Sciences in Cold and Arid Regions ›› 2018, Vol. 10 ›› Issue (4): 347-353.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1226.2018.00347

Previous Articles    

Cultivated-land change in Mu Us Sandy Land of China before and after the first-stage grain-for-green policy

Na Li*(),ChangZhen Yan,JiaLi Xie,JianXia Ma   

  1. Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China
  • Received:2017-05-29 Accepted:2018-06-04 Online:2018-08-01 Published:2018-11-22
  • Contact: Na Li E-mail:lina@llas.ac.cn
  • Supported by:
    This research was funded by the China National Key Basic Research Programme (2013CB429901), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (General Programme: 41171400), Youth Innovation Promotion Association, CAS (2016158) and the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2016YFC0503706).

Abstract:

Mu Us Sandy Land (MUSL) of China, as a typical eco-fragile and farming-pastoral transitional region, shows great vulnerability to disturbances from cultivation activity. In this region, the conflict between cultivation activity and environmental protection has not attracted great importance until the implementation of China's Grain-for-Green Policy (CGGP) since 2000. Here, using Landsat5 TM/Landsat7 ETM+ images from 1990, 2000, and 2010, we monitor the cultivation activity and land-use/cover changes (LUCC) resulting from cultivation activity in the MUSL region. Based on the data from images, we developed a series of databases of cultivated activity-induced LUCC and use them to discuss comparatively the spatio-temporal evolution trends of cultivation activity before and after CGGP implementation. These results provide evidence for managers to evaluate the implementation effectiveness of governmental policy and the influence of cultivation activity on the ecological environment of the MUSL region.

Key words: Mu Us Sandy Land, China's grain-for-green policy, cultivated land, land-use/cover change, landsat

Figure 1

Location and typical land use/cover type distributions in the MUSL region (interpretation data from 2000)"

Table 1

Landsat satellite images to monitor cultivated-land change in the study area"

Year Path/Row Sensor Date of acquisition
1990 127/032 Landsat5 TM 19900813
127/033 19900829
127/034 19900829
128/033 19910823
128/034 19910823
129/034 19910830
2000 127/032 Landsat7 ETM+ 20000731
127/033 20000731
127/034 20000605
128/033 20000503
128/034 19990922
129/034 20000830
2010 127/032 Landsat5 TM 20090630
127/033 20090630
127/034 20100617
128/033 20100827
128/034 20100710
129/034 20100717

Table 2

The classification system of land use/cover type used in the present study"

Type Description
Vegetation Trees, shrubs, steppe, rangeland, greenbelt, and other forested lands
Wetlands River, lake, reservoir or pond, washland, bottomland
Cultivated land Dry farmland, irrigated land
Artificially-surface Urban area, rural residential area, mining region, other built-up area
Bare land Sandy land, saline land, marsh, bare rock, other unused land

Figure 2

Spatial and temporal distribution of cultivated land in the study area"

Table 3

Total and differential area data for cultivated lands and their changes in this MUSL region (area unit: km2) "

Total area Cultivated land area (1990) Cultivated land area (2000) Cultivated land area (2010) Change (1990–2000) Change (2000–2010)
Defined as A1 A2 A3 A4 A3–A2 A4–A3
Part 1 (Mongolia Autonomous Region) 2,047 1,840.7
(5.7% of A1)
1,815.2 1,790.2 ?25.5
(1.4% of A2)
?25.0
(1.4% of A3)
Part 2 (Shaanxi) 14,790 2,142.0
(14.5% of A1)
2,161.0 2,106.2 19.0
(0.9% of A2)
?54.7
(2.5% of A3)
Part 3 (Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region) 1,463 196.3
(13.4% of A1)
204.5 185.5 8.2
(4.2% of A2)
?19.1
(9.3% of A3)
Total area 48,300 4,179.0
(8.7% of A1)
4,180.7 4,081.9 1.7
(0.04% of A2)
?98.7
(2.4% of A3)

Table 4

The transfer matrix of cultivated land from/to the other four land-use/cover types related to Part 1 in 1990–2000 and 2000–2010 (area unit: km2) "

Land use/cover types Cultivated land from other types Cultivated land from other types
Area (1990–2000) Contribution rate Area (2000–2010) Contribution rate Area (1990–2000) Contribution rate Area (2000–2010) Contribution rate
Vegetation 59.7 93.20% 26 96.30% 29.9 77.40% 1.8 85.70%
Wetlands 0.4 0.60% 5.2 13.60%
Artificial
surface
3.6 5.60% 1 3.70%
Bare land 0.4 0.60% 3.5 9.00% 0.3 14.30%
Total 64.1 100.00% 27 100.00% 38.6 100.00% 2.1 100.00%

Table 5

The transfer matrix of cultivated land from/to the other four land-use/cover types related to Part 2 in 1990–2000 and 2000–2010 (area unit: km2) "

Land use/cover types Cultivated land from other types Cultivated land from other types
Area (1990–2000) Contribution rate Area (2000–2010) Contribution rate Area (1990–2000) Contribution rate Area (2000–2010) Contribution rate
Vegetation 12.9 68.20% 45.5 71.80% 26.4 69.60% 5.3 58.00%
Wetlands 2.3 3.60% 6.5 17.00% 1.6 17.50%
Artificial surface 4.5 23.40% 15.1 23.90%
Bare land 1.6 8.40% 0.5 0.70% 5.1 13.40% 2.2 24.50%
Total 19.0 100.00% 63.4 100.00% 38.0 100.00% 9.1 100.00%

Table 6

The transfer matrix of the cultivated land from/to the other four land-use/cover types related to Part 3 in 1990–2000 and 2000–2010 (area unit: km2) "

Land use/cover types Cultivated land from other types Cultivated land from other types
Area (1990–2000) Contribution rate Area (2000–2010) Contribution rate Area (1990–2000) Contribution rate Area (2000–2010) Contribution rate
Vegetation 7.5 85.10% 19.1 96.40% 17 100.00% 0.8 100.00%
Wetlands
Artificial surface 1.3 14.90% 0.7 3.60%
Bare land
Total 8.8 100.00% 19.8 100.00% 17 100.00% 0.8 100.00%
1 Anees MT, Javed A, Khanday MY Spatio-temporal land cover analysis in Makhawan Watershed (M.P.), India through remote sensing and GIS techniques. Journal of Geographic Information System 2014; 6: 4 48526.
doi: 10.4236/jgis.2014.64027
2 Atzberger C Advances in remote sensing of agriculture: context description, existing operational monitoring systems and major information needs. Remote Sensing 2013; 5: 2 949- 981.
doi: 10.3390/rs5020949
3 Deng XZ, Huang JK, Rozelle S, et al. Cultivated land conversion and potential agricultural productivity in China. Land Use Policy 2006; 23: 4 372- 384.
doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.07.003
4 Feng W, Zhang YQ, Wu B, et al. Influence of disturbance on soil respiration in biologically crusted soil during the dry season. The Scientific World Journal 2013; 2013: 408560.
doi: 10.1155/2013/408560
5 Feng ZM, Yang YZ, Zhang YQ, et al. Grain-for-green policy and its impacts on grain supply in West China. Land Use Policy 2005; 22: 4 301- 312.
doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.05.004
6 Hao CY, Wu SH The effects of land-use types and conversions on desertification in Mu Us Sandy Land of China. Journal of Geographical Sciences 2006; 16: 1 57- 68.
doi: 10.1007/s11442-006-0106-2
7 Li N, Yan CZ, Xie JL Remote sensing monitoring recent rapid increase of coal mining activity of an important energy base in northern China, a case study of Mu Us Sandy Land. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2015; 94: 129- 135.
doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.11.010
8 Liang P, Yang XP Landscape spatial patterns in the Maowusu (Mu Us) Sandy Land, northern China and their impact factors. CATENA 2016; 145: 321- 333.
doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2016.06.023
9 Luk SH Recent trends of desertification in the Maowusu Desert, China. Environmental Conservation 1983; 10: 3 213- 224.
doi: 10.1017/S0376892900012625
10 Robert A, Yao M, Yengué JL, et al. Remote sensing and landscapes in Sahelian Africa. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology A 2015; 5: 8 655- 663.
doi: 10.17265/2161-6256/2015.08.003
11 Rodríguez LG, Hogarth NJ, Zhou W, et al. China's conversion of cropland to forest program: a systematic review of the environmental and socioeconomic effects. Environmental Evidence 2016; 5: 21.
doi: 10.1186/s13750-016-0071-x
12 Runnström MC Rangeland development of the Mu Us Sandy Land in semiarid China: an analysis using Landsat and NOAA remote sensing data. Land Degradation & Development 2003; 14: 2 189- 202.
doi: 10.1002/ldr.545
13 Seto KC, Woodcock CE, Song C, et al. Monitoring land-use change in the Pearl River Delta using Landsat TM. International Journal of Remote Sensing 2002; 23: 10 1985- 2004.
doi: 10.1080/01431160110075532
14 Wang XH, Lu CH, Fang JF, et al. Implications for development of grain-for-green policy based on cropland suitability evaluation in desertification-affected north China. Land Use Policy 2007; 24: 2 417- 424.
doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2006.05.005
15 Wang XY, Huang HB, Gong P, et al. Quantifying multi-decadal change of planted forest cover using airborne LiDAR and landsat imagery. Remote Sensing 2016; 8: 1 62.
doi: 10.3390/rs8010062
16 Wu B, Ci LJ Landscape change and desertification development in the Mu Us Sandland, northern China. Journal of Arid Environments 2002; 50: 3 429- 444.
doi: 10.1006/jare.2001.0847
17 Yan CZ, Wang T, Han ZW, 2005. Using modis data to assess land desertification in Ordos Plateau—Mu Us Sandy Land case study. In: Proceedings of 2005 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium. Seoul, South Korea: IEEE, pp. 2373–2375. DOI: 10.1109/IGARSS.2005.1525454
18 Yan HM, Liu JY, Huang HQ, et al. Assessing the consequence of land use change on agricultural productivity in China. Global and Planetary Change 2009; 67: 1–2 13- 19.
doi: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2008.12.012
19 Zhang JC, Zhang YQ, Fan DQ, et al. Effects of sand dune stabilization on the spatial pattern of Artemisia ordosica population in Mu Us Desert, Northwest China . PLoS One 2015; 10: 6 e0129728.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129728
20 Zhou HJ, Van Rompaey A, Wang JA Detecting the impact of the "Grain for Green" program on the mean annual vegetation cover in the Shaanxi province, China using SPOT-VGT NDVI data. Land Use Policy 2009; 26: 4 954- 960.
doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.11.006
No related articles found!
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] Mohan Bahadur Chand,Rijan Bhakta Kayastha. Study of thermal properties of supraglacial debris and degree-day factors on Lirung Glacier, Nepal[J]. Sciences in Cold and Arid Regions, 2018, 10(5): 357 -368 .
[2] AiHong Xie, ShiMeng Wang, YiCheng Wang, ChuanJin Li. Comparison of temperature extremes between Zhongshan Station and Great Wall Station in Antarctica[J]. Sciences in Cold and Arid Regions, 2018, 10(5): 369 -378 .
[3] YanZai Wang, YongQiu Wu, MeiHui Pan, RuiJie Lu. Comparison of two classification methods to identify grain size fractions of aeolian sediment[J]. Sciences in Cold and Arid Regions, 2018, 10(5): 413 -420 .
[4] YinHuan Ao, ShiHua Lyu, ZhaoGuo Li, LiJuan Wen, Lin Zhao. Numerical simulation of the climate effect of high-altitude lakes on the Tibetan Plateau[J]. Sciences in Cold and Arid Regions, 2018, 10(5): 379 -391 .
[5] Zhuo Ga, Za Dui, Duodian Luozhu, Jun Du. Comparison of precipitation products to observations in Tibet during the rainy season[J]. Sciences in Cold and Arid Regions, 2018, 10(5): 392 -403 .
[6] Rong Yang, JunQia Kong, ZeYu Du, YongZhong Su. Altitude pattern of carbon stocks in desert grasslands of an arid land region[J]. Sciences in Cold and Arid Regions, 2018, 10(5): 404 -412 .
[7] Yang Qiu, ZhongKui Xie, XinPing Wang, YaJun Wang, YuBao Zhang, YuHui He, WenMei Li, WenCong Lv. Effect of slow-release iron fertilizer on iron-deficiency chlorosis, yield and quality of Lilium davidii var. unicolor in a two-year field experiment[J]. Sciences in Cold and Arid Regions, 2018, 10(5): 421 -427 .
[8] Ololade A. Oyedapo,Joseph M. Agbedahunsi,H. C Illoh,Akinwumi J. Akinloye. Comparative foliar anatomy of three Khaya species (Meliaceae) used in Nigeria as antisickling agent[J]. Sciences in Cold and Arid Regions, 2018, 10(4): 279 -285 .
[9] YuMing Wei, XiaoFei Ma, PengShan Zhao. Transcriptomic comparison to identify rapidly evolving genes in Braya humilis[J]. Sciences in Cold and Arid Regions, 2018, 10(5): 428 -435 .
[10] FangLei Zhong, AiJun Guo, XiaoJuan Yin, JinFeng Cui, Xiao Yang, YanQiong Zhang. Sociodemographic characteristics, cultural biases, and environmental attitudes: An empirical application of grid-group cultural theory in Northwestern China[J]. Sciences in Cold and Arid Regions, 2018, 10(5): 436 -446 .