Comparison of saturated hydraulic conductivity

under the reclaimed conditions of salt affected

soil
.
ABSTRACT
Solving the soil problems that affect negatively on growth of plants and reduce the soil
permeability is necessary for the study site, Thein Gone Village in Yamethin Township,
Myanmar. The objectives of this study are; to identify the soil whether it is salt-affected or not Comment [1]: was
and to investigate the proper reclamation method with different rates of amendments by
comparing the saturated conductivity (Ks). Both composite (disturbed) and core
(undisturbed) soil samplings were collected at three profiles (0 - 60 cm soil depth) during
-3
March, 2023. Some soil properties such as texture, bulk density (g cm ), moisture content
-1
(%), ECe (electrical conductivity, saturated extract; mS cm ), pH (1:5 water), SAR (sodium
absorption ratio) and pH and EC of leaching water were also measured. Firstly, the study
+
site was problematic with high pH due to Na distribution of underground water although
-8 -
there was some application of gypsum for a decade. Also, low permeability (Ks< 1x10 cm s
1 -1 3
) was another problem there. To leach the salt (EC < 1 mS cm in leachate), 1500 cm of
3
water was necessary for one core (98.21 cm soil volume). It was relatively high amount for
-1 -1
using the quality-water. For reclamation methods, gypsum 5 t ha , sulphur 1 t ha , and cow-
-1
dung manure 20 t ha gave the minimum (-log Ks) value among different rates of each
amendment. The less the -log Ks, the more permeable the soil becomes. Among different
-1
amendments, gypsum 5 t ha showed the fastest saturated hydraulic conductivity.
Moreover, it is necessary to drain out the leachate to prevent the formation of saline -sodic
soil.

Keywords: saturated hydraulic conductivity, reclamation, salt-affected soil

1. INTRODUCTION

Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks) is one of the soil quality indicators and measuring it’s
useful to identify whether the soil is salt affected or not. Moreover, it can be regarded as a
crucial aspect of soil that controls its capacity to transfer water under saturated conditions
[1]. In soil-plant-water relations and processes, decisions on water conservation, irrigation
systems, fertilizer application, drainage, solute mitigation, and plant growth, estimation of Ks
performs as one of the desirable measurements [2]. Ksis typically determined by using easy-
to-complete field and laboratory procedures [3].

The hydraulic conductivity is generally constant in saturated soil with a stable structure and
-2 -3 -
in porous media like sandstone. In sandy soil, it ranges from approximately 10 to 10 cm s
1 -4 -7 -1
, whereas in clayey soil, it is between 10 and 10 cm s . Hillel[4] noted that soil texture
and structure could have an impact on hydraulic conductivity. Hydraulic conductivity varies
with soil type in several cases due to a variety of chemical, physical, and biological
compositions and phenomena [5]. Salt concentration or composition in the water solution
can also alter the hydraulic conductivity of the soil [6].

Nowadays, many soils in the world become problematic as a result of various natural
disasters and intensive farming methods. Among these, salt-affected soils (saline, saline-
sodic, and sodic) are brought on by an excessive accumulation of soluble salts with different
compositions, concentrations, and saturations of the soil exchange complex by sodium,
which alters the soil's permeability and hinders healthy root development [7, ]; [8]. Excess
salts harm developing plants and cause the poor physical soil conditions. Low rainfall, saline
or sodic subsoil exposure from erosion, parent soil material, high salt irrigation water uses,
prolonged use of certain fertilizers, poor drainage are some of the potential causes of salt
affected soils Therefore, the negative effect on growth of plants is the result of reduced
permeability of the soil to both water and air that in turn restricts root development,
establishment, growth and final yield of crops [9].

Salts affected soil can be reclaimed by leaching salts out of the root zone through good
quality irrigation water or by heavy rainfall, by creating good surface and internal drainage in
which using tile drains and open ditches in the fields to increase drainage and to remove
some of the salts, by breaking the compacted layers that occur near or at the soil surface
and by applying organic matters (cow dung manures, poultry manures, green manures, farm
yard manure, crop residue and compost) and chemical amendments (gypsum,lime, sulphuric
acid, sulphur, hydrochloric acid and nitric acid etc.) [10]; [, 11].

Currently, Myanmar faces soils with problems of approximately 1 million hectares (7.8%) of
all cultivable land. Although most of these problem soils are currently under cultivation, salty
and alkaline soils make up approximately 68.75% (660,000 ha) of the total area of problem
soils. Therefore, salt affected soils becomes the most common issue to solve in [12]. Thein
Gone Village, Yamethin Township, Mandalay Division, Myanmar, has 14.57 ha as a
problematic soil. According to local administrative reports, this soil can be utilized as low
land for paddy growing in the rainy season only. However, utilization of these soils returns
uneconomical values for the cultivation of crops without adopting proper reclamation
measures. Therefore, this study was conducted with the following objectives – (1) To identify
the soil whether it’ is salt-affected or not and (2) To investigate the proper reclamation
method with different rates of amendments by comparing the saturated conductivity (Ks). In
this study, comparing saturated hydraulic conductivity under reclaimed condition of salt
affected soils will fill the lack of scientific facts related to soil properties and will inform the
soil status for current and long-term impact.

2. MATERIAL AND METHODS

2.1 Site Description and Land Use History

The study site was located at Thein Gone Village, Yamethin Township, Mandalay Division,
Myanmar. It is situated at 20.45 °N latitude and 96.17 ºE longitude and the elevation of
431.10 m above the sea level. According to the local meteorological reports, average
monthly minimum and maximum temperature of the study area were 13.80°C and 34.40 ºC
for the study year and the average rainfall was 5.84 mm per day during the wet season.
There is no rainfall in the hot season. Farmer response of the land use history of the study
site was shown in table 1.

Table 1 Land use history of the study site

Location Land use Remark
Theingon village
Uncultivable Past 60 years
Yemethin Township,
Mandalay Division,
Cultivable Past 30 years
Myanmar
(Rainy season only)

Cultivable Past 10 years (rainy

season)
(farmer-based application-
-1
gypsum 124 - 350 kg ha )

Cultivable Current (rainy season)

2.2 Soil and Water Samplings and their Analyses

Both composite (disturbed) and undisturbed cores soil samples were collected at three
profiles from 0-20 cm, 20-40 cm and 40-60 cm depths, respectively. Before analyzing, all
composite soil samples were air-dried at room temperature for further physical and chemical
soil analyses and undisturbed cores were measured for bulk density and saturated hydraulic
conductivity. Water sample in the well at the nearest filed were also collected. Soil and
th th
water sampling time was in 26 and 27 March, 2023.

2.3 Soil, water and leachate analyses

Soil, water and leachate analyses were carried out at the laboratory of the Department of
Soil and Water Science, Yezin Agricultural University. This study was performed with three
steps to identify the soil problems, to calculate the leaching requirement and to reclaim the
soil problems.

Firstly, in the identification of soil problem, the following parameter such as soil texture, soil
bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, soil pH, electrical conductivity of saturation
extract (Ece), sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), soil organic matter and water quality of pH and
EC were studied. Soil texture was classified by using sedimentation method [13]. Soil bulk
density (BD) was determined with core sampler method [14]. Measurements of saturated
hydraulic conductivity (Ks) of soils were based on the direct application of Darcy’s equation
(constant head method) to a saturated soil column of uniform cross-sectional area [15]. Soil
pH was measured in a 1:5 soil water solution by a pH meter [16]. Soil electrical conductivity
of saturation extract (ECe) was measured with an EC meter (CD 4307 SD) [17]. Sodium
adsorption ratio (SAR) was determined by flame method using atomic absorption
spectrophotometer (AAS) [18]. Soil organic carbon was determined by the method of
Heanes wet oxidation. The percentage of organic carbon (Corg) in a soil is multiplied by 1.724
to obtain the percentage of soil organic matter (SOM). Well water quality was measured by
using water quality meter (WQC-24). pH of leachate was measured with pH meter (AS 800).
EC of leachate was measured with EC meter (CD 4307 SD).

In the second step, leaching requirement (LR) was calculated by constructing the curve of
the relationship between cumulative leaching amount and EC values. This study was started
with five frequencies of leaching water at 7 days interval using 500, 750, 1000, 1250, 1500
3 -1
cm , respectively. To wash salt, 0.4 µS cm of deionized water was used.

In the third experiment for the reclamation of soil problem, comparison of saturated soil
hydraulic conductivity under different rates of amendments used such as gypsum, sulphur
and cow dung manure were carried out. Each study had four treatments and these were
assigned as completely randomized design with three replications. In the gypsum treatment,
-1 -1 -1 -1
different rates of 0 t ha , 5 t ha , 10 t ha and 15 t ha were used. In sulphur treatment,
-1 -1 -1 -1
different rates of sulphur 0 t ha , 1 t ha , 2 t ha and 3 t ha were used. In cow dung
-1, -1 -1 -1
manure treatment, different rates of cow dung 0 t ha 10 t ha , 20 t ha and 30 t ha were
used.

2.5 Statistical analysis

All collected data were analyzed by using the statistical software program (statisix version
8.0). Oneway ANOVA for CRD was constructed to test at P <0.05. All means were
compared by using LSD test at 5% level.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Comment [2]: BD data are missing

3.1 Identification of the study soil whether it is salt affected or not

Table 2: Some soil characteristics of the study site

Soil Depth
No. Soil Characteristics
0-20 cm 20-40 cm 40-60 cm

1 Texture Sandy loam Clay loam Clay loam

-3
2 Bulk density (g cm ) 1.41 ± 0.16 1.63 ± 0.11 1.53 ± 0.07
-1 Formatted: Subscript
3 ECe (mScm ) 2.63 ± 0.06 1.90 ± 0.08 2.11 ± 0.04

4 pH (1:5 water) 8.58 ± 0.05 8.88 ± 0.41 8.65 ± 0.08

5 SAR 3.49 ± 0.04 3.93 ± 0.02 3.79 ± 0.10

-1 -6 -8
6 Ks (cm s ) 1 x 10 1x 10 1X10-8
7 SOM (%) 0.98±0.08 0.26±0.09 0.14±0.07
After ± values are standard deviation.
(𝐶𝑎2+ +𝑀𝑔 2+)
SAR means sodium adsorption ratio using the equation of 𝑆𝐴𝑅 =
𝑁𝑎 +
Ks means saturated hydraulic conductivity.
SOM means soil organic matter.

Some measured soil characters were shown in Ttable 2 and 3. Two textural classification Comment [3]: Capital first letter of word T…
was observed at three soil depths. Bulk density at 20-40 cm soil depth was the maximum. It
meant that the plough layer was forming because of rice cultivation. Soil organic matter
content was decreased in order from top to bottom of the soil profile. However, organic
matter contents were too low there. According to Ttable 2, it could be recognized that three
soil depths of the
+ 2+ 2+
Tables 3: Exchangeable soil Na , Ca and Mg contents of the study site
Soil Properties Depth
(Sodium Absorption Ratio) 0-20 cm 20-40 cm 40-60 cm
 -1
Exchangable Na (meqL ) 22.10 22.60 22.30

-1
Exchangable Ca (meqL ) 70.93 54.07 52.80

-1
Exchangable Mg(meqL ) 9.9 11.30 12.27

-1
study site had pH of >8.5, ECe of around 2 mS cm and SAR of > 3. It indicated that the soil
with high pH, slightly saline and slightly sodic. Throughout the soil column, exchangeable
+ 2+
Na was equally distributed and amount of exchangeable Ca was the greatest at the
surface (table 3). It was the sign of salt affected soil with high pH [19]. Well water quality
near the study site during the hot season also showed with high EC and pH (table 4). The
+ 2+
reason of high Na amount there was evaporation from ground water (table 4) and high Ca Formatted: Highlight
amount was the application of gypsum for a decade by native farmers (table 1). In table (2), Formatted: Highlight
-6 -8 -1
Ks was varied from 10 to 10 cm s . So, the soil was low permeable. In sodium affected
soils, the soil permeability was usually poor. In addition, the soil texture and bulk density of
upper layer (0-20 cm) and lower layers (20-40 cm and 40-60 cm) were completely different.
Textural differentiations and high bulk density made the soil permeability poor. Likely,
Waskom et al (2012) reported that many sensitive crops such as some vegetables and
-1
ornamentals showed symptoms and reduced yields at ECs of 2 - 4 mS cm . In addition,
many soils would begin to have reduced infiltration and increased crusting at SAR levels well
below 13.

Table 4: Characteristics of well water quality near the study site

No. Water Quality Value

1 Oxidation Reduction Potential, ORP (mv) 550.33

2 Dissolved Oxygen, DO (mg/L) 47.46
-1
3 Electrical Conductivity, ECON (mS cm ) 3.81
4 Turbidity, TURD (NTU) 10.53
5 Temperature, TEMP (°C) 27.3
6 pH 8.77

3.2 Calculation of leaching amount

To calculate the leaching amount for reclaiming this problem soil, the relationship between
3 -
cumulative amount of leached water (cm ) and the electrical conductivity (EC) value (mS cm
1
) of the drained water was calibrated in figure 1. The use of leached water quality was 0.4
-1 -1
μS cm ). In the drained water, water quality was reduced from 1.2 mS cm to less than 0.8
-1 3
mS cm when 500- 1500 cm of deionized water was used for leaching the salts. At the
3
amount of 750 cm leaching water, EC value showed the lowest and after that, EC values
became
+ 2+ 2+
higher. It was due to water soluble Na and reduced Ca and Mg made the poor soil
3
structure [20]. At 1500 cm of leached water, the electrical conductivity (EC) value was
3
stable. Therefore, leaching volume of 1500 cm of deionized water was used for reclaiming
this problem soil using different rates of amendments such as gypsum, sulphur and cow
 dung manure and for comparing Ks. Actually, this use amount of quality water is relatively
high.

1.2

1
EC (mS cm-1)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750

Leaching (cm3)

3 -1
Figure 1. Relationship between cumulative leaching amount (cm ) and EC (mS cm ) of
drained water

3.3 Reclamation of the problem soil

3.3.1 Effects of different rates of gypsum on saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks)
Saturated hydraulic conductivity (cm s-1)

Hy 8.00 P > 0.05

dra LSD 1.44
uli CV 31.76%
c 6.00
Co -1
G0 = Gypsum 0 t ha
nd G5 = Gypsum 5 t ha
-1
uct4.00 G10 = Gypsum 10 t ha-
1

ivit G15 = Gypsum 15 t ha-

1

y (-
log2.00
Ks)

0.00
GT1
0
T2
G 5
T3
G10
T4
G15
Different rates of Gypsum -1
Different rates of gypsum (t ha )
 Figure 2. Effects of different rates of gypsum application on saturated hydraulic
conductivity (-log Ks) of high pH soil

Mean comparisons of Ks under different rates of gypsum application were shown in figure 1.
Decreasing in -log Ks means the soil become more permeable. Statistically, there was no
significantly difference among the treatments. However, there was numerically decreased in
-1 -1 -1
- log Ks. When different rate of gypsum 5 t ha , 10 t ha and 15 t ha were applied with 1500
3
cm of deionized water for salt leaching, Ks in G5 was faster than other treatments. It
indicated that the soil became more permeable at - log Ks value between 4 and 5. The
reason of G5 showing the more permeable than G10 and G15 was that exchangeable calcium
in G5 could balance with exchangeable sodium in soil. Permeability of G5 was about 100
-1
times greater than that of no addition. Therefore, gypsum 5 t ha should be used when using
gypsum for solving this problem soil.

3.3.2 Effects of different rates of sulfur on saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks)

Effects of different rates of sulphur application on Ks were shown in figure 3. There was no
statistically difference among the treatments. However, numerically decrease in - log
-1
Ksoccurred at1 t ha of sulphur application. It was nearly 100 times reduce in - log Ks when
-1
compared to control treatment. Similarly, 1 t ha sulphur application gave the more
2-
permeability than other treatments because of the balancing effect of anions SO 4 in the
-1
soil- water solution. Therefore, sulphur 1 t ha should be used when using sulphur for
solving the problem soil.
Hy P > 0.05
dr LSD 0.88
au CV 18.38%
lic -1
Co S0 = Sulphur 0 t ha
-1
nd S1= Sulphur 1 t ha
-1
uc S2 = Sulphur 2 t ha
-1
tiv S3 = Sulphur 3 t ha
ity
(-
lo
g
Ks
) S0 S1 S2 S3
-1
Different rates of sulphur (t ha )

Figure 3. Effects of different rates of sulphur application on saturated hydraulic

conductivity (- log Ks) of high pH soil

3.3.3Effects of different rates of cow dung manure application on saturated hydraulic

conductivity (Ks)

Effects of different rates of cow dung manure on - log Ks were described in figure (4).
Statistically, there was no significant effects on - log Ks among the treatments. However,
there was a numerically decrease in - log Ks due to the application of cow dung manure. In
-1
comparison of - log Ks, CD20 treatment (20 t ha ) gave the minimum value and it showed the
soil as the faster permeability than other treatments. Permeability of CD20 was about 10
-1 -1
times greater than that of CD30 treatment (30 t ha ). Therefore, cow dung manure 20 t ha
should be used when using cow dung manure for solving this problem soil. Addition of
organic residues on Ks varied with soil texture, structure and there were some changes in
hydraulic characteristics on salt-affected [21].

Hy P > 0.05
dr LSD 1.56
aul CV 33.13%
ic
Co
nd
uct -1
CD0 = Cow dung 0 t ha
ivit -1
CD10 = Cow dung 10 t ha
y (- CD20 = Cow dung 20 t ha
-1
log CD30 = Cow dung 30 t ha
-1

Ks
)

CD0 CD10 CD20 CD30

-1
Different rates of cow dung manure (t ha )

Figure 4. Effects of different rates of cow dung manure application on saturated

hydraulic conductivity (- log Ks) of high pH soil

3.3.4 Comparison of Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks) using different amendments

Based on the three above experiments, it was found that among different amendment
-1
applications, gypsum 5 t ha gave the best permeability (the fastest saturated hydraulic
conductivity) (in figure 5). Permeability of G 5 was about 10 times greater than that of S1 and
CD20 treatments and it was also about 100 times greater than that of no addition. Therefore,
-1
the study site could be reclaimed using gypsum 5 t ha with quality water to leach out the
salt and it is necessary to drain out. Here, it could be expected that application of cow dung
manure on - log Ks had less effect than other amendments (figure 2 and 3).
 H P > 0.05
yd LSD 1.20
ra CV 27.09%
uli
c
C
on
T1 = Control
du
-1
cti G5 = Gypsum 5 t ha
vit S1 = Sulphur 1 t ha
-1

y -1
CD20 = Cow Dung 20 t ha
(-
lo
g T1 G5 S1 CD20
K -1
Different amendments (t ha )
s)
Figure 5. Effects of saturated hydraulic conductivity (-log Ks) among
different amendments of high pH soil

4. CONCLUSION
+
The study site faces with high soil pH problem due to Na distribution in the ground water as
well as application of gypsum there. To reduce the EC value in the drained water (<1 mS
-1 3
cm ), leaching requirement was 1500cm per core. Among different rates of gypsum
-1
application, 5 t ha gave the fastest rate of saturated hydraulic conductivity. Among different
-1
rates of sulphur application, 1 t ha gave the fastest rate of saturated hydraulic conductivity.
-1
Among different rates of cow dung manure application, 20 t ha also showed the fastest rate
-
of saturated hydraulic conductivity. Among different amendment applications, gypsum 5 t ha
1
favoured the soil becomes more permeable that was about 100 times greater than that of
no addition.

6. REFERENCES

1. Klute, A.; Dirksen, C. Hydraulic conductivity and diffusivity: Laboratory methods. In

Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1. Agronomy No. 9; Klute, A., Ed.; American Society
of
Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1986; pp. 687–734.

2. Gamie, R., & De Smedt, F. 2018. Experimental and statistical study of saturated
hydraulic conductivity and relations with other soil properties of a desert soil.
European Journal of Soil Science, 69(2), 256-264.

3. Gootman, K. S., Kellner, E., & Hubbart, J. A. 2020. A comparison and validation of
saturated hydraulic conductivity models. Water, 12(7), 2040.

4. Hillel, D. (1971). Soil and water: physical principles and processes. Elsevier.
5. Reeve, R. C., Bower, C. A., Brooks, R. H., & Gschwend, F. B. (1954). A comparison
of the effects of exchangeable sodium and potassium upon the physical condition of
soils.Soil Science Society of America Journal, 18(2), 130-132.

6. Hillel, D. (2003). Introduction to environmental soil physics. Elsevier.

7. Tsegaye, T. (1984). Effect of soluble salt on some mechanic properties of soil

(Doctoraldissertation, A Thesis submitted to the University of Aberden for the degree
of Master of Science. Scotland. 177p Studies of Alemaya University of Agriculture,
182p).

8. Szabolcs, I. (1989). Salt-affected soils. CRC Press, Inc.

9. James, D. W., Hanks, R. J., & Jurinak, J. J. (1982). Modern irrigated soils. John
Wiley
& Sons.

10. Mohamed Salih, D.M. 2016. How to handle salt affected water in clay soil. University
ofKhartoum.

11. Shaygan, M., & Baumgartl, T. (2022). Reclamation of salt-affected land: A review.
Soil
Systems, 6(3), 61.

12. U Kyaw San Naing. (2021). Barrier Analysis and Enabling Framework Report for
Climate Change Adaptation.

13. Andrew Alden. 2019. Quick Sediment Testing: Particle Size

14. Blake, G.R. 1965. Bulk Density in Methods of Soil Analysis. In C. A. Black (ed.,)
Agronomy, Part11. 9: 374-390.

15. Klute, A. 1965. Laboratory measurements of hydraulic conductivity of saturated soil.

In C.A. Black et al. (ed.) Methodsof soil analysis. Part1. Agron. Monogr.
ASA,Madison, WI. 9:253-261.

16. Rayment, G. E., & Lyons, D. J. (2011). Soil chemical methods: Australasia (Vol. 3).
CSIRO publishing.

17. Van Rust,E., Verloo,M., Demeyer,A. & Pauweis,J.M.(2001). Analytical methods for
soils and plants: Equipment and management of consumaables. University of
Ghent,Belgium.

18. Hazelton and Murphy.2007. Interpreting Soil Test Results: What do all numbers
mean?CSIRO publishing, Collingwood.

19. R.M. Waskom, T. Bauder, J.G. Davis and A.A. Andales.2012. Diagnosing Saline
and
 Sodic Soil Problems. Colorado State University

20. Hillel, D. (2004). Introduction to environmental soil physics. Elsevier Science, New
York.p. 494.

21. Crescimanno, G., M. Iovino, and G. Provenzano. 1995. “Influence of salinity and
sodicity on soil structural and hydraulic characteristics.” Soil Science Society of
America Journal 59:1701–1708.