Catena 205 (2021) 105466

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Catena
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/catena

Estimation of exchangeable sodium percentage from sodium adsorption

ratio of salt-affected soils using traditional and dilution extracts, saturation
percentage, electrical conductivity, and generalized regression
neural networks
Mamoun A. Gharaibeh a, *, Ammar A. Albalasmeh a, Christopher Pratt b, Ali El Hanandeh c, *
a
Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, Faculty of Agriculture, Jordan University of Science and Technology, P.O. Box 3030, Irbid 22110, Jordan
b
School of Environment and Sciences/Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD 4111, Australia
c
School of Engineering and Built Environment, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD 4111, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Soil sodicity is best evaluated by the exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP); however, the determination of this
Exchangeable sodium percentage index is laborious and time consuming. Alternatively, the sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) is a simpler index that is
Sodium adsorption ratio commonly used to estimate soil sodicity. The objective of this research is to estimate ESP using four approaches:
Soil sodicity
(1) SAR of saturated paste (SARe), and SAR of 1:5 extracts (SAR1:5), (2) a conversion factor (CF) as a function of
Generalized regression neural networks
saturation percentage (θSP), (3) electrical conductivity of 1:5 extracts (EC1:5), and (4) Generalized Regression
Neural Networks (GRNN). Approximately 120 surface soil samples were collected from the Jordan Valley region
and ESP, SARe, SAR1:5, (θSP), soil texture, and soil hydraulic conductivity (HC) were determined. The GRNN
model (i.e., Approach 4) gave the most accurate estimates for the ESP and was able to handle the hetero­
scedasticity of the data. Meanwhile the traditional dilution extracts (1) showed that soil ESP was highly related to
SARe and to SAR1:5; the CF- θSP approach (2) gave better estimates for prediction of ESP. Moreover, EC1:5 (3) gave
reasonably accurate estimation of ESP and could be used as a screening test for assessment of sodicity problems.
For the case study site investigations, a reduction of 20% in soil HC was observed when SARe increased from 0 to
3.5 or ESP increased from 0 to 6, indicating that this reduction occurred at ECe < 3 dS m− 1 for all soils. While the
θSP approach reduced the effect of heteroscedasticity of the data on the predictive model ability, the GRNN
models can accurately predict the ESP based on easy-to-obtain soil features. Our models represent a rapid and
accurate estimator of soil sodicity, and therefore offer a potentially valuable tool in managing soil landscapes
that are vulnerable to degradation.

1. Introduction Quirk and Schofield, 1955; Sumner, 1993).

Soil sodicity is a widespread soil degradation process particularly in
arid and semiarid regions. Sodicity problems arise when sodium ions
(Na+) accumulate relative to other exchangeable and or soluble cations
(mainly Ca2+). The increase in soil sodicity causes numerous negative
effects such as decline in soil aggregate stability as a result of swelling
and dispersion of clay colloids (McNeal et al., 1966; McNeal and Cole­
man, 1966), increase in surface sealing, susceptibility to crusting, runoff
and erosion, (Frenkel et al., 1978; Sumner, 1993), alteration or reduc­
tion in pore size distribution (Rengasamy et al., 1984) all of which lead
to a reduction in soil hydraulic conductivity (HC) (Frenkel et al., 1978;
This structural instability problem is prevalent in soils of arid regions
as a result of irrigation with saline-sodic water. It is well known that HC
depends on both the sodicity and the salinity of the percolating solution.
This dependency has led to the development of the threshold concen­
tration concept (the electrical conductivity (EC) or salinity required to
prevent a given decrease in the HC for a given soil exchangeable sodium
percentage (ESP) or sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) of the percolating
solution) (Bardhan et al., 2016; Lado et al., 2012; Lado and Ben-Hur,
2010; Leuther et al., 2019; Quirk and Schofield, 1955).
The deleterious effect of increasing soil sodicity (ESP and or SAR) is
counteracted by the presence of soluble salts in the soil solution (EC). In

* Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: mamoun@just.edu (M.A. Gharaibeh), a.elhanandeh@griffith.edu.au (A. El Hanandeh).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2021.105466
Received 23 February 2021; Received in revised form 6 April 2021; Accepted 15 May 2021
Available online 26 May 2021
0341-8162/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M.A. Gharaibeh et al.
other words, the flocculating effect of salinity can offset the damaging
effects of high sodium levels in soil (Levy and Shainberg, 2005). The
earlier pioneering work by Quirk and Schofield (1955) introduced the
concept of threshold electrolyte concentration (TEC). The TEC is defined
as the EC of soil solution above which soil physical properties at a given
SAR-ESP are not affected by sodicity.
Based on the latter, several studies proposed relating soil ESP-SAR
and EC to either clay dispersivity or changes in hydraulic conductiv­
ity, and identifying the TEC to maintain soil structural stability. More­
over, soil HC at high SAR values could be maintained provided that the
EC was sufficiently high. The TEC is defined as the concentration at
which either a 10% (Quirk and Schofield, 1955) or 20% (Arienzo et al.,
2012; Dang et al., 2018; Ezlit et al., 2013) reduction in soil HC is
maintained, without any further soil structural degradation.
In addition, elevated Na+ levels in soil solution complicates the
leaching of salts (salinity) from the soil profile, reducing plant available
water, root penetration and seedling emergence and increasing osmotic
stress and causing specific ion effects (nutritional imbalances) on plants,
leading to reduction in crop quality and yield (Marschner, 2011; Naidu
and Rengasamy, 1993; Qadir et al., 2014, 2006; Qadir and Schubert,
2002).
Over the past few decades, the availability of fresh water for irriga­
tion has declined to alarming levels especially in arid regions (Elliott
et al., 2014). These shortages of fresh water may force many countries to
use poor quality irrigation water such as brackish and treated waste­
water, which could lead to sodification/salinization and loss of pro­
ductive lands.
Globally, nearly 10% of the total land is affected by soil salinity and/
or sodicity (Rengasamy, 2016; Szabolcs, 1989). Hence, it is essential to
collect and evaluate related information on the levels of salts in soils for
successful soil management. The best indicator of soil sodicity is the
exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP). The ESP is usually defined as
the ratio of exchangeable sodium (Exch Na) to the cation exchange ca­
pacity of the soil (CEC), both expressed in (cmolc kg− 1) (Richards, 1954).
ExchNa
CEC *
ESP = 100
The CEC is defined as the sum of exchangeable cations (Ca2+, Mg2+,
Na , and K+), and determination of exchangeable cations is useful since
+
they markedly influence the physicochemical properties of soils. To
calculate ESP; both CEC and exchangeable Na must be determined.
Traditional methods used to measure both parameters are laborious,
time-consuming, and subjected to difficulty (error) especially when soil
is saline and calcareous. The difficulty comes from the fact that these
soils have low permeability to aqueous extracting solutions
For the above reasons, a simpler and less labor-time-intensive index
for sodicity evaluation – the sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) – is more
appropriate and economical than the ESP index (Bower and Hatcher,
1962). The SAR is calculated using the following equation (concentra­
tions are in meq L− 1):
Na
SAR = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Ca+Mg
2
The SAR is considered an approximation of ESP within the common
ranges found in agricultural soils (ESP = 0–40) (Qadir et al., 2014, 2006;
Qadir and Schubert, 2002). However, ESP is a measure for soil sodicity,
while SAR a measure of sodicity of the soil solution. Irrigating soils with
specific SAR water, for relatively long periods, yields proportionate
relationship between the ESP and SAR. Therefore, ESP could simply be
estimated from SAR using a linear regression model.
The SAR of soil solutions can be measured using either saturation
paste extracts (SARe) or soil:water extracts (e.g. 1:5). For example, in
Australia the SAR of 1:5 soil:water extract (SAR1:5) is the most
commonly used measure of soil sodicity (Rengasamy et al., 1984), while
in the US the SAR is commonly measured using saturated paste (SARe).
2
Catena 205 (2021) 105466
In 1954, the United States Salinity Laboratory tested 59 surface soils in
nine western states in the United States and developed a widely used
relation between SAR and exchangeable sodium ratio: ESR = b + K6 ×
SAR, where b is the intercept and KG is Gapon’s coefficient. For most
tested soils KG is assumed to equal 0.01475. ESR is related to ESP by the
following equation: ESP = [ESR/(1 + ESR)] × 100 (Richards, 1954).
Moreover, Suarez and Jurinak (2011) reported the following relation
Ấ
based on the modified Gapon equation: ESP/(100 − ESP) = kG * SARe,
Ấ
where kG is the modified Gapon selectivity coefficient. The empirical
equation relating SAR of soil saturation extracts to ESP of the soil
developed by the U.S. Salinity Laboratory (Richards, 1954) is shown in
Table 1. Many relationships between SAR and ESP for different soils
around the world have been reported (Table 1). Other relations were
also reported for different clay contents, mineralogy, saturation per­
centages, and different equilibrating solutions of varying SAR and or
Na/Ca ratios (Endo et al., 2002; Nadler and Magaritz, 1981; Sumner,
1993; Toze, 2006).
Paliwal and Gandhi (1976) found this relation (SAR-ESP) was highly
dependent on soil texture, and inversely related to Ca:Mg ratio. Un­
derestimation of ESP was reported in saline soils (Bower and Hatcher,
1962; Richards, 1954), soils containing sodium carbonates and zeolites
(Gupta et al., 1985; Nadler and Magaritz, 1981), and soils containing
smectites and vermiculites (Juang et al., 2001; Shen et al., 1997).
Dilution ratio (soil:water) was also reported to affect the SAR-ESP
relation in soils of Almeria, Spain (Faulkner et al., 2001). Further­
more, the methods that rely on SAR analysis require the use of chemical
analysis which are expensive and involve specific technical expertise
which makes them difficult to implement in developing countries where
farmers usually lack access to reliable chemical laboratories.
Therefore, simpler methods to estimate soil ESP are needed. These
methods may be used as screening techniques to identify potential
‘hotspots’ for further investigation using more advanced approaches.
Measurements such electrical conductivity of saturated paste and soil:
water extracts may serve as intermediate indicators for the estimation of
ESP, as these values are good indicators of the exchangeable ions in the
soil.
This research aims to investigate the relationship between SAR-ESP
in soils using four different relationships: (1) (conversion factors) and
the ESP and the SARe of saturated paste (SARe) as well as soil–water
extraction ratios (1:5), (2) ESP and saturation percentage (θSP), (3) ESP
and EC of diluted extracts, and (4) factors – namely texture and EC –
developed into a Generalized Regression (GRNN) model. The ap­
proaches were then evaluated for their ability to predict hydraulic
conductivity (HC). These models will help land managers to undertake
the required amendments needed for reclamation of these soils, improve
sodicity management practices, and develop soil quality monitoring
programs.
To demonstrate the above mentioned concepts, the case of the Jor­
dan Valley (JV) is used. Irrigation with saline-sodic water (i.e. Treated
wastewater-TWW) has been practiced in the JV since early 1980s. It is
reported that salinity and sodicity related problems in the JV are likely
to increase in the future as a result of intensive farming practices,
excessive use of fertilizers and the use of poor quality irrigation water
(Gharaibeh et al., 2021, 2016).
Moreover, questions have been raised over the current approach by
which ESP is determined in the case study site – where SAR values are
used to estimate sodicity via the USDA equation. We interrogate the
validity of this approach, taking the opportunity to use our developed
models in an attempt to shed light on some anomalous results generated
by the currently adopted USDA approach.
M.A. Gharaibeh et al. Catena 205 (2021) 105466

Table 1
Regression equations to convert SAR & SAR1:5 to ESP – Previous relationships reported between SAR of soil–water extracts and ESP.
Reference Regression equation ESP range Country/region

(Richards, 1954) 100*(− 0.0126 + 0.01475*SAR) 3–63 USA/Western states

(Paliwal and Gandhi, 1976)
(Frenkel and Alperovitch, 1984)
(Rengasamy et al., 1984)
(Ghafoor et al., 1988)
(Mohamed et al., 2008)
(Seilsepour et al., 2009)
(Chi et al., 2011)
ESP =
1 + (− 0.0126 + 0.01475*SAR)
100*(0.1149 + 0.0109*SAR) 15–63 India/Rajasthan
ESP =
1 + (0.1149 + 0.0109*SAR)
100*(0.0134 + 0.0151*SAR) 1.5–38 Israel/Arid & semi-arid zones
ESP =
1 + (0.0134 + 0.0151*SAR)
ESP = 1.95 ⋅ SAR1:5 + 1.8 0.42–22.2 Australia/Southeast
100*( − 0.0867 + 0.02018*SAR) 100*(− 0.0268 + 0.02588*SAR) – Pakistan
ESP = ESP =
1 + ( − 0.0867 + 0.02018*SAR) 1 + (− 0.0268 + 0.02588*SAR)
ESP = 0.854 + 0.935*SAR 13.3–80 Sudan/Central plains
ESP = 1.95 + 1.03* SAR 2.9–13.6 Iran/ Center of Iran (Varamin)
ESP = 10.72 * ln(SAR) − 15.36 0.4–76.5 China/Songnen Plain, Northeast
ESP = 11.44 * ln(SAR1:5) + 5.48.

ESP: Exchangeable sodium percentage, SAR: sodium adsorption ratio (SAR is the saturated paste extract - SARe).

2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area and soil sampling
The study area, the Jordan Valley, has an arid climate [(32◦ 19′
32.45′ ’ N, 35◦ 33′ 21.47′ ’ E), (31◦ 46′ 49.45′ ’ N, 35◦ 32′ 47.76′ ’ E)],
characterized by hot dry months during summer and mild low rainfall
during winter with average annual temperature of 19 ◦ C. The majority of
soils of the JV are Aridisols (Typic Camborthids, Typic Calciorthids)
(Lucke et al., 2016). The southern parts of the JV are characterized by
higher temperatures and lower precipitation; moving northward the
average temperature decreases and precipitation progressively in­
creases. Average annual rainfall increases from <50 mm in the southern
parts to 350–400 mm in the northern parts. The warm winter enables
farmers in the JV to produce certain crops year around.
The southern parts are mainly planted with banana, palm trees, and
vegetables. The middle parts mainly grow vegetables (greenhouses and
open fields), while citrus trees are mainly found in the northern parts
(vegetables are also grown). Crops in the southern and middle regions
receive blended water (TWW and fresh water), while the northern parts
are irrigated with fresh water. The wastewater is treated in Khirbit As-
Samra and collected in King Talal Dam (mainly runoff water and
TWW) and then mixed with King Abdullah Canal (KAC) water (fresh
water).
A total of 120 composite surface (0–25 cm) soil samples were
randomly collected from agricultural areas along the Jordan River
(Jordan Valley) spanning about 70 km long north of the Dead Sea and
covering a total area of about 300 km2 (Fig. 1). These soils are under
intensive agricultural use. More details regarding sampling locations,
crops, and irrigation water types are described in Gharaibeh et al.
(2020).
in a mechanical shaker for 1 h, then filtered. Collected solutions from
saturated pastes and 1:5 extracts were analyzed for EC and cations (Na,
Ca, Mg, and K). Na, Ca, K were analyzed using flame photometer, and
Mg by titration method. SAR and ESP were then calculated using the
equations described in the Introduction.
2.3. Hydraulic conductivity
Hydraulic conductivity measurements were determined using a mini
disk infiltrometer (MDI) (Decagon Devices, Inc., Pullman, WA, USA)
filled with deionized water. After MDI was in full contact with the soil
surface, water started to pass into the soil.
3 cm suction was used as the optimal suction setting for the soil used
in this experiment. The drop of water level was recorded manually every
30 sec. until steady-state conditions were reached in two sequential
measurements.
Hydraulic conductivity (K) can be calculated as:
C1
K=
A
C1 is the slope of the curve of the cumulative infiltration (I) versus
√̅̅
the square root of time ( t ) and A can be calculated using the following
equation (Zhang, 1997):
11.65(n0.1 − 1)exp[2.92(n − 1.9)αh]
A= for n ≥ 1.9
(αr)0.91
A=
11.65(n0.1 − 1)exp[7.5(n − 1.9)αh]
for n < 1.9
(αr)0.91
where n and α are the van Genuchten parameters for the soil used, r is
the disk radius, and h is the suction used in the experiment.

2.2. Chemical analysis (Determination of CEC, soluble and exchangeable
cations)
Cation exchange capacity (CEC) was determined using the ammo­
nium acetate method (Polemio and Rhoades, 1977). Soil exchangeable
cations were determined as the difference in concentration between
total extractable and soil solution cations. Extractable cations were
determined using the standard ammonium acetate method (Richards,
1954). Soluble cations were determined from 300 g of air–dried soil
using saturated soil paste extracts. Pastes were made by adding distilled
water to the soil sample until saturation was reached, allowed to stand
overnight (criteria for saturation was rechecked after 1 h). Saturated
pastes were transferred to plastic cups fitted with Whatman filter paper,
and placed in a Centurion mechanical vacuum extractor(Centurion In­
ternational, Inc., Lincoln, NE, USA) to obtain solutions. For the 1:5 soil:
water ratio, 250 mL distilled water was added to 50 g of soil and agitated
2.4. Statistical analysis
Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation (SD), coefficient of
variation (CV), minimum, maximum, skewness, lower quartile (Q1),
median (Q2), and upper quartile (Q3) were used to describe SARe,
SAR1:5, ESP, and ECe for the collected soil samples. The Kolmogorov-
Smirnov (K-S) with Lilliefors correction and Shapiro-Wilk tests were
applied to evaluate the normality of the data using SigmaPlot 12.3.
Pearson correlation was conducted to determine the correlation be­
tween major soil measured parameters (see supplementary materials for
data).
Statistical models development
2.4.1. Calculating ESP from diluted extract with conversion factor (CF)
Traditionally, ESP is estimated through a simple linear regression
which correlates the diluted extract SAR (SARe or SAR1:5) to ESP. The

3
M.A. Gharaibeh et al. Catena 205 (2021) 105466

Fig. 1. Study area and sample locations.

general equation can be expressed as ESP = CF*SARe + C, or ESP =
CF*SAR1:5 + C;
CF is the slope of the regression line; SARe is the saturated paste SAR,
SAR1:5 is the diluted extract (1:5), and C is the intercept. From a strict
mathematical stand, the intercept should be 0. Therefore, the equation is
reduced to ESP = CF*SARe, or ESP = CF*SAR1:5.
2.4.2. Estimation of ESP from the EC
The ESP values of the soil may be estimated from the ECe and EC1:5
extracts by applying linear regression to estimate a conversion factor
(CFEC), through the equation ESP = CFEC1:5*EC1:5 + C; where C is a
constant.

4
M.A. Gharaibeh et al. Catena 205 (2021) 105466

2.4.3. CF as a function of θSP Y(X)

The saturation percentage (SP%) or (θsat) could be proposed as an
appropriate reference of water content to predict soil sodicity (ESP) and
its related effects on soil hydraulic conductivity (HC). The SP can be
empirically correlated with the clay and sand contents in the soil
providing a proxy measure of soil texture that influence the CF. There­
fore, incorporating θSP in the estimation of the CF could provide a better
estimate of the ESP as it allows for the incorporation of the soil texture
into the equation (Gharaibeh et al., 2021). Hence, the following equa­
tions can be developed:
CF = f (θSP );
ESP = CF*SARe or SAR1:5
where; θSP is the saturation percentage of the soil.
An inverse relationship between the CF and θSP is observed; hence,
̂ is the desired conditional mean which can be thought of as the
weighted average of the observed values of Y where each observed value
is exponentially weighted based on its Euclidean distance from X. σ is a
smoothing parameter. The GRNN is implemented in many artificial
neural network packages; for example ‘Package grnn’ in R (Chasset,
2013), ‘neupy library’ in python (NeuPy, 2019) and the ‘Statistics and
Machine Learning Toolbox’ in Matlab (Mathworks, 2020).
In this work, the GRNN was implemented using the Statistics and
Machine Learning Toolbox in Matlab™. To define the network in Mat­
lab, the network can be created using the newgrnn function which ac­
cepts parameters: input matrix; output matrix and a spread factor
(smoothing factor). The created network can then be used to simulate
new values using the sim function which accepts the network and the
new input values as input parameters and return the simulated output.
3. Results and discussion

k
CF = m + ; 3.1. Physico-chemical characterization of studied soils
θSP

where m and k are regression coefficients. Summary statistics of saturated paste SAR (SARe), SAR of 1:5 extracts
(SAR1:5), exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP), and salinity of satu­
2.4.4. Generalized Regression Neural Networks (GRNN) rated paste (ECe) are shown in Table 2.
The majority of studied soils have loam (30%) or clay loam (24%)
Generalized Regression Neural Networks belong to the Radial Basis
group of predictive models. They were first described by Specht in 1991 textures. Other textures are also present; clay (8%), silt loam (9%), and
sandy loam (12%). These soils varied considerably in texture and in
(Specht, 1991). The GRNN can be used for any regression problem
saturation percentage (SP) where about 41% of soils have SP% values >
where linearity assumption may not be justified. The GRNN is a one pass
45% and 30% ranged between 25 and 36%. Therefore, the great ma­
network that estimates the output by converging to the underlying
jority of the soil samples correspond to medium to fine soil textures.
(linear or nonlinear) regression surface and may be used in problems
About 82% of the collected soil samples are irrigated with TWW, out of
that involve sparse multidimensional data (Specht, 1991).
which 75% have > 20% clay and 43% had clay contents > 30%. On the
The GRNN links the target values (Y) to the input values (X) by
estimating a continuous probability distribution function f(x,y). There­ other hand, 77% of FW irrigated soils have clay contents < 25% out of
which 73% have clay content between 24 and 26%.
fore, the output values may be thought of as the most likelihood
outcome of the input values. The associations are created by assigning Average values of SARe, SAR1:5, ESP, and ECe of FW were signifi­
cantly higher than TWW irrigated soils (P < 0.05). Average SARe of all,
weights, these weights are weakened as the output value of the model
deviates away from the actual target. To estimate the distribution TWW, and FW irrigated soils was 9.6, 8.0, and 17.0, respectively.
Average ESP and SARe of FW were two-fold higher than TWW soils.
function, the following equations are used:
About 37% TWW soils had an ESP > 10 and 21% > 15, while 77% of FW
( )
∑n i D2i soils had an ESP > 10 and 60% had ESP value > 15. Moreover, soils with
Y exp −
SARe > 5 and ECe > 8 dS m− 1 were 95% for FW and 61% for TWW
i=1 2σ 2
̂ (X) =
Y ( )
∑n D2i irrigated soils. In addition, 34% of TWW soils had salinity values of < 4
i=1 exp − 2σ 2 dS m− 1, and only 7% were < 2 dS m− 1 (salinity threshold for sensitive
crops).
( )T ( )
D2i = X − X i X − X i Our findings are in general agreement with previous studies which
reported that ESP was correlated with SARe using different correlation

Table 2
Descriptive statistics of sodium adsorption ratio of saturated paste (SARe) and 1:5 extracts (SAR1:5), exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP), and salinity of saturated
paste (ECe) of all, treated wastewater (TWW), and fresh water (FW) irrigated soils.
Avg sd cv max min skew Q1 Q2 Q3

All
SARe 9.62 8.86 92.17 45.13 0.64 2.10 4.18 7.05 10.37
SAR1:5 3.73 2.19 58.75 12.84 0.30 1.66 2.29 3.44 4.39
ESP 14.50 16.40 113.10 89.80 0.10 2.61 5.28 8.58 15.57
ECe 17.11 22.35 130.61 134.40 1.45 2.56 3.93 7.03 20.50

TWW
SARe 8.02 7.63 95.13 40.06 0.64 2.73 3.84 6.29 8.79
SAR1:5 3.28 1.73 52.93 11.18 0.30 1.57 2.09 3.22 4.06
ESP 12.10 14.43 119.19 87.57 0.10 3.09 4.55 8.08 13.70
ECe 11.96 16.33 136.52 101.90 1.45 3.12 3.55 5.81 11.55

FW
SARe 17.05 10.51 61.66 45.13 4.34 1.14 9.54 14.16 20.65
SAR1:5 4.99 2.47 49.47 12.84 0.84 1.43 3.48 4.74 6.12
ESP 25.46 20.44 80.28 89.80 5.46 1.87 12.68 25.00 30.16
ECe 40.65 30.35 74.65 134.40 7.03 1.62 20.10 36.20 50.50

Avg: average, sd: standard deviation, cv: coefficient of variation, max: maximum value, min: minimum value, skew: skewness, Q1: lower quartile, middle quartile
(median), Q3: upper quartile, ECe (dS m− 1).

5
M.A. Gharaibeh et al. Catena 205 (2021) 105466

factors (Chi et al., 2011; Mohamed et al., 2008; Seilsepour et al., 2009)
other than the ones reported by Frenkel and Alperovitch (1984), Paliwal
and Gandhi (1976), and Richards (1954).
3.2. Sodicity levels in soils under different agricultural land uses,
irrigation source, and main textural classes
Soil sodicity (ESP, SARe) ranges and salinity levels (ECe) grouped
according to water source (FW and TWW), land use (tree vegetable) and
major soil textures are presented in box-whisker plots (Fig. 2). Kruskal-
Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance was used to determine significant
differences in sodicity values between different groups (P < 0.05). Soils
irrigated with FW had significantly higher ESP (25.5 ± 20.4), SARe
(17.1 ± 10.5), and ECe (40.7 ± 30.4) than TWW irrigated soils -(12.1 ±
14.4), (8.0 ± 7.6), and (12.0 ± 16.3), respectively. Moreover, FW-
irrigated vegetable planted soils (30.1 ± 23.2) had significantly higher
ESP than FW irrigated tree-planted soils (16.1 ± 8.3), while no signifi­
cant differences were observed between land uses in TWW soils.
The ESP of sandy loam and silt loam (38.9 ± 31.3) soils were higher
(but not statistically different) than loam (20.3 ± 10.8) soils in FW
irrigated soils. For TWW soils, clay (14.3 ± 7.6) soils had significantly
higher ESP than clay loam and loam soils (7.9 ± 6.9). Sandy loam and
silt loam soils had higher ESP but not significantly different form other
textures in both FW and TWW soils. For SARe values, FW sandy loam and
silt loam soils (22.0 ± 14.5) were significantly higher than TWW clay
(5.8 ± 2.3), clay loam, and loam soils (6.0 ± 3.4).
3.3. Calculating ESP from SAR of saturated extracts (SARe), SAR of 1:5
extracts (SAR1:5), CF-θSP, and EC1:5
A simple linear regression model was used to correlate measured ESP
to SARe and SAR1:5. The relationship between ESP-SARe and ESP-SAR1:5
are presented in Fig. 3a (top and middle). In addition, the relationship
between SARe vs SAR1:5 is also shown in Fig. 3a (bottom). Highly sig­
nificant linear relationships were obtained, the coefficients of determi­
nation (R2) and regression equations are shown in Fig. 3a.

Fig. 2. Left: Exchangeable sodium percentages (ESP) of soils in FW vs TWW: all soils (top), tree vs vegetable cultivated soils (middle), major soil textures (bottom),
Middle: Sodium adsorption ratio (SARe) of soils in FW vs TWW: all soils (top), tree vs vegetable cultivated soils (middle), major soil textures (bottom), Right: salinity
of saturated paste (ECe) of soils in FW vs TWW: all soils (top), tree vs vegetable cultivated soils (middle), major soil textures (bottom).

6
M.A. Gharaibeh et al. Catena 205 (2021) 105466

ESP was also estimated by incorporating θSP in the estimation of the

conversion factor (CF) between SARe and SAR1:5 using the following
equation;
74.5373 2
CF = 0.5257 + , R = 0.70
θSP
( )
74.5373
SARe = 0.5257 +
θSP *SAR1:5

The estimation of ESP using the CF-θSP approach provides a better

estimate of the ESP as it takes into the account soil texture (clay and
sand). Evidently, this approach reduced the effect of heteroscedasticity
of the data.
Substituting for SARe and SAR1:5, with the following equations;

ESP = 1.69*SARe , R2 = 0.84

SARe = 2.71*SAR1:5 , R2 = 0.82

the following equations were obtained:

( )
46.483
ESP = 0.3278 +
θSP *SARe

( )
125.97
ESP = 0.888 +
θSP *SAR1:5

A relationship between predicted ESP using θSP-SARe and actual ESP

(ESPactual) improved the fitting as indicated by an increased R2 from 0.84
to 0.94, and from 0.71 to 0.89 using θSP- SAR1:5 (Table 3 and Figs. 3a and
3b). Moreover, a relationship between EC1:5 and ESP was established
(Fig. 3b), and the following equation describes the correlation between
EC1:5 and ESP:
ESP = 6.4EC1:5
The use of EC1:5 to predict ESP proved to be strong, which is
encouraging for a straightforward method (R2 = 0.81, p < 0.001); in
fact, it outperforms the predictions generated by SAR1:5. Therefore, this
approach may be used as a screening test to identify soil with potential
issues for further investigation, thus saving time and money on more
expensive tests. The regression equations for different soil textures
describing the relationships of ESP vs SARe, ESP vs SAR1:5, and SARe vs
SAR1:5 using both approaches (CF and CF- θSP) are shown in Tables 3 and
4.
As seen from both tables (Tables 3 and 4); there is a significant
improvement in the coefficient of determination (R2) and a relative
decrease in the CF for all soils using CF-θSP as compared to the tradi­
tional approach. Moreover, Tables 3 and 4 show that the CF between
ESP-SARe or ESP-SAR1:5 varies with soil texture. Hence, the concept of

Table 3
Conversion factors of: (1) Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) of saturated paste
extract (SARe) to exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP), (2) SAR of 1:5 extracts
SAR1:5 to ESP, and (3) SAR1:5 to SARe for different soil textures using measured
values.
Texture CF (SARe R2 CF (SAR1:5 R2 CF (SAR1:5 R2
to ESP) to ESP) to SARe)
Fig. 3a. Relationship between: (1) Saturated paste SAR (SARe) and measured All 1.69 0.84 5.09 0.71 2.71 0.81
ESP using traditional approach (open circles), SARe and predicted ESP using Clay 2.55 0.76 4.25 0.68 1.66 0.62
(θSP) approach (filled circles) (top), (2) SAR of 1:5 extracts (SAR1:5) and Clay Loam 1.41 0.72 2.42 0.70 2.00 0.71
measured ESP using traditional approach (open circles), SAR1:5 and predicted Loam 1.29 0.82 3.67 0.64 3.01 0.74
ESP using (θSP) approach (filled circles) (middle), and (3) SAR1:5 and measured Sandy Clay 1.35 0.78 3.72 0.76 2.70 0.81
SARe using traditional approach (open circles) and predicted SARe from SAR1:5 Loam
using (θSP) approach (filled circles) (bottom). Sandy 1.67 0.92 5.64 0.71 3.26 0.76
Loam
Silt Loam 1.98 0.94 6.59 0.80 2.82 0.82
Silty Clay 2.08 0.90 3.85 0.70 1.80 0.73
Loam

7
M.A. Gharaibeh et al. Catena 205 (2021) 105466

Fig. 3b. Relationship between EC of 1:5 extracts (EC1:5) and exchangeable Fig. 4b. Hydraulic conductivity (HC mm hr− 1) of all soils as a function of
sodium percentage (ESP). exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP). Dashed lines represent 20% reduction
in HC occurring from ESP = 2 to7.

Table 4 3.4. Effect of sodicity on soil hydraulic conductivity

Conversion factors of: (1) sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) of saturated paste
extract (SARe) to exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP), (2) SAR of 1:5 extracts Figs. 4a and 4b shows HC as a function of SARe (Fig. 4a) and ESP
(SAR1:5) to ESP, and (3) SAR1:5 to SARe for different soil textures using θSP
(Fig. 4b). Evidently, soil HC decreased with increasing SARe and ESP.
approach.
The reduction in HC demonstrates that slaking and dispersion occur at
Texture CF (SARe R2 CF (SAR1:5 R2 CF (SAR1:5 R2 higher magnitudes when SARe increased from 1 to 10, whereas the slope
to ESP) to ESP) to SARe)
is more flattened at SARe > 10 (10–35) as a result of higher EC.
All 1.60 0.94 4.08 0.89 2.39 0.91 Regression line in Figs. 4a and 4b shows that 20% reduction in HC
Clay 1.25 0.98 3.39 0.95 2.00 0.95
was observed when average SARe increased from 1.8 to 5.5 or when
Clay Loam 1.43 0.95 3.52 0.93 2.16 0.93
Loam 1.73 0.97 4.47 0.91 2.66 0.91
average ESP increased from 2 to 7. Extrapolated average values indi­
Sandy Clay 1.71 0.97 4.67 0.98 2.77 0.98 cated that this reduction occurred at total electrolyte concentration
Loam equivalent to ECe < 4 dS m− 1 for all tested soils.
Sandy 2.10 1.00 5.58 0.98 3.30 0.98 The reduction in soil HC is correlated to the concentration of soluble
Loam
Na relative to other cations in soil solution (SAR) or exchangeable so­
Silt Loam 1.48 0.93 3.98 0.87 2.32 0.87
Silty Clay 1.25 1.00 3.36 1.00 1.99 1.00 dium relative to cations on soil surfaces (ESP), therefore HC can be used
Loam as a surrogate parameter of soil aggregate stability (structure stability)
(Quirk, 2001; Quirk and Schofield, 1955).
Soils of previous experiments were synthetically equilibrated with
using a single CF to estimate ESP form SAR of either saturated paste or varying SAR solutions (solutions of different cation combinations) in
diluted soil extract for all textures may be an oversimplification that can laboratory packed columns to test respective HC reductions (Quirk,
lead to significant errors of estimation. Therefore, the inclusion of soil 2001; Quirk and Schofield, 1955). These solutions were either single ion
texture as a surrogate index to reflect the soil texture in the CF, improved solutions (NaCl) or solutions containing two ions (e.g Na-Ca, Na-K),
the quality of the models. however, our research deals with actual field data relating HC to SARe
and or ESP to obtain the value where HC was reduced to 80% (20%
reduction). The response of such soils is resulting from actual mixtures
of salts present in soil solution.
Furthermore, in Australia, a value of ESP > 6 (in the top 100 cm of
soil) was established by Northcote and Skene (1972) as the threshold
above which soil structure was adversely affected and reduction in HC is
observed.

3.5. Estimating ESP and HC using GRNN approach

Before constructing the GRNN networks, feature selection analysis to

Fig. 4a. Hydraulic conductivity (HC mm hr− 1) of all soils as a function of so­
dium adsorption ratio of saturated paste extracts (SARe). Dashed lines represent
20% reduction in HC occurring from SARe = 1.8 to 5.5.
identify potential co-linarites and identify the features which have the
highest relevance to the prediction of the target (ESP and HC) was
conducted (CRAN, 2017). Then, generalized linear regression (glm)
analysis was conducted to identify the set of the most relevant features
based on their significance level. The glm revealed that sand content,
clay content and EC1:5 as well as the interactions among these features
were significant predictors. The feature analysis and glm are shown in
the supplementary data. Based on the feature analysis and glm, the
following set of predictors were used: sand content; clay content and
EC1:5. Sand content in combination with EC1:5 were the most relevant
predictors explaining 92% of the variability in ESP (R2 = 0.96) but only

8
M.A. Gharaibeh et al.
Fig. 5a. Schematic view of the GRNN model constructed for the prediction of ESP and HC. Input = [Sand Clay EC1:5], Output = [ ESP HC]. W: weight and b: bias for
each neuron.
Fig. 5b. Actual vs predicted ESP values using GRNN network.
Fig. 5c. Actual vs predicted HC values using GRNN network.
57% of the variability in HC. Additionally, the inclusion of clay content
of the soil improves the fit further (R2 = 0.996 and 0.961 for ESP and HC,
respectively). The network topography is shown in Fig. 5a and the
predictions of the network are shown in Figs. 5b and 5c. The network
shown in Fig. 5a is composed of three layers: an input layer with a
neuron corresponding to each input parameters (in this case: sand%;
clay% and EC1:5); a hidden layer with 120 neurons, one corresponding to
each observed record and using a Gaussian transfer function and finally
9
Catena 205 (2021) 105466
an output layer with 2 neurons, each corresponding to the output pa­
rameters (ESP and HC). A linear transfer function is used in the output
layer. The network was constructed with a spread parameter = 1. It is
important to keep in mind that the GRNN estimation is bounded by the
minimum and the maximum in the observation set (Specht, 1991).
Therefore, it cannot be used for making predictions outside the observed
range. Nonetheless, the GRNN model offers a convenient approach to
accurately predict the ESP and HC based on easy-to-obtain soil features.
4. Conclusion
Soil ESP was estimated using four modeling approaches (1. tradi­
tional extracts, 2. saturation percentage, 3. EC1:5, and 4. GRNN).
Incorporation of saturation percentage (θSP) in the estimation of the
conversion factors (CF) significantly improved the prediction of ESP of
different soil textures using saturated paste and diluted extracts over the
traditional CF approach. The Generalized Regression Neural Networks
(GRNN) approach offered accurate estimation for ESP as it considers soil
texture which improves the prediction. GRNN was also capable of pre­
dicting sodicity effects on soil hydraulic conductivity (HC). In the case
study area investigated here (the Jordan Valley), soil HC was reduced by
20% when ESP increased from 0 to 7?, highlighting critical impacts that
sodicity can exert on soil structure and function. Although the models
presented in this work relate to a regional case study area, they are based
on an extensive and diverse soil dataset. Hence, they represent a
promising tool to assist soil management particularly in the context of
arid landscapes.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by the Deanship of Research, Jordan
University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan (Grant No. 50/
2016).
References
Arienzo, M., Christen, E.W., Jayawardane, N.S., Quayle, W.C., 2012. The relative effects
of sodium and potassium on soil hydraulic conductivity and implications for winery
wastewater management. Geoderma 173-174, 303–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geoderma.2011.12.012.
Bardhan, G., Russo, D., Goldstein, D., Levy, G.J., 2016. Changes in the hydraulic
properties of a clay soil under long-term irrigation with treated wastewater.
Geoderma 264, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.10.004.
Bower, C.A., Hatcher, J.T., 1962. Characterization of saltaffected soils with respect to
sodium. Soil Sci. 93 (4), 275–280.
Chasset, P.O., 2013. GRNN: General regression neural network for the statistical software
R.
M.A. Gharaibeh et al.
CHI, C.-M., ZHAO, C.-W., SUN, X.-J., WANG, Z.-C., 2011. Estimating exchangeable
sodium percentage from sodium adsorption ratio of salt-affected soil in the songnen
plain of Northeast China. Pedosphere 21 (2), 271–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S1002-0160(11)60127-6.
CRAN, 2017. Collinearity Diagnostics, Model Fit & Variable Contribution. Tools for
Building OLS Regression Models.
Dang, A., Bennett, J.M., Marchuk, A., Biggs, A., Raine, S.R., 2018. Quantifying the
aggregation-dispersion boundary condition in terms of saturated hydraulic
conductivity reduction and the threshold electrolyte concentration. Agric. Water
Manag. 203, 172–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2018.03.005.
Elliott, J., Deryng, D., Müller, C., Frieler, K., Konzmann, M., Gerten, D., Glotter, M.,
Flörke, M., Wada, Y., Best, N., Eisner, S., Fekete, B.M., Folberth, C., Foster, I.,
Gosling, S.N., Haddeland, I., Khabarov, N., Ludwig, F., Masaki, Y., Olin, S.,
Rosenzweig, C., Ruane, A.C., Satoh, Y., Schmid, E., Stacke, T., Tang, Q., Wisser, D.,
2014. Constraints and potentials of future irrigation water availability on
agricultural production under climate change. PNAS 111 (9), 3239–3244. https://
doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1222474110.
Endo, T., Yamamoto, S., Honna, T., Eneji, A.E., 2002. Sodium-calcium exchange
selectivity as influenced by clay minerals and composition. Soil Sci. 167 (2),
117–125. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-200202000-00004.
Ezlit, Y.D., Bennett, J.M., Raine, S.R., Smith, R.J., 2013. Modification of the McNeal Clay
Swelling Model Improves Prediction of Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity as a
Function of Applied Water Quality. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 77 (6), 2149–2156. https://
doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2013.03.0097.
Faulkner, H., Wilson, B.R., Solman, K., Alexander, R., 2001. Comparison of three cation
extraction methods and their use in determination of sodium adsorption ratios of
some sodic soils. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 32 (11-12), 1765–1777. https://doi.
org/10.1081/CSS-120000248.
Frenkel, H., Alperovitch, N., 1984. The effect of mineral weathering and soil solution
concentration on ESR—SAR relationships of arid and semi-arid zone soils from
Israel. J. Soil Sci. 35, 367–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1984.tb00292.
x.
Frenkel, H., Goertzen, J.O., Rhoades, J.D., 1978. Effects of Clay Type and Content,
Exchangeable Sodium Percentage, and Electrolyte Concentration on Clay Dispersion
and Soil Hydraulic Conductivity 1. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 42 (1), 32–39.
Ghafoor, A., Muhammed, S., Ahmed, N., Main, M., 1988. Indices for the estimation of
ESP from SAR of soil solution. Pak. J. Sci. 39–40, 89–98.
Gharaibeh, M.A., Albalasmeh, A.A., El Hanandeh, A., 2021. Estimation of saturated paste
electrical conductivity using three modelling approaches: Traditional dilution
extracts; saturation percentage and artificial neural networks. CATENA 200, 105141.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2020.105141.
Gharaibeh, M.A., Ghezzehei, T.A., Albalasmeh, A.A., Alghzawi, M.Z., 2016. Alteration of
physical and chemical characteristics of clayey soils by irrigation with treated waste
water. Geoderma 276, 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.04.011.
Gharaibeh, M.A., Marschner, B., Heinze, S., Moos, N., 2020. Spatial distribution of metals
in soils under agriculture in the Jordan Valley. Geoderma Regional 20, e00245.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2019.e00245.
Gupta, R.K Gupta, R.K., Singh, C.P., Abrol, I.P., 1985. Determining cation exchange
capaclty and exchangeable sodium in alkali soils. Soil Sci. 139.
Juang, T.C., Wang, M.K., Chen, H.J., Tan, C.C., 2001. Ammonium fixation by surface
soils and clays. Soil Sci. 166 (5), 345–352.
Lado, M., Bar-Tal, A., Azenkot, A., Assouline, S., Ravina, I., Erner, Y., Fine, P.,
Dasberg, S., Ben-Hur, M., 2012. Changes in Chemical Properties of Semiarid Soils
under Long-Term Secondary Treated Wastewater Irrigation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 76
(4), 1358–1369. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2011.0230.
Lado, M., Ben-Hur, M., 2010. Effects of Irrigation with Different Effluents on Saturated
Hydraulic Conductivity of Arid and semiarid Soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 74 (1),
23–32. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2009.0114.
Leuther, F., Schlüter, S., Wallach, R., Vogel, H.-J., 2019. Structure and hydraulic
properties in soils under long-term irrigation with treated wastewater. Geoderma
333, 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.07.015.
Levy, G.J., Shainberg, I., 2005. Sodic Soils. In: Encyclopedia of Soils in the Environment.
Elsevier, pp. 504–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-348530-4/00218-6.
Lucke, B., Ziadat, F., Taimeh, A., 2016. The Soils of Jordan. Atlas Jordan. https://doi.
org/10.4000/books.ifpo.4867.
Marschner, P., 2011. Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, third ed. https://do
i.org/10.1016/C2009-0-63043-9.
Mathworks, C., 2020. Statistics and Machine Learning ToolboxTM User’s Guide R2020a.
MATLAB Mathworks Inc 2020a.
10
Catena 205 (2021) 105466
McNeal, B.L., Coleman, N.T., 1966. Effect of Solution Composition on Soil Hydraulic
Conductivity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 30 (3), 308–312. https://doi.org/10.2136/
sssaj1966.03615995003000030007x.
McNeal, B.L., Norvell, W.A., Coleman, N.T., 1966. Effect of Solution Composition on the
Swelling of Extracted Soil Clays. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 30 (3), 313–317. https://doi.
org/10.2136/sssaj1966.03615995003000030008x.
Mohamed, D.M., Ibrahim, S.I., Elamin, E.A., 2008. variability and correlation between
exchangeable sodium percentage and sodium adsorption ratio in vertisols of Sudan.
Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 39 (19-20), 2827–2838. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00103620802432758.
Nadler, A., Magaritz, M., 1981. Expected deviations from the ESP-SAR empirical-
relationships in calcium- and sodium-carbonate-containing arid soils: Field evidence.
Soil Sci. 131 (4), 220–225. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-198104000-00005.
Naidu, R., Rengasamy, P., 1993. Ion interactions and constraints to plant nutrition in
australian sodic soils. Aust. J. Soil Res. 31, 801–819. https://doi.org/10.1071/
SR9930801.
NeuPy, 2019. NeuPy Neural Networks in Python [WWW Document]. URL http://neupy.
com/apidocs/neupy.algorithms.rbfn.grnn.html.
Northcote, K.H., Skene, J.K.M., 1972. Australian Soils with Saline and Sodic Properties.
Australia CSIRO soil Publication. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organization.
Paliwal, K.V., Gandhi, A.P., 1976. Effect of salinity, SAR, Ca: Mg ratio in irrigation water,
and soil texture on the predictability of exchangeable sodium percentage. Soil Sci.
122, 85–90.
Polemio, M., Rhoades, J.D., 1977. Determining Cation Exchange Capacity: A New
Procedure for Calcareous and Gypsiferous Soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 41 (3),
524–528. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1977.03615995004100030018x.
Qadir, M., Noble, A.D., Schubert, S., Thomas, R.J., Arslan, A., 2006. Sodicity-induced
land degradation and its sustainable management: problems and prospects. Land
Degrad. Dev. 17 (6), 661–676. https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-145X10.1002/
ldr.v17:610.1002/ldr.751.
Qadir, M., Quillérou, E., Nangia, V., Murtaza, G., Singh, M., Thomas, R.J., Drechsel, P.,
Noble, A.D., 2014. Economics of salt-induced land degradation and restoration. Nat.
Resour. Forum 38 (4), 282–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12054.
Qadir, M., Schubert, S., 2002. Degradation processes and nutrient constraints in sodic
soils. Land Degrad. Dev. 13 (4), 275–294. https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-
145X10.1002/ldr.v13:410.1002/ldr.504.
Quirk, J.P., 2001. The significance of the threshold and turbidity concentrations in
relation to sodicity and microstructure. Aust. J. Soil Res. 39 (6), 1185–1217. https://
doi.org/10.1071/SR00050.
Quirk, J.P., Schofield, R.K., 1955. The effect of electrolyte concentration on soil
permeability. J. Soil Sci. 6 (2), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2389.1955.tb00841.x.
Rengasamy, P., 2016. Salt-affected soils in Australia. GRDC Grains Research and
Development Corporation.
Rengasamy, P., Greene, RSB, Ford, G.W., Mehanni, A.H., 1984. Identification of
dispersive behaviour and the management of red-brown earths. Aust. J. Soil Res. 22
(4), 413. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR9840413.
Richards, L.A., 1954. Diagnosis and Improvement of, US Department of Agriculture
Handbook, No. 60, Washington, DC.
Seilsepour, M., Rashidi, M., Khabbaz, B.G., 2009. Prediction of soil exchangeable sodium
percentage based on soil sodium adsorption ratio. American-Eurasian J. Agric. &
Environ. Sci. 5 (1), 1–4.
Shen, S., Tu, S.I., Kemper, W.D., 1997. Equilibrium and kinetic study of ammonium
adsorption and fixation in sodium-treated vermiculite. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 61 (6),
1611–1618. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1997.03615995006100060011x.
Specht, D.F., 1991. A General Regression Neural Network. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. 2
(6), 568–576. https://doi.org/10.1109/72.97934.
Suarez, D.L., Jurinak, J.J., 2011. The Chemistry of Salt-Affected Soils and Waters. In:
Wallender, W.W., Tanji, K.K. (Eds.), Agricultural Salinity Assessment and
Management. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, pp. 57–88. https://
doi.org/10.1061/9780784411698.ch03.
Sumner, M.E., 1993. Sodic soils: New perspectives. Aust. J. Soil Res. 31, 683–750.
https://doi.org/10.1071/SR9930683.
Szabolcs, I., 1989. Salt-affected soils. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla.
Toze, S., 2006. Reuse of effluent water - Benefits and risks. Agric. Water Manag. 80 (1-3),
147–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2005.07.010.
Zhang, R., 1997. Determination of Soil Sorptivity and Hydraulic Conductivity from the
Disk Infiltrometer. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 61, 1024–1030. https://doi.org/10.2136/sss
aj1997.03615995006100040005x.