14350645, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/agj2.21184 by Cochrane Costa Rica, Wiley Online Library on [19/02/2023].

See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Received: 17 February 2022 Accepted: 16 July 2022 Published online: 28 November 2022

DOI: 10.1002/agj2.21184

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
A g ro n o m y, S o i l s , a n d E nv i ro n m e n t a l Q u a l i t y

Restoring ecological function to saline–sodic soils in South Dakota

with perennial grass mixtures

Sharon A. Clay Douglas Fiedler Cheryl Reese David E. Clay

Agronomy, Horticulture, and Plant Science

Dep., South Dakota State Univ., Brookings,
SD 57007, USA
Correspondence
Sharon Clay, Agronomy, Horticulture, and
Plant Science Dep., South Dakota State
University, Brookings, SD 57007, USA.
Email: sharon.clay@sdstate.edu
Assigned to Associate Editor Bijesh
Maharjan.
Abstract
Revegetation of saline–sodic soils is challenging. Over 10 million saline–sodic
hectares are intertwined with highly productive soils in the Northern Great Plains,
with 3.4 million ha in South Dakota. Establishing salt-tolerant perennial plants pro-
vides soil cover and remediates barren areas. Two perennial salt-tolerant grass mixes
[Mix 1: slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus [Link] Gould ex Shinners) +
beardless wildrye (Leymus triticoides [Buckley] Pilg.); Mix 2: slender wheatgrass +
creeping foxtail (Alopercurus arundinaceus Poir.) + western wheatgrass (Pascopy-
rum smithii [Rydb.] Á. Löve) + ‘AC Saltlander’ green wheatgrass (Elymus hoffmannii
K.B. Jensen & K.H. Asay)] were dormant-planted in 2018 and 2019 along a soil
catena with high [electrical conductivity (EC1:1 ) = 0.39 dS m–l ; 72 mg kg–1 Na+ ],
moderate (EC1:1 = 1.64 dS m–l ; 343 mg kg–1 Na+ ), and low (EC1:1 = 3.87 dS m–l ;
1,680 mg kg–1 Na+ ) productivity zones. Vegetative biomass was measured after seed-
ing (2018, 2019) and during growth (2020, 2021), and compared with areas seeded
to maize (Zea mays L.) and a nonplanted area. Biomass varied with year and pro-
ductivity zone. Except in 2018, grasses had greater biomass in the moderate and low
productivity zones than maize. The sodium content of grass biomass in 2020 and
2021 was 10× greater in the low than in the high and moderate productive zones
(0.25 vs. 0.02%, respectively) but could be suitable for livestock feed. By 2021,
grass biomass was similar for both mixes in all zones, and the grasses spread into
nonplanted areas.

1 INTRODUCTION lion ha are affected by saline–sodic conditions, with about 3.4

Saline–sodic soils are a worldwide problem, with over 1 bil-
lion ha affected at some level (FAO ITPS, 2015). In the
Northern Great Plains (NGP) (South Dakota, North Dakota,
Wyoming, Montana) region of the United States, over 10 mil-
Abbreviations: EC1:1 , electrical conductivity (with a 1:1 soil/water
solution); ECe , electrical conductivity (saturated paste); NGP, Northern
Great Plains; PLS, pure live seed.
million ha in South Dakota and these areas are intertwined
with highly productive crop zones (George, 1978; Reitsma
et al., 2015; Seelig, 2000) (Figures 1 and 2).
The causes of salinity problems are multifold, including
ocean intrusion near coastlines, removal of deep-rooted veg-
etation that helped to lower saline water tables, excessive
application of fertilizers, and irrigation with salty water. In
the North American NGP, saline–sodic areas have become
widespread in areas with relatively shallow soils located over

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2022 The Authors. Agronomy Journal © 2022 American Society of Agronomy.

Agronomy Journal. 2023;115:135–146. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/agj2 135


136
sodium-rich shales from ancient seabeds. Since the early
2000s, regional rainfall has increased, and capillary flow from
rising water tables, especially in foot and toeslope areas, is
transporting subsurface salts to the soil surface. As the water
evaporates, soil electrical conductivity (EC) increases, mak-
ing the soil unsuitable for many plants (He et al., 2018;
Reitsma et al., 2015; USEPA, 2016; USGS, 2018). In many
fields, high Na to EC ratios can result in soil dispersion
(Fiedler et al., 2022).
The elevated salt concentrations, EC values, and water-
logged conditions in these areas inhibit the growth of many
crops (Barrett-Lennard, 2002; Parida & Das, 2005), leaving
many of the areas near barren. For example, the typical crop
rotation in eastern South Dakota is maize (Zea mays L.)–
soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.], both of which have low
to moderate salt tolerance (Ashraf & Wu, 1994; FAO ITPS,
2015). The unproductive conditions increase the risk of soil
erosion and salt deposition in new areas (Carlson et al., 2015;
Kharel et al., 2018). The monetary consequences are in the bil-
lions of dollars as a result of decreased revenue and increased
remediation costs (Hadrich, 2012; USDA-NRCS, 2012).
In South Dakota’s saline–sodic soils, chemical and phys-
ical remediation techniques have not been effective (Birru
et al., 2019; Budak et al., 2022). Adding gypsum or acidify-
ing compounds, as suggested in many research results (Arshad
et al., 2015; Mahmoodabadi et al., 2013; Hanay et al., 2004),
has not been successful because the soils are often super-
saturated with gypsum (Franzen et al., 2006; Kharel et al.,
2018; Birru et al., 2019). Tile drainage, to leach out sodium
salts and replace them with divalent cations, with or without
chemical amendments, is another method often used for reme-
diating salinity (Hopkins et al., 2012; Gharaibeh et al., 2009;
Khosla et al., 1979; Sharma et al., 1974). In South Dakota (and
North Dakota), there has been limited or no success with tile
drainage. First, there are limited areas for transport drainage
water because of a lack of natural outlets. Second, a few years
after installation, water infiltration to the tile line slows or
stops (Budak et al., 2022) caused by the sodium salts causing
soil dispersion (Rengasamy & Olsson, 1991).
The failure of chemical and drainage treatments has driven
NGP producers and land managers to examine alternative
methods of stabilizing and mitigating soils affected by high
salt content. Phytoremediation (e.g., the use of salt-tolerant
plants), with or without chemical amendments, has been used
globally in salt-impacted regions, with the aim of restoring
hydrologic functions, improve plant growth, and preventing
further soil degradation (Barrett-Lennard, 2002; Ashraf et al.,
2010; Qadir & Oster, 2002; Qadir et al., 2000; Qadir, Oster,
et al., 2006; Qadir, Qureshi, et al., 2006; Gharaibeh et al.,
2011; Jesus et al., 2015; Singh et al., 2013; Shelef et al., 2012).
Revegetation has proven to be challenging because of the high
salinity levels, near year-round waterlogged conditions, and
seasonal ponding that leads to the immersion or submersion
14350645, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/agj2.21184 by Cochrane Costa Rica, Wiley Online Library on [19/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CLAY ET AL.
Core Ideas
∙ Saline–sodic areas of the NGP are expanding and
areas have poor row crop growth.
∙ Remediation with chemical amendments and
drainage has often been ineffective.
∙ Phytoremediation is needed to restore vegetation,
function, and help improve soil health.
∙ In terms of biomass, AC Saltlander and slender
wheatgrass were the most productive species.
∙ Mixes of perennials rather than single species
provided species diversity and function.
of plants in these areas. Plant selection is often limited and the
species that can tolerate the saline–sodic conditions are typi-
cally not highly desirable or profitable, as most have limited or
no use as feed, forage, fiber, or grain crop (Barrett-Lennard,
2000). Barrett-Lennard (2002) also noted that plants should
have a deep enough root system to help dry the soil through
evapotranspiration, but not deep enough to grow into the salty
subsurface aquifers, which could ultimately deposit more salts
into the root zone.
Most phytoremediation research has been conducted in
warm climates with locally grown species, which may not
be suitable for the U.S. NGP because of the extreme cold
conditions (−30 ˚C in winter) and relatively short growing
season [∼1300 growing degree days (GDD)]. Several native
broadleaf and grass species have been examined for suit-
ability in these areas, but only alkali sacaton [Sporobolus
airoides (Torr.) Torr.] survived a single year on the highly
salt-impacted soils (Blanchard, 2021).
The objectives of this study were to measure and compare
the establishment and growth of two different perennial grass
mixes in a saline–sodic soil in the NGP climate. The grass
mixtures included native and adapted cool season salt-tolerant
species, with their growth compared with maize, a custom-
ary crop of the area. The plots were located along a catena
of soil that ranged from high (nonsaline) to low productivity
(near barren because of saline–sodic conditions) during four
growing seasons (2018–2021).
Three grasses native to the NGP included slender wheat-
grass [Elymus trachycaulus (Link) Gould ex Shinners],
beardless wildrye [Leymus triticoides (Buckley) Pilg.], and
western wheatgrass [Pascopyrum smithii (Rydb.) Á. Löve].
Two adapted species were also seeded: creeping foxtail
(Alopercurus arundinaceus Poir.) (Eurasian origin) and ‘AC
Saltlander’ green wheatgrass (Elymus hoffmannii K.B. Jensen
& K.H. Asay) [a natural hybrid of one of three Eurasian
bluebunch wheatgrasses (Pseudoroegneria strigosa, Pseu-
doroegneria geniculata, or Pseudoroegneria stipifolia) and
 14350645, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/agj2.21184 by Cochrane Costa Rica, Wiley Online Library on [19/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CLAY ET AL. 137

F I G U R E 1 A typical saline–sodic field area of South Dakota. Note the close proximity to highly productive crop areas (image courtesy of
South Dakota Pheasants Forever)

F I G U R E 2 An aerial Google Earth image of the study site, with the blocks and zones used for the experiment outlined to fit the soil diversity
of the field (Fiedler et al., 2022). The image is from 4 June 2019 superimposed on an elevation map. The white areas have a high sodium salt content
and a high soil moisture. The elevation change across the area is about 3 m. The total field dimensions are 177 by 218 m

quackgrass (Elymus repens [L.] Gould)] (Hybner et al., 2014).
Slender, western, AC Saltlander wheatgrasses, and beardless
wildrye have been reported to be salt-tolerant to an EC in
saturated paste (ECe ) of ∼16 dS m−1 (Alberta Agriculture
& Rural Development, 2001; Moxley et al., 1978; Kayter
et al., 2020). Creeping foxtail is moderately salt-tolerant to
an ECe of ∼12 dS m−1 (Tilley et al., 2004). All of the
selected forages are suitable for grazing, with most having
higher nutritional value during the early rather than the late
season.
2 MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 Study site
The 4-yr study was conducted from 2018 to 2021 in a
field located at 44˚42′11.6388″N, 97˚52′43.8312″W in Clark
County, SD, in the James River watershed. The Köppen cli-
mate classification is Dfb (Continental climate without a dry
season and a warm summer) (Climate-Data.org, 2022). The
30-yr average annual precipitation (1981–2010) for Clark,
 14350645, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/agj2.21184 by Cochrane Costa Rica, Wiley Online Library on [19/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
138 CLAY ET AL.

T A B L E 1 Monthly total precipitation and mean air temperatures for 2018 to 2021 and the 30-yr (1981–2010) averages for Clark, SD, collected
from the Clark, SD weather station (ID: Clark Number 2, SD, USA, located at 44˚52′54.84″N, 97˚44′3.12″W)

Precipitation Average monthly temperature

Month 2018 2019 2020 2021 30-yr average 2018 2019 2020 2021 30-yr average
mm ˚C
Jan. 0 25 18 14 13 −11 −12 −10 −4 −11
Feb. 14 31 9 9 14 −14 −17 −8 −13 −8
Mar. 7 58 16 37 31 −2 −5 1 3 −2
Apr. 37 78 34 63 50 0 6 5 6 6
May 51 197 53 57 75 11 11 12 13 13
June 54 75 101 42 100 22 20 22 23 19
July 81 171 99 86 89 22 22 23 23 22
Aug. 83 139 36 73 72 21 20 22 22 21
Sept. 58 133 28 75 71 17 17 15 18 15
Oct. 59 65 21 – 52 6 4 4 – 8
Nov. 79 19 10 – 23 −4 −2 3 – −1
Dec. 14 38 20 – 14 −4 −6.5 −4 – −9
Total annual 537 1,029 445 – 604 – – – – –
precipitation
Note. Data were obtained from NOAA (2022).

SD, is 604 mm and the average annual temperature is 6.2
˚C (NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information,
2022). Precipitation by month and total annual precipitation,
mean monthly temperatures during the study, and the 30-yr
average values (1981–2010) are provided in Table 1.
The field had summit positions on the east and west sides
of the field and an east–west depression through the middle
of the field (Figure 2). The soil classification for the elevated
east and west sides of the field (the high productivity zone) is
a Forman–Cresbard loam (Soil Survey Staff, 2018). The For-
man series is a well-drained fine-loamy, mixed, superactive,
frigid Calcic Argiudoll. The Cresbard series is moderately
well-drained fine, smectitic, frigid Glossic Natrudoll. The
soil classification for the depression (low productivity zone)
is a Cresbard–Cavour loam. The Cavour series is a fine,
smectitic, frigid Calcic Natrudoll (Soil Survey Staff, 2018).
Selected soil chemical properties of composite soil samples
for the 0- to 15-cm depth for each zone are presented in
Table 2.
2.2 Field management
The two grass mixtures were dormant-seeded at a 6-mm
depth with a FLEX-II drill (Traux Company, Inc.) into 13-m
strips on 15 Dec. 2017 and overseeded with the same mix-
ture into the established areas a second time on 24 Oct. 2018.
A two-species mix (designated Mix 1) consisted of ‘Cer-
tified First Strike’ slender wheatgrass (Great Basin Seeds)
and ‘Shoshone’ beardless wildrye (Idaho Farm Store). Each
species was planted at a rate of 3.9 kg pure live seed (PLS)
ha−1 . The four species mix (designated Mix 2) was Certified
First Strike slender wheatgrass (planted at 2.2 kg PLS ha−1 ),
‘Garrison’ creeping foxtail (Great Basin Seeds) (planted at
2.2 kg PLS ha−1 ), western wheatgrass (Great Basin Seeds)
(planted at 6.7 kg PLS ha−1 ), and AC Saltlander green wheat-
grass (Great Basin Seeds, Ephraim, UT) (planted at 3.6 kg
PLS ha−1 ).
In maize-seeded areas, a 95-d hybrid (‘DeKalb DKC45-
65RIB’, Monsanto Co.) was planted on 17 May 2018, a 90-d
hybrid (‘DKC40-77RIB’, Monsanto Co.) was planted on 31
May 2019, and a 93-d hybrid (‘DeKalb-DKC 43-75RIB’,
Bayer Co.) was planted on 2 June 2020. The planting rate each
year was 79,000 seeds ha−1 in rows 0.76 m wide.
In randomized replicated strips across the catena, unplanted
control areas also were monitored. Fertilizer was not applied
to any treatments.
Weed management targeted the broadleaf weeds kochia
[Bassia scoparia (L.) A.J. Scott] and Canada thistle (Cirsium
arvense L.) each year. The plot area was treated with poste
mergence broadleaf herbicides [dicamba (3.6-dichloro-2-
methoxy-benzoic acid); bromoxynil (3,5-dibromo-4-hydr-
oxybenzonitrile), and mesotrione (2-(4-methylsulfonyl)−2-
nitrobenzoyl)cyclohexane-1,3-dione)] or mown (see the
details on the dates and rates in Fiedler et al. (2022)
and Fiedler (2020)]. Foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum L.)
was also noted in the low and moderate production zones
(Figure 3).

CLAY ET AL.
F I G U R E 3 Saline–sodic areas of a field in Clark, SD. (a) Area planted to soybean (June 2021) with the grass area seeded to the left and (b) a
representative grass plot in 2021 in the background (flagged), which was planted in 2017 and 2018. The foxtail barley infestation in the foreground
(b) was outside the grass-seeded plots
2.3 Data collection
In the grass mixture plots, the percentage of ground cover of
the desired (planted) species was estimated on the basis of
eye-observations in mid-July in 2018 and 2019 for total cover
and was also estimated by species. Biomass samples were col-
lected in two 1-m2 quadrats per plot on 10 Sept. 2018 and from
two 0.1-m2 quadrats per plot on 11 July 2019, and in mid-June
and mid-July in 2020, and in mid-June in 2021. The 2018 and
2019 samples were separated by grass species.
Maize stover and grain biomass samples were collected
from two 5.3-m section of row after the black layer on 11 Sept.
2018 and 20 Sept. 2020. In 2019, because of cool and wet con-
ditions, maize biomass at the R5 growth stage was sampled
from two 2.7-m sections of row on 29 August.
Biomass and grain samples were dried in a forced air drier
at 60 ˚C for 72 hr, or until a constant weight was achieved,.
Samples were weighed for dry matter. Reported grain yields
were adjusted to 15.5% moisture content. Sodium content in
14350645, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/agj2.21184 by Cochrane Costa Rica, Wiley Online Library on [19/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
139
the grass biomass collected in 2020 and 2021 was quantified
by a commercial laboratory (Ward Laboratories).
2.4 Experimental design and data analysis
The experimental design was a split-block design (four
blocks). Each block contained each of the three productiv-
ity zones: high, moderate, and low. The high productivity
zone had an average EC1:1 of 0.39 dS m−1 and an ammo-
nium acetate-extractable Na+ concentration of 72 mg kg−1 ,
the moderate productivity zone had an average EC1:1 of 1.64
dS m−1 and an ammonium acetate-extractable Na+ concen-
tration of 343 mg kg−1 , and the low productivity zone had
an average EC1:1 of 3.87 dS m−1 and an ammonium acetate-
extractable Na+ concentration of 1,680 mg kg−1 (Table 2) at
the beginning of the experiment. Within each block and pro-
ductivity zone, four treatments were randomized in the area
only in 2017 when the first dormant grass seeding occurred.
 14350645, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/agj2.21184 by Cochrane Costa Rica, Wiley Online Library on [19/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
140 CLAY ET AL.

The treatments were seeded control, spring-planted maize

Note. Eight samples per zone were used as a single composite sample across blocks for analysis. The soil classification is based on NRCS data (Soil Survey Staff, 2018). Most soil analysis was conducted by Ward Labs, Kearney,
NE. Nitrate was extracted with 0.1 KCl and measured following the methods described by Maynard and Karla (1993). SAR is the sodium absorption ratio estimated as the ratio between Na+ extracted with ammonium acetate and
(2018–2020), and the two grass mixes, Mix 1 (a two-species

<.001
4.99b
1.79c
SAR
mix) and Mix 2 (a four-species mix) dormant-seeded in 2017

22a
and 2018. The individual plot size per treatment was 3 × 13 m.
ANOVA was performed in R (version 1.1.383) (R Core
−1 Team, 2017) for statistical analysis of grass species cover, and
EC(1:1)

<.001
1.64b
0.39c

3.87a
dS m
maize and grass biomass. Following the ANOVA, if the P-
value was <.05, two-tailed paired t-tests were carried out for
Chloride

mean comparisons of selected treatments.

187

.13
13

10

3 RESULTS
Sulfate

2,807a

<.001
132b

261b

3.1 Environmental conditions

1,465a

<.001
455b

565b

Average monthly temperatures were at or slightly below the

Mg

30-yr average each year (Table 1). Mean monthly and total
the sum of bases extracted with ammonium acetate (DeSutter et al., 2015).Different lowercase letters across productivity zones indicate differences at P < .05.

annual precipitation in 2018 and 2019 differed from the 30-yr

2,004b
2,485a

2,345a

average: 2018 was relatively dry, with a total annual precipita-

.002
Ca

tion of 536 mm, which was 68 mm less than the 30-yr average
(1981–2010) of 604 mm (Table 1). Precipitation was less than
the 30-yr average from January through July, whereas August,
<.001
158b
362a

362a

October, and November 2018 had greater than average pre-

K
−1

cipitation. However, 2019 was wet, with the total annual

mg kg

precipitation 1.7 times greater than the 30-yr average. June

Olsen P

<.001
30.3a

rainfall was 25% below the 30-yr average; however, May, July,
7.4b

4.2b

August, and September had double the 30-yr average rain-

Selected soil chemical characteristics for the 0- to 15-cm depth by productivity zone

fall. In 2020, total precipitation was about 25% below the

1,680a

<.001

30-yr average with drought conditions in April, May, August,

343b
72c
Na

and September. In 2021, monthly precipitation was average,

except in May and June, which had 25 and 50% less than the
Nitrate

30-yr average, respectively.

11.1

NS
9.5
13

3.2 Grass cover

Organic
matter

2.37

2.31

2.16

NS

During establishment (2018 and 2019), ocular estimates of

ground cover varied by zone and grass mix type. In 2018,
pH(1:1)

the ground cover of both mixes was similar within a zone

7.18

7.31

7.56

NS

at about 54, 25, and 5% for the high, moderate, and low
productivity zones, respectively (Table 3). The slender wheat-
grass/beardless wildrye ratio for Mix 1 averaged 62% slender
Soil classification

Forman–Cresbard

Forman–Cresbard

Cresbard–Cavour

wheatgrass and 38% beardless wildrye in the high and moder-

ate zones, and was about 50:50 in the low productivity zone.
Mix 2’s cover ratios averaged 19% slender wheatgrass, 25%
loam

loam

loam

creeping foxtail, 45% AC Saltlander, and 9% western wheat-

grass for the high and moderate zones. In the low productivity
zone, AC Saltlander dominated, making up about 70% of the
High productivity

Low productivity

cover.
productivity

In 2019, ocular estimates of grass cover were greater,

TA B L E 2

Moderate
Soil zone

with >85% cover in the high and moderate productivity zones

P value

for each mix, and in the low zone, 60% cover for Mix 1 and
50% cover for Mix 2 (Table 3). In Mix 1, slender wheatgrass
 14350645, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/agj2.21184 by Cochrane Costa Rica, Wiley Online Library on [19/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CLAY ET AL. 141

T A B L E 3 Electrical conductivity in saturated paste (ECe ) tolerance of the grasses used and total percentage grass ground cover and percentage
of the total cover by species for two grass mixes by soil zone in 2018 and 2019, Clark, SD

Ground cover
2018 2019
Treatment EC tolerance High Moderate Low High Moderate Low
dS m−1 %
Mix 1
Total cover 54 28 5 86 90 61
Slender 16 61a 65a 51 70a 72a 53
wheatgrass
Beardless wildrye 16 39b 35b 49 30b 28b 47
Mix 2
Total cover 54 25 4 100 83 51
Slender 16 19c 19bc 11b 1b 4c 7b
wheatgrass
Creeping foxtail 12 31b 23b 1b 52a 37b 6b
AC Saltlander 16 41a 49a 71a 41a 59a 84a
Western 16 9d 9c 17b 6b 0c 3b
wheatgrass
Note. The EC tolerance values for slender, AC Saltlander, and western wheatgrasses and for beardless wildrye are reported in Alberta Agriculture & Rural Development,
2001; Moxley et al., 1978; and Kayter et al., 2020. The salinity tolerance of creeping foxtail is reported in Tilley et al., 2011. Different lowercase letters within a treatment
mix and soil productivity zone indicate differences at P < .05.

accounted for about 70% cover in the high and moderate pro-
ductivity zones, whereas in the low productivity zone, the
percentage of cover was about 50:50 for each grass. In Mix
2, the four-way grass blend, creeping foxtail made up 52 and
37% of the cover in the high and moderate productivity zones,
respectively, and AC Saltlander made up 41 and 59% of the
cover in these zones. AC Saltlander dominated the cover in
the low productivity zone, with an estimated 84% of the cover
with the other three grasses contributing about 5% each.
In 2020 and 2021, the cover by species was not different,
but cover was close to 100% in the seeded areas. In these
two years, it was also noted that grasses from adjacent plots
were spreading into the unplanted controls, irrespective of the
productivity zone.
3.3 Maize and grass biomass
zone. Mix 2 had a total biomass similar to Mix 1 in all zones.
AC Saltlander in Mix 2 had the greatest biomass of the grasses
in all productivity zones. Creeping foxtail did moderately well
in the high and moderate productivity zones, but its biomass
was low in the low productivity zone. Western wheatgrass,
which has been reported to be slow to establish (Ogle et al.,
2009), had low biomass in 2018 and 2019 in all three zones.
Sodium content in the bulk grass biomass samples was
quantified only in the 2020 and 2021 samples. Samples taken
from the low productivity zone had the highest Na+ content at
about 0.25% (data not shown). This was 10 times greater than
the Na+ content in samples from the high and moderate zones.
However, according to calculations based on biomass and Na+
content, the estimated amount of Na+ removed from low pro-
ductivity soil would be about 16 kg ha−1 if the vegetation was
removed and yields remained at 6,400 kg ha−1 .

In 2018 and 2020, within the high productivity zone, maize
grain (Table 3) and stover (data not shown) had the greatest
biomass compared with either grass mix. In 2018, the year
of establishment, grass biomass was low in each of the three
zones and was about 75% lower in the low productivity zone
than the biomass amounts in the high and moderate productiv-
ity zones (Table 4). In 2019, a very wet year, both mixes out-
produced maize (vegetative growth only) in all three zones. In
Mix 1, slender wheatgrass had greater biomass in the high and
moderate productivity zones than beardless wildrye, and was
similar to beardless wildrye biomass in the low productivity
4 DISCUSSION
4.1 Phytoremediation is crucial for
saline–sodic soils
Saline–sodic areas of NGP fields generally start in lower ele-
vations (Figures 1–3). Because these areas are entwined with
highly productive areas, the producers have been managing
them with annual crop rotations. In 2018, in the field used
for this research, maize yields in the low productivity zone
were considered average for the county. However, the 2019
 14350645, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/agj2.21184 by Cochrane Costa Rica, Wiley Online Library on [19/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
142 CLAY ET AL.

TA B L E 4 Grass and maize biomass in 2018 and 2019 based on soil area

Biomass
2018 2019
Treatment Non-saline Transition Saline/sodic Non-saline Transition Saline/sodic
kg ha−1
Mix 1
Total biomass 1,705 801 246 9,038 9,700 6,400
Beardless wildrye 685 290 134 1,813b 1,675b 2,150
Slender wheat 1,020 511 113 7,225a 8,025a 4,250
Mix 2
Total biomass 2,646 1,368 604 10,663 9,775 5,853
Slender wheat 536 245 123 138c 325c 438b
Creeping meadow 837 308 33 3,550b 2,675b 263b
foxtail
Western wheatgrass 228 125 81 350c 0c 389b
AC saltlander 1,045 690 367 6,625a 6,775a 4,763a
Maize
Total 10,833 7,632 2,245 2,003 1,926 1,489
Stover 3,952 2,468 943 2,003 1,926 1,489
Grain 6,881 5,164 1,302 na na na

Note. Grass was harvested 10 Sept. 2018 and July 11, 2019. In 2019, maize was planted late due to wet conditions and was harvested for stover only in late August.
Different letters within a treatment and column indicate differences at P < .05.

spring was very wet and maize was planted after the final
crop insurance plant date, and only the hillsides could be
planted with normal field equipment. The lowland plots were
planted by hand due to the wet soil conditions, with stand-
ing water present after planting (Fiedler, 2020). Although
maize established in all test areas, extra inputs such as her-
bicides, fertilizer, and annual seed costs would be needed to
produce a crop with marginal or no grain yield. This man-
agement system can be contrasted with the perennial grasses
that were planted in drier fall conditions, which, once estab-
lished, required less overall maintenance and were subjected
to standing water with fewer negative growth consequences.
In addition, N2 O emissions from the saline areas of the field
were 85% greater in the low productivity zone than that
in high productivity zone (Fiedler et al., 2021). Thus, sta-
bilizing the areas with grasses and not applying fertilizers
would help in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and require
fewer inputs. After establishment, grasses may be harvested
or grazed, allowing beneficial use of marginal crop-producing
lands (Qadir, Oster, et al., 2006).
Plant establishment in saline–sodic areas aims to return
hydrologic function to these areas for long-term soil improve-
ment. Water uptake through evapotranspiration of a perma-
nent growing cover should help dry these soils. In addition,
these soils often have high pH. Root respiration has been con-
jectured to lower the a soil pH near the root surface through the
formation of carbonic acid, which can increase the dissolution
of free lime and make more calcium available for exchange
with sodium (Nye, 1981; Marschner & Römheld, 1983; Qadir,
Qureshi, & Ahmad, 1996; Qadir, Qureshi, Ahmad et al., 1996;
Qadir et al., 2000, 2003; Qadir, Noble, et al., 2006; Qadir &
Oster, 2002; Rabhi et al., 2009, 2010; Rasouli et al., 2013;
Walker et al., 2014; Youssef & Chino, 1989).
Another benefit of phytoremediation is that plant roots
create pores for air and water infiltration, and the root exu-
dates help rebuild soil structure (Traoré et al., 2000). Plant
growth can also add organic matter to the soil through the
addition of residue, aiding soil structure and providing food
sources to soil microbes to stimulate their activity (Ahmad
et al., 1990; Ammari et al., 2013; Rao & Pathak, 1996;
Pathak & Rao, 1998; Li et al., 2006; Wong et al., 2009) and
remove salts, specifically sodium, through the accumulation
of biomass (Qadir, Oster, et al., 2006; Ahmad et al., 1990;
Ashraf et al., 2010; Rabhi et al., 2009, 2010; Ammari et al.,
2013; Shelef et al., 2012). However, if plant litter is returned
rather than physically removed, the effectiveness of reducing
sodium levels in the area may be unsuccessful (Qadir et al.,
2000; Minhas et al., 2007; Shekhawat et al., 2006; Gharaibeh
et al., 2011). Rhizospheric soil samples from the perennial
bermudagrass [Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.] in a salt-affected
soil lowered the pH, EC, exchangeable sodium percentage,
and sodium adsorption ratio compared with nonrhizospheric
samples (Singh et al., 2013), with the differences attributed
partially to root respiration and the exudates increasing the
organic carbon and enzyme activity. In a laboratory study on
barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), an annual, grown on soils from

CLAY ET AL.
our study site, the pH, EC, and sodium adsorption ratio were
not affected (Fiedler et al., 2021), although some reductions in
EC and Na+ content were observed in the field study in 2019
with greater grass production caused by high rainfall amounts
(Fiedler et al., 2022).
Barrett-Lennard (2002) estimated that if 2 Mg ha−1 of veg-
etation containing 25% salt were removed annually from a
saline area in Australia, only about 10% of the salt would
be removed in 20 yr. The Na+ content of the low produc-
tivity soil in this study was estimated at 1,680 kg Na+ ha−1 .
Removing all the biomass that contained 0.25% Na would
only remove 16 kg Na+ ha−1 per year in the highest pro-
duction year (2019). At this rate, it would take 100 yr to
remove the Na in the top 15 cm of soil. However, grow-
ing these perennial grasses in the NGP would provide other
benefits including revegetating barren soil and providing soil
stability to reduce wind and water erosion, and provide a
wildlife habitat, even though long-term salinity problems for
row crop production would not be corrected [maize salinity
tolerance (ECe ) has been reported at 1.7–3 dS m−1 (FAO
ITPS, 2015) and soybean’s salinity tolerance (ECe ) has been
reported as 5 dS m−1 (Ashraf & Wu, 1994). Because the
forage has a relatively low level of Na, the biomass could
be fed to livestock with no problems, if high-quality drink-
ing water is available (C. Wright, personal communication,
2022).
4.2 Species selection and functional groups
to fill the saline–sodic ecological niche
In this study, two mixes of grasses tolerant of high EC and
salinity that were in different functional groups were used
to examine their response in these saline–sodic soils. Mix 1
contained slender wheatgrass, which is tolerant to ECe levels
up to 16 dS m−1 (Alberta Agriculture & Rural Development,
2001), and beardless wildrye, which is tolerant of moderately
(4–8 dS m−1 ) to strongly saline soils (15–20 dS m−1 ) (Alberta
Agriculture & Rural Development, 2001; Young-Mathews &
Winslow, 2010; Grieve et al., 2012). Slender wheatgrass is
a bunchgrass with a relatively short lifespan (3–5 yr) (Tilley
et al., 2011), whereas beardless wildrye is a rhizomatous sod
former, which helps in soil stabilization (Young-Mathews
& Winslow, 2010). Slender wheatgrass establishes quickly
and is vigorous, which helps prevent erosion so that slower
growing species can become established (Tilley et al., 2011;
Young-Mathews & Winslow, 2010). Thus, the mix of the
two species has the advantage of quickly establishing (slender
wheatgrass) and providing sod-forming properties (beardless
wildrye) for long-term stability.
The four-way mix was made up of slender wheatgrass,
creeping foxtail, western wheatgrass, and AC Saltlander.
This mix also provides different functional groups. Creeping
14350645, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/agj2.21184 by Cochrane Costa Rica, Wiley Online Library on [19/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
143
foxtail was introduced into the United States at the end of
the 19th century (Tilley et al., 2004) and does well in areas
with a high water table, but has low seedling vigor (Boe &
Delaney, 1996). Once established, the plant is winter-hardy
and rhizomatous, does not undergo summer dormancy, and
can be hayed or grazed with minimal recovery time (Tilley
et al., 2004). Western wheatgrass has poor seed germination
and may take four or more years to develop a strong stand,
but once established, it is fairly long-lived (Ogle et al., 2009).
It also is a rhizomatous sod-forming species that will help
with soil stability. AC Saltlander was selected specifically for
its salt tolerance (Steppuhn et al., 2006), is a long-lived rhi-
zomatous perennial that stays green longer in the season than
other wheatgrass species. It recovers quickly from haying and
grazing, and competes strongly with weeds (Hybner et al.,
2014).
The findings from this study indicate that low biomass
amounts and poor cover may be expected during the estab-
lishment years of perennial grasses in saline–sodic areas.
The focus should be on achieving a robust, flourishing stand
rather than expecting a hay crop or grazing area. In addition,
species may perform differently along the salinity gradi-
ent, and complementary mixes, rather than single species,
may be desirable. The observations from 2020 and 2021
indicate that grasses (mainly AC Saltlander) have expanded
beyond the original plot areas and the salt-impacted areas with
the wheatgrasses (Figure 3) have less weed biomass, most
notably foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum L.). These areas
need to be monitored over the next few years to better under-
stand how the different environmental conditions and further
development of these perennial grass species will influence
salt-impacted soils in the long term, and determine if grass
stands are robust enough to be used as a hay or grazing
crop.
AU T H O R C O N T R I B U T I O N S
Sharon A. Clay: Conceptualization; Formal analysis; Funding
acquisition; Investigation; Methodology; Resources; Supervi-
sion; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing.
Douglas Fiedler: Investigation; Methodology; Writing – orig-
inal draft. Cheryl Reese: Data curation; Formal analysis;
Methodology; Writing – review & editing. David E. Clay:
Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Funding
acquisition; Investigation; Methodology; Resources; Writing
– review & editing.
AC K N OW L E D G M E N T S
Funding for this project was provided by the South Dakota
Corn Utilization Council, USDA-AFRI (SD00G656-16 and
SD00H555-15) and USDA-NRCS-CIG (69-3A75-285).
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest.

144
ORCID
Sharon A. Clay https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4166-6995
REFERENCES
Ahmad, N., Qureshi, R. H., & Qadir, M. (1990). Amelioration of a
calcareous saline–sodic soil by gypsum and forage plants. Land
Degradation and Development, 2, 277–284. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ldr.3400020404
Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development. (2001). Salt tol-
erance of plants. Alberta Government. https://www1.agric.
gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex3303/$file/518-
17.pdf?OpenElement
Ammari, T. G., Al-Hiary, S., & Al-Dabbas, M. (2013). Reclamation of
saline calcareous soils using vegetative bioremediation as a poten-
tial approach. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 59, 367–375.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2011.629813
Arshad, I., Sarki, A., & Khan, Z. A. (2015). Effect of gypsum on the
reclamation of saline–sodic soil in arid region of Jacobabad, Sindh-
Pakistan. International Journal of Soil Science and Agronomy, 2,
73–78.
Ashraf, M., & Wu, L. (1994). Breeding for salinity tolerance in plants.
Critical Reviews of Plant Science, 13, 17–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/
07352689409701906
Ashraf, M. Y., Basra, S. M. A., Mahmood, K., Akhter, J., Hussain, F.,
& Arshad, M. (2010). Phytoremediation of saline soils for sustain-
able agricultural productivity. In M. Ashraf, M. Ozturk, & M. S. A.
Ahmad (Eds.), Plant adaptation and phytoremediation (pp. 335–356).
Springer.
Barrett-Lennard, E. G. (2000). Salt of the earth: Time to take it seriously.
In H. Cadman (Ed.), The food and environment tightrope (pp. 135–
145). Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research.
Barrett-Lennard, E. G. (2002). Restoration of saline land through revege-
tation. Agricultural Water Management, 53, 213–226. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0378-3774(01)00166-4
Blanchard, A. P. (2021). Revegetating salt-impacted soils in the Northern
Great Plains [Master’s thesis, South Dakota State University].
Birru, G. A., Clay, D. E., DeSutter, T. M., Reese, C. L., Kennedy,
A. C., Clay, S. A., Bruggeman, S. A., Owen, R. K., & Malo, D.
D. (2019). Chemical amendments of dryland saline–sodic soils did
not enhance productivity and soil health in fields without effective
drainage. Agronomy Journal, 111, 496–508. https://doi.org/10.2134/
agronj2018.04.0296
Boe, A., & Delaney, R. H. (1996). Creeping and meadow foxtail. In L.
E. Moser, D. R. Buxton, & M. D. Casler (Eds.), Cool-season forage
grasses. Agronomy Monograph 34. ASA, CSSA, SSSA.
Budak, M. E., Clay, D. E., Clay, S. A., Reese, C. L., Westhoff, S., Owens,
R. K., Birru, G., Wang, Z., & He, Y. (2022). Increased rainfall may
place saline/sodic soils on the tipping point of sustainability. Journal
of Soil and Water Conservation, 77(4), 418–425. https://doi.org/10.
2489/jswc.2022.00131
Carlson, C. G., Clay, D. E., Malo, D. D., Reese, C. L., Kerns, R., Kharel,
T., Birru, G., & DeSutter, T. (2015). Chapter 32: The management and
identification of saline and sodic soils in the Northern Great Plains.
In D. E. Clay, C. G. Carlson, & S. A. Clay (Eds.), iGrow corn: Best
management practices. South Dakota State University.
Climate-Data.org (2022). Climate data: South Dakota. Climate-
Data.org. https://en.climate-data.org/north-america/united-states-of-
america/south-dakota-934/
14350645, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/agj2.21184 by Cochrane Costa Rica, Wiley Online Library on [19/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CLAY ET AL.
DeSutter, T., Franzen, D., He, Y., Wick, A., Lee, J., Deutsch, B., & Clay,
D. (2015). Relating sodium percentage to sodium adsorption ratio and
its utility in the Northern Great Plains. Soil Science Society of America
Journal, 79, 1261–1264. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2015.01.0010n
Fiedler, D. J. (2020). Phytoremediation of saline-sodic soil in east Cen-
tral South Dakota utilizing perennial grass mixtures [Master’s thesis,
South Dakota State University].
Fiedler, D. J., Clay, D. E., Joshi, D. R., Engel, A., Marzano, S.-Y.,
Jakubowski, D., Bhattarai, D., Reese, C. L., Bruggeman, S. A., &
Clay, S. A. (2021). CO2 and N2 O emissions and microbial com-
munity structure from fields that include salt-affected soils. Journal
of Environmental Quality, 50, 567–579. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeq2.
20223
Fiedler, D. J., Clay, S. A., Joshi, D., Westhoff, S., Reese, C. L.,
Bruggeman, S. A., Moriles-Miller, J., Perkins, L. B., Marzano, S.-
Y., & Clay, D. E. (2022). Phytoremediation and rainfall combine to
improve soil and plant health in a North America Northern Great
Plains saline sodic soil. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,
77(4), 381–388.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations & Intergov-
ernmental Technical Panel on Soils (FAO ITPS). (2015). Status of the
world’s soil resources (SWSR) – Main report. FAO ITPS. https://doi.
org/10.2489/jswc.2022.00112
Franzen, D., Rehm, G., & Gerwing, J. (2006). Effectiveness of gyp-
sum in the North-central region of the U.S. North Dakota State
University Extension. https://www.ndsu.edu/fileadmin/soils.del/pdfs/
Effectiveness_Gypsum.pdf
George, P. R. (1978). The dryland salinity problem in North America.
Journal of the Department of Agriculture, Western Australia, 19, 115–
116.
Gharaibeh, M. A., Eltaif, N. I., & Albalasmeh, A. A. (2011). Reclamation
of highly calcareous saline sodic soil using Atriplex halimus and by-
product gypsum. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 13, 873–
883. https://doi.org/10.2489/10.1080/15226514.2011.573821
Gharaibeh, M. A., Eltaif, N. I., & Shunnar, O. F. (2009). Leaching and
reclamation of calcareous saline–sodic soil by moderately saline and
moderate-SAR water using gypsum and calcium carbonate. Journal
of Plant Nutrition, 172, 713–719.
Grieve, C. M., Grattan, S. R., & Maas, E. V. (2012). Plant salt tolerance.
In K. K. Tanji & W. W. Wallender (Ed.), Agricultural salinity assess-
ment and management (2nd ed., pp. 405–459). American Society of
Civil Engineers.
Hadrich, J. C. (2012). Managing the economics of soil salinity in the
Red River Valley of North Dakota. Journal of American Society Farm
Managers and Rural Appraisers, 75, 80–88.
Hanay, A., Büyüksönmez, F., Kiziloglu, F. M., & Canbolat, M. Y. (2004).
Reclamation of saline–sodic soils with gypsum and msw compost.
Compost Science and Utilization, 12, 175–179. https://doi.org/10.
2489/10.1080/1065657X.2004.10702177
He, Y., DeSutter, T. M., Norland, J., Chatterjee, A., Casey, F., & Clay,
D. E. (2018). Prediction of soil sodicity and the development of soil
management zones in low-relief sodic soils. Precision Agriculture, 19,
858–875. https://doi.org/10.2489/10.1007/s11119-018-9561-x
Hopkins, D., Chambers, K., Fraase, A., He, Y., Larson, K., Malum, L.,
Sande, L., Schulte, J., Sebesta, E., Strong, D., Viall, E., & Utter, R.
(2012). Evaluating salinity and sodium levels on soils before drain
tile installation: A case study. Soil Horizons, 53, 24–29. https://doi.
org/10.2489/10.2136/sh12-02-0006

CLAY ET AL.
Hybner, R., St John, L., & Steppuhn, H. (2014). Hybrid wheatgrass Ely-
mus hoffmannii. USDA–NRCS. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/
FSE_PLANTMATERIALS/publications/mtpmctn12311.pdf
Jesus, J. M., Danko, A. S., Fiúza, A., & Borges, M. T. (2015). Phytore-
mediation of salt-affected soils: A review of processes, applicability,
and the impact of climate change. Environmental Science and Pollu-
tion Research, 22, 6511–6525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-
4205-4
Kayter, C., Houston, B., Elsinger, M., Svendsen, E., Thiessen, R.,
Bruhjell, D., Sager, S., & Iwaasa, A. (2020). AC Saltlander: A
salt-tolerant forage for Western Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada.
Kharel, T., Clay, D. E., Reese, C. L., DeSutter, T., Malo, D. D., & Clay,
S. A. (2018). Do precision chemical amendment applications impact
sodium movement in dryland semi-arid saline sodic soils? Agron-
omy Journal, 110, 1103–1110. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2017.
07.0416
Khosla, B. K., Gupta, R. K., & Abrol, I. P. (1979). Salt leaching and
the effect of gypsum application in a saline–sodic soil. Agricul-
tural Water Management, 2, 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-
3774(79)90002-7
Li, X., Li, F., Singh, B. P., Cui, Z., & Rengel, Z. (2006). Decomposition
of maize straw in saline soil. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 42, 366–
370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-005-0042-9
Mahmoodabadi, M., Yazdanpanah, N., Sinobas, L. R., Pazira, E., &
Neshat, A. (2013). Reclamation of calcareous saline sodic soil with
different amendments (I): Redistribution of soluble cations within the
soil profile. Agricultural Water Management, 120, 30–38. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.agwat.2012.08.018
Marschner, H., & Römheld, V. (1983). In vivo measurement of root-
induced pH changes at the soil–root interface: Effect of plant
species and nitrogen source. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenphysiologie, 111,
241–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-328X(83)80083-X
Maynard, D. G., & Karla, Y. P. (1993). Nitrate and exchangeable ammo-
nium nitrogen. In M. R. Carter (Ed.), Soil sampling and methods of
analysis (pp. 25–58). Lewis Publishers.
Minhas, P. S., Dubey, S. K., & Sharma, D. R. (2007). Effects on soil
and paddy–wheat crops irrigated with waters containing residual
alkalinity. Soil Use & Management, 23, 254–261.
Moxley, M. G., Berg, W. A., & Barrau, E. M. (1978). Salt tolerance of
five varieties of wheatgrass during seedling growth. Journal of Range
Management, 31, 54–55. https://doi.org/10.2307/3897635
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National
Centers for Environmental Information. (2022). Statewide time series.
Climate at a glance. NOAA.
Nye, P. H. (1981). Changes of pH across the rhizosphere induced by
roots. Plant and Soil, 61, 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02277359
Ogle, D. G., St John, L., & Winslow, S. R. (2009). Plant guide for western
wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii). USDA-NRCS, Idaho State Office.
Parida, A. K., & Das, A. B. (2005). Salt tolerance and salinity effects on
plants: A review. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 60, 324–
349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2004.06.010
Pathak, H., & Rao, D. L. N. (1998). Carbon and nitrogen mineralization
from added organic matter in saline and alkali soils. Soil Biology and
Biochemistry, 30, 695–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(97)
00208-3
Qadir, M., Ghafoor, A., & Murtaza, G. (2000). Amelioration strate-
gies for saline soils: A review. Land Degradation and Development,
14350645, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/agj2.21184 by Cochrane Costa Rica, Wiley Online Library on [19/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
145
11, 501–521. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-145X(200011/12)11:6⟨5
01::AID-LDR405⟩3.0.CO;2-S
Qadir, M., Noble, A. D., Oster, J. D., Schubert, S., & Ghafoor, A.
(2006). Driving forces for sodium removal during phytoremedia-
tion of calcareous sodic and saline–sodic soils: A review. Soil Use
and Management, 21, 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.
2005.tb00122.x
Qadir, M., & Oster, J. (2002). Vegetative bioremediation of calcareous
sodic soils: History, mechanisms, and evaluation. Irrigation Science,
21, 91–101.
Qadir, M., Oster, J. D., Schubert, S., & Murtaza, G. (2006). Vegeta-
tive bioremediation of sodic and saline-sodic soils for productivity
enhancement and environment conservation. In M. Öztürk, Y. Waisel,
M. A. Khan, & G. Görk (Eds.), Biosaline agriculture and salinity
tolerance in Plants (pp. 137–146). Springer.
Qadir, M., Qureshi, R. H., & Ahmad, N. (1996). Reclamation of a saline–
sodic soil by gypsum and Leptochloa fusca. Geoderma, 74, 207–217.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(96)00061-4
Qadir, M., Qureshi, R. H., & Ahmad, N. (2006). Amelioration of cal-
careous saline sodic soils through phytoremediation and chemical
strategies. Soil Use and Management, 18, 381–385. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1475-2743.2002.tb00256.x
Qadir, M., Qureshi, R. H., Ahmad, N., & Ilyas, M. (1996). Salt-tolerant
forage cultivation on a saline–sodic field for biomass production
and soil reclamation. Land Degradation and Development, 7, 11–
18. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-145X(199603)7:1⟨11::AID-
LDR211⟩3.0.CO;2-C
Qadir, M., Steffens, D., Yan, F., & Schubert, S. (2003). Sodium removal
from a calcareous saline–sodic soil through leaching and plant uptake
during phytoremediation. Land Degradation and Development, 14,
301–307. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.558
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical
computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Rabhi, M., Ferchichi, S., Jouini, J., Hamrouni, M. H., Koyro, H. W.,
Ranieri, A., Abdelly, C., & Smaoui, A. (2010). Phytodesalination of
a salt-affected soil with the halophyte Sesuvium portulacastrum L. to
arrange in advance the requirements for the successful growth of a
glycophytic crop. Bioresource Technology, 101, 6822–6828. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.03.097
Rabhi, M., Hafsi, C., Lakhdar, A., Hajji, S., Barhoumi, Z., Hamrouni,
M. H., Abdelly, C., & Smaoui, A. (2009). Evaluation of the capacity
of three halophytes to desalinize their rhizosphere as grown on saline
soils under nonleaching conditions. African Journal of Ecology, 47,
463–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2008.00989.x
Rao, D. L. N., & Pathak, H. (1996). Ameliorative influence of
organic matter on biological activity of salt-affected soils. Arid Soil
Research and Rehabilitation, 10, 311–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15324989609381446
Rasouli, F., Pouya, A. K., & Karimian, N. (2013). Wheat yield and
physico-chemical properties of a sodic soil from semi-arid area of
Iran as affected by applied gypsum. Geoderma, 193–194, 246–255.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.10.001
Reitsma, K. D., Dunn, B. H., Mishra, U., Clay, S. A., DeSutter, T., &
Clay, D. E. (2015). Land-use change impact on soil sustainability in a
climate and vegetation transition zone. Agronomy Journal, 107, 2363–
2372. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj15.0152
Rengasamy, P., & Olsson, K. (1991). Sodicity and soil structure. Soil
Research, 29, 935–952. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR9910935

146
Seelig, B. D. (2000). Salinity and sodicity in North Dakota. North Dakota
State University Extension Service.
Sharma, A. K., Fehrenbacher, J. B., & Jones, B. A. (1974). Effect
of gypsum, soil disturbance and tile spacing on the amelioration
of Huey silt loam, a natric soil in Illinois. Soil Science Society
of America Journal, 38, 628–632. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1974.
03615995003800040029x
Shekhawat, V. P. S., Kumar, A., & Neumann, K. H. (2006). Bio-
reclamation of secondary salinized soils using halophytes. In M.
Öztürk, Y. Waisel, M. A. Khan, & G. Görk (Eds.), Biosaline agri-
culture and salinity tolerance in plants (pp. 147–154). Birkhäuser.
Shelef, O., Gross, A., & Rachmilevitch, S. (2012). The use of Bassia
indica for salt phytoremediation in constructed wetlands. Water
Research, 46, 3967–3976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2012.05.
020
Singh, K., Pandey, V. C., & Singh, R. P. (2013). Cynodon dactylon:
An efficient perennial grass to revegetate sodic lands. Ecological
Engineering, 54, 32–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.01.
007
Soil Survey Staff (2018). Web soil survey. USDA-NRCS. https://
websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/
Steppuhn, H., Jefferson, P., Iwaasa, A., & McLeod, J. (2006). AC Salt-
lander green wheatgrass. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 86,
1161–1164. https://doi.org/10.4141/P05-160
Tilley, D. J., Ogle, D., St. John, L., Duckwitz, W., & Holzworth, L.,
Majerus, M., & Tober, D. (2004). Plant guide for creeping foxtail
(Alopecurus arundinaceus Poir). USDA-NRCS.
Tilley, D., Ogle, D., & St John, L. (2011). Plant guide for slender wheat-
grass (Elymus trachycaulus ssp. trachycaulus). USDA–NRCS, Idaho
Plant Materials Center.
Traoré, O., Groleau-Renaud, V., Plantereux, S., Tubeileh, A., & Boeuf-
Tremblay, V. (2000). Effect of root mucilage and modelled root
14350645, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/agj2.21184 by Cochrane Costa Rica, Wiley Online Library on [19/02/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
CLAY ET AL.
exudates on sol structure. European Journal of Soil Science, 51,
575–581.
USEPA (2016). What climate change means for South Dakota.
EPA 430-F-16-043. USEPA. https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/
sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/climate-change-sd.pdf
USGS (2018). USGS groundwater data for South Dakota. USGS. https://
waterdata.usgs.gov/sd/nwis/gw
USDA-NRCS. (2012). Economic impact of saline soils in upper James
River. USDA-NRCS.
Walker, D. J., Lutts, S., Sánchez-García, M., & Correal, E. (2014).
Atriplex halimus L.: Its biology and uses. Journal of Arid Environ-
ments, 100–101, 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2013.
09.004
Wong, V. N. L., Dalal, R. C., & Greene, R. S. B. (2009). Carbon dynam-
ics of sodic and saline soils following gypsum and organic material
additions: A laboratory incubation. Applied Soil Ecology, 41, 29–40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2008.08.006
Young-Mathews, A., & Winslow, S. R. (2010). Plant guide for beardless
wildrye (Leymus triticoides). USDA-NRCS.
Youssef, R. A., & Chino, M. (1989). Root-induced changes in the rhi-
zosphere of plants. I. pH changes in relation to the bulk soil. Journal
of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 35, 461–468. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00380768.1989.10434779
How to cite this article: Clay, S. A., Fiedler, D.,
Reese, C., & Clay, D. E. (2023). Restoring ecological
function to saline–sodic Soils in South Dakota with
perennial grass mixtures. Agronomy Journal, 115,
135–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.21184