See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228553006

Amelioration and nutrient management strategies for sodic and alkali soils

Article  in  CAB Reviews Perspectives in Agriculture Veterinary Science Nutrition and Natural Resources · May 2007
DOI: 10.1079/PAVSNNR20072021

CITATIONS READS

27 2,259

6 authors, including:

Manzoor Qadir Sven Schubert

Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen
118 PUBLICATIONS   9,945 CITATIONS    187 PUBLICATIONS   8,206 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

David Badía Bharat R Sharma

University of Zaragoza, Huesca, Spain International Water Management Institute
124 PUBLICATIONS   1,911 CITATIONS    99 PUBLICATIONS   2,827 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Safe Use of Wastewater in Agriculture (SUWA) View project

New perspectives on reducing arsenic accumulation in rice through innovative integrated remediation and management strategies View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bharat R Sharma on 03 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 2007 2, No. 021

Review

Amelioration and nutrient management strategies for sodic and alkali soils
M. Qadir1,2,*, S. Schubert3, D. Badia4, B. R. Sharma5, A. S. Qureshi6 and G. Murtaza7

Address: 1 International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), P.O. Box 5466, Aleppo, Syria. 2 International
Water Management Institute (IWMI), P.O. Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka. 3 Institute of Plant Nutrition, Interdisciplinary Research
Center, Justus Liebig University, Heinrich-Buff-Ring 26-32, 35392 Giessen, Germany. 4 Higher Technical School of Agrarian
Engineering of Huesca, University of Zaragoza, Crtra. Cuarte s/n, 22071 Huesca, Spain. 5 International Water Management Institute
(IWMI), South Asia Liaison Office, CG Block, NASC Complex, DPS Marg, Pusa Campus, New Delhi 110 012, India. 6 International
Water Management Institute (IWMI), Central Asia and Caucasus Sub-regional Office, Apartment No. 123, Murtazaeva 6, Tashkent
700000, Uzbekistan. 7 Institute of Soil and Environmental Sciences, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad 38040, Pakistan.

*Correspondence: Manzoor Qadir. Email: m.qadir@cgiar.org

Received: 23 January 2007

Accepted: 10 April 2007

doi: 10.1079/PAVSNNR20072021

The electronic version of this article is the definitive one. It is located here: http://www.cababstractsplus.org/cabreviews

g CABI Publishing 2007 (Online ISSN 1749-8848)

Abstract

Sodic and alkali soils are characterized by the occurrence of excess sodium (Na+) to levels that can
adversely affect soil structure and disturb the availability of nutrients for plant growth. Structural
problems in these soils are created by certain physical processes (slaking, swelling and dispersion
of clay minerals) and specific conditions (surface crusting and hardsetting), which affect water and
air movement, seedling emergence, root penetration, runoff and erosion, as well as tillage and
sowing operations. Such changes ultimately impact choice of crops, and crop growth and yield,
which are also affected by osmotic and ion-specific effects in these soils. Of the salt-affected soils
worldwide, about 60% are sodic and alkali soils, warranting attention for efficient, inexpensive and
environmentally feasible amelioration. Sodic and alkali soil amelioration primarily involves
increasing calcium (Ca2+) on the cation exchange complex at the expense of Na+. The replaced
Na+ is removed from the root zone through infiltrating water resulting from excessive irriga-
tion(s). Several approaches aiming at amelioration of these soils have been used, which include
application of water, crop, chemical amendment, electric current and tillage as amelioration tools.
In addition, management of plant nutrient elements in these soils has been addressed as a crucial
factor in improving crop productivity and soil fertility. While the principles and technologies aiming
at the amelioration of sodic and alkali soils are fairly well understood, their adoption in poor and
developing countries is very slow because the majority of the affected lands are in the possession
of resource-poor communities or form part of the common property resources of the villages.
This paper reviews various amelioration and nutrient management approaches as well as con-
straints to large-scale adoption of the amelioration approaches. This information will assist
researchers and farm advisers in choosing appropriate management practices to achieve maximum
benefits from these soils while considering the participation of the farmers in the planning and
setting of the amelioration programmes.

Keywords: Salt-affected soils, Saline-sodic soils, Soil amelioration, Chemical amendments, Gypsum,
Phytoremediation, Organic materials, Soil tillage, Soil fertility

Introduction and energy suggest that larger areas of salt-affected soils

will need to be cropped in the future. About 60% of
Currently more than 20% of the world’s irrigated land is salt-affected soils are sodic and alkali soils with limited
salt-affected. However, projections of global population productivity [1, 2]. Although no hard data exist, it is
growth and of an increased demand for food, feed, fibre generally recognized that a significant proportion of these

http://www.cababstractsplus.org/cabreviews
2 Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources
soils occur on land belonging to smallholder farmers,
who rely on that land to satisfy their food and feed needs
[3]. These farming communities are relatively poor and
face economic difficulties. In addition, sodicity and alkali-
nity enhance regional disparities, reduce aggregate
national income, and jeopardize food and nutrition
security in countries where the land is degraded by these
problems [4].
Sodic and alkali soils are characterized by the occur-
rence of excess sodium (Na+) to levels that can adversely
affect soil structure and availability of some nutrients.
Deterioration in these soils occurs through structural
problems created by certain physical processes (slaking,
swelling and dispersion of clay minerals) and specific
conditions (surface crusting and hardsetting), which affect
water and air movement, seedling emergence and growth,
root penetration, runoff, erosion, and tillage and sowing
operations [5–8]. In addition, osmotic and ion-specific
effects as well as imbalances in cation nutrition usually
occur, which may range from deficiencies of several
nutrients to high levels of Na+ [9]. Such physical and
chemical changes have a bearing on the activity of plant
roots and soil microbes, and ultimately on crop growth
and yield. These changes also seriously limit the choices of
crops to be cultivated on such soils and thus the benefits
of crop diversification.
Several irrigation schemes in the world have suffered
from problems of salinity and/or sodicity, reducing their
agricultural productivity and sustainability. Many once
highly productive areas have become salt-affected waste-
lands. Land degradation caused by salinity and sodicity has,
for example, increased steadily over the last few decades
in the northwest plains of the Indo-Gangetic Basin in India
and Pakistan and in China’s Yellow River Basin [10]. Salt-
and irrigation-induced land degradation is also occurring
in the Aral Sea Basin in Central Asia. The environmental
changes in the basin are considered to be some of the
largest caused by humanity in recent times [11]. Several
other examples of such degradation exist elsewhere in the
world [12].
Sodic and alkali soils exist mostly under arid and semi-
arid climates. Saline-sodic soils, a specific category of salt-
affected soils, are grouped with sodic and alkali soils
because they share several characteristics and the man-
agement approaches required for either soil type are
similar. Amelioration of these soils needs replacement of
excess exchangeable Na+ by more favourable calcium
(Ca2+). The replaced Na+ is leached from the root zone
through excessive irrigation. Thus, in addition to a source
of Ca2+, adequate water movement into and through
these soils, and safe disposal of the drainage water are
other key factors involved during the amelioration pro-
cess.
There has been a long history of research and practice
addressing the amelioration of sodic and alkali soils.
Several methods used in different parts of the world
to ameliorate these soils include: leaching without
http://www.cababstractsplus.org/cabreviews
amendment application to ameliorate gypsiferous sodic
soils; leaching with high-electrolyte water containing a
good proportion of divalent cations such as Ca2+; using
chemical amendments; modifying soil profile through til-
lage; surface scrapping of salts and surface flushing of low-
permeability soils where vertical leaching is not efficient;
passing electrical current through soils; and growing salt-
resistant plant species to ameliorate calcareous sodic and
alkali soils through phytoremediation. These methods and
their different combinations have been used under specific
conditions.
In addition to the characterization of sodic and alkali
soils, this paper evaluates different amelioration methods
used and nutrient management aspects for these soils. In
the end, there is also a discussion on the future per-
spectives of using sodic and alkali soils in terms of crop
productivity and environmental sustainability.
Characterization of Sodic and Alkali soils
Sodic soils are generally described in terms of the relative
amounts of Na+ on the cation exchange sites, or in the
soil solution, and the presence of accompanying levels of
salinity. Thus, soil sodicity represents the combined
effects of (1) soil salinity, as measured by the electrical
conductivity (ECe) of either an extract from a saturated
soil paste or of soil-to-water suspensions of different
ratios; and (2) either the soluble Na+ concentration
relative to the soluble divalent cation concentrations in
the soil solution (i.e. sodium adsorption ratio (SAR);
equation 1), or the exchangeable sodium fraction (ESF)
expressed as a percentage of the cation exchange capacity
(CEC), i.e. exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP; equa-
tion 2).
SAR=CNa =[(CCa +CMg )=2]1=2 (1)
where C represents concentrations in mmolc/L of the
cations denoted by subscript letters. The ESP is calculated
by incorporating the values of exchangeable Na+ (ENa) and
the CEC, both expressed as mmolc/kg or cmolc/kg of soil
(equation 2).
ESP=100(ENa )=CEC: (2)
The ESP may also be calculated by replacing CEC in
equation (2) with the sum of exchangeable cations such as
calcium (ECa), magnesium (EMg), potassium (EK), sodium
(ENa) and aluminium (EAl); in such a case, cation con-
centrations are expressed as mmolc/kg or cmolc/kg of
soil [13].
Various approximate relationships have been devel-
oped between ESP and SAR of soils belonging to different
areas of the world [14–16]. It is largely accepted that ESP
and SAR values remain close to each other within the
range 0–40, which is most common in agricultural soils.
An ESP of 15 (SAR13) is generally taken to be the
 M. Qadir, S. Schubert, D. Badia, B. R. Sharma, A. S. Qureshi and G. Murtaza
threshold below which soils are classified as non-sodic,
and above which soils are dispersive and suffer from
serious physical problems when water is applied. How-
ever, considerable data exist on infiltration rates and
hydraulic conductivities that show that soil behaviour
typical for sodic soils may occur at ESP values of less than
5 if ECe is lower than 4 dS/m [13]. Therefore, the principal
factor determining the extent of the adverse effects of
Na+ on soil properties is the ambient electrolyte con-
centration in the soil solution, with low concentrations
exacerbating the deleterious effects of exchangeable Na+.
In different parts of the world, other terminologies
such as alkali, black alkali, solonetz and slick-spot have
been used for soils with several characteristics similar
to those of sodic soils. For instance, alkali soils are
characterized by high sodicity (ESP>15) and pH (pH>8.3),
and contain soluble CO327 and HCO37 of Na+, i.e.
CNa : (CCl+CSO4) ratio greater than 1. These soils contain
Na+ and CO327+HCO37 as the dominant ions and tend
to have low salinities and high pH values, which cause an
increase in swelling and dispersion [17]. On the other
hand, pH of sodic soils can be either greater or lesser than
7 and such soils can be either saline or non-saline.
Amelioration of Sodic and Alkali soils
Amelioration of sodic and alkali soils can be accomplished
through several methods. Selection of an appropriate site-
specific method depends on several soil properties and
other considerations such as depth of soil to be amelio-
rated, presence of compacted layer(s) in subsoil, content
and type of salts present, composition and quantity of
water available for leaching, quality and depth of
groundwater, desired rate of replacement of excessive
exchangeable Na+, occurrence of lime or gypsum in soil,
content and mineralogy of clay fraction, availability and
cost of amendments, topographic features of the land,
nature of the crop(s) to be grown or the land use during
and after amelioration, climatic conditions, and time
available for amelioration. Adequate water application and
soil drainage with deep groundwater are essential pre-
requisites for sustainable amelioration. For surface irri-
gation systems, land levelling is necessary to facilitate
uniform water and amendment application and infiltration,
thereby increasing the uniformity in amelioration.
The amelioration programme for sodic and alkali soils is
influenced by the level and depth to which sodicity needs
to be reduced. There is no single post-amelioration value
of ESP or SAR that can be specified for all situations.
However, the objective of amelioration should be to
decrease soil sodicity to as low a level as possible and
practical. The depth of soil amelioration varies with crop
species to be grown and with associated soil properties.
Several site-specific methods as described below and their
combinations have been used to ameliorate a variety of
sodic, alkali and saline-sodic soils.
http://www.cababstractsplus.org/cabreviews
3
Amelioration through Leaching without
Amendment Application
Some sodic and alkali soils contain a source of Ca2+ –
gypsum or calcite – at varying depths [18]. Generally
characterized by the presence of a gypsic horizon, gypsi-
ferous soils contain gypsum in sufficient quantities to
supply adequate levels of Ca2+. Gypsum dissolution in
water may reach to an extent of 2.5 g/l yielding a Ca2+
concentration of about 30 mmolc/l [19]. However, it takes
longer to dissolve in soils. The compositions of the soil
solution and the exchange complex directly influence its
solubility [20].
Calcareous soils contain sparingly soluble alkaline-earth
carbonates such as calcite (CaCO3) and dolomite
[CaMg(CO3)2] which effervesce when treated with 0.1 M
HCl. Calcite is usually the dominant form. Calcite dis-
solution occurs at variable rates, from 0.0131 to 1.0 g/l
[21], with a major influence from the levels of carbon
dioxide partial pressure (PCO2 ) in soils [22].
Under conditions of adequate permeability with good
drainage throughout the soil profile, leaching alone can
often be successful to ameliorate sodic and alkali soils if a
gypsum layer occurs at the soil surface [23]. During the
amelioration process, the solubility of gypsum may further
be enhanced because the cation exchange complex acts as
a sink for the dissolving Ca2+ [20]. Owing to the occur-
rence of a native soluble Ca2+ source, such soils usually
have high electrolyte concentrations, which help in suc-
cessful amelioration without an amendment application. In
a lysimeter experiment, infiltration rates of two gypsifer-
ous sodic soils (sandy loam and clay loam) remained
unaffected with different salinity levels of waters used for
amelioration [23]. There were three types of water used
in the experiment: subsaturated gypsum solution (1.3 dS/
m), tap water (0.5 dS/m) and distilled water. The lysi-
meters were given either continuous applications of these
waters, using surface ponding, or daily applications at a
rate of 2.781076 m/s.
In cases where the gypsum layer is not present as the
surface horizon but occurs in the underlying B and/or C
horizon, deep-ploughing of the soil before leaching has
been effective in breaking up and mixing the gypsic hor-
izon with the top soil [24]. The required depth of deep-
ploughing depends on the concentration and distribution
of Ca2+ and Na+ in the respective Ca2+- and Na+-rich
layers [25] and is constrained by the availability of
required power and agricultural machinery. In a field
experiment, ploughing of a fine-textured gypsiferous sal-
ine-sodic soil as deep as the underlying gypsum layer
(0.9 m) was found to be an effective and economical
amelioration strategy that did not involve the application
of a chemical amendment [24]. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.)
grain yield from the post-ploughing plots was 5.53 t/ha,
much greater than control (1.29 t/ha) and subsoiling
(1.02 t/ha) treatments. Application of gypsum (18 or
36 t/ha) together with deep-ploughing did not cause a
4 Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources
further increase in alfalfa grain yield compared with
deep-ploughing alone. Thus, ploughing to a depth of
0.9 m resulted in adequate mixing of the Ca2+- and Na+-
rich layers and produced adequate Ca2+ for soil ameli-
oration.
Amelioration by High-electrolyte Water Containing
Adequate Calcium Levels
High-salt water containing adequate proportion of di-
valent cations such as Ca2+ can be used for sodic and alkali
soil amelioration. This method initially makes use of the
effect of high electrolyte concentration of the water on
soil permeability and subsequently, in successive dilutions,
of the ‘valence dilution’ effect. This effect may be
expressed by considering two components: a soil–water
system and an external source of water applied to the
system. In a soil–water system where monovalent and
divalent cations in solution are in equilibrium with those
adsorbed on the cation exchange sites, the equilibrium
may or may not be shifted by the addition of water to the
system. A change in the equilibrium depends on the
valence of the cations involved. Little or no change may
occur if the cations added with the water are of the same
valence already present in the system. However, when the
cations of both the components are of unequal valence as
usually occurring under natural conditions, the adsorbed
cations of lower valence, such as Na+, tend to be replaced
by the cations of higher valence, such as Ca2+, when the
solution is diluted. The reverse is true when the soil
solution is concentrated as a result of evaporation or
evapotranspiration.
Leaching of sodic and alkali soils with saline water can
cause large increases in soil hydraulic properties without
applying an amendment or using other soil amelioration
methods [26]. However, the ratio of divalent to total
cations in the applied water should be at least 0.3 [27].
This ratio is generally known as R value. Some natural
waters meet the R value criterion, but in many cases some
additional Ca2+ is required to obtain this ratio. The
additional Ca2+ can be introduced in two ways: by placing
gypsum stones in the water channels to add Ca2+ in the
salty water through the stone dissolution, or by applying
gypsum to the soil followed by leaching with high-salt
water.
The applicability of the high-salt water dilution method
is effective under certain conditions: (1) the soil under
amelioration has smectite-type clay minerals with low
hydraulic conductivity, (2) the soil physical condition has
deteriorated and hydraulic conductivity is so low that the
time required for amelioration or the amount of amend-
ment required is excessive, and/or (3) the irrigation water
to be used following amelioration is so low in electrolyte
concentration that water transmission would decrease
adversely. However, the possible constraints with this
method are: (1) inadequate concentration of Ca2+ in
http://www.cababstractsplus.org/cabreviews
high-salt water, i.e. in most cases, the R value is not at
least 0.3, which needs to be developed by the addition of
Ca2+ through gypsum, (2) development of the facilities to
collect, convey and treat saline water to be used for
amelioration and (3) need to collect and dispose highly
saline or saline-sodic drainage water to avoid subsequent
loading of groundwater with Na+.
Amelioration through Application of Inorganic
Amendments
The use of chemical amendments to ameliorate sodic and
alkali soils is an old practice. These amendments produce
Ca2+ in these soils, directly or indirectly, through chemical
and/or microbial actions. The amendments used as a
direct Ca2+ source are either soluble salts such as calcium
chloride, mined gypsum, phosphogypsum, flue gas desul-
phurization gypsum, or relatively much less soluble
ground lime. The amendments that help in dissolution of
native Ca2+ sources in these soils include sulphuric acid,
hydrochloric acid, sulphur, iron pyrite, lime sulphur, iron
sulphate and aluminium sulphate. Several other amend-
ments and by-products of certain industries may be
effective but their use is limited [28].
The choice of a chemical amendment at any place
depends on its cost, availability, handling and application
difficulties, relative effectiveness as judged from the
improvement in soil properties and crop growth, and time
needed to effectively replace the adsorbed Na+. Gypsum
is most commonly used as an external source of Ca2+
because of its comparatively low price, general availability
and easy application in comparison to other chemical
amendments. Potentially achievable electrolyte con-
centrations in the soil solution saturated with gypsum
range from 30 to 266 mmolc/l when ESP ranges from 0 to
40 [20].
Chemical amendments improve physical properties of
sodic soils such as infiltration rate and hydraulic con-
ductivity in addition to decreasing excess Na+ levels.
In packed soil columns following gypsum application, a
twofold increase was found in saturated hydraulic con-
ductivity (Ks) of two hardsetting red-brown earth soils
(ESP=9.3 and 4.9). From scanning electron microscope
observations, the increase in Ks was closely associated
with an increase in the visible macropores and reduced
clay dispersion [29]. Similarly, an increase in Ks of the
upper 0.2 m of a low-permeability saline-sodic field
(pHs=8.8, ECe=5.6 dS/m, SAR=49) was found from
1.21077 to 2.91077 m/s one year after gypsum
application at 25 t/ha [30]. In another study, adequate
infiltration rate in a sodic soil (pHs=8.9, ECe=1.97 dS/m,
ESP=50.3) was achieved through an increase in soil solu-
tion concentration after gypsum application [31].
The amount of any amendment to be applied for
amelioration is based on the amount equivalent to that of
gypsum (Table 1). The amount of gypsum needed to
 M. Qadir, S. Schubert, D. Badia, B. R. Sharma, A. S. Qureshi and G. Murtaza 5

Table 1 Chemical composition and equivalent amount of aliphatic compounds capable of binding and stabilizing soil
a chemical amendment that can substitute one tonne of aggregates [38, 39]. A variety of organic materials have
gypsum in ameliorating sodic soils1
been used to ameliorate sodic and alkali soils, including
Equivalent crop straw [35], cottage cheese whey and fly ash [40],
Chemical amount against synthetic organic polymers, farm manure, slaughterhouse
Amendment composition 1 t of gypsum wastes, poultry excreta [2] and green manures of different
Gypsum CaSO4
2H2O 1.00 crops [6, 41, 42].
Calcium chloride CaCl2
2H2O 0.85 Application of organic amendments has shown to
Calcium carbonate CaCO3 0.58 improve sodic and alkali soils but at a slow rate. Com-
Sulphuric acid H2SO4 0.57 bined use of organic and inorganic amendments has been
Ferrous sulphate FeSO4
7H2O 1.61
Ferric sulphate Fe2(SO4)3
9H2O 1.09 found to accelerate the rate of soil amelioration. For
Aluminium sulphate Al2(SO4)3
18H2O 1.29 example, the effect of green-manuring of common vetch
1
(Vicia sativa L.) was evaluated with and without the addi-
The amount of any amendment to be applied for sodic soils
amelioration is based on the amount equivalent to that of gypsum, tion of gypsum. Before flowering, the plant species
which is called gypsum requirement (GR) and determines the was incorporated into the soil, and incubated at 80%
quantity of calcium (Ca2+) needed to mitigate the effects of excess field capacity. After 12 weeks, the improvements in
sodium (Na+).
hydraulic conductivity occurred in the following order of
treatments: gypsum+green manure>gypsum>green man-
ure>control. Application of green manure did not
ameliorate a specified soil depth is called gypsum
improve macro-aggregation in the soil. However, stabiliz-
requirement (GR). Determination of GR in many labora-
ation occurred at the microstructure level [37]. Similar
tories of the world is done by Schoonover’s method [32].
results have been reported when wheat straw was
Several other equations and some computer-based
incorporated in a saline-sodic soil with and without gyp-
models have also been developed to calculate soil GR [33,
sum application (Table 2). In another study, addition of
34]. However, the farmers in many parts of the world
barley straw along with mulching reduced evaporation
usually apply amendments at rates that are determined by
from soil surface and decreased salinity levels significantly
local experience, amendment availability, and financial
than the treatment where barley straw was incorporated
considerations that also include state subsidies; the last
without mulching [36].
factor being most critical. In many developing countries,
although amendments are available, their potential use is
limited because of the initial investment for amendment
purchase to initiate an amelioration programme. This is Amelioration through Soil-profile Modification
particularly applicable to the resource-poor farmers.
Crop productivity in some sodic and alkali soils is often
associated with low macroporosity resulting in restricted
Amelioration through Application of Organic infiltration rate because of fine texture, excess of silt, hard
Materials pan, or stratification. A number of tillage options have
been used to create a rough and thoroughly disturbed
Organic matter has been implicated in the reduction of root zone with improved hydraulic properties. These
aggregate breakdown in sodic and alkali soils [6, 35–37]. options include: deep ploughing, subsoiling, sanding,
Application of organic amendments to these soils enhan- hauling and profile inversion. Deep-ploughing consists of
ces microbial activity that transforms the newly added ploughing to a depth from about 0.5 m to more than
organic material into polysaccharides and long chain 1.0 m. This method may be used on stratified soils having

Table 2 Crop residue management effects on changes in salinity (ECe) and sodicity (SAR) levels in saline-sodic soils

ECe (dS/m) SAR

1 2
Treatment Initial Final Initial1 Final2 Reference
3
Wheat straw 5.6 4.3 49.0 42.0 [42]
Wheat straw+gypsum4 5.6 3.6 49.0 25.0 [42]
Barley straw5 21.9 12.9 16.1 16.0 [36]
Barley straw+mulch6 21.9 6.6 16.1 14.7 [36]
1
Before start of the experiment.
2
After completion of the treatment effect.
3
Wheat straw application at 7.5 t/ha.
4
Wheat straw application at 7.5 t/ha along with gypsum application at 25 t/ha.
5
Barley straw application at 6 t/ha.
6
Barley straw application at 6 t/ha along with mulching with straw residues.

http://www.cababstractsplus.org/cabreviews
6 Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources

Wheat grain yield (t/ha)

3

0
Control

Subsoiling

Control

Subsoiling

Control
Liming + Subsoiling

Subsoiling

Control
Liming + Subsoiling

Liming + Subsoiling

Subsoiling

Liming + Subsoiling
Liming

Liming

Liming

Liming
1982 1983 1984 1985

Figure 1 Effects of liming and subsoiling of a sodic soil on wheat grain yield in Alberta, SA, Canada. Liming treatment
consisted of limestone (CaCO3) application at 5.6 t/ha; subsoiling was done to a depth of 0.4 m with a shank spacing of
0.6 m. Based on the data from [45]

impermeable layer(s) lying between permeable layers [21], the removed surface soil, collection of a large amount of
and gypsiferous soils if the Ca2+-rich layer occurs in the good soil, and problems associated with the exposed
subsoil [24]. The depth of deep-ploughing should not be subsoil from which the good soil was removed. Profile
so shallow that only the A and a part of B horizons are inversion needs a huge investment, which may be un-
mixed, otherwise the physical condition of the surface is economical for the farmers. Owing to such limitations,
likely to be worsened or, at best, only short-lived change there are no practical examples known regarding the use
may result [43]. The cost of deep-ploughing and of these three approaches at farm level except for the
requirements of heavy machinery, however, make it development of small plots for vegetable cultivation or
unacceptable to subsistence farmers [44]. other high-value purposes.
Being less expensive than deep-ploughing, subsoiling
involves loosening the soil without inverting it, and is used
primarily to break and shatter the compact B horizon Amelioration through Horizontal Flushing of Sodium
[44]. It consists of pulling vertical strips of steel or iron – and Salts
called knives, shanks, or tines – through the soil to open
channels to improve soil permeability. A powerful tractor The low-permeability, hard sodic and saline-sodic soils are
is used to pull a subsoiler. The beneficial effects of sub- found in some parts of the world. The conventional
soiling may continue for several years if the compacted chemical amelioration may be undesirable if leaching of
layer is shattered completely, otherwise the effect may Na+ replaced from the cation exchange sites by Ca2+
persist for only one season. Wetter et al. [45] found supplied by a chemical amendment is restricted by low
substantial increase in grain and straw yields of wheat profile permeability because of high clay and/or silt con-
(Triticum aestivum L.) after subsoiling (0.4 m deep with a tent or stratified layers. Physical manipulation of these
0.6 m spacing) of a sodic soil (Figure 1). soils by subsoiling and open-ditch drainage has not been
‘Sanding’ may be an effective means of making a fine- successful. These soils are almost impermeable to infil-
textured, but not highly clay, surface soil more permeable trating water. One observation shows that about 25 days
by mixing sand into it. This method can bring a relatively were required to wet the 1 m deep profile of such a type
permanent change in texture of the surface soil. Hauling of soil [30]. The Na+ replaced from cation exchange sites
involves removal of the salt-affected surface soil and stays suspended or moves little to the lower depths
replacing it with a good soil up to a desirable depth. despite leaching irrigations [46]. In fact, some exchanged
Profile inversion is used when the surface soil is good but Na+ can recapture its place at the cation exchange sites
the upper part of subsoil has undesirable characteristics. when an increase in soil solution concentration occurs as
Although sanding, hauling and profile inversion are seem- a result of evapotranspiration.
ingly attractive, there are several problems in their large- In a field study, gypsum was mixed with the surface of a
scale execution. For example, sanding requires a huge low-permeability, hard sodic soil (pHs=9.1, ECe=9.4 dS/m,
amount of sand to be added to bring a change in soil ESP=62.3) in standing water by using a cultivator followed
texture. The limitations of hauling rest with the disposal of by horizontal flushing of the water from the soil surface to

http://www.cababstractsplus.org/cabreviews
 M. Qadir, S. Schubert, D. Badia, B. R. Sharma, A. S. Qureshi and G. Murtaza
Table 3 Changes in ECe and SAR of the upper 0.15 m depth of a low-permeability saline-sodic soil and yield of rice and
wheat crops as affected by different amelioration treatments. Based on the data from [48]
ECe (dS/m) SAR
1 2
Treatment Initial Final Initial
3
VL 8.8 8.3 a 54.3
FF4 9.1 7.2 b 53.6
GVL5 9.2 8.6 a 48.2
GFF6 8.9 7.4 b 49.9
FGF7 9.3 5.9 c 56.0
Means with different letters in a column differ significantly at P =0.05.
1
Before start of the experiment.
2
After wheat harvest, about one year after treatment application.
3
VL=vertical leaching without gypsum application.
4
FF=two horizontal flushings at 12-h interval without gypsum application.
5
GVL=vertical leaching after gypsum application.
6
GFF=two horizontal flushings at 12-h interval after gypsum application.
7
FGF=gypsum application between the two flushings.
a nearby drain. A second flushing was repeated after 12 h
(GFF). Rice–wheat rotation followed. The yield of first
rice crop was significantly greater than the conventional
gypsum application followed by vertical leaching (GVL).
However, the differences between the GFF and GVL
treatments for the subsequent wheat crop were not
prominent [47]. In another field experiment on the same
soil, the GFF strategy was modified by applying gypsum
between the two water flushings (FGF) and evaluated
against the above treatments [48]. The FGF treatment
produced significantly better results both in terms of soil
amelioration and crop production (Table 3). This ameli-
oration approach, however, needs further field-level
investigation. Besides, its success depends on the provi-
sion of a nearby drain that can carry away the flushed
effluent.
Amelioration by Treatment with Electric Current
Electromelioration of sodic and alkali soils refers to
treating them with electric current. Several investigations
have evaluated the feasibility of electrodialysis to remove
exchangeable Na+ from these soils [49–52]. The applica-
tion of electrodialysis involves increased solubility of cal-
cite in sodic and alkali soils with electric current to supply
greater amounts of dissolved Ca2+ for amelioration [53].
Vadyunina [50] ameliorated a saline-sodic soil with
current densities of 2 mA/cm2 and leaching of about 0.5 m
of water. The rate of leaching was proportional to the
applied current. The water-stable aggregates in size
grades of >5 mm increased, evidently in response to an
increase in the proportion of Ca2+ on the exchange sites.
In another study, electromelioration with and without the
application of gypsum at 38.5 and 77.0 t/ha was evaluated
for the amelioration of a sodic subsoil horizon
(pH1 : 1=8.6, ECe=1.5 dS/m, ESP=48) repacked in polyvinyl
chloride tubes [52]. A 55 V direct current was maintained
http://www.cababstractsplus.org/cabreviews
7
Grain yield (t/ha)
1 2
Final Rice Wheat
51.3 a 0.75 d 0.64 d
39.4 b 1.34 c 1.61 c
31.6 c 1.44 c 1.96 b
21.3 d 2.01 b 2.57 a
12.5 e 2.65 a 2.77 a
across the soil columns. The current ranged from 7 to 18
mA in the treatment without gypsum and 3 to 28 mA in
the gypsum treatment, the current being proportional to
conductivity of the leachate from the soil columns. The
current densities ranged from 0.04 to 0.35 mA/cm2. In the
absence of gypsum application, the electromelioration
treatment resulted in the removal of more than 90% of
the Na+ initially present in the soil. It was demonstrated
that low-voltage direct current applied to the calcareous
sodic soil columns with simultaneous leaching reduced the
Na+ concentration to levels generally acceptable as
suitable for soil aggregation and plant growth.
Although the research on electromelioration has
shown promising results, the approach has not been used
on farmers’ fields. There are several technical aspects that
need attention including well-defined methodology on
application of electrical current and its management,
possibility of using solar energy as a source of electrical
current, evaluation of electromelioration on large fields,
anticipated human and animal safety issues during elec-
trodialysis, and economic evaluation.
Amelioration through Crop-mediated Strategy
Crop-mediated amelioration – phytoremediation – refers
to the improvement of sodic and alkali soils by growing
certain plant species that can withstand ambient levels of
soil salinity and sodicity without the application of an
amendment, i.e. growing a range of crops together with
the application and infiltration of excess water during the
cropping season. Synonymous terms for phytoremedia-
tion include vegetative bioremediation, bioremediation or
biological reclamation. This crop-mediated strategy works
through plant root action to dissolve native or pre-
cipitated calcite in sodic soils to provide sufficient Ca2+ to
cause an effective Na+–Ca2+ exchange at the cation
exchange sites resulting in a marked decrease in soil
8 Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources
sodicity levels [54–57]. Many sodic and alkali soils of the
world are calcareous with the occurrence of calcite at
varying depths.
Typical plant-based strategies for contaminated soils,
such as those having elevated levels of heavy metals, work
through the cultivation of specific plant species capable of
hyper-accumulating target ionic species in their shoots,
thereby removing them from the soil [58]. In contrast,
phytoremediation of sodic and alkali soils is achieved by
the ability of plant roots to increase the dissolution rate of
calcite. The salinity–sodicity combination present in the
soil solution during phytoremediation maintains adequate
soil structure and aggregate stability that enhance the
amelioration process [8].
The process of Na+ removal from calcareous sodic
soils during phytoremediation is driven by (1) increased
PCO2 within the root zone [5, 56]; (2) enhanced proton
(H+) release in the rhizosphere in case of certain N2-fixing
crops [59]; and (3) enhanced Na+ uptake in the shoots,
which is removed through harvesting of above-ground
biomass and its subsequent export from the field [60]. In
addition, roots of the phytoremediation crops play an
important role in improving soil aggregation and hydraulic
properties within the root zone [30, 61]. The collective
effects of these factors ultimately lead to soil amelioration,
provided drainage is present and adequate leaching occurs
[62]. Among these factors, PCO2 has been identified as the
single largest driving force for soil amelioration, suggesting
the need to identify different crops and crop management
practices that enhance CO2 production within the root
zone to ameliorate sodic and alkali soils more efficiently,
especially in areas where chemical amendments are not
available or are too expensive.
Several lysimeter and field studies have been conducted
to compare chemical and phytoremediation approaches.
In summarizing the results of 14 experiments, Qadir and
Oster [57] revealed a comparable effect of both the
approaches in most cases. The chemical treatment
(application of gypsum in all experiments) caused 62%
decrease in initial sodicity levels (ESP or SAR), whereas
52% decrease was found for the phytoremediation
treatment. However, in some experiments phyto-
remediation was either unsuccessful or less efficient than
the chemical treatment for the following reasons: (1) a
crop resistant to ambient soil salinity and sodicity levels
was not the first in the crop rotation; (2) phytoremedia-
tion crop was grown during the time which was not its
most suitable growing season; (3) duration of time was
not sufficient to exploit the potential impact of the phy-
toremediation crop; and/or (4) irrigation was not applied
in excess of crop water requirement, which restricted
leaching of Na+ from the root zone. In general, phyto-
remediation worked well on coarse- to medium-textured,
moderately sodic alkali soils, provided: (1) irrigation was
done in excess of crop water requirement to provide
adequate leaching; and (2) the excess irrigation was
applied when the crop growth and hence PCO2 were
http://www.cababstractsplus.org/cabreviews
at their peak. The performance of phytoremediation on
such soils was comparable with soil application of gypsum.
Phytoremediation has been shown to be advantageous
in several aspects: (1) no financial outlay to purchase
chemical amendments; (2) accrued financial or other
benefits from crops grown during amelioration; (3) pro-
motion of soil aggregate stability and creation of macro-
pores that improve soil hydraulic properties and root
proliferation; (4) greater plant nutrient availability in post-
amelioration soil; (5) more uniform and greater zone of
amelioration in terms of soil depth; and (6) sequestration
of carbon in post-amelioration soil [63]. However, phy-
toremediation is slower in achieving positive change than
chemical approaches [64]. In addition, its scope becomes
limited on highly sodic and alkali soils where growth of
the phytoremediation crops is likely to be variable and
patchy. Under these conditions, the use of chemical
amendments is the most effective strategy in the remed-
iation process.
The selection of plant species capable of satisfactory
production on sodic and alkali soils during phyto-
remediation is a crucial step. Such selection is generally
based on their respective abilities to withstand ambient
soil salinity and sodicity (Table 4). In addition, crop
selection also depends on an economic perspective. In an
immediate sense, phytoremediation can only be beneficial
if the selected crops, grasses or trees have a market
demand or local utilization at the farm level. In the long
run, one must also consider the value of the improved
soils, or the reduced economic impacts that can result
from the uncontrolled discharge of drainage waters into
local canals, rivers and groundwater.
Nutrient Management in Sodic and Alkali soils
Elevated levels of Na+ in soil solution and on the cation
exchange sites and high soil pH are common in most sodic
and alkali soils, thereby adversely affecting the transfor-
mation and availability of several plant nutrient elements
[9]. These soils are generally characterized by low organic
matter and total and available nitrogen (N). Ammonia
(NH3) volatilization is the major pathway of N loss in
most sodic and alkali soils [6] and may range from 32 to
52% of the applied N [65]. Nitrogen availability is also
affected by Cl7, which inhibits NO37 uptake and is often
present at high concentrations in sodic soils [66], and by
denitrification, which occurs when aeration is restricted
by intermittent waterlogging. In terms of phosphorus (P),
these soils usually contain adequate levels of this nutrient,
except in the case of weathered sodic soils in Australia,
where acute P deficiency is a frequent occurrence [9].
Owing to the fact that micaceous minerals frequently
occur in several sodic and alkali soils, ample amounts of
K+ are usually available in such soils [6]. However, in
Australian sodic soils, K+ is a growth-limiting nutrient [67]
 M. Qadir, S. Schubert, D. Badia, B. R. Sharma, A. S. Qureshi and G. Murtaza 9

Table 4 Ranges of ESP in soils indicating about 50% of Table 5 Effects of different application rates of gypsum
the potential yields of different crops. Modified from [6] and zinc as zinc sulphate (ZnSO4) and their combinations
on rice yield from an alkali soil (pH=9.0, ESP=30) in India.
ESP Crop common Based on the data from [71]
range name Crop botanical name
Gypsum application (t/ha)
10–15 Safflower Carthamus tinctorius L.
Mash Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper. 0 2.5 5.0 10.0
ZnSO4
Pea Pisum sativum L. (kg/ha) Rice yield (t/ha) Mean
Lentil Lens culinaris Medik.
Pigeon pea Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp. 0 0.12 0.98 2.14 2.65 1.48
Urd-bean Phaseolus mungo (L.) 10 0.49 1.87 3.06 3.77 2.30
16–20 Bengal gram Cicer arietinum L. 20 0.58 2.00 3.14 3.85 2.39
Soybean Glycine max (L.) Merr. 30 0.68 1.75 2.90 3.92 2.34
40 1.05 2.02 3.29 3.89 2.56
20–25 Groundnut Apios americana Medik.
Cowpea Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. Mean 0.58 1.65 2.91 3.62
Onion Allium cepa L. Standard deviation (S.D.) for gypsum=0.36; zinc sulphate=0.28;
Pearl millet Pennisetum glaucum (L.) non-significant interaction between zinc sulphate and gypsum.
R. Br.
25–30 Linseed Linum usitatissimum L.
Garlic Allium sativum L. soil pH [9]. Generally, the solubility of cationic trace
Guar Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.) elements decreases as pH increases, while the solubility of
Taub. the anionic trace elements increases as the pH increases.
30–50 Indian mustard Brassica juncea (L.) Czern. Therefore, micronutrients such as copper (Cu), iron (Fe),
Wheat Triticum aestivum L.
Sunflower Helianthus annuus L.
manganese (Mn) and zinc (Zn) exhibit low levels of solu-
Guinea grass Panicum maximum Jacq. bility in sodic soils, which may result in micronutrient
50–60 Barley Hordeum vulgare L. deficiencies [70]. This is particularly important in the case
Sesbania Sesbania bispinosa (Jacq.) of Zn when rice is grown on sodic soils. Although rice is
W. Wight moderately resistant to soil sodicity, it is sensitive to Zn
60–70 Rice Oryza sativa L. deficiency, which may appear during early growth stages
Para grass Brachiaria mutica (Forssk.) causing stunted growth, poor tillering, and rusty-brown
Stapf spots on matured leaves. Studies conducted in India [71]
70+ Bermuda grass Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers have shown that the application of zinc sulphate at 40–
Kallar/Karnal Leptochloa fusca (L.) Kunth 50 kg/ha along with gypsum is a useful practice to ensure
grass
Rhodes grass Chloris gayana Kunth good crop yields in sodic and alkali soils (Table 5).

Constraints to Large-scale Soil Amelioration

and high K+ availability may help in avoiding Na+ toxicity in
plants, particularly grasses [68].
Regardless of the severity of the effects salinity and
sodicity may have on a crop, the application of N to sodic
soils usually improves plant growth and yield. Research in
India suggests that any given crop sequence on alkali soils
generally requires an additional 25% more N than the
same cropping sequence used on non-alkali soils [6].
Nitrogen losses in these soils can be substantially reduced
by incorporating N fertilizer into the soil or by splitting
the fertilizer’s application. Alternatively, green-manuring
of such soils can be used to improve soil structure and
enhance N content. Sesbania, grown for 45 days and
green-manured, has been reported to enrich alkali soils by
making up to 122 kg N/ha available to the rice crop which
followed it [41]. It has also been shown that soil N levels
can be increased by up to 80 kg/ha solely through the
action of sesbania roots alone (i.e. without green-man-
uring) during the amelioration of calcareous saline-sodic
soils [69].
Most micronutrients are usually poorly available in
sodic soils, a fact which is generally attributed to the high
While the principles and technologies aiming at the
amelioration of sodic and alkali soils are fairly well
understood, their adoption in poor and developing
countries is very slow because the majority of the affected
lands are in the possession of resource-poor communities
of the society or form part of the common property
resources of the villages. At the regional level, the trends
lead to the displacement of labour from agriculture and
widening of income disparities, with subsequent effects
on sustainability of the dependent sectors. The on-farm
labour employment and other livelihood options are
usually restricted through lower productivity and aban-
doning of crop production activities in severely affected
areas. These aspects further limit the resource endow-
ments and interest of the farmers to undertake ameli-
oration interventions that involve additional investments.
Numerous field investigations and operational research
projects on sodic and alkali soil amelioration in the Indian
subcontinent have shown that the cost of amelioration
was determined by soil type, prevailing wages for the
labour, access to irrigation source, and subsidy policy of

http://www.cababstractsplus.org/cabreviews
10 Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources
Table 6 Economic feasibility of using chemical amend-
ments for the amelioration of alkali soils in Haryana, India.
Based on the data from [72]
Benefit/cost Pay-back
Subsidy (%)1 ratio period (year)
0 1.29 4 great promise because of the growing demand for fuel
50 1.38 3 wood and fodder. In other areas, environmentally
75 1.42 2 acceptable amelioration and management technologies as
1
Level of subsidy in terms of percentage to purchase amendments
for soil amelioration.
the respective state to purchase chemical amendments.
Feasibility studies have demonstrated that potential farm-
level benefits could be higher, provided a judicious
quantity of amendments was applied and related inputs
and recommended practices were followed. Further, it
was found that the adoption of the complete package gave
higher economic returns rather than when practices were
adopted selectively and partially [72]. In case of using
chemical amendments, the amendment cost accounted
for about 60% of total cost of the amelioration pro-
gramme, revealing the need to provide some incentives to
the farmers including subsidy on the purchase and supply
of the amendments. The benefit/cost ratio in different
situations under farmers’ resource constraints in Haryana
(India) ranged from 1.29 to 1.42 (Table 6). The payback
period was 2–4 years. However, the rate of acceptance
and adoption of reclamation technology was determined
by several factors. The pressure on land, defined by man/
land ratio, was one of the driving forces exercising a
greater influence on the utilization of sodic and alkali soils.
In addition, there was greater consideration of soil ame-
lioration in areas with better access to assured irrigation
as in the case of tubewell irrigation, and timely supply of
good-quality amendments. For example, the Punjab and
Haryana states in India, with better irrigation facilities and
higher cropping intensities, had witnessed amelioration of
alkali soils at a faster rate than those states with lower
cropping intensities and limited water supplies.
The amelioration and management of sodic and alkali
soils at the field level involve many technical, socio-eco-
nomic and institutional constraints. A large number of
farmers have a low to medium level of knowledge of how
to ameliorate these soils. Farmers primarily depend upon
institutional sources for the knowledge and resources.
Farm-level surveys have shown that 44% of the farmers
wanted to know more about the procedural details, 22%
about the soil analyses and 18% about the availability of
financial support from the related institutions. Other
problems identified by the farmers for the amelioration of
sodic and alkali soils were high cost of amendments
(gypsum), non-availability of easy-instalment loans, lack of
farmer-level technical knowledge and scarcity of family/
hired labour.
It is worth mentioning that not all sodic and alkali soils
can be ameliorated for crop production in economically
http://www.cababstractsplus.org/cabreviews
favourable terms [73]. In certain cases where soil ameli-
oration is not economically feasible, these soils can be put
to alternate land use systems such as growing salt-tolerant
trees, grasses and other halophytic species. In addition to
environmental consideration, agroforestry is an option of
well as pertinent policies and mechanisms need to be put
in place by the state agencies. Participation of the farmers
is essential in planning and setting the amelioration pro-
grammes.
Conclusions and Future Perspectives
Recent trends and future projections suggest that the
need to produce more food and fibre for the world’s
expanding population will lead to an increase in the use of
salt-prone land and water resources. This is particularly
relevant to less-developed, arid and semi-arid countries,
in which the problems of soil degradation and water
quality deterioration are common. As the use of salt-
prone land resources will increase, the assessment of the
future sustainability of their use will become a serious
issue.
The widespread occurrence of sodic and alkali soils
reveals the need for concerted efforts to improve their
productivity. Research results and practical experience of
both agricultural extension workers and farmers of using
different sodic soil amelioration strategies reveal that
there is no single remediation strategy, which can be used
in all situations. Soil profile modification through physical
interventions such as subsoiling or deep-ploughing is, for
example, applicable when there is a need to break up
shallow, dense, sodic clay pans and/or natric horizons.
Phytoremediation is effective when used on moderately
sodic and alkali soils, and has several economic, environ-
mental and agronomic advantages. However, it is slower
than chemical approaches in reducing excess Na+ and
requires calcite to be present in the soil (although this
is commonly found in most sodic and alkali soils). In
addition, the usefulness of phytoremediation is limited
when soil is highly sodic and alkali, as this is likely to result
in variable and patchy growth of the plant species used
for phytoremediation. Under these conditions, the use
of chemical amendments is inevitable. However, chemical
amelioration has become costly for the resource-poor
farmers in several developing countries because of the
increase in the cost of gypsum over time.
A combination of different amelioration methods
through a holistic approach may work well in certain
situations. The sustainability of the different amelioration
methods must also be evaluated in order to take a holistic
approach, which must consider several associated com-
ponents, including: (1) cost and availability of amelioration
inputs such as water, crop, amendments and tillage
 M. Qadir, S. Schubert, D. Badia, B. R. Sharma, A. S. Qureshi and G. Murtaza
machinery, where applicable; (2) level and depth to which
soil sodicity needs to be reduced to grow subsequent
crops; (3) qualitative and quantitative monitoring of drai-
nage water generated during amelioration since drainage
flows are an inevitable consequence of the sodic soil
amelioration projects; (4) drainage water disposal, reuse
and treatment options together with the cost involved in
such options; (5) quality, availability and cost of water
associated with the cultivation of post-amelioration crops;
(6) economic value of the crops grown during ameliora-
tion and to be grown afterwards; (7) nutrient availability
status of post-amelioration soil; (8) anticipated long-term
sustainability of the ameliorated site in terms of crop
productivity; (9) environmental implications of the ameli-
oration project; (10) expected change in the market value
of the ameliorated land; and (11) impact on livelihoods of
the farming communities relying on sodic and alkali soils.
In the post-amelioration phase, sodic soils still
need special management practices. Prolonged fallowing,
changing to low-water-requirement crops, poor land
management and rise in water table can initiate and sub-
sequently accelerate the process of sodication. Therefore,
post-amelioration management of these soils is as
important as the amelioration process itself. We believe
that the time has come to consider these soils as a useful
economic resource rather than an environmental burden.
Their use should therefore be considered to be an
opportunity to shift from subsistence farming to market-
oriented farming.
Acknowledgments
This publication is a part of the joint initiative of the
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry
Areas (ICARDA) and International Water Management
Institute (IWMI) addressing the assessment and
management of marginal-quality water resources and
salt-affected soils. The subject of this paper falls within the
context of the project ‘Enabling Communities in Aral Sea
Basin to Combat Land and Water Resources Degradation
through the Creation of “Bright” Spots’ for which the
financial support of Asian Development Bank (ADB) is
gratefully acknowledged under the Regional Technical
Assistance (ADB-RETA 9; 6208-REG).
References
1. Tanji KK. Nature and extent of agricultural salinity. In: Tanji KK,
editor. Agricultural Salinity Assessment and Management;
Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practices No. 71.
American Society of Civil Engineers, New York; 1990. p. 1–17.
2. Qadir M, Schubert S, Ghafoor A, Murtaza G. Amelioration
strategies for sodic soils: a review. Land Degradation and
Development 2001;12:357–86.
3. Qadir M, Noble AD, Schubert S, Thomas RJ, Arslan A.
Sodicity-induced land degradation and its sustainable
http://www.cababstractsplus.org/cabreviews
11
management: problems and prospects. Land Degradation and
Development 2006;17:661–76.
4. Abdel-Dayem S. Understanding the social and economic
dimensions of salinity. Proceedings of the International Salinity
Forum, 25–27 April 2005, Riverside, CA; 2005. p. 1–4.
5. Shainberg I, Letey J. Response of soils to sodic and saline
conditions. Hilgardia 1984;52:1–57.
6. Gupta RK, Abrol IP. Salt-affected soils: their reclamation and
management for crop production. Advances in Soil Science
1990;11:223–88.
7. Sumner ME. Sodic soils: new perspectives. Australian Journal
of Soil Research 1993;31:683–750.
8. Oster JD, Shainberg I, Abrol IP. Reclamation of salt affected
soils. In: Skaggs RW, van Schilfgaarde J, editors. Agricultural
Drainage. ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Madison, WI; 1999. p. 659–91.
9. Naidu R, Rengasamy P. Ion interactions and constraints to
plant nutrition in Australian sodic soils. Australian Journal of
Soil Research 1993;31:801–19.
10. Gupta RK, Abrol IP. Salinity build-up and changes in the
rice–wheat system of the Indo-Gangetic Plains. Experimental
Agriculture 2000;36:273–84.
11. Cai X, McKinney DC, Rosegrant MW. Sustainability analysis
for irrigation water management in the Aral Sea region.
Agricultural Systems 2003;76:1043–66.
12. Ghassemi F, Jakeman AJ, Nix HA. Salinisation of Land and
Water Resources: Human Causes, Extent, Management and
Case Studies. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK; 1995.
13. Sumner ME, Rengasamy P, Naidu R. Sodic soils: a
reappraisal. In: Sumner ME, Naidu R, editors. Sodic Soil:
Distribution, Management and Environmental Consequences.
Oxford University Press, New York; 1998. p. 3–17.
14. Franklin WT, Schmehl WR. Physical, salinity and fertility
analysis of selected soils. Water Management Technical
Report No. 28. Colorado State University, Fort Collins,
CO; 1973.
15. Paliwal KV, Gandhi AP. Effect of salinity, SAR, Ca : Mg ratio in
irrigation water and soil texture on the permeability of
exchangeable sodium percentage. Soil Science
1976;122:85–90.
16. Ghafoor A, Muhammed S, Ahmad N, Mian MA. Indices for the
estimation of ESP from SAR of soil solution. Pakistan Journal
of Science 1988;39–40:89–98.
17. Gupta RK, Bhumbla D, Abrol IP. Effect of sodicity, pH, organic
matter, and calcium carbonate on the dispersion behavior of
soils. Soil Science 1984;137:245–51.
18. Herrero J, Porta J. The terminology and the concepts of
gypsum-rich soils. Geoderma 2000;96:47–61.
19. Shainberg I, Sumner ME, Miller WP, Farina MPW, Pavan MA,
Fey MV. Use of gypsum on soils: a review. Advances in Soil
Science 1989;9:1–111.
20. Oster JD. Gypsum usage in irrigated agriculture: a review.
Fertilizer Research 1982;3:73–89.
21. Kovda VA, van den Berg C, Hagan RM. Irrigation, Drainage
and Salinity: An International Source Book. FAO/UNESCO,
Hutchison and Co., London; 1973.
22. Robbins CW. Sodic calcareous soil reclamation as affected by
different amendments and crops. Agronomy Journal
1986;78:916–20.
12 Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources
23. Jury WA, Jarrell WM, Devitt D. Reclamation of saline sodic
soils by leaching. Soil Science Society of America Journal
1979;43:1100–06.
24. Rasmussen WW, Moore DP, Alban AL. Improvement of a
solonetzic (slick spot) soil by deep plowing, subsoiling and
amendments. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings
1972;36:137–42.
25. Rasmussen WW, McNeal BL. Predicting optimum depth of
profile modification by deep plowing for improving saline-sodic
soils. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings
1973;37:432–7.
26. Reeve RC, Bower CA. Use of high-salt waters as a flocculent
and source of divalent cations for reclaiming sodic soils. Soil
Science 1960;90:139–44.
27. Reeve RC, Doering EJ. The high-salt water dilution method for
reclaiming sodic soils. Soil Science Society of America
Proceedings 1966;30:498–504.
28. Hoffman GJ. Guidelines for reclamation of salt-affected soils.
Applied Agricultural Research 1986;1:65–72.
29. Greene RSB, Rengasamy P, Ford WG, Chartres CJ, Miller JJ.
The effect of sodium and calcium on physical properties and
micromorphology of two red-brown earth soils. Journal of Soil
Science 1988;39:639–48.
30. Ilyas M, Miller RW, Qureshi RH. Hydraulic conductivity of
saline-sodic soil after gypsum application and cropping. Soil
Science Society of America Journal 1993;57:1580–5.
31. Frenkel H, Gerstl Z, Alperovitch N. Exchange-induced
dissolution of gypsum and the reclamation of sodic soils.
Journal of Soil Science 1989;40:599–611.
32. US Salinity Laboratory Staff. Diagnosis and Improvement of
Saline and Alkali Soils. USDA Handbook 60. US Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC; 1954.
33. Dutt GR, Terkeltoub RW, Rauschkolb RS. Prediction of
gypsum and leaching requirements for sodium-affected soils.
Soil Science 1972;114:93–103.
34. Hira GS, Bajwa MS, Singh NT. Prediction of water
requirements for gypsum dissolution in sodic soils. Soil
Science 1981;131:353–8.
35. Barzegar AR, Neson PN, Oades JM, Rengasamy P. Organic
matter, sodicity and clay type: influence on soil aggregation.
Soil Science Society of America Journal 1997;61:1131–7.
36. Badia D. Straw management effects on organic matter
mineralization and salinity in semiarid agricultural soils. Arid
Soil Research and Rehabilitation 2000;14:193–203.
37. Harris MA, Rengasamy P. Sodium affected subsoils, gypsum,
and green manure: interactions and implications for
amelioration of toxic red mud wastes. Environmental Geology
2004;45:1118–30.
38. Parr JF, Papendick RI, Hornick SB, Colacicco D. Use of
organic amendments for increasing the productivity of arid
lands. Arid Soil Research and Rehabilitation 1989;3:149–70.
39. Lado M, Paz A, Ben-Hur M. Organic matter and aggregate-
size interactions in saturated hydraulic conductivity. Soil
Science Society of America Journal 2004;68:234–42.
40. Graber ER, Fine P, Levy GJ. Soil stabilization in semiarid and
arid land agriculture. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering
2006;18:190–205.
http://www.cababstractsplus.org/cabreviews
41. Ghai SK, Rao DLN, Batra L. Nitrogen contribution to wetland
rice by green manuring with Sesbania spp. in an alkaline soil.
Biology and Fertility of Soils 1988;6:22–5.
42. Ilyas M, Qureshi RH, Qadir M. Chemical changes in a
saline-sodic soil after gypsum application and cropping. Soil
Technology 1997;10:247–60.
43. McAndrew DW, Malhi SS. Long-term effect of deep plowing
solonetzic soil on chemical characteristics and crop yield.
Canadian Journal of Soil Science 1990;70:619–23.
44. Grevers MCJ, de Jong E. Soil structure and crop yield over a
5-year period following subsoiling solonetzic and chernozemic
soils in Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Soil Science
1993;73: 81–91.
45. Wetter LG, Webster GR, Lickacz J. Amelioration of a
solonetzic soil by subsoiling and liming. Canadian Journal of
Soil Science 1987;67:919–30.
46. Qureshi RH, Qadir M. Is the reclamation of dense saline-sodic
soils uneconomical? Myths and facts. Pakistan Journal of
Agricultural Sciences 1992;29:317–8.
47. Qureshi RH, Ahmad N, Aslam M, Qadir M, Ahmad T.
Reclamation of a dense saline-sodic soil by vertical leaching
and induced horizontal flushing. In: Vlotman WF, editor.
Subsurface Drainage on Problematic Irrigated Soils:
Sustainability and Cost Effectiveness (Volume III).
Proceedings of the Fifth International Drainage Workshop,
8–15 February 1992, Lahore, Pakistan; 1992. p. 6.87–6.95.
48. Qadir M, Qureshi RH, Ahmad N. Horizontal flushing: a
promising ameliorative technology for hard sodic and
saline-sodic soils. Soil and Tillage Research 1998;45:119–31.
49. Gibbs HJ. Research on electro-reclamation of saline-alkali
soils. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural
Engineers 1966;9:164–9.
50. Vadyunina AF. Meliorative effects of direct electrical current on
leaching solonchakous solonetz. Transactions of the 9th
International Congress of Soil Science, Adelaide, SA (Volume
1). Elsevier Science, New York; 1968. p. 455–62.
51. Acar YB, Gale RJ, Putnam GA, Hamed J, Wong RL.
Electrochemical processing of soils: theory of pH gradient
development by diffusion, migration, and linear convection.
Journal of Environmental Science and Health
1990;25:687–714.
52. Ahmad E, Jones RL, Hinesly TD. Electromelioration of a sodic
horizon from an Illinois Natraqualf. Soil Science Society of
America Journal 1997;61:1761–5.
53. Somani LL. Alkali Soils: Their Reclamation and Management.
Divyajoyti Prakashan, Jodhpur, India; 1990.
54. Robbins CW. Carbon dioxide partial pressure in lysimeter
soils. Agronomy Journal 1986;78:151–8.
55. Ahmad N, Qureshi RH, Qadir M. Amelioration of a calcareous
saline-sodic soil by gypsum and forage plants. Land
Degradation and Rehabilitation 1990;2:277–84.
56. Qadir M, Qureshi RH, Ahmad N, Ilyas M. Salt-tolerant forage
cultivation on a saline-sodic field for biomass production and
soil reclamation. Land Degradation and Development
1996;7:11–8.
57. Qadir M, Oster JD. Crop and irrigation management strategies
for saline-sodic soils and waters aimed at environmentally
sustainable agriculture. Science of the Total Environment
2004;323:1–19.
 M. Qadir, S. Schubert, D. Badia, B. R. Sharma, A. S. Qureshi and G. Murtaza
58. McGrath SP, Zhao FJ, Lombi E. Phytoremediation of metals,
metalloids, and radionuclides. Advances in Agronomy
2002;75:1–56.
59. Qadir M, Steffens D, Yan F, Schubert S. Proton release by
N2-fixing plant roots: a possible contribution to
phytoremediation of calcareous sodic soils. Journal of Plant
Nutrition and Soil Science 2003;166:14–22.
60. Gritsenko GV, Gritsenko AV. Quality of irrigation water and
outlook for phytomelioration of soils. Eurasian Soil Science
1999;32:236–42.
61. Akhter J, Murray R, Mahmood K, Malik KA, Ahmed S.
Improvement of degraded physical properties of a saline-sodic
soil by reclamation with kallar grass (Leptochloa fusca). Plant
and Soil 2004;258:207–16.
62. Qadir M, Sharma BR. Vegetative bioremediation of sodic and
saline-sodic soils. Proceedings of the International Conference
on Soil, Water and Environmental Quality, 28 January to 1
February 2005, New Delhi, India; 2006. p. 276–91.
63. Qadir M, Noble AD, Oster JD, Schubert S, Ghafoor A. Driving
forces for sodium removal during phytoremediation of
calcareous sodic and saline-sodic soils: a review. Soil Use and
Management 2005;21:173–80.
64. Qadir M, Oster JD. Vegetative bioremediation of calcareous
sodic soils: history, mechanisms, and evaluation. Irrigation
Science 2002;21:91–101.
65. Bhardwaj KKR, Abrol IP. Nitrogen management in alkali soils.
Proceedings of National Symposium on Nitrogen Assimilation
and Crop Productivity, Hisar, India; 1978;38:83–6.
http://www.cababstractsplus.org/cabreviews
View publication stats
13
66. Grattan SR, Grieve CM. Salinity–mineral nutrient relations in
horticultural crops. Scientia Horticulturae 1999;78:127–57.
67. Ford GW, Martin JJ, Rengasamy P, Boucher SC, Ellington A.
Soil sodicity in Victoria. Australian Journal of Soil Research
1993;31:869–910.
68. Fortmeier R, Schubert S. Salt tolerance of maize (Zea mays
L.): the role of sodium exclusion. Plant, Cell and Environment
1995;18:1041–7.
69. Qadir M, Qureshi RH, Ahmad N. Nutrient availability in a
calcareous saline-sodic soil during vegetative bioremediation.
Arid Soil Research and Rehabilitation 1997;11:343–52.
70. Page AL, Chang AC, Adriano DC. Deficiencies and toxicities of
trace elements. In: Tanji KK, editor. Agricultural Salinity
Assessment and Management; Manuals and Reports on
Engineering Practices No. 71. American Society of Civil
Engineers, New York; 1990. p. 138–60.
71. Singh MV, Chabra R, Abrol IP. Interaction between application
of gypsum and zinc sulfate on the yield and chemical
composition of rice grown on an alkali soil. Journal of
Agricultural Research (Cambridge) 1987;108:275–9.
72. Som Pal, Sharma BR, Parshad R. Social audit on reclamation
of salt-affected soils in India. Report of the ICAR Social Audit
Committee on the Reclamation of Salt Affected Soils. Indian
Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, India; 1999.
73. Minhas PS, Sharma OP. Management of soil salinity and
alkalinity problems in India. Journal of Crop Production.
2003;7:181–230.