Mohammad Zaman 

· Shabbir A. Shahid 
Lee Heng

Guideline for Salinity

Assessment, Mitigation
and Adaptation Using
Nuclear and Related
Techniques
Guideline for Salinity Assessment, Mitigation
and Adaptation Using Nuclear and Related
Techniques
Mohammad Zaman • Shabbir A. Shahid
Lee Heng

Guideline for Salinity

Assessment, Mitigation
and Adaptation Using
Nuclear and Related
Techniques
Mohammad Zaman Shabbir A. Shahid
Soil and Water Management & Crop Senior Salinity Management Expert, Freelancer
Nutrition Section, Joint FAO/IAEA Dubai, UAE
Division of Nuclear Techniques in
Food and Agriculture, Department
of Nuclear Sciences & Applications
International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA)
Vienna, Austria

Lee Heng
Soil and Water Management & Crop
Nutrition Section, Joint FAO/IAEA
Division of Nuclear Techniques in
Food and Agriculture, Department
of Nuclear Sciences & Applications
International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA)
Vienna, Austria

IGO

ISBN 978-3-319-96189-7 ISBN 978-3-319-96190-3 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96190-3

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018949626

© International Atomic Energy Agency 2018. This book is an open access publication. Open Access
provided with a grant from the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors/editors and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the IAEA, its Board of Directors, or the countries they represent.
Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and
reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the IAEA, provide a link to
the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The use of the IAEA’s name for any purpose other than for attribution, and the use of the IAEA’s logo, shall
be subject to a separate written license agreement between the IAEA and the user and is not authorized as
part of this CC-IGO license. Note that the link provided above includes additional terms and conditions of
the license.
The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book’s Creative Commons license,
unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book’s Creative
Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted
use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Salt-tolerant grass growing under saline condition
Foreword

Soil salinity is a major global issue owing to its adverse impact on agricultural
productivity and sustainability. Salinity problems occur under all climatic conditions
and can result from both natural and human-induced actions. Generally speaking,
saline soils occur in arid and semi-arid regions where rainfall is insufficient to meet
the water requirements of the crops, and leach mineral salts out of the root-zone. The
association between humans and salinity has existed for centuries and historical
records show that many civilizations have failed due to increases in the salinity of
agricultural fields, the most known example being Mesopotamia (now Iraq). Soil
salinity undermines the resource base by decreasing soil quality and can occur due to
natural causes or from misuse and mismanagement to an extent which jeopardizes
the integrity of soil’s self-regulatory capacity.
Soil salinity is dynamic and spreading globally in over 100 countries; no conti-
nent is completely free from salinity. Soil salinization is projected to increase in
future climate change scenarios due to sea level rise and impact on coastal areas, and
the rise in temperature that will inevitably lead to increase evaporation and further
salinization. There is a long list of countries where salt-induced land degradation
occurs. Some well-known regions where salinization is extensively reported include
the Aral Sea Basin (Amu-Darya and Syr-Darya River Basins) in Central Asia, the
Indo-Gangetic Basin in India, the Indus Basin in Pakistan, the Yellow River Basin in
China, the Euphrates Basin in Syria and Iraq, the Murray-Darling Basin in Australia,
and the San Joaquin Valley in the United States.
The objective of this guideline is to develop protocols for salinity and sodicity
assessment, and the role of isotopic nuclear and related techniques to develop
mitigation and adaptation measures to use saline and sodic soils sustainably. We
have focused on important issues related to salinity and sodicity and have described
these in an easy and user friendly way. The information has been compiled from
latest published literature and from authors’ publications specific to the subject
matter. This guideline is an outcome of a joint publication between the Soil and
Water Management & Crop Nutrition Section, Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear
Techniques in Food and Agriculture, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),

vii
viii Foreword

Vienna, Austria, and a freelance senior salinity management expert based in the
United Arab Emirates.
We hope that this guideline will be an excellent contribution to the science and
enhance the knowledge of those seeking information to assess and diagnose salinity
problem at the landscape and farm levels and the role of nuclear and isotopic
techniques in developing strategies to use these marginal soils sustainably.

Soil and Water Management & Crop Mohammad Zaman

Nutrition Section, Joint FAO/IAEA
Division of Nuclear Techniques in
Food and Agriculture
Department of Nuclear
Sciences & Applications
International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA)
Vienna, Austria
Senior Salinity Management Expert, Shabbir A. Shahid
Freelancer, Dubai, UAE
Soil and Water Management & Crop Lee Heng
Nutrition Section, Joint FAO/IAEA
Division of Nuclear Techniques in
Food and Agriculture
Department of Nuclear
Sciences & Applications
International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA)
Vienna, Austria
Acknowledgements

We are thankful to Prof. Pharis, R.P., Department of Biological Sciences, University

of Calgary, Canada, and Dr. Shazia Zaman, University of Canterbury, for their
critical review, feedback and editorial comments in the preparation of this book.
We also thank Ms. Marlies Zaczek of the Soil and Water Management & Crop
Nutrition Section, Joint FAO/IAEA Division, International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), Vienna, Austria, for her help in formatting this document and Ms. Petra
Nabil Salame, PMO of Asia and the Pacific Section 2, Division for Asia and the
Pacific Department of Technical Cooperation for her financial support.

ix
Contents

1 Introduction to Soil Salinity, Sodicity and Diagnostics Techniques . . . 1

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 What Is Soil Salinity? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 Causes of Soil Salinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3 Salinity Development in Soils – A Hypothetical Cycle . . . . . . . . . . 9
4 Types of Soil Salinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.1 Dryland Soil Salinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2 Secondary Soil Salinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5 Damage Caused by Soil Salinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6 Facts About Salinity and How It Affects Plant Growth . . . . . . . . . . 11
7 Visual Indicators of Soil Salinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8 Field Assessment of Soil Salinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9 Soil Sodicity and Its Diagnostics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.1 Visual Indicators of Soil Sodicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.2 Field Testing of Soil Sodicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9.3 Laboratory Assessment of Soil Sodicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10 Sodicity and Soil Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10.1 Negative Effects of Surface Sealing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
10.2 Positive Effects of Surface Sealing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11 Classification of Salt-Affected Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
11.1 US Salinity Laboratory Staff Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.2 FAO/UNESCO Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12 Socioeconomic Impacts of Salinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
13 Environmental Impacts of Salinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
14 Soil Salinity Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
15 Soil Sampling Frequency and Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
16 Current Approaches of Salinity Diagnostics – Assessment, Mapping
and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
16.1 Salinity Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
16.2 Modern Methods of Soil Salinity Measurement . . . . . . . . . . 24

xi
xii Contents

16.3 Use of Remote Sensing (RS) and Geographical Information

System (GIS) in Salinity Mapping and Monitoring . . . . . . . . 32
16.4 Global Use of Remote Sensing in Salinity Mapping and
Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
16.5 Geo-Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
16.6 Morphological Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2 Soil Salinity: Historical Perspectives and a World Overview of the
Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2 Soil Salinity – A Historical and Contemporary Perspective . . . . . . . 45
3 An Overview of Salinity Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4 Distribution of Salinity in Drylands in Different Continents of the
World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5 Irrigation Practices and Soil Salinization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6 Regional Overview of Salinity Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
7 Extent of Soil Salinity in the Middle East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
8 Socioeconomic Aspects of Soil Salinization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3 Salinity and Sodicity Adaptation and Mitigation Options . . . . . . . . . 55
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
2 Mitigation and Adaptation Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3 Diagnostics of the Soil Salinity Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4 Integrated Soil Reclamation Program (ISRP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.1 Objectives of Salinity Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.2 Prerequisite for Soil Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.3 Physical Methods of Soil Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.4 Chemical Methods of Soil Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.5 Hydrological Methods of Soil Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
5 Drainage and Drainage Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
5.1 Agricultural Drainage Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6 Salinity Control and Methods of Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
6.1 Surface Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
6.2 Basin Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
6.3 Furrow Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
6.4 Border Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
6.5 Sprinkler Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
6.6 Drip Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
7 Biological Methods of Soil Reclamation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
7.1 Use of Organic Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
7.2 Biosaline Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
7.3 Screening Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
8 Serial Biological Concentration (SBC) Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Contents xiii

9 Genetic Engineering (Developing Salt Tolerant Cultivars) . . . . . . . 81

10 Crop Yield Estimation Under Saline Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
11 Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
11.1 What Is a Four Right (4R) Strategy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
12 Conservation Agriculture (CA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
13 Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
14 Commercial Exploitation of Mineral Resources from Highly Saline
Areas – The Neglected Resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
15 Salinity Control Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4 Irrigation Systems and Zones of Salinity Development . . . . . . . . . . . 91
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
2 Sprinkler Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
3 Drip Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
3.1 Salinity Management When Using Drip Irrigation . . . . . . . . 98
3.2 Subsurface Drip Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4 Furrow Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
5 Surge Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
6 Salinity and Sodicity Management in the Root-Zone . . . . . . . . . . . 104
6.1 Physical Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
6.2 Chemical Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
6.3 Hydrological Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
6.4 Agronomic Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
6.5 Biological Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
7 Relative Crop Salinity Tolerance Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
8 Soil Salinity and Relative Yield Reduction of Crops . . . . . . . . . . . 107
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
5 Irrigation Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
2 Quality of Irrigation Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
2.1 Salinity Hazard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
2.2 Sodium Hazard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
2.3 Carbonates and Bicarbonates Concentration . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
2.4 Specific Ion Effects (Toxic Elements) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
3 Classification of Irrigation Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
4 Analysis of Irrigation Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
4.1 Chemical Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
5 Conductivity Classes (USSL Staff 1954) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
5.1 Low Salinity Water (Salinity Class C1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
5.2 Medium Salinity Water (Salinity Class C2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
5.3 High Salinity Water (Salinity Class C3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
5.4 Very High Salinity Water (Salinity Class C4) . . . . . . . . . . . 124
xiv Contents

6 Sodicity Classes (USSL Staff 1954) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

6.1 Low Sodium Water (Sodicity Class S1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
6.2 Medium Sodium Water (Sodicity Class S2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
6.3 High Sodium Water (Sodicity Class S3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
6.4 Very High Sodium Water (Sodicity Class S4) . . . . . . . . . . . 125
7 Improvement of Irrigation Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
7.1 Blending Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
7.2 Blending Water to Achieve a Desired Salinity . . . . . . . . . . . 127
8 Water Sodicity Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
8.1 Gypsum Requirement Using the Residual Sodium
Carbonates (RSC) Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
8.2 Determining the SAR of Blended Water to Be Used for
Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
9 Cyclic Use of Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
6 The Role of Nuclear Techniques in Biosaline Agriculture . . . . . . . . . 133
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
2 Background Information on Isotopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
3 Use of Nuclear and Isotopic Techniques in Biosaline Agriculture . . . 135
4 The Use of Nitrogen-15 (15N) to Study Fertilizer Use Efficiency . . . 136
4.1 Setting Up Experimental Field Plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
4.2 Calculation of Nitrogen Use Efficiency (NUE) . . . . . . . . . . 141
4.3 An Example for 15N-Labeled Urea Dilution . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
5 Biological Nitrogen Fixation (BNF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
5.1 Estimating Legume BNF Using 15N Isotope Techniques . . . 144
15
5.2 N Isotope Dilution Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
5.3 Calculation of the Amount of N Derived from BNF by 15N
Isotope Dilution Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
15
5.4 N Natural Abundance Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
5.5 Correction for N Derived from Seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
6 Water Stable Isotope Technique to Determine Evapotranspiration
Partitioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
6.1 Determining δET Using the Keeling Mixing Model . . . . . . . 155
6.2 Determining δET Using the Craig-Gordon Model . . . . . . . . . 157
6.3 Determining δT via Direct Measurement at the Leaf . . . . . . . 160
7 Application of Other Isotopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
About the Authors

Mohammad Zaman is working as Soil Scientist/Plant Nutritionist at the Soil and

Water Management & Crop Nutrition (SWMCN) Section, Joint FAO/IAEA Divi-
sion of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture, International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA), Vienna, Austria. Zaman’s work is covering countries in Africa,
Asia, Middle East, Europe, and Central and Latin America on developing climate
smart agricultural practices for enhancing food production and environmental sus-
tainability. Prior to joining the SWMCN Section, he worked for 19 years in
integrated plant nutrient management of irrigated and dryland farms at different
research, academic, commercial, and international organizations in both developing
and developed countries.
Zaman completed a Ph.D. degree at Lincoln University, Canterbury,
New Zealand, on soil nitrogen (N) mineralization and its relationship to soil
microbial and enzyme activities in grasslands under different management practices.
After completing his Ph.D., Zaman continued post-doctoral research at Lincoln
University and Chiba University, Japan, in the areas of soil fertility, soil water
quality, and greenhouse gases, using both conventional and stable isotopic
techniques. After 2 years in Japan, Zaman went back to New Zealand to take up a
position as a researcher in the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research
(NIWA), Hamilton. Later, he moved to the farmers owned Cooperative Fertilizer
Industry, firstly as a Senior Scientist and then as a Research Manager to increase
the adaptive capabilities of soil/plant systems to climate change and to enhance
nutrient use efficiency on farms. This research included mitigating greenhouse gas
emissions in an integrated plant animal system, developing new decision support
systems and tools, identifying novel fertilizer products to increase farm produc-
tivity and resource use efficiency, and minimizing nutrient losses to waterways and
the atmosphere. Zaman is author and coauthor of over 65 research publications in
refereed journals.

xv
xvi About the Authors

Shabbir Ahmad Shahid is Senior Salinity Management expert a freelancer based in

the United Arab Emirates. He had served in different capacities in a number of organi-
zations, including Senior Salinity Management Scientist in ICBA, Dubai, UAE, Associate
Professor of Soil Science at the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan, Associate
Research Scientist at the Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, Kuwait, Manager of
Soil Resources Department at the Environment Agency, Abu Dhabi, UAE. He has more
than 36 years of experience in applied agricultural research in many countries and
regions. Dr. Shabbir holds a Ph.D. in “soil micromorphology of salt-affected soils”
from Bangor University, Wales, UK. He is author and coauthor of over 160 research
publications, including five edited books published by Springer, principal author of two
books and two manuals, 52 peer-reviewed journal papers, 31 book chapters, and
27 conference proceedings. He also authored and coauthored over 30 scientific reports. He
is member of a number of scientific committees, international advisory boards of
international conferences, and editorial boards of scientific journals. He is life member
of World Association of Soil and Water Conservation (WASWAC). He is a recipient of
Sir William Roberts and David A Jenkins awards. Shabbir is pioneer in introducing soil
survey research in the UAE. He with his associates discovered anhydrite soil in UAE and
formally added to 12 edition of US Keys to Soil Taxonomy. He also authored UAE Keys
to Soil Taxonomy and chaired the Emirates Soil Museum Committee to establish a
unique soil museum at ICBA. His research priorities include: soil surveys and salinity
mapping, reclamation of salt-affected soils, integrated soil fertility management, agricul-
tural intensification through soil health improvement using organic and inorganic amend-
ments, conservation agriculture and climate smart agriculture, environmental impact
assessment, land degradation, and carbon sequestration.

Lee Heng has a Ph.D. in soil science from Massey University, Palmerston North,
New Zealand, and has more than 25 years’ experience in soil-plant-water interac-
tions, agricultural water management and water use efficiency, integrated nutrient-
water interactions, and diffuse pollution control for sustainable agricultural produc-
tion systems, at both national and international levels. Her work is covering coun-
tries in Africa, Asia, Europe, and Central and Latin America on sustainable land and
water management for climate smart agriculture and the efficient use and conserva-
tion of agricultural resources for enhancing food production and environmental
sustainability. For the past 18 years, Heng works at the Soil and Water Management
& Crop Nutrition (SWMCN) Subprogram in the Joint FAO/IAEA Division of
Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture. Currently, she is the Head of
SWMCN Section, which assists scientists in Member States in the development,
validation and dissemination of a range of soil, water, and crop management
technology packages through the use of nuclear and nuclear-related techniques.
About the Authors xvii

Prior to her current assignment with the Joint FAO/IAEA Division, Heng worked
as a research associate in the Department of Agriculture and Forestry at the Univer-
sity of Melbourne, Australia. Her work involved measurement and modeling the
transport of reactive solutes in soils, conducting field study on soil water and
nitrogen dynamics under temperate pastures. She also worked with Landcare
Research in New Zealand. Heng has won several awards for her professional
achievements including the USDA-Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Outstand-
ing Sustained Effort Technology Transfer Award in 2012 and several IAEA Merit
Awards in different categories. Heng is author and coauthor of over 60 research
publications in refereed journals.
Acronyms and Abbreviations

BNF Biological Nitrogen Fixation

CA Conservation Agriculture
CEC Cation Exchange Capacity
CID Carbon Isotope Discrimination
CRDS Cavity Ring-Down Spectroscopy
CSA Climate Smart Agriculture
DEM Digital Elevation Model
dS/m deci Siemens per meter
E Evaporation
EAD Environment Agency Abu Dhabi
EC Electrical Conductivity
ECa Apparent Electrical Conductivity
ECe Electrical Conductivity of Soil Saturation Extract
ECiw Electrical Conductivity of Irrigation Water
EDXRA Energy Dispersive X Ray Analyses
EMI Electromagnetic Induction
ESP Exchangeable Sodium Percentage
ET Evapotranspiration
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
fc Field Capacity
GCC Gulf Cooperation Council
GIS Geographic Information System
GR Gypsum Requirement
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
ICBA International Center for Biosaline Agriculture
IDW Inverse Distance Weighted
IM Picarro Induction Module
IRMS Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry
ISFM Integrated Soil Fertility Management
ISRP Integrated Soil Reclamation Program

xix
xx Acronyms and Abbreviations

LR Leaching Requirement
mmhos/cm millio mhos per centimeter
mS/cm milli Siemens per centimeter
NRM Natural Resources Management
OPUS Options for the Productive Use of Salinity
ppm parts per million
RS Remote Sensing
RSC Residual Sodium Carbonates
RTASLS Realtime Automated Salinity Logging System
S Siemens
SAR Sodium Adsorption Ratio
SBCS Serial Biological Concentration of Salts
SDI Subsurface Drip Irrigation
SI Standard International
SWMCN Soil and Water Management and Crop Nutrition
TDS Total Dissolved Solutes
TM Thematic Mapper
TSS Total Soluble Salts
μS/cm micro Siemens per centimeter
USSL United States Salinity Laboratory
WDXRA Wavelength Dispersive X Ray Analyses
WUE Water Use Efficiency
List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Relationship between total soluble salts (TSS) on y-axis

and ECe on x-axis. (Source: Fig. 4, page 12, Agriculture
Handbook 60 (USSL Staff 1954)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Fig. 1.2 Relationship between TSS and ECe (from Shahid et al. 2013) . . . 5
Fig. 1.3 A comparison of the relationship between total soluble salts
(TSS)/ECe established using the Agriculture Handbook
60 curve (USSL Staff 1954) for the soils of Abu Dhabi
Emirate and the relationship established for the same soils
by the ICBA/EAD curve (Shahid et al. 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Fig. 1.4 Average lines showing the relationship between ECe and total
soluble salts (TSS) from the USSL method (line from Fig. 1.1,
above) for the soils of Abu Dhabi Emirate using the method
developed by Shahid et al. (2013) using the average line adapted
from Fig. 1.2, above . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Fig. 1.5 A hypothetical soil salinization cycle. (Adapted from
Shahid et al. 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Fig. 1.6 Soil salinity monitoring in a Distichlis spicata field at ICBA
experimental station. Y-axis shows soil salinity fluctuations on
different days. The experimental plots were irrigated with saline
water of EC, dS m 1: 10 (A, C), 20 (E, G) and 30 (I, K) . . . . . . . . . 31
Fig. 1.7 Kriging method to generate salinity map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Fig. 1.8 Inverse distance weighted (IDW) method to generate
salinity map . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . 36
Fig. 2.1 World map representing countries with salinity problems.
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262495450) . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Fig. 3.1 USDA soil textural classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Fig. 4.1 Salinity zone profiles occurring under a wide range
of irrigation methods: sprinkler, flood, basin (bubbler)
and border irrigation systems (Shahid 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
xxi
xxii List of Figures

Fig. 4.2 A typical pattern of salt accumulation occurring from surface

drip irrigation . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 98
Fig. 4.3 Soil salinity under drip irrigation with emitter spacing
at 25, 50 and 75 cm. Intensity of whiteness indicates higher
salinity (Shahid and Hasbini 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Fig. 4.4 Relative salt accumulation in the soil from subsurface drip
irrigation showing high surface salinity in the zone above the
irrigation line (Shahid 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Fig. 4.5 Salt accumulation when both furrows are irrigated;
any plants growing in the very high salt accumulation
zone will be affected . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 101
Fig. 4.6 Furrow irrigation system (flatbed); both furrows are irrigated . . . . 102
Fig. 4.7 Planting in the salt accumulation zone will result in a dead
plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Fig. 4.8 Salt accumulation and the safe zone for seeding when
only the alternate furrow is irrigated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Fig. 4.9 Salt accumulation on sloping beds and the safe zone
for seeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Fig. 4.10 Salt accumulation on sloping beds. Note the safe zone
for seeding when both furrows are irrigated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Fig. 4.11 Divisions for relative salt tolerance ratings of agricultural crops
(Maas 1987). (Source: Ayers and Westcot 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Fig. 5.1 Diagram for the classification of irrigation waters (USSL
Staff 1954; modified by Shahid and Mahmoudi 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
Fig. 6.1 A wheat trial set up on a flat soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Fig. 6.2 A schematic diagram of experimental layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Fig. 6.3 Schematic diagram of the layout of the two sub-plots within
a main plot, each with a 1 m buffer zone, each destined for
15
N-labeled fertilizer application . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . 139
Fig. 6.4 Illustration of the 15N isotope dilution technique for the BNF
quantification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
Fig. 6.5 Relationship between 15N enrichment of N2-fixing plant
(abscissa axis) and percentage of N derived from atmosphere
(%Ndfa, ordinate axis) . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . 147
Fig. 6.6 Evapotranspiration model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Fig. 6.7 Example of experimental setup for sampling water vapor
at different heights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Fig. 6.8 Example of a Keeling plot derived from a vertical profile of
5 water vapor measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Fig. 6.9 Picarro Induction Module and Isotopic Water Analyzer .. . . .. . . .. . 159
Fig. 6.10 Experimental setup for measuring δM and CM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
List of Plates

Plate 1.1 Soil salinity development in agriculture and coastal fields.

(a) Salinity in a furrow irrigated barley field, (b) Salinity in a
sprinkler irrigated grass field, (c) Salinity due to sea water
intrusion in coastal land . . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. 8
Plate 1.2 Field diagnostics of soil salinity – visual indicators for quick
guide. (a) Salt stains and poor growth, (b) Leaf burn grassy plot,
(c) Patchy crop establishment, (d) Dead trees due to salt stress . . . 12
Plate 1.3 Maximum soil salinity zone in drip irrigation system in a grass
field – Alain, UAE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Plate 1.4 Setup for collection of extract from saturated soil paste . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Plate 1.5 Salinity monitoring in a grass field using salinity probe.
(Field scout PNT 3000 COMBI +) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Plate 1.6 EC measurement with EM 38 in vertical mode (left: grassland) and
horizontal mode (right: Atriplex field) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Plate 1.7 Real time salinity logging system at ICBA experimental station
(Shahid et al. 2008) (a) Sensor placement in the root-zone,
(b) Buried sensors connected to the Smart Interface, (c) Smart
Interface connected to the DataBus, (d) Instantaneous salinity
read on Data Logger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Plate 1.8 Salt features at different observations scales (cf. Shahid 1988;
2013). (a) Micromorphological feature – optical microscopic
observation of thenardite (Na2SO4) mineral in thin section (Width
1000 μm), (b) Micromorphological feature – submicroscopic
observation of lath shaped glauberite [(Na2Ca (SO4)2] mineral –
scanning electron microscopy (Width 64 μm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Plate 3.1 Salts buildup in furrow irrigation system .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. 61
Plate 3.2 Collection of a soil core to measure bulk density of the soil,
and cleaning the core with a saw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Plate 3.3 On-site diagnosis of a saline-sodic soil in Pakistan, and sharing
the experience with farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
xxiii
xxiv List of Plates

Plate 3.4 Vertical drainage through installing tube well (an example from
Pakistan); the poor quality groundwater is used to irrigate salt
tolerant plants at the Biosaline Research Station of NIAB,
Pakka Anna near Faisalabad. Gypsum stones are also seen
which are used as amendment for mitigating the high SAR
and RSC (Residual sodium carbonates) levels of the water . . . . . . . 75
Plate 3.5 Neglected but precious resource for salts in UAE (left) and
Bahrain (right) needs attention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Plate 3.6 (a) Eucalyptus camaldulensis stand on a saline-sodic soil at the
Biosaline Research Station of NIAB (Pakka Anna), near
Faisalabad, monitored for tree water use with HeatPulse Data
Loggers. (Adapted from Mahmood et al. 2004), (b) Setup for
monitoring tree water use with HeatPulse Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Plate 4.1 Basin irrigation of date palm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Plate 4.2 Sprinkler irrigation in a demonstration plot of salt tolerant
grass in Abu Dhabi Emirate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Plate 4.3 Salinity diagnostics in a grass field where sprinkler irrigation
with saline water has caused necrosis (leaf burn) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Plate 4.4 Wetting zone and salinity buildup in drip irrigation system:
(a) Wetted soil, (b) Salt accumulation in the center of drip
lines where wetting zones meet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Plate 4.5 Pattern of salt accumulation (a), and safe zone for seed
placement or transplanting (b) in a furrow irrigation system . . . . . . 101
Plate 4.6 Soil sampling for root-zone soil salinity diagnostics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
List of Tables

Table 1.1 Conversion factor for deriving the ECe from the EC
of extracts from different soil:water ratio suspensions . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 1.2 Classification of salt-affected soils (USSL Staff 1954) . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 1.3 Correlations of ECa measured by using the field scout
(EC probe) with EC of 1:1, 1:2.5 and 1:5 (soil:water
suspensions) and ECe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Table 2.1 Worldwide distribution of salt-affected areas (Million ha) . .. . . .. . 46
Table 2.2 Global extent of human-induced salinization (Oldeman et al.
1991; Mashali 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Table 2.3 Global estimates of secondary salinization in the world’s
irrigated lands. (Summarized from Ghassemi et al. 1995;
Mashali 1995) . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . 48
Table 2.4 Salt-affected soils in drylands by continents (UNEP 1992;
cf FAO-ITPS-GSP 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Table 2.5 Soil salinity caused by irrigation in major irrigating countries
and in the world (Postel 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Table 2.6 Regional distribution of salt-affected soils (mha).
(cf. Mashali 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Table 2.7 Salinization classes and affected area in the Middle East
(Hussein 2001; Shahid et al. 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Table 3.1 Gypsum requirement of five soils determined in lab and
calculated in tons per hectare using conversion factors . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Table 3.2 Equivalent amount of various amendments for supplying
Ca in terms of pure gypsum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Table 3.3 Effect of different amendments (applied @ 100% gypsum
requirement) on physical and chemical properties of a sodic
vertisol (Sharma and Gupta 1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

xxv
xxvi List of Tables

Table 3.4 Calculated daily and annual water use by plantations on saline
sites near Lahore and Pakka Anna near Faisalabad, Pakistan.
(Adapted from Mahmood et al. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Table 4.1 Susceptibility of crops to foliar injury from saline sprinkler
water . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 95
Table 4.2 Relative crop salinity tolerance rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Table 4.3 Salt tolerance of important crops (Ayers and Westcot 1985) . . . . . 108
Table 5.1 Salinity hazard of irrigation water (Follett and Soltanpour
2002; Bauder et al. 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Table 5.2 Effects of boron (B) concentration in irrigation water
on crops (Follett and Soltanpour 2002; Bauder et al. 2011) . . . . . . 119
Table 5.3 Relative tolerance of plants to Boron concentration (ppm) in
irrigation water (cf. Ludwick et al. 1990; Ayers and Westcot
1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Table 5.4 Chloride (Cl ) levels of irrigation waters and their effects
on crops (cf. Ludwick et al. 1990; Bauder et al. 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Table 5.5 Residual sodium carbonates (RSC) and suitability of water
for irrigation (Eaton 1950; Wilcox et al. 1954) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Table 5.6 Salinity classes of irrigation waters (USSL Staff 1954) . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Table 5.7 Sodicity classes of irrigation water (USSL Staff 1954) . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Table 5.8 The chemical analyses of well water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Table 5.9 The chemical analyses of the canal, well and the resultant
(blended) waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Table 6.1 Average abundances of stable isotopes (% abundance
in brackets) of some of the major elements commonly
occurring in agro-ecosystems . . . .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . 135
Table 6.2 Main effects of legumes in agro-ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Table 6.3 Example of results of field experiment with soybean for
quantification of BNF by 15N isotope dilution technique . . . . . . . . . 149
Table 6.4 Example of results of glasshouse experiment for measuring
BNF associated to Phaseolus vulgaris by 15N natural
abundance technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Table 6.5 Some advantages (A) and disadvantages (D) of two
15
N isotope techniques for measuring BNF in agricultural
systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Chapter 1
Introduction to Soil Salinity, Sodicity
and Diagnostics Techniques

Shabbir A. Shahid, Mohammad Zaman, and Lee Heng

Abstract It is widely recognized that soil salinity has increased over time. It is also
triggered with the impact of climate change. For sustainable management of soil
salinity, it is essential to diagnose it properly prior to take proper intervention
measures. In this chapter soil salinity (dryland and secondary) and sodicity concepts
have been introduced to make it easier for readers. A hypothetical soil salinity
development cycle has been presented. Causes of soil salinization and its damages,
socio-economic and environmental impacts, and visual indicators of soil salinization
and sodicity have been reported. A new relationship between ECe (mS/cm) and total
soluble salts (meq/l) established on UAE soils has been reported which is different to
that established by US Salinity Laboratory Staff in the year 1954, suggesting the
latter is specific to US soils, therefore, other countries should establish similar
relationships based on their local conditions. Procedures for field assessment of
soil salinity and sodicity are described and factors to convert EC of different soil:
water (1:1, 1:2.5 & 1:5) suspensions to ECe from different regions are tabulated and
hence providing useful information to those adopting such procedures. Diversified
salinity assessment, mapping and monitoring methods, such as conventional (field
and laboratory) and modern (electromagnetic-EM38, optical-thin section and elec-
tron microscopy, geostatistics-kriging, remote sensing and GIS, automatic dynamics
salinity logging system) have been used and results are reported providing compre-
hensive information for selection of suitable methods by potential users. Globally
accepted soil salinity classification systems such as US Salinity Lab Staff and
FAO-UNESCO have been included.

Keywords Salinity · Sodicity · Diagnostics · Electromagnetic · Geostatistics · GIS ·

Kriging · Electron microscopy

1 Introduction

Soil is a non-renewable resource; once lost, can’t be recovered in a human lifespan.

Soil salinity, the second major cause of land degradation after soil erosion, has been
a cause of decline in agricultural societies for 10,000 years. Globally about 2000 ha

© International Atomic Energy Agency 2018 1

M. Zaman et al., Guideline for Salinity Assessment, Mitigation and Adaptation Using
Nuclear and Related Techniques, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96190-3_1
2 1 Introduction to Soil Salinity, Sodicity and Diagnostics Techniques

of arable land is lost to production every day due to salinization. Salinization can
cause yield decreases of 10–25% for many crops and may prevent cropping alto-
gether when it is severe and lead to desertification. Addressing soil salinization
through improved soil, water and crop management practices is important for
achieving food security and to avoid desertification.

1.1 What Is Soil Salinity?

Soil salinity is a measure of the concentration of all the soluble salts in soil water, and
is usually expressed as electrical conductivity (EC). The major soluble mineral salts
are the cations: sodium (Na+), calcium (Ca2+), magnesium (Mg2+), potassium (K+)
and the anions: chloride (Cl
), sulfate (SO42
), bicarbonate (HCO3
), carbonate
(CO32
), and nitrate (NO3
). Hyper-saline soil water may also contain boron (B),
selenium (Se), strontium (Sr), lithium (Li), silica (Si), rubidium (Rb), fluorine (F),
molybdenum (Mo), manganese (Mn), barium (Ba), and aluminum (Al), some of
which can be toxic to plants and animals (Tanji 1990).
From the point of view of defining saline soils, when the electrical conductivity of
a soil extract from a saturated paste (ECe) equals, or exceeds 4 deci Siemens per
meter (dS m
1) at 25  C, the soil is said to be saline (USSL Staff 1954), and this
definition remains in the latest glossary of soil science in the USA.

1.1.1 Units of Soil Salinity

Salinity is generally expressed as total dissolved solutes (TDS) in milli gram per liter
(mg l
1) or parts per million (ppm). It can also be expressed as total soluble salts
(TSS) in milli equivalents per liter (meq l
1).
The salinity (EC) was originally measured as milli mhos per cm (mmho cm
1), an
old unit which is now obsolete. Soil Science has now adopted the Systeme Interna-
tional d’Unites (known as SI units) in which mho has been replaced by Siemens (S).
Currently used SI units for EC are:
• milli Siemens per centimeter (mS cm
1) or
• deci Siemens per meter (dS m
1)
The units can be presented as:
1 mmho cm
1 ¼ 1 dS m
1 ¼ 1 mS cm
1 ¼ 1000 micro Siemens per cm (1000 μS
cm
1)
• EC readings are usually taken and reported at a standard temperature of 25  C.
• For accurate results, EC meter should be checked with 0.01 N solution of KCl,
which should give a reading of 1.413 dS m
1 at 25  C.
No fixed relationship exists between TDS and EC, although a factor of 640 is
commonly used to convert EC (dS m
1) to approximate TDS. For highly
1 Introduction 3

concentrated solutions, a factor of 800 is used to account for the suppressed

ionization effect on EC.
Similarly, no one relationship exists between ECe and total soluble salts (TSS),
although a factor of 10 is used to convert ECe (dS m
1) to TSS (expressed in meq l
1)
in the EC range of 0.1–5 dS m
1 (USSL Staff 1954). One relationship between ECe
and TSS is presented in the Agriculture Handbook 60 (USSL Staff 1954). This
relationship was developed using USA soils and has been widely used (worldwide)
for over six decades. No efforts have been made to validate this relationship in other
soils, though recently Shahid et al. (2013) have published a similar relationship
for sandy desert soils ranging from low salinity (desert sand) to hyper-saline soils
(coastal lands) in the Abu Dhabi Emirate. This latter work established a relationship
between ECe and TSS which differs significantly from that of USSL Staff (1954),
thus, opening the way for other countries to develop country-specific relationships
which will allow better prediction and management of their saline and saline-
sodic soils.

1.1.2 Why Total Soluble Salts Versus ECe Relationship Is Required?

Laboratories in some developing countries do not generally have modern equipment,

i.e. flame emission spectrophotometer (FES), atomic absorption spectrophotometer
(AAS), or inductively coupled plasma (ICP) in order to analyze soil saturation
extracts or water samples for soluble Na+ to determine sodicity (sodium adsorption
ratio – SAR). In contrast, Ca2+ and Mg2+ are easy to measure using a titration
method, one which does not require modern instruments. Currently, these laborato-
ries in many developing countries determine soluble Na+ by calculating the differ-
ence between the total soluble salts (TSS) and the quantities of Ca2+ + Mg2+ in order
to make the analyses affordable, as below:


Naþ ¼ ð Total soulble saltsÞ minus Ca2þ þ Mg2þ

The TSS are recorded from a graph [see Fig. 4, page 12 of the Agriculture
Handbook 60 (USSL Staff 1954)] by using the ECe value (Fig. 1.1). The Na+
amount is then used to determine SAR so that exchangeable sodium percentage
(ESP) can be calculated as:
Naþ
SAR ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

2þ 
1
2 Ca þ Mg2þ

½100 ð
0:0126 þ 0:01475  SARÞ

ESP ¼
½1 þ ð
0:0126 þ 0:01475  SARÞ

Where, each of Na+, Ca2+ + Mg2+ concentrations are expressed in milli equivalents
per liter (meq l
1) and SAR is expressed as (milli moles per liter)0.5 (mmoles l
1)0.5.
4 1 Introduction to Soil Salinity, Sodicity and Diagnostics Techniques

6000

4 APPROXIMATE AVERAGE LINE

2
Concentration – meq l-1

1000
8
6

100
8
6

10
1 2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 8 100

Conductivity – millimhos cm (EC x 10 ) at 25oC

-1 3

Fig. 1.1 Relationship between total soluble salts (TSS) on y-axis and ECe on x-axis. (Source:
Fig. 4, page 12, Agriculture Handbook 60 (USSL Staff 1954))

In the above method of determining Na+ by calculating the difference between

TSS and Ca2+ + Mg2+, any K+ amounts present are added to the Na+ (which is thus
overestimated). It should be noted that the TSS versus ECe curve developed by
USSL Staff (1954) was developed for the Western North American soils and, thus,
may or may not be representative of soils of other countries. Hence, using such a
practice may lead one to overestimate the sodicity hazard in irrigation waters or in
saturation extracts of soils. This could lead to incorrect predictions and the use of
inappropriate management options.
The finding of Shahid et al. (2013) has revealed an appreciable difference
between the straight line (TSS versus ECe) determined from USSL Staff (1954)
relative to protocols established by Shahid et al. (2013), shown in Figs. 1.1 and 1.2.
The TSS/ECe ratio, thus, ranges between 10 (at ECe 1 dS m
1) and 16 (at ECe
200 dS m
1) based on USSL Staff (1954) relationship (Fig. 1.1). In contrast, use of
the relationship obtained from the methods developed by Shahid et al. (2013), the
TSS/ECe ratio ranged between 10 (at 1 dS m
1), 11.38 (at ECe 200 dS m
1) and
12 (at ECe 500 dS m
1). A comparative representation is shown in Figs. 1.3 and 1.4.
1 Introduction 5

1000
8
Concentration (meq l-1)

100
8

10
1 2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 8 100 2 4 6

Electrical conductivity of saturation extracts of soils, ECe (dSm-1)

Fig. 1.2 Relationship between TSS and ECe (from Shahid et al. 2013)

In order to test the above lines to determine soil sodicity, Shahid et al. (2013) gave
three examples using one soil type, as below.
Example 1
Determination of sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) accomplished by analyzing soil
saturation extract for ECe (using an EC meter), and soluble Na+, Ca2+, Mg2+
determined by using an atomic absorption spectrophotometer.

ECe ¼ 51 dS m
1
Soluble Na+ ¼ 480 meq l
1
Ca2+ ¼ 50 meq l
1
Mg2+ ¼ 38 meq l
1
SAR ¼ 72.4 (mmoles l
1)0.5
6 1 Introduction to Soil Salinity, Sodicity and Diagnostics Techniques

20

Total soluble salts (meq l-1)/ECe (dS m-1)

USSL Staff (1954)
15

ICBA/EAD

10

0
0 200 400 600
ECe (dSm-1)

Fig. 1.3 A comparison of the relationship between total soluble salts (TSS)/ECe established using
the Agriculture Handbook 60 curve (USSL Staff 1954) for the soils of Abu Dhabi Emirate and the
relationship established for the same soils by the ICBA/EAD curve (Shahid et al. 2013)

6000 ICBA/EAD
2
R = 0.9711
y = 11.3492x
5000
Total soluble salts (meql-1)

4000 USSL, 1954

2
R = 0.9577
y = 12.8521x
3000

2000

1000

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
ECe (dSm-1)

Fig. 1.4 Average lines showing the relationship between ECe and total soluble salts (TSS) from the
USSL method (line from Fig. 1.1, above) for the soils of Abu Dhabi Emirate using the method
developed by Shahid et al. (2013) using the average line adapted from Fig. 1.2, above
1 Introduction 7

Example 2
Determination of sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) accomplished by analyzing soil
saturation extract for ECe (using an EC meter), soluble Ca2+ and Mg2+ (by titration
procedure) and soluble Na+ estimated by calculating the difference between TSS and
Ca2+ + Mg2+ using USSL Staff (1954) relationship (Fig. 1.1).

ECe ¼ 51 dS m
1
TSS ¼ 720 meq l
1 (from Fig. 1.1)
Soluble Na+ ¼ 632 meq l
1 (by difference, i.e. 720–88 ¼ 632)
Ca2+ ¼ 50 meq l
1
Mg2+ ¼ 38 meq l
1
SAR ¼ 95.32 (mmoles l
1)0.5

Example 3
Determination of sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) accomplished by analyzing soil
saturation extract for ECe (using an EC meter), soluble Ca2+ and Mg2+ (by titration
procedure) and soluble Na+ by calculating the difference using the relationship
developed by Shahid et al. (2013) (Fig. 1.2).

ECe ¼ 51 dS m
1
TSS ¼ 560 meq l
1 (from Fig. 1.2)
Soluble Na+ ¼ 472 meq l
1 (by difference, i.e. 560–88 ¼ 472)
Ca2+ ¼ 50 meq l
1
Mg2+ ¼ 38 meq l
1
SAR ¼ 71.2 (mmoles l
1)0.5

The above three examples clearly show that the SAR (71.2) when determined by
using the Shahid et al. (2013) relationship (Fig. 1.2) is very close to the SAR
determined by analyzing the saturation extract by modern laboratory equipment
(71.2 versus 72.4). However, when SAR was determined by using the USSL Staff
(1954) relationship, it was appreciably higher (95.32) than the SAR values deter-
mined by other procedures.
This indicates that the Na+ value obtained by using the USSL Staff (1954)
relationship can lead to higher SAR and can, thus, mislead the sodicity prediction.
The above examples have confirmed that the relationship established for the soils of
Abu Dhabi Emirate by Shahid et al. (2013) can be used reliably to determine soil
sodicity (SAR and ESP). Thus, the analyses become rapid and affordable for the use
in developing countries. Also of importance is the need for developing countries,
e.g. the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and ARASIA countries, who are relying
on the USSL Staff (1954) curve to determine soluble sodium by calculating the
difference between TSS and Ca2+ + Mg2+, to validate this relationship for local soils.
8 1 Introduction to Soil Salinity, Sodicity and Diagnostics Techniques

2 Causes of Soil Salinity

There can be many causes of salts in soils; the most common sources (Plate 1.1) are
listed below:
• Inherent soil salinity (weathering of rocks, parent material)
• Brackish and saline irrigation water (Box 1.1)
• Sea water intrusion into coastal lands as well as into the aquifer due to over
extraction and overuse of fresh water
• Restricted drainage and a rising water-table
• Surface evaporation and plant transpiration
• Sea water sprays, condensed vapors which fall onto the soil as rainfall
• Wind borne salts yielding saline fields
• Overuse of fertilizers (chemical and farm manures)
• Use of soil amendments (lime and gypsum)
• Use of sewage sludge and/or treated sewage effluent
• Dumping of industrial brine onto the soil

Plate 1.1 Soil salinity development in agriculture and coastal fields. (a) Salinity in a furrow
irrigated barley field, (b) Salinity in a sprinkler irrigated grass field, (c) Salinity due to sea water
intrusion in coastal land

Box 1.1: Salt Loads in Soil Due to Irrigation

It is generally believed that irrigation with fresh water is safe for optimum crop
production; this may be true for short duration. However, if this water is used
over a long period without managing for salinity, a significant quantity of salts
will be added into soil. A simple example is given below.
Assume that fresh water (EC 0.2 dS m
1) is used for irrigating the crop and
8500 cubic meters per hectare (850 mm) of this water is used over the entire
crop season. The water of EC 0.2 dS m
1 contains approximately 128 mg l
1
salts (0.2  640) which are equivalent to 0.128 kg per cubic meter of irrigation

(continued)
3 Salinity Development in Soils – A Hypothetical Cycle 9

Box 1.1 (continued)

water. Over the crop season, 1088 kg of salts will, thus, be added to each
hectare with the irrigation water. If we assume that the dry matter harvested
from each hectare is about 15 metric tons, and there is 3.5% by weight of total
salts in the harvested crop biomass, then the portion of salt harvested with the
crop is 525 kg. This leaves 563 kg of salts in the soil directly or in the plant
parts (belowground, stubbles, debris) which will be returned to the soil by
cultivation and subsequent decay of the plant biomass left in the field. This
example is a very conservative one. It is more likely that water of a higher
salinity will be used for irrigation. Thus, a salinity management program needs
to be implemented for virtually all irrigated agricultural crops, especially those
growing in low natural rainfall areas.

Ionic
Salts water irrigation Soil impermeability
Imbalance due to high Na

Salts accumulation

Leaching

Seepage from
Needs more water
the system

Ionic
Water table rise
Imbalance

Restriction to leaching

Capillary rise and evaporation

Fig. 1.5 A hypothetical soil salinization cycle. (Adapted from Shahid et al. 2010)

3 Salinity Development in Soils – A Hypothetical Cycle

Recently Shahid et al. (2010) have hypothesized a soil salinity cycle in order to
present various facets in the development of soil salinity (Fig. 1.5).
10 1 Introduction to Soil Salinity, Sodicity and Diagnostics Techniques

4 Types of Soil Salinity

4.1 Dryland Soil Salinity

Salinity in dryland soils develops through a rising water table and the subsequent
evaporation of the soil water. There are many causes of the rising water table,
e.g. restricted drainage due to an impermeable layer, and when deep-rooted trees
are replaced with shallow-rooted annual crops. Under such conditions, the ground-
water dissolves salts embedded in rocks in the soil, with the salty water eventually
reaching the soil surface, and evaporating to cause salinity. Dryland salinity can also
occur in un-irrigated landscapes. There are no quick fixes to dryland salinity, though
modern technologies in assessment and monitoring can allow one to follow and
better understand how salinity develops. The most important of these new technol-
ogies utilizes the interpretation of remote sensing imaging over a period of time.
The potential technologies to mitigate dryland salinity include the pumping of
saline groundwater and its safe disposal or use, as well as the development of
alternate crop plant production systems to maximize saline groundwater use, such
as deep-rooted trees. Such a deep-rooted trees system utilizes groundwater and
lowers water table, the process called biodrainage (or biological drainage). In
Australia dryland salinity is a major problem, one which costs Australia over
$250 million a year from impacts on agriculture, water quality and the natural
environment. Dryland salinity is an important problem which must be approached
strategically using scientific diagnostics.

4.2 Secondary Soil Salinity

In contrast to dryland salinity, secondary salinity refers to the salinization of soil due
to human activities such as irrigated agriculture.
Water scarcity in arid and desert environments necessitates the use of saline and
brackish water to meet a part of the water requirement of crops. The improper use of
such poor quality waters, especially with soils having a restricted drainage, results in
the capillary rise and subsequent evaporation of the soil water. This causes the
development of surface and subsurface salinity, thereby reducing the value of soil
resource. Common ways of managing secondary salinity in irrigated agriculture are:
• Laser land leveling which facilitates uniform water distribution
• Leaching excess salts from surface soil into the subsoil
• Lowering shallow water tables with safe use or disposal of pumped saline water
• Tillage practices, seed bed preparation and seeding
• Adaption of salt tolerant plants
6 Facts About Salinity and How It Affects Plant Growth 11

• Cycling the use of fresh and saline water

• Blending of fresh water with saline water
• Minimize evaporation and buildup of salts on surface soil through conservation
agriculture practices such as mulching (see Chap. 6 on how nuclear techniques of
oxygen-18 and hydrogen-2 help to partition between evaporation and transpira-
tion to enhance water use efficiency on farm), addition of animal manure and crop
residues, etc.
The management of secondary salinization in irrigated agriculture is discussed in
more detail in Chap. 5.

5 Damage Caused by Soil Salinity

Some of the damages caused by increasing the soil salinity (Shahid 2013) are listed
below:
• Loss of biodiversity and ecosystem disruption
• Declines in crop yields
• Abandonment or desertification of previously productive farm land
• Increasing numbers of dead and dying plants
• Increased risk of soil erosion due to loss of vegetation
• Contamination of drinking water
• Roads and building foundations are weakened by an accumulation of salts within
the natural soil structure
• Lower soil biological activity due to rising saline water table

6 Facts About Salinity and How It Affects Plant Growth

Franklin and Follett (1985) have described the effects of salinity on plant growth as
listed below:
• Proper plant selection is one way to moderate yield reductions caused by exces-
sive soil salinity
• The stage of plant growth has a direct effect on salt tolerance; generally, the more
developed the plant, the more tolerant it is to salts
• Most fruit trees are more sensitive to salts than are vegetable, field and forage
crops
• Generally, vegetable crops are more sensitive to salts than are field and forage
crops
12 1 Introduction to Soil Salinity, Sodicity and Diagnostics Techniques

7 Visual Indicators of Soil Salinity

Once soil salinity develops in irrigated agriculture fields, it is easy to see the effects
on soil properties and plant growth (Plate 1.2). Visual indicators of soil salinization
(Shahid and Rahman 2011) include:
• A white salt crust
• Soil surface exhibits fluffy
• Salt stains on the dry soil surface
• Reduced or no seed germination
• Patchy crop establishment
• Reduced plant vigor
• Foliage damage – leaf burn
• Marked changes in leaf color and shape occur
• The occurrence of naturally growing halophytes – indicator plants, increases
• Trees are either dead or dying
• Affected area worsens after a rainfall
• Waterlogging

8 Field Assessment of Soil Salinity

Visual assessment of salinity only provides a qualitative indication; it does not give a
quantitative measure of the level of soil salinity. That is only possible through EC
measurement of the soil. In the field, collection of soil saturation extract from soil
paste is not possible. Therefore, an alternate procedure is used, e.g. a soil:water
suspension (1:1, 1:2.5, 1:5) for field salinity assessments.
• EC can be measured on several soil:water (w/v) ratios
• EC measurement at field capacity (fc) is the most relevant representing field soil
salinity. The constraint in such measurement is difficulty to extract sufficient soil
water
• Compromise is EC measurement from extract collected from saturated soil paste

Plate 1.2 Field diagnostics of soil salinity – visual indicators for quick guide. (a) Salt stains and
poor growth, (b) Leaf burn grassy plot, (c) Patchy crop establishment, (d) Dead trees due to
salt stress
8 Field Assessment of Soil Salinity 13

• The relationship between ECfc to ECe is generally (ECfc ¼ 2ECe) for most of the
soils, except for the sand and loamy sand textures
• Laboratory measurement of soil extract salinity (ECe) is laborious. Thus, EC of
extracts using different soil:water ratios can be measured in the field and corre-
lated to ECe, because ECe is the appropriate parameter used in salinity manage-
ment and crop selection.
• Commonly used soil:water ratios in field assessment of salinity are:
– 10 g soil +10 ml distilled water (1:1)
– 10 g soil +25 ml distilled water (1:2.5)
– 10 g soil +50 ml distilled water (1:5)

The EC values obtained for different soil:water ratio extracts can then be corre-
lated to the EC of soil saturation extract (ECe) as explained below (Shahid 2013;
Sonmez et al. 2008). It should be noted that EC values of 1:1, 1:2.5, 1:5 soil:water
extracts are site- specific and, thus, can be used as a general guideline only.
However, once correlations are established with ECe (EC of soil saturation extract)
from the same soil samples, the derived ECe can be used reliably in salinity
management and crop selection. Suitable conversion factors can be used based on
soil type (Table 1.1).

Table 1.1 Conversion factor for deriving the ECe from the EC of extracts from different soil:water
ratio suspensions
Relationship References
ECe versus EC1:1
ECe ¼ EC1:1  3.03 Al-Moustafa and Al-Omran (1990) – Saudi Arabia
ECe ¼ EC1:1  3.35 Shahid (2013) – UAE (sandy soil)
ECe ¼ EC1:1  3.00 EAD (2009) – Abu Dhabi Emirate (sandy soil)
ECe ¼ EC1:1  1.80 EAD (2012) – Northern Emirates (UAE)
ECe ¼ EC1:1  2.06 Akramkhanov et al. (2008) – Uzbekistan
ECe ¼ EC1:1  2.20 Landon (1984) – Australia
ECe ¼ EC1:1  1.79 Zheng et al. (2005) – Oklahoma (USA)
ECe ¼ EC1:1  1.56 Hogg and Henry (1984) – Saskatchewan, Canada
ECe ¼ EC1:1  2.7 USSL Staff (1954) – USA
ECe ¼ EC1:1  2.42 Sonmez et al. (2008) – Turkey (sandy soil)
ECe ¼ EC1:1  2.06 Sonmez et al. (2008) – Turkey (loamy soil)
ECe ¼ EC1:1  1.96 Sonmez et al. (2008) – Turkey (clay soil)
ECe versus EC1:2.5
ECe ¼ EC1:2.5  4.77 Shahid (2013) – UAE (sandy soil)
ECe ¼ EC1:2.5  4.41 Sonmez et al. (2008) – Turkey (sandy soil)
ECe ¼ EC1:2.5  3.96 Sonmez et al. (2008) – Turkey (loamy soil)
ECe ¼ EC1:2.5  3.75 Sonmez et al. (2008) – Turkey (clay soil)
ECe versus EC1:5
ECe ¼ EC1:5  7.31 Shahid (2013) – UAE (sandy soil)
(continued)
14 1 Introduction to Soil Salinity, Sodicity and Diagnostics Techniques

Table 1.1 (continued)

Relationship References
ECe ¼ EC1:5  7.98 Sonmez et al. (2008) – Turkey (sandy soil)
ECe ¼ EC1:5  7.62 Sonmez et al. (2008) – Turkey (loamy soil)
ECe ¼ EC1:5  7.19 Sonmez et al. (2008) – Turkey (clay soil)
ECe ¼ EC1:5  6.92 Alavipanah and Zehtabian (2002) – Iran (top soil)
ECe ¼ EC1:5  8.79 Alavipanah and Zehtabian (2002) – Iran (whole profile)
ECe ¼ EC1:5  9.57 Al-Moustafa and Al-Omran (1990) – Saudi Arabia
ECe ¼ EC1:5  6.40 Landon (1984) – Australia
ECe ¼ EC1:5  6.30 Triantafilis et al. (2000) – Australia
ECe ¼ EC1:5  5.6 Shirokova et al. (2000) – Uzbekistan

9 Soil Sodicity and Its Diagnostics

Sodicity is a measure of sodium ions in soil water, relative to calcium and magne-
sium ions. It is expressed either as sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) or as the
exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP). If the SAR of the soil equals or is greater
than 13 (mmoles l
1)0.5, or the ESP equals or is greater than 15, the soil is termed
sodic (USSL Staff 1954).

9.1 Visual Indicators of Soil Sodicity

Soil sodicity can be predicted visually in the field in the following ways
• Poorer vegetative growth than normal, with only a few plants surviving, or with
many stunted plants or trees
• Variable heights of the plants
• Poor penetration of rain water – surface ponding
• Raindrop splash action – surface sealing and crusting (hard setting)
• Cloudy or turbid water in puddles
• Plants exhibit a shallow rooting depth
• Soil is often black in color due to the formation of a Na-humic substances
complex
• High force required for tillage (especially in fine textured soils)
• Difficult to get soil saturation extracts in laboratory due to a filter blockage with
dispersed clay
10 Sodicity and Soil Structure 15

9.2 Field Testing of Soil Sodicity

Field assessment of relative level of soil sodicity can be determined through the use
of a turbidity test on soil:water (1:5) suspensions, with ratings:
• Clear suspension – non sodic
• Partly turbid or cloudy – medium sodicity
• Very turbid cloudy – high sodicity
The relative sodicity can be further assessed by placing a white plastic spoon in
these suspensions, as below.
• The spoon is clearly visible means non-sodic
• The spoon is partly visible means medium sodicity
• The spoon is not visible means high sodicity

9.3 Laboratory Assessment of Soil Sodicity

Accurate soil sodicity diagnostics can be made by analyzing soil samples in the
laboratory. The standard presentation of soil sodicity is the exchangeable sodium
percentage (ESP) derived through using sodium adsorption ratio (SAR). Alternately,
ESP can be determined through measurement of exchangeable sodium (ES) and
cation exchange capacity (CEC), as below.
 
ES
ESP ¼  100
CEC

Where, ES and CEC are represented as meq100 g
1soil. An ESP of 15 is the

threshold for designating soil as being sodic (USSL Staff 1954). At this ESP level,
the soil structure starts degrading and negative effects on plant growth appear.

10 Sodicity and Soil Structure

A lack of sufficient volumes of fresh water for irrigation use in arid and semi-arid
regions often results in the need to use water with a relatively high salinity and high
sodium ion levels. It has, generally, been recognized that the sodicity affects soil
permeability appreciably. The swelling and dispersion of soil clays ultimately
destroys the original soil structure – likely the most important physical property
16 1 Introduction to Soil Salinity, Sodicity and Diagnostics Techniques

affecting plant growth. The soil bulk density (the weight of soil in a given volume)
and porosity (open spaces between sand, silt and clay particles in a soil) are mainly
used as parameters for the soil structure. The hydraulic conductivity (the ease with
which water can move through the soil pore spaces) is the net result of the effect of
physical properties in the soil and is markedly affected by soil structure develop-
ment. The effect of the sodicity of soil water on irrigated soils can be both a surface
phenomenon, i.e. showing surface sealing, as well as a subsurface phenome-
non (Box 1.2), one where subsurface sealing also occurs (Shahid et al. 1992). In
surface sealing, the soil water sodicity causes a breakdown and slaking of soil
aggregates due to wetting. When the soil surface dries, a surface crust is formed.
In subsurface sealing, the clay particles in the soil are dispersed and translocate to
subsurface layers, where they are then deposited on the surface of the voids, thereby
reducing void volume and blocking the pores, thus restricting further water move-
ment, e.g. yielding non-conducting pores.
The surface sealing and crusting due to either water sodicity, or through com-
bined effects of sodicity and raindrop splash action, have both positive and negative
effects.

Box 1.2: Effect of Saline-Sodic Waters on Soil Hydraulic Conductivity

and Structure in a Simulated System
In a simulated system developed and used by Shahid and Jenkins (1992a,c) for
quick screening of soils with regard to their salinity and sodicity, a laboratory
experiment was conducted to investigate the effect of saline-sodic water on soil
structure and hydraulic conductivity (Shahid 1993). In this system, glass
columns were filled with non-saline and non-sodic soil (Typic camborthid)
which contained both swelling (smectite and vermiculite) and non-swelling
(mica, chlorite and kaolinite) minerals, and silty clay loam texture. Five
irrigation waters having EC 0 (deionized water), 0.5, 1.0, 1.0 and 2.4 dS m
1,
and SAR 0 (deionized water), 20, 25, 40 and 36 (mmoles l
1)0.5, respectively,
were used in wetting and drying cycles. After 14 wetting and drying cycles, the
soil columns were subjected to hydraulic conductivity measurement with the
respective waters treatments (above), followed by simulated rain, application
of a gypsum saturated solution, and a simulated subsoil application with a
gypsum saturated solution.
• The columns remained blocked with the introduction of the gypsum satu-
rated solution. Upon examination, they revealed that a dispersion, translo-
cation and deposition of clay platelets in conducting pores was occurring,
and that this was the dominant mechanism of the much reduced hydraulic
conductivity (Shahid and Jenkins 1992b; Shahid 1993).
• The columns where hydraulic conductivity was improved with gypsum
saturated solution revealed, upon examination, that a swelling of clay
minerals had been the main cause of hydraulic conductivity reduction.

(continued)
11 Classification of Salt-Affected Soils 17

Box 1.2 (continued)

• The columns where hydraulic conductivity was significantly improved with
gypsum saturated solution and subsoiling (disturbing soil in the column)
confirmed that the dispersion, translocation and deposition of clay minerals
in conducting pores was the dominant mechanism of hydraulic conductiv-
ity reduction, with swelling being a minor mechanism.
• Finally, micro-morphological observations (thin section study) of the
developed soil fabric in the simulated columns revealed that the dispersion,
translocation and deposition of clay platelets in the conducting pores
(argillan formation) was the dominant mechanism in restricting hydraulic
conductivity (Shahid 1988; Shahid and Jenkins 1991a,b).

10.1 Negative Effects of Surface Sealing

• Increased runoff particularly on slopes leading to sheet and rill erosions

• Mechanical impedance of plant seedling emergence
• Lack of aeration just below the sealed structure
• Retardation of root development
• Increased mechanical force needed for tillage (cultivation) operations

10.2 Positive Effects of Surface Sealing

• Protection against wind erosion

• More economic distribution of irrigation water since longer furrows are possible
• Protection against excessive water losses from the subsoil

11 Classification of Salt-Affected Soils

A soil which contains soluble salts in amounts in the root-zone which are sufficiently
high enough to impair the growth of crop plants is defined as saline. However,
because salt injury depends on species, variety, plant growth stage, environmental
factors, and the nature of the salts, it is very difficult to define a saline soil precisely.
That said, the most widely accepted definition of a saline soil is one that has ECe
more than 4 dS m
1 at 25  C.
18 1 Introduction to Soil Salinity, Sodicity and Diagnostics Techniques

Table 1.2 Classification of Soil class ECe, dS m
1 ESP pH

salt-affected soils (USSL Staff
Saline 4 < 15 < 8.5
1954)
Saline-sodic 4  15  8.5
Sodic <4  15 > 8.5

11.1 US Salinity Laboratory Staff Classification

The term salt-affected soil is being used more commonly to include saline, saline-
sodic and sodic soils (USSL Staff, 1954), as summarized in Table 1.2.

11.1.1 Saline Soils

Saline soils are defined as the soils which have pHs usually less than 8.5, ECe  4 dS
m
1 and exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) < 15.
A high ECe with a low ESP tends to flocculate soil particles into aggregates. The
soils are usually recognized by the presence of white salt crust during some part of
the year. Permeability is either greater or equal to those of similar ‘normal’ soils.

11.1.2 Saline-Sodic Soils

Saline-sodic soils contain sufficient soluble salts (ECe  4 dS m
1) to interfere with
the growth of most crop plants and sufficient ESP ( 15) to affect the soil properties
and plant growth adversely, primarily by the degradation of soil structure. The pHs
may be less or more than 8.5.

11.1.3 Sodic Soils

Sodic soils exhibit an ESP 15 and show an ECe < 4 dS m
1. The pHs generally
ranges between 8.5 and 10 and may be even as high as 11. The low ECe and high
ESP tend to de-flocculate soil aggregates and, hence, lower their permeability to
water.

11.1.4 Classes of Soil Salinity and Plant Growth

Electrical conductivity of the soil saturation extract (ECe) is the standard measure of
salinity. USSL Staff (1954) has described general relationship of ECe and plant
growth, as below.
11 Classification of Salt-Affected Soils 19

• Non-saline (ECe  2 dS m
1): salinity effects mostly negligible

• Very slightly saline (ECe 2–4 dS m
1): yields of very sensitive crops may be
restricted
• Slightly saline (ECe 4–8 dS m
1): yields of many crops are restricted
• Moderately saline (ECe 8–16 dS m
1): only salt tolerant crops exhibit satisfac-
tory yields
• Strongly saline (ECe >16 dS m
1): only a few very salt tolerant crops show
satisfactory yields

11.2 FAO/UNESCO Classification

Salt-affected soils (halomorphic soils) are also indicated on the soil map of the world
(1:5,000,000) by FAO-UNESCO (1974) as solonchaks (saline) and solonetz (sodic).
The origin of both terms, solonchaks and solonetz, is Russian.

11.2.1 Solonchaks (Saline)

Solonchaks (saline) are soils with high salinity (ECe >15 dSm
1) within the top
125 cm of the soil.
The FAO-UNESCO (1974) divided solonchaks into four mapping units:
• Orthic Solonchaks: the most common solonchaks
• Gleyic Solonchaks: soils with groundwater influencing the upper 50 cm
• Takyric Solonchaks: solonchaks in cracking clay soils
• Mollic Solonchaks: solonchaks with a dark colored surface layer, often high in
organic matter
• Soils with a lower salinity than solonchaks, but having an ECe higher than 4 dS m

1
, are mapped as a ‘saline phase’ of other soil units.

11.2.2 Solonetz (Sodic)

Solonetz (sodic) is a sodium-rich soil that has an ESP > 15. The solonetz soils are
subdivided into three mapping units:
• Orthic Solonetz: the most common solonetz
• Gleyic Solonetz: soils with a groundwater influence in the upper 50 cm
• Mollic Solonetz: soils with a dark colored surface layer, often high in organic
matter
20 1 Introduction to Soil Salinity, Sodicity and Diagnostics Techniques

Soils with lower ESP than a solonetz, lower than 15 but higher than 6, are mapped
as a ‘sodic phase’ of other soil units.

12 Socioeconomic Impacts of Salinity

• Reduced crop productivity on saline land leads to poverty due to income loss
• In worst case scenario, farmers abandon their land and migrate out of rural areas
into urban areas which leads to unemployment
• High costs for soil reclamation, when feasible
• Loss of good quality soil (organic matter and nutrients) requires more inputs, such
as fertilizer – financial pressure on farmer
• Compromised biosaline agriculture system that may give lower cash returns,
relative to conventional crop production systems

13 Environmental Impacts of Salinity

• Ecosystem fragmentation
• Poor vegetative growth and cover lead to enhanced soil degradation (erosion)
• Dust with high salt levels causes environmental issues
• Sand encroaches into productive areas
• Storage capacity of water reservoirs is reduced due to eroded soil material
• Contamination of groundwater with high levels of salts occurs

14 Soil Salinity Monitoring

Soil salinity is indirectly measured as electrical conductivity of the soil solution or of

a soil saturation extract. Salinity is an important analytical measurement since it
reflects the suitability of the soil for growing crops. On the basis of using a soil
saturation extract, ECe values of 2 dS m
1 (or mmhos cm
1) are safe for all crops.
Yields of very salt sensitive crops are negatively affected by ECe between 2 and 4 dS
m
1. Yields of most crops are affected by ECe between 4 and 8 dS m
1. Only salt
tolerant crops grow well above ECe 8 dS m
1.
Salinity is largely a concern in irrigated areas and in areas with saline soils, but
generally is not important in rain-fed agriculture. As use of brackish irrigation water
increases, there will be greater emphasis on the utilization of soil EC measurements
in the future.
Many factors can contribute to the development of saline soil conditions. How-
ever, most soils become saline through the use of salt containing groundwater for
irrigation. Salt concentrations in soil vary widely, both vertically and in the
15 Soil Sampling Frequency and Zone 21

Plate 1.3 Maximum soil salinity zone in drip irrigation system in a grass field – Alain, UAE

horizontal plane. The extent of the variability depends on conditions such as

differences in soil texture, growing plants which transpire soil water and also absorb
salts, quality of irrigation water, soil hydraulic conductivity and the type of irrigation
system being used.
A salinity monitoring plan must be an integral part of any agricultural project
which deals with irrigation water which has a salinity and/or sodicity constituent. An
effective salinity monitoring plan must, thus, be developed so that salinity changes
can be traced, especially for the root-zone soil.

15 Soil Sampling Frequency and Zone

A number of soil sampling techniques exist, and they should be used carefully based
on aims of the study. Random soil samples can be taken from a number of
representative sites to get composite sample. The duration over which soil sampling
occurs for salinity monitoring is quite important and that duration should be decided
based on the nature of the project and its aims.
The zone of soil sampling is an important criterion, particularly for drip irrigation
where the maximum salinity builds up in the periphery of the wetting front (Plate
1.3). Salt accumulation occurs via two processes.
• In the first process, the soil becomes saturated and water and solutes spread in
many directions, saturating the neighboring voids before moving further.
• In the second process which occurs between consecutive irrigation cycles, both
direct evaporation of water and the uptake of water and absorption of nutrients
and salts by plants takes place.
Solutes are, thus, redistributed in the soil, with the final buildup of salts in the soil
resulting from the interaction of the above mentioned two processes throughout the
crop growth period. Soil sampling from the middle zone (between two drip irrigation
lines) will, however, present maximum salinity values, and may be misleading (Plate
22 1 Introduction to Soil Salinity, Sodicity and Diagnostics Techniques

1.3). Therefore, soil sample from within the root-zone can provide a better estimate
of the soil’s salinity status.

16 Current Approaches of Salinity Diagnostics –

Assessment, Mapping and Monitoring

16.1 Salinity Assessment

Accurate and reliable measurements are essential to better understand soil salinity
problems in order to provide better management, improve crop yield and maintain
root-zone soil health. If soil salinity can be measured, it can likely be managed. The
choice of the method for soil salinity assessment, however, depends on the objective,
the size of the area, the depth of soil to be assessed, number and frequency of
measurements, the degree of accuracy required and the resources available.
There are a number of soil salinity assessment tools. These include salinity
monitoring maps, prepared over a period of time to assess present salinity problems,
and to predict future salinity risks to the area. They also include the use of salinity
indicators on the soil surface, vegetation indicators, conventional salinity tests
(EC 1:1 or 1:5; ECe) and more modern methods (Geophysical – EM38; Salinity
sensors).

16.1.1 Routine Methods

The soil salinity measurements made using geo-referenced (using GPS) field sam-
pling and laboratory analysis of extracts from saturated soil paste by an EC meter are
accepted as the standard way of assessing soil salinity. The amount of water that a
soil holds at saturation is related to soil texture, surface area, clay content, and cation
exchange capacity. The lower soil:water ratios (1:1, 1:2.5, 1:5) are also used in many
laboratories, though the results require calibration with ECe if they are going to be
used to select salt tolerant crops.

16.1.1.1 Saturated Soil Paste – Justification for Its Use

The EC of the solution extracted from a saturated soil paste (which contains water
content about twice the amount of water retained in the soil at field capacity) has
been correlated with the growth or toxicity responses of a wide range of crop plants.
This measure, known as electrical conductivity of the soil saturation extract (ECe), is
now the generally accepted measure of soil salinity. The procedure is, however, time
16 Current Approaches of Salinity Diagnostics – Assessment, Mapping and Monitoring 23

consuming and it requires vacuum filtration. It is important to note that EC mea-

surements based on extracts obtained from saturated soil paste or suspensions of
fixed soil:water ratios (commonly 1:1, 1:2.5 or 1:5) do not give reliable correlations.
Such extracts, or extracts with a wider soil:water ratio are, however, more convenient
where the ability to sample soils properly is limited. The lack of reliability is mainly
due to the fact that the amount of water held at a given tension varies from soil to
soil, depending on texture, the type of clay minerals present, and other factors.

16.1.1.2 Preparation of Saturated Soil Paste

• Weigh 300 g sieved (< 2 mm) air-dried soil in a 500 ml plastic beaker
• Add deionized (DI) water gradually until all the soil is moist, and mix with a
spatula until a smooth paste is obtained, adding more water or more soil as
necessary
• The paste should glisten and just begin to flow when the container is tilted. The
saturated soil paste should have no free water on its surface, but rather should
slide cleanly off a spatula
• Keep the saturated soil paste overnight with lid on the beaker
• Check the saturated soil paste the following morning by first remixing the paste
and then adding water or soil as is needed to bring the paste to the saturation point
– as described above

16.1.1.3 Collection of Soil Saturation Extract and EC Measurement

• Put a circular Whatman No. 42 filter paper in a Buchner funnel which is attached
to a filtration rack with vacuum suction attached. Then, moisten the filter paper
with DI water
• Make sure that the filter paper is tightly attached to the bottom of the funnel and
that all the holes in the Buchner funnel are covered by the wet filter paper
• Start the vacuum pump, open the suction, and add the saturated soil paste to the
Buchner funnel (Plate 1.4)
• Continue filtration until the soil paste on the Buchner funnel begins to develop
cracks
• If the filtrate is not clear (cloudy/turbid), it should be re-filtered through another
wet filter paper to obtain a clear extract. Finally, transfer the clear filtrate into a
50 ml bottle
• Switch on the conductivity meter, immerse the electrode in the soil saturation
extract and record the EC reading
• Remove the conductivity cell from the filtrate, rinse it thoroughly with DI water
from a squirt bottle, and carefully dry the electrode with a tissue paper
24 1 Introduction to Soil Salinity, Sodicity and Diagnostics Techniques

Plate 1.4 Setup for collection of extract from saturated soil paste

• If accurate comparisons of ECe are to be made across a range of samples, the

temperature of the extract must be measured and a correction factor (to 25  C)
utilized. The instruments available these days automatically correct the reading to
25  C
• Check accuracy of the EC meter using a 0.01 N KCl solution, which should give a
reading of 1.413 dS m
1 at 25  C

16.2 Modern Methods of Soil Salinity Measurement

16.2.1 Salinity Probe

An activity meter with a salinity probe is very convenient and gives instant apparent
electrical conductivity (ECa) information, which is expressed in mS cm
1 and g l
1.
There are many models of equipment available to measure in-situ salinity. One is the
German-made PNT3000 COMBI + model; it is commonly used in agriculture,
horticulture and on landscape sites for rapid salinity assessment and monitoring. It
provides an extended EC measuring range from 0 to 20 mS cm
1 and from 20 to
200 mS cm
1. The unit includes a 250 mm long stainless steel electrode for direct
soil salinity measurements; an EC-plastic probe with platinum plated ring sensors
16 Current Approaches of Salinity Diagnostics – Assessment, Mapping and Monitoring 25

and a high quality aluminum carrying case. Its operation is convenient and simple;
only one button makes the full operation possible. It is essential, however, to validate
ECa values with ECe from same soil locations. In any case, the ECa must be
correlated to ECe for use in assessing a crop’s salt tolerance. Recently Shahid
(2013) has established correlations between ECe and ECa measured by EC probe
in a large number of saline fields.
ECa (Salinity Probe) Versus EC of Extracts (Varying Soil:Water Ratios)
For many reasons, laboratory analysis of the soil saturation extract is still the most
common technique for assessing soil salinity. Salinity of the saturation extract (ECe)
is considered to be the ‘standard procedure’ because the amount of water that a soil
holds at saturation (the saturation percentage) is related to several important soil
parameters, including texture, surface area, clay content, and cation exchange
capacity (CEC).
Low soil to water ratios, for example 1:1; 1:2.5; 1:5, make extraction easier, but
show a poorer relation to field moisture condition than the saturated paste. The
choice of equipment or procedure depends upon several factors, including size of the
area being evaluated, the depth of soil to be assessed, the number and frequency of
the measurements, the accuracy required, and the availability of resources. The
standard method of salinity monitoring involves collecting soil samples from the
root-zone over a given period of time followed by their analysis in the laboratory as a
soil saturation extract.
As a part of International Center for Biosaline Agriculture (ICBA) salinity
monitoring program, the soil team collected a large number of soil samples from
experimental plots which had been irrigated with water of varying salinity, up to a
maximum of seawater (Plate 1.5). These samples were air-dried and processed in
order to collect water extracts from soil:water suspensions of 1:1, 1:2.5, and 1:5, as
well as soil extracts made from a saturated soil paste. The field conductivity (ECa) in
mS cm
1 using the salinity probe (field scout) was also measured. A simple
statistical test was used to calculate the correlation and correlation coefficient (R2),
and to derive factors from it in order to convert ECa (determined at several soil water
contents by the use of the salinity probe) to ECe.
The correlations are developed for a fine sand (Soil Survey Division Staff 2017)
textural class at ICBA experimental station (Table 1.3). The conversion factor for
ECe determinations derived from the apparent EC (ECa) measured by the field scout
in saline fields (Shahid 2013) was found to be: ECe ¼ ECa  3.81.

16.2.2 Electromagnetic Induction (EMI)

Salinity assessment and management at the farm level must help farmers improve
crop productivity. The conventional field sampling followed by laboratory analysis
is a tedious, expensive and time consuming process. There are other modern
26 1 Introduction to Soil Salinity, Sodicity and Diagnostics Techniques

Plate 1.5 Salinity monitoring in a grass field using salinity probe. (Field scout PNT 3000 COMBI +)

Table 1.3 Correlations of ECa measured by using the field scout (EC probe) with EC of 1:1, 1:2.5
and 1:5 (soil:water suspensions) and ECe
ECe ¼ 2.2936 ECa (field scout) + 4.0177 (R2 ¼ 0.8896)
EC1:1 ¼ 0.7929 ECa (field scout) + 0.8131 (R2 ¼ 0.9449)
EC1:2.5 ¼ 0.6057 ECa (field scout) + 0.4763 (R2 ¼ 0.9105)
EC1:5 ¼ 0.4733 ECa (field scout) + 0.3269; (R2 ¼ 0.9023)

methods which can be used quickly and effectively in field salinity mapping,
e.g. electromagnetic induction (EMI) using the EM38. EM38 is the most commonly
used instrument in agricultural surveys, and gives a rapid assessment of the soil’s
apparent electrical conductivity (ECa), expressed in mS m
1.
The EM38 has a transmitter coil and a receiving coil. The transmitter coil induces
an electrical current into the soil and the receiving coil records the resultant electro-
magnetic field. The EM38 allows for a maximum of 150 cm or 75 cm depth of
exploration in the vertical and horizontal dipole modes, respectively (Plate 1.6). EC
mapping using EMI is one of the simplest and least expensive salinity measurement
tools. Integration of GIS information with salinity data yields salinity maps which
can help farmers interpret crop yield variations, and provide a better understanding
of the subtle salinity differences across agricultural fields. These salinity maps may
allow farmers to develop more precise management zones and ultimately obtain
higher yields.
16 Current Approaches of Salinity Diagnostics – Assessment, Mapping and Monitoring 27

Plate 1.6 EC measurement with EM 38 in vertical mode (left: grassland) and horizontal mode
(right: Atriplex field)

Technological advances such as EMI have, in the last 40 years, revolutionized

soil salinity assessment. McNeill (1980) was among the first investigators to describe
how the EMI method can be used in assessing soil salinity. He presented the
theoretical basis for the use of EM ground conductivity meters to map lateral
variation in subsurface electrical conductivity. The approach, and the instrumenta-
tion developed (GEONICS EM31, EM34-3, EM38), gained almost immediate
acceptance as a replacement for the traditional use of the 4-electrode resistivity
(galvanic) traversing techniques, especially when it was demonstrated that the two
types of soil surveys produced very similar results (Cameron et al. 1981).
Accordingly, the spatial distribution of soil salinity on the individual field (Cam-
eron et al. 1981), the agricultural farm (Norman et al. 1995a, b), as well as district
(Vaughan et al. 1995) and the regional (Williams and Baker 1982) scales has been
described. Baerends et al. (1990) used the EM38 for a detailed salinity survey in an
experimental area of 37 ha. They measured electrical conductivity of the soil at more
than 3600 locations, reporting significant difference between the salinity of barren,
fallow and cropped fields. Thus, barren fields have a high salinity, fallow fields a
moderate salinity, and the cropped fields showed the lowest salinity. Baerends et al.
(1990) found good agreement between the EM38 survey and the results of the visual
agronomic salinity survey, with EM38 survey yielding results with a better resolu-
tion. The EMI method is also more sensitive to salinity changes, and can be carried
out at any time of the year.
The EM38 instrument has been mobilized (Rhoades 1992) by mounting it on the
front wheels of a farm vehicle. The EM readings can be made with the sensor
positioned at several different heights above the ground in both horizontal (EMH)
and vertical (EMV) magnetic coil configurations. By this adjustment, each stop
requires about 20–30 s, with multiple readings being needed to calculate ECa
(and, in turn, salinity) within soil depths of 0–30, 30–60, 60–90, and 90–120 cm.
The intensive data set of salinity by depth and location can also be used to assess the
adequacy of past leaching/drainage practices (Rhoades 1992). For example, where
salinity decreases with depth in the profile, the net flux of water (and salt) can be
28 1 Introduction to Soil Salinity, Sodicity and Diagnostics Techniques

interpreted as being upward. This is reflective of inadequate leaching and/or poor

drainage. Where salinity increases with depth in the soil profile, the net flux of water
and salt can be inferred as being downward. This finding would be indicative of the
adequacy of leaching/drainage. However, when salinity is low and relatively uni-
form with increasing depth, leaching is interpreted as excessive, probably contrib-
uting to waterlogging elsewhere, with a high salt loading of the receiving water
supplies.
Rhoades and Ingvalson (1971) showed that soil salinity in the field could also be
assessed with a conventional geo-electrical method. This method has been devel-
oped for the purposes of measuring the soil salinity of the entire root-zone (Nadler
and Frenkel 1980; Rhoades and Oster 1986; Yadav et al. 1979). Elaborating the
same technique, Rhoades and Van Schilfgaarde (1976) developed another electrical
conductivity probe for measuring soil salinity distribution with increasing depth.
With this probe, soil salinity is measured at specific depths in the root-zone. Thus,
four electrode techniques can be successfully used for surveys of saline soils (Nadler
1981; Halvorson et al. 1977).
Williams and Baker (1982) first recognized the possibility of using EM meters for
reconnaissance surveys of soil salinity variation. The high values of apparent
electrical conductivity (ECa) measured by the EM meters were positively correlated
with increased amounts of salts in the soil. The correlation led to empirical relation-
ships (Rhoades et al. 1989; Cook et al. 1992; Acworth and Beasley 1998) that allow
a prediction of soil salinity based on the measurement of the ECa. The correlation
between salt content and the ECa is very high for zones of uniform soil material;
though with zones showing different electrical conductivity, it is necessary to obtain
separate values of ECa for each zone.
There is an electrical conductivity image method which provides an alternative
approach. Here, the ECa function is sampled extensively in the vertical plane using a
4-electrode array. The method was described by Acworth and Griffiths (1985) and
Griffiths and Baker (1993) but has not been widely used. There was difficulty in
creating a starting model distribution of ECa values and extensive time consuming
work was required in ‘forward modeling’ of the ECa data to achieve a match with the
field data. Even so, the devices are used regularly for soil salinity surveys in different
parts of the world (Boivin et al. 1988; Job et al. 1987; Williams and Hoey 1987). The
main advantages of the EC image method are: i) measurements can be taken almost
as fast as one can walk from one measurement location to another, and ii) the large
volume of soil which is measured reduces the variability so that relatively fewer
measurements yield a reliable estimate of the field’s mean salinity.
In one study (Nettleton et al. 1994), the EM induction approach has been
extended to identification of sodium-affected soils. This approach shows great
promise as a measure of both salinity and sodicity. However, such studies on
sodic soils have not gained much attraction due to constraints in measuring accurate
sodicity levels.
16 Current Approaches of Salinity Diagnostics – Assessment, Mapping and Monitoring 29

Factors Affecting EC Measurement of Soil by EM38

The conductance of electricity in soil takes place through the moisture filled pores
that occur between individual soil particles. Therefore, the EC of soil is determined
by the following soil properties (Doerge 1999).
Porosity The greater soil porosity, the more easily electricity is conducted. Soil
with high clay content has higher porosity than sandy soil. Compaction of moist soils
normally increases soil EC.
Soil Water Content Dry soil is much lower in electrical conductivity than
moist soil.
Salinity Level Increasing concentration of electrolytes (salts) in the soil water will
dramatically increase soil EC.
Cation Exchange Capacity Mineral soils which contain high levels of organic
matter (humus) and/or 2:1 clay minerals, such as montmorillonite or vermiculite,
have a much higher ability to retain positively charged ions (such as Ca2+, Mg2+, K+,
Na+, NH4+, or H+) than the soils lacking these constituents. The presence of these
cations in moisture filled soil pores will enhance soil EC in the same way as
salinity does.
Temperature As temperature decreases toward the freezing point of water, soil EC
decreases slightly. Below freezing point, soil pores become increasingly isolated
from each other and overall soil EC declines rapidly.

16.2.3 Salinity Sensors and Data Logger

The most modern salinity data logging system is the Real Time Dynamic Automated
Salinity Logging System (RTASLS). Here, ceramic salinity sensors are buried in the
root-zone, each sensor being fitted with an external smart interface with a resolution
of 16 Bits. This interface consists of an integrated microprocessor which contains all
the required information to allow for autonomous operation of the sensor, including
power requirements and logging interval. The smart interface is connected to a
DataBus which leads to the Smart Data Logger which automatically identifies
each of the salinity sensors and begins logging them at predetermined intervals.
Instantaneous readings from sensors can be viewed in the field on the data logger’s
display. Data can also be accessed in the field with a memory stick or remotely using
a smart mobile phone. Due to technology advancements, there are diversified
sensors available. Such a real time data logging system (Plate 1.7) has been installed
in the grass plots at the experimental station of ICBA, Dubai (Shahid et al. 2008).
A useful feature of the salinity data logging system is that it does not require
knowledge of electronics or computer programing. For custom configuring the
Smart Data Logger or the salinity sensors, a simple menu system can be accessed
through HyperTerminal. This provides complete control over each individual sen-
sor’s setup. Data from the Smart Data Logger can be graphed using Excel.
30 1 Introduction to Soil Salinity, Sodicity and Diagnostics Techniques

Plate 1.7 Real time salinity logging system at ICBA experimental station (Shahid et al. 2008) (a)
Sensor placement in the root-zone, (b) Buried sensors connected to the Smart Interface, (c) Smart
Interface connected to the DataBus, (d) Instantaneous salinity read on Data Logger

16.2.3.1 System Installation and Operation – An Example

Salinity sensors are buried at 30 and 60 cm depths in a grass field (Distichlis spicata
and Sporobolus virginicus) which is being irrigated with saline water of EC 10, 20
and 30 dS m
1 (Plate 1.7). The dynamic changes of soil salinity within an irrigation
cycle are showing the effect of salinity of the irrigation water on the salt concentra-
tion in the grass root-zone, and how the salt levels are constantly changing under
irrigation (Fig. 1.6). The soil temperature can also give assistance with interpretation
of soil-water movement as no soil moisture sensors were installed. Highlights of salinity
monitoring for 25 days are presented in Fig. 1.6; note that days 15–19 are a period of rain.

16.2.3.2 Soil Salinity Monitoring

The soil salinity data recorded in the Distichlis spicata grass field show that:
• After initial installation, it takes about 10 days for the sensors to come to
equilibrium with the soil-water solution. This is especially apparent for the
30 dS m
1 irrigation water treatment.
16 Current Approaches of Salinity Diagnostics – Assessment, Mapping and Monitoring 31

Days of Rain
28

24
Salinity (dS/m)

20
A 10 dS/m (30 cm)
C 10 dS/m (60 cm)
16
E 20 dS/m (30 cm)
G 20 dS/m (60 cm)
12
I 30 dS/m (30 cm)
K 30 dS/m (60 cm)
8

4
Sensors coming into equilibrium Experiment
0
Friday

Monday

Friday

Monday

Friday

Monday

Friday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday

Saturday
Sunday

Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday

Saturday
Sunday

Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday

Saturday
Sunday

Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Time (hourly by 24 hour period)

Fig. 1.6 Soil salinity monitoring in a Distichlis spicata field at ICBA experimental station. Y-axis
shows soil salinity fluctuations on different days. The experimental plots were irrigated with saline
water of EC, dS m
1: 10 (A, C), 20 (E, G) and 30 (I, K)

• Salinity levels for the 10 dS m
1 irrigation water treatment are stable and
typically 6–8 dS m
1, with little change after rainfall.
• Salinity levels for the 20 dS m
1 irrigation water treatment are 10 dS m
1 at 30 cm
and 14–16 dS m
1 at 60 cm under the standard irrigation and management
practice. Rainfall rapidly reduces the salinity level at both 30 cm and 60 cm soil
depths. At 60 cm, the salinity level falls by 8–10 dS m
1, e.g. from 16 to 6 dS m
1.
• Salinity levels for the 30 dS m
1 irrigation water treatment are above 20 dS m
1
at 30 cm and 14–16 dS m
1 at 60 cm under the standard irrigation and manage-
ment practice. These salinity values are higher than those seen in the other
treatments, reflecting the high salinity of the applied irrigation water.
• The sensitivity of the sensors to changing soil salinity levels is illustrated by both
the diurnal fluctuation of salinity levels and the rapid changes that were observed
(measured) after the rainfall. The diurnal data indicates a slight decline in soil
salinity as the soil dries between 9:00 am and 4:00 pm, i.e. the time at which
irrigation water is again applied.
32 1 Introduction to Soil Salinity, Sodicity and Diagnostics Techniques

16.3 Use of Remote Sensing (RS) and Geographical

Information System (GIS) in Salinity Mapping
and Monitoring

The RS and GIS have been used in many soil studies. Shahid (2013) has recently
made efforts to compile this work in order to provide useful information to the
potential users of these tools in soil salinity research. A comprehensive review is
presented in the following section.
Salinity mapping can be accomplished by integrating RS and GIS techniques at
both broad and small scales. The primary objective of reviewing publications
dealing with these two techniques is to allow the prediction of sites vulnerable to
the ‘salinity menace’. GIS is a computer application that involves the storage,
analysis, retrieval, and display of data that are described in terms of their geographic
location. The most familiar type of spatial data is a map – GIS is really a way of
storing map information electronically. A GIS map has a number of advantages over
old-style maps, a primary advantage being the fact that because the data are stored
electronically, they can be analyzed readily by computer. In the case of soil salinity,
scientists can use data on rainfall, topography and soil type (indeed, any spatial
information that is available electronically can be used) to determine the factors
which make soils highly susceptible to salinization with the aim of being able to
predict other (similar) regions that may be at risk.
RS imagery is well suited to map the surface expression of salinity (Spies and
Woodgate 2005). For example, a poor cover of vegetation could be an indication of
salinity, especially when combined with information on depth of soil to groundwa-
ter. The goal of such an exercise is to assess and map soil salinity in order to better
understand the problem, and then provide information on how to take necessary
actions to prevent increases in salinization of new areas over time. And finally, we
need to know how to best manage salinity for sustainable use of land resources.
Salinized and cropped areas can be identified and assigned a salinity index based
on greenness and brightness – one that indicates leaf moisture of plants being
influenced by salinity. Here, classical false-color composites of separated bands
can be used, or a computer-assisted land-surface classification can be developed
(Vincent et al. 1996). A brightness index detects brightness as representing a high
level of salinity. Satellite images can help in assessing the extent of saline areas and
can monitor changes in real time. Saline fields are often identified by the presence of
spotty white patches of precipitated salts. Such precipitates usually occur in elevated
or un-vegetated areas, where evaporation has left salt residues. Such salt crusts,
which can be detected on satellite images, are, however, not reliable evidence of high
salinity in the root-zone. Another limitation in salinity mapping with multispectral
imagery is where saline soils support productive plant growth such as areas of
biosaline agriculture. There, plant cover obscures direct sensing of the soil because
16 Current Approaches of Salinity Diagnostics – Assessment, Mapping and Monitoring 33

salt tolerant plants cannot be differentiated from other ground cover, unless exten-
sive on-site ground investigations are made to corroborate the information.
However, RS can provide useful information for large areas with differing water
and salt balances and can identify parameters such as evapotranspiration, rainfall
distribution, interception losses, and crop types and crop intensities that can be used
as indirect measures of salinity and waterlogging as evidence in the absence of direct
estimates (Ahmad 2002).

16.4 Global Use of Remote Sensing in Salinity Mapping

and Monitoring

Salinity mapping and monitoring by using RS and GIS are common in many
countries and such procedures have recently been used in Kuwait and Abu Dhabi
Emirate as part of the National Soil Inventories (KISR 1999a,b; Shahid et al. 2002;
EAD 2009). At regional and national levels (Sukchani and Yamamoto 2005), RS
and GIS was used for waterlogging and salinity monitoring (Asif and Ahmed 1999).
RS technology was used for soil salinity mapping in the Middle East (Hussein 2001)
and salt-affected soils using RS and GIS (Maher 1990).
The Thematic Mapper™ bands 5 and 7 are frequently used to detect soil salinity or
drainage anomalies (Mulders and Epema 1986; Menenti et al. 1986; Zuluaga 1990;
Vincent et al. 1996) and a broad scale monitoring of salinity using satellite remote
sensing (Dutkiewics and Lewis 2008). Metternicht and Zinck (1997) have shown
that Landsat TM (Thematic Mapper) and JERS-ISAR (Japan Earth Resources
Satellite-Intelligent Synthetic Aperture Radar) data (visible and infrared regions)
are the best ways to distinguish saline, alkaline, and non-saline soils. Landsat
SMM (Solar Maximum Mission) and TM data for detailed mapping and monitoring
of saline soils has been used in India for use as a reconnaissance soil map.
Abdelfattah et al. (2009) developed a model that integrates remote sensing data
with GIS techniques to assess, characterize, and map the state and behavior of soil
salinity.
The coastal area of Abu Dhabi Emirate, where the issue of salinity is a major
concern, has been used for a pilot study conducted in 2003. The development of a
salinity model has been structured under four main phases: salinity detection using
remote sensing data, site observations (on-site ground inspection), correlation and
verification (a combination of a salinity map produced from visual interpretation of
remotely sensed data and a salinity map produced from on-site observations), and
model validation. Here, GIS was used to integrate the available data and information
to design the model, and to create different maps. A geo-database was created and
populated with data collected from observation points, melded together with
34 1 Introduction to Soil Salinity, Sodicity and Diagnostics Techniques

laboratory analysis data. In this study, the correlation between the salinity maps
developed from remote sensing data and on-site observations showed that 91.2% of
the saline areas delineated using remote sensing data alone exhibit a good fit with
saline areas delineated using on-site observations. Hence, the model can be adopted.
Remote sensing, thus, acquires information about the earth’s surface without
actually being in contact with it. The fundamentals of remote sensing in soil salinity
assessment and examples of such studies from the Middle East, Kuwait, Abu Dhabi
Emirate and Australia have been described recently by Shahid et al. (2010). The
combination of salinity maps taken over period of time and Digital Elevation Model
(DEM) help to predict salinity risk in the area.

16.5 Geo-Statistics

Geo-statistics is used for mapping of land surface features from limited sample data.
It is widely used in fields where ‘spatial’ data is studied. Geo-statistical estimation is
a two-stage process. First step is studying the gathered data to establish the predict-
ability of values from place-to-place within the study area. This results in a graph
known as a semi-variogram, which models the difference between a value at one
location and the value at another location according to the distance and direction
between them. The second step is estimating values at those locations which have
not been sampled. This process is known as ‘kriging’. The basic technique ‘ordinary
kriging’ uses a weighted average of neighboring samples to estimate the ‘unknown’
value at a given location. Weights are optimized using the semi-variogram model,
the locations of the samples, and all the relevant interrelationships between known
and unknown values. The technique also provides a ‘standard error’ which may be
used to calculate confidence levels. In mining, geo-statistics is extensively used in
the field of mineral resource and reserve valuation, e.g. the estimation of grades and
other parameters from a relatively small set of boreholes or other samples.
Geo-statistics is now widely used in geological and geographical applications.
However, the techniques are also used in such diverse fields as hydrology, ground-
water, soil salinity mapping, and weather prediction. The application of
geo-statistical techniques, such as ordinary- and co-kriging, have been applied to
salinity survey data in an effort to represent more accurately the spatial distribution
of soil salinity (Boivin et al. 1988; Vaughan et al. 1995).
In order to develop soil salinity maps, two approaches: Kriging and Inverse
distance weighted (IDW) can be used, as explained below (Source: www.esri.com).

16.5.1 Kriging

Kriging is an advanced geo-statistical procedure that generates an estimated surface

from a scattered set of points with z-values (elevation) (Fig. 1.7). Kriging assumes
that the distance or direction between sample points reflects a spatial correlation that
16 Current Approaches of Salinity Diagnostics – Assessment, Mapping and Monitoring 35

Fig. 1.7 Kriging method to generate salinity map

can be used to explain variation in the surface. The Kriging tool fits a mathematical
function to a specified number of points, or to all points within a specified radius, in
order to determine the output value for each location. As noted above, Kriging is a
multistep process; it includes exploratory statistical analysis of the data, variogram
modeling, creating the surface, and (optionally) exploring a variance surface.
Kriging is most appropriate when you know there is a spatially correlated distance
or directional bias in the data. It is often used in soil science and geology.

16.5.2 Inverse Distance Weighted (IDW) Interpolation

Inverse distance weighted interpolation determines cell values using a linearly

weighted combination of a set of sample points (Fig. 1.8). The weight is a function
of inverse distance. The surface being interpolated should be that of a location-
dependent variable. This method assumes that the variable being mapped decreases
in influence with distance from its sampled location.
36 1 Introduction to Soil Salinity, Sodicity and Diagnostics Techniques

Fig. 1.8 Inverse distance weighted (IDW) method to generate salinity map

16.6 Morphological Methods

Morphological details of salt minerals can be obtained at four levels, macro-, meso-,
micro- and sub-microscopic levels, as described below:

16.6.1 Macromorphology

Macromorphology can be established during field investigation on a broad

scale (Plate 1.8 upper left), and features of interest can be captured with digital
camera (still or video). Such investigations quickly provide useful information about
the area of interest.

16.6.2 Mesomorphology

Mesomorphological observations are made when the naked eye cannot resolve the
details of the features of interest (Plate 1.8 upper right). The naked eye is then aided
16 Current Approaches of Salinity Diagnostics – Assessment, Mapping and Monitoring 37

with hand lens or binocular microscope at lower magnifications. Such observations

can be made in the field (hand lens) or in laboratory using binocular low magnifi-
cation microscopes.

16.6.3 Micromorphology

Micromorphology optical microscopy: When optical aid is needed for the naked
eye to resolve details at higher magnifications, for example, in soil thin sections as
studied with a polarizing microscope (Plate 1.8 bottom left); it is considered as an
extension to field morphological studies. Soil thin sections are prepared by impreg-
nating the saline soils with resin and hardened. After the resin has fully polymerized,
the impregnated samples are cut into slices with diamond saw. The impregnated
block is washed with petroleum spirit in an ultrasonic bath. One face of the
impregnated soil block is then ground and polished successively with 6 and 3 μm
diamond paste using Hyprez fluid as lubricant on polishing and lapping machine.
The polished block is stuck to glass slide using resin and then ground to 25 μm
thicknesses using lapping and polishing machine (Shahid 1988).
Micromorphology submicroscopy: Is the resolution of details at the submicro-
scopic level (Plate 1.8 bottom right) using an electron microscope (scanning and
transmission). For submicroscopic investigation, the base of the sample and the
surface of the stub are painted with a silver colloid suspension by a brush and then
sample is mounted onto the stub using normal araldite. The prepared mounted
samples are either carbon coated under vacuum or coated with a layer of gold-
palladium (20–30 nm thick) to prevent charge buildup on the specimen, and to hold
the surface of the sample and a constant electric potential. The prepared samples are
then studied using the scanning electron microscopy.
The above details can be obtained as required. The microscopy techniques can also
be combined. For example, Bisdom (1980) coupled optical microscopy with sub-
microscopic methods and later with contact microradiography (Drees and Wilding
1983). The electron microscopes can be supplemented with a micro-chemical
analyzer (Energy Dispersive X Ray Analyses – EDXRA, Wavelength Dispersive
X Ray Analyses – WDXRA), thereby allowing in-situ micro-chemical analyses
(non-destructive). To study salt crusts at the submicroscopic level, soil samples
need coating with gold-palladium (an alloy), or carbon applied to salt crusts is
needed to make the sample a conductor. The use of submicroscopic techniques has
widely been used in salt minerals studies, such as in Turkey (Vergouwen 1981) and
Pakistan (Shahid 1988; Shahid et al. 1990; Shahid et al. 1992; Shahid and Jenkins
1994; Shahid 2013) (Plate 1.8).
38 1 Introduction to Soil Salinity, Sodicity and Diagnostics Techniques

Plate 1.8 Salt features at different observations scales (cf. Shahid 1988; 2013). (a) Macroscopic
features of soil salinity – naked eye observation (salt crust) (Width 20 meters), (b)
Mesomorphological features – binocular observation of nahcolite (NaHCO3) mineral (Width
1100 μm), (c) Micromorphological feature – optical microscopic observation of thenardite
(Na2SO4) mineral in thin section (Width 1000 μm), (d) Micromorphological feature – submicro-
scopic observation of lath shaped glauberite [(Na2Ca (SO4)2] mineral – scanning electron micros-
copy (Width 64 μm)

References

Abdelfattah MA, Shahid SA, Othman YR (2009) Soil salinity mapping model developed using RS
and GIS – a case study from Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Eur J Sci Res 26(3):342–351
Acworth RI, Beasley R (1998) Investigation of EM31 anomalies at Yarramanbah/Pump Station
creek on the Liverpool Plains of New South Wales. WRL Research Report No 195. University
of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, 70 pp
Acworth RI, Griffiths DH (1985) Simple data processing of tripotential apparent resistivity
measurements as an aid to the interpretation of subsurface structure. Geophys Prospect
33(6):861–867
Ahmad MD (2002) Estimation of net groundwater use in irrigated river basins using
geo-information techniques: a case study in Rechna Doab, Pakistan. PhD Thesis, Wageningen
University, Enschede, The Netherlands, 144 pp. http://edepot.wur.nl/121368
References 39

Akramkhanov A, Sommer R, Martius C, Hendrickx JMH, Vlek PLG (2008) Comparison and
sensitivity of measurement techniques for spatial distribution of soil salinity. Irrig Drain Syst
22(1):115–126
Alavipanah SK, Zehtabian GR (2002) A database approach for soil salinity mapping and general-
ization from remote sensing data and geographic information system. FIG XXII International
Congress, 19–26 April 2002, Washington DC, USA pp 1–8
Al-Moustafa WA, Al-Omran AM (1990) Reliability of 1:1, 1:2, and 1:5 weight extracts for
expressing salinity in light-textured soils of Saudi Arabia. J King Saud Univ Agric Sci
2(2):321–329
Asif S, Ahmed MD (1999) Using state-of-the-art RS and GIS for monitoring waterlogging and
salinity. International Water Management Institute, Lahore, Pakistan, 16 pp
Baerends B, Raza ZI, Sadiq M, Chaudhry MA, Hendrickx JMH (1990) Soil salinity survey with an
electromagnetic induction method. Proceedings of the Indo-Pak workshop on soil salinity and
water management, 10–14 February 1990, Islamabad, Pakistan, vol 1. pp 201–219
Bisdom EBA (1980) A review of the application of submicroscopy techniques in soil micromor-
phology. I. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
In: Bisdom EBA (ed) Submicroscopy of soils and weathered rocks. Pudoc, Wageningen,
pp 67–116
Boivin P, Hachicha M, Job JO, Loyer JY (1988) Une méthode de cartographie de la salinité des
sols: conductivité électromagnétique et interpolation par krigeage. Sci du sol 27:69–72
Cameron DR, De Jong E, Read DWL, Oosterveld M (1981) Mapping salinity using resistivity and
electromagnetic inductive techniques. Can J Soil Sci 61:67–78
Cook PG, Walker GR, Buselli G, Potts I, Dodds AR (1992) The application of electromagnetic
techniques to groundwater recharge investigations. J Hydrol 130:201–229
Doerge T (1999) Soil electrical conductivity mapping. Crop Insights 9(19):1–4
Drees LR, Wilding LP (1983) Microradiography as a submicroscopic tool. Geoderma 30:65–76
Dutkiewics A, Lewis M (2008) Broadscale monitoring of salinity using satellite remote sensing:
where to from here? 2nd International Salinity Forum Adelaide, Australia, 6 pp
EAD (2009) Soil survey of Abu Dhabi Emirate. Environment Agency Abu Dhabi. 5 Volumes
EAD (2012) Soil survey of Northern Emirates. Environment Agency Abu Dhabi. 2 Volumes
FAO-UNESCO (1974) Soil map of the world. 1:5,000,000, vol 1–10. UNESCO, Paris
Franklin WT, Follett RH (1985) Crop tolerance to soil salinity. No. 505. Service in action: Colorado
State University Extension Service
Griffiths DH, Baker RD (1993) Two-dimensional resistivity imaging and modeling in areas of
complex geology. J Appl Geophys 29:211–226
Halvorson AD, Rhoades JD, Reule CA (1977) Soil salinity – four-electrode conductivity relation-
ships for soils of the northern great plains. Soil Sci Soc Am J 41(5):966–971
Hogg TJ, Henry JL (1984) Comparison of 1:1 and 1:2 suspensions with the saturation extract in
estimating salinity in Saskatchewan soils. Can J Soil Sci 64(4):699–704
Hussein H (2001) Development of environmental GIS database and its application to desertification
study in Middle East. A Remote sensing and GIS application. PhD Thesis Graduate School of
Science and Technology, Chiba University Japan, 155 pp
Job JO, Loyer JY, Ailoul M (1987) Utilisation de la conductivite electromagnetique pour la mesure
directe de la salinite des sols. Cah ORSTOM, ser Pedol 23(2):123–131
KISR (1999a) Soil survey for the state of Kuwait – Volume II: Reconnaissance survey. AACM
International, Adelaide
KISR (1999b) Soil survey for the state of Kuwait – Volume IV: Semi-detailed survey. AACM
International, Adelaide
Landon JR (ed) (1984) Booker tropical soil manual, Paperback edn. Routledge Taylor & Francis
Group, New York/London, 474 pp
Maher MAA (1990) The use of remote sensing techniques in combination with a geographic
information system for soil studies with emphasis on quantification of salinity and alkalinity
in the northern part of the Nile delta. MSc thesis Enschede Netherlands, ITC
40 1 Introduction to Soil Salinity, Sodicity and Diagnostics Techniques

McNeill JD (1980) Electromagnetic terrain conductivity measurements at low induction numbers.

Geonics Limited Technical Notes TN-6, Geonics Ltd, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada 15 pp
Menenti M, Lorkeers A, Vissers M (1986) An application of thematic mapper data in Tunisia. ITC J
1:35–42
Metternicht GB, Zinck JA (1997) Spatial discrimination of salt- and sodium-affected soil surfaces.
Int J Remote Sens 18(12):2571–2586
Mulders MA, Epema GF (1986) The thematic mapper: a new tool for soil mapping in arid areas.
ITC J 1:24–29
Nadler A (1981) Field application of the four-electrode technique for determining soil solution
conductivity. Soil Sci Soc Am J 45:30–34
Nadler A, Frenkel H (1980) Determination of soil solution electrical conductivity from bulk soil
electrical conductivity measurements by the four-electrode method. Soil Sci Soc Am J
44:1216–1221
Nettleton WD, Bushue L, Doolittle JA, Endres TJ, Indorante SJ (1994) Sodium-affected soil
identification in South-Central Illinois by electromagnetic induction. Soil Sci Soc Am J
58:1190–1193
Norman C, Challis P, Oliver H, Robinson J, Gillespie K, Rankin C, Tonkins S, Heath J (1995a)
Whole farm soil salinity surveys in the Kerang region. Institute of Sustainable Irrigated
Agriculture (ISIA), Tatura, Report 1993–1995, p 162
Norman C, Heath J, Turnour R, MacDonald P (1995b) On-farm salinity monitoring and investiga-
tions. Institute of Sustainable Irrigated Agriculture (ISIA), Tatura, Report 1993–1995, p 164
Rhoades JD (1992) Instrumental field methods of salinity appraisal. In: Topp GC, Reynolds WD,
Green RE (eds) Advances in measurements of soil physical properties: Bringing theory into
practice. SSSA Special Publication 30/ASA/CSSA/SSSA, Madison, pp 231–248
Rhoades JD, Ingvalson RD (1971) Determining salinity in field soils with soil resistance measure-
ments. Soil Sci Soc Am Proc 35(1):54–60
Rhoades JD, Oster JD (1986) Solute content. In: Klute A (ed) Methods of soil analysis, part 1, 2nd
edn. Agronomy 9:985–1006
Rhoades JD, van Schilfgaarde J (1976) An electrical conductivity probe for determining soil
salinity. Soil Sci Soc Am Proc 40:647–655
Rhoades JD, Manteghi NA, Shouse PJ, Alves WJ (1989) Soil electrical conductivity and soil
salinity: New formulations and calibrations. Soil Sci Soc Am J 53(2):433–439
Shahid SA (1988) Studies on the micromorphology of salt-affected soils of Pakistan. PhD Thesis,
University College of North Wales, Bangor, UK. 2 Volumes
Shahid SA (1993) Effect of saline-sodic waters on the hydraulic conductivity and soil structure of
the simulated experimental soil columns. Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Environmental Assessment and Management of Irrigation and Drainage Projects for Sustained
Agricultural Growth, 11–13 April 1993, Lahore, Pakistan, vol 2. pp 125–138
Shahid SA (2013) Developments in salinity assessment, modeling, mapping, and monitoring from
regional to submicroscopic scales. In: Shahid SA, Abdelfattah MA, Taha FK (eds) Develop-
ments in soil salinity assessment and reclamation – innovative thinking and use of marginal soil
and water resources in irrigated agriculture. Springer, Dordrecht/Heidelberg/New York/London,
pp 3–43
Shahid SA, Jenkins DA (1991a) Effect of successive waters of different quality on hydraulic
conductivity of a soil. J Drain Reclam 3(2):9–13
Shahid SA, Jenkins DA (1991b) Mechanisms of hydraulic conductivity reduction in the
Khurrianwala soil series. Pak J Agric Sci 28(4):369–373
Shahid SA, Jenkins DA (1992a) Development of a simulation system for quick screening of soils
against salinity and sodicity. In: Feyen J, Mwendera E, Badji M (eds) Advances in planning,
design and management of irrigation systems as related to sustainable land use: proceedings of
an international conference, 14–17 September 1992, vol 2. Center for Irrigation Engineering of
the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, pp 607–614
References 41

Shahid SA, Jenkins DA (1992b) Micromorphology of surface and subsurface sealing and crusting
in the soils of Pakistan. In: Vlotman WF (ed) Subsurface drainage on problematic irrigated soils:
sustainability and cost effectiveness. Proceedings of the 5th international drainage workshop,
8–15 February 1992, Lahore, Pakistan, vol 2. pp 177–189
Shahid SA, Jenkins DA (1992c) Utilization of simulation system for quick screening of soils against
salinity and sodicity. In: Feyen J, Mwendera E, Badji M (eds) Advances in planning design and
management of irrigation systems as related to sustainable land use: proceedings of an interna-
tional conference, 14–17 September 1992, vol 2. Center for Irrigation Engineering of the
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, pp 615–626
Shahid SA, Jenkins DA (1994) Mineralogy and micromorphology of salt crusts from the Punjab,
Pakistan. In: Ringrose-Voase AJ, Hymphreys GS (eds) Soil micromorphology: studies in
management and genesis, developments in soil science 22, Proceedings of the IX international
working meeting on soil micromorphology, July 1992, Townsville, Australia, Elsevier Amster-
dam London New York Tokyo pp 799–810
Shahid SA, Rahman KR (2011) Soil salinity development, classification, assessment and manage-
ment in irrigated agriculture. In: Passarakli M (ed) Handbook of plant and crop stress. CRC
Press/Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, pp 23–39
Shahid SA, Qureshi RH, Jenkins DA (1990) Salt-minerals in the saline-sodic soils of Pakistan.
Proceedings of the Indo-Pak workshop on soil salinity and water management, 10–14 February
1990, Islamabad, Pakistan, vol 1. pp 175–191
Shahid SA, Jenkins DA, Hussain T (1992) Halite morphologies and genesis in the soil environment
of Pakistan. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Strategies for Utilizing Salt-
affected Lands, 17–25 February 1992, Bangkok, Thailand pp 59–73
Shahid SA, Abo-Rezq H, Omar SAS (2002) Mapping soil salinity through a reconnaissance soil
survey of Kuwait and geographic information system. Annual Research Report, Kuwait Institute
for Scientific Research, Kuwait, KSR 6682 pp 56–59
Shahid SA, Dakheel AH, Mufti KA, Shabbir G (2008) Automated in-situ salinity logging in
irrigated agriculture. Eur J Sci Res 26(2):288–297
Shahid SA, Abdefattah MA, Omar SAS, Harahsheh H, Othman Y, Mahmoudi H (2010) Mapping
and monitoring of soil salinization – remote sensing, GIS, modeling, electromagnetic induction
and conventional methods – case studies. In: Ahmad M, Al-Rawahy SA (eds) Proceedings of
the international conference on soil salinization and groundwater salinization in arid regions, vol
1. Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, pp 59–97
Shahid SA, Abdelfattah MA, Mahmoudi H (2013) Innovations in soil chemical analyses: New ECs
and total salts relationship for Abu Dhabi emirate soils. In: Shahid SA, Taha FK, Abdelfattah
MA (eds) Developments in soil classification, land use planning and policy implications –
innovative thinking of soil inventory for land use planning and Management of Land Resources.
Springer, Dordrecht, pp 799–812
Shirokova YI, Forkutsa I, Sharafutdinova N (2000) Use of electrical conductivity instead of soluble
salts for soil salinity monitoring in Central Asia. Irrig Drain Syst 14(3):199–205
Soil Survey Division Staff (2017) Soil survey manual. USDA-NRCS Agriculture Handbook No
18, US Government Printing Office, Washington DC, USA, 603 pp
Sonmez S, Bukuktas D, Okturen F, Citak S (2008) Assessment of different soil water ratios (1:1,
1:2.5, 1:5) in soil salinity studies. Geoderma 144(1–2):361–369
Spies B, Woodgate P (2005) Salinity mapping methods in the Australian context. Technical Report,
Department of the Environment and Heritage; and Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Land and
Water Australia, Canberra, Australia, 234 pp
Sukchani S, Yamamoto Y (2005) Classification of salt-affected areas using remote sensing. Soil
survey and classification division. Department of Land Development, Ministry of Agriculture
and Cooperative, Bangkok, Thailand and Japan International Research Center Agricultural
Sciences, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan, 7 pp
42 1 Introduction to Soil Salinity, Sodicity and Diagnostics Techniques

Tanji KK (1990) Nature and extent of agricultural salinity. In: Tanji KK (ed) Agricultural salinity
assessment and management, ASCE manuals and reports on engineering practice No 71. ASCE,
New York, USA, pp 1–17
Triantafilis J, Laslett GM, McBratney AB (2000) Calibrating an electromagnetic induction instru-
ment to measure salinity in soil under irrigated cotton. Soil Sci Soc Am J 64(3):1009–1017
USSL Staff (1954) Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. USDA Handbook No 60
Washington DC, USA, 160 pp
Vaughan PJ, Lesch SM, Crown DL, Cone DG (1995) Water content effect on soil salinity
prediction. A geostatistical study using co-kriging. Soil Sci Soc Am J 59(4):1146–1156
Vergouwen L (1981) Scanning electron microscopy applied on saline soils from the Konya basin in
Turkey and from Kenya. In: Bisdom EBA (ed) Submicroscopy of soil and weathered rocks.
Center for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen, pp 237–248
Vincent B, Vidal A, Tabbet D, Baqri A, Kapur M (1996) Use of satellite remote sensing for the
assessment of waterlogging or salinity as an indication of the performance of drained systems.
In: Vincent B (ed) Evaluation of performance of subsurface drainage systems. Proceedings of
the 16th congress on irrigation and drainage, Cairo, ICID New Delhi, India pp 203–216
Williams BG, Baker GC (1982) An electromagnetic induction technique for reconnaissance survey
of salinity hazards. Aust J Soil Res 20(2):107–118
Williams BG, Hoey D (1987) The use of electromagnetic induction to detect the spatial variability
of the salt and clay contents of soils. Aust J Soil Res 25(1):21–27
Yadav BR, Rao NH, Paliwal KV, Sharma PBS (1979) Comparison of different methods for
measuring soil salinity under field conditions. Soil Sci 127(26):335–339
Zheng H, Schroder JL, Pittman JJ, Wang JJ, Payton ME (2005) Soil salinity using saturated paste
and 1:1 soil to water extracts. Soil Sci Soc Am J 69(4):1146–1151
Zuluaga JM (1990) Remote sensing applications in irrigation management in Mendoza, Argentina.
In: Menenti M (ed) Remote sensing in evaluation and management of irrigation. Instituto
Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnic, Mendoza, pp 37–58

The opinions expressed in this chapter are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the IAEA, its Board of Directors, or the countries they represent.
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
IGO license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/), which permits use, sharing, adap-
tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit
to the IAEA, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The use of the IAEA’s name for any purpose other than for attribution, and the use of the IAEA’s
logo, shall be subject to a separate written license agreement between the IAEA and the user and is
not authorized as part of this CC-IGO license. Note that the link provided above includes additional
terms and conditions of the license.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.

IGO
Chapter 2
Soil Salinity: Historical Perspectives
and a World Overview of the Problem

Shabbir A. Shahid, Mohammad Zaman, and Lee Heng

Abstract Soil salinity is not a recent phenomenon, it has been reported since
centuries where humanity and salinity have lived one aside the other. A good example
is from Mesopotamia where the early civilizations first flourished and then failed due
to human-induced salinization. A publication ‘Salt and silt in ancient Mesopotamian
agriculture’ highlights the history of salinization in Mesopotamia where three epi-
sodes (earliest and most serious one affected Southern Iraq from 2400 BC until at least
1700 BC, a milder episode in Central Iraq occurred between 1200 and 900 BC, and the
east of Baghdad, became salinized after 1200 AD) have been reported. There are
reports clearly revealing that ‘many societies based on irrigated agriculture have
failed’, e.g. Mesopotamia and the Viru valley of Peru. The flooding, over-irrigation,
seepage, silting, and a rising water table have been reported the main causes of soil
salinization. Recent statistics of global extent of soil salinization do not exist, however,
various scientists reported extent differently based on different data sources, such as
there have been reports like, 10% of the total arable land as being affected by salinity
and sodicity, one billion hectares are covered with saline and/or sodic soils, and
between 25% and 30% of irrigated lands are salt-affected and essentially commercially
unproductive, global distribution of salt-affected soils are 954 million ha, FAO in 1988
presented 932 million ha salt-affected soils, of almost 1500 million ha of dryland
agriculture, 32 million ha are salt-affected. Precise information on the recent estimates
of global extent of salt-affected soils do not exist, many countries have assessed their
soils and soil salinization at the national level, such as Kuwait, United Arab Emirates,
Middle East, and Australia etc. Considering the current extent of salt-affected soils the
cost of salt-induced land degradation in 2013 was $441 per hectare, a simple benefit
transfer suggests the current annual economic losses could be $27 billion.

Keywords Historical perspective · Mesopotamia · Iraq · Global extent · Economic

losses · Viru valley

© International Atomic Energy Agency 2018 43

M. Zaman et al., Guideline for Salinity Assessment, Mitigation and Adaptation Using
Nuclear and Related Techniques, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96190-3_2
44 2 Soil Salinity: Historical Perspectives and a World Overview of the Problem

1 Introduction

Soil salinity is a major global issue owing to its adverse impact on agricultural
productivity and sustainability. Salinity problems occur under all climatic conditions
and can result from both natural and human-induced actions. Generally speaking,
saline soils occur in arid and semi-arid regions where rainfall is insufficient to meet
the water requirements of the crops, and leach mineral salts out of the root-zone. The
association between humans and salinity has existed for centuries and historical
records show that many civilizations have failed due to increases in the salinity of
agricultural fields, the most known example being Mesopotamia (now Iraq). Soil
salinity undermines the resource base by decreasing soil quality and can occur due to
natural causes or from misuse and mismanagement to an extent which jeopardizes
the integrity of soil’s self-regulatory capacity.
Soil salinity is dynamic and spreading globally in over 100 countries; no conti-
nent is completely free from salinity (Fig. 2.1). Soil salinization is projected to
increase in future climate change scenarios due to sea level rise and impact on
coastal areas, and the rise in temperature that will inevitably lead to increase
evaporation and further salinization. Salinization of soils can affect ecosystems to
an extent where they no longer can provide ‘environmental services’ to their full
potential. It is realized that recent estimates of the global extent of soil salinization do
not exist. But it can be assumed that, since the earlier data gathering in the 1970s and
1980s, salinization has expanded as newly affected areas most probably exceed the
areas restored through reclamation and rehabilitation. There is a long list of countries
where salt-induced land degradation occurs. Some well-known regions where sali-
nization is extensively reported include the Aral Sea Basin (Amu-Darya and
Syr-Darya River Basins) in Central Asia, the Indo-Gangetic Basin in India, the

Fig. 2.1 World map representing countries with salinity problems. (https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/262495450)
2 Soil Salinity – A Historical and Contemporary Perspective 45

Indus Basin in Pakistan, the Yellow River Basin in China, the Euphrates Basin in
Syria and Iraq, the Murray-Darling Basin in Australia, and the San Joaquin Valley in
the United States (Qadir et al. 2014).

2 Soil Salinity – A Historical and Contemporary

Perspective

For centuries, humanity and salinity have lived one aside the other. There is good
evidence for Mesopotamia that early civilizations flourished and then failed due to
human-induced salinization. Jacobson and Adams (1958), in their publication, ‘Salt
and silt in ancient Mesopotamian agriculture’ highlighted the history of salinization
in Mesopotamia. Ancient records show three episodes of soil salinization in Iraq.
The earliest and the most serious one affected Southern Iraq from 2400 BC until at
least 1700 BC. A milder episode in Central Iraq occurred between1200 BC and
900 BC, and there is archeological evidence that the Nahrwan area, east of Baghdad,
became salinized after 1200 AD. Flooding, over-irrigation, seepage, silting, and a
rising water-table are considered to be the main reasons for these episodes of
increased salinization (Gelburd 1985).
In southern Iraq in 3500 BC, both wheat and barley were equally important
cultivated crops, though after 100 years wheat had slipped to one sixth, and by
2100 BC, its cultivation had become almost insignificant, dropping to only 2%. By
1700 BC, wheat cultivation was completely phased out. Historical records show that
concurrent with the shift to barley cultivation, there was an appreciable and serious
decline in soil fertility and gradual declines in barley yields, which for the most part
can be attributed to salinization (Jacobson and Adams 1958). Thus, after almost
5000 years of successful irrigated agriculture, the Sumerian civilization failed. In the
Indus plains of Pakistan and India, the practice of irrigation began about 2000 years
ago during the Harapa civilization, but it is only recently that serious problems of
salinity and sodicity are being encountered. In the Viru valley of Peru, irrigated
agriculture began between 800 BC and 30 AD (Wiley 1953), and by 800 AD, the
population was at a peak. Then from 1200 AD, the population declined appreciably
and the residents of the once densely populated Viru valley bottom relocated to more
narrow upper reaches of the valley. The historians partly attribute this relocation to
increased salinity and a rising water- table, together with inadequate soil drainage
(Armillas 1961). Tanji (1990) draws a historical perspective of irrigation-induced
salinity in several regions. In a similar perspective, general remarks by Wiley (1953)
clearly reveal that ‘many societies based on irrigated agriculture have failed’,
e.g. Mesopotamia and the Viru valley of Peru.
46 2 Soil Salinity: Historical Perspectives and a World Overview of the Problem

3 An Overview of Salinity Problem

The earth’s land surface is 13.2  109 ha, but only 7  109 ha of this is arable, of
which only 1.5  109 ha is currently cultivated (Massoud 1981). Of the cultivated
lands, about 0.34  109 ha (23%) are saline and 0.56  109 ha (37%) are sodic.
Older estimates (Szabolcs 1989) described 10% of the total arable land as being
affected by salinity and sodicity, with the effects extending to over 100 countries in
all continents. One billion hectares of the 13.2  109 hectares of the land is, thus,
covered with saline and/or sodic soils, and between 25% and 30% of irrigated lands
are salt-affected and essentially commercially unproductive.
The countries affected by salinization are predominantly located in arid and semi-
arid regions, where continued irrigation with low quality groundwater has taken
place. Low rainfall has also contributed to the expansion of salt-affected soils. The
largest area of the world’s saline soils occurs in the arid and semi-arid regions
(Massoud 1974; Ponnamperuma 1984), where evapotranspiration exceeds precipi-
tation. The rapid conversion into barren land through salinity/sodicity has negatively
affected the environment and has substantially altered natural resources in a number
of countries. Worldwide, some ten million hectares of irrigated land is abandoned
annually because of salinization, sodication and waterlogging (Szabolcs 1989).
These degraded soils occur principally in the hot arid and semi-arid regions,
although they have also been recorded in Polar Regions (Buringh 1979).
Global statistics on salt-affected soils vary according to different data sources.
Saline soils occupied more than 20% of the world’s irrigated area by the mid-1990s
(Ghassemi et al. 1995). Since then, the extent of salinity has likely increased and, in
some countries, salt-affected soils occur on more than half of the irrigated lands
(Metternicht and Zinck 2003). Kovda and Szabolcs (1979) reported global distribu-
tion of salt-affected soils as 954 million ha. Data summarized from Szabolcs (1974)
for Europe and Massoud (1977) for the other continents, as reported by Abrol et al.
(1988) in FAO Soils Bulletin 39, presents 932.2 million ha of salt-affected soils
(Table 2.1). Of almost 1500 million ha of dryland agriculture, 32 million ha are salt-
affected (FAO 2000). Although recent estimates of global extent of salt-affected
soils do not exist, many countries have assessed their soils and soil salinization levels
at the national level, such as Kuwait (Shahid et al. 2002), United Arab Emirates

Table 2.1 Worldwide Area Saline soils Sodic soils Total Percent
distribution of salt-affected
Australasia 17.6 340.0 357.6 38.4
areas (Million ha)
Asia 194.7 121.9 316.5 33.9
America 77.6 69.3 146.9 15.8
Africa 53.5 26.9 80.4 8.60
Europe 7.8 22.9 30.8 3.30
World 351.2 581.0 932.2 100
Source: Abrol et al. (1988) in FAO Soil Bulletin 39; Summary of
data for Europe (Szabolcs 1974) and for other continents
(Massoud 1977)
3 An Overview of Salinity Problem 47

(EAD 2009, 2012), Middle East (Hussein 2001; Shahid et al. 2010), and Australia
(Oldeman et al. 1991).
In a comprehensive overview of the global identification of salinity problems and
the global salinity status, Shahid (2013) reported that about 200  106 hectares of
land is affected by salinity in Southwest USA and Mexico. In Spain, Portugal,
Greece, and Italy, saltwater intrusion into aquifers is appreciable; in Spain more
than 20% of the land area is desert, or is seriously degraded and, thus,
nonproductive.
In the Middle East, 20  106 hectares are affected by increased soil salinity, the
reasons being poor irrigation practices, high evaporation rates, growth of sabkhas
(salt scalds), and an increase in groundwater salinity. In addition, productivity of the
irrigated lands of the Euphrates basin (Syria, Iraq) is seriously constrained by
salinity. In Iran, 14.2% of the total land area is salt-affected (Pazira 1999). In
Egypt, 1  106 hectares of land which could be cultivated along the Nile is salt-
affected. Salt accumulation in the Jordan River basin adversely affects agricultural
production in Syria and Jordan. In Africa, 80  106 hectares is saline, sodic, or
saline-sodic, of which the Sahel, in West Africa, is the most affected.
In Asia, 20% of India’s cultivable land, mainly in Rajasthan, coastal Gujarat, and
the Indo-Gangetic plains, is affected by salinity or sodicity. In Pakistan, 10  106
hectares is affected and about 5–10 hectares per hour is lost to salinity and/or
waterlogging in coastal regions and in the irrigated Indus basin. In Bangladesh,
3  106 hectares is unproductive due to salinity. In Thailand, 3.58  106 hectares is
salt-affected (3.0  106 hectares being inland and 0.58  106 hectares being coastal
saline soils). In China, 26  106 hectares of their total land area is salt-affected (Inner
Mongolia, the Yellow River basin and tidal coastal regions), while in Australia the
extent of saline soils is 357  106 hectares.
The global extent and distribution of 76.6 million hectares of human-induced salt-
affected soils (Oldeman et al. 1991) and a similar distribution for irrigated lands
affected by secondary salinization (Ghassemi et al. 1995) are presented in Tables 2.2
and 2.3. These soils are distributed in desert and semi-desert regions, frequently
occurring in fertile alluvial plains, river valleys, coastal areas and in irrigation
districts. The countries where significant salinity problems exist include, but are
not limited, to Australia, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Mexico, Pakistan, the

Table 2.2 Global extent of human-induced salinization (Oldeman et al. 1991; Mashali 1995)
Degree of salinization and affected area (mha)
Continent Light Moderate Strong Extreme Total Percent
Africa 4.7 7.7 2.4 – 14.8 19.3
Asia 26.8 8.5 17.0 0.4 52.7 68.8
South America 1.8 0.3 – – 2.1 2.7
North & central America 0.3 1.5 0.5 – 2.3 3.0
Europe 1.0 2.3 0.5 – 3.8 5.0
Australia – 0.5 – 0.4 0.9 1.2
World total 34.6 20.8 20.4 0.8 76.6 100
48 2 Soil Salinity: Historical Perspectives and a World Overview of the Problem

Table 2.3 Global estimates of secondary salinization in the world’s irrigated lands. (Summarized
from Ghassemi et al. 1995; Mashali 1995)
Area (mha)
Country Cropped Irrigated Salt-affecteda
China 97.0 44.8 6.7 (15)
India 169.0 42.1 7.0 (17)
Commonwealth of independent states 232.5 20.5 3.7 (18)
United States of America 190.0 18.1 4.2 (23)
Pakistan 20.8 16.1 4.2 (26)
Iran 14.8 5.8 1.7 (29)
Thailand 20.0 4.0 0.4 (10)
Egypt 2.7 2.7 0.9 (33)
Australia 47.1 1.8 0.2 (11)
Argentina 35.8 1.7 0.6 (35)
South Africa 13.2 1.1 0.1 (9)
Subtotal 842.9 158.7 29.7 (19)
World (Total) 1474 227 45 (20)
a
Salt-affected soils within the irrigated area; values in parentheses are percentage

USSR, Syria, Turkey, and the United States. In Gulf States (Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi
Arabia, Qatar, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates), saline soils mainly occur in
coastal lands (due to seawater intrusion), and also on agricultural farms irrigated with
saline/brackish water.
Secondary salinization (i.e., soil salinization due to human activities such as
irrigated agriculture) is predominantly located in the arid and semi-arid regions
including Egypt, Iran, Iraq, India, China, Chile, Argentina, Commonwealth of
Independent States, Spain, Thailand, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Algeria, Tunisia,
Sudan and the Gulf States. About 76.6 million hectares (Table 2.2) of cultivated
lands are salt-affected by human-induced processes (Oldeman et al. 1991; Mashali
1995; Ghassemi et al. 1995) and approximately 30 million ha can be attributed to
secondary salinization of non-irrigated lands. However, according to Ghassemi et al.
(1995), globally 20% or 45 million hectares out of a total 227 million hectares of
irrigated land are salt-affected (Table 2.3).

4 Distribution of Salinity in Drylands in Different

Continents of the World

As reported by UNEP (1992), the distribution of salt-affected soils in drylands in

different continents is presented in Table 2.4. These soils are divided into two
categories: saline (412 million hectares) and sodic (618 million hectares), totaling
1030 million hectares. Australasia has the widest distribution with 357.6 million
hectares, followed by Africa with 209.6 million hectares.
6 Regional Overview of Salinity Problem 49

Table 2.4 Salt-affected soils in drylands by continents (UNEP 1992; cf FAO-ITPS-GSP 2015)
Salt-affected area (mha)
Continent Saline soils Sodic soils Total
Africa 122.9 86.7 209.6
Australasia 17.6 340.0 357.6
Mexico/Central America 2.0 – 2.0
North America 6.2 9.6 15.8
North and Central Asia 91.5 120.2 211.7
South America 69.5 59.8 129.3
South Asia 82.3 1.8 84.1
Southeast Asia 20.0 – 20.0
Total 412.0 618.1 1030.1

Table 2.5 Soil salinity Area damaged

caused by irrigation in major
Country mha % of irrigated land
irrigating countries and in the
world (Postel 1989) India 20.0 36.0
China 7.0 15.0
United States of America 5.2 27.0
Pakistan 3.2 20.0
Soviet Union 2.5 12.0
Total 37.9 24.0
World 60.2 24.0

5 Irrigation Practices and Soil Salinization

The practice of irrigation, if not planned and managed properly, can result in
increased soil salinization. An estimate (Postel 1989) shows that about 25% of the
world’s irrigated lands are damaged by salinity, while Adams and Hughes (1990)
have reported that up to 50% of irrigated lands are affected by salt. Szabolcs (1989)
states that no continent is free from salt-affected soils and serious salt-related
problems occur in at least 70 countries. Table 2.5 shows the area of irrigated land
damaged by salinization for the five worst-affected countries (Postel 1989).

6 Regional Overview of Salinity Problem

More recent estimates of the regional distribution of saline soils do not exist. There is
a need to update this information in order to better understand the extent of the
problem and to develop soil use and management policies. Such estimates are
essential given the continuing decline of soil resources for food production. An
earlier search of the literature (Mashali 1995; FAO-Unesco Soil map of the world
50 2 Soil Salinity: Historical Perspectives and a World Overview of the Problem

Table 2.6 Regional distribution of salt-affected soils (mha). (cf. Mashali 1995)
Region Solonchak – saline phase Solonetz – sodic phase Total
North America 6 10 16
Mexico and Central America 2 – 2
South America 69 60 129
Africa 54 27 81
South and West Asia 83 2 85
South East Asia 20 – 20
North and Central Asia 92 120 212
Australasia 17 340 357
Europe 9 21 30
Total 352 580 932

1974) does, however, give an estimate of the extent of the regional distribution of
salt-affected soils (Table 2.6). These estimates show the total extent to be 932 million
hectares of salt-affected lands, with the maximum area occurring in the region of
Australasia (357 million ha).

7 Extent of Soil Salinity in the Middle East

Information regarding the extent of salinization in the Middle East is very limited.
However, some general information has been obtained through the use of Remote
Sensing imagery and other methods. This information was used to develop a soil
salinization map of the Middle East (Hussein 2001; Shahid et al. 2010). In this map,
salinization was divided into four general categories: slight, moderate, severe and
very severe, as shown in Table 2.7. Earlier, an estimated area of 209,000 hectares has
been reported as being salinized in Kuwait (Hamdallah 1997), which is roughly 3%
of the total Kuwait land area.
Table 2.7 shows an area of 11.2% of the Middle East being affected to varying
levels by soil salinization. Realizing the soil salinity, a hazard to agriculture and to
the ecosystem services, Shahid et al. (1998) described soil salinization as early
warning of land degradation in Kuwait. Later, Shahid et al. (2002) interpreted the
soil survey data (KISR 1999) using GIS and mapped soil salinity into different
salinity zones, where area occupied by each zone is as: 4.1 – 10 dS m 1 (0.685%),
10.1 – 25.0 dS m 1 (4.37%), and more than 25 dS m 1 (7.06%). This concludes an
area of about 12.1% affected to varying degrees of salinity in the entire state of
Kuwait. In the Abu Dhabi Emirate (EAD 2009), an area of 35.5% (2,034,000 ha) has
been depicted to be affected to varying degrees of soil salinity. The highly saline
soils on the soil salinity map are confined to the coastal land (King et al. 2013), the
areas of deflation plains, and inland sabkha (salt scald) where the groundwater levels
approach the surface, creating large areas of aquisalids at the great group level of US
soil taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff 2014; Shahid et al. 2014).
References 51

Table 2.7 Salinization Class Area km2 Area %

classes and affected area in the
Slight 113,814 1.72
Middle East (Hussein 2001;
Shahid et al. 2010) Moderate 109,148 1.65
Severe 380,025 5.74
Very severe 138,204 2.09
Total 741,191 11.2

8 Socioeconomic Aspects of Soil Salinization

A comprehensive review of published literature revealed very few publications

dealing with socioeconomic aspects of salt-induced land degradation. On the global
level, generation of such information requires appreciable resources and the com-
mitment of properly trained staff to the project. However, Qadir et al. (2014)
conclude that previous studies show a limited number of highly variable estimates
of the costs of salt-induced land degradation. Even so, they have made simple
extrapolations from these studies and the estimates show that the global annual
cost of salt-induced land degradation in irrigated areas could be US$ 27.3 billion in
lost crop production. Based on these estimates, Qadir et al. (2014) recommended
investing in the remediation of salt-affected lands and noted that remediation costs
must be included in a broader national strategy for food security, and defined in
national action plans.
Qadir et al. (2014) identified countries where such economic cost on salt-induced
soil degradation has been reported, including but not necessarily limited to Australia,
India, the United States, Iraq, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Spain. They
further indicated that the valuation of the cost of salt-induced land degradation has
been mainly based on estimates of crop production losses. However, it is unclear
whether their comparisons are made with crop production values taken from land not
affected by salinity.
Taking the above examples into account, Qadir et al. (2014) have concluded that,
considering the current extent of global irrigated area 310 million hectares
(FAO-AQUASTAT 2013) and 20% of this area as salt-affected (62 million hect-
ares), and the inflation-adjusted cost of salt-induced land degradation in 2013 as US$
441 per hectare, a simple benefit transfer suggests the current annual economic
losses could be US$ 27.3 billion.

References

Abrol IP, Yadav JSP, Massoud FI (1988) Salt-affected soils and their management. FAO Soils
Bulletin 39, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 131 pp
Adams WM, Hughes FMR (1990) Irrigation development in desert environments. In: Goudi AS
(ed) Techniques for desert reclamation. Wiley, New York, pp 135–160
Armillas P (1961) Land use in pre-Columbian America. In: Stamp LD (ed) A history of land use in
arid regions, vol 17. UNESCO Arid Zone Research, Paris, pp 255–276
52 2 Soil Salinity: Historical Perspectives and a World Overview of the Problem

Buringh P (ed) (1979) Introduction to the soils of tropical and subtropical regions, 3rd edn. Center
for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen, 124 pp
EAD (2009) Soil survey for the emirate of Abu Dhabi. Reconnaissance soil survey report. Volume
1. Environment Agency Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
EAD (2012) Soil survey of northern emirates. Environment Agency Abu Dhabi, 2 Volumes
FAO (2000) Extent and causes of salt-affected soils in participating countries. Global network on
integrated soil management for sustainable use of salt-affected soils. FAO-AGL website
FAO-AQUASTAT (2013) Area equipped for irrigation and percentage of cultivated land. Available
at http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/globalmaps/index.stm. Accessed 16 Sept 2013
FAO-ITPS-GSP (2015) Status of the world’s soil resources. FAO-ITPS-GSP Main Report, Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, pp 125–127
FAO-UNESCO (1974) FAO-Unesco soil map of the world. 1:5 000 000, UNESCO Paris,
10 volumes
Gelburd DE (1985) Managing salinity lessons from the past. J Soil Water Conserv 40(4):329–331
Ghassemi F, Jakeman AJ, Nix HA (1995) Salinisation of land and water resources: human causes,
extent, management and case studies. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, 526 pp
Hamdallah G (1997) An overview of the salinity status of the near east region. Proceedings of the
workshop on management of salt-affected soils in the Arab Gulf States, Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates, 29 October–2 November 1995. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Regional Office for the Near East, Cairo, Egypt, pp 1–5
Hussein H (2001) Development of environmental GIS database and its application to desertification
study in Middle East – a remote sensing and GIS application. PhD thesis Graduate School of
Science and Technology, Chiba University Japan, 155 pp
Jacobson T, Adams RM (1958) Salt and silt in ancient Mesopotamian agriculture. Science (New
Series) 128(3334):1251–1258
King P, Grealish G, Shahid SA, Abdelfattah MA (2013) Land evaluation interpretations and
decision support systems: soil survey of Abu Dhabi emirate. Chapter 6. In: Shahid SA, Taha
FK, Abdelfattah MA (eds) Developments in soil classification, land use planning and policy
implications-innovative thinking of soil inventory for land use planning and management of
land resources. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 147–164
KISR (1999) Soil survey for the state of Kuwait – volume IV: semi-detailed survey. AACM
International, Adelaide
Kovda VA, Szabolcs I (eds) (1979) Modelling of soil salinization and alkalization: supplementum.
Vol 28 of Agrokemia es Talajtan (Agrochemistry and Soil Science), 207 pp
Mashali AM (1995) Integrated soil management for sustainable use of salt-affected soils and
network activities. Proceedings of the international workshop on integrated soil management
for sustainable use of salt-affected soils. 6–10 November 1995. Bureau of Soils and Water
Management, Manila, Philippines, pp 55–75
Massoud FI (1974) Salinity and alkalinity. In: a world assessment of soil degradation. An interna-
tional program of soil conservation. Report of an expert consultation on soil degradation, FAO,
UNEP, Rome, Italy, pp 16–17
Massoud FI (1977) Basic principles for prognosis and monitoring of salinity and sodicity. Pro-
ceedings of the international conference on managing saline waters for irrigation. 16–20 Aug
1976, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA, pp 432–454
Massoud FI (1981) Salt affected soils at a global scale for control. FAO Land and Water Devel-
opment Division Technical Paper, Rome, Italy, 21pp
Metternicht GI, Zinck JA (2003) Remote sensing of soil salinity: potentials and constraints. Remote
Sens Environ 85(1):1–20
Oldeman LR, Hakkeling RTA, Sombroek WG (1991) World map of the status of human-induced
soil degradation. An explanatory note. Second revised edition. International Soil Reference and
Information Center (ISRIC), Wageningen, 35 pp
Pazira E (1999) Land reclamation research on soil physico-chemical improvement by salt leaching
in southwest part of Iran. IERI, Karaj
Ponnamperuma FN (1984) Role of cultivar tolerance in increasing rice production on saline-lands.
In: Staple RC, Toenniessen GH (eds) Salinity tolerance in plants: strategies for crop improve-
ment. Wiley, New York, pp 255–271
References 53

Postel S (1989) Water for agriculture: facing the limits. Worldwatch paper 93. Worldwatch
Institute, Washington DC, USA, 54 pp
Qadir M, Quillerou E, Nangia V, Murtaza G, Singh M, Thomas RJ, Drechsel P, Noble AD (2014)
Economics of salt-induced land degradation and restoration. Nat Res Forum 38(4):282–295
Shahid SA (2013) Developments in salinity assessment, modeling, mapping, and monitoring from
regional to submicroscopic scales. In: Shahid SA, Abdelfattah MA, Taha FK (eds) Develop-
ments in soil salinity assessment and reclamation – innovative thinking and use of marginal soil
and water resources in irrigated agriculture. Springer, Dordrecht\Heidelberg\New York\London,
pp 3–43
Shahid SA, Omar SAS, Grealish G, King P, El-Gawad MA, Al-Mesabahi K (1998) Salinization as
an early warning of land degradation in Kuwait. Probl Desert Dev 5:8–12
Shahid SA, Abo-Rezq H, Omar SAS (2002) Mapping soil salinity through a reconnaissance soil
survey of Kuwait and geographic information system. Annual research report, Kuwait Institute
for Scientific Research, Kuwait, KSR 6682, pp 56–59
Shahid SA, Abdelfattah MA, Omar SAS, Harahsheh H, Othman Y, Mahmoudi H (2010) Mapping
and monitoring of soil salinization – remote sensing, GIS, modeling, electromagnetic induction
and conventional methods – case studies. In: Ahmad M, Al-Rawahy SA (eds) Proceedings of
the international conference on soil salinization and groundwater salinization in arid regions, vol
1. Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, pp 59–97
Shahid SA, Abdelfattah MA, Wilson MA, Kelley JA, Chiaretti JV (2014) United Arab Emirates
keys to soil taxonomy. Springer, Dordrecht/Heidelberg/New York/London, 108 pp
Soil Survey Staff (2014) Keys to soil taxonomy 12th ed. US Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, US Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 360 pp
Szabolcs I (1974) Salt-affected soil in Europe. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 63 pp
Szabolcs I (1989) Salt-affected soils. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 274 pp
Tanji KK (1990) Nature and extent of agricultural salinity. In: Tanji KK (ed) Agricultural salinity
assessment and management. ASCE manuals and reports on engineering practice no 71, ASCE
New York, USA, pp 1–17
UNEP (1992) Proceedings of the Ad-hoc expert group meeting to discuss global soil database and
appraisals of GLASOD/SOTER, 24–28 February 1992, Nairobi, Kenya, 39 pp
Wiley GR (1953) Prehistoric settlement patterns in the Viru Valley, Peru. Smithsonian Institute,
Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 155 Washington DC, USA XXII+454 pp (+60 plates)

The opinions expressed in this chapter are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the IAEA, its Board of Directors, or the countries they represent.
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
IGO license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/), which permits use, sharing, adap-
tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit
to the IAEA, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The use of the IAEA’s name for any purpose other than for attribution, and the use of the IAEA’s
logo, shall be subject to a separate written license agreement between the IAEA and the user and is
not authorized as part of this CC-IGO license. Note that the link provided above includes additional
terms and conditions of the license.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.

IGO
Chapter 3
Salinity and Sodicity Adaptation
and Mitigation Options

Shabbir A. Shahid, Mohammad Zaman, and Lee Heng

Abstract Soil salinity and sodicity are twin constraints to agriculture production in
many countries causing significant losses of crop production and land degradation.
Once the salinity and sodicity problems are properly diagnosed, an integrated soil
reclamation program may be formulated including combination of physical, chem-
ical, hydrological and biological methods to rectify the twin problems. A combina-
tion of adaptation and mitigation technologies are to be adopted, for example
adaptation allows the continued use of salt-affected soils by adjusting in response
to the degree by which salinity and sodicity development has affected the soil,
whereas, in contrast, mitigation refers to the technologies which are adopted to
stop salinization to occur. It should be remembered that there is no single universal
mitigation technology suitable for all soils, however, diagnostic based recommen-
dations work satisfactorily for a specific site or location. Prior to setting up soil
reclamation plan it is essential to review the available resources (farmer budget,
availability and quality of water) and the objectives of reclamation and the reclama-
tion plan established suiting the specific farmer needs. In this chapter, various soil
reclamation methods such as; physical-leveling, subsoiling, mixing sand, seed bed
preparation and salts scrapping); chemical (use of gypsum based on gypsum require-
ment, sulfur, acids etc.), hydrological-selection of suitable irrigation system-drip,
sprinkler, bubbler, furrow, using the concept of leaching requiring/fraction to man-
age rootzone salinity, flushing, drainage, blending of water etc.; biological (use of
organic amendments, green manuring, farm yard manures and selection of salt-
tolerant crops) have be described. In addition, various methods of screening crops
against salinity including hydroponics, field screening and serial biological concen-
tration approach are described. Climate Smart Agriculture practices, integrated soil
fertility management using 4 R nutrient stewardship are concisely reported. Pro-
cedures of salt-harvesting from saline lands and deep deposits and their commercial
exploitation in industries are also introduced.

Keywords Salinity · Sodicity · Adaptation · Mitigation · Soil reclamation ·

Leaching requirement · Salt harvesting

© International Atomic Energy Agency 2018 55

M. Zaman et al., Guideline for Salinity Assessment, Mitigation and Adaptation Using
Nuclear and Related Techniques, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96190-3_3
56 3 Salinity and Sodicity Adaptation and Mitigation Options

1 Introduction

Soils affected by salinity and sodicity are not confined to just arid and semi-arid
regions, where rainfall is insufficient to leach salts from the soil. Saline and sodic
soils have been recorded in a wide range of environments under many different
hydrological and physiographic conditions. Such a wide distribution tells us that ‘no
single adaptation or mitigation option or technique will be applicable to all land
areas’. However, diagnostics-based, site-specific recommendations can be viable
options. Most importantly, they suggest the formulation of an integrated reclamation
and management plan, one which is based on the major constraints facing us –
available resources and variable environmental conditions.
First, one needs an integrated system of soil reclamation and management
techniques, and these can generally be grouped into four adaptation or mitigation
approaches to deal with salt-affected soils. The four approaches are:
(i) Hydrological, (ii) Physical, (iii) Chemical, and (iv) Biological, though under
unique environmental conditions salt-affected soils may be used for other purposes.

2 Mitigation and Adaptation Options

Mitigation and adaptation are terms commonly used in the context of climate change
and many scientists believe that mitigation is primarily concerned with emission of
greenhouse gases (GHGs), while adaptation deals with water and agriculture. How-
ever, mitigation and adaptation also apply to how mankind must deal with salt-
affected soils. In this chapter, we have defined both terms in the context of salt-
affected soils and their reclamation and management.
Adaptation allows the continued use of salt-affected soils by making adjustments
in response to the degree by which salinity and sodicity development has affected the
soil. In contrast, mitigation refers to the technologies which are adopted to stop
salinization to occur.

3 Diagnostics of the Soil Salinity Problem

Soil salinity in agricultural fields is increasing worldwide, mainly due to poor farm
management practices and the increasing demand for intensification of agriculture
for the short-term benefits of increased food production. This intensification ignores
the long-term consequences on ‘other services’ provided by the soil. It is, therefore,
very important to understand the salinity hazard, both spatially and temporally at the
regional and national farm levels.
In agricultural fields, an effective measurement of salinity will identify the
location and extent of root-zone salinity and ensure that root-zone salinity is kept
4 Integrated Soil Reclamation Program (ISRP) 57

below the threshold level for each crop. Soil salinity is dynamic and has a wide
variation vertically, horizontally, and temporally. Many consider soil salinity a
uniform feature in a soil profile. However, Shahid et al. (2009) showed that, for
the saline-sodic soils of Pakistan, salinity was a layered feature as one moved down
the profile.
At the regional (Middle East) and national (Kuwait, United Arab Emirates) levels,
a salinity mapping program (Shahid et al. 2010) helped policy makers in taking
necessary and timely actions to tackle the issue of increased soil salinity. Similar
programs will help to avoid a further spread of soil salinity to new regions; and they,
if prove successful, will prevent negative impacts on national economies through
degrading a nation’s soil resources.

4 Integrated Soil Reclamation Program (ISRP)

Salt-affected soils are distributed across a wide range of hydrological and physio-
graphical conditions, soil types, rainfall and irrigation regimes, as well as different
socioeconomic settings. This diversity makes one realize that there will be no single
technique of soil reclamation applicable to all areas. The exploitation of these soils
for agriculture will require an integrated reclamation and management plan based on
a comprehensive investigation of soil characteristics, including water monitoring
(rainfall, irrigation and soil water-table), a survey of crops and local conditions,
including climate, the economic, social, political, and cultural environment, as well
as the existing farming systems. Fortunately, several approaches can be combined
into an integrated system of soil reclamation and management (Shahid and
Alshankiti 2013).

4.1 Objectives of Salinity Reclamation

The main objectives of reclamation are to:

• Improve soil health for better crop production
• Bring abandoned farms back to cultivation
• Increase the crop yield per unit of land area
• Improve food security within national boundaries
• Enhance water and fertilizer use efficiencies
• Optimize cost of crop production per unit area, and
• Improve the livelihood of the farmers
58 3 Salinity and Sodicity Adaptation and Mitigation Options

4.2 Prerequisite for Soil Reclamation

A soil reclamation plan can only be implemented if certain prerequisites are fulfilled.
Some of these are essential for efficient, effective and long-term reclamation of salt-
affected soils, as listed below.
• The farmer is convinced and ready to initiate soil reclamation at his farm
• The farmer has sufficient financial resources to implement the plan
• It is essential to have land leveling by laser before the initiation of any reclama-
tion plan; this will help to ensure uniform water distribution and effective
leaching of salts
• Additionally, a supply of good quality water is required
• Good subsurface drainage of the soil to be reclaimed is essential
• There must be a plan to handle drainage water safely, without compromising the
environment
Sustainable agriculture with salt-affected lands is most likely to be achieved
through integrated soil reclamation program (ISRP) and natural resource manage-
ment (NRM). These are approaches where the long-term condition of the resource is
built in as a core consideration. Thus, crop production on salt-affected lands can only
be successful if the soil is dealt with in a holistic manner, i.e. in an ‘integrated
approach’ which includes all aspects of soil, water, plants and climatic conditions.
There is, unfortunately, a misconception about Biosaline Agriculture, that this is a
complete solution for using salt-affected lands and saline and saline-sodic waters.
Rather, biosaline agriculture is just one of the components of ISRP, which also
includes physical, chemical, hydrological and biological methods (Box. 3.1).

Box 3.1 – Integrated Soil Reclamation Program (ISRP)

It should be noted that no single approach can deliver a complete solution to
fix/reclaim soil salinity problem. This means that we need to take holistic
approach by using a combination of mitigation approaches, which could be
site-specific, and should only be used in other areas where similar soils and
environmental conditions exist. International Center for Biosaline Agriculture
(ICBA), Dubai, UAE has sufficient expertise in the diagnostics of the problem,
developing an integrated reclamation strategy and implementation of this
strategy to transform marginal soils to good quality for crop production,
using methods, such as physical (leveling, salt scraping, tillage, subsoiling
and sanding); chemical (use of soil amendments such as elemental S, acids,
gypsum, etc. based on gypsum requirements to rectify soil sodicity problems
and to improve soil health); hydrological (irrigation systems: Surface, flood,
basin, drip, sprinkler, subsurface irrigation, etc., and leaching and drainage),
and biological (biosaline agriculture: Salt tolerant crops, and a serial biological
concentration approach). (Adapted from Shahid and Rahman (2011) and
Shahid et al. (2011))
4 Integrated Soil Reclamation Program (ISRP) 59

It should be further noted that the exploitation of salt tolerant crops and saline
waters, i.e. ‘Biosaline Agriculture’, without adopting other components of inte-
grated soil reclamation, will ultimately degrade the soils further. These degraded
soils will likely be unable to provide essential soil services, as such, but not limited
to, agricultural production.
As discussed briefly above, recently established worldwide strategies for soil
reclamation can be grouped into the following approaches which cover almost all
aspects of soil reclamation and management.
• Physical
• Chemical
• Hydrological
• Biological
• Alternative land uses

4.3 Physical Methods of Soil Reclamation

There are several physical methods of soil reclamation, though not all of these
methods are required for a given situation. Site-specific diagnostics can allow one
to select the most suitable method(s). The most commonly used physical methods of
soil reclamation are listed below.
• Leveling
• Subsoiling – deep plowing and deep ripping
• Mixing sand with heavy textured soil – sanding
• Seed bed shaping to reduce salinity effects – tillage practices
• Physical removal of the surface salt crust – scraping salts

4.3.1 Leveling

Leveling of salt-affected lands prior to the implementation of a reclamation program

is essential. This allows for a uniform water distribution, leading to effective
leaching of salts. Unfortunately, the farmer usually accomplishes this task by
plowing the field, followed by the use of a conventional planking tool. This practice
usually leaves the land uneven, which means that when water is applied to the field
in order to leach the salts, the water puddles in the depressions and heterogeneous
conditions are formed. There exists a modern tool ‘laser land leveling’ to level the
land in highly effective manner. It is, thus, suggested that each farmer should contact
the extension services department in order to access this modern tool, which will
facilitate an effective initiation of the farmer’s soil reclamation program. The
leveling process, however, may compact the soil due to the use of heavy machinery.
If this occurs, the leveling process should be followed by subsoiling or chiseling.
60 3 Salinity and Sodicity Adaptation and Mitigation Options

4.3.2 Subsoiling

The soils affected by sodicity are usually underlain by dense clay-sodic layer(s).
These dense layers are created by the dispersion of clay particles in the highly sodic
water. The dispersed clay particles move to the subsurface of the soil where they are
lodged on the surfaces of the conducting soil pores, thus, blocking the pores and
preventing further water movement. It is particularly important, then, to disrupt the
dense layers deep in the soil in order to enhance permeability. This is especially
important for reclaiming sodic soils after the addition of amendments such as
gypsum, followed by watering the field. The addition of gypsum will enhance the
removal of exchangeable sodium (which has already been exchanged by Ca2+) into
lower layers of the soil prior to finally moving into the main drainage system. In
addition to dense sodic layers, the soils may be underlain by a plow layer or by other
hard pans occurring during soil formation. These hard pans must be disrupted and
broken in order to enhance drainage capacity, and to facilitate the soil reclamation
process.

4.3.3 Sanding

If the soil to be reclaimed has heavy texture (i.e., a clay soil), the mixing of sand in an
appropriate quantity can change the soil texture permanently; the soil becomes more
permeable and is easier to reclaim. This practice also provides a favorable environ-
ment for plant growth compared to the original soil prior to sanding. Changing the
soil texture is a difficult and costly task, though where sand is readily available, such
as in a desert, this practice can be accomplished more easily.
A clay soil is considered to exist in an area when it has the percentages of primary
soil particles, as: 10% sand, 20% silt, and 70% clay (Textural class: Clay). The clay
soil is mixed with a known quantity of sand to develop the following percentages of
soil particles: 60% sand, 15% silt, and 25% clay (Textural class: Sandy clay loam).
In this way, the original soil texture (Clay) is significantly changed to another soil
texture (Sandy clay loam). Both soil textural classes can be located on the USDA soil
textural triangle (Fig. 3.1).
The newly established texture, a sandy clay loam, has improved soil physical
properties, e.g. an increased drainage capacity and infiltration rate. This leads to an
enhanced soil reclamation process and results in a much better leaching of salts.

4.3.4 Scraping

Salt accumulation in an irrigated field is common. Salts accumulate at certain zones

based on the irrigation system in use and soil bed shape. The readers are referred to
Chap. 4 of this book for more information in this respect. To clarify the scraping
practice in order to remove salts, a furrow irrigation system is selected (Plate 3.1);
4 Integrated Soil Reclamation Program (ISRP) 61

Fig. 3.1 USDA soil textural classes

Plate 3.1 Salts buildup in furrow irrigation system

both furrows are irrigated and the zone of salt accumulation appears in the center of
the ridge. The salt crusts which accumulate at the surface, through capillary rise and
subsequent evaporation, can be removed manually or through mechanical means.
The mechanical removal is the simplest and the most economical way of reclaiming
saline soils, if the area is small. This practice minimizes the salts temporarily; they
62 3 Salinity and Sodicity Adaptation and Mitigation Options

will be accumulated again if there is a continuous feed of saline water to the soil
surface. Therefore, the scraping method is considered a temporary solution.

4.3.5 Seed Bed Preparation – Tillage

Tillage can improve the soil’s physical condition, and can bring a saline layer to the
surface. However, it can also create a plow layer through the continuous use of the
plow. Care must, thus, be exercised in using tillage. By manipulating the soil surface
into different shapes and the selection of a specific irrigation system, a zone of low
salinity can be achieved. It is well recognized that salts tend to accumulate on the
ridges away from the wet zone when furrow irrigation is adopted. Placing the seeds
on the off-center slope (i.e., shoulder) of the single row will position the seed in a
location with a minimum salinity and an optimum moisture condition. Under high
salinity conditions, the alternate row should be left un-irrigated. This will ensure
maximum accumulation of salts in the un-irrigated area, thereby leaving the irrigated
furrows free of salts and fit for planting seeds. The readers are referred to Chap. 4 for
a detailed account.

4.4 Chemical Methods of Soil Reclamation

It should be kept in mind that chemical methods of reclamation are commonly used
to reclaim sodic or saline-sodic soils. Saline soils are unable to be reclaimed by
chemical methods. Chemical reclamation includes the use of gypsum, elemental
sulfur and acids (hydrochloric and sulfuric acids), and the methods used are based on
the diagnostics of the problem. Sodic soil can be recognized through visual assess-
ment in the field, or through analyzing soils in the laboratory for exchangeable
sodium percentage (ESP). A soil with ESP > 15 is classed as a sodic soil (USSL Staff
1954). At this threshold ESP value, the soil will show effects on both soil physical
properties (structural damage) and also on plant growth. In such soils, the objective
is to bring the soil ESP below the threshold value. This can be achieved by adding
suitable amendments to increase the concentration of calcium ions (Ca2+) in the soil.

4.4.1 Use of Gypsum to Reclaim Sodic Soil

The most suitable method is to replace exchangeable sodium with calcium, and the
subsequent use of organic matter to bind the soil and improve its structure. Gypsum
(CaSO4.2H2O) and lime (CaO) can both add calcium and, thus, can overcome
dispersion as the calcium causes the inter particle forces to more readily hold the
particles together. The calcium causes particles to form clusters (flocculates),
forming a very clear puddle of water. Gypsum usually gives an immediate response
as it dissolves (although it has low solubility) in water, though it leaches sooner than
4 Integrated Soil Reclamation Program (ISRP) 63

lime. Amendments are those materials which supply Ca2+ for the replacement of
exchangeable sodium and furnish calcium indirectly by dissolving calcite (CaCO3),
which is naturally occurring in many arid zone soils. Gypsum is reported to reduce
the levels of exchangeable sodium in the soil. It also improves both soil tilth and
drainage, and achieves better crop production.
The addition of gypsum to a soil changes the soil chemistry in two ways: i) by
increasing the amount of salt which is in solution, thereby avoiding the swelling and
dispersion of the clay component. This is a short-term effect which occurs as the
gypsum dissolves, and ii) the calcium from the gypsum replaces the exchangeable
sodium which was adsorbed onto the clay at specific sites. This process changes
sodic clay to a calcium-clay. The displaced sodium is then leached into lower soil
zones, below the plant root-zone. Mined gypsum (less than 2 mm particle size) of
commercial grade (~ 70% purity) is commonly used for the reclamation of sodic
soils.
The following reaction occurs when gypsum is added to a Na-clay soil.

2Naþ  Clay þ CaSO4 :2H2 O ! Ca2þ  Clay þ Na2 SO4 ¯ þ 2H2 O

Sodic soil Gypsum Normal soil Salts leach out

4.4.1.1 Determination of Gypsum Requirement

Gypsum requirement (GR) is the quantity of gypsum needed per acre or per hectare
of soil to lower the exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) of the soil to a desired
level.

4.4.1.2 How to Determine the Weight of One-Hectare Soil?

Laboratory methods for measuring gypsum requirement of a soil are based on meq
100 g1 of dry soil. Thus, one needs to convert the GR in meq 100 g1 to metric tons
(weight) of soil present in a hectare at either 15 or 30 cm depth. The area covered by
a hectare of land is 10,000 m2 (100 m  100 m). The weight of one-hectare soil of
varying depths (15 or 30 cm) can be determined by the following procedure.
• First, determine the bulk density of soil by taking a cylindrical core (Plate 3.2) of
soil with a known volume (e.g., a diameter of 8 cm, and a height of 5 cm).
• Remove the soil from the core and oven-dry it at 105  C.
• Weigh the oven-dried soil (g).
• Determine the bulk density of the soil by using the standard calculation, as below:


Bulk density ¼ Mass of the soilðgÞ  Volume of bulk soil collected cm3
64 3 Salinity and Sodicity Adaptation and Mitigation Options

Plate 3.2 Collection of a soil core to measure bulk density of the soil, and cleaning the core with
a saw

Bulk volume is, thus, defined as the volume of soil occupied both by mineral
matter of the soil and the space between the mineral matter particles.
Example
• Standard core size (diameter 8 cm; height 5 cm)
• Core volume (πr2h)
where π ¼ 3.143, r ¼ radius of the cylindrical core in cm; h ¼ height of the
core in cm.
¼ 3.143  4  4  5 ¼ 251.44 cm3
• Weight of the oven-dry sandy soil from the core ¼ 402.4 g
• Bulk density of sandy soil ¼ mass per unit bulk vol-
ume ¼ 402.4  251.44 ¼ 1.60 gram per cubic centimeter (g cm3)
• Volume of one-hectare to a 30 cm depth (length  width  depth)
10,000 cm  10,000 cm  30 cm ¼ 3,000,000,000 cm3
• Weight of 1 cm3 of soil (1.60 g)
• Weight of 3,000,000,000 cm3 soil ¼ 4,800,000,000 g or 4,800,000 kg
• Thus, there are 4.8 million kilograms in a one-hectare volume of soil to the 30 cm
depth, and 2.4 million kilograms to the 15 cm depth. In order to know if the soil
needs the application of gypsum for reclamation, it is necessary to first diagnose
the problem through field investigation (Plate 3.3). Once the soil sodicity is
diagnosed, soil samples must be collected at different soil depths in order to
assess the average level of sodicity. Then, the gypsum requirement can be
calculated for sodicity reclamation.

4.4.1.3 Conversion of Gypsum Requirement – Lab Results to Field

Application

Normally, the gypsum requirement (GR), determined through lab procedure, is in

milli equivalent per 100 g of soil (meq 100 g1), which needs to be calculated as
4 Integrated Soil Reclamation Program (ISRP) 65

Plate 3.3 On-site diagnosis of a saline-sodic soil in Pakistan, and sharing the experience with
farmers

metric tons per hectare for 15 or 30 cm soil depth for the purpose of field application.
The factor for conversion of the gypsum requirement values from meq 100 g1 to
tons per hectare is explained here. Based on the bulk density (1.60 g cm3) of the soil
in the above example (UAE sandy soil average bulk density), 4.8 million kilograms
weight of soil was determined to be present in one hectare area of soil to a 30 cm
depth. Using these figures, a factor of 2.066 has been determined to convert the GR
of 1 meq 100 g1 soil to metric tons per hectare of soil to the 15 cm depth, and a
factor of 4.132 to a 30 cm depth.
The USSL Staff (1954) has reported a factor of 0.86 to convert gypsum require-
ment (GR) from 1 meq 100 g1 soil to tons per acre at a 15 cm depth. Since one
hectare is equal to 2.471 acres, a factor of 2.125 is used in USDA Handbook 60 to
convert GR from 1 meq 100 g1 to tons per hectare at the 15 cm depth, and a factor
of 4.250 for tons per hectare to a 30 cm depth.

4.4.1.4 A Comparison of Gypsum Requirement Between USSL Staff (1954)

and Sandy Soils of United Arab Emirates

Assume we have analyzed five soils (A, B, C, D and E) for their gypsum require-
ment. These five soils have shown a GR of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 meq 100 g1,
respectively. Calculate the GR of these five soils in terms of tons per hectare to the
15 and 30 cm depths using the above conversion factors. The calculated GR for the
five soils is presented in Table 3.1.
It should be noted that the use of the GR conversion factor from the USSL Staff
(1954) publication will slightly overestimate the GR (e.g, 4.250 tons per hectare
versus 4.132 tons per hectare to the 30 cm depth for soil A). Therefore, it is advisable
that countries where the bulk density of the soils is very different to that of most US
soils, a new factor should be determined for each of the local soils.
66 3 Salinity and Sodicity Adaptation and Mitigation Options

Table 3.1 Gypsum requirement of five soils determined in lab and calculated in tons per hectare
using conversion factors
Soil gypsum requirement
Metric tons hectare1 (USSL Metric tons hectare1 (UAE
Staff 1954) soils)
Soil meq 100 g1 (Lab results) 15 cm depth 30 cm depth 15 cm depth 30 cm depth
A 1 2.125 4.250 2.066 4.132
B 2 4.250 8.500 4.132 8.264
C 3 6.375 12.750 6.198 12.396
D 4 8.500 17.000 8.264 16.528
E 5 10.625 21.250 10.330 20.660

4.4.1.5 Gypsum Requirement

Method 1 (Schoonover 1952)

The procedure is described as follows.
• 5 g soil + 100 ml gypsum saturated solution (GSS) ! 5 m of shaking in the
mechanical shaker ! filter and titrate for Ca2+ + Mg2+ (in meq l1)
• GR meq 100 g1 ¼ (Ca2+ + Mg2+ meq l1 in GSS) – (Ca 2+ + Mg2+ meq l1 in
filtrate) x 2
• Note that a factor of 2 is used to convert GR from meq l1 to meq 100 g1 of soil;
derivation of this factor of 2 is explained below.
• Assume the GR is determined as x meq l1, then
– 1000 ml of soil solution requires the GR ¼ x meq
– 100 ml of soil solution requires GR ¼ (x/1000)  100 ¼ x/10 meq
– Or, 5 g of soil requires GR ¼ x/10 meq
– 100 g of soil requires GR ¼ x/10  1/5  100 ¼ 2x (Note: Factor of 2 only
works when 5 g soil is used in 100 ml GSS, different factors exist for different
soil quanity).
• Assuming that the GR of a sodic soil is 1 meq 100 g1 of soil, we need to
determine how many metric tons of gypsum should be added to soil per hectare
for each of the 15 and 30 cm depths.
• Equivalent weight of gypsum (CaSO4.2H2O) ¼ 86.09 g
– 1 equivalent of Na+ will require 86.06 g of gypsum.
– 1 meq of Na+ will require 0.08606 g of gypsum.
– Weight of one-hectare soil is 4,800,000 kilograms to the 30 cm depth, when
bulk density is 1.60 g per cm3.
– The GR is, thus, 4.132 metric tons per hectare to the 30 cm depth or 2.066 tons
per hectare to the 15 cm depth.
– 1 hectare ¼ 2.471 acres
In the above procedure, an equivalent amount of soluble CO32 and HCO3 are also
precipitated; therefore, this method accounts for exchangeable sodium and also for
soluble CO32 and HCO3 in the soil.
4 Integrated Soil Reclamation Program (ISRP) 67

The calculation, however, is based on 100% pure gypsum. Commercial grade

gypsum purity is about 70%. Therefore, a factor based on purity must be calculated
in order to correct the GR requirement for the commercial grade gypsum.
Method 2 (USSL Staff 1954, Modified by Shahid and Muhammed 1980)
In this method, the gypsum requirement is calculated based on the exchangeable
sodium and cation exchange capacity values taken from the laboratory analyses.
Example 3.1
A soil was analyzed in an accredited laboratory and following results were obtained.
• Exchangeable sodium (ES) ¼ 4 meq 100 g1
• Cation exchange capacity (CEC) ¼ 10 meq 100 g1
• Exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) ¼ (ES/CEC)  100
• Thus, ESP will be 40. In order to reduce ESP from 40 to 15 (threshold value),
one would need to add gypsum equivalent to 2.5 meq 100 g1 of exchangeable
Na+. Thus, as above:
• 1 equivalent of exchangeable Na+ 100 g1 soil will require 86.09 g of gypsum.
• 1 meq of exchangeable Na+ 100 g1 soil will require 0.08609 g of gypsum.
Calculate the gypsum requirement (metric tons per hectare for the 30 cm soil
depth), keeping in mind that the weight of one-hectare dry soil is 4.8 million
kilograms.
From Example 3.1, it was determined that soil with a bulk density of 1.60 g per
cm3, a factor of 4.132 can be used to convert the GR from meq per 100 grams to
metric tons per hectare for the 30 cm depth. Therefore, a GR based on the 2.5 meq
per 100 grams will be equal to 10.330 metric tons of gypsum per hectare. However,
the conversion factor for commercial grade gypsum should be applied to the 10.330
metric tons value.
Example 3.2
A soil was analyzed in an accredited laboratory and following results were obtained.
• Exchangeable sodium (ES) ¼ 2 meq 100 g1
• Cation exchange Capacity (CEC) ¼ 5 meq 100 g1
• Exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) ¼ (ES/CEC)  100
• Thus, ESP will be 40. In order to reduce ESP from 40 to 15 (threshold value),
we need to add an amount of gypsum which is equivalent to 1.25 meq 100 g1 of
exchangeable Na+
• 1 equivalent of exchangeable Na+ 100 g1 soil will require 86.09 g of gypsum
• 1 meq of exchangeable Na+ 100 g1 soil will require 0.08609 g of gypsum
Calculate gypsum requirement (metric tons per hectare for the 30 cm soil depth),
keeping in mind that the weight of one-hectare dry soil is 4.8 million kilograms.
From the example above, it was determined that for a soil with a bulk density of
1.60 g per cm3, a factor of 4.132 can be used to calculate (convert) the GR from meq
per 100 grams to metric tons per hectare for the 30 cm depth. Therefore, the GR
68 3 Salinity and Sodicity Adaptation and Mitigation Options

based on adding the 1.25 meq per100 grams of gypsum will be equal to 5.165 metric
tons per hectare.
From above examples, we can conclude that even if two soils have same
Exchangeable Sodium Percentage (ESP), the gypsum requirement can be signifi-
cantly different.
It should be noted that in this procedure of determining GR, an equivalent amount
of soluble CO32 and HCO3 (meq 100 g1) must be added (taken into account) in
order to properly calculate the total gypsum requirement. This is because a gypsum
equivalent to CO32 and HCO3 will be precipitated. This modification to USSL
Staff (1954) method was made by Shahid and Muhammed (1980).

4.4.2 Use of Acids to Reclaim Calcareous-Sodic Soils

It should be noted that the use of acids is recommended for sodic soils which are also
calcareous. The acids react with the calcium carbonates present in soil to mobilize
calcium, which ultimately replaces exchangeable sodium in the soil, thereby reduc-
ing the ESP. The objectives of acids application are to:
• Mobilize calcium from calcium carbonates
• Replace exchangeable sodium with calcium
• Bring about a reduction in soil pH, thereby enhancing nutrient uptake, and
• Improve soil health in order to obtain a better crop production
Both sulfuric and hydrochloric acids react rapidly with soil lime, since they do not
have to go through an oxidation process. However, they are highly corrosive, and
dangerous to handle. Specialized equipment has recently become available to safely
apply acid onto field soil, usually with irrigation water. The reaction of applied acids
with naturally occurring soil CaCO3 and exchangeable Na+ is shown below.
CaCO3 þ H2 SO4 ! CaSO4 þ CO2 þ H2 O

2Naþ  Clay þCaSO4 ! Ca2þ  Clay þ Na2 SO4 #

Sodic soil Normal soil Salts leach out

CaCO3 þ 2HCl ! CaCl2 þ CO2 þ H2 O

2Naþ  Clay þCaCl2 ! Ca2þ  Clay þ 2NaCl #

Sodic soil Normal soil Salts leach out

4.4.3 Use of Elemental Sulfur to Reclaim Calcareous-Sodic Soils

Elemental sulfur can also be used to reclaim calcareous-sodic soils with one condi-
tion – the sulfur must be completely oxidized. This occurs through biological
4 Integrated Soil Reclamation Program (ISRP) 69

Table 3.2 Equivalent amount of various amendments for supplying Ca in terms of pure gypsum
Amendment Ton(s) equivalent to 1 ton of 100% gypsuma
Gypsum (CaSO4.2H2O) 1.00
Calcium chloride (CaCl2.2H2O) 0.86
Calcium nitrate [Ca(NO3)2.2H2O] 1.06
Press-mud (lime-sulfur, 9% Ca + 24% S) 0.78
Sulfuric acid (H2SO4) 0.61
Iron (Ferrous) sulfate (FeSO4.7H2O) 1.62
Ferric sulfate ([Fe2(SO4)3.9H2O] 1.09
Aluminum sulfate [Al2(SO4)3.18H2O] 1.29
Sulfur (S)b 0.19
Pyrites (FeS2, 30% S)b 0.63
Limestone (CaCO3) 0.58
Adapted from USSL Staff 1954
a
The quantities are based on the use of 100 % pure materials. If the material is impure, necessary
corrections must be made. For example, if the gypsum is a 70 % agricultural grade, the equivalent
quantity which must be applied will be 1.43 tons
b
100% oxidation is assumed though, in practice, it does not happen
Partial source: Ayers and Westcot (1985)

oxidation of sulfur by Thiobacillus thiooxidans, although in sodic soils sulfur

oxidation is a very slow process. The complete oxidation of sulfur results in
formation of sulfuric acid.
2S þ 3O2 þ 2H2 O ! 2H2 SO4

The H2SO4 formed through biological oxidation of sulfur reacts rapidly with lime
(as shown above) and proceeds to reclaim the sodic soils.
There is a significant financial outlay required from farmers when using chemical
amendments in soil reclamation. It is, therefore, recommended that the benefit of any
amendment should be tested first in field trials with regard to its cost, safety in use,
and effectiveness in improving (reducing) soil sodicity and increasing crop produc-
tion. The theoretical amounts of various amendments to supply an amount of Ca
equivalent to 1 ton of gypsum are shown in Table 3.2.
A good example is seen from an experiment with vertisol from India; Sharma and
Gupta (1986) observed a similar change in ESP (Table 3.3) due to the application of
either gypsum or H2SO4. However, they reported that there was a low hydraulic
conductivity and higher amounts of water dispersible clay in the case of H2SO4
application. This was caused by the Ca2+ being a stronger flocculent than the H+ ion
of Sulfuric acid.
70 3 Salinity and Sodicity Adaptation and Mitigation Options

Table 3.3 Effect of different amendments (applied @ 100% gypsum requirement) on physical and
chemical properties of a sodic vertisol (Sharma and Gupta 1986)
Soil characteristics
Amendment pH1:2 EC (dS m1) ESP HCsata (mm hr1) Water dispersible clay (%)
Control 8.8 9.80 65 0.06 37.2
Gypsum 7.9 0.72 14 4.77 8.0
Pyrites 8.0 0.31 20 1.64 32.4
H2SO4 7.5 0.18 14 2.98 30.4
Al2(SO4)3 7.6 0.27 8 4.49 8.6
FeSO4 7.9 0.85 21 1.59 33.7
a
Saturated hydraulic conductivity

4.5 Hydrological Methods of Soil Reclamation

Hydrological methods generally include irrigation, leaching and flushing, and the
drainage of the leached water. Blending of water to reduce its salinity and sodicity,
and recycling the water can also be included under this topic.
The objectives of soil reclamation through hydrological methods are:
• Efficient use of irrigation water
• Leaching of salts into lower soil zones, below the root-zone
• Improvement of water quality
• Improvement of a waterlogged condition through drainage
In irrigated agriculture, the salts in soil can be removed in two ways:
• Leaching of salts into a soil zone below the root-zone and subsequent drainage of
the leached water to a safe place, and
• Surface flushing of dissolved salts
The salt content within the root-zone is likely to be increased if the net downward
movement of salts is less than the salt input from irrigation water. Therefore, the soil
salt balance must be kept under control. Control of the salt balance is, thus, a
function of irrigation water quality, the quantity of dissolved salts in the water,
and the success of the soil drainage system.

4.5.1 Leaching

Soils rich in soluble salts can be reclaimed through dissolving of these salts and
their successful leaching. This can be accomplished through flooding or ponding of
water at the surface for saline soils. In general, the depth of soil leached is roughly
equal to the depth of water infiltrated during leaching. In order to leach salts from a
soil, an understanding about the leaching requirement (LR) concept is important.
The LR is the calculated fraction (depth) or quantity of water that must pass
through the root-zone in order to maintain the EC of the drainage water at or
4 Integrated Soil Reclamation Program (ISRP) 71

below a specified level. Some soil scientists are of the opinion that LR should be
minimized to prevent raising the level of the groundwater table, and also to reduce
the load placed on the drainage system (Mashali 1995). Recently established
guidelines for successful and economic leaching methods are described hereunder.

4.5.1.1 Timing of Leaching Irrigation

Timing of leaching does not appear to be critical, provided crop salinity tolerance
limit is not exceeded for extended periods of time, or occurs during a critical stage of
plant growth. The leaching can even be accomplished at each irrigation event.
However, in a soil with a low infiltration rate, and for crops which are sensitive to
excess moisture in the root-zone, leaching at each irrigation event may not be
possible or advisable. Few important points to consider are listed below.
• Leaching should be done when soil moisture is low and water-table level is deep;
and leaching should precede the critical growing stage of the crop plant
• An optimal time for leaching would be during a period with a low evapotranspi-
ration demand, at night, during high humidity and in cooler weather
• Leaching can also be done at the end of the cropping season
• Soil and tissue analysis can help determine both the need and timing of leaching
Sandy soils in a desert environment, such as Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)
countries and other similar environments are well drained. Therefore, leaching of
salts by using irrigation water amounts in excess of evapotranspiration can maintain
salts in the root-zone to a safe limit. However, one major problem for irrigated
agriculture under hot desert conditions is the high amount of drainage water which
must be managed safely and sustainably, without compromising the environment.

4.5.1.2 Leaching Requirement and Leaching Fraction

Quantity of water that must pass through the root-zone to maintain the EC level at or
below a specified level defines the ‘leaching requirement’. The ‘leaching fraction’ is
the fraction of irrigation water that passes through the root-zone, into lower soil
zones.

4.5.1.3 Leaching Requirement for Surface Irrigation

In order to determine the leaching requirement, it is essential to have information

about two parameters: (i) salinity of the irrigation water to be used (dS m1), and
(ii) crop tolerance to salinity (ECe in dS m1). Using the equation of Rhoades (1974)
and Rhoades and Merrill (1976), the leaching requirement can be calculated as:
72 3 Salinity and Sodicity Adaptation and Mitigation Options

ECiw
LR ¼
ð5ECe  ECiwÞ

Where, ECiw is the salinity of the irrigation water (dS m1) and ECe is for a given
crop’s maximum yield potential. LR refers to the minimum leaching requirement
that is necessary to control salts within the tolerance limit of the crop, when the crop
is grown under an ordinary surface irrigation method.

4.5.1.4 Leaching Requirement for Drip Irrigation System

ECiw
LR ¼
2ðMax ECÞ

Where, ECiw is the EC of the irrigation water, and a factor of 2 is obtained from
ECsw, which is equal to 2ECe.
Knowing the desired leaching requirement (LR) and evapotranspiration
(ET) demand of the crop, the net water required for a crop can be calculated
(Ayers and Westcot 1985), as below.
ET
Net water requirement ¼
ð1  LRÞ

Where, net water requirement ¼ depth of applied water (mm year1), ET ¼ total
annual crop water demand (mm year1), and LR ¼ leaching requirement expressed
as a fraction (leaching fraction).

4.5.2 Flushing

Flushing is suitable for saline soils which have surface salt crusts – a common
situation in arid and semi-arid areas, and where rainfall is insufficient to leach the
salts. This practice flushes the salts from soil surface and the flushed saline water
then enters the drainage system, which becomes concentrated with salts. Flushing of
surface salts is possible where soils are of a heavy texture and ponding can be
accomplished easily. Once the water is ponded for a time which is sufficient to
dissolve the salt crust, the ponded water can be flushed from the field, thus removing
the surface salts. The following procedure will allow for successful flushing of
surface salts.
• A sufficient volume of good quality water is used to dissolve salts from the soil
surface
• The soil must possess the ability to allow for surface ponding, e.g. its subsurface
must have a heavy texture
5 Drainage and Drainage Systems 73

• The field must be capable of flushing the dissolved salts. This can be accom-
plished either by forming breaks in the sides of the field so that the saline water
will drain into adjacent channels. Alternatively, the ponded saline water can be
removed by siphoning it, using long pipes, into adjacent channels
• There must be ways to safely reuse the drained water, or environmentally safe
methods available for its disposal

5 Drainage and Drainage Systems

Drainage is the natural or artificial removal of surface and subsurface water. Land
areas which have waterlogged soils, or have a high (shallow) water-table, will
require removal of the water if crop production is an objective.
Why drainage?
There must be a strong justification for installing a drainage system, considering the
following points.

• Drainage is required to lower water-table

• Drainage is needed to address waterlogging and to bring the land back into crop
production
• Drainage is needed to minimize the upward movement of groundwater and to
control the buildup of salts due to capillary rise of the groundwater
• Salinity management will be necessary to improve crop production

5.1 Agricultural Drainage Systems

An agricultural soil affected by high water-table requires a drainage system to

improve crop production and/or to manage water supplies. There are two types of
drainage systems; surface and subsurface.
Depending upon the site conditions, nature of the problem, available resources,
different types of drainage systems can be used, these are:
• Surface drainage – to allow for the runoff of excess water before it enters the soil
• Subsurface drainage – to control the groundwater table at a lower (safer) depth,
by using either open ditches and tile drains or perforated plastic pipes. Methods
include passive mole drainage, and also vertical drainage (pumping water) when
the deep soil horizons have an adequate hydraulic conductivity.
74 3 Salinity and Sodicity Adaptation and Mitigation Options

5.1.1 Surface Drainage – Natural Drainage

This is the cheapest and easy way of draining the water and is possible where the
underlying layers are permeable and relief is adequate. However, these ideal condi-
tions do not always exist in saline areas, and a drainage system will always be
required there.

5.1.2 Subsurface Drainage

This is the most suited drainage system for irrigated agriculture. It aims at controlling
groundwater level, as well as leaching excess salts from the plant root-zone in order
to keep the salt balance in soil water below the crop threshold. There are two types of
subsurface drainage systems, open ditches and closed drains.
Open drains are deep earth ditches where groundwater flows and is ultimately
discharged to a safe place for further use.
Closed drains are pipe drains installed in the field. They collect water and
discharge it into a sump whose outlet leads to lagoons or basins.

5.1.3 Tile Drainage System

Tile drainage is a very effective way of controlling water-table and reducing

waterlogging in areas where the soil aquifer cannot be pumped. It involves the
installation of slotted PVC pipe (or other material) at about 1 meter below the soil
surface. Soil water enters the pipe through the slots and is carried to a central well
(pit) where it can then be removed, either by pumping or via gravity drainage. Tile
drainage can be very expensive.
In order to assure the sustainability of the tile drainage system, it is important to
accomplish the following checks on a regular basis.
• Drill test bores at a number of sites on the field
• Monitor water levels in these bore holes on a regular basis
• Check water quality (salinity and sodicity) on a regular basis

5.1.4 Mole Drainage System

In the mole drainage system, subsurface circular channels are developed by use of a
mole plow for drainage, functioning like pipes buried in the soil. The success of a
mole drainage system depends on the soil properties. Soils with a heavy texture are
ideal for mole drainage as they are less vulnerable to collapse. Water continuously
enters the mole channels, and the channels usually remain stable for a long time. The
mole drainage system is much cheaper than a tile drainage system, and is usually
developed on a closely spaced basis, yielding effective drainage. The only drawback
5 Drainage and Drainage Systems 75

Plate 3.4 Vertical drainage through installing tube well (an example from Pakistan); the poor
quality groundwater is used to irrigate salt tolerant plants at the Biosaline Research Station of
NIAB, Pakka Anna near Faisalabad. Gypsum stones are also seen which are used as amendment for
mitigating the high SAR and RSC (Residual sodium carbonates) levels of the water

of this system is its shorter life time, relative to the tile drainage system. The mole
system is ideal for managing surface water and can also be used to reclaim both
saline and saline-sodic soils.

5.1.5 Vertical Drainage

Removing groundwater through pumping is the most effective method of lowering a

high water-table (Plate 3.4). To be able to pump groundwater, there needs to be a
pocket of very coarse sand or gravel (an aquifer) below the soil surface, into which a
slotted pipe (a ‘well-point’ or ‘spear’) can be installed. Water drains into the pipes
through the slots cut into it. The water is then pumped to the surface. These systems
are also sometimes referred to as ‘bores’. Apart from salinity and water-table control,
pumping groundwater can also provide extra water to supplement irrigation supplies
(depending on the salinity of the groundwater). Pumping groundwater from shallow
aquifers (< 25 m) is the most effective way to alleviate salinity effects near the
surface. In Pakistan, many tube wells have been developed through SCARP (Salinity
Control and Reclamation Project) to lower the water-table in waterlogged or shallow
(high) water-table areas, and they have successfully helped manage soil salinization.
76 3 Salinity and Sodicity Adaptation and Mitigation Options

6 Salinity Control and Methods of Irrigation

In arid and semi-arid zones salinization is common due to an annual rainfall which is
insufficient to leach salts. Because of this, there are limited quantities of good quality
water and this necessitates the use of saline water in agriculture.
In order to address the soil salinization in irrigated agriculture fields, it is
important to select a suitable irrigation system based on the soil conditions, water
salinity level, crop type and available resources. The correct choice can allow a
farmer to manage irrigation-induced soil salinization at an acceptable level, without
invoking salinity hazards to the soil. The reader is referred to Chap. 4 of this book to
learn more about the available irrigation systems and salt accumulation in the soil.
Irrigation systems are, thus, only briefly described below.

6.1 Surface Irrigation

Application of water by gravity flow to the soil surface is termed as surface

irrigation, which includes flood, basin, border, and furrow methods. Irrigation
applied by these methods develops salinity zones in soil based on the frequency
and amount of water applied in each irrigation cycle. At the end of each irrigation
cycle, the soil dries out and salts are concentrated. This adversely affects plant
growth. Increasing the frequency of irrigation can lower the salinity but it may
also waste water. Alternative methods to improve the efficiency of water include the
drip or sprinkler irrigation systems, whereas nuclear technique such as using neutron
moisture probe (Chap. 6) offers the best solution to use water efficiently under saline
conditions. The change from surface irrigation to more modern irrigation systems is
costly and will require justification, as well as better crop adaptability. Under a
surface irrigation system, leaching is usually used to keep the salinity controlled in
the root-zone.

6.2 Basin Irrigation

In basin irrigation, bunds are created around the field to prevent the water flowing
out, thus, confining the irrigation water to the target area. This method is commonly
practiced for rice cultivation (rice grown by ponding) and for trees. In the United
Arab Emirates and other countries, date palms are grown in small basins, with the
tree being planted in the center of the basin. It should be kept in mind that the basin
method is most suitable for sandy soils where water leaches down fairly quickly.
However, if the crops or trees are sensitive to ponding water, this method should be
avoided. In basin irrigation system, surface salinity is controlled, although at the
subsurface wetting zone soil salinity will develop.
6 Salinity Control and Methods of Irrigation 77

6.3 Furrow Irrigation

In the furrow irrigation method, small channels are created in the field to carry water
to the plants. When the water enters to the furrows some water infiltrates into the soil,
the amount being based on the soil texture, and this water also flows along the slope.
Under such an irrigation system, the crop plant is grown on the furrow ridges.
Development of a salinity zone in the furrow system depends upon the furrow to
be irrigated. If all furrows are used for irrigation, the maximum salinity development
is on the center-top of the furrow ridge. If alternate furrows are used, then the salinity
development zone is on the opposite side of the ridge. These potential salinity zones
should be avoided when planting the seeds.

6.4 Border Irrigation

When border irrigation is to be used, the land is divided into different parcels of land
each of which is surrounded by bunds to confine the water. The water is applied to
the soil through small water channels. This practice is very common in India and
Pakistan, where governments have taken the initiative to line the water channels to
prevent water from seepage into the soil. Root-zone salinity can be controlled by
using excess irrigation water to leach salts into a soil zone below the roots. However,
if the soil is fine textured, capillary rise after an irrigation event can develop a salt
crust at the soil surface.

6.5 Sprinkler Irrigation

A sprinkler irrigation system is similar to rainfall, i.e. water is sprinkled on the soil
surface. The sprinkler system requires pipes to be buried in the soil at specific depth
and water enters to these pipes for irrigation. Sprinkler systems often allow efficient
and economic use of water and reduce deep percolation losses. Chhabra (1996) is of
the view that, if water application through sprinkler is in close agreement with crop
needs (evapotranspiration and leaching), drainage and high water-table problems can
be greatly reduced, which in turn should improve salinity control.

6.6 Drip Irrigation

The drip irrigation method is the most efficient among all modern irrigation methods.
In this system, water is applied precisely to the plants on a daily basis to meet the
water requirement of crops. Drip irrigation is also ideal for delivering nutrients to the
78 3 Salinity and Sodicity Adaptation and Mitigation Options

root-zone, thus optimize nutrient use efficiency. Drip irrigation has a priority over
sprinkler irrigation, as the latter may cause leaf burn, defoliation of sensitive species,
which generally does not occur with drip irrigation. The system consists of plastic
pipes with emitters at specific intervals which are based on the distance between the
plants in the rows.

7 Biological Methods of Soil Reclamation

Biological methods of soil reclamation include the use of organic material(s) to

improve soil structure and to mobilize calcium from calcium carbonates through the
decomposition process. Biosaline Agriculture (growing salt tolerant crops) is also
part of biological reclamation.

7.1 Use of Organic Amendments

The soils of the arid and semi-arid regions are generally deficient in organic matter
where saline and sodic soils are commonly found. The dispersed sodium in soil
degrades the soil structure and restricts root growth and water movement in soil.
Under such conditions, it is essential to improve soil structure. The organic matter
can be added in following ways.
• Mixing previous crop stubbles into the soil
• Addition of farm yard manure
• Addition of crop residues into the soil
• Use of mulch material(s)
• Growing of green manure crops, such as legumes
The addition of crop residues and other organic materials improves soil structure.
The legume crops used for green manure, in addition to adding organic matter, also
add nitrogen into the soil, thus providing a dual benefit. Development of soil
structure prevents soil erosion and hastens soil reclamation, primarily due to
increased infiltration. The decomposition of organic matter produces a high level
of CO2 and also increases organic acids (humic, fulvic), which lower the soil
pH. These processes increase the solubility of calcium carbonate and mobilize
calcium, thereby replacing exchangeable sodium from the soil exchange complex
and reducing soil sodicity.
Organic amendments, when applied in conjunction with inorganic amendments,
can be more effective (Dargan et al. 1976). Awan et al. (2015) reported that
application of farm yard manure alone or in combination with inorganic N fertilizer
has significant effect on wheat yield on saline-sodic soil both under monoculture and
in agro-forestry systems. The selection of the organic matter to be applied is very
important in order to avoid causing N deficiency (adding an amendment which has
7 Biological Methods of Soil Reclamation 79

too high C:N ratio) and also increase salinity (e.g., cow dung slurry). Use of green
manure crops may have a better chance than farm yard manure of being successfully
integrated into a soil reclamation management package.

7.2 Biosaline Agriculture

Very few plant species grow well on saline soils, most either fail to grow or their
growth is appreciably retarded. Salinization, thus, restricts options in choosing a
successful crop species. Biosaline agriculture is the economic utilization of salt-
affected soils for agricultural purposes, e.g. the growing of salt tolerant crops of
agricultural significance. Biosaline agriculture includes the use of salty water for
sustained agriculture. In the past, the term saline agriculture was used; however, a
broader definition is now needed, one which includes the manipulation of desert and
sea resources for both food and fuel (energy) production. For a successful adoption
of biosaline agriculture, the following two points should be considered.
• Locations where biosaline agriculture is to be practiced must be studied carefully
and potential problems diagnosed
• Based on the diagnostics results, one must choose appropriate measures for
maximizing economic returns under each specific situation
Biosaline agriculture has a wide scope with diversified dimensions. These
include:
• Breeding for salt tolerance within appropriate plant species
• Selection of salt tolerant genotypes, i.e. ‘cultivars’
• Domestication of salt tolerant plants for economically sound (but sustainable)
exploitation of salt-affected lands
• Climate smart agricultural practices (land preparation, planting, irrigation and
fertilization, etc.).
Plant physiological studies will identify physiological factors controlling yield
under the marginally saline conditions, and utilize physiological differences between
salt tolerant and salt sensitive genotypes with a view to developing selection criteria
for salt tolerance.

7.3 Screening Methods

The screening of a range of crop varieties (cultivars) across different levels of

salinities can be a useful way to begin moving toward biosaline agriculture. There
are a number of screening methods and the best will closely simulate the conditions
under which a crop variety will be grown. Techniques range from laboratory
80 3 Salinity and Sodicity Adaptation and Mitigation Options

investigations of seed germination capabilities to glasshouse studies and field exper-

iments, and are discussed in detail by Shahid (2002), and briefly below.

7.3.1 Screening in Greenhouse Using Hydroponics

The seeds of different crop cultivars are first germinated in small dishes, and at the
2–4 leaf stage, the plants are transferred to aerated Hoagland’s solution by carefully
placing them through small holes made in thermopol sheets (which float on the
surface of the hydroponic culture solution). The salinity of culture solution is then
increased stepwise, being maintained at a range of levels, e.g. 0, 100, 150, 300 mM
NaCl, etc. The cultivars which survive at higher salt concentration undergo a
preliminary selection, and are then subjected to further testing in both greenhouse
and under field conditions.

7.3.2 Screening in the Field

Two field screening methods are commonly used.

In the first method, different varieties/cultivars of a crop are grown in lines. On
one corner of the field, the sprinkler system is established with a non-saline, fresh
water supply. In the other corner of the field, a sprinkler system is installed with a
saline water supply. The water from both systems is sprinkled in different ratios
through the use of special adjustments of the nozzles for different lines of the various
cultivars. Plastic cups can be placed in each line of plants in order to collect samples
of the ‘mixed’ water sprays for assessment of the salinity of water applied in the
field. The shoot or whole plant dry matter and the grain yields are measured as a
criterion of salt tolerance (Shahid 2002).
In the second method, different varieties/cultivars are grown in different lines.
Each set of crop plants is irrigated through drip or sprinkler irrigation system with
water of different salinities. As in the first method, grain and biomass yield can be
used as a measure of salt tolerance of the differing crop varieties.

8 Serial Biological Concentration (SBC) Concept

The Serial Biological Concentration of Salts (SBCS) concept was introduced by

Heuperman (1995). The SBC was developed as a multiple production system to
utilize drainage water from irrigation schemes. In SBC, the drainage water of
increasing salinity is collected and reapplied to 3 or more successive irrigation
plots on which crops of known (different) salt tolerance are planted (Blackwell
2000; Cervinka et al. 1999). The SBC system involves the reuse of drainage water
on progressively more salt tolerant crops. Each crop is underlain by a tile drain for
the collection of water to be used to irrigate the next stage. Within the crop sequence,
10 Crop Yield Estimation Under Saline Conditions 81

the drainage water collected is reduced in volume due to plant water use. Thus, the
salinity of the drainage water increases since there will be little or no salt uptake by
the plants. The final effluent water is contained in relatively small evaporation ponds.
This makes it feasible to consider the use of a floor lining for the pond in order to
eliminate leakage. These ‘salt water’ ponds could also be used for fish farming. The
highly saline water can also be collected in a series of ponds where, through
evaporation, the salts can be collected if they have commercial value, or need to
be safely disposed off.

9 Genetic Engineering (Developing Salt Tolerant Cultivars)

Molecular biology and the use of appropriate methods of genetic engineering could also
play a role in developing salt tolerant crop genotypes (varieties) which are resistant to
marginal environments (drylands, saline lands) for food and/or biomass production.
Shahid and Alshankiti (2013) has identified some researchable ideas (or areas) which
could lead to solutions for meeting the food demand of the earth’s growing human
population. Researchable ideas that may help meet the need for sustainable increases in
crop production (Shahid and Alshankiti 2013) are listed below.
• Develop cultivars which have low water requirement, and ones with stomatal
closure midday (to reduce transpiration)
• Introduce a Biological Nitrogen Fixation (BNF) character in non-leguminous
crops to reduce dependence on commercial N fertilizer
• Enhance sunlight use efficiency for photosynthesis, thereby yielding increased
dry matter production
• Introduce resistance to heat shock, salinity and water stress, thereby yielding
more drought tolerant varieties, and
• Develop viable options to maximize yield under warmer (and water deficit)
conditions through traditional breeding and agronomic research

10 Crop Yield Estimation Under Saline Conditions

Crop yields decrease as a factor of increasing soil salinity above a threshold salinity
value. Crops can tolerate salinity up to a certain level (Maas 1990) without a
measurable loss in yield, i.e. the ‘threshold salinity’. As a general rule, the more
salt tolerant is the crop, the higher is the threshold salinity level. Crop yields are
reduced in a linear manner as salinity increases above this threshold salinity, as
shown in the equation.
Yr ¼ 100  S ðECe  tÞ
82 3 Salinity and Sodicity Adaptation and Mitigation Options

Where, Yr is crop yield relative to the same conditions without salinity, t is the
threshold salinity, S is the % linear rate of yield loss with a 1 ECe (dS m1) increase
above the threshold value. ECe is the electrical conductivity of the soil saturation
extract and represents the average root-zone salinity. The expected yield (Yr) of a
crop grown at a specific level of salinity (ECe) can, thus, be calculated. The reader is
referred to Chap. 4 of this book for further details.

11 Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM)

In parallel to the management of salinity and sodicity in agriculture fields, it is

equally important to keep the soils healthy and productive through the maintenance
of an optimal soil fertility status. The soils of the arid and semi-arid regions of the
world are inherently low in soil fertility. There is an ongoing need to replenish the
soil’s nutrients through strategic use of chemical fertilizers and organic manure
(s) that will ensure sustainable yields. The ISFM is an effective strategy for sustain-
able agriculture.
The replenishment of soil nutrient pools, on farm recycling of nutrients, reducing
nutrient losses and improving the efficiency of inputs on saline and sodic soils is
much more important than on good quality non-saline soils. The ISFM combines the
use of both organic and inorganic sources to increase crop yield, rebuild depleted
soils and protect a wide range of natural resources. Organic amendments can
increase the efficiency of inorganic fertilizers through positive interactions on soil
biological, chemical and physical properties. The ISFM optimizes the effectiveness
of fertilizer and organic inputs in crop production and its implementation can
rehabilitate degraded soils and restore their sustainable productivity. To be success-
ful in nutrient replenishment for sustainable crop production, a new 4R strategy
needs to be used.

11.1 What Is a Four Right (4R) Strategy?

The four R (4R) nutrient strategies should be used to offset the plant’s nutrient
requirement, which involves:
• Right type of chemical fertilizers – e.g., ammonium versus nitrate based fertilizers
• Right rate of fertilizer – based on soil testing and target yield
• Right time of fertilizer application at the right growth stage – apply each fertilizer
when the plants need specific nutrients
• Right location of fertilizer application – apply to the root-zone area where the
nutrient can best be absorbed by plants
13 Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) 83

The fertilizer use efficiency of nitrogen fertilizers under field conditions is

assessed using isotopic techniques of nitrogen-15 (see Chapt. 6 for detailed
information).

12 Conservation Agriculture (CA)

Conservation agriculture (CA) is part of Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA). CA

recognizes the importance of the upper 0–20 cm of the soil as the most active
zone, and also the zone most vulnerable to erosion and land degradation. By
protecting this critical soil zone, we ensure the continuity of good agriculture and
a good environment.
Main principles of conservation agriculture, discussed in Dumanski et al. (2006),
are listed hereunder.
• Maintaining a permanent soil cover and making certain that there is a minimal
mechanical disturbance of the soil through the use of zero tillage systems. This
will help ensure sufficient living and/or residual biomass to enhance soil and
water conservation and control soil erosion.
• Promoting a healthy, living soil through crop rotations, cover crops, and the use
of integrated pest management technologies
• Promoting the application of appropriate fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and
fungicides in a strategic way to maintain a sustainable balance with crop
requirements
• Promoting precision placement of inputs to reduce farm costs, optimize efficiency
of operations, and prevent environmental damage
• Promoting legume fallows (including herbaceous and tree fallows where suit-
able), composting and the use of manures and other organic soil amendments
• Promoting agro-forestry for fiber, fruit and medicinal purposes.

13 Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA)

Climate smart agriculture (CSA) includes proven practical techniques and

approaches that can help achieve food security, adaptation to and mitigation of the
effects of a changing climate. Increasing soil organic matter content and moisture
through low to zero tillage and the use of mulching make crop yields more resilient
and combat soil degradation. The introduction of integrated soil fertility manage-
ment can also reduce chemical fertilizer costs.
CSA seeks to increase productivity in an environmentally and socially acceptable
way, strengthen farmers’ resilience to climate change, and reduce agriculture’s
contribution to climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing
carbon sequestration and storage on farm land. Climate smart agriculture includes
84 3 Salinity and Sodicity Adaptation and Mitigation Options

Plate 3.5 Neglected but precious resource for salts in UAE (left) and Bahrain (right) needs
attention

proven practical techniques such as mulching, intercropping, conservation agricul-

ture, crop rotation, integrated crop-livestock management, agro-forestry, controlled
grazing, and improved water management. It requires innovative practices such as
better weather forecasting, early warning systems and risk insurance. It is also very
much about getting existing technologies off the shelf and into the hands of farmers,
as well as developing new technologies such as drought or flood tolerant crops to
meet the demands of the changing climate. Finally, climate smart agriculture is about
creating and enabling the policy and environment which will allow for adaptation
(World Bank 2011).

14 Commercial Exploitation of Mineral Resources from

Highly Saline Areas – The Neglected Resource

The lands of immediate vicinity to the coast are highly vulnerable to sea water
intrusion. These soils, overtime, are converted to sabkha (salt scald) – areas which
are not conducive for agricultural activities. Such highly saline lands may, however,
be exploited for other uses, such as commercial salt harvesting. This precious
resource (Plate 3.5) is neglected for the time being, but has high potential to generate
capital.
In Australia, while addressing dryland salinity issues, an approach entitled
‘Options for the productive use of salinity – OPUS’ has been successfully used in
a National Dryland Salinity Program (PPK E & I Pty Ltd. 2001). One of the options
is the industrial use of harvested salts.
The OPUS approach has the following objectives.
• Collate and assess information on innovative options for the productive use of
saline land and water, both within Australia and internationally
• Provide guidance and considerations for industry (or industrial) implementation
14 Commercial Exploitation of Mineral Resources from Highly Saline Areas –. . . 85

• Assess the economic and marketing barriers to investment in industries involved

in salinity issues
• Suggest the skills, resources and institutional arrangements that would improve
our capacity to utilize saline resources and identify areas requiring further
research and development.
The OPUS assessed 13 industries, including sheep grazing on saltbush ‘Atriplex’
pastures, saline forestry, aquaculture of fish, algal production and desalination.
In this section, however, our emphasis is mainly on salt harvesting and exploita-
tion of the salt(s) for commercial purposes. Sea water is dominant in Na+ and Cl
ions relative to other ions (Ca2+, Mg2+, SO42, CO32, HCO3, etc.). Thus, practi-
cally speaking, when we talk of salt, it means sodium chloride (NaCl), the mineral
name being ‘halite’. The PPK E & I Pty Ltd. (2000) described three types of salts
which are harvested in different ways. There are three broad categories:
Rock salt – subsurface deposits within the earth, formed millions of years ago, an era
when the oceans that covered the planet evaporated and receded, leaving behind
salt deposits. Rock salt is mined in the mineral form.
Solar salt – saline sea water is pumped into condensing ponds and then to the
saturating ponds. The evaporation leads to salt crystallization, which is harvested.
In the United Arab Emirates, sea water intrusion into the coastal areas and
subsequent evaporation has developed huge quantities of salts which have the
potential for commercial harvesting.
Evaporated salt – here, wells are drilled into underground salt deposits and water is
pumped into the wells to dissolve the salts. The resulting brine is pumped to the
surface, evaporated and harvested.
There are many uses of salts in the industry. Chemical industry accounts for 55%
of global salts consumption. Three main products are:
(i) Caustic soda – NaCl (halite) + H2O (water) ! NaOH (Caustic soda) + HCl
(Hydrochloric acid)
(ii) Soda ash, and (iii) Chlorine
There are a number of commercial uses of the above products in the pulp, paper,
organic and inorganic chemicals, glass, petroleum, plastics (PCV) and textiles
industries (IMC Global 1999; Olsson Industries 2001; Dampier Salt Pty Ltd. 2001;
Cheetham Salt Pty Ltd. 2001).
Salts are used globally in the food industry, i.e. preserving and preparing canned
and bottled foods, in cheese production, in bakeries and cooking foods, etc.
In Europe or other countries where heavy snow falls are frequent, salt is used to
de-ice the roads to facilitate transport. Such a use accounts for 30% of the total salt
use in Europe (European Salt Producers’ Association 2000).
86 3 Salinity and Sodicity Adaptation and Mitigation Options

Plate 3.6 (a) Eucalyptus camaldulensis stand on a saline-sodic soil at the Biosaline Research
Station of NIAB (Pakka Anna), near Faisalabad, monitored for tree water use with HeatPulse Data
Loggers. (Adapted from Mahmood et al. 2004), (b) Setup for monitoring tree water use with
HeatPulse Technique

15 Salinity Control Strategy

A salinity control strategy should be to stop the spread of salt-affected soils, with a
major objective to greatly reduce the future effects of salinity. This requires a
commitment by governments. This strategy/objective can be achieved in a number
of ways, including:
• By re-vegetating the shallow water-table areas with deep-rooted trees, and
• Lowering the water-table by pumping, and flushing the salts from soils
Perennial plants and forages, especially alfalfa, are useful for lowering water-
table, because they have a longer growing season and take up more water from a
greater depth in the soil than annual plants. Eucalyptus has been used to lower water-
table (biodrainage) as it transpires large volumes of water. Mahmood et al. (2001)
reported on the water use of Eucalyptus and other salt tolerant tree species, deter-
mined by using HeatPulse Data Loggers, under variable field conditions in Punjab
province, Pakistan (Plate 3.6).
Eucalyptus camaldulensis on an irrigated, non-saline site near Lahore showed an
annual water use of 1393 mm (Table 3.4). Irrigated Eucalyptus microtheca at this
site and un-irrigated E. camaldulensis dependent on saline groundwater on saline
soil at Pakka Anna near Faisalabad also transpired over 1000 mm of water per year.
Acacia ampliceps showed much lesser water use than E. camaldulensis in spite of a
similar basal area growth at Pakka Anna, whereas lowest annual water use of
235 mm was shown by an under-stocked stand of Prosopis juliflora at this site.
These results provide an example regarding the range of choice of suitable tree
species for site-specific conditions with reference to water availability and objectives
of re-vegetation projects.
15 Salinity Control Strategy 87

Table 3.4 Calculated daily and annual water use by plantations on saline sites near Lahore and
Pakka Anna near Faisalabad, Pakistan. (Adapted from Mahmood et al. 2001)
Soil EC1:1 Days Mean daily water use Annual water
Plot details (dS/m) monitored (mm)  S.E. use (mm)
Lahore
Eucalyptus 2.5–5.0 333 3.82  0.07 1393
camaldulensis
E. microtheca 2.5–5.0 322 2.87  0.06 1084
Pakka Anna near Faisalabad
E. camaldulensis (low 3.2–4.0 330 3.20  0.07 1169
salinity)
E. camaldulensis 6.2–8.5 285 2.99  0.09 1090
(high salinity)
Acacia ampliceps 5.0–5.2 317 1.71  0.05 624
Prosopis juliflora 6.1–7.0 262 0.64  0.01 235

The strategy should direct the farming community’s efforts to areas where salinity
is, or will be, a major problem. The main emphasis should be to provide further
encouragement, assistance and technical support to research scientists in order to
identify the areas where the most effort should be directed. These areas, once
identified, should be considered as ‘hot spots’ and most of the resources should be
directed into rectifying and preventing future enlargement of these hot spots.
Working together to tackle the salinity problems is sensible, especially when the
cause may not necessarily be confined to one property. Governments should take
appropriate steps in improving long-term productivity and amenity value of saline
areas. Grants and incentives should be made available to educate the farming
community, to make it aware of the land degradation problem and the need for
farmers to move quickly and properly in order to protect their livelihood.
Education of the farming community is vital in increasing the community’s
awareness and understanding of salinity, so that the above strategy is widely
supported and acted upon. Advisory programs should be developed using extension
workers so that farmers can plan and use salinity control practices on their farms.
Salinity mapping on a whole farm scale is the best practice for crop selection.
Salinity exhibitions for community education should be arranged in government
institutes, and demonstration days at the farmers’ fields are also useful. Preparation
of introductory brochures for salinity control and management at the farm level and
their distribution to the farming community can enhance the understanding of how to
best tackle salinity in a sustainable way. The awareness of the problem by local
school teachers can give students a hands-on experience and help them discuss
options with their students. After all, today’s students will be tomorrow’s land
managers.
88 3 Salinity and Sodicity Adaptation and Mitigation Options

References

Awan AR, Siddiqui MT, Mahmood K, Khan RA, Maqsood M (2015) Interactive effect of
integrated nitrogen management on wheat production in Acacia nilotica- and Eucalyptus
camaldulensis-based ally cropping systems. Int J Agric Biol 17:1270–1127
Ayers RS, Westcot DW (1985) Water quality for agriculture. FAO irrigation and drainage paper
29 rev 1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 174 pp
Blackwell J (2000) From saline drainage to irrigated production. Research project information from
CSIRO land and water, sheet no. 18. Communication Group, CSIRO Land and Water, Griffith,
Australia, 4 pp www.clw.csiro.au/division/griffith
Cervinka V, Diener J, Erickson J, Finch C, Martin M, Menezes F, Peters D, Shelton J (1999)
Integrated system for agricultural drainage management on irrigated farmland, final research
report 4-FG-20–11920, five points: Bureau of Reclamation, US Department of the Interior,
Sacramento, California, USA, 41 pp
Cheetham Salt Pty Ltd (2001) Salt from the sea. Cheetham Salt website: www.cheethamsalt.com.au
Chhabra R (1996) Irrigation and salinity control. In: Chhabra R (ed) Soil salinity and water quality.
Oxford and IBH Publishing Co Pvt Ltd, New Delhi/Calcutta, pp 205–237
Dampier Salt Pty Ltd (2001) Salt and its uses. Dampier salt website: www.dampiersalt.com.au
Dargan KS, Gaul BL, Abrol IP, Bhumbla DR (1976) Effect of gypsum, farmyard manure and zinc
on the yield of barseem, rice and maize grown in highly sodic soil. Ind J Agric Sci 46:535–541
Dumanski J, Peiretti R, Benetis J, McGarry D, Pieri C (2006) The paradigm of conservation tillage.
In: Proceedings of world association of soil and water conservation P1:58–64
European Salt Producers’ Association (2000) Salt in the EU. Website: www.eusalt.com
Heuperman AF (1995) Salt and water dynamics beneath a tree plantation growing on a shallow
watertable. Report of the department of agriculture, energy and minerals victoria, Institute for
Sustainable Irrigated Agriculture, Tatura Center, Australia 61 pp
IMC Global (1999) World crop nutrients and salt situation report. IMC Global website: www.
imcglobal.com
Maas EV (1990) Crop salt tolerance. In: Tanji KK (ed) Agricultural salinity assessment and
management manual. ASCE manuals and reports on engineering no 71, ASCE New York,
USA, pp 262–304
Mahmood K, Morris J, Collopy J, Slavich P (2001) Groundwater uptake and sustainability of farm
plantations on saline sites in Punjab province, Pakistan. Agric Water Manage 48:1–20
Mahmood K, Hussain F, Iqbal MM (2004) Eucalyptus camaldulensis – a suitable tree for water-
logged and saline wastelands. Nuclear Institute for Agriculture and Biology (NIAB), Faisalabad,
6 pp
Mashali AM (1995) Network on integrated soil management for sustainable use of salt-affected
soil. Proceedings of the international symposium on salt-affected lagoon ecosystems ISSALE-
95, 18–25 Sept 1995, Valencia, Spain, pp 267–283
Olsson industries (2001). Olsson’s salt information page. Website: www.olssons.com.au
PPK E & I Pty Limited (2001) Options for the productive use of salinity. National Dryland Salinity
Program, Australia, 249 pp (+Appendices 37 pp)
Rhoades JD (1974) Drainage for salinity control. In: Van Schilfgaarde J (ed) Drainage for
agriculture. Amer Soc Agron Monograph No 17:433–462
Rhoades JD, Merrill SD (1976) Assessing the suitability of water for irrigation: theoretical and
empirical approaches. In: Prognosis of salinity and alkalinity. FAO Soils Bulletin 31 Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, pp 69–110
Schoonover WR (1952) Examination of soils for alkali. University of California, Berkley, Califor-
nia, USA (Mimeographed), pp 104–105 (USSL Staff 1954 Handbook No 60 ?)
Shahid SA (2002) Recent technological advances in characterization and reclamation of salt-
affected soils in arid zones. In: Al-Awadhi NM, Taha FK (eds) New technologies for soil
reclamation and desert greenery. Amherst Scientific Publishers, Amherst, pp 307–329
References 89

Shahid SA, Alshankiti A (2013) Sustainable food production in marginal lands – case of GDLA
member countries. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 1:24–38
Shahid SA, Muhammed S (1980) Comparison of methods for determining gypsum requirement of
saline-sodic soils. Bull Irrig Drain Flood Control Res Counc Pak 19(1–2):57–62
Shahid SA, Rahman KR (2011) Soil salinity development, classification, assessment and manage-
ment in irrigated agriculture. In: Passarakli M (ed) Handbook of plant and crop stress. CRC
Press Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, pp 23–29
Shahid SA, Aslam Z, Hashmi ZH, Mufti KA (2009) Baseline soil information and management of a
salt-tolerant forage project site. Eur J Sci Res 27(1):16–28
Shahid SA, Abdefattah MA, Omar SAS, Harahsheh H, Othman Y, Mahmoudi H (2010) Mapping
and monitoring of soil salinization – remote sensing, GIS, modeling, electromagnetic induction
and conventional methods – case studies. In: Ahmad M, Al-Rawahy SA (eds) Proceedings of
the international conference on soil salinization and groundwater salinization in arid regions, vol
1. Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, pp 59–97
Shahid SA, Taha FK, Ismail S, Dakheel A, Abdelfattah MA (2011) Turning adversity into
advantage for food security through improving soil quality and providing production systems
for saline lands: ICBA perspectives and approach. In: Behnassi M, Shahid SA, D D’Silva J (eds)
Sustainable agricultural development: recent approaches in resources management and
environmentally-balanced production enhancement. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 43–67.
Sharma OP, Gupta RK (1986) Comparative performance of gypsum and pyrites in sodic vertisols.
Ind J Agric Sci 56:423–429
USSL Staff (1954) Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. USDA handbook no 60
Washington DC, USA, 160 pp
World Bank (2011) Opportunities and challenges for climate-smart agriculture in Africa. 8 pp http://
climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/documents/CSA_Policy_Brief_web.pdf

The opinions expressed in this chapter are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the IAEA, its Board of Directors, or the countries they represent.
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
IGO license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/), which permits use, sharing, adap-
tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit
to the IAEA, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The use of the IAEA’s name for any purpose other than for attribution, and the use of the IAEA’s
logo, shall be subject to a separate written license agreement between the IAEA and the user and is
not authorized as part of this CC-IGO license. Note that the link provided above includes additional
terms and conditions of the license.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.

IGO
Chapter 4
Irrigation Systems and Zones of Salinity
Development

Mohammad Zaman, Shabbir A. Shahid, and Lee Heng

Abstract Selection of suitable irrigation systems (drip-surface and subsurface,

sprinkler, bubbler, furrow etc.) for irrigated agriculture is one way of improving
water use efficiency and to manage root zone salinity. These irrigation systems
develop salinity zones differently which needs to be understood for various reasons,
such as where to place the seed for good germination and where to apply leaching to
maintain the root zone salinity below crop threshold salinity level. In this chapter
emphasis have been made to describe various irrigation systems and zones of salinity
development under each system. In surface irrigation system (flood, surge, sprinkler,
bubbler) the maximum salinity is developed in deeper layers based on the wetting
front and the lowest salinity is at the surface. Drip irrigation is often preferred to
sprinkler irrigation for species with a high sensitivity to leaf necrosis. In surface drip
irrigation salts concentrate along the perimeters of the expanding wetting soil zone,
with the lowest salt concentrations occurring in the immediate vicinity of the water
source, the highest at the soil surface, and in the very center of any two drippers,
i.e. at the boundary of the volume of wetted soil. In the subsurface drip irrigation, the
salts continuously buildup at the soil surface through an upward capillary movement
from the buried irrigation lines during growing season, therefore the concept of
leaching requirement (LR) does not work specially to leach the salts from surface
above the buried drip lines. In furrow irrigation system maximum salts accumulate in
ridges of soil between the furrows. The salt accumulation in furrow irrigation using
different bed shapes (flat top bed, sloping beds) is shown in different figures giving
guidelines to the farmers to place seeds in safe zone to accomplish high germination
rate. Following the salinity development zones, various methods of salinity man-
agement are described. Relative crop salinity tolerance rating is described briefly.
Prediction of crop yield in salinized farms compared to non-saline farms is also
described using Maas and Hoffman equation.

Keywords Irrigation systems · Sprinkler · Drip · Surge · Salinity development

zones · Salinity tolerance · Maas and Hoffman

© International Atomic Energy Agency 2018 91

M. Zaman et al., Guideline for Salinity Assessment, Mitigation and Adaptation Using
Nuclear and Related Techniques, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96190-3_4
92 4 Irrigation Systems and Zones of Salinity Development

1 Introduction

In arid and semi-arid regions, the major constraints to agriculture are water and
arable land scarcity, harsh climatic conditions, and poor water use efficiency. This
often necessitates the use of saline/brackish water to partially supplement the normal
water requirements of crops. In order to minimize the effects of saline water on
salinity in the root-zone soil, a suitable irrigation method must be selected, one
which does not raise soil salinity hazards. The irrigation method chosen for a
particular farm/field is determined by the depth of irrigation water applied, water
losses by leaching and runoff, zones of salt accumulation, and the uniformity of
applying the irrigation water.
Broadly, surface irrigation systems can be divided into two main classes: gravity
flow surface irrigation (flood, border, surge, furrow, etc.), and ‘pressurized flow
irrigation’. The practice of surface irrigation is predominant and covers nearly 95%
of the world’s irrigated areas. The sustainability of surface irrigation depends on the
use of innovative methods, ones which are appropriate for different irrigation
systems and result in a wide adoption by farmers. Sprinkler and trickle irrigation
together represent the broad class ‘pressurized’ irrigation methods. In trickle irriga-
tion, the water is carried in a pipe system to the point of irrigation, where the water is
finally made available to the root system for uptake by plants. Surface irrigation can
lead to heavy losses through leaching while being conveyed to (and at the point of)
the irrigation site.
Each irrigation system develops salinity at a specific soil zone and, thus, needs to
be carefully monitored. Shahid (2013) has recently introduced zones of soil salinity
development for a range of different irrigation systems. Commonly used irrigation
methods and the probable zones of soil salinity development are discussed here. In
this context, safe zones with a relatively low salinity are suggested where seeds can
be placed for germination, or where seedlings can be transplanted.
The zone of salt accumulation depends on the method of irrigation and seed bed
shape. The irrigation systems used include:
• Flood irrigation
• Basin irrigation
• Border irrigation
• Surge irrigation
• Furrow irrigation
• Drip irrigation
– Surface drip irrigation
– Subsurface drip irrigation

Soil salinity development, i.e. the location and quantity of salts in each irrigation
system is variable. In the flood, basin, border and sprinkler irrigation systems, the net
water movement is downward when there is no high water-table. Under such
circumstances, surface accumulation of salts is unlikely. Rather, the salt accumulates
1 Introduction 93

Plate 4.1 Basin irrigation of date palm

at deeper soil layers based on the final ‘wetted zone’. Each irrigation cycle dissolves
surface salinity and then concentrates those salts at the final wetting zone. Here, then,
there is lower surface salinity and an increase in the subsurface salinity.
At the end of each irrigation (flood, basin and border) cycle, the soil dries out and
the salts are concentrated, adversely affecting the crop yield. Frequent irrigation may
lower the salinity, but it wastes water. Alternatives which improve the efficiency of
water use are drip or sprinkler irrigation. In the bubbler type of (basin) irrigation, a
small fountain of water is applied to flood small basins dug around the tree base, or
on the soil surface adjacent to individual trees. In the GCC countries, this system is
commonly used to irrigate date palm trees (Plate 4.1).
This shift from conventional surface irrigation to a more modern irrigation system
is costly and requires assurance on a high degree of crop adaptability. However,
there are advantages in using modern irrigation system(s), especially when saline/
brackish water must be used under hot desert conditions like that prevail in the
Middle East, and parts of Australia and South East Asia. Frequent (twice daily)
irrigation maintains a soil moisture level that does not fluctuate appreciably between
wet and dry extremes. This residual moisture which remains in the soil between
irrigation cycles keeps salts in a dilute solution, making it possible to use saline water
– a situation which is problematic when irrigation occurs every second or third day.
94 4 Irrigation Systems and Zones of Salinity Development

Plate 4.2 Sprinkler irrigation in a demonstration plot of salt tolerant grass in Abu Dhabi Emirate

2 Sprinkler Irrigation

With sprinkler irrigation, strong streams of water are sprayed through the air to
spread on the soil surface (Plate 4.2). A good sprinkler irrigation (SI) must meet all
of the requirements of the crop for water, including evapotranspiration (ET). Irriga-
tion by sprinkler allows efficient and economic use of water and reduces losses
through deep percolation of water through the soil. If water applied via SI is in close
agreement with crop needs (ET plus leaching), excessive drainage and high water-
table problems can be greatly reduced, thus improving salinity control. Sprinkler
irrigation can be accomplished through the use of fixed sprinklers or by a continually
moving system, such as center-pivot, linear moving laterals, and other forms of
travelling sprinklers. Special care should be exercised in selecting nozzle size,
operating pressure and sprinkler spacing when using SI on fine textured soil
(which will have low intake rates) to ensure uniform water application at low rates.
While sprinkler irrigation will uniformly distribute water, high wind can distort
the distribution of water applied, thus affecting water use efficiency. Windbreaks
around the edges of the farm can help to reduce the negative effects of strong wind.
The saline water applied with sprinkler can also cause leaf burn (necrosis)
through salt injury (Plate 4.3). Leaf necrosis from sprinkler irrigation can occur
when sodium exceeds 70 ppm, or chloride exceeds 105 ppm in irrigation water.
2 Sprinkler Irrigation 95

Plate 4.3 Salinity

diagnostics in a grass field
where sprinkler irrigation
with saline water has caused
necrosis (leaf burn)

Table 4.1 Susceptibility of crops to foliar injurya from saline sprinkler water
Na+ or Cl
concentrations (meq l
1) which can cause foliar injury
<5 5–10 10–20 > 20
Almond Grape Alfalfa Cauliflower
Apricot Pepper Barley Cotton
Citrus Potato Corn Sugar beet
Plum Tomato Cucumber Sunflower
Safflower
Sesame
Sorghum
Source data (Maas 1986)
a
Foliar injury is influenced by cultural and environmental conditions
Data presented is for general guidelines for day-time sprinkling (cf. Minhas and Gupta 1992)

Thus, quality of water must closely match the leaf burn tolerance of the crop plants.
The leaves of many plants readily absorb Na+, Ca2+, and Cl
when water is applied
through sprinkler system. The susceptibility of foliar injury differs among plant
species; it is related to leaves’ characteristics and rate of ion absorption rather than
salinity tolerance (Maas 1986). However, sprinkler irrigation applied at night, or
during periods of high humidity can reduce or eliminate the problem of leaf necrosis.
Relative susceptibility of crops to foliar injury (Maas 1986) is shown in Table 4.1.
Finally, the high costs of establishing and operating a sprinkler irrigation system
limit its adoption by smallholder subsistence farmers.
96 4 Irrigation Systems and Zones of Salinity Development

Fig. 4.1 Salinity zone

profiles occurring under a
wide range of irrigation
methods: sprinkler, flood,
basin (bubbler) and border
irrigation systems (Shahid
2013)

Under sprinkler irrigation, the salinity buildup occurs in the subsurface soil
(Fig. 4.1). Thus, the SI system is highly effective in leaching salts from the surface
and providing a soil environment which is conducive for seed germination and early
stage of plant growth.

3 Drip Irrigation

Drip irrigation system can supply the required quantity of water to the crop on a daily
or periodic basis. Drip irrigation delivers water near each plant through pipes
(usually plastic) and a series of closely spaced emitters (drippers). This leads to
high water use efficiency. The flow rate of each dripper can be controlled from 1 to 4
+ liters per hour. The use of drippers for application of poor quality water may give
better crop yields due to an ability to maintain high soil moisture levels and replenish
the water lost by ET on a daily basis. Drip irrigation is often preferred to sprinkler
irrigation for species with a high sensitivity to leaf necrosis. However, because the
diameters of the dripper openings are quite small, the evaporation of saline water at
3 Drip Irrigation 97

Plate 4.4 Wetting zone and salinity buildup in drip irrigation system: (a) Wetted soil, (b) Salt
accumulation in the center of drip lines where wetting zones meet

the end of the dripper opening can lead to clogging, which reduces (or completely
stops) the discharge of irrigation water from individual drippers. Thus, drippers must
be inspected periodically to prevent this problem.
In drip irrigation, salt accumulation occurs via two processes. First, the soil
becomes saturated with saline water and solutes are spread throughout the soil,
saturating neighboring voids (Plate 4.4). In the second process, which occurs
between consecutive irrigation cycles, both evaporation of water from the soil and
the uptake of water and nutrients by plants are occurring. Solutes, thus, become
redistributed in the soil with a final buildup of salts resulting from the interaction of
these two processes throughout the crop season. During drip irrigation, salts will
concentrate below the soil surface along the perimeters of the expanding wetting soil
zone. Prolonged soil drying, or interspersing long intervals between irrigation
cycles, can lead to increasingly saline soil-water movement back towards the
plant, thereby increasing the likelihood of plant damage. This can be managed by
ensuring that irrigation volumes are sufficient to allow the movement of new
irrigation water to always be away from the drippers.
Salts concentrate through water evaporation from the soil and also by plant
uptake. As discussed above, salt accumulation occurs on the boundaries of the
wetted soil volume (Plate 4.4a), with the lowest salt concentration occurring in the
immediate vicinity of the water source (Fig. 4.2). Salt concentrations will be the
highest at the soil surface, and in the very center of any two drippers, i.e. at the
boundary of the volume of wetted soil (Plate 4.4b).
Special care must be exercised to avoid the negative effects of salts to plants,
especially during light rains that can push the salts from the center of drip lines
towards plants and into the root-zone. Therefore, irrigation should be continued on
schedule unless the rain is heavy (50 mm or more), which is very rare in arid and
semi-arid regions especially in hot desert environments such as GCC countries.
However, when such heavy rains do occur, they are usually sufficient to leach salts to
deeper layers, leaving the root-zone salt free.
98 4 Irrigation Systems and Zones of Salinity Development

Fig. 4.2 A typical pattern

of salt accumulation
occurring from surface drip
irrigation

In summary, irrigating daily is usually sufficient to continuously move the

moisture down, into deeper soil zones, thereby keeping the salt levels under control.

3.1 Salinity Management When Using Drip Irrigation

In an attempt to reduce salinity effect in the root-zone, an experiment was conducted

at ICBA experimental station to check the performance of drip irrigation (without a
crop) at different dripper (drip emitter) spacings (25, 50 and 75 cm) using a saline
water of 30 deci Siemens per meter (dS m
1).
Soil samples collected from the centers of the emitters, were analyzed for
electrical conductivity of soil extract from saturated paste (ECe). The ECe was
recorded as 26 dS m
1 (25 cm spacing), 90 dS m
1 (50 cm spacing) and 102 dS m

1
(75 cm spacing). The effects of emitters’ spacing on soil salinity contours (top
view) can be seen at a glance (Fig. 4.3). The larger the white areas became, the
higher the soil salinity.
3 Drip Irrigation 99

25 cm 50 cm 75 cm
50 100

140
45 90

40 80 120
Drip
35 70 Emitter
100
Distance (cm)
Distance (cm)

30 60

Distance (cm)
80
25 50

20 40
Salts Accumulation
60

15 30
40 Drip
Emitter
10 20

20
5 10

0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 10 20 0 10 20
Distance (cm) Distance (cm) Distance (cm)

Fig. 4.3 Soil salinity under drip irrigation with emitter spacing at 25, 50 and 75 cm. Intensity of
whiteness indicates higher salinity (Shahid and Hasbini 2007)

3.2 Subsurface Drip Irrigation

Subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) system, when compared with other irrigation
systems, reduces water losses due to evaporation and deep percolation, while
completely eliminating surface runoff (Phene 1990). The subsurface drip irrigation
also increases marketable crop yield and quality (Ayers et al. 1999), while resulting
in high nutrient use efficiency as well (Thompson et al. 2002).
The major limitation of SDI is the fact that salts continuously buildup at the soil
surface through an upward capillary movement (Fig. 4.4) from the buried irrigation
lines during growing season (Oron et al. 1999). This occurs because there is no
above-soil water source, i.e. there is no way for irrigation water to leach the salts.
The concept of leaching requirement (LR) does not function under subsurface drip
irrigation specially to leach the salts from surface above the buried drip lines.
However, salt accumulation in this zone above the buried irrigation line can be
managed by supplementing subsurface drip irrigation with sprinkler irrigation
(Thompson 2010). This approach may be costly, but is a necessary compromise.
Salt accumulation occurs more rapidly when saline/brackish water is used, and also
when the soils are fine textured. Only a heavy rainfall and/or occasional switch over
from subsurface drip irrigation to sprinkler irrigation can leach salts from this zone.
The alternative will be an accumulation of salts to toxic levels.
100 4 Irrigation Systems and Zones of Salinity Development

Fig. 4.4 Relative salt

accumulation in the soil
from subsurface drip
irrigation showing high
surface salinity in the zone
above the irrigation line
(Shahid 2013)

4 Furrow Irrigation

Furrow irrigation is most commonly practiced where soils are fine textured. In water
scarce regions, and where the soils are sandy (such as GCC countries), furrow
irrigation is not recommended. For farmers who do select furrow irrigation, there
are various bed shape options to reduce salinity effects on plants (Bernstein et al.
1955; Bernstein and Fireman 1957; Bernstein and Francois 1973; Chhabra 1996) as
described in the following sections.
In furrow irrigation, soil salinity varies widely from the base of the furrows to the
tops of the ridges. Plate 4.5 shows salt accumulation in ridges of soil between the
furrows. This pattern guides the best seed (or seedling) placement to minimize
salinity effects, thereby achieving a higher crop yield. Re-plowing the furrow field
for each new crop will redistribute the accumulated salinity, thereby allowing a
continued cultivation in the area.
If a flatbed is chosen and both (two) furrows are irrigated, the zone of maximum
salt accumulation will be in the center of the bed (Plate 4.5, Figs. 4.5, 4.6). In this
case, it is safe to place the seeds or transplant seedlings away from the salt
accumulation zone (Plate 4.5b). If, however, the farmer has chosen to place the
seeds or transplant seedlings in a zone of maximum salt accumulation, it is highly
4 Furrow Irrigation 101

Plate 4.5 Pattern of salt accumulation (a), and safe zone for seed placement or transplanting (b) in
a furrow irrigation system

Fig. 4.5 Salt accumulation

when both furrows are
irrigated; any plants
growing in the very high salt
accumulation zone will be
affected

likely that either the seeds will not germinate or the seedlings will die over time
(Fig. 4.7).
If alternate furrows are irrigated, the maximum zone of salt accumulation will be
on the sides of the un-irrigated furrow (Fig. 4.8). In this situation, it is safe to place
the seed or transplant seedlings away from the salt accumulation zone.
102 4 Irrigation Systems and Zones of Salinity Development

Fig. 4.6 Furrow irrigation system (flatbed); both furrows are irrigated

Fig. 4.7 Planting in the salt accumulation zone will result in a dead plant

Fig. 4.8 Salt accumulation and the safe zone for seeding when only the alternate furrow is irrigated

If a sloping bed is chosen, and depending upon the bed shape, the maximum salt
accumulation will be either on the sides (Fig. 4.9) or in the center of the bed
(Fig. 4.10). Avoid this zone of high salt accumulation, and place the seed or
transplant the seedlings in the safe zone.
5 Surge Irrigation 103

Fig. 4.9 Salt accumulation on sloping beds and the safe zone for seeding

Fig. 4.10 Salt accumulation on sloping beds. Note the safe zone for seeding when both furrows are
irrigated

5 Surge Irrigation

Surge irrigation is a method of reducing the amount of runoff and allowing for a
more uniform infiltration of irrigation water (Yonts and Eisenhauer 2008). It has
long been recognized that water moves to the end of an irrigated field more quickly
when applied intermittently than when applied continuously. In the latter case, and
especially for coarse textured soils, it is practically impossible for continuously
applied irrigation water to reach to the other end of the field; most of the water
infiltrates into the soil at the water entrance end of the field.
How Surge Irrigation Works? When water first contacts the soil in the furrow, the
infiltration rate is high; as the water flow continues, the infiltration rate is reduced to a
near-constant rate. If water is shut off and allowed to infiltrate, a surface seal
develops and when water is reintroduced, the infiltration rate into the previously
wetted soil is reduced due to this partial sealing action. The end result is more water
movement down the furrow and less infiltration into the soil. However, where soils
are predominantly sandy, the surge irrigation method may not be a good option. In
the GCC countries, surge irrigation has not gained recognition due to irrigation water
scarcity, sandy soils and very hot climatic conditions.
104 4 Irrigation Systems and Zones of Salinity Development

6 Salinity and Sodicity Management in the Root-Zone

There is no single or universal technique to manage root-zone salinity. However,

scientific diagnostics approach (Plate 4.6) based on a combination of engineering,
chemical, physical, hydrological, biological and agronomic techniques can often
yield a good solution. Once the problem area is properly diagnosed, a suitable
selection of ‘best management practices’ can be implemented. A summary of such
an approach is given below.

6.1 Physical Methods

Laser Guided Land Leveling – an improvement in leveling (preferably laser

guided leveling) allows for a more uniform distribution of water.
Subsoiling – is ‘deep ripping’ to improve soil properties at deeper layers where a
dense soil layer (or hard pan) exists, thereby limiting the penetration of roots and
water infiltration.
Salts Scraping – salts at the soil surface can be scraped and removed to avoid
further effects on plants after rain.

Plate 4.6 Soil sampling for root-zone soil salinity diagnostics

6 Salinity and Sodicity Management in the Root-Zone 105

Sanding – sand can be added to a very fine textured (clayey) soil to improve soil
texture, however, this practice can be very expensive and is impractical on a large
scale basis.

6.2 Chemical Methods

Use of Amendments – It should be noted that salinity cannot be managed by

chemical methods, but sodicity can be, and its management may have indirect effects
on soil salinity. The most commonly used amendment to rectify soil sodicity is
‘gypsum (CaSO4.2H2O)’, and the amount of gypsum to be applied will be based on
the ‘gypsum requirement’ determined by standard laboratory methods. If, however,
the soil contains sufficient quantities of CaCO3 equivalents, then other amendments
such as Sulfur (S), sulfuric acid (H2SO4) or pyrite (FeS2), etc. can be used, again
based on the ‘gypsum requirement’. These amendments mobilize calcium from
calcium carbonates equivalents and, thus, behave like gypsum to reclaim soil
sodicity.

6.3 Hydrological Methods

Drainage System – a drainage system (surface and subsurface) can lower the soil
water-table to a safer level in order to avoid detrimental effects of excess water in the
normal plant root-zone. At the farm level, drainage is a ‘moisture control system’
that is required to maintain moisture and regulate salt balance in the root-zone.
Irrigation System – an irrigation system, when adopted, should permit frequent,
uniform and efficient water application with as minimum a percolation loss as
possible, but without curtailing essential leaching requirement. In addition, a good
irrigation system should also avoid using saline water at the seed germination stage
(a very sensitive stage). Where appropriate, and good quality water is also available,
farmers should practice the use of re-cycled water for irrigation.
Leaching Requirement – where necessary, farmer should use water additional to
the volume required for crop ET (evapotranspiration). This will allow salts to be
leached down, below the root-zone.
The uses of saline/brackish water usually raise root-zone soil salinity. This salt
accumulation can be controlled by applying water additional to the ET water
requirement of the crop. This extra water will usually push the salts below the
root-zone. The amounts of water required for leaching (leaching requirement –
LR) can be calculated by standard procedures (Ayers and Westcot 1985).
106 4 Irrigation Systems and Zones of Salinity Development

ECw
LR ¼
ð5ECe
ECw Þ

Where,
LR ¼ leaching requirement ratio
ECw ¼ EC of the irrigation water (dS m
1)
ECe ¼ estimated EC of the average saturation extract of the soil root-zone profile for
an appropriate yield (10%) reduction (dS m
1) as presented by Ayers and
Westcott (1985)
Example
Calculate leaching requirement for a sprinkler irrigation (SI) system for an alfalfa
crop when irrigation water salinity is 5 dS m
1.
The ECe that would give a 10% crop yield reduction is 3.4 dS m
1, assuming
threshold salinity level of alfalfa is 2 dS/m (ECe).
Using the above equation,
5
LR ¼ ¼ 0:41
½ð5 x 3:4Þ
5

6.4 Agronomic Methods

Proper Seeding – use planting procedures that minimize the effects of salts on the
seeds at germination and early plant growth stages (see earlier section on irrigation
systems and salinity zones).

6.5 Biological Methods

Where it is not possible to practice conventional agriculture due to unavailability of

good quality water, harsh environmental conditions and exceptionally saline lands,
as a compromise the use of salt tolerant crops (Biosaline Agriculture) can be
adopted. Table 4.2 provides guidelines for selection of crops tolerant to salinity.

7 Relative Crop Salinity Tolerance Rating

Relative crop salinity tolerance rating based on Fig. 4.11 is divided into five
categories. Each group represents the crops with similar tolerance. Based on the
data in Table 4.2, minimum and maximum ECe boundaries can be assigned to each
8 Soil Salinity and Relative Yield Reduction of Crops 107

Table 4.2 Relative crop salinity tolerance rating

Soil salinity (ECe, dS m
1) at which yield
Relative crop salinity tolerance rating loss begins
Sensitive (S) < 1.3
Moderately sensitive (MS) 1.3–3.0
Moderately tolerant (MT) 3.0–6.0
Tolerant (T) 6.0–10.0
Unsuitable for most crops (unless reduced yield is > 10.0
acceptable)

0 5 10 15 20 ECw

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 ECe
100
ECe = Electrical Conductivity
of the Saturation
Extract (dS/m)
80
ECw = Electrical Conductivity
Relative Crop Yield, %

of the Irrigation
Water (dS/m)
60 ECe = 1.5 ECW

40
UNSUITABLE
FOR CROPS

20
SENSITIVE MODERATELY MODERATELY TOLERANT
SENSITIVE TOLERANT

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 ECe

0 5 10 15 20 ECw
dS/m

Fig. 4.11 Divisions for relative salt tolerance ratings of agricultural crops (Maas 1987). (Source:
Ayers and Westcot 1985)

category. It should be noted that this broader division is for general guidelines and
not meant to be a strict rule (Maas 1987).

8 Soil Salinity and Relative Yield Reduction of Crops

Crops can tolerate salinity up to certain levels without a measurable loss in yield (this
is called the threshold level). As a general rule, the more salt tolerant is the crop, the
higher is the threshold level. At salinity levels greater than the threshold, crop yield is
108 4 Irrigation Systems and Zones of Salinity Development

reduced in a linear fashion as salinity increases. Using the salinity values from a
salinity/yield model developed by Maas and Hoffman (1977), predictions of
expected yield loss can be made (Table 4.3), as expressed in the following
relationship.
Yr ¼ 100
s ðECe
tÞ

Where,
Yr ¼ percentage yield of the crop grown in saline conditions, relative to that yield
obtained under non-saline conditions
t ¼ threshold salinity level where the yield decrease begins
s ¼ percent yield loss per increase of 1 ECe (dS m
1) in excess of t
Salinity mapping at the farm level and the use of Table 4.3 may be used as a guide
to predict yield losses.
General groupings for salt tolerance are shown in the schematic diagram in
Fig. 4.11. The relative tolerance ratings, even if based on a limited amount of data,
can be useful for comparisons among crops.

Table 4.3 Salt tolerance of important crops (Ayers and Westcot 1985)
Crop Slope Minimumb
common Botanical Threshold (t) (s) % per ECe, Maximumc
name name ECe, dSm
1 dSm
1 Rating a
dSm
1 ECe, dSm
1
Field crops
Barley Hordeum 8.0 5.0 T 8.0 28.0
(forage) vulgare
Sugar beet Beta vulgaris 7.0 5.9 T 7.0 24.0
Sorghum Sorghum 6.8 16.0 MT 6.8 13
bicolor
Triticale X 6.1 2.5 T 6.1 46.0
Triticosecale
Wheat Triticum 6.0 7.1 MT 6.0 20.0
aestivum
Wheat, Triticum 5.9 3.8 T 5.7 20.0
durum turgidum
Alfalfa Medicago 2.0 7.3 MS 2.0 16.0
sativa
Corn Zea mays 1.7 12.0 MS 1.7 10.0
(maize)
Cow peas Vigna 4.9 12.0 MT 4.9 13.0
unguiculata
(continued)
8 Soil Salinity and Relative Yield Reduction of Crops 109

Table 4.3 (continued)

Crop Slope Minimumb
common Botanical Threshold (t) (s) % per ECe, Maximumc
name name ECe, dSm
1 dSm
1 Ratinga dSm
1 ECe, dSm
1
Vegetables
Broccoli Brassica 2.8 9.2 MS 2.8 14.0
oleracea
botrytis
Tomato Lycopersicon 2.5 9.9 MS 2.5 13.0
esculentum
Cucumber Cucumis 2.5 13.0 MS 2.5 10.0
sativus
Spinach Spinacia 2.0 7.6 MS 2.0 15.0
oleracea
Celery Apium 1.8 6.2 MS 1.8 18.0
graveolens
Cabbage Brassica 1.8 9.7 MS 1.8 12.0
oleracea
capitata
Potato Solanum 1.7 12.0 MS 1.7 10.0
tuberosum
Pepper Capsicum 1.5 14.0 MS 1.5 8.5
annuum
Lettuce Lactuca 1.3 13.0 MS 1.3 9.0
sativa
Radish Raphanus 1.2 13 MS 1.2 8.9
sativus
Onion Allium cepa 1.2 16.0 S 1.2 7.4
Carrot Daucus 1.0 14.0 S 1.0 8.1
carota
Beans Phaseolus 1.0 19.0 S 1.0 6.3
vulgaris
Turnip Brassica rapa 0.9 9.0 MS 0.9 12.0
Fruits
Date palm Phoenix 4.0 3.6 T 4.0 32.0
dactylifera
Orange Citrus 1.7 16.0 S 1.7 8.0
sinensis
Peach Prunus 1.7 21.0 S 1.7 6.5
persica
Apricot Prunus 1.6 24.0 S 1.6 5.8
armeniaca
Grape Vitus sp. 1.5 9.6 MS 1.5 12.0
(continued)
110 4 Irrigation Systems and Zones of Salinity Development

Table 4.3 (continued)

Crop Slope Minimumb
common Botanical Threshold (t) (s) % per ECe, Maximumc
name name ECe, dSm
1 dSm
1 Ratinga dSm
1 ECe, dSm
1
Almond Prunus dulcis 1.5 19.0 S 1.5 6.8
Plum, Prunus 1.5 18.0 S 1.5 7.1
prune domestica
Blackberry Rubus sp. 1.5 22.0 S 1.5 6.0
Strawberry Fragaria sp. 1.0 33.0 S 1.0 4.0
Adapted from Ayers and Westcot (1985); Maas (1990); Maas and Hoffman (1977)
S sensitive, MS moderately sensitive, T tolerant, MT moderately tolerant
a
Relative crop salinity tolerance rating (see Table 4.2)
b
Minimum ECe does not reduce yield (threshold)
c
Maximum ECe reduces yield to zero

References

Ayers RS, Westcot DW (1985) Water quality for agriculture. FAO irrigation and drainage paper
29 rev 1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 174 pp
Ayers JE, Phene CJ, Humacher RB, Davis KR, Schoneman RA, Vail SS, Mead RM (1999)
Subsurface drip irrigation of row crops: a review of 15 years of research at the water manage-
ment research laboratory. Agric Water Manag 42:1–27
Bernstein L, Fireman M (1957) Laboratory studies on salt distribution in furrow-irrigated soil with
special reference to the pre-emergence period. Soil Sci 83:249–263
Bernstein L, Francois LE (1973) Comparison of drip, furrow and sprinkler irrigation. Soil Sci
115:73–86
Bernstein L, Fireman M, Reeve RC (1955) Control of salinity in the Imperial Valley. California.
USDA, ARS-41-4, 16 pp
Chhabra R (1996) Irrigation and salinity control. In: Chhabra R (ed) Soil salinity and water quality.
Oxford and IBH Publishing Co Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, pp 205–237
Maas EV (1986) Salt tolerance of plants. Appl Agric Res 1:12–26
Maas EV (1987) Salt tolerance of plants. In: Christie BR (ed) Handbook of plant science in
agriculture. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 57–75
Maas EV (1990) Crop salt tolerance. In: Agricultural salinity assessment and management. Amer-
ican Society of Civil Engineers, New York
Maas EV, Hoffman GJ (1977) Crop salt tolerance – current assessment. J Irrig Drain Div, ASCE
103(IR2):115–134
Minhas PS, Gupta RK (1992) Quality of irrigation water: assessment and management. Indian
Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, 123 pp
Oron G, Demalach Y, Gillerman L, David I, Rao VP (1999) Improved saline-water use under
subsurface drip irrigation. Agric Water Manag 39(1):19–33
Phene CJ (1990) Drip irrigation saves water. Proceedings of the National Conference and exposi-
tion. Offering water supply solution for the 1990’s. Phoenix, USA, pp 645–650
Shahid SA (2013) Irrigation-induced soil salinity under different irrigation systems – assessment
and management, short technical note. Clim Chang Outlook Adapt: Int J 1(1):19–24
Shahid SA, Hasbini B (2007) Optimization of modern irrigation for biosaline agriculture. Arab Gulf
J Sci Res 25(1/2):59–66
Thompson TL (2010) Salinity management with subsurface drip irrigation. Proceedings of the
international conference on soils and groundwater salinization in arid countries. 11–14 January
2010, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman, vol 1, pp 9–13
References 111

Thompson TL, Doerge TA, Godin RE (2002) Subsurface drip irrigation and fertigation of broccoli:
II. Agronomic, economic and environmental outcomes. Soil Sci Soc Am J 66:178–185
Yonts CD, Eisenhauer DE (2008) Fundamentals of surge irrigation. NebGuide University of
Nebraska Lincoln – Extension Institute of Agricultural and Natural Resources Index: Irrigation
Operations and Management July 2008. http://extensionpublications.unl.edu/assets/html/
g1870/build/g1870.htm

The opinions expressed in this chapter are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the IAEA, its Board of Directors, or the countries they represent.
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
IGO license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/), which permits use, sharing, adap-
tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit
to the IAEA, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The use of the IAEA’s name for any purpose other than for attribution, and the use of the IAEA’s
logo, shall be subject to a separate written license agreement between the IAEA and the user and is
not authorized as part of this CC-IGO license. Note that the link provided above includes additional
terms and conditions of the license.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.

IGO
Chapter 5
Irrigation Water Quality

Mohammad Zaman, Shabbir A. Shahid, and Lee Heng

Abstract The quality of irrigation waters differs in various regions, countries and
locations based on how the groundwater has been extracted and used, the rainfall
intensity and subsequent aquifer recharge. The use of groundwater for agriculture in
hot arid countries where rainfall is scarce leads to increase groundwater salinity and
limits the selection of crops for cultivation. It is therefore important to determine the
irrigation water quality. The concentration and composition of soluble salts in water
determines its quality for irrigation. Four basic criteria for evaluating water quality
for irrigation purposes are described, including water salinity (EC), sodium hazard
(sodium adsorption ratio-SAR), residual sodium carbonates (RSC) and ion toxicity.
Toxicities of boron and chlorides to plants are described. More specifically the
relative tolerance levels of plants to boron is tabulated for easy understanding. The
most important part of this chapter is the modification of water quality diagram of US
Salinity Laboratory Staff published in the year 1954, this diagram does not present
EC over 2250 μS cm-1, however, most of the irrigation waters present salinity levels
higher than 2250 μS cm
1. Therefore, to accommodate higher water salinity levels
the water classification diagram is extended to water salinity of 30,000 μS cm
1
allowing the users of the diagram to place EC values above 2250 μS cm
1. The
salinity and sodicity classes are included in this chapter to provide information for
crop selection and develop salinity and sodicity management options. The proce-
dures for water salinity reduction through blending of different waters and manage-
ment of water sodicity using gypsum are described by giving examples.

Keywords Irrigation · Quality · Salinity · Sodicity · Boron · Chlorides · Toxicities ·

Blending · Gypsum requirement

1 Introduction

Water scarcity is seen as a major constraint to intensify agriculture in a sustainable

manner as an attempt to meet the food requirements of a rapidly growing human
population. The ever increasing human population, climate change due to increased
emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), and intensification of agriculture, are putting

© International Atomic Energy Agency 2018 113

M. Zaman et al., Guideline for Salinity Assessment, Mitigation and Adaptation Using
Nuclear and Related Techniques, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96190-3_5
114 5 Irrigation Water Quality

severe pressure on the world’s two major non-renewable resources of soil and water,
and thus pose a big challenge to produce sufficient food to meet the current food
demand. The present world population of 7.3 billion people is predicted to grow to
over 9 billion by 2050, with the majority of this population increase occurring in
developing countries, most of which already face food shortages. A 70% increase in
current agricultural productivity will be required to produce sufficient food if these
human population growth predictions prove to be correct. In this context, concerted
efforts are being made globally to improve the effectiveness of water which will be
used for enhancing the production of irrigated crops. Additionally, efforts are also
being made to improve water harvesting and water conservation in rain-fed
agriculture.
The injudicious use of saline/brackish water is all too often associated with the
development of soil salinity, sodicity, ion toxicity, and groundwater pollution.
Because of these negative effects, it is important to have a better understanding of
exactly how the quality of water influences the management of irrigated agriculture,
especially in arid and semi-arid regions.
Salinity, sodicity and ion toxicity are major problems in irrigation waters. In arid
areas, where rainfall does not adequately leach salts from the soil, an accumulation
of salts will occur in the crop’s root-zone. Thus, periodic testing of soils and waters is
required to monitor any change in salt content. Sodicity, the presence of excess
sodium, will result in a deterioration of the soil structure, thereby reducing water
penetration into and through the soil. Toxicity refers to the critical concentration of
some salts such as chloride, boron, sodium and some trace elements, above which
plant growth is adversely affected by those salts.
This chapter addresses several aspects of irrigation water quality and criteria to
determine water quality. It will also cover management issues and soil responses to
the use of irrigation water of varying quality. The information presented in this
chapter is an updated and improved version of an excerpt from an earlier irrigation
water quality manual (Shahid 2004).

2 Quality of Irrigation Water

The concentration and composition of soluble salts in water will determine its quality
for various purposes (human and livestock drinking, irrigation of crops, etc.). The
quality of water is, thus, an important component with regard to sustainable use of
water for irrigated agriculture, especially when salinity development is expected to
be a problem in an irrigated agricultural area.
There are four basic criteria for evaluating water quality for irrigation purposes:
• Total content of soluble salts (salinity hazard)
• Relative proportion of sodium (Na+) to calcium (Ca2+) and magnesium (Mg2+)
ions – sodium adsorption ratio (sodium hazard)
2 Quality of Irrigation Water 115

• Residual sodium carbonates (RSC) – bicarbonate (HCO3
) and carbonate (CO3

2

) anions concentration, as it relates to Ca 2+ plus Mg2+ ions.
• Excessive concentrations of elements that cause an ionic imbalance in plants or
plant toxicity.
In order to achieve the first three important criteria, the following characteristics
need to be determined in the irrigation waters: electrical conductivity (EC), soluble
anions (CO32
, HCO3
, Cl
and SO42
) where Cl
and SO42
are optional and
soluble cations (Na+, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+) where K is optional. Finally, boron level must
also be measured. The pH of the irrigation water is not an acceptable criterion of
water quality because the water pH tends to be buffered by the soil, and most crops
can tolerate a wide pH range. A detailed description of the techniques commonly
employed for the analysis of irrigation water is available (USSL Staff 1954; Bresler
et al. 1982).

2.1 Salinity Hazard

Excess salt increases the osmotic pressure of the soil solution, a situation that can
result in a physiological drought condition. Thus, even though the soil in the field
appears to have plenty of moisture, the plants will wilt. This occurs because the plant
roots are unable to take up soil-water due to its high osmotic potential. Thus, water
lost from the plant shoot via transpiration cannot be replenished, and wilting occurs.
The total soluble salts (TSS) content of irrigation water is measured either by
determining its electrical conductivity (EC), reported as micro Siemens per centi-
meter (μS cm
1), or by determining the actual salt content in parts per million (ppm).
Table 5.1 prescribes the guidelines for water use relative to its salt content.

Table 5.1 Salinity hazard of irrigation water (Follett and Soltanpour 2002; Bauder et al. 2011)
Dissolved salt content
Hazard ppm EC (μS cm
1)
None – Water for which no detrimental effects will usually be 500 750
noticed.
Some – Water that may have detrimental effects on sensitive 500–1000 750–1500
crops.
Moderate – Water that may have adverse effects on many crops, 1000–2000 1500–3000
thus requiring careful management practices.
Severe – Water that can be used for salt tolerant plants on 2000–5000 3000–7500
permeable soils with careful management practices.
116 5 Irrigation Water Quality

2.1.1 Modified USSL Staff (1954) Water Salinity Classification

The USSL Staff (1954) water classification diagram does not present an EC over
2250 μS cm
1. However, most of the water used for irrigation purposes possesses
salinity levels which are higher than 2250 μS cm
1. Therefore, in order to accom-
modate higher water salinity levels, Shahid and Mahmoudi (2014) have modified the
USSL Staff (1954) water classification diagram by extending water salinity up to
30,000 μS cm
1 (Fig. 5.1).

100 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1000 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10000 2 30000

High
Very

30
4

28 C1-S4

C2-S4
26
High
3

24
C3-S4
22
C1-S3 C4-S4
20
-1 0.5
Sodium Adsorption Ratio (millimoles L )
Sodium Hazard

18
C2-S3
Medium

16
2

14
C3-S3
C1-S2
12

10 C2-S2

8 C3-S2
C4-S3
Low

6
1

C1-S1
4
C2-S1 C4-S2

2 C3-S1
C4-S1
0
100 250 750 2250 10000 30000
Cl
as Electrical Conductivity - micro Siemens per cm
s
1 2 3 4
Low Medium High Very High

Salinity Hazard

Fig. 5.1 Diagram for the classification of irrigation waters (USSL Staff 1954; modified by Shahid
and Mahmoudi 2014)
2 Quality of Irrigation Water 117

2.2 Sodium Hazard

The sodium hazard of irrigation water is expressed as the ‘sodium adsorption ratio
(SAR)’. Although sodium contributes directly to the total salinity and may also be
toxic to sensitive crops, such as fruit trees, the main problem with a high sodium
concentration is its effect on the physical properties of soil (soil structure degrada-
tion). It is, thus, recommended to avoid using water with an SAR value greater than
10 (mmoles l
1)0.5, if the water will be the only source of irrigation for long periods.
This recommendation holds even if the total salt content is relatively low. For
example, if the soil contains an appreciable amount of gypsum, SAR value of
10 (mmoles l
1)0.5 can be exceeded. The gypsum content of the soil should, thus,
be determined.
Continued use of water with a high SAR value leads to a breakdown in the
physical structure of the soil – a situation caused by excessive amounts of adsorbed
sodium on soil colloids. This breakdown in the soil physical structure, results in the
dispersion of soil clay and that causes the soil to become hard and compact when
dry, and increasingly impervious to water penetration (due to dispersion and swell-
ing) when wet. Fine textured soils, those high in clay, are especially subject to this
action. When the concentration of sodium becomes excessive (in proportion to
calcium plus magnesium), the soil is said to be sodic. If calcium and magnesium
are the predominant cations adsorbed onto the soil exchange complex, the soil can be
easily tilled and will have a readily permeable granular structure.
The permissible value of the SAR is a function of salinity. High salinity levels
reduce swelling and aggregate breakdown (dispersion), thus promoting water pen-
etration. A high proportion of sodium, however, produces the opposite effect.
Regardless of the sodium content, water with an electrical conductivity (EC) less
than about 200 μS cm
1 causes degradation of the soil structure, promotes soil
crusting and reduces water penetration. Rainfall is the prime example of low salinity
water and rain water will reduce the penetration of water applied subsequently into
soils. It is, thus, important that both the salinity and the sodium adsorption ratio of
the applied water be considered when assessing the potential effects of water quality
on water penetration into soils.

2.3 Carbonates and Bicarbonates Concentration

Waters high in carbonates (CO32
) and bicarbonates (HCO3
) will tend to precip-
itate calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and magnesium carbonate (MgCO3), when the soil
solution becomes concentrated through evapotranspiration. This means that the SAR
118 5 Irrigation Water Quality

value will increase, and the relative proportion of sodium ions will become greater.
This situation, in turn, will increase the sodium hazard of the soil-water to a level
greater than indicated by the SAR value.

2.4 Specific Ion Effects (Toxic Elements)

In addition to salinity and sodium hazards, certain crops may be sensitive to the
presence of moderate to high concentrations of specific ions in the irrigation waters
or soil solution. Many trace elements are toxic to plants at very low concentrations.
Both soil and water testing can help to discover any constituents that might be toxic.
Direct toxicity to crops may result from some specific chemical elements in irriga-
tion water, e.g. boron, chloride, and sodium are potentially toxic to plants. The actual
concentration of an element in water that will cause toxic symptoms varies,
depending on the crop.
When an element is added to the soil through irrigation, it may be inactivated by
chemical reactions. Alternatively, it may buildup in the soil until it reaches a toxic
level. An element at a given concentration in water may be immediately toxic to a
crop. Or, it may require a number of years to accumulate in the soil before it
becoming toxic.

2.4.1 Sodium Toxicity

Sodium toxicity can occur in the form of leaf burn, leaf scorch and dead tissues
running along the outside edges of leaves. In contrast, Cl
toxicity is often seen at
the extreme leaf tip. In tree crops, a sodium concentration (in excess of 0.25–0.5%)
in the leaf tissue is often considered to be a toxic level of sodium. Correct diagnoses
can be made from soil, water and plant tissue analysis.
Three levels of exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) (FAO-UNESCO 1973;
Pearson 1960; Abrol 1982), which correspond to three tolerance levels, are defined
as: sensitive (ESP < 15), semi-tolerant (ESP 15–40) and tolerant (ESP > 40). The
crops/plants listed as sensitive include, among others, beans, maize, peas, orange,
peach, mung bean, mash, lentil, gram and cowpea. Semi-tolerant plants include
carrot, clover, lettuce, berseem, oat, onion, radish, rye, sorghum, spinach, tomato,
and tolerant plants include alfalfa, barley, beet, Rhoades grass and Karnal (Kallar)
grass.

2.4.2 Boron Toxicity

Boron is essential to the normal growth of all plants, but the amount required is low.
If it exceeds a certain level of tolerance depending on the crop, then boron may cause
injury. The range between deficiency and toxicity of boron for many crops is narrow.
2 Quality of Irrigation Water 119

Table 5.2 Effects of boron Boron concentration

(B) concentration in irrigation (ppm) Effect on crops
water on crops (Follett and
< 0.5 Satisfactory for all crops
Soltanpour 2002; Bauder et al.
2011) 0.5–1.0 Satisfactory for most crops
1.0–2.0 Satisfactory for semi-tolerant
crops
2.0–4.0 Satisfactory for tolerant crops only

In order to sustain an adequate supply of boron to the plant at least 0.02 ppm of boron
in the irrigation water may be required. However, to avoid toxicity, boron levels in
irrigation water should, ideally, be lower than 0.3 ppm. Higher concentrations of
boron will likely require that the intended crop type must first be evaluated with
respect to its boron tolerance. Although boron toxicity is not a problem in most areas,
it can be an important irrigation water quality parameter. Interestingly, plants grown
in soils high in lime may tolerate higher levels of boron than those grown in
non-calcareous soils.
Boron is weakly adsorbed by soils. Thus, its actual root-zone concentration may
not vary in direct proportion to the degree that boron sourced from the irrigation
water has been concentrated in the plant during growth. Symptoms of boron injury
may include characteristic leaf ‘burning’, chlorosis and necrosis, although some
boron sensitive species do not develop obvious symptoms. Boron toxicity symptoms
first appear on older leaves as yellowing, spotting, or drying of leaf tissues at the tips
and edges. The drying and chlorosis often progresses toward the center of the leaf,
between the veins as boron accumulates over time (Ayers and Westcot 1985).
Irrigation water with boron >1.0 ppm may cause toxicity in boron sensitive crops.
Table 5.2 describes the effects of a range of boron concentrations in irrigation water
on crops (Bauder et al. 2011). The relative tolerance of plants to boron is shown in
Table 5.3.
Boron levels that have developed in the soil water (saturation extract of soils)
through irrigation can have a range of effects on crop yields. Wilcox (1960)
presented three classes of crops with regard to boron toxicity: tolerant (2–4 ppm),
semi-tolerant (1–2 ppm), and sensitive (0.3–1 ppm). Fruit crops are among the most
boron sensitive, and yields of citrus and some stone fruit species are decreased by
boron even at soil solution concentrations less than 0.5 ppm.

2.4.3 Chloride Toxicity

The most common crop toxicity is caused by chlorides in irrigation water. The
chloride (Cl
) anion occurs in all waters; chlorides are soluble and leach readily to
drainage water. Chlorides are necessary for plant growth, though in high
120 5 Irrigation Water Quality

Table 5.3 Relative tolerancea of plants to Boron concentration (ppm) in irrigation water
(cf. Ludwick et al. 1990; Ayers and Westcot 1985)
Less
Very Sensitive sensitive Moderately Moderately Tolerant Very
sensitive < 0.5–0.75 0.75–1.0 sensitive tolerant 4.0–6.0 tolerant >
0.5 ppm ppm ppm 1.0–2.0 ppm 2.0–4.0 ppm ppm 6.0 ppm
Lemon Avocado Garlic Pepper, red Lettuce Tomato Cotton
Blackberry Grapefruit Sweet Pea Cabbage Parsley Asparagus
potato
Orange Sunflower Carrot Celery Beet, red
Apricot Bean Radish Turnip
Peach Sesame Potato Oats
Cherry Strawberry Cucumber Corn
Plum Bean, Clover
kidney
Grape Peanut Squash
Walnut Muskmelon
Onion
Adapted from ‘Salt Tolerance of Plants’ (Maas 1987), In: CRC Handbook of Plant Science in
Agriculture
a
Maximum concentrations tolerated in soil-water or saturation extract without yield or vegetative
growth reduction. Boron tolerance varies depending upon climate, soil conditions and crop varie-
ties. Maximum concentrations in the irrigation water are approximately equal to these values or
slightly less

Table 5.4 Chloride (Cl
) levels of irrigation waters and their effects on crops (cf. Ludwick et al.
1990; Bauder et al. 2011)
Cl
concentration
meq 1
1 ppm Effect on crops
<2 < 70 Generally safe for all plants
2–4 70–140 Sensitive plants usually show slight to moderate injury
4–10 141–350 Moderately tolerant plants usually show slight to substantial injury
> 10 > 350 Can cause severe problems

concentrations they can inhibit plant growth, and can be highly toxic to some plant
species. Water must, thus, be analyzed for Cl
concentration when assessing water
quality. Table 5.4 shows Cl
levels in irrigation water and the effects of Cl
on
crops. In sensitive crops, symptoms occur when Cl
levels accumulate in leaves
(0.3–1.0% on a dry weight basis). Ayers and Westcot (1985) reported that Cl

toxicity on plants appears first at the leaf tips (which is a very common symptom for
chloride toxicity), and progresses from the leaf tip back along the edges as severity of
the toxic effect increases. Excessive necrosis is often accompanied by early leaf drop
or even total plant defoliation.
4 Analysis of Irrigation Water 121

3 Classification of Irrigation Water

Shahid and Mahmoudi (2014) have modified the widely used USSL Staff (1954)
salinity and sodium classification diagram for irrigation water (Fig. 5.1). This
modified diagram is based on the EC (expressed in micro Siemens per cm – μS cm

1
) and the sodium adsorption ratio (SAR).
How to Use the Diagram?
The SAR as shown on y-axis (Fig. 5.1) can be calculated by using the following
formula:

Naþ
SAR ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2þ 
1
2 Ca þ Mg2þ

Where, the concentrations of Na+, Ca2+ and Mg2+ are expressed as milli equiv-
alents per liter (meq l
1). The values of the electrical conductivity given on the
x-axis are expressed in micro Siemens per cm (μS cm
1). The position of the SAR
and EC points determines the quality class assigned to the water.

4 Analysis of Irrigation Water

4.1 Chemical Analyses

The ultimate in water quality data for appraisal of salinity and sodicity includes
complete analyses for all major cations and anions for both irrigation and drainage
waters. Major cations normally include Na+, K+, Ca2+ and Mg2+. Major anions
normally include CO32
, HCO3
, Cl
and also SO42
(though see discussion below
with regard to sulfate anion measurement).
When complete analyses are provided, it is possible to apply some simple tests for
data consistency. For high quality water analysis, the sum of the cations in meq l
1
should be approximately equal to the sum of anions in meq l
1. If the values are
exactly equal, however, for several water samples, this suggests that some constit-
uents have been estimated by ‘difference’. For example, recent analyses of sulfate
have commonly been determined by difference because of the general unavailability
of a rapid and convenient analytical procedure for measuring sulfate (Bresler et al.
1982). The SO42
estimation is based on the difference between total soluble cations
and the sum of CO32
, HCO3
, and Cl
. In fact, sulfate is not a water constituent
used to measure or determine either of SAR or Residual Sodium Carbonates (RSC).
Thus, sulfate measurement currently has no assigned role in water quality
assessment.
122 5 Irrigation Water Quality

The data from above measurements are, thus, used to calculate the SAR in order
to assess the sodicity hazard of the irrigation water, e.g. by use of Fig. 5.1 to obtain
the water’s sodicity (S) class. The EC, expressed in μS cm
1, will then be used to
obtain the conductivity (C) class of salinity. In addition, Residual Sodium Carbonate
(RSC) can also be measured. These measurements are briefly described below.

4.1.1 EC and Total Salt Concentration

The most important water quality parameter from the standpoint of salinity is the
total concentration of dissolved salts. It is different from ‘total dissolved solids
(TDS)’, a term which carries some ambiguity. The measurement of TDS is much
more tedious than measuring the EC – which is the preferred measure of salinity
(Bresler et al. 1982). A simple meter is used to measure the electrical conductivity
(EC) of both irrigation and drainage waters. Total salt concentration can then be
obtained by using the following relationship for water having EC values between 0.1
and 10 milli Siemens per cm (mS m
1) or dS m
1 (Bresler et al. 1982):
   
Total cations or anions meq l
1 ¼ 10  EC mS cm
1 or dS m
1

Thus, once the concentrations of total cations or anions are known, the sum of
cations or anions represents concentration of total salts contained within any
solution.

4.1.2 Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR)

The tendency of salt solution to produce excessive exchangeable sodium in a soil

must also be considered. A useful index for predicting this tendency is the Sodium
Adsorption Ratio (SAR).
An SAR less than 8 (mmoles l
1)0.5 is considered to be a ‘low sodium’ water
class, i.e. the use of the irrigation water with SAR less than 8 is rated as being safe
with regard to causing sodicity. That said, the prolonged use of class 8 SAR water for
irrigation, when water drainage and leaching is restricted, may cause soils to develop
sodicity. The detrimental effect of SAR also depends on the EC value, and in
Pakistan an SAR of 10 is considered safe level (Kinje 1993).
Adjusted SAR
The significance of SARadj is that under field conditions, and in normal conditions of
irrigation management, the exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) value in top soil
is very nearly equal to the adjusted SAR, where pHc is calculated as the pH used in
the Langelier Index of the irrigation water. Ayers and Westcot (1985) presented the
term adjusted SAR (SARadj) as:
5 Conductivity Classes 123

SARadj ¼ SARIW ½1 þ ð8:4
pHcÞ

The Langelier index is based on calculation of the pH which given water would
achieve when in equilibrium with solid-phase calcium carbonates at average CO2
values. This pH, when compared to the initial pH of the water, can be used to predict
whether CaCO3 should precipitate from or be dissolved by the waters as it passes
through calcareous soil (Balba 1995). The pHc is the theoretical pH that water could
have in equilibrium with CaCO3.

4.1.3 Residual Sodium Carbonates (RSC)

There is another approach which is empirical in nature (Eaton 1950). It has been
widely used to predict the additional sodium hazard which is associated with CaCO3
and MgCO3 precipitation, and involves a calculation of the residual sodium carbon-
ates (RSC). This approach is based on the equation:
     2þ 
RSC meq l
1 ¼ CO2


3 þ HCO3
Ca þ Mg2þ

Where, all the concentrations are in meq l
1. The ranges of RSC in meq l
1 with
respect to water suitability for irrigation are shown in Table 5.5.

5 Conductivity Classes (USSL Staff 1954)

There are four salinity classes, low, medium, high and very high, as presented in
Table 5.6.

5.1 Low Salinity Water (Salinity Class C1)

It can be used for irrigation of most crops on most soils with little likelihood that soil
salinity will develop. Some leaching will be required for salinity Class C1 water, but

Table 5.5 Residual sodium carbonates (RSC) and suitability of water for irrigation (Eaton 1950;
Wilcox et al. 1954)
RSC (meq l
1) Suitability of water for irrigation
< 1.25 Safe
1.25–2.50 Marginal
> 2.5 Unsuitable
124 5 Irrigation Water Quality

Table 5.6 Salinity classes of irrigation waters (USSL Staff 1954)

Salinity of irrigation water – EC (μS cm
1) Salinity class Salinity hazard
100–250 C1 Low
250–750 C2 Medium
750–2250 C3 High
> 2250 C4 Very high

this occurs under normal irrigation practices, except for soils with extremely low
permeability.

5.2 Medium Salinity Water (Salinity Class C2)

It can be used if a moderate amount of leaching can occur. Plants with moderate salt
tolerance can be grown in most cases without special practices for salinity control.

5.3 High Salinity Water (Salinity Class C3)

It cannot be used on soils which possess restricted drainage and, thus, poor leaching
abilities. Even with adequate drainage, special management for salinity control may
be required and plants with good salt tolerance should always be selected.

5.4 Very High Salinity Water (Salinity Class C4)

It is not suitable for irrigation under ordinary conditions, but may be used occasion-
ally under very special circumstances. Here, the soils must be permeable, drainage
must be adequate to good and irrigation water must be applied in excess in order to
provide considerable leaching. Only very salt tolerant crops should be selected.

6 Sodicity Classes (USSL Staff 1954)

The classification of irrigation waters with respect to sodium adsorption ratio (SAR)
is based primarily on the effects which exchangeable sodium accumulation has on
the physical conditions of the soil. However, it should be kept in mind that sodium
6 Sodicity Classes 125

sensitive plants may still suffer injury (as a result of sodium accumulation in plant
tissues) even when exchangeable sodium values in soil-water are too low to bring
about a deterioration of the physical condition of the soil.

6.1 Low Sodium Water (Sodicity Class S1)

It can be used for irrigation on almost all soils with little danger of the soil
developing harmful levels of exchangeable sodium. However, sodium sensitive
crops such as stone fruit trees and avocados may accumulate injurious concentra-
tions of sodium.

6.2 Medium Sodium Water (Sodicity Class S2)

It will present an appreciable sodium hazard in fine textured soils which have high
cation exchange capacity, especially under low leaching conditions, unless gypsum
is present in the soil. Sodicity class S2 water may be used in coarse textured or
organic soils with good permeability.

6.3 High Sodium Water (Sodicity Class S3)

It may produce harmful levels of exchangeable sodium in most soils. Its use will
require special soil management methods, good drainage, a high leaching ability and
high organic matter conditions. Gypsiferous soils, however, may not develop harm-
ful levels of exchangeable sodium from such waters. Management methods may
require use of chemical amendments which encourage the replacement of exchange-
able sodium. That said, use of those amendments may not be feasible with waters of
very high salinity.

6.4 Very High Sodium Water (Sodicity Class S4)

It is generally unsatisfactory for irrigation purposes except at low and perhaps

medium salinity. Specifically, where the soil water solution is rich in calcium or
the use of gypsum or other soil amendments may make the use of sodicity class S4
irrigation water feasible. Irrigation water sodicity classes and their hazards are given
in Table 5.7.
126 5 Irrigation Water Quality

Table 5.7 Sodicity classes of irrigation water (USSL Staff 1954)

SAR of irrigation water (mmoles l
1)0.5 Sodicity class Sodicity hazard
< 10 S1 Low
10–18 S2 Medium
18–26 S3 High
> 26 S4 Very high

Sometimes the irrigation water may dissolve sufficient calcium from calcareous
soils to decrease the sodium hazard appreciably, and this should be taken into
account using salinity class C1 – sodicity class S3 and salinity class C1 – sodicity
class S4 irrigation waters. For calcareous soils with high pH values, or for
non-calcareous soils, the sodium status of irrigation water in salinity class C1 –
sodicity class S3, salinity class C1 – sodicity class S4, and salinity class C2 –
sodicity class S4 may be improved by the addition of gypsum through lining of
irrigation channels with gypsum stones or the sodium hazard may be countered by
applying gypsum to the soil periodically. This is especially applicable when salinity
class C2 – sodicity class S3 and salinity class C3 – sodicity class S2 irrigation water
is used.

7 Improvement of Irrigation Water Quality

There are a number of ways to improve water quality, with regard to salinity and
sodicity hazards, prior to using for irrigation purposes. Most commonly used
practices are described below.

7.1 Blending Water

The saline/brackish water quality can be improved if an alternate source of good

quality water is available. The desired water salinity level, depending upon the crop
to be irrigated, can be derived by a standard calculation procedure.
Example
A blend is made with 50% fresh water (EC 0.25 dS m
1) with 50% brackish water
(EC 3.9 dS m
1). The resulting EC of the blended water would be:
ECðblended waterÞ ¼ ðEC of fresh water  mixing ratioÞþ
ðEC of brackish water  mixing ratioÞ ¼ ð0:25  0:50Þ þ ð3:90  0:50Þ
¼ 0:125 þ 1:95 ¼ 2:075dS m
1
8 Water Sodicity Mitigation 127

7.2 Blending Water to Achieve a Desired Salinity

The desired water salinity can be achieved (by mixing two waters of known salinity)
to irrigate a specific crop based on the threshold salinity. In this case, it is necessary
to know what ratio of the two waters will be used to achieve the desired salinity.
Example
A blend is to be made of two waters, fresh (0.25 dS m
1) with brackish (20 dS m
1).
Thus, we need to know ‘in what ratio these two waters are to be mixed’ to achieve a
desired resultant water salinity of 8 dS m
1.
Let us assume that we need to develop a final volume of 2 liters of the resultant
water with a salinity of 8 dS m
1.
A standard formula can be used : C1V1 ¼ C2V2

Where,
C1 ¼ 20 dS m
1
V1 ¼ unknown volume of the brackish water
C2 ¼ 7.75 dS m
1 or desired water salinity (8–0.25 ¼ 7.75)
V2 ¼ 2 liters or 2000 ml of desired final volume
Using the formula,

C1V1 ¼ C2V2
20  V1 ¼ 7:75  2000 ml
V1 ¼ ð7:75  2000 mlÞ=20¼775 ml

Thus, 775 ml of the brackish water will be required to raise EC of the fresh water
from 0.25 to 8 dS m
1. The resulting blending ratio will be (1:2.58, i.e. the ratio of
brackish water added to fresh water).

8 Water Sodicity Mitigation

Water sodicity can be mitigated through the judicious use of calcium-containing

amendments such as gypsum (CaSO4.2H2O). Relative to other amendments, gyp-
sum is cheap and easy to handle, and by far the most suitable amendment to bring
down irrigation water sodicity (the ratio of sodium to calcium + magnesium). The
quantity of gypsum needed for adding to irrigation water depends upon the quality of
water (RSC and SAR levels) and the quantity of water required for irrigation during
the growing season of the crop.
128 5 Irrigation Water Quality

8.1 Gypsum Requirement Using the Residual Sodium

Carbonates (RSC) Concept

Example 1
Irrigation water has an RSC 8.5 meq l
1 and it needs to be reduced to 2.5 meq l
1.
The water required for irrigation is 800 mm per hectare for the complete growing
period of the sorghum crop. How much gypsum will be required for adding to the
water that is needed to irrigate one hectare, that water having the desired RSC of
2.5 meq l
1?

• 1equivalent per liter of Na+ will require 1 equivalent per liter of Ca2+ which is
equal to 86.06 grams of gypsum per liter of solution
• Therefore, 1 meq l
1 of Na+ will require 1 meq l
1 of Ca2+ which is equal to
0.08606 grams of gypsum per liter of solution
• Thus, 6 meq l
1 of Na+ will require 6 meq l
1 of Ca2+ which is equal to 0.51636
grams of gypsum per liter of solution
• Total water required to irrigate one hectare of sorghum
crop ¼ 800 mm  10 ¼ 8000 M3 (Where, 1 mm of water in 1 hectare is equal
to 10 M3)
• 8000 M3 of water is equal to 8000  1000 ¼ 8,000,000 liters of irrigation water
across the entire growing season
• Total gypsum requirement ¼ 8,000,000  0.51636 ¼ 4.13 metric tons of 100%
pure gypsum
• If the gypsum purity is 70%, then 5.90 tons of gypsum will be required to
neutralize 6 meq l
1 of Na+ in 8 million liters of irrigation water
To amend the water RSC, it is best to place the gypsum in the water channels.
Then, the flowing irrigation water will dissolve the gypsum, reducing the Na+:(Ca2+
+ Mg2+) ratio prior to entering the agricultural field.
Example 2
A farmer is using saline water with an EC of 3 dS m
1 for irrigating a sorghum crop.
He is facing problems with irrigation water infiltrating into his field soil and has
decided to use gypsum. A laboratory analysis has shown that he needs an increase of
5 meq l
1 of calcium in the irrigation water. How much gypsum would be required
to irrigate one-hectare area with a crop water requirement for the entire growing
period as 800 mm?

• EC of water ¼ 3 dS m
1
• Cropped area ¼ 1 ha
• Gypsum purity ¼ 70%
Total water requirement ¼ 800 mm  10 ¼ 8000 M3 ¼ 8,000,000 liters.
• 1 meq l
1 of Na+ will require 1 meq l
1 of Ca2+ which is equal to 0.08606 grams
of gypsum per liter of solution.
8 Water Sodicity Mitigation 129

Table 5.8 The chemical analyses of well water

Ion concentrations (meq l
1) SAR
EC (mmoles
Water dS m
1 Na+ K+ Ca2+ Mg2+ CO3
HCO32
Cl
SO42
l
1)0.5
Well 4 25 2 7 6 0 0 20 20 9.805
water
Resultant 1 6.25 0.5 1.75 1.5 0 0 5 5 4.903
water

• 5 meq l
1 of Na+ will require 5 meq l
1 of Ca2+ which is equal to 0.4303 grams of
gypsum per liter of solution.
• Total water required to irrigate one hectare of sorghum crop ¼ 800 mm or 8000 M3
• 8000 M3 of water is equal to 8000  1000 ¼ 8,000,000 liters.
• Total gypsum requirement ¼ 8,000,000  0.4303 ¼ 3.44 metric tons of 100%
pure gypsum
• If gypsum purity is 70%, then 4.92 metric tons of gypsum will be required to
neutralize 5 meq l
1 of Na+ in 8 million liters of water.
Thus, 4.91 tons of gypsum of about 10 mesh size (2 mm) will be required for the
irrigation water application across the entire growing season.

8.2 Determining the SAR of Blended Water to Be Used

for Irrigation

Example 1
Water from a well has the composition (Table 5.8) and this well water will be diluted
in a1:3 ratio with desalinated water. What will be the resultant SAR of the blended
water? Assume that the desalinated water has negligible EC and Na+, Ca2+, Mg2+
contents.
After blending with a ratio of 1:3 (well water:desalinated water), the SAR of the
resultant blended water is reduced to half. However, it should be noted that the EC is
reduced to one-quarter of the well water. Therefore, care should be taken to
understand such conversions.
Example 2
A canal water (EC ¼ 1.0 dS m
1) source is available to irrigate a crop. However, the
volume of water is insufficient. The farmer has decided to blend well water with a
ratio of 20% well water (5 dS m
1) with 80% of canal water (1 dS m
1). What will
be the SAR of the resultant water? Following are the water analyses of canal, well
and blend waters (Table 5.9).
130 5 Irrigation Water Quality

Table 5.9 The chemical analyses of the canal, well and the resultant (blended) waters
Ion concentrations (meq l
1) SAR
EC (mmoles
Water (dS m
1) Na+ K+ Ca2+ Mg2+ CO32
HCO3
Cl
SO42
l
1)0.5
Canal 1.0 6.25 0.5 1.75 1.5 0 0 5.0 5.0 4.903
water
Well 5.0 32.0 2.5 9.0 8.0 0 0 25.0 25.0 10.98
water
Blended 1.8 11.4 0.9 3.2 2.8 0 0 9.0 9.0 6.58
water

Composition of blended water:

EC ¼ (1.0  0.8) + (5.0  0.20) ¼ 0.8 + 1.0 ¼ 1.8 dS m
1

Ca2+ ¼ (1.75  0.8) + (9.0  0.2) ¼ 1.4 + 1.8 ¼ 3.2 meq l
1
Mg2+ ¼ (1.5  0.8) + (8  0.2) ¼ 1.2 + 1.6 ¼ 2.8 meq l
1
Na+ ¼ (6.25  0.8) + (32.0  0.2) ¼ 5.0 + 6.4 ¼ 11.4 meq l
1
K+ ¼ (0.5  0.80) + (2.5  0.20) ¼ 0.4 + 0.5 ¼ 0.9 meq l
1
Cl
¼ (5.0  0.80) + (25.0  0.2) ¼ 4.0 + 5.0 ¼ 9 meq l
1
SO42
¼ (5.0  0.80) + (25.0  0.2) ¼ 4.0 + 5.0 ¼ 9 meq l
1
SAR ¼ Na+/[(Ca2+ + Mg2+)/2]0.5 ¼ 11.4/[(3.2 + 2.8)/2]0.5 ¼ 6.58 (mmoles l
1)0.5

Blending should, thus, be done with an objective. If the objective is to reduce SAR,
but with the condition that adequate canal/fresh water is not available to irrigate the
crop, then blending is desirable. If, however, a sufficient volume of canal water is
available, then simply replacing well water with the canal’s fresh water for irrigation is
a good option. Other farm conditions must also be considered, e.g. infiltration problems
due to high SAR. Addition of gypsum as described above should also be considered.

9 Cyclic Use of Water

Where fresh water is also available, but not sufficient to offset the full water require-
ment of the crop, there is always a need to find alternate source of water, which is
usually the groundwater and is often saline or saline-sodic. Under such conditions, it is
recommended to use fresh water at early stage of crop when the young seedlings are
not able to tolerate high salinity level. Once the seedlings are well established, at this
stage there are two options to use these waters: (i) to use saline water for some time and
then leach the salts with fresh water, and (ii) use saline water first and then use fresh
water (cyclic use) to irrigate the crop. This way both fresh and saline waters are used.

References

Abrol IP (1982) Technology of chemical, physical and biological amelioration of deteriorated soils.
Panel of experts meeting on amelioration and development of deteriorated soils in Egypt
2–6 May 1982, Cairo, pp 1–6
References 131

Ayers RS, Westcot DW (1985) Water quality for agriculture. FAO irrigation and drainage paper
29 rev 1. Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 174 pp
Balba AM (1995) Management of problem soils in arid ecosystems. CRC/Lewis Publishers, Boca
Raton, 250 pp
Bauder TA, Waskom RM, Sutherland PL, Davis JG (2011) Irrigation water quality criteria.
Colorado State University Extension Publication, Crop series/irrigation. Fact sheet no. 0.506,
4 pp
Bresler E, McNeal BL, Carter DL (1982) Saline and sodic soils. Principles-dynamics-modeling.
Advanced Series in Agricultural Sciences 10. Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York,
236 pp
Eaton FM (1950) Significance of carbonates in irrigation waters. Soil Sci 69:123–133
FAO/UNESCO (1973) Irrigation, drainage and salinity. An International source book. Unesco/
FAO, Hutchinson & Co (Publishers) Ltd, London, 510 pp
Follett RH, Soltanpour PN (2002) Irrigation water quality criteria. Colorado State University
Publication No. 0.506
Kinje JW (1993) Environmentally sound water management: Irrigation and the environment.
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Environmental Assessment and Management
of Irrigation and Drainage Projects for Sustained Agricultural Growth, 24–28 October 1993,
Lahore, Pakistan, pp 14–44
Ludwick AE, Campbell KB, Johnson RD, McClain LJ, Millaway RM, Purcell SL, Phillips IL, Rush
DW, Waters JA (eds) (1990) Water and plant growth. In: Western Fertilizer Handbook –
horticulture Edition, Interstate Publishers Inc, Illinois, pp 15–43
Maas EV (1987) Salt tolerance of plants. In: Christie BR (ed) Handbook of plant science in
agriculture. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 57–75
Pearson GA (1960) Tolerance of crops to exchangeable sodium. USDA Information Bulletin No
216, 4 pp
Shahid SA (2004) Irrigation water quality manual. ERWDA Soils Bulletin No 2, 29 pp
Shahid SA, Mahmoudi H (2014) National strategy to improve plant and animal production in the
United Arab Emirates. Soil and water resources Annexes
USSL Staff (1954) Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. USDA Handbook No 60.
Washington DC, USA 160 pp
Wilcox LV (1960) Boron injury to plants. USDA Bulletin No 211, 7 pp
Wilcox LV, Blair GY, Bower CA (1954) Effect of bicarbonate on suitability of water for irrigation.
Soil Sci 77:259–266

The opinions expressed in this chapter are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the IAEA, its Board of Directors, or the countries they represent.
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
IGO license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/), which permits use, sharing, adap-
tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit
to the IAEA, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The use of the IAEA’s name for any purpose other than for attribution, and the use of the IAEA’s
logo, shall be subject to a separate written license agreement between the IAEA and the user and is
not authorized as part of this CC-IGO license. Note that the link provided above includes additional
terms and conditions of the license.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.

IGO
Chapter 6
The Role of Nuclear Techniques in Biosaline
Agriculture

Mohammad Zaman, Shabbir A. Shahid, and Lee Heng

Abstract The major constraints under Saline Agriculture are the availability of
essential nutrients and water to the plant which are adversely affected by excessive
salts in the soil solution. Among the essential plant nutrients, N plays a key role in
plant growth and productivity. Nuclear and isotopic techniques (also called nuclear-
based techniques) are a complement to, not a substitute for, non-nuclear conven-
tional techniques. Nuclear-based techniques, however, do have several advantages
over conventional techniques by providing unique, precise and quantitative data on
soil nutrient and soil moisture pools and fluxes in the soil-plant-water and atmo-
sphere systems. Isotopic techniques provide useful information in assessing soil-
water-nutrient management which can be tailored to specific agroecosystems for
managing soil salinity. For example, 15N stable isotopic techniques can be used to
measure rates of the various N transformation processes in soil-plant-water and
atmosphere systems, such as N mineralization-immobilization, nitrification, biolog-
ical N2 fixation, N use efficiency, and microbial sources of production of nitrous
oxide (N2O), a greenhouse and ozone depleting gas, in soil. The use of oxygen-18,
hydrogen-2 (deuterium) and other isotopes is an integral part of agricultural water
management, allowing the identification of water sources and the tracking of water
movement and pathways within agricultural landscapes as influenced by different
irrigation technologies, cropping systems and farming practices. It also helps in the
understanding of plant water use, quantifying crop transpiration and soil evaporation
and allows us to devise strategies to improve crop production, reduce unproductive
water losses and prevent land and water degradation.

Keywords Isotopic and nuclear techniques · N-15 · Oxygen-18 · Hydrogen-2 ·

Salinity

© International Atomic Energy Agency 2018 133

M. Zaman et al., Guideline for Salinity Assessment, Mitigation and Adaptation Using
Nuclear and Related Techniques, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96190-3_6
134 6 The Role of Nuclear Techniques in Biosaline Agriculture

1 Introduction

Among the numerous abiotic and biotic stresses that affect plant productivity
worldwide, soil water stress (drought) is the most common growth limiting factor
in arid and semi-arid regions (Saranga et al. 2001), followed closely by salt stress
(Pessarakli 1991). Development of a sustainable agriculture will require the com-
bined use of soil, nutrient, and water management strategies that enhance crop
productivity, while at the same time reducing abiotic and biotic stresses. To reach
a truly sustainable agriculture, new ‘climate smart’ agricultural practices will need to
be developed and adopted by the end users. These climate smart practices include
both management strategies and specific technologies, ones which enhance crop
productivity, environmental sustainability and wise use (conservation) of agro-
ecosystems.
The Soil and Water Management & Crop Nutrition (SWMCN) subprogram of the
Joint Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA)’s Division of Nuclear Applications in Food and Agriculture, has
developed a wide range of nuclear and isotopic techniques to enhance nutrient and
water use efficiencies, increase biological N fixation through the capture of atmo-
spheric di-nitrogen (N2) and carbon (C) storage in salt affected soil.

2 Background Information on Isotopes

The number of protons plus neutrons present in the nucleus of an atom is called the
atomic weight, while the number of protons (or electrons – which is always equal) is
known as atomic number. Isotopes are defined as atoms of the same atomic number
but differing atomic weight. For example, nitrogen (N) has one isotope (15N), which
has the same number of protons (7) as 14N, but one extra neutron. This gives it (15N)
a different atomic weight (7 þ 8 ¼ 15).
Isotopes may exist in both stable and unstable (radioactive) forms, depending on
the stability of the nucleus in an atom. For example, the sulfur (S) consists of
5 isotopes (32S, 33S, 34S, 35S and 36S); one of which (35S) is a radioactive beta
emitter, while the other four (32S, 33S, 34S and 36S) are stable. Thus, a radioactive
isotope is an atom with an unstable nucleus which spontaneously emits radiation
(alpha or beta particles and/or gamma electromagnetic rays). The non-stability
occurs because the ratio of neutrons to protons in a nucleus lies outside the belt of
stability (i.e., outside a particular number due to an excess of either protons or
neutrons), which varies with each atom. In contrast, a stable isotope is an atom with a
stable nucleus (i.e., the ratio of neutrons to protons in the nucleus of an atom is
within the belt of stability), and hence, it does not spontaneously emit any radiation
(Nguyen et al. 2011). Stable isotopes exist in light and heavy forms with heavy
isotopes having a higher atomic weight than light isotopes (Table 6.1).
3 Use of Nuclear and Isotopic Techniques in Biosaline Agriculture 135

Table 6.1 Average Element Heavy isotope Light isotope

abundances of stable isotopes 13 12
Carbon C (1.108%) C (98.892%)
(% abundance in brackets) of 2 1
some of the major elements Hydrogen H (0.0156%) H (99.984%)
15 14
commonly occurring in agro- Nitrogen N (0.366%) N (99.634%)
18 16
ecosystems Oxygen O (0.204%) O (99.759%)
17
O (0.037%)
33 32
Sulfur S (0.76%) S (95.02%)
34
S (4.22%)
36
S (0.02%)

The quantity of a stable isotope is measured by an Elemental Analyser coupled to

an Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometer (IRMS). Thus, a sample of soil or biological
material is combusted into a gas, which is fed into a mass spectrometer, where the
ratio of the stable isotopes of interest (e.g., 13C/12C, 2H/1H, 15N/14N, 18O/16O,33S/32
S) is determined.
Radioactive isotopes (radioisotopes) are measured by their rate of ‘decay’,
e.g. liquid scintillation counters are used for beta particle emitting radioactive iso-
topes, gamma spectrometers for gamma ray emitting radioactive isotopes and alpha
spectrometers for alpha particle emitting radioactive isotopes. The international unit
(SI) of activity decay is the Becquerel (Bq), which is equal to one disintegration per
second (dps). The old unit commonly used was called the Curie, which is equivalent
to 3.7  1010 dps or 3.7  1010 Bq (Nguyen et al. 2011).

3 Use of Nuclear and Isotopic Techniques in Biosaline

Agriculture

Nuclear and isotopic techniques (also called nuclear-based techniques) are a com-
plement to, not a substitute for, non-nuclear conventional techniques. Nuclear-based
techniques, however, do have several advantages over conventional techniques by
providing unique, precise and quantitative data on soil nutrient and soil moisture
pools and fluxes in the soil-plant-water and atmosphere systems. Isotopic techniques
provide useful information in assessing soil-water-nutrient management which can
be tailored to specific agro-ecosystems for managing soil salinity. For example, 15N
stable isotopic techniques can be used to measure rates of the various N transforma-
tion processes in soil-plant-water and atmosphere systems, such as N mineralization-
immobilization, nitrification, biological N2 fixation, N use efficiency, and microbial
sources of production of nitrous oxide (N2O), a greenhouse and ozone depleting gas,
in soil. Several nuclear and isotopic techniques are being employed in soil water
management studies. The soil moisture neutron probe is ideal in field-scale rooting
zone measurement of soil water, providing accurate data on the availability of water
for determining crop water use and water use efficiency and for establishing optimal
136 6 The Role of Nuclear Techniques in Biosaline Agriculture

irrigation scheduling under different cropping systems especially under saline

conditions.
The use of oxygen-18, hydrogen-2 (deuterium) and other isotopes is an integral
part of agricultural water management, allowing the identification of water sources
and the tracking of water movement and pathways within agricultural landscapes as
influenced by different irrigation technologies, cropping systems and farming prac-
tices. It also helps in the understanding of plant water use, quantifying crop transpi-
ration and soil evaporation and allows us to devise strategies to improve crop
production, reduce unproductive water losses and prevent land and water
degradation.
For details on the principles and applications of the various nuclear and isotopic
techniques in soil, water and plant nutrient studies in agro-ecosystems, the readers
are referred to the IAEA Training Manuals (IAEA 1990, 2001) and the review paper
published by Nguyen et al. (2011). In below section, a stepwise protocol has been
described to set up a field study to quantify fertilizer use efficiency of the added
fertilizer.

4 The Use of Nitrogen-15 (15N) to Study Fertilizer Use

Efficiency

The major constraints under Saline Agriculture are the availability of essential
nutrients and water to the plant which are adversely affected by excessive salts in
the soil solution. Among the essential plant nutrients, N plays a key role in plant
growth and productivity. To take up N from the soil solution, plants compete with a
range of N removal processes/losses including immobilization, leaching, and gas-
eous emissions of N as ammonia (NH3), nitrous oxide (N2O), nitric oxide (NO) and
molecular nitrogen (N2) into the atmosphere. Because of these N losses, the N use
efficiency (kg of dry matter produced per kg of N applied) or useful use of N by plant
is invariably less than 50% of the applied N (Zaman et al. 2013a, b, 2014). The
extent to which N is removed from soils, or made unavailable to plants by the above
biogeochemical processes is of both economic and environmental importance.
Under saline conditions, the presence of excessive salts (especially Na+) in the
soil solution, coupled with a high soil pH, is likely to further increase the competition
between N uptake by the plant and the soil N losses, thereby reducing crop
productivity further. Quantifying N use efficiency and the sources of N losses
enables researchers to develop ‘technology packages’ which can enhance N uptake
and minimize N losses, thus allowing for sustainable crop productivity under saline
conditions.
4 The Use of Nitrogen-15 (15N) to Study Fertilizer Use Efficiency 137

Fig. 6.1 A wheat trial set up on a flat soil

4.1 Setting Up Experimental Field Plots

In order to determine the N fertilizer use efficiency (NUE) of a wheat crop with a
high degree of accuracy, a researcher shall set up a field trial on a relatively flat site
with uniform fertility and slope so as to minimize background variations of soil
nutrient levels, especially N and nutrients losses via surface runoff (Fig. 6.1).
Considering an experimental trial of N fertilizer applied at four rates: zero or
control (T1), low (T2), middle (T3), and high (T4) of kg N per ha, with four
individual replicate plots (each plot being 7 m  7 m) for each of the four rates of
N. (see schematic diagram below – Fig. 6.2).
A ‘buffer zone’ of 2 m wide on each of the four sides of the experimental site,
with a 2 m wide strip between each of the individual replicate plots is especially
important to prevent contamination of adjacent plots by N via surface runoff after
heavy irrigation or rainfall, as well as lateral movement of N within the soil. The
individual (replicate) field plots can be a range of sizes, depending on available land
area, experimental design, farm resources (machinery) and most importantly avail-
able budget. Generally, a larger size for each individual replicate plot (e.g., 7 m
long  7 m wide) is considered as the best for minimizing edge effects (nutrient
losses from the fertilized area to an un-fertilized area) on final crop yield, with each
of four replicate plots being placed within four different treatment blocks.
• Prior to treatment application, four composite soil samples (each composite soil
sample consist of ten soil cores from each experimental block) from 0–15 cm
depth, shall be collected to analyze for key soil properties including, soil pH, ECe,
Na+, Ca2+, Mg2+, K+, total N, total C, and Olsen P.
138 6 The Role of Nuclear Techniques in Biosaline Agriculture

Fig. 6.2 A schematic

diagram of experimental
layout

• First apply any soil amendments such as gypsum, and other chemical fertilizers
without N (P and K as recommended) and animal manure.
• Assuming 7 m  7 m (49 m2) replicated field plot receiving N-fertilizer in the
form of granular urea (46%N) at rate of 80 kg N ha1 in two split applications
during wheat growth period, the amount of urea is calculated below:

Rate of fertilizer application ðkg per haÞ

100  nutrient element required ðkg per haÞ
¼
%nutrient element concentration in a fertilizer:

Example:
The amount of urea for the first application (40 kg N ha1) can be calculated as.
4 The Use of Nitrogen-15 (15N) to Study Fertilizer Use Efficiency 139

Fig. 6.3 Schematic

diagram of the layout of the
two sub-plots within a main
plot, each with a 1 m buffer
zone, each destined for 15N-
labeled fertilizer application

100  40
kg of urea required per ha for the first application ¼ ¼ 86:95 kg urea
46
ð6:1Þ

As mentioned below, during the N fertilization, one sub-plot (4 m2) of 15N

labeled urea within the 49 m2 replicated plot will not receive ordinary urea. This
leaves 45 m2 area (49 minus 4) which will receive ordinary urea. Thus at 40 kg N ha
1
rate, the amount of urea for 45 m2 is calculated as:

86:95 kg urea
Amount of urea for 45 m2 ¼  45 m2 ¼ 0:39 kg ð6:2Þ
10 000 m2
Where, 10,000 m2 correspond to the land area of one hectare.
Setting up Sub-Plot for 15N Labelled Fertilizer:
• For two split applications of 15N-labelled urea, one shall set up two sub-plots,
each of 2 m  2 m (4 m2), separated within the entire 49 m2 larger replicated plot
by a 1 m buffer zone, as shown below (Fig. 6.3). This 4 m2 sub-plot will allow
researcher to select a few wheat plants for 15N analysis. The buffer zone will also
help to minimize 15N contamination from adjacent sub-plot.
[Mark each sub-plot well to avoid any mistake of fertilizer application].
• To ensure that no 15N-labeled fertilizer/residues are present from previous exper-
iments, collect four soil cores (0–10 cm soil depth) from each of the two
sub-plots, then combine them into one sample, and analyze for 15N content.
This will establish the initial 15N level in the soil.
140 6 The Role of Nuclear Techniques in Biosaline Agriculture

• Calculate the amount of 15N-labeled fertilizer (using a maximum of 5 atom %

excess) to add to each 4 m2 sub-plot using Eqs. 6.1 and 6.2. The amount of 15N-
labeled urea at 40 kg N ha1 for a 4 m2 sub-plot comes out to be 34.78 gram.
• Please note that if N fertilizer is applied in a single application, this 5 atom %
excess could be reduced to 3 atom % excess (please refer to the dilution procedure
at the end of this section).
• Separate the first sub-plot for 15N-labeled fertilizer by placing a temporary plastic
sheet or any other similar material around the perimeter of the first sub-plot. Then,
uniformly apply the required amount (0.39 kg) of ordinary urea to the entire (45 m
2
) of the larger main plot excluding the first sub-plot.
• After application of the ordinary urea, remove the plastic sheet around the first
sub-plot, carefully weigh out the exact amount of 15N-labeled fertilizer (34.78
gram) using Eq. 6.2, and apply 15N-labeled urea evenly by hand to the first
sub-plot. One shall be aware that 15N-labeled fertilizer such as urea come as a
fine particle therefore extreme care shall be taken while applying to ensure its
even application. Fine sand of the same diameter or any other inert material shall
be mixed with the 15N-labelled urea to ensure even application. One shall also
avoid 15N labelled urea under windy conditions or when a heavy rainfall is
expected. If irrigation water is available, it is important that the experimental
plots are supplied with at least 10–20 mm of irrigation soon after N fertilizer
application to move urea from surface into the soil to minimize the risk of
ammonia volatilization.
• When the time arrives for the 2nd split 15N fertilizer application, place a plastic
sheet/cover around the perimeter of only the second sub-plot of 4 m2 (this
sub-plot will have previously received only ordinary urea) to ensure that ordinary
urea is applied only to all areas of the main plot except the 2nd sub-plot during the
2nd fertilizer application. Then, uniformly apply the required amount (0.39 kg) of
ordinary urea to the entire 45 m2 of the larger main plot, but exclude the 2nd
sub-plot.
• Remove the plastic sheet, and carefully apply the required amount (34.78 gram)
of 15N-labeled fertilizer to the 2nd sub-plot as above.
• Carry out normal farm practices like spraying of herbicides and insecticides, and
apply normal irrigation volumes until the wheat crop reaches its maturity.
• At the appropriate time, harvest the wheat crop from each sub-plot. For 15N
uptake by below ground (roots) and aboveground plant parts (i.e., stems, leaves
and grain), randomly select 3–4 wheat plants from the middle row of each
sub-plot of 15N; and transfer them to plastic bags. After transporting wheat
plant samples to the lab, separate the plant samples into (1) roots, (2) stem and
leaves and (3) grain. Wash gently the plant tissue with tap water first, then with
distilled water. After washing, allow water to drain and then dry the three types of
wheat tissue samples at 65  C for 7 days or until samples are dried to a constant
weight.
• After drying, grind the wheat roots, leaves and stems and grain samples separately
to a fine powder (for determination of the total N by Kjeldahl or by the combus-
tion method). Then, accomplish the 15N determination by stable isotope mass
4 The Use of Nitrogen-15 (15N) to Study Fertilizer Use Efficiency 141

spectrometry. Be certain to clean the grinder with a brush (and also use a blower),
in between grinding the individual plant tissue samples.
• Also collect four soil samples (each 0–15 cm soil depth) from each of the two
sub-plots; mix them to get one composite soil sample for 15N and total N analysis.
Wheat Straw and Grain Yield
• To determine wheat yield, select 3 m  3 m area within each main-plot
(7 m  7 m) and harvest wheat crop at the same time as above for 15N analysis.
Then, separate the biomass into (1) shoot and leaves and (2) grain and record their
fresh bulk weight immediately.
[Note: Researchers must not use the small 15N plot for biomass production]
• To determine moisture fraction in leaves plus stems (straw) and in grain, select
2 to 3 randomly chosen wheat plants, from each 3 m  3 m plot; transfer them to
plastic bags, seal each plastic bag using a rubber band to ensure that no water
losses occur from the collected plant tissue. After transporting the wheat plant
samples to the lab, separate the plant samples into straw and grain, and record
their fresh weight. Wash them with tap water to remove the soil. Then take
sub-tissue samples of each type of plant tissue (grain and straw), followed by
drying the sub-samples of tissue at 65  C for 7 days.
• Record the dry weights of the plant tissue after 7 days in order to calculate their
moisture contents. This will provide the researcher with wheat dry matter yield
(DM) per hectare as shown in Eq. (6.3).

Wheat straw or grain DM ðkg per haÞ

10; 000 m2 SD Wt ðkgÞ
¼ FB Wt ðkgÞ   ð6:3Þ
harvested area ðm2 Þ SF Wt ðkgÞ

Where, FB Wt is fresh bulk weight (kg per m2) of the harvested area of the
sub-plot (area (3 m  3 m), and SD Wt and SF Wt are sub-plot sample’s dry and
fresh weights, respectively.

4.2 Calculation of Nitrogen Use Efficiency (NUE)

The following example provides step-by-step guidance for estimating fertilizer ‘N

use efficiency’ of a wheat crop.
A field study was carried out with a wheat crop to assess the fertilizer N use
efficiency of wheat grain which received nitrogen fertilizer at the rate of 80 kg N ha
1
in 2 split doses (40 kg N ha1 for each of two application times). The experi-
mental sub-plot was 4 m2 in size and the 15N fertilizer was labeled with exactly 5%
atom excess. At the end of growth period, assuming the grain yield from harvested
wheat was 2667 kg per ha and the N content in the grain, as obtained by Kjeldahl
142 6 The Role of Nuclear Techniques in Biosaline Agriculture

analysis was 3.0%, the amount of total N removed from the soil by the wheat grain is
calculated below (Eq. 6.4):
grain yield ðkg per haÞ  total N ð%Þ of grain
Wheat grain N uptake ðkg N per haÞ ¼
100
ð6:4Þ
2667  3
wheat grain N uptake ¼ ¼ 80 kg N per ha
100
The grain 15N measurements from the 1st and 2nd split applications of 15N-
labeled fertilizers showed that an ‘atom excess percentage’ of 0.75% and 0.80%
occurred, for the two sub-plots. The fertilizer N use efficiency of the grain is
calculated as follows:
(i) Percentage grain N derived from 1st and 2nd fertilizer application (% Ndff),
based on the ratio of grain 15N [0.75% and 0.80%, to fertilizer 15N (5%)], can be
calculated from Eq. 6.5.

15
N grain
%Ndff ¼ 15  100 ð6:5Þ
N Fertilizer

% Ndff for the 1st application ¼ 0:75

5  100 ¼ 15%
% Ndff for the 2nd application ¼ 5  100 ¼ 16%
0:80

% Ndff for the two split applications ¼ 15 þ 16 ¼ 31%

(ii) From the % Ndff, the amount of N derived from the two split fertilizer applica-
tions (Ndff) is calculated as:

Ndff ¼ %Ndff  N taken up by crop ð6:6Þ

31
Ndff ¼  80 ¼ 24:8 kg N per ha
100
[Note: The above equations (Eqs. 6.5 and 6.6) can also be used to calculate Ndff
of the aboveground wheat plant tissues (straw) as well as roots, if such information is
needed.]
Finally, fertilizer N use efficiency (FNUE) is calculated from Ndff (24.8) and N
rate applied (80 kg N ha1).
Ndff
FNUE ¼  100 ð6:7Þ
Total fertilizer Napplied
24:8
FNUE ¼  100 ¼ 31%
80
Thus, in this study the wheat grain derived 31% of its N from the applied 15N-
labeled urea fertilizer, with the remaining N (69%) coming from the pre-existing soil
N pool.
5 Biological Nitrogen Fixation (BNF) 143

4.3 An Example for 15N-Labeled Urea Dilution

For diluting 1 kg of 15N-labeled urea with 5 atom–3 atom %, please see the
calculations below (Eq. 6.8) using a mixing model based on the following
relationship:
fA þ fB ¼ 1 ð6:8Þ

Where, fA and fB refer to the fractions of labeled fertilizer and un-labeled fertilizers,
respectively.
• First calculate the fraction of 15N-labeled fertilizer with 5 atom % (fA) which will
be required for mixing with un-labeled fertilizer to make 3 atom % using Eq. 6.9
below:

3  0:366
fA ¼ ¼ 0:56841 ð6:9Þ
5  0:366
• Then calculate the fraction of un-labeled fertilizer using Eq. (6.10) below:

f B ¼ 1  0:5684 ¼ 0:43159 ð6:10Þ

Thus, for 1 kg of labeled fertilizer with 3 atom %, weigh 0.56841 kg of 5 atom %

fertilizer and mix it with 0.43159 kg of un-labeled fertilizer.

5 Biological Nitrogen Fixation (BNF)

Over the past 62 years, world food supplies have become heavily dependent on the
use of synthetic N fertilizers predominantly urea, with over half of this N fertilizer
being applied to cereal crops. The use of fertilizer N will continue to play a critical
role in ensuring world food security. Currently, world fertilizer N use is 113 million
metric tons (2016), and this use is expected to increase to 120 million metric tons in
2018. Most of these increases in N fertilizer use will occur in developing countries.
Since the oil crisis of 1974 (and high N fertilizer prices), research attention of
many international programs has focused on the use of biological N fixation (BNF)
as an alternative N source in agro-ecosystems. Under this natural process, micro-
organisms convert atmospheric N (N2) into ammonia through enzymatic (nitroge-
nase) reactions for further utilization of the reduced N in plant metabolism. These
N2-fixing micro-organisms can live alone in the soil or in symbiosis with some plant
species in a wide range of environments.
A classical example occurring in agricultural systems is the symbiotic association
between Rhizobium bacteria and the roots of legumes in the Fabaceae family of
plants (grain legumes, forage and pasture legumes and a number of tree species).
Plant species in the Fabaceae are widely distributed in the world. In this symbiosis,
144 6 The Role of Nuclear Techniques in Biosaline Agriculture

the bacteria inoculate the roots of the legumes, and form nodules which are filled
with bacteroids (an altered form of the bacteria).
Legume species are common sources of protein-rich food for humans and feed for
their livestock, and they also provide fiber, medicines and other products. Grain
legumes can be cultivated in a separate crop rotation, or by intercropping with
cereals. The forage legume species are normally used in mixed swards. The tree
legume species are employed in agro-forestry and agro-sylvo-pastoral systems.
Certain fast-growing legume species may be included in cropping systems for use
as cover crops, or incorporation into the soil as green manures.
In order to ensure appreciable biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) inputs into
agricultural production systems, legume genotypes can be grown from seeds, or
propagated vegetatively. Then, selected biofertilizers (commercially available Rhi-
zobium cultures) are applied as inoculants to the seeds or seedlings, or to rooted
cuttings for tree species. The amount of N2 fixed by the legumes depends on the
symbiosis established between the Rhizobium strain and the legume species. Here,
the cultivar (genotype) as well as environmental (soil, climate) and agronomic
management factors are also important. A number of stress conditions, such as
salinity, acidity, drought, extreme temperatures and nutrient deficiencies have neg-
ative effects on both partners of the symbiosis.
Appreciable amounts of N2 are fixed by legumes, thereby contributing to an
improved soil fertility status and reducing the need for chemical fertilizer N. A
significant proportion of this fixed N is utilized by the cereal crops or grasses which
are grown in association with the legumes, or in a crop rotation with the legume.
Other apparent benefits called ‘legume effects’, are also attributed to the inclusion of
the legume into the agricultural system. Table 6.2 provides a summary of the
legume’s effects in agro-ecosystems.
Any program aimed at enhancing the use of legume BNF for improving soil
fertility and crop productivity in cropping systems should include the ability to
measure N2 fixation under a wide range of environmental and agronomic manage-
ment conditions. Methods to assess legume N2 fixation under field conditions can be
grouped into isotopic and non-isotopic methodologies.

5.1 Estimating Legume BNF Using 15N Isotope Techniques

Isotopic methods using the stable 15N isotope, both with enrichment and also at
natural abundance levels, provide the most sensitive measures of total N2 fixation
over the growing cycle of legume crops. These are also the only methods capable of
distinguishing atmospheric N2 from other sources of N present in the soil.
Of the two main stable isotopes of N, the light isotope 14N, is by far the most
abundant (99.6337%). The heavy stable isotope 15N, has an abundance of 0.3663
atom %. If the 15N concentrations within each of the two main sources of N
(atmospheric N2 and soil N) differ appreciably, then it is possible to calculate the
5 Biological Nitrogen Fixation (BNF) 145

Table 6.2 Main effects of legumes in agro-ecosystem

Issues/processes Main effect Details
BNF process per Soil acidification Increase in CO2 fixed/N2 assimilated
se Soil N uptake also increased
N fertilizer pro- Reduction in fertilizer N Fossil fuel energy use reduced
duction and use CO2 emissions reduced
application NO2 emissions reduced
N cycling/N losses Effects occur during both N2O emissions reduced
Cropping systems pre-cropping and Volatilization as NH3 reduced
cropping N leaching reduced
Usually the NUE of N derived from green
manure is lower than N-fertilizer, but large
fraction of N-green manure remain in the soil.
Post-harvest effects Reduced N2O emissions,
NH3 volatilization, and NO3 leaching
N benefits to next crop/savings from not having
to apply as much fertilizer N
Long-term effects Soil fertility improvement
Soil N reserves increased
Risk of N losses reduced for intensive cropping
systems
Use of legume Non-N ‘Legume’ effects Human health improved (quality food diet)
crops also promoted Biodiversity increased
Carbon sequestration enhanced
Soil erosion reduced
Can interrupt crop pest and disease cycles
Deep rooting promoted
Soil structure improved

proportion of the total N that accumulates within the legume tissues that is derived
from atmospheric N2 fixation.
When the aim is the assessment of the N input by N2-fixing plants through BNF,
three parameters are required: the content of N in plant material, the dry matter yield
of the N2-fixing plant and the percentage of N in the N2-fixing plant derived from the
atmosphere (%Ndfa). Considering these three parameters, it is possible to calculate
the amount of N fixed, usually expressed in terms of kg N derived from BNF per ha,
in field experiments, or mg N derived from BNF per plant or per pot in glasshouse
experiments. Based on these estimates, it is also possible to calculate the amount of
N derived from soil by discounting the amount of N derived from BNF from the
total N.
The %Ndfa depends on the interaction between plant growth and efficiency of
microsymbiont strain. It is also depends on the soil physical and chemical properties,
(e.g., water and nutrient availability). The two most important isotopic techniques
for this purpose are the 15N isotope dilution and 15N natural abundance technique
(Boddey et al. 2000; Urquiaga et al. 2012; Collino et al. 2015). Other isotopic
146 6 The Role of Nuclear Techniques in Biosaline Agriculture

N derived from air

N derived from soil

N derived from soil

15
N enrichment
of available N

0
Similar pattern
Soil depth (cm)

20 of N uptake

40 Non N2-fixing plant N2-fixing plant

60

Fig. 6.4 Illustration of the 15N isotope dilution technique for the BNF quantification

techniques, such as 15N2 feeding and A-value can be also applied depending on the
purpose of the BNF quantification, for which detailed procedures can be found in
previous literature (e.g., IAEA 2001).

15
5.2 N Isotope Dilution Technique

The 15N isotope dilution technique has been the most applied isotopic technique for
%Ndfa assessment. This technique is based on the dilution of soil N taken up by the
N2-fixing plant by N derived from air through BNF (Fig. 6.4). When this technique is
applied it is assumed that the 15N enrichment of non N2-fixing plant can be used as
reference to assess the 15N enrichment of plant-available soil N (Fig. 6.4).
To apply this technique, the soil N taken up by plants is labelled through
application of 15N-enriched fertilizers. After the labelling, both N2-fixing and non
N2-fixing reference plants are grown and sampled at the same time. In fact, if all N
forms in soil were easily mineralisable and available for plant uptake, the direct 15N
analysis of soil samples could be used as reference to assess 15N abundance of N
fraction in N2-fixing plants derived from soil. However, only the soil mineral N
forms (mainly NH4+ and NO3), representing a small fraction of N, is available for
plant uptake and could theoretically be used to assess the 15N abundance of the N in
plants derived from soil (Ledgard et al. 1984; Unkovich et al. 2008). Considering
that non N2-fixing plants has their N nutrition totally dependent on soil mineral N,
these plants can be sampled to assess 15N enrichment of the plant-available soil N
(Fig. 6.4). In this technique, N2-fixing plant and the non N2-fixing plant (reference)
5 Biological Nitrogen Fixation (BNF) 147

100

90

80

70

60
% Ndfa
50

40

30

20

10

0
At.% 15N excessplant At.% 15N excesssoil
15
At.% N excessair (non-N2-fixing
reference plant)

Fig. 6.5 Relationship between 15N enrichment of N2-fixing plant (abscissa axis) and percentage of
N derived from atmosphere (%Ndfa, ordinate axis)

should have similar pattern of N uptake (Fig. 6.4). This is a critical prerequisite for
application of 15N isotope dilution technique because, otherwise, the assessment of
%Ndfa can be inaccurate when 15N enrichment of soil N is not constant in the time
course and/or in the depths of soil N uptake by fixing and non-fixing plants (Baptista
et al. 2014; Unkovich et al. 2008). Some procedures can be useful to deal with the
non-constant 15N enrichment in time and soil depth, including the use of labile
organic materials to immobilise excessive soil mineral N and stabilize N supply over
time (Boddey et al. 1995) and constant addition of 15N-labelled fertiliser to the soil
(Viera-Vargas et al. 1995). The %Ndfa by N2-fixing plants is calculated using the
following Eq. 6.11:

atom%15 N excessN2 fixing plant

%Ndfa ¼ 1   100 ð6:11Þ
atom%15 N excessnon N2 fixing reference plant

The graphical representation of Eq. 6.11 is showed in Fig. 6.5. Taking in

consideration that N fertiliser rate can impact the BNF process, it is usual to apply
low N rates (e.g., <10 kg N ha1) when the objective is solely the labelling of plant-
available soil N with 15N. When using low rates of N, fertiliser with high 15N
enrichment is usually applied to yield plant materials with 15N/14N ratios adequate
for precise and accurate analyses by spectrometry. The application of 1 kg of 15N
excess per hectare (0.1 g 15N excess m2) usually yields plant materials with
sufficient 15N enrichment to be analysed with acceptable precision by most of
148 6 The Role of Nuclear Techniques in Biosaline Agriculture

mass spectrometers (emission spectrometers commonly requires higher 15N enrich-

ments). Considering these values, if a rate of 10 kg N ha1 should be applied, the use
of a fertiliser with 10 atom% 15N excess would be recommended. In fact, there is a
possibility of using lower 15N enrichments depending on the spectrometer type, but
this must be based on a rigorous assessment of analytical precision and after
significant experience was gained. When this methodology is used for woody
perennials, higher N rates (e.g., 20 kg N ha1) and/or 15N enrichments should be
used.
The selection of non N2-fixing plants is a very important step for the accurate
quantification of BNF by 15N isotope dilution technique. Some recommendations are
presented below to avoid some biases due the selection of non N2-fixing reference
plants:
• To be sure that the reference plants do not have the ability of N2-fixing, which
could be identified by:
Classical N deficiency symptoms (e.g., pale green or yellow colour, especially in
the older leaves).
Literature search indicating the inability of N2-fixing. That is especially important
for Poaceae, considering that some species of this plant family has the ability
of N2-fixing (Urquiaga et al. 1992; Reis et al. 2001).
Absence of nodules when non-nodulating isolines or non-inoculated legumes are
used as reference plants.
• To use three or more reference plant species to assess the variability associated
with the 15N enrichment of plant available soil N.
• Select non reference plants that presents patterns of N uptake similar to that of
N2-fixing plant, that is, have similar rooting depth and architecture exploiting the
same pool of plant-available soil N and have the same dynamics of N uptake over
time;
• If different varieties of a N2-fixing crop having significant different life cycles are
to be compared for the BNF ability, the group of varieties with similar life cycle
must be paired with a reference plants with the duration of growth.
• Considering that differences in soil history can affect N mineralisation dynamics,
additional reference plants must be grown and sampled for each different crop
sequence even when BNF will be assessed for only one N2-fixing crop type (e.g.,
effect of cropping history on BNF associated to soybean);
• Ideally, each reference plant should be considered as an additional treatment in
the layout of field and glasshouse experiments, that is, they should be grown in
additional field plots with the same replication and randomisation made for
N2-fixing crops.
To apply 15N-fertilisers aiming to label the plant-available soil N, the same
strategy of 15N-microplot inside the main field plot previously described to study
Fertilizer Use Efficiency can be used for BNF quantification using 15N isotope
dilution technique. The plant material sampled in micro-plots will provide an
estimate of %Ndfa. The dry matter yield, the total N taken up and the amount of N
5 Biological Nitrogen Fixation (BNF) 149

derived from BNF (e.g., kg N-BNF ha1) can be measured by harvesting larger area
of the plot, including the area that received 14N-fertiliser.

5.3 Calculation of the Amount of N Derived from BNF by 15N

Isotope Dilution Technique

The following example shows the steps for estimating the %Ndfa the amount of N
derived from BNF, in kg N ha1, for soybean crop by 15N isotope dilution technique.
A field study was carried out with a commercial soybean variety to assess the
performance of three Rhizobium strains under a condition of water stress. The
soybean was sown at row spacing of 0.50 m and three plant species were included
as non N2-fixing reference plants: Sorghum sp.; Brassica sp. and non-nodulating
soybean. The quantification of BNF will be performed by 15N isotope dilution
technique. Each experimental plot was 36 m2 (6 m  6 m). A micro-plot was
established in an area of 9.0 m2 (3.0 m  3.0 m) in each experimental plot. For
this study, 15N-labeled ammonium sulphate ((15NH4)2SO4) with enrichments of
20 atom % 15N in excess was applied 50 days before sowing to each micro-plot at
a rate of 5 kg N ha1. Non-labelled fertiliser ((14NH4)2SO4) was also applied the
remaining area of the plot. The soybean and reference plants were sown and
harvested (105 days after sowing) concomitantly. The plants (shoot tissue)
corresponding 1.5 m of the central row of the 15N-labelled micro-plot were collected,
weighted, oven-dried, reweighted, ground and analysed for total N and 15N. Dry
mass, N content and 15N-erichment are presented below (Table 6.3).
The mean value of 15N enrichment of reference plants was 1.1305 atom % 15N
excess. An example calculation for the soybean inoculated with strain A is presented
as follows using Eqs. 6.12 and 6.13:

Dry mass ðkg per haÞ  N content ð%Þ

Total N in shoot ðkg per haÞ ¼ ð6:12Þ
100

Table 6.3 Example of results of field experiment with soybean for quantification of BNF by 15N
isotope dilution technique
Soybean inoculated with Soybean inoculated with Soybean inoculated
Parameter strain A strain B with strain C
Dry mass 5097 4850 3105
(kg ha1)
N content (%) 3.7 3.9 3.7
Atom % 15N 0.1420 0.0330 0.0920
excess
150 6 The Role of Nuclear Techniques in Biosaline Agriculture

5097  3:7
Total N in shoot ¼ ¼ 189 kg N per ha
100
atom%15 N excessN2 fixing plant
%Ndfa ¼ 1   100
atom%15 N excessnon N2 fixing reference plant
0:1420
%Ndfa ¼ 1   100 ¼ 87%
1:1305
Amount of N derived from BNF ðkg per haÞ
Total N in shoot ðkg per haÞ  %Ndfa
¼ ð6:13Þ
100
189  87
Amount of N derived from BNF ¼ ¼ 165 kg N per ha
100
Considering the other data of shoot dry mass, N content and atom % 15N excess,
the amounts of N derived from BNF for soybean inoculated with strain B was
184 kg N ha1 and for soybean inoculated with strain C was 106 kg N ha1.

15
5.4 N Natural Abundance Technique

This technique depends on the slight natural enrichment of 15N in the soil, relative to
atmospheric N2. The slight increase of 15N in soil is a consequence of the non-
identical behaviour of the light and heavy isotopes involved in various reactions in
the soil environment. The 15N isotopic fractionation, also called the mass discrim-
inatory effect (Xing et al. 1997), is a result of complex and prolonged interaction of
biological, chemical and physical processes in soils, which results in fractionation
between 15N and 14N. There is a tendency of the reaction products, such as the
gaseous N forms produced by denitrification, to become relatively enriched in the
lighter isotope 14N, while the remaining N compounds, which can be stabilised in
soil organic matter over time, tend to be enriched in the heavier isotope 15N (Xing
et al. 1997). It is important to consider that this small 15N enrichment occurs in a long
time scale, and is closely associated to soil organic matter retention and long-term
dynamics (Ledgard et al. 1984).
Considering that 15N natural abundance technique is based on the analyses of
plant samples having very small 15N deviation relative to atmospheric N2, it is usual
to express the results of 15N natural abundance analyses in terms of δ units. The δ15N
value is the difference in the ratio 15N:14N of a given sample and the ratio 15N:14N in
the nominated international standard of atmospheric N2, expressed by parts per
thousand (‰). One unit of δ15N (1.0‰) is a thousandth of the 15N natural abundance
of the atmosphere (0.3663 atom% 15N) above or below the natural abundance of
atmospheric N2, that is, one unit of δ15N it is equal to 0.0003663 atom% 15N excess.
The following Eq. 6.14 is applied to calculate the δ15N:
5 Biological Nitrogen Fixation (BNF) 151

atom%15 Nsample atom%15 Natmosphere

δ15 N ð‰Þ ¼  1000 ð6:14Þ
atom%15 Natmosphere

Therefore, the δ15N of atmospheric N2 will be by definition equal to 0‰. Positive

value of δ15N means that there are an enrichment of 15N in the sample compared to
the atmospheric N2 and negative values means that the sample presents a slightly
depletion. For example, if a plant sample has 0.35855 atom% 15N, the resulting δ15N
of this sample is:
0:3659  0:3663
δ15 N ¼  1000 ¼ 1:09‰
0:3663
The main advantage of the natural abundance technique, compared to 15N isotope
dilution technique, is the no requirement to add 15N fertiliser to label the soil
available N, which is a very expensive consumable and, depending on the N rates,
it can affect BNF process. However, an important disadvantage of this technique is
the need for an Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometer with high precision.
The Eq. 6.15 can be used to calculate the Ndfa% by using the 15N natural
abundance technique is:

δ 15 Nreference plant δ 15 Nfixing plant

Ndfa% ¼  100 ð6:15Þ
δ 15 Nreference plant  B

where B is the δ15N for the N2 fixing plant when completely dependent on N2
fixation for growth. The B value is usually negative as a result of isotopic fraction-
ation within the legume. The value of B depends on the plant species, plant age,
symbiont and growth conditions. Unkovich et al. (2008) presented some tables with
compilation of a wide number of B values for shoot of many tropical and temperate
legumes, which can be used to estimate %Ndfa with an acceptable accuracy
depending on the N2 fixation level.
Another important factor affecting the %Ndfa estimate is the δ15N of the refer-
ence plant. The higher is this parameter, the better is the estimate of %Ndfa because
this will result in less impact of biases associated to small variability of some
processes, such as the mineralisation intensity of soil N pools, isotopic discrimina-
tion in plants or small differences in root architecture between N2-fixing and
non-fixing reference plants. Reference δ15N higher than 4‰ have been considered
suitable for estimating %Ndfa in N2-fixing plants (Unkovich et al. 2008).
An important practical procedure to have an initial estimate of 15N natural
abundance of plant-available soil N before the beginning of the experiment is the
15
N analysis of non N2-fixing broadleaf and grass weeds in the experimental area
available for BNF studies. Separated samples of the different reference plant should
be collected in different points of the area to assess the variability of δ15N in plant-
available N (not a composite sample). In addition to that, details on the history of the
area are very useful, including previous crop type, N fertilisation (type and rates) and
use of inoculants.
152 6 The Role of Nuclear Techniques in Biosaline Agriculture

Table 6.4 Example of results of glasshouse experiment for measuring BNF associated to
Phaseolus vulgaris by 15N natural abundance technique
Parameter Common bean variety A Common bean variety B
Dry mass (g per pot) 45 39
N content (%) 2.5 2.6
δ15N 0.52 0.96

All recommendation presented for 15N isotope dilution technique to select non
N2-fixing plants must also be considered for the 15N natural abundance technique.
The reference plants must be considered as additional treatments in the experimental
design, with replication and randomisation. When experiments are conducted as
randomised block design the %Ndfa estimate for the plants of a given block should
be performed with the δ15N of the references of the same block individually.
Calculation of the Amount of N Derived from BNF by 15N Natural Abundance
Technique The following example shows the steps for estimating the %Ndfa and
the amount of N derived from BNF, in kg N ha1, for common bean (Phaseolus
vulgaris, L.) by 15N natural abundance technique:
A glasshouse study was carried out with two varieties of common bean to assess
the osmotic effect of a salt (NaCl) on the BNF performance. The common bean
cultivars and three reference plants (Sorghum sp.; Brassica sp. and non-nodulating
bean) were sown in 10-L pots with 10 kg of soil. Three plants were used per each
pot. Soil salinity was simulated by adding NaCl solution in soil. The BNF quanti-
fication will be performed by 15N natural abundance technique. The common bean
shoots were collected at 60 days after sowing, weighted, oven-dried, reweighted,
ground and analysed for total N and 15N. Dry mass, N content and 15N abundance
are presented below (Table 6.4).
The mean value of δ15N of reference plants was 9.82‰ and the B value used for
common bean was 1.97‰. An example calculation for the variety A is presented
as follows:

Dry mass ðg per potÞ  N content ð%Þ

Total N in shoot ðg per potÞ ¼
100

45  2:5
Total N in shoot ¼ ¼ 1:13 g N per pot
100

δ 15 Nreference plant δ 15 Nfixing plant

Ndfa% ¼  100
δ 15 Nreference plant  B

9:82  0:52
Ndfa% ¼  100 ¼ 79%
9:82  ð1:97Þ
5 Biological Nitrogen Fixation (BNF) 153

Amount of N derived from BNF ðmg per potÞ

Total N in shoot ðg per potÞ  %Ndfa
¼
100
1:13  79
Amount of N derived from BNF ¼  1000 ¼ 893 mg N per pot
100
Considering the other data of shoot dry mass, N content and atom % 15N excess,
the amounts of N derived from BNF for variety B was 761 mg N per pot.

5.5 Correction for N Derived from Seed

In some experiments using plants with proportionally large seeds or when plants are
sampled in early growth stages, when N derived from seeds can supply a significant
proportion of plant N, a correction in 15N enrichment/abundance of plant materials
can improves the accuracy of the %Ndfa estimate (Okito et al. 2004). This correction
is made by subtracting the amounts of N derived from seed and its 15N enrichment/
abundance from plant material. For example, the following Eq. 6.16 is applied for
correction when 15N natural abundance is applied:



%Nplant  DMplant  δ15 Nplant  %Nseed  DMseed  Ps  δ15 Nseed
δ Nplant ðSCÞ ¼
15

%Nplant  DMplant  ð%Nseed  DMseed Þ
ð6:16Þ

where SC indicates the correction for seed N, %N is the N content, DM is the dry
mass, Ps is the proportion of the seed N assimilated by plant tissue. Ps is usually
assumed to be 0.5 when shoot tissue is analysed considering that half of N seed is
incorporated in into the aerial tissue. The same equation can be applied for 15N
isotope dilution technique by replacing the values of δ15N by atom% δ15N excess.
When plants grown under field conditions and are sampled at the maturity stage this
correction does not usually have a significant influence in the final estimate of %
Ndfa because the contribution of seed N in this case is commonly small.
General Comments:
The use of 15N techniques has been successfully applied to measure BNF in many
agricultural systems in many regions of the world. However, before the beginning of
the experimentation using those isotope techniques it is important to take into
account the main requirements needed for success in the BNF measurement:
(i) the requirement of highly skilled workers for all activities from the selection of
the experimental area to the interpretation of the 15N analysis, and (ii) the require-
ment of financial resources considering that consumables for 15N analysis are
usually expensive compared to other routine plant and soil analyses. The selection
of the most appropriate technique will depend mainly on the precision of the Mass-
154 6 The Role of Nuclear Techniques in Biosaline Agriculture

15
Table 6.5 Some advantages (A) and disadvantages (D) of two N isotope techniques for mea-
suring BNF in agricultural systems
15 15
N isotope N natural
dilution abundance
Criteria technique technique
Requirement of reference plants D D
Cost with 15N fertiliser D A
Cost with 15N analysis D D
Requirement of high-skilled technicians D D
Requirement of high-precision spectrometers A D
Application of the technique in areas (with grown D A
plants) not initially designed for BNF assessment (e.g.,
farms, natural systems)
Need of considering isotope fractionation (B value) A D
Field variability of soil 15N A D
Application in perennial systems A A
Application in experiments with soils presenting plant- A D
available N with low δ15N (<4‰)
Time integrated measurement of %Ndfa A A
Measurement of amount of N derived from BNF per A A
area (field) or per pot (glasshouse)

15
Spectrometer used for N analysis of plant materials. Other criteria are also
presented in Table 6.5.

6 Water Stable Isotope Technique to Determine

Evapotranspiration Partitioning

In agriculture, evapotranspiration (ET), or the flux of water from a vegetated surface

via both evaporation (E) and transpiration (T) by plants, is an important component
of the water budget. Water loss via transpiration can be considered ‘good’ water use,
while water loss via evaporation can be considered ‘wasted’ water use (Fig. 6.6).
Transpiration occurs through stomatal pores, the pores which are also used by the
plants for uptake of atmospheric CO2 in photosynthesis, and subsequent biosynthe-
sis of carbon compounds, a process which ultimately leads to biomass gain. Stomata
are tightly controlled by plant physiological signals to optimize carbon gain per unit
of water lost. The use of the stable isotopes 18O and 2H as signatures in water and
water vapor can help scientists to differentiate between water losses through direct
soil evaporation versus transpiration from the plant leaves. That knowledge can be
used to apply appropriate soil and water conservation strategies such as minimum
tillage, mulching and a drip/spray irrigation system in order to minimize soil
evaporation under a range of different management practices. Water use efficiency
6 Water Stable Isotope Technique to Determine Evapotranspiration Partitioning 155

Fig. 6.6 Evapotranspiration model

(WUE) of a plant species or crop type is related both to the plant’s genetics, as well
as acclimation by the plant to the irrigation regime.
Historically, the characterization of the plant processes involved in transpiration
was performed through cumbersome and inaccurate water flux measurements.
However, with the recent advancement of laser-based water vapor isotope analyzers,
various calculation models have been developed to correlate the real-time, spatial,
and temporal isotopic measurements with evaporation and transpiration fluxes (FET
and FT).
According to Yakir and Sternberg (2000), the ratio of these fluxes is calculated
using Eq. 6.17:
FT δET  δE
f T=ET ¼ ¼ ð6:17Þ
F ET δT  δE
Where, δET is the isotopic composition of bulk evapotranspiration, δE is the isotopic
composition of evaporated soil-water, and δT is the isotopic composition of water
transpired by the plant.
In this section, we demonstrate how laser-based absorption spectroscopy, and in
particular, Cavity Ring-Down Spectroscopy (CRDS), can be applied to many steps
of ET analyses, including: (i) characterization of partial pressure and the isotopic
composition of the vertical water vapor profiles to determine the bulk ET signal
through a Keeling mixing model, (ii) the use of soil water isotopic composition, in
combination with the Craig-Gordon model, to determine the evaporation flux sig-
nature, and (iii) direct measurement of the isotopic signature of transpiration occur-
ring in leaf chambers in order to determine the isotope signature of the water source.

6.1 Determining δET Using the Keeling Mixing Model

6.1.1 Theory

The isotopic composition of an evapotranspiration flux can be determined by using

the Keeling mixing model (1958), a model which correlates water concentration
156 6 The Role of Nuclear Techniques in Biosaline Agriculture

(C) and the isotopic composition (δ) of the mixed air above the surface (A), the
background air (B), and the evapotranspiration flux (ET) Eq. 6.18.
Keeling Mixing Model
C A :δA ¼ CB :δB þ C ET :δET ð6:18Þ

Assuming the concentration and the isotopic composition of the background air
(CB, δB) and evapotranspiration (CET, δET) are constant over a short period of time,
Eq. (6.18) can be rearranged so that δA is a function of 1/CA. In this case,
(Eq. 6.19) the intercept of a plot of 1/CA (x-axis) versus δA (y-axis) will yield δET.

CB
δA ¼ ðδB  δET Þ þ δET ð6:19Þ
CA

6.1.2 Experimental Approach

Experimentally, one can measure the isotopic composition of the mixed air, δΑ, at
various concentrations, CA, by sampling the air at different elevations above the
surface. The vertical profile provides the water concentration gradient which is
required in order to determine δET.
The procedure involves the following steps.
• Sample air above the soil surface at different heights. The heights at which you
sample will depend on the specifics of the ecosystem being studied.
• Connect the sample lines to a manifold using a rotary valve selector.
• If possible, use a rotary valve which can be controlled via a Picarro water isotope
analyzer. For example, the Picarro L2130-i or L2140-i, can be used to select the
sample line through which air will be sent to the analyzer.
• Run the analyzer in dual mode: vapor and liquid measurement allows the analyzer
to self-calibrate using a liquid water standard, while the vapor mode analyzes the
sampled water vapor, thereby providing isotopic composition and concentration.
• Using the analyzer’s Dual Mode Coordinator, set the system to measure vapor
from each sample port for 10 min (i.e., a total of 50 min for one cycle – please
note 5 sampling heights in this example, Fig. 6.7). Measurements should be made
at a frequency of 1 Hz.
• It is recommended that the analyzer be calibrated with liquid water standards of a
known isotopic composition once every 8 h. The auto-sampler injects the liquid
standard sample into the vaporizer. Each injection measurement takes 9 min and a
minimum of 6 injections for each liquid standard is required.
After the analyzer measurement, results are collected and processed (averaging
and normalizing for each calibration), δA and 1/CA are plotted on a graph as shown
in the Fig. 6.8. Note that δET is the y-intercept of the regression line between δA and
1/CA.
6 Water Stable Isotope Technique to Determine Evapotranspiration Partitioning 157

Fig. 6.7 Example of experimental setup for sampling water vapor at different heights

Fig. 6.8 Example of a

Keeling plot derived from a
vertical profile of 5 water
vapor measurements

6.2 Determining δET Using the Craig-Gordon Model

6.2.1 Theory

The Craig-Gordon model (1965) is used to estimate the isotopic composition of soil-
water evaporation. The model takes into account the effect of equilibrium and kinetic
fractionations during the phase change between liquid to vapor (Eq. 6.20).
158 6 The Role of Nuclear Techniques in Biosaline Agriculture

ðδL αe hs  h0 A δA Þ  ðhs  hs αe Þ  ðεk Þ

δE ¼ ð6:20Þ
ð hs  h0 A Þ þ ε k

Where, αe is the equilibrium vapor-liquid fractionation factor. It can be calculated as

a function of soil temperature, Ts, [K] as explained by Majoube (1971) (Eq. 6.21).
For 2H

76:248 24:844:103
ln αe ¼ 52:612:103 þ  ð6:21Þ
Ts T 2s

For 18O (Eq. 6.22)

0:4156 1:137:103
ln αe ¼ 2:0667:103 þ  ð6:22Þ
Ts T 2s

Where,
• δL is the soil liquid water isotopic composition [‰]
• δA is the ambient air water vapor isotopic composition [‰]
• hs is the soil vapor saturation which is defined by Mathieu and Bariac (1996)
(Eq. 6.23):

hs ¼ eMφs =RT s ð6:23Þ

• M is the molecular weight of water (18.0148 g/mol)

• φs is the soil potential (matric potential) of the evaporating surface [kPa]
• R is the ideal gas constant (8.3145 mL MPa/mol/K)
• Ts is the soil temperature, i.e. the temperature of the evaporating surface [K]
• εk is the kinetic isotopic fractionation factor (Eq. 6.24)
 

Di
εk ¼ n hs  h0A 1 ð6:24Þ
D

• Di /D, the ratio of molecular diffusion coefficients of water vapor in dry air, is
taken as 0.9757 from Merlivat (1978) (Eq. 6.25):

hA esA
h0A ¼ ð6:25Þ
aw es0
• h0 A is the humidity of the atmosphere normalized to the evaporating surface
• hA is the humidity of the atmosphere
• esA and es0 are the saturation vapor pressures at the atmosphere’s (air’s) temper-
ature and the temperature of the evaporation surface, respectively
• aw is the thermodynamic activity of water
6 Water Stable Isotope Technique to Determine Evapotranspiration Partitioning 159

• n is related to the volumetric soil moisture (θs), the moisture of the residual (θres)
and the saturated moisture (θsat), as proposed by Mathieu and Bariac
(1996) (Eq. 6.26):
 
1 θS  θres
n¼1 ð6:26Þ
2 θsat  θres

6.2.2 Experimental Approach

Measuring δL
The isotopic composition of soil water will be measured using a Picarro water
isotope analyzer (Fig. 6.9).
Several water extraction methods are available, as below:
Cryogenic Distillation
Cryogenic distillation is an established technique for extracting liquid water from
samples, for example soils and leaves. Once extracted, the liquid water can be
analyzed for its isotopic composition using a High Precision Vaporizer and Picarro
water isotope analyzer.
Picarro Induction Module (IM)
The Picarro IM extracts water from soil samples by inductively heating the sample
and directly sending the evaporated water vapor to the Cavity Ring-Down Spectros-
copy (CRDS) analyzer. Prior to analysis on the CRDS, the water vapor is passed
through a micro combustion cartridge to remove organic molecules which could
potentially interfere with CRDS analysis. For more information about Picarro’s
Induction Module, please visit:

Fig. 6.9 Induction Module

and Isotopic Water Analyzer
160 6 The Role of Nuclear Techniques in Biosaline Agriculture

http://www.picarro.com/isotope_analyzers/im_crds.
When extracting water from soils using either of the above methods, caution
should be applied to ensure that water extraction is complete. If water extraction is
not complete, it is possible that fractionation may occur during isotopic analysis
(or during the extraction process), which could then lead to inaccurate results. Care
should also be taken during the storage of soil samples.
Measuring δA and CA and Determining hA
The isotopic composition of water vapor in the background ambient air is measured
with the CRDS water analyzer when it is in the vapor mode.
Sample the ambient air well away from the studied system to ensure that no
‘local’ water vapor contamination occurs from evapotranspiration of the experimen-
tal plot, thereby affecting the ambient air measurement. This can be accomplished by
placing the CRDS analyzer input port at an appreciable distance away from the
experimental plot, or by connecting tubing to the inlet port of the CRDS in order to
collect the air from well-above the canopy. The specific height above the canopy will
be dependent on the ecosystem being studied.
Ensure that the CRDS analyzer is calibrated for isotopic composition and also the
concentration dependence of the isotopic composition. For information on how to
calibrate a Picarro Water Isotope Analyzer refer to the User’s Manual. A recent
version is available at:
https://picarro.box.com/s/0nh2wvm4n4ojf8jlmj7v.
The CRDS analyzer should be operated in dual mode: vapor and liquid. The
liquid measurement allows the analyzer to calibrate itself with liquid standards. The
vapor mode analyzes the sampled water vapor in ambient air to provide isotopic
composition δA and concentration CA.
Calculate hA using CA.

6.3 Determining δT via Direct Measurement at the Leaf

6.3.1 Theory

When re-arranging the mass balance established in Eq. 6.18, we get (Wang et al.
2012):

CM δM  CA δA
δT ¼ ð6:27Þ
CM  CA
Where, δA and CA are the isotopic composition and water concentration of the
ambient air; δM and CM are the isotopic composition and water concentration
measured from the leaf chamber, i.e. where transpiration water vapor mixes with
ambient air.
6 Water Stable Isotope Technique to Determine Evapotranspiration Partitioning 161

Fig. 6.10 Experimental setup for measuring δM and CM

6.3.2 Experimental Approach

Measuring δA and CA
Follow exactly the procedure described on the previous page. One can directly
measure the isotopic composition of the mixed air, δM and water concentration,
CM, inside of the leaf chamber. Figure 6.10 depicts the experimental setup:
• A leaf chamber is typically made of transparent plastic with a variable internal
volume which will be dependent on the leaf size. The chamber has two small air
vents to allow ambient air to flow into the chamber and mix with the water vapor
generated by transpiration from the leaf.
• A 1/8-inch ID Teflon tubing connects the leaf chamber to the analyzer.
• Place a leaf, which remains attached to the plant, into the leaf chamber.
• Ensure that the CRDS analyzer is calibrated for isotopic composition and con-
centration dependence of the isotopic composition. For information on how to
calibrate the Picarro Water Isotope Analyzer refer to the User’s Manual. A recent
version is available at:
https://picarro.box.com/s/0nh2wvm4n4ojf8jlmj7v.
• As detailed previously, operate the analyzer in the dual measurement mode:
liquid and vapor. The liquid measurement allows the analyzer to calibrate itself
with a liquid water standard while the vapor mode analyzes the sampled water
vapor to provide isotopic composition and concentration.
162 6 The Role of Nuclear Techniques in Biosaline Agriculture

7 Application of Other Isotopes

As mentioned in earlier sections of this chapter, nuclear and isotopic techniques have
a wide range of applications in the soil-water-plant interaction studies, covering the
fields such as plant ecology, physiology, biochemistry, nutrition, microbiology,
protection against insect pests, and soil fertility, chemistry, physics, and hydrology,
etc. Few common examples of the applications of isotopic and nuclear techniques in
agricultural research are listed below.
• 32
P fertilizer use efficiency, root activity, DNA probes in molecular biology
• 35
S in soil and fertilizer studies
• 65
Zn in plant uptake and use efficiency
• 13
C, 14C in soil organic matter dynamics, root activity, photosynthesis, pesticide
residues, water use efficiency, etc.
• 22
Na, 36Cl, 40K in ion uptake and mechanism of salt tolerance in plants
• 137
Cs in soil erosion studies
• 60
Co for sterile insects in integrated pest management (IPM)
• 198
Gold-198 for detection of termite colonies in agricultural fields
The nuclear and isotopic techniques are the supporting tools, and not substitute, to
the conventional techniques for understanding the biological processes and mecha-
nisms of ecosystem functioning. Therefore, a careful evaluation is required with
regard to: i) the need for using an isotopic/nuclear technique, and ii) the choice of the
appropriate isotopic/nuclear considering the research objective, facilities and exper-
tise available, risks involved in safe handling and disposal of hazardous materials,
and the financial considerations. In this context, the stable isotopes are the ever
preferred choice in soil-water-plant-atmosphere studies. Thus, examples and pro-
tocols of using 15N, 18O and 2H in plant nutrient and water use efficiency studies
have been elaborated in this chapter. The reader is, however, referred to the IAEA
Training Manuals (IAEA 1990, 2001) and the review by Nguyen et al. (2011), may
one need further details.

References

Baptista RB, Moraes RF, Leite JM, Schultz N, Alves BJR, Boddey RM, Urquiaga S (2014)
Variations in the 15N natural abundance of plant-available N with soil depth: their influence
on estimates of contributions of biological N2 fixation to sugarcane. Appl Soil Ecol 73:124–129
Boddey RM, Oliveira OC, Alves BJR, Urquiaga S (1995) Field application of the 15N isotope
dilution technique for the reliable quantification of plant-associated biological nitrogen fixation.
Fertil Res 42:77–87
Boddey RM, Peoples MB, Palmer B, Dart PJ (2000) Use of the 15N natural abundance technique to
quantify biological nitrogen fixation by woody perennials. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 57
(3):235–270
References 163

Collino DJ, Salvagiotti F, Perticari A, Piccinetti C, Ovando G, Urquiaga S, Racca RW (2015)

Biological nitrogen fixation in soybean in Argentina: relationships with crop, soil, and meteo-
rological factors. Plant Soil 392(1–2):239–252
Craig H, Gordon L (1965) Deuterium and oxygen-18 variations in the ocean and the marine
atmosphere. In: Stable isotopopes in oceanographic studies and paleotemperatures. Laboratorio
Di Geologica Nucleare, Pisa, pp 9–130
IAEA (1990) Use of nuclear techniques in studies of soil-plant relationships. Training course series
no 2 (Hardarson G, ed). International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, 223 pp
IAEA (2001) Use of isotope and radiation methods in soil and water management and crop nutrition
– Training Course Series No. 14. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, 247 pp
Keeling C (1958) The concentration and isotopic abundances of atmospheric carbon dioxide in
rurals. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 13(4):322–324
Ledgard SF, Freney JR, Simpson JR (1984) Variations in natural enrichment of 15N in the profiles
of some Australian pasture soils. Soil Res 22:155–164
Majoube M (1971) Fractionnement en oxygene-18 et en deuterium entre l’eau et sa vapeur. J Chim
Phys Biol 68:1423–1436
Mathieu R, Bariac T (1996) A numerical model for the simulation of stable isotope profiles in
drying soils. J Geophys Res 101(D7):12685–12696
Merlivat L (1978) Molecular diffusivities of H216O, HD16O, and H218O in gases. J Chem Phys
69:2864–2871
Nguyen ML, Zapata F, Lal R, Dercon G (2011) Role of isotopic and nuclear techniques in
sustainable land management: achieving food security and mitigating impacts of climate
change. In: Lal R, Stewart BA (eds) World soil resources and food security, advances in soil
science, vol 18. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 345–418
Okito A, Alves BRJ, Urquiaga S, Boddey RM (2004) Isotopic fractionation during N2 fixation by
four tropical legumes. Soil Biol Biochem 36(7):1179–1190
Peoples MB, Faizah AW, Rerkasem B, Herridge DF (1989) Methods of evaluating nitrogen fixation
by nodulated legumes in the field, ACIAR Monograpg No 11. ACIAR, Canberra, 76 pp
Pessarakli M (1991) Dry matter nitrogen-15 absorption and water uptake by green beans under
sodium chloride stress. Crop Science 31:1633–1640
Reis VM, Reis FB Jr, Quesada DM, Oliveira OC, BJR A, Urquiaga S, Boddey RM (2001)
Biological nitrogen fixation associated with tropical pasture grasses. Funct Plant Biol 28
(9):837–844
Saranga Y, Menz M, Jiang CX, Robert WJ, Yakir D, Andrew HP (2001) Genomic dissection of
genotype X environment interactions conferring adaptation of cotton to arid conditions.
Genome Res 11:1988–1995
Unkovich M, Herridge D, Peoples M, Cadisch G, Boddey RM, Giller K, Alves BJR, Chalk P (2008)
Measuring plant-associated nitrogen fixation in agricultural systems, ACIAR Monograph no
136. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, p 258
Unkovich MJ, Pate JS (2000) An appraisal of recent field measurements of symbiotic N2 fixation by
annual legumes. Field Crops Res 65(2):211–228
Urquiaga S, Cruz KHS, Boddey RM (1992) Contribution of nitrogen fixation to sugar cane:
nitrogen-15 and nitrogen balance estimates. Soil Sci Soc Am J 56:105–114
Urquiaga S, Xavier RP, Morais RF, Batista RB, Schultz N, Leite JM, Sá JME, Barbosa KP,
Resende AS, Alves BJR, Boddey RM (2012) Evidence from field nitrogen balance and 15N
natural abundance data for the contribution of biological N2 fixation to Brazilian sugarcane
varieties. Plant Soil 356:5–21
Viera-Vargas MS, Oliveira OC, Souto CM, Cadisch G, Urquiaga S, Boddey RM (1995) Use of
different 15N labelling techniques to quantify the contribution of biological N2 fixation to
legumes. Soil Biol Biochem 27(9):1185–1192
Wang L, Good S, Caylor K, Cernusak L (2012) Direct quantification of leaf transpiration isotopic
composition. Agric For Meteorol 154–155:127–134
164 6 The Role of Nuclear Techniques in Biosaline Agriculture

Witty JF, Renne RJ, Atkins CA (1988) 15N addition methods for assessing N2 fixation under field
conditions. In: Summerfield RJ (ed) World crops: cool season food legumes. Kluwer Academic,
Dordrecht, pp 716–730
Xing GX, Cao YC, Sun GQ (1997) Natural 15N abundance in soils. In: Zhu ZL, Wen Q, Freney JR
(eds) Nitrogen in soils of China. Kluwer Academic, London, pp 31–41
Yakir D, Sternberg L (2000) The use of stable isotopes to study ecosystem gas exchange.
Oecologica 123(3):297–311
Zaman M, Zaman S, Adhinarayanan C, Nguyen ML, Nawaz S (2013b) Effects of urease and
nitrification inhibitors on the efficient use of urea for pastoral systems. Soil Sci Plant Nutr
59:649–659
Zaman M, Saggar S, Stafford AD (2013a) Mitigation of ammonia losses from urea applied to a
pastoral system: the effect of nBTPT and timing and amount of irrigation. N Z Grassl Assoc
75:121–126
Zaman M, Barbour MM, Turnbull MH, Kurepin LV (2014) Influence of fine particle suspension of
urea and urease inhibitor on nitrogen and water use efficiency in grassland using nuclear
techniques. In: Heng LK, Sakadeva K, Dercon G, Nguyen ML (eds) International Symposium
on managing soils for food security and climate change adaption and mitigation. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, pp 29–32

The opinions expressed in this chapter are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the IAEA, its Board of Directors, or the countries they represent.
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
IGO license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/), which permits use, sharing, adap-
tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit
to the IAEA, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The use of the IAEA’s name for any purpose other than for attribution, and the use of the IAEA’s
logo, shall be subject to a separate written license agreement between the IAEA and the user and is
not authorized as part of this CC-IGO license. Note that the link provided above includes additional
terms and conditions of the license.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.

IGO