Printer Friendly

Sustainable Management of Calcareous Saline-Sodic Soil in Arid Environments: The Leaching Process in the Jordan Valley.

1. Introduction

Saline-sodic soil can significantly reduce the productivity of affected agricultural land. Saline soil has an electrical conductivity (EC) of the saturation soil extract of more than 4 dS [m.sup.-1] at 25[degrees]C [1,2]. Soil salinity is a major problem facing sustainable development in the agricultural sector in the Jordan Valley and adversely affects soil productivity. Many arid and semiarid regions in the world contain soil and water resources that have high salinity rates not suitable for most common economic crops [3]. Jordan, with an area of 89,556 km2 of which more than 80% is desert, has more than 180,000 ha of arable land affected by soil salinity [4]. The main sources of soil salinity are either natural (due to parent soil materials, salt deposits, and climatic conditions) or caused by long-term use of fertilizers, low rainfall, and the use of high-salt irrigation water. In the Jordan Valley, these sources are predominantly found on a large portion of land surrounding the Dead Sea area and are naturally high in saline due to the declination of the Dead Sea's water level. In other areas in the Middle and Northern parts of the valley, soil salinity is due to upward movement irrigation practices in hot, dry climatic conditions where dissolved salts accumulate in the root zone [5, 6]. Removing salts from the root zone can be done by using various methods. Soil leaching is well known to be the most effective procedure, but this requires a large amount of water. Therefore, it is not recommended for a country, such as Jordan, with scarce water resources. Biological methods, such as salt tolerant plants (halophytes) and certain bacterial strains, were reported to be effective in removing salts from the root zone [2, 7]. Poor irrigation water quality along with saline-sodic soil has reduced plant yield and represents a serious threat to soil productivity. Nevertheless, information on the effects of these methods on soil reclamation is scarce in this region.

Reuse of saline water and amelioration of salt-affected soil is becoming an increasingly vital tool to improve crop production and has created extra farm land which has saved fresh water resources. Additionally, many areas of the world have soil with problems of high salinity and water logging. A large number of subsurface/surface drainage systems have been installed to lower the water table and leach salts from saline-sodic soil. Poor quality water can be used for the leaching of saline-sodic soil in areas where there are limited fresh water resources and salt-affected soils.

Sodic soil contains an excess of exchangeable [Na.sup.+] on soil colloids and has soluble carbonates which results in higher soil pH. The amendments to saline-sodic soil are materials that will furnish divalent cations such as [Ca.sup.+2] to replace exchangeable [Na.sup.+]. The exchange of [Ca.sup.+2] with [Na.sup.+] in soil results in flocculation of soil particles, the restoration of porous structures, and the increase in soil permeability. The reclamation of sodic soil also requires water high in electrolytes to pass through the soil profile having leaving divalent ions, usually [Ca.sup.+2], in the soil and washing exchanged [Na.sup.+] ions away from the root zone (Hanay et al. 2004) [8].

Saline-sodic soil containing calcium carbonate (CaC[O.sub.3]) is common in arid and semiarid regions (Oster et al. 1996). Since the CaC[O.sub.3] dissolution rate is too slow to supply enough [Ca.sup.+2] for ion exchange, an acid or acid former, such as gypsum (Wong et al. 2009), sulfuric acid (Sadiq et al. 2007), or organic matter (Li and Keren 2009), can be applied as a soil amendment to enhance CaC[O.sub.3] dissolution. Gypsum is the most prevalent agricultural soil amendment used for reclamation of sodic soil. It decreases the damaging effects of high sodium content in irrigation water because of its high solubility, ease of use, and low cost [8]. Several studies have shown that a high application of gypsum to reclaim saline-sodic soils increases the removal of excess [Na.sup.+] from soil and causes a significant reduction in electrical conductivity and sodium adsorption ratio within the soil (Keren 1996; Sadiq et al. 2003; Hamza and Anderson et al. 2003; Hanay et al. 2004). Therefore, the objective of this study was to reclaim saline-sodic soils using gypsum-amended soil, fresh water, and drained water. The study's aim was to facilitate saline soil leaching in an arid environment, such as the Jordan Valley, and to decrease the electrical conductivity of soil salinity to less than 4.0 dS [m.sup.-1]. Additionally, investigations were performed to analyze the leachability of major cations and anions in the soil profile. Finally, the study's other purpose was to ascertain sustainable water management (SWM) practices through preservation of fresh water by leaching saline soil using drained water.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Field Site and Experiment Preparations. This research was conducted in Ghor Al-Safi, an area in the southern part of the Jordan Valley approximately 20 km from the southern edge of the Dead Sea. The area is nearly flat with just a slight slope to the west. The climate is subtropical and is characterized by a hot, dry summer season (April to October) and a warm winter season (November to March). Rainfall is less than 80 mm/year occurring mainly in two or three main events during the winter season [9,10]. The soil is characterized by low fertility, organic matter (1.01 to 4.71%), and CEC (49 cmol [kg.sup.-1]) [11, 12]. The natural vegetation in this area consists of scattered wild plants tolerant to high salinity, such as Prosopis farcta, Proposi juliflord, and Ziziphus spinachristi [13]. The dominant soil texture is silt with poor soil structure, and the average salinity is 98.1 dS/m based on a saturated paste test. This land has been categorized as an extremely salty area [14]. A marly layer, 40 cm thick, was found at approximately 60 cm deep.

Soil reclamation experiments were conducted using three types of reclamation treatments. The chemical and physical soil properties were measured before and after the reclamation experiments to assess the efficiency of salt removal and to quantify amount of salt removed from the plant effective root zone using different treatments. The treatments were applied, namely, soil amended with gypsum (treatment A), untreated soil consistent with the area (treatment B), and untreated soil (treatment C). Treatment C was washed with agricultural drainage saline water (EC = 8.0 dS[m.sup.-1], [Na.sup.+] = 2743.3 mg/L, [Ca.sup.+2] = 1802.7 mg/L, and [Mg.sup.+2] = 1051.2 mg/L) at the start of the experiment, and then leaching continued with fresh water (EC = 1.1 dS[m.sup.-1], [Na.sup.+] = 73.3mg/L, [Ca.sup.+2] = 34.3 mg/L, and [Mg.sup.+2] = 41.6 mg/L) similar to the other treatments. The treatment block consisted of three separate experimental units, each 50 [m.sup.2] (5 m x 10 m) and confined by a trench 180 cm deep to collect drainage water, Figure 1. There were nine experimental units (3 treatments x three replicates). A continuous flooding method was used for soil leaching.

Gypsum was applied to treatment A at an application rate of 10.91 [ha.sup.-1]. The gypsum requirement is the amount of applied gypsum (application rate) required to reduce the exchangeable sodium percent (ESP) to 10% at the end of the experiment, given that the ESP was approximately 42% according to similar records for the study area [14]. The upper 30 cm of soil was well mixed and irrigated with fresh water once per week. Treatment B represented soil typically found in the study area. This treatment was continuously washed with fresh water during the experimental period. Conversely, treatment C was leached initially using saline water until the drainage water reached a salinity value of 20dS[m.sup.-1]. Afterwards, it was leached with fresh water until the drainage water reached an EC value of 4 dS [m.sup.-1].

2.2. Soil, Water Samplings, and Analysis. Soil samples were collected from three depths (0-50, 50-100, and 100-150 cm) for each treatment at the beginning and after at least 25 weeks of leaching treatments; the data is shown in Tables 1 and 2. From each treatment, 10 samples were taken from 3 depths (0-50, 50-100, and 100-150 cm) using a soil auger and then homogenized to represent each treatment, in total 30 samples. In summary, three homogenized samples were analyzed for each treatment. The leaching end point was decided when the drainage water's electrical conductivity (EC) reached a value [less than or equal to]4 dS [m.sup.-1]. The chemical and physical properties of the soil samples were measured first in the Chemistry Department and later in the Faculty of Agricultural Laboratories at Mu'tah University, Jordan. The soil soluble ions ([Cl.sup.-], S[O.sub.4.sup.-2], HC[O.sub.3.sup.-], [Na.sup.+], [K.sup.+], [Ca.sup.+2], and [Mg.sup.+2]) were determined in the saturated soil paste according to US Salinity Laboratory Staff [15] and Rhoades [16]. The [Cl.sup.-] and S[O.sub.4.sup.-2] ions were analyzed using gravimetric titration and turbidimetric method, respectively. [Ca.sup.+2] and [Mg.sup.+2] cations were determined by atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AAS). Finally, [Na.sup.+] and [K.sup.+] were analyzed using flame emission photometry (FEP).

While exchangeable [Na.sup.+] and [K.sup.+] were extracted in ammonium acetate and [Ca.sup.+] and [Mg.sup.+] in sodium acetate according to Rowell [17], they were then analyzed using the same FEP and AAS techniques mentioned above, respectively. Furthermore, EC was measured in the saturated soil paste extract using an EC-meter [16]. Soil texture was determined using the hydrometer method according to Gee and Bauder [18]. OM was determined using the wet oxidation method according to Sparks et al. [19]. CEC was determined by displacement of cations from soil samples with 1 N ammonium acetate, and determination was done using Flame Photometer (Palemio and Rhoades 1977). Gypsum was analyzed in soil according to the standardized procedure described by Schlichting et al. [20]. The carbonate (HC[O.sub.3]) content was determined using a volumetric titration method of soil paste extract (Rhoades et al. 1992).

Water samples were collected from fresh water used for irrigation and soil leaching and drainage water using polyethylene bottles. The water was collected through drainage canals around each treatment at a depth of 1.8 m during the leaching experiment until its EC value reached [less than or equal to]4 dS [m.sup.-1]. All of the drainage water was pumped out and its quantity measured. Furthermore, it was analyzed for EC and major ionic composition. The following ions ([Na.sup.+], [Ca.sup.+2], [Mg.sup.+2], [Cl.sup.-], and S[O.sub.4.sup.-2]) were analyzed using Dionex Ion Chromatograph Model DX 100 (Dionex, USA).

2.3. Statistical Analysis. Design analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the treatments effected by applying the following mathematical model [21]: [y.sub.ij] = [mu] + [[tau].sub.i] + [[beta].sub.j] + [epsilon]eij (where [y.sub.ij] represents the observation from ijth experimental unit (=plot), [[tau].sub.i] represents the effect of treatment i, such that the average of each treatment [bar.T] = [mu] + [[tau].sub.i], [epsilon]ij are the residuals, the deviations of each observation from their expected values, [[beta].sub.i] is the effect of jth replication, and [mu] is the overall mean). Fisher's least significant differences (LSD) were used as a method for comparing treatment means. The statistical analysis was done using Statistical Analysis System (SAS) software.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Physical and Chemical Soil Properties. The predominant soil texture in the experimental site was silty as recorded in Table 1. High silt content has an adverse impact on soil moisture movement due to its low hydraulic conductivity. The OM content varied from 0.7 to 3.0% and EC from 27 to 144 dS[m.sup.-1] for the investigated soil, Table 1. Thus, the soil was classified as saline-sodic soil [22]. High soil salinity is a limiting factor for microbial soil activity; it is responsible for OM degradation; hence it accumulates under a saline environment. Moreover, the upper soil depth (0-50 cm) showed elevated ESP range (39-97%) because of evapotranspiration as a result of high temperatures in the Jordan Valley. As a result of capillary phenomenon, more salt accumulated in the upper soil horizon [23]. While ESP ranged from 17 to 45% for the middle soil depth (50-100 cm), the deepest soil layers (100-150 cm) showed a high ESP range of 27-55% because they were in contact with the water table. Therefore, there were big variations in ESP values due to salt accumulation before the start of the leaching treatment; this is a normal heterogeneity of saline sodic soil matrix in such an arid environment.

Furthermore, the high concentration of cations and anions, particularly [Na.sup.+] and [Cl.sup.-], in the soil leads to high soil salinity. The [Cl.sup.-] concentration ranged from 230 to 1377 meq/ L within the surface and deep soil layers. The [Na.sup.+] showed a similar trend to [Cl.sup.-] where its concentration ranged from 108 meq/L within the deep layers of the soil to 670 meq/L at the surface layer. The pH value ranged from 6.9 to 8.3. The alkaline pH was due to the presence of high CaC[O.sub.3] concentrations in the soil [24]. The soil CaC[O.sub.3] ranged from 35.0% up to 47.6%. Under alkaline soil, the dissolution of CaC[O.sub.3] is unlikely, resulting in low HC[O.sub.3] concentrations (2.4 to 5.0 meq/L) as in Table 1; therefore alkaline pH inhabits the [Ca.sup.+2] solubility [25]. Thus, the major source of [Ca.sup.+2] in the soil was gypsum, where gypsum concentration ranged from 1.5 to 6.2%. Gypsum was being utilized for reclamation of sodic soils as a source of [Ca.sup.+2] to replace [Na.sup.+] (Bresler 1982). Therefore, an extra amount of gypsum was added to the soil since its original amount was not adequate to reclaim saline-sodic soil (Frenkel et al. 1989; Baumhardt et al. 1992). The cumulative water quantities were recorded during the leaching experiments which lasted for at least 25 weeks to reduce the soil salinity to 4.0 dS [m.sup.-1]. These water quantities were 107,101, and 102 [m.sup.3] per 50 [m.sup.2] for gypsum, fresh water, and saline water treatments, respectively (Figure 2). The estimated leached water amounts required for reclamation of the investigated saline-sodic soil were 21400, 20200, and 20400 [m.sup.3] per hectare, for gypsum, fresh water, and saline water treatments, respectively. These water amounts were considered high for Jordan which suffers from severe water shortage [12, 26]. Therefore, utilizing agricultural drainage water for leaching processes until reaching 20dS [m.sup.-1] of drained water can save around 66% (13200 [m.sup.3] per hectare) of fresh water requirements [27]. One drawback of this approach is that using brackish water consumes a larger amount of water compared to the amount needed for leaching with fresh water [28, 29]. Additionally, soil swelling might take place too which may lead to an increase in volume as the soil gets wet and shrinks as it dries out. This phenomenon might occur when a high salt content such as ESP > 15% in the soil is high [30], and an extensive degradation in soil structure might occur when irrigation waters have SAR > 13 [31]. A mass balance of [Na.sup.+] shows that not all of the exchangeable sodium can be removed during the reclamation stage, even though excess amounts of gypsum were applied [31].

3.2. Soil Leaching Experiment. Desalinization curves (Figure 3) showed that the three different leaching treatments were able to reduce soil salinity to less than 4dS[m.sup.-1] at the end of the experiment. A sharp decline in soil salinity during the first few weeks of the leaching experiment was observed. Then a gradual decrease was observed with successive leaching until the end of the experiment. The gypsum treatment A was the fastest and most effective treatment as the EC declined to less than 20 dS [m.sup.-1] only in 7 weeks, while treatment B needed 14 weeks and treatment C needed 16 weeks, Figure 3. Similar behavior of soil salinity was also reported by Gharaibeh et al. [29]. Gharaibeh et al.'s research showed that leached salts were greater at the start of the experiment, but their efficiencies decreased consistently over time. The water quality used for leaching played an important role in the amount of water and time required for salt to be leached from treated soil. The lower the amount of salt in the leaching water, the greater the amount of salt removed. In this study, the phenomenon was also observed in fresh water as the time and amount of leached water were much lower than the saline water. By using different leaching water qualities, there was a difference in the salt removal rate between the three treatments. For example, treatment A showed a sharp decrease in salinity due to the use of gypsum as a rich source of calcium ion: the drop in EC was relatively fast when compared to the other treatments, as shown in Figure 3. This behavior relates to the flocculation of soil particles which is a distinctive occurrence when gypsum is applied. This will improve the soil's hydraulic conductivity and consequently help with the leaching of soluble salts (Oster 1982; Mahmoodabadi et al. 2012). Fresh water treatment B also showed a sharp decline in salinity when compared to the saline water treatment C. These results were in agreement with S. K. Gupta and I. C. Gupta [28]. The utilization of drainage water for leaching saline sodic soil can contribute effectively in sustainable water management of scarce fresh water resources in the Jordan Valley.

The relationships between the decline in electrical conductivity (EC) and the amount of drainage water ([m.sup.3]) from the gypsum-amended soil (A), fresh water (B), and saline water (C) treatments over the experimental period are shown in Figures 3(a), 3(b), and 3(c). The EC of drainage water dramatically decreased in the first few weeks, and then a gradual decrease was observed until a steady state was reached at the end of the experiment. The gypsum-amended soil, treatment A, showed the fastest salt leaching process compared with both the fresh, B, and saline, C, water treatments. This may be the result of increased displacement of [Na.sup.+] due to an increased soil-solution of [Ca.sup.+2] from amendments and subsequent leaching of the replaced [Na.sup.+] through drained water [29] (Mahmoodabadi et al. 2012). The results also showed that gypsum treatments required smaller quantities of water to remove [Na.sup.+] from soil compared with fresh and saline water treatments. Similar trends were reported for saline and saline-alkaline soils [11, 29, 32, 33]. The leaching process at the beginning of the experiment showed the removal of salts from the easily percolated water in the macropores. However, in later stages of the leaching process, the drop of EC slowed as the leaching water diffused through micropores by capillary action. It is known that salinity affected soil undergoes variable equilibrium conditions through the leaching processes until complete equilibrium between soil solution and soil particles is achieved. At the end of the leaching experiment, the equilibrium process proceeded very slowly, consuming a large amount of water and time. It was found that a complete equilibrium need not be reached because partial equilibrium is sufficient to save water and time [34].

3.3. Changes in Drainage Water's Chemical Composition. There was a sharp decline in cations ([Na.sup.+], [Ca.sup.+2], and [Mg.sup.+2]) and [Cl.sup.-] concentrations for drainage water during the early stages of the leaching experiments, Figure 4. This decrease coincided with a decrease in SAR and a sharp drop in ESP which was continuously represented in the soil leaching process (Figure 5). Furthermore, a similar trend was observed for [Cl.sup.-] ion. The leaching process of ions from the soil was dependent upon ion radius, mobility, and adsorption affinity on soil paste. The observed reduction in SAR and ESP may have been caused by [Na.sup.+] reduction in the soil solution over time. The replacement of [Na.sup.+] and [K.sup.+] by [Ca.sup.+2] in the exchangeable sites probably led to an initial increase in soluble [Na.sup.+] and [K.sup.+] which then decreased over time.

3.4. Physical and Chemical Soil Properties after the Leaching Experiment. The chemical properties of the collected soil samples showed a decline in EC after the leaching experiment (see Table 2). PH values of the soil ranged between 7.64 and 7.94 for the three treatments at all depths. No sodicity development was observed in the leached soil during or after the leaching experiment. There was a sharp drop in EC values along the soil profile during the soil leaching for all treatment methods (A, B, and C). The EC values dropped from 111, 51, and 44 dS [m.sup.-1] for the three soil depths (0-50, 50-100, and 100-150 cm) to 0.94-1.18, 1.36-1.82, and 2.01-3.2 dS [m.sup.-1], respectively. Some lower EC values near the soil's surface for all treatments were noticed because of the excess leaching resulting from irrigation. Since salts are very mobile, soil EC values are being affected not only by soil amendment but also by the movement of water in the soil (Zhang et al. 2007). Moreover, since downward leaching of salt intensifies with irrigation or leaching, some of the salt should have been moved downward. Significant variations in cation distribution were found as a sharp decrease in exchangeable [Na.sup.+] and [K.sup.+] ions for all treatments at all depths. The results showed that the exchangeable [Na.sup.+] concentration dropped from 7.5, 4.1, and 3.8 meq/100 g to 1.59, 0.98, and 0.87 meq/100 g at 0-50 cm depth and to 2.02, 1.79, and 1.48 at 50-100 cm depth and 2.64, 2.38, and 1.65 at 100-150 cm depth for treatments A, B, and C, respectively, as displayed in Tables 1 and 2.

Further, application of gypsum provided a readily available source of [Ca.sup.+2] ions in the soil solution. It replaced the exchangeable [Na.sup.+] ions which then came into the soil solution and subsequently increased the electrolyte concentration. This increase in electrolyte concentration in turn increased the soluble salt concentration of the percolating solution [35]. Therefore, [Ca.sup.+2] and [Mg.sup.+2] concentrations increased from 6.7, 6.3, and 5.7 meq/100 g to 14.2,14.9, and 15.0 meq/100 g, to 13.4, 13.5, and 13.6, and to 12.3, 12.6, and 13.4 at 0-50, 50-100, and 100-150 cm depths for treatments A, B, and C, respectively. These results support the idea that [Ca.sup.+2] ion substitutes [Na.sup.+] ion in the soil, which leads to leaching the [Na.sup.+] ion from the soil. Additionally, this can be related to the higher mobility of [Na.sup.+] and [K.sup.+] than [Ca.sup.+2] and [Mg.sup.+2] in the soil profile during the leaching process (Mahmoodabadi et al. 2012).

3.5. Statistical Analysis Significance. The results of the statistical analysis were designated using three superscript letters a, b, or c, where the significance was tested at a 95% confidence limit (Table 2). The treatments followed by the same letter were not significantly different at P < 0.05. Significant differences were observed only at a soil depth 100-150 cm among the different treatments.

4. Conclusion

It can be concluded that utilization of agricultural drainage water in preliminary stages of soil leaching for saline-sodic soil can save more than 60% of fresh water requirements for soil reclamation. Likewise, adding gypsum to saline-sodic soil reduced the amount of water needed for leaching. The drop in EC with gypsum-amended soil was relatively faster than the other treatments because of flocculation of soil particles, which is a distinctive phenomenon with use of gypsum. A sharp decrease in exchangeable [Na.sup.+] and [K.sup.+] ions for all treatments and at all depths was also noticed with an increase in exchangeable [Ca.sup.+2] and [Mg.sup.+2]. Overall, the three investigated leaching treatment scenarios were able to reduce soil salinity to less than 4 dS [m.sup.-1] which conformed to the study's purpose.

However, the utilization of saline water resources, such as brackish and irrigation drainage water along with a gypsum application for leaching saline-sodic soils, can be an invaluable practice in the Jordan Valley, especially as fresh water becomes an increasingly valuable resource. Moreover, as gypsum is a relatively inexpensive material to purchase in large quantities, the research pointed out that using both saline water and gypsum might be a potential reclamation material for saline-sodic soils on a large scale in arid and semiarid environments. It is also recommended to investigate other soil reclaiming materials, such as phosphoric acid ([H.sub.3]P[O.sub.4]) with saline-sodic soils alongside saline water.

Competing Interests

The author declares that he has no competing interests.


This work was supported financially by the Higher Council for Science and Technology (HCST), Amman, Jordan. The researcher would like to extend his thanks to those who helped, encouraged, or participated directly or indirectly in this study. Additionally, the author would like to express deep gratitude to Mrs. Jennifer Benaggoun and Dr. Christopher Quinn for their editing skills.


[1] L. A. Richards, Ed., Diagnosis and Improvements of Saline and Alkali Soils, Handbook No 60 (USDA), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Washington, DC, USA, 1954.

[2] N. Al-Abed, J. Amayreh, A. Al-Afifi, and G. Al-Hiyari, "Bioremediation of a Jordanian saline soil: a laboratory study," Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, vol. 35, no. 9-10, pp. 1457-1467, 2004.

[3] A. Nerd and D. Pasternak, "Growth, ion accumulation, and nitrogen fractioning in Atriplex barclayana grown at various salinities," Journal ofRange Management, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 164-166, 1992.

[4] F. I. Massoud, "Basic principles for prognosis and monitoring of salinity and sodicity," in Proceedings of the International Conference on Managing Saline Water for Irrigation, pp. 432-454, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Tex, USA, August 1976.

[5] A. Jiries and K.-P. Seiler, "Water movement in typical soils in the Jordan Valley," Jordan Metrological Journal and Agriculture, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 5-12, 1995.

[6] A. Khlaifat, M. Hogan, G. Phillips, K. Nawayseh, J. Amira, and E. Talafeha, "Long-term monitoring of the Dead Sea level and brine physico-chemical parameters "from 1987 to 2008"," Journal of Marine Systems, vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 207-212, 2010.

[7] F. Nasir, M. Batarseh, A. H. Abdel-Ghani, and A. Jiries, "Free amino acids content in some halophytes under salinity stress in arid environment, Jordan," Clean--Soil, Air, Water, vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 592-600, 2010.

[8] E. Amezketa, R. Aragues, and R. Gazol, "Efficiency of sulfuric acid, mined gypsum, and two gypsum by-products in soil crusting prevention and sodic soil reclamation," Agronomy Journal, vol. 97, no. 3, pp. 983-989, 2005.

[9] O. E. Mohawesh, "Evaluation of evapotranspiration models for estimating daily reference evapotranspiration in arid and semiarid environments," Plant, Soil and Environment, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 145-152, 2011.

[10] O. E. Mohawesh and S. A. Talozi, "Comparison of Hargreaves and FAO56 equations for estimating monthly evapotranspiration for semi-arid and arid environments," Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 321-334, 2012.

[11] M. Gharaibeh, N. Eltaif, and S. Shra'a, "Leaching curves of highly saline-sodic soil amended with phosphoric acid and phosphogypsum," in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Agricultural and Animal Science, International Proceedings ofChemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering (IPCBEE), vol. 22, IACSIT Press, Singapore, 2011.

[12] O. Mohawesh, "Assessment of pedotransfer functions (PTFs) in predicting soil hydraulic properties under arid and semi-arid environments," Journal of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 475-492, 2013.

[13] MOA, "Ministry of Agriculture," Internal Report 2009, Ministry of Agriculture, Amman, Jordan, 2009.

[14] MWI, "Ministry of Water and Irrigation," Annual Report 1998, Laboratory Department at the Water Authority of Jordan, Dier-Ala Laboratories, Amman, Jordan, 1998.

[15] US Salinity Laboratory Staff, "Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils," in USDA Agricultural Handbook No. 60, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, USA, 1954.

[16] J. D. Rhoades, "Soluble salts," in Methods of Soil Analysis, Part2: Chemical and Microbiological Properties, A. L. Page, R. H. Muler, and D. R. Keeney, Eds., no. 9, part 2, pp. 167-179, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wis, USA, 2nd edition, 1982.

[17] D. L. Rowell, Soil Science: Methods and Applications, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1994.

[18] G. W. Gee and J. W. Bauder, "Particle-size analysis," in Methods of Soil Analysis, A. Klute, Ed., no. 9, part 1, pp. 383-411, Soil Science Society of America (SSSA), Madison, Wis, USA, 1986.

[19] D. Sparks, A. Page, P. Helmke, R. Loeppert, D. W. Nelson, and L. E. Sommers, "Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter," in Methods of Soil Analysis Part 3--Chemical Methods, SSSA Book Series, Soil Science Society of America, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wis, USA, 1996.

[20] E. Schlichting, H. P. Blume, and K. Stahr, Boden Kundliches Prktikum, Blackwell Wissenschaft, Wien, Austria, 1995.

[21] R. G. D. Steel and J. H. Torrie, Principles and Procedures of Statistics, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA, 2nd edition, 1980.

[22] E. Bresler, B. L. McNeal, and D. L. Carter, Saline and Sodaic Soil: Principles-Dynamic-Modeling, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1982.

[23] M. Qadir, A. Ghafoor, and G. Murtaza, "Amelioration strategies for saline soils: a review," Land Degradation and Development, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 501-521, 2000.

[24] J. Bolton, "Changes in soil pH and exchangeable calcium in two liming experiments on contrasting soils over 12 years," The Journal of Agricultural Science, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 81-86, 1977.

[25] A. Hardan, "Removal of salts from undisturbed saline-alkali soil columns by different leaching waters," in Proceedings of the Man, Food, and Agriculture in the Middle East Symposium, pp. 409-431, American University of Beirut, 1969.

[26] M. I. Batarseh, A. Rawajfeh, K. K. Ioannis, and K. H. Prodromos, "Treated municipal wastewater irrigation impact on olive trees (Olea Europaea L.) at Al-Tafilah, Jordan," Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, vol. 217, no. 1-4, pp. 185-196, 2011.

[27] A. Al Zubaidi and K. M. Hassan, "Leaching of some salt affected soils in Iraq using drainage water," Iraqi Journal of Agriculture Sciences, vol. 13, pp. 219-234, 1978.

[28] S. K. Gupta and I. C. Gupta, "Land development and leaching," in Management of Saline Soils and Waters, pp. 136-152, Mohan Primlani, New Dehli, India, 1987.

[29] M. A. Gharaibeh, N. I. Eltaif, and O. F. Shunnar, "Leaching and reclamation of calcareous Saline-sodic soil by moderately Saline and moderate-SAR water using Gypsum and Calcium Chloride," Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, vol. 172, no. 5, pp. 713-719, 2009.

[30] M. E. Sumner, "Sodic soils: new perspectives," Australian Journal of Soil Research, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 683-750, 1993.

[31] I. Shainberg and J. Letey, "Response of soils to sodic and saline conditions," Hilgardia, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 1-57, 1984.

[32] G. A. Al-nakshabandi, A. Alzubaidi, H. N. Ismail, F. Al-rayhani, and E. Al-hadithy, "Leaching of euphrates saline soil in lysimeters," Journal of Soil Science, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 508-513, 1971.

[33] I. M. Habib, "Leaching of saline soils in monoliths of Iraq," Egyptian Journal of Soil Science, vol. 14, pp. 149-158, 1974.

[34] S. Muhammed, B. L. McNeal, C. A. Bower, and P. F. Pratt, "Modification of the high-salt water method for reclaiming sodic soils," Soil Science, vol. 108, no. 4, pp. 249-256, 1969.

[35] M. Qadir, D. Steffens, F. Yan, and S. Schubert, "Sodium removal from a calcareous saline-sodic soil through leaching and plant uptake during phytoremediation," Land Degradation and Development, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 301-307, 2003.

Mufeed Batarseh (1,2)

(1) Chemistry Department, Mu'tah University, P.O. Box 7, Mu'tah 61710, Jordan

(2) Abu Dhabi Polytechnic, P. O. Box 111499, Abu Dhabi, UAE

Correspondence should be addressed to Mufeed Batarseh;

Received 7 October 2016; Revised 10 February 2017; Accepted 16 February 2017; Published 1 March 2017

Academic Editor: Rafael Clemente

Caption: Figure 1: Layout of the experimental fields: treatment A (A1-A3), treatment B (B1-B3), and treatment C (C1-C3).

Caption: Figure 2: Cumulative water quantities ([m.sup.3]) added during the leaching process (gypsum amended soil, fresh water, and saline water).

Caption: Figure 3: Electrical conductivity and quantities of drained water recorded during the experiment ((a) gypsum, (b) fresh water, and (c) saline water). The black line represents the leaching water quantity ([m.sup.3]), and the gray line is the EC.

Caption: Figure 4: Decline in ionic composition ([Na.sup.+], [Ca.sup.+2], [Mg.sup.+2], and [Cl.sup.-]) of drainage water for all treatments.
Table 1: Chemical properties of the soil before starting the
leaching experiment (minimum, maximum, average, and standard error).

Soil depth (cm)                           0-50 cm
Parameter                   Min    Max    Average *   Std ** error

EC (dS/m)                    68    144       111          22.0
pH (unit)                   6.9    8.2       7.3          0.4
Cl (meq/L)                  614    1377     1098         222.9
S[O.sub.4] (meq/L)           29    307       76           85.9
HC[O.sub.3] (meq/L)         2.4    5.2       3.1          0.8
Na (meq/L)                  330    670       480          98.4
K (meq/L)                    17     42       32           7.3
Ca (meq/L)                  125    240       175          33.3
Mg (meq/L)                  208    476       333          77.4
CaC[O.sub.3] (%)             37    47.6      40           3.2
CEC (meq/100 g)             14.6   18.8     17.5          1.2
Exch. Na (meq/100 g)        6.8    8.2       7.5          0.4
Exch. K (meq/100 g)         2.8    3.8       3.0          0.3
Exch. Ca + Mg (meq/100 g)   5.0    6.8       6.7          0.6
ESP (%)                      39     97      42.9          17.1
Organic matter (%)          1.1    2.4       1.8          0.4
Gypsum conc. (%)            1.5    6.2       4.1          1.4
Saturation percentage (%)    57     76       62           5.7

Soil depth (cm)                          50-100 cm
Parameter                   Min   Max     Average    Std error

EC (dS/m)                   27     81      50.6        15.6
pH (unit)                   7.1   8.2       7.6         0.3
Cl (meq/L)                  230   595       403        105.4
S[O.sub.4] (meq/L)          21     60       40         11.3
HC[O.sub.3] (meq/L)         1.6   4.2       2.4         0.8
Na (meq/L)                  144   320       240        50.9
K (meq/L)                   10     20       13          3.0
Ca (meq/L)                  39    116      74.5        22.3
Mg (meq/L)                  82    277       144        57.5
CaC[O.sub.3] (%)            35     46      40.7         3.2
CEC (meq/100 g)             10    15.7     13.1         1.6
Exch. Na (meq/100 g)        2.    6.4       4.1         1.3
Exch. K (meq/100 g)         2.5   3.0       2.7         0.1
Exch. Ca + Mg (meq/100 g)   5.5   6.3       6.3         0.3
ESP (%)                     17     45       31          8.1
Organic matter (%)          1.0   3.0       1.8         0.6
Gypsum conc. (%)            1.8   4.5       2.8         0.8
Saturation percentage (%)   63     79       72          4.6

Soil depth (cm)                          100-150 cm
Parameter                   Min   Max     Average    Std error

EC (dS/m)                   29     56       44         7.8
pH (unit)                   7.2   8.3       7.6        0.3
Cl (meq/L)                  319   542       408        64.8
S[O.sub.4] (meq/L)          19     72      33.5        15.8
HC[O.sub.3] (meq/L)         1.8    5        2.4        1.0
Na (meq/L)                  108   253       209        42.9
K (meq/L)                    8    1314      11         1.6
Ca (meq/L)                  55     88       67         9.7
Mg (meq/L)                  68    210      141.6       41.0
CaC[O.sub.3] (%)            35     45      38.6        2.9
CEC (meq/100 g)             10    14.7     11.3        1.4
Exch. Na (meq/100 g)        2.6   5.6       3.8        0.9
Exch. K (meq/100 g)         1.2    3        1.8        0.5
Exch. Ca + Mg (meq/100 g)   6.0   6.1       5.7        0.1
ESP (%)                     27     55       33         8.6
Organic matter (%)          0.7   2.1       1.1        0.4
Gypsum conc. (%)            1.7   5.0       3.3        1.0
Saturation percentage (%)   58     80       68         6.4

* Number of samples: 10 samples were taken from each depth (0-50,
50-100, and 100-150 cm) and homogenized to represent each treatment
in each replicate, in total 30 samples.

** Std error: standard error.

Table 2: Exchangeable cation concentrations (meq/100 g soil),
electrical conductivity (dS/cm), and pH of saturated soil paste
extract after the leaching experiment.

Treatment            Exchangeable cations (meq/100 g)
            K [+ or -] Std error **   Na [+ or -] Std error

A           1.68 (a)* [+ or -] 0.15   0.873 (a) [+ or -] 0.02
B           1.65 (a) [+ or -] 0.03    0.983 (a) [+ or -] 0.03
C           1.747 (a) [+ or -] 0.36   1.59 (a) [+ or -] 0.46

A           2.37 (a) [+ or -] 0.08    1.48 (a) [+ or -] 0.10
B           2.46 (a) [+ or -] 0.02    1.79 (a) [+ or -] 0.17
C           2.06 (a) [+ or -] 0.28    2.02 (a) [+ or -] 0.41

A           2.44 (a) [+ or -] 0.07    1.65 (c) [+ or -] 0.05
B           2.52 (a) [+ or -] 0.03    2.38 (b) [+ or -] 0.13
C           2.51 (a) [+ or -] 0.10    2.64 (a) [+ or -] 0.07

Treatment   Exchangeable cations (meq/100 g)
            Ca & Mg [+ or -] Std error        EC [+ or -]
                                               Std error

               Soil depth (0-50 cm)
A            14.96 (a) [+ or -] 0.15     0.94 (a) [+ or -] 0.08
B            14.86 (a) [+ or -] 0.01     1.05 (a) [+ or -] 0.04
C            14.16 (a) [+ or -] 0.80     1.18 (a) [+ or -] 0.04

              Soil depth (50-100 cm)
A            13.64 (a) [+ or -] 0.18     1.76 (a) [+ or -] 0.59
B            13.48 (a) [+ or -] 0.12     1.36 (a) [+ or -] 0.33
C            13.41 (a) [+ or -] 0.68     1.82 (a) [+ or -] 0.20

             Soil depth (100-150 cm)
A             13.4 (a) [+ or -] 0.11     3.2 (a) [+ or -] 0.24
B            12.59 (b) [+ or -] 0.15     2.01 (b) [+ or -] 0.26
C            12.33 (c) [+ or -] 0.11     2.2 (b) [+ or -] 0.12

Treatment   Exchangeable cations (meq/100 g)
                 pH [+ or -]
                  Std error

A           7.8 (a) [+ or -] 0.07
B           7.71 (a) [+ or -] 0.07
C           7.83 (a) [+ or -] 0.02

A           7.7 (a) [+ or -] 0.13
B           7.81 (a) [+ or -] 0.08
C           7.94 (a) [+ or -] 0.01

A           7.64 (b) [+ or -] 0.02
B           7.92 (a) [+ or -] 0.03
C           7.93 (a) [+ or -] 0.02

* Superscript letters (a), (b), and (c): statistical analysis
significance at 95% confidence limit. Treatments followed by
the same superscript letters were not significantly different
at P < 0.05.

** Std error: standard error.
COPYRIGHT 2017 Hindawi Limited
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2017 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Research Article
Author:Batarseh, Mufeed
Publication:Applied and Environmental Soil Science
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:7JORD
Date:Jan 1, 2017
Previous Article:Doc and C[O.sub.2]-C releases from pristine and drained peat soils in response to water table fluctuations: a mesocosm experiment.
Next Article:Diazotrophic Bacterial Community of Degraded Pastures.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters