追肥（拔节期）
CK	—	—
ST	1 000 g玉米秸秆/m²	—
CH	44.4 g (NH₄)₂HPO₄/m²	59.3 g CO(NH₂)₂/m²
FA	0.006 m³牛粪/m²	—
CF_2	22.2 g (NH₄)₂HPO₄/m²+0.003 m³牛粪/m²	29.7 g CO(NH₂)₂/m²
CH_2	22.2 g (NH₄)₂HPO₄/m²	29.7 g CO(NH₂)₂/m²

年份	处理	CK	ST	CH	FA	CF_2	CH_2
2019	ZG/cm	205.0±14.9^bc	194.6±13.3^c	266.2±11.8^ab	279.8±30.8^b	359.0±124.3^a	268.0±24.3^bc
	JC/mm	20.9±2.2^c	21.1±1.4^c	27.5±4.6^ab	28.9±4.2^a	23.3±3.0^bc	25.7±3.4^ab
	SWG/cm	72.0±8.7^c	68.0±7.4^c	107.2±12.4^b	113.8±16.9^ab	128.8±14.1^a	106.4±10.1^b
	SCH/cm	14.7±1.7^c	16.1±2.0^c	26.1±5.2^a	21.8±1.9^b	22.2±1.6^b	22.2±2.2^b
	TDC/cm	3.3±2.0^a	3.2±1.3^a	5.1±4.2^a	3.6±0.9^a	4.8±1.6^a	3.7±2.3^a
	SCU/mm	43.0±2.4^c	46.9±3.7^b	55.7±3.7^a	55.6±1.7^a	57.2±1.1^a	54.4±3.6^a
	SH	12.8±2.7^b	14.4±3.3^b	15.2±1.8^ab	15.6±0.9^ab	18.0±1.4^a	15.6±2.2^ab
	HL	24.8±7.4^b	27.2±1.8^b	43.8±6.8^a	39.4±4.7^a	36.4±4.6^a	39.2±7.2^a
	BL/g	19.8±2.8^b	19.5±1.7^b	33.1±5.2^a	30.5±3.3^a	31.0±2.1^a	28.8±2.1^a
2023	ZG/cm	190.2 ±29.0^e	208.4±21.7^de	273.8±18.0^ab	253.2±18.5^bc	284.2±17.0^a	235.2±27.3^cd
	JC/mm	16.8±1.6^b	19.2±2.6^ab	20.8±2.5^a	20.2±1.9^a	20.2±1.9^a	20.0±2.0^a
	SWG/cm	53.8±13.0^d	71.4±16.5^cd	103.6±16.9^ab	102.4±10.6^ab	115.8±16.8^a	86.2±18.1^bc
	SCH/cm	10.5±2.3^e	11.9±2.4^de	19.2±2.5^a	14.7±1.2^cd	18.1±2.3^ab	15.9±2.0^bc
	TDC/cm	1.3±0.9^a	1.4±1.0^a	2.0±1.0^a	1.9±0.6^a	1.9±0.8^a	2.1±0.9^a
	SCU/mm	32.8±5.9^c	39.8±7.0^b	47.2±2.6^a	46.0±1.7^a	47.4±2.5^a	44.6±2.5^ab
	SH	14.0±2.8^a	13.6±3.8^a	16.0±2.0^a	15.2±1.1^a	16.0±2.4^a	14.8±1.8^a
	HL	20.0±7.5^d	24.4±3.0^cd	42.4±8.6^a	31.4±2.2^bc	38.2±5.8^ab	32.8±2.9^b
	BL/g	22.4±4.7^b	24.6±3.5^b	34.8±4.0^a	30.4±2.3^a	34.0±1.6^a	31.2±3.7^a
2024	ZG/cm	217.9±13.8^d	244.2±7.3^c	283.2±16.4^b	301.6±28.1^b	324.2±16.5^a	279.0±11.4^b
	JC/mm	19.7±1.6^b	20.1±2.8^ab	22.1±3.4^ab	20.1±4.2^ab	22.5±2.9^ab	24.3±2.8^a
	SWG/cm	80.0±33.4^ab	76.6±19.3^b	102.2±31.9^ab	111.4±39.5^ab	122.0±26.5^a	120.4±25.9^a
	SCH/cm	15.4±0.9^b	16.0±1.4^b	18.4±3.2^ab	17.0±3.8^ab	20.3±4.4^a	20.2±1.9^a
	TDC/cm	2.0±1.6^a	1.4±1.3^a	1.8±1.3^a	1.8±1.3^a	1.7±1.5^a	2.7±1.8^a
	SCU/mm	47.3±2.6^b	46.3±3.3^b	50.0±4.5^ab	50.0±5.3^ab	54.1±3.5^a	49.5±5.1^ab
	SH	14.8±1.1^a	14.4±2.6^a	16.4±1.7^a	14.8±3.0^a	16.4±1.7^a	16.0±1.4^a
	HL	27.0±3.9^c	30.6±1.9^bc	37.2±6.8^ab	32.8±7.0^abc	41.0±10.7^a	40.2±7.4^ab
	BL/g	24.2±5.5^b	30.2±4.9^ab	33.0±2.8^a	29.6±6.8^ab	31.4±5.1^ab	32.4±4.6^a

年份	处理	CK	ST	CH	FA	CF_2	CH_2
2019	ZG/cm	205.0±14.9^bc	194.6±13.3^c	266.2±11.8^ab	279.8±30.8^b	359.0±124.3^a	268.0±24.3^bc
	JC/mm	20.9±2.2^c	21.1±1.4^c	27.5±4.6^ab	28.9±4.2^a	23.3±3.0^bc	25.7±3.4^ab
	SWG/cm	72.0±8.7^c	68.0±7.4^c	107.2±12.4^b	113.8±16.9^ab	128.8±14.1^a	106.4±10.1^b
	SCH/cm	14.7±1.7^c	16.1±2.0^c	26.1±5.2^a	21.8±1.9^b	22.2±1.6^b	22.2±2.2^b
	TDC/cm	3.3±2.0^a	3.2±1.3^a	5.1±4.2^a	3.6±0.9^a	4.8±1.6^a	3.7±2.3^a
	SCU/mm	43.0±2.4^c	46.9±3.7^b	55.7±3.7^a	55.6±1.7^a	57.2±1.1^a	54.4±3.6^a
	SH	12.8±2.7^b	14.4±3.3^b	15.2±1.8^ab	15.6±0.9^ab	18.0±1.4^a	15.6±2.2^ab
	HL	24.8±7.4^b	27.2±1.8^b	43.8±6.8^a	39.4±4.7^a	36.4±4.6^a	39.2±7.2^a
	BL/g	19.8±2.8^b	19.5±1.7^b	33.1±5.2^a	30.5±3.3^a	31.0±2.1^a	28.8±2.1^a
2023	ZG/cm	190.2 ±29.0^e	208.4±21.7^de	273.8±18.0^ab	253.2±18.5^bc	284.2±17.0^a	235.2±27.3^cd
	JC/mm	16.8±1.6^b	19.2±2.6^ab	20.8±2.5^a	20.2±1.9^a	20.2±1.9^a	20.0±2.0^a
	SWG/cm	53.8±13.0^d	71.4±16.5^cd	103.6±16.9^ab	102.4±10.6^ab	115.8±16.8^a	86.2±18.1^bc
	SCH/cm	10.5±2.3^e	11.9±2.4^de	19.2±2.5^a	14.7±1.2^cd	18.1±2.3^ab	15.9±2.0^bc
	TDC/cm	1.3±0.9^a	1.4±1.0^a	2.0±1.0^a	1.9±0.6^a	1.9±0.8^a	2.1±0.9^a
	SCU/mm	32.8±5.9^c	39.8±7.0^b	47.2±2.6^a	46.0±1.7^a	47.4±2.5^a	44.6±2.5^ab
	SH	14.0±2.8^a	13.6±3.8^a	16.0±2.0^a	15.2±1.1^a	16.0±2.4^a	14.8±1.8^a
	HL	20.0±7.5^d	24.4±3.0^cd	42.4±8.6^a	31.4±2.2^bc	38.2±5.8^ab	32.8±2.9^b
	BL/g	22.4±4.7^b	24.6±3.5^b	34.8±4.0^a	30.4±2.3^a	34.0±1.6^a	31.2±3.7^a
2024	ZG/cm	217.9±13.8^d	244.2±7.3^c	283.2±16.4^b	301.6±28.1^b	324.2±16.5^a	279.0±11.4^b
	JC/mm	19.7±1.6^b	20.1±2.8^ab	22.1±3.4^ab	20.1±4.2^ab	22.5±2.9^ab	24.3±2.8^a
	SWG/cm	80.0±33.4^ab	76.6±19.3^b	102.2±31.9^ab	111.4±39.5^ab	122.0±26.5^a	120.4±25.9^a
	SCH/cm	15.4±0.9^b	16.0±1.4^b	18.4±3.2^ab	17.0±3.8^ab	20.3±4.4^a	20.2±1.9^a
	TDC/cm	2.0±1.6^a	1.4±1.3^a	1.8±1.3^a	1.8±1.3^a	1.7±1.5^a	2.7±1.8^a
	SCU/mm	47.3±2.6^b	46.3±3.3^b	50.0±4.5^ab	50.0±5.3^ab	54.1±3.5^a	49.5±5.1^ab
	SH	14.8±1.1^a	14.4±2.6^a	16.4±1.7^a	14.8±3.0^a	16.4±1.7^a	16.0±1.4^a
	HL	27.0±3.9^c	30.6±1.9^bc	37.2±6.8^ab	32.8±7.0^abc	41.0±10.7^a	40.2±7.4^ab
	BL/g	24.2±5.5^b	30.2±4.9^ab	33.0±2.8^a	29.6±6.8^ab	31.4±5.1^ab	32.4±4.6^a

The influence of fertilization on the sandy farmland productivity and stability of corn in semi-arid areas

RichHTML

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 7

References 35

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

[1]	Weihong Zhang, Juan Ma, Ruizhi Zhao, Wei Zhou, Xinyi Zhao, Yanxia Pan. Plant diversity and community stability in forest ecosystems of Ningxia， China [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2025, 45(3): 210-221.
[2]	Juan Ma, Weihong Zhang, Yan Gong, Jie Hu, Zhipeng Liu, Yanxia Pan. Plant diversity and community stability in different grassland types of Ningxia [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2025, 45(3): 243-252.
[3]	gaowa Saren, Yuanyuan Zhao, Xinzhi Geng, Yue Wang, Guanglei Gao. Sustainability assessment of the human-earth system in the sandy areas of Inner Mongolia from 2000 to 2020 [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2025, 45(2): 71-82.
[4]	Na Gao, Guangyin Hu, Zhibao Dong. Change characteristics of spatial distribution pattern of sandy land in Gonghe Basin [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2025, 45(1): 204-214.
[5]	Jun Lei, Xinping Cheng, Chun Xue, Hongmei Liu, Yuhong Zhao, Mingmin Xiao. The characteristics and stability of plant communities in the northern desert area of the middle reaches of the Heihe River Basin [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2024, 44(6): 187-194.
[6]	Haoyu He, Wei Liu, Zongqiang Chang, Chunmei Hou, Liwei Sun, Xiuli Chi. Effects of revegetation on soil organic carbon composition and stability in the southern edge of the Tengger Desert [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2024, 44(6): 307-317.
[7]	Honghua Xia, Linshan Yang, Qi Feng, Yingqing Su, Xingyi Zou, Wanghan He. Spatio-temporal variation and driving factors of water supply and demand in Shiyang River Basin [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2024, 44(6): 87-99.
[8]	Congzhen Zhu, Jicheng Luo, Minzhong Wang, Lu Meng, Honglin Pan, Jiantao Zhang. Characteristics of the summer nighttime stable boundary layer in the hinterland of the Taklamakan Desert and its effect on dust aerosols concentration [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2024, 44(5): 1-12.
[9]	Jing Zhang, Xiaoan Zuo, Peng Lv. Effects of changes in growing season precipitation regimes on plant community structure， function and aboveground biomass in typical habitats in the Horqin Sandy Land [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2024, 44(4): 1-13.
[10]	Fanrui Bu, Ying Liu, Xueyong Zou, Chunlai Zhang. Vegetation sustainability in relation to water resources in typical sandy areas of eastern China [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2024, 44(4): 111-125.
[11]	Hanchen Duan, Beiying Huang. Comprehensive evaluation of land desertification sensitivity in the Horqin Sandy Land based on the coupling of AHP and improved MEDALUS model [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2024, 44(4): 137-148.
[12]	Shuai Wang, Dengke Ma, Zhibin He, Weihao Sun, Jun Du, Rui Li, Wen Wang, Shuping Yang, Shuxuan Zhao. Vegetation diversity and its relationship with soil physical and chemical properties in Hedong Sandy Land， Ningxia [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2024, 44(4): 202-211.
[13]	Jiannan Lu, Yuqiang Li, Xueyong Zhao, Baocheng Li, Xuyang Wang, Rui Zhang. Characteristics of ecological environment changes and advices for combating desertification in typical semi-arid sandy land [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2024, 44(4): 284-292.
[14]	Eryan Liu, Yuanyuan Zhao, Die Zhou, Haiyan Wu, Guanglei Gao, Guodong Ding. Spatiotemporal variation patterns of land desertification from 2000 to 2020 in the Horqin-Otindag Sandy Land [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2024, 44(4): 46-56.
[15]	Cong Hua, Yun Cao, Jikang Wang, Ran Xu. Spring sand-dust weather distribution in Hunshandak Sandy Land in relation to vegetation and wind in 2000-2023 [J]. Journal of Desert Research, 2024, 44(4): 71-80.