Root-Zone Salinity: II.

Indices for Tolerance in Agricultural Crops
H. Steppuhn,* M. Th. van Genuchten, and C. M. Grieve ABSTRACT
This paper provides the tools for distinguishing levels of tolerance to root-zone salinity in agricultural crops. Such distinction rests on the response of a crop’s product yield following the declining, sigmoid-shaped, 1/[1 (C/C50)exp(sC50)]} modified compound-discount function {Yr for plants grown as crops exposed to increasing root-zone salinity. This nonlinear function relates relative yield (Yr) to root-zone salinity (C ) measured in equivalent saturated soil-paste extract electrical conductivity with two nonlinear parameters, the salinity level producing 50% of the nonsaline crop yield (C50) and a response curve steepness constant (s ) equal to the absolute value of the mean dYr/dC from Yr 0.3 to 0.7. These discount parameters suggest the existence of a single-value salinity tolerance index (ST-Index) equal to the 50% reduction in crop yield from that of the nonsaline yield plus a tendency to maintain some product yield as the crop is subjected to salinity levels approaching C50, i.e., ST-Index C50 s(C50). The explicit purpose of this study is to determine if the discount function using biophysically relevant parameters can be applied to historical data sets. Approximations for C50 and s were identified in the threshold salinity (Ct) and declining slope (b ) parameters of the well-known threshold-slope linear response function. Several procedures for converting Ct to C50 and b to s offer the linkage between these linear and nonlinear response functions. From these procedures, two regression equations, C50 0.988[(0.5/b ) Ct] 0.252 and s 1.52b, proved the most appropriate for the eight representative field, forage, and vegetable crops tested. The selected conversion procedures were applied to previously published Ct and b values to obtain a list of the relative root-zone salinity tolerance in agricultural crops. In addition to C50 and s, values for exp(sC50) and the ST-Index were computed for each crop. The revised list provides extension personnel and plant growth modelers the parameter values from a nonlinear analog of crop yield response to root-zone salinity.

Reproduced from Crop Science. Published by Crop Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.

Maas, 1990). Averaged spatially and temporally, the salinity (C) of the subsurface interstitial solutions can be measured in solute concentration, osmotic potential, or electrical conductivity. As detailed in the companion paper, Steppuhn et al. (2005) showed that the modified compound-discount function, Yr 1/[1 (C/C50)exp(sC )]


resulted in the lowest root mean square error among the six functions tested. Equation [2] describes a function with two biophysically based parameters: C50, the salinity (C) at Yr 0.5, and s (a steepness parameter) identified as an approximate estimate of the absolute value of the mean dYr/dC for the equation from Yr 0.3 to 0.7. If the term p is substituted for [exp(sC50)] in Eq. [2], a form of the modified discount function results, which was introduced by van Genuchten (1983) and van Genuchten and Hoffman (1984) and used by van Genuchten and Gupta (1993) and Steppuhn et al. (1996): Yr 1/[1 (C/C50)p] [3] where p is shape parameter with no biophysical characteristic. If C50 and s are combined such that the salinity level associated with a 50% yield reduction (C50) plus a measure of the tendency to maintain some product yield as the crop is subjected to increasing salinity levels approaching C50, a comparative, single-value, salinity tolerance index (ST-Index) is defined: ST-Index C50 sC50 [4] The ST-Index is proposed as an indicator of the inherent salinity tolerance or resistance of agricultural crops to root-zone salinity. Since 1978, almost all crop salt-tolerance lists in the literature follow the first and second line segments of the three-piece linear response function. This function was proposed by Maas and Hoffman (1977) as the threshold-slope model and functionalized by van Genuchten (1983): Yr Yr Yr 1 1 0 b(C Ct) 0 Ct C C C C0 Ct C0 [5]


he relative yield of an agricultural crop grown in increasingly saline rooting media has become the primary criterion with which to indicate the crop’s inherent tolerance or resistance to salinity (U.S. Salinity Laboratory Staff, 1954; Ayers and Westcot, 1985; Katerji et al., 1992). If Y represents the absolute yield and Yr the relative yield of a test crop rooted in a series of incrementally increasing saline environments, Yr Y/Ym [1] where Ym designates the yield of the crop when grown in a root zone free of salinity (Maas and Hoffman, 1977;
H. Steppuhn, Semiarid Prairie Agricultural Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Box 1030, Swift Current, Saskatchewan, Canada S9H 3X2; M.Th. van Genuchten, Soil Physics/Pesticide Unit, George E. Brown, Jr. Salinity Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Riverside, CA; C.M. Grieve, Plant Sciences Group, George E. Brown, Jr. Salinity Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Riverside, CA. Received 8 Sep. 2003. *Corresponding author (SteppuhnH@ Published in Crop Sci. 45:221–232 (2005). © Crop Science Society of America 677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA

where b is the absolute value of the declining slope in Yr with C, Ct is the maximum value of salinity without a yield reduction (the threshold C), and C0 is the lowest value of C where Yr 0. The two-piece, threshold-slope response function (the first and second linear segments)
Abbreviations: ECe, electrical conductivity of saturated soil paste extract; ECi, electrical conductivity of the irrigated water; ECs, electrical conductivity of test solution; FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations; ST-Index, salinity tolerance index.


In other words. and C 1. In this paper.5. Its parameters Ct and b provided the basis for salinity tolerance lists for 25 yr. JMP (SAS. Their list relies on two different regression parameters (C50 and p) to index the salt-tolerance relationship between degree of salinity and relative crop yield. Thus.5 from the declining line.g. generally. which.5 Ct (0. (ii) an analytical method. the mid-point of the declining slope. Selected-line-segments procedure for converting the linear parameters of Ct and b to the discount parameters of C50 and s by selecting points from the horizontal and declining straight lines of the threshold-slope function. e. 2005). Our analytical and some of our empirical conversions are based on analyses of midpoints of the discount and the threshold-slope response models. we evaluate several methods for converting Ct and b to C50 and s: (i) a direct method. this Yrm–value will deviate from 1. calculate relative yields (Yrlin) for the 10 or more selected points Regress Yrlin with C by the modified discount function {Yr 1/[1 (C/C50)exp(sC50)]} to determine Yrm as a regression parameter. (iv) that the salinity levels for Cmid and C50 (where Yr equals half of the salinity-free relative yields of their respective linear and the nonlinear response functions) are very nearly equal. where Yr 0. i. 2 dS m 1. of C0. the ST-Index. Published by Crop Science Society of America. VOL. and (v) that. In this method. 1). s. were used to generate a revised list of the relative salinity tolerances in agricultural crops. Step 1 2 3 4 Procedure Solve the middle equation of the three-piece linear model [Yr 1 b(C0. (dYr/dC) [1 (C/C50)p] 2 (C/C50)p 1 (p/C50) [6] .. and for the generation of an associated crop salt-tolerance list.e. Direct Conversion The most general method of determining C50 and s from Ct and b follows a selected-line-segment procedure (Table 1). the objectives of this study were to evaluate different methods for converting the respective linear threshold-slope parameters of Ct and b to C50 and s of the nonlinear modified discount function and to apply the most appropriate of these conversions to a current threshold-slope crop list for salinity tolerance. The one exception is a list presented by van Genuchten and Gupta (1993) based on the discount model of Eq. we submitted the argument that the product yields of agricultural crops relate more closely to the modified discount function rather than to the threshold slope model. it should be possible to evaluate the parameters of the nonlinear function from relationships on the basis of the linear approximation. selected pairs of relative yield and root-zone salinity are calculated from the two linear segments of the threshold-slope model and used in nonlinear regressions to fit a least-squares discount curve giving the parameter estimates of C50 and s.0 Subtract 1. etc.. and Maas and Grattan (1999). Besides conversion to the nonlinear parameters of C50 and s.5 dS m . and 3 dS m 1 from the horizontal line Using the linear threshold-slope model.5. Unfortunately. [3]. [3] discount curve is given by its first derivative: Fig. where C ECe in dS m 1. CONVERSION METHODS If the linear. and p for the crop. s. Typical crop yield response to increasing root-zone salinity described by the modified discount and the threshold-slope functions. The slope of the Eq. These plots reveal (i) that the functions each relate to the same data. A nonlinear statistical fit of the modified discount response function to such data by appropriate software. (ii) that the inflection point of the discount curve likely falls on or close to the threshold-slope line.5 Ct)] for C0. C0. 1). this information can be used to estimate C50. calculate p Reproduced from Crop Science. (iii) that s b (i.. The merits of this method are that both nonlinear parameters are determined together and that the method universally applies to all salt-tolerance response data which have been or will be analyzed with the threshold-slope function. the value of s from the discount curve is greater than the absolute value of the slope b of the threshold-slope model). 1995).00 from Yrm to determine the Yr offset Rescale the linear relative yields (Yrlin) into nonlinear relative sigmoid yields (Yrs) with the Yr offset applied to all Yrlin values for the selected C points Regress the sigmoidal Yrs with C by the modified discount function {Yr 1/[1 (C/C50)exp(sC50)]} to determine C50 and s as regression parameters Using p exp(sC50).. 2.5/b ) 1 Select additional C-points from the threshold-slope lines: 0. if Ct and b are known for any crop. the discount plot more precisely describes the response data. Maas (1990). the selected methods would serve to calculate p and the ST-Index. and (iii) several empirical methods. in turn. A threshold-slope analysis of the same data also provides a fitted functional plot but with parameters Ct and b (Fig. Analytical Conversion Typically. JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2005 Table 1. 45. 1 dS m 1. results in estimates of C50 and s and in a fitted plot of the function (Fig. the response data of relative crop yield with increasing root-zone salinity vary.e.222 CROP SCIENCE. as indicated by van Genuchten and Hoffman (1984). threshold-slope response model of crop yield with increasing root-zone salinity serves as an approximation of the nonlinear modified-discount response function. 5 6 7 8 has served as an approximation of the modified discount function. only limited data are available for the calculation of C50. All copyrights reserved. 1. In our companion paper (Steppuhn et al.

Published by Crop Science Society of America. vegetable. In the latter study. 3). 2). [3] is equal to zero: Reproduced from Crop Science. The modified discount C50 parameter derived from a regression with the threshold salinity (Ct) of the threshold-slope linear model for the core data sets. [8] and simplification leads to sC50 [(p2 – 1)/4p] [(p 1)/(p 1)]1/p which. then. RMS error 2. Most fruit-tree data sets were discarded because of generally too few or unreliable experimental data. The threshold salinity (Ct) explained some 77% of the variation analyzed in the C50 data within a root mean square error (RMS error) of 2.3 dS m 1) and 0. a linear regression of C50 as a function of Cmid was conducted with values from the core data sets (Fig. Another approach involved the middle segment of the threshold-slope function. [6].5 of the relative yield (Yr) in the threshold-slope linear model for the core data sets. a linear regression of p as a fit of b using the same data correlated with R2 equal to only 0.058 (dS m 1) 1 (Fig.786 1. Of the remaining data sets. Consequently. or s p (C/C50)p 1 (p/C50) p (sC50) [1 (C/C50)p]2 (C/C50)1 [7] [8] At the inflection point of the discount function.S.988Cmid 0. 62 forage crops. Ulery et al.77. this database was divided into four groups: field. The resulting coefficient of determination (R2) and RMS error equaled 0. 1998). [1 (C/C50)p] 2 From Eq.0015 [16] wherein the intercept was not statistically different from zero. (C50 2. 1995). some were also judged to be unsuitable because of insufficient or unreliable data. forage. The remaining salt tolerance database consisted of experiments involving 45 field crops.5 Cmid (0.98. C50 0. [11]..3 dS m 1 (Fig. 1.252 0. 1978. s can also be calculated from p by Eq. Salinity Laboratory have collected the results from a large number of salt tolerance response tests conducted worldwide (Francois and Maas.891Ct) (R2 0. These data sets formed the basis for response-function studies by Maas and Hoffman (1977).988Cmid) (R2 0. All copyrights reserved. At C Cmid.53 dS m 1) . 1985. Solving this segment of Eq. especially if the inflection point of the discount curve falls on or close to the threshold-slope line. [5] for C gave Fig. RMS error 0.53 dS m 1. the second derivative of Eq. [10] into Eq.01) and that C50 very nearly equaled Cmid. C50. and 57 vegetable and fruit crops. as will be shown later.252 [15] indicated that both the slope and the intercept were statistically significant (p 0.: INDICES FOR SALINITY TOLERANCES OF AGRICULTURAL CROPS 223 If. Converting Ct to C50 To ascertain if C50 could reliably be determined from Ct empirically.164 (data not shown).STEPPUHN ET AL. (C50 0. and. scientists at the U.98 Fig. dYr2/dC2 ds/dC [(p 0 1)] 1/p [9] [10] [11] which simplifies to (C/C50) 1)/(p Substitution of Eq.523b 0. Typically. the unused data contained as few as three data pairs.746 with the RMS error 0. or clustered heavily within only one part of the response function. The statistical relationship from this regression. hence. and van Genuchten and Gupta (1993).5/b) Ct [12] [13] [14] From Fig. These formed the core data utilized in this study from which the values for Ct. b. But. However. The modified discount C50 parameter derived from a regression with the salinity (Cmid) at 0. 4): s 1. 3. and p were obtained either from the original reports of the experiments or from analyses of the original data. values of the two parameters obtained from the core data sets were linearly regressed (SAS. C [(1 Yr)/b] Ct Yr 0. the absolute value of the first derivative is set equal to the steepness parameter s. Empirical Conversion Over the years. respectively. 2. van Genuchten and Hoffman (1984). and fruit-tree crops. provides one method of quasiempirical regression between s and b. s |dYr/dC|. C50 would seem to be empirically related to Cmid. for any value of C. giving a total of 164 data sets. Converting b to s A linear regression to establish a direct relationship of s as a function of b using the core data sets resulted in a R2 value of 0. s. exhibited severe scattering in the data points.

2. Eq. from Eq.0). using the core data set could provide an empirical link between p and b. The selected-line-segments procedure from Table 1 provided the third conversion method for both C50 and s.55 0.10601 0.157 p 0.147) Fn(p) 1. the right side of Eq. s (b ) in Fig.058 (dS m 1) 1] If. RMS error 0. 45.52b of Eq. RMS error Relationship† Fn(p ) exp(bCt) Fn(p ) (bCt) ln[Fn(p )] (bCt) p exp(bCt) p (bCt) ln(p ) (bCt) R 2 N‡ 158 158 158 161 161 158 Fn(p ) 0. {Fn(p) [(p2 – 1)/4p] [(p 1)/(p 1)]1/p 0. 4.383) Equation [19] suggests that a regression of Fn(p) Function(bCt) The six regressions (Eq. [20] through [25]) were conducted with a variable number of core data sets automatically entering each regression depending on the number of sets that contained a value of p within the range of 1 p 10.147 0.60.24075p [26] ln(p)/C50. s to obtain s.75 [18] [19] [20] Next. Fn(p) ln[Fn(p)] Function[exp(bCt)] Function(bCt) [21] [22] to determine p from Fn(p) and the relationship. we used a simple linear regression (R2 0.763 0. linear slope (b ). 1.151 0. Published by Crop Science Society of America. All copyrights reserved.383b 0. Ct threshold salinity.48 0. 5.52bC50 [17] Further.0]. RMS error 0.224 CROP SCIENCE. .50bCmid b(1. [14] is substituted into Eq. JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2005 Reproduced from Crop Science. 5.746.862 [exp(bCt)]} (R2 0.57 0.50Ct 0.5 p 10. 5. and is plotted in Fig. ‡ N number of data pairs [ln(p ) 0.0. 4. [2] and [3] suggest that three more possible regression fits of p or ln(p ) by (bCt) might serve as candidates for converting b to p and then to s: Table 2. Coefficient of determination (R2) and root mean square error (RMS error) for six empirical relationships for converting linear slope (b ) and threshold salinity (Ct) parameters to the discount p parameter from the core data set. Fn(p ) function of p derived from the second derivative of the discount response equation set equal to zero and simplified: Fn(p ) [(p2 – 1)/4p] [(p 1)/(p 1)]1/p. The methods used to convert the linear parameters of the eight crop responses (experiments) included the empirical conversions based on the respective y x regression fits of C50 (Ct) and C50 (Cmid) shown in Fig. Regression of the function Fn(p ) derived from the second derivative of the discount equation set to zero with the exponential of the product of the linear threshold-slope parameters. and Fn(p ) exp(bCt) with s ln(p )/C50 in Fig.988.60 0. if the expression for C50 in Eq. [21]. The methods for converting Ct and b to C50 and s were applied to the measured data from three field. and s is replaced by 1. The test experiments provided values for the threshold salinity (Ct). for the core data sets. 2 and 3. Relative crop yields measured in eight salt-tolerance response experiments were used to compare the precision associated with parameter-conversion methods (Table 3). As outlined in Table 2. ln(p) p p Function(bCt) Function[exp(bCt)] Function(bCt) [23] [24] [25] Fn(p) Fn(p) 1. Once Fn(p ) was determined. and mid-point salinity (Cmid) used in the comparisons (Table 3). VOL. [17] and consolidated. if Cmid of Eq. [20] and the relationship. (s 1. Fig. and threshold salinity (Ct).523b) [R2 0. three forage.245 0. b slope of the relative yield with salinity relationship.771 † p prevention parameter. and moved to the left side. Nonlinear discount regressions with the actual experimental response data resulted in best-fit values for C50 and s for each test experiment against which the conversion methods were compared. [15] is substituted into Eq. The steepness parameter (s ) of the modified discount function derived from a regression with the slope (b ) of the three-piece linear model for the core data sets. and two vegetable experiments with eight different crops.0 p 10. [16]. slope (b ).771 0. comparisons of the statistics from the six regressions with bCt for converting b to p favor Eq. Fn(p) 0. An exponential transformation leads to two other possible regression relationships. Selecting Conversion Methods In addition. Fig.54 0. [11] is expressed as Fn(p ). for convenience. p exp(sC50).58 0. The data were reported in four experiments taken from within the core data sets and four from separate sets. [18]: 0.

77) 0. 1989 Francois et al.05 N 8 11.2306 ( 0. the C50 error stayed within a limit of 5% in the selected-line-segment method and six out of eight in the C50 fit (Cmid) method. 1956 Carrot Magistad.44) 11.2417 (9. and salinity (Cmid) at 0.14 ( 32.. RESULTS AND APPLICATION OF CONVERSIONS Given the inherent variability associated with product yields from crops grown in environments with increasing root-zone salinity.85) 4.42 (9.30) 3.88) 5.94 6.36) 0. 1965 Turnip Francois.52 (4.40 1 Reference Francois et al.1514 0.2341 (1.33) N 11 4..41 (6.1143 (1.66 N 12 4. s Crop and data source Rye (grain) Francois et al.2592 N 12 0.. 1953 Perennial ryegrass Brown and Bernstein.88 ( 1.17) N 12 0..41) N 12 6.17) 0.27) N 11 0. Table 4. 1984 Actual data points (dS m 1) 0..71) N 12 1 s Fn(p )† s (b ) (% of actual) 0. All copyrights reserved. 1953 Alfalfa Brown and Hayward.89) 5.2308 N 8 0.2202 N 12 0.96) 0.21) 13.79) N 11 0.75 1 b (dS m ) 0. the .22 (37.95 6.05) N 10 7. 1956 Magistad et al.40 N 12 10. Osawa.49 ( 24.18) 10.78 ( 2. 1984 Reproduced from Crop Science.1128 N 12 0.1054 ( 1.46) 0.1590 0. 1953 Alfalfa Brown and Hayward.1710 0.25 1. 1953 Perennial ryegrass Brown and Bernstein.1160 (4.62 5.08) 0.88) N 11 10.70) N 11 6. 1953 Brown and Bernstein. C50 Crop and data source Rye (grain) Francois et al. 1979 Brown and Bernstein.88 4. unpublished data. 1984 USSL.51 (8. 1943 and Osawa.44) 0.: INDICES FOR SALINITY TOLERANCES OF AGRICULTURAL CROPS 225 Table 3.71) Table 5.0891 ( 16.1251 N 4 1 Selected line segments (dS m 1) 0.78) N 11 0.1157 (2.2175 ( 1. s Fn(p ).78) 8.17 12. 1953 Brown and Hayward. 1989 Sorghum (grain) Francois et al.23) 0. Threshold salinity (Ct) and slope (b ) determined by the three-piece linear model relating relative yield (Yr) to salinity (C ).61) 0. 1979 Harding grass Brown and Bernstein.1142 ( 0. and two vegetable crops on the basis of reported tests.67) 0.35) 4. Published by Crop Science Society of America.56 (25. In five out of the eight experiments.04 N 12 5.13) N 12 9. Salinity Laboratory.1161 (4.58 ( 5.0751 0.90 ( 2.56 ( 1.87) N 12 0.13 (1.48) N 11 0.18 11.1348 (7. and linear mid-salinity (Cmid)] with percent difference from the C50 derived from actual data points in parentheses.1151 N 8 0.2510 ( 3. and s (b )] with percent difference from the s derived from actual data points in parentheses.33) 15.16 7. Both the selected-line-segments and the fitted C50 (Cmid) methods realized C50 values for all eight test experiments falling within the 10% error limit.1096 ( 1.70 (16.09 (1.83) 0.S. 1989 Sorghum (grain) Francois et al.† Crop Rye (grain) Sorghum (grain) Wheat Harding grass Perennial Ryegrass Alfalfa Carrot Turnip † USSL Ct dS m 9.40 6.50) 11.65) 0.1422 (13.0763 0.1072 N 12 0.1971 ( 10.1154 (2.18 N 12 5.93) N 12 1 C50 (Ct) C50 (Cmid) (% of actual) 20.1114 N 8 0.STEPPUHN ET AL.09 (1.0726 0.2604 (0.97 N 8 7.01 0.14) 0..1142 ( 8. the errors in parameter conversions from linear to nonlinear response functions could not reasonably be expected to fall much less than 10% of the actual values.836 ( 3.38 (11.68 (0.55) N 11 12. Eight crop comparisons of the discount C50 parameter computed by three conversion methods [selected-line-segments.46) 9. 1956 Carrot Magistad.69) 7. 1984 Wheat USSL.17) 0.2173 ( 16.64 ( 9. 1943 and Osawa.0762 0. three forage. 1965 Francois. Unpublished U.84) 15. In comparing methods for converting b to s. U.2290 ( 0. 1979‡ Harding grass Brown and Bernstein. 1984 Actual data points dS m 16.97 N 4 1 Selected line segments dS m 17.60 1.5Yr for three field.76 ( 1. 1943. Salinity Laboratory data.1162 (0.80 2.98 N 8 11.. Eight crop comparisons of the discount steepness parameter s computed by three conversion methods [selected-line-segments.S.16) 0.66) N 10 0. linear threshold (Ct).29 9.65 (53. The direct regression method [C50 fit (Ct)] for converting Ct to C50 using the two parame- ters failed to achieve the 10% error level in seven out of eight test experiments (Table 4). 1984 Wheat USSL.90) 6.0885 1 1 Cmid dS m 16.75) † Regression fit of Fn(p ) [exp(bCt)] and s ln(p )/C50 ‡ STTL.1161 ( 0. 1965 Turnip Francois.1105 (3.85 ( 2.91 3.

.10 5. Berseem Bromus inermis Leyss. 1988 Asana and Kale.32 6. and special crops Reproduced from Crop Science. 1997 Steppuhn and Wall. Helianthus annuus L. 1975 Steppuhn et al. 1993 Francois. 1973 Ayers and Eberhard. 1952. 39–44).76 10. Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.39 10.58 2. leavened bread (irrigated) Wheat. 1969. Nonlinear tolerance parameter Tolerance§ based on Tuber yield Grain yield Grain yield Seed yield Seed yield Seed yield Ear FW Seed cotton yield Seed yield Seed yield Seed yield Stem DW Seed yield Grain yield C50 (ECe) Salinity dS/m p Shape s Steepness tolerance index 5. Shoot DW Shoot DW 5.079 0.. 1990 Hayward and Spurr.108 0. leavened bread (irrigated) Wheat. E.63 14.183 0..61 6.47 5. B.48 5.146 0.65 6. 1984 Abel and MacKenzie.16 2. Ayers and Eberhard. Hassan et al. 1959. Shoot Shoot Shoot Shoot DW DW DW DW 16.85 2.43 Bernstein and Francois. 36–37). alsike Clover.058 0.59 11. T. 1972. Bernstein and Francois.76 2. 1997 Steppuhn and Wall.. Brassica campestris L.36 3.63 5..76 Clover.42 7.67 0. 1962.88 8..90 4. Cynodon dactylon L. Francois. alexandrinum L. T. Durum (irrigated) Wheat. 37–41). turgidum L.35 12.214 0.111 9. Pearson.226 CROP SCIENCE. 1962.18 12. 1992 Shalhevet et al.99 2.52 2.68 15.36 0. 1964. 1983. 1979 Steppuhn and Wall.183 6.75 18.64 3. T.08 17. VOL. Narale et al.37 25. Arachis hypogaea L. Venkateswarlu et al. ladino Clover. Langdale and Thomas. Triticum aestivum L.67 2.06 24.442 0.) Moench Grain yield Glycine max (L.186 0. 1991 Ayers et al. 1948b.183 0. 35–36).49 2. 1960. 1990 Francois et al.27 8. smooth Broadbean Clover.† Crop Common name Artichoke.80 2. [syn. 1973.17 3. 1956.00 7. 1943.56 14.06 18. 1989 Francois et al.35 9. Bernstein et al.046 0. 1969. Bernstein and Ford.01 4.83 15. Bernstein and Ogata.46 2.29 14.53 2.305 6. 1952.183 0.27 3. Ravikovitch and Yoles.67 3.56 18..84 9.35 7.66 0. Gossypium hirsutum L.126 0. 1955 (p.32 5.75 3. turgidum L.46 26.66 Grasses and forage crops Shoot DW 8. 1966 Bower et al. 1971 McElgunn and Lawrence.273 0. Dev and Bajwa. 1960 Ayers. red Continued next page. Hordeum vulgare L.66 2.97 6.183 0.] B.111 0. 1994a Steppuhn et al.090 0.. Gauch and Magistad. 1986 Francois et al. Trifolium hybridum L. var. Triticum aestivum L..57 0. 1956 (p.076 0. 1970a Bernstein and Ford.. 1964 Bernstein..53 7.242 0. 1966.51 12.16 8. Salinity tolerance of agricultural crops. Published by Crop Science Society of America. Pers.78 7. Fries Linum usitatissimum L.099 0..038 0.25 3. 1949b (p. B. 1959b (p.71 18. Oryza sativa L. napus L.087 17.. durum Desf. Storage root Short DW Seed yield Grain yield Grain yield Grain yield Grain yield Grain yield Grain yield Grain yield Grain yield Grain yield 15. 1986 Steppuhn and Wall.13 6. Hayward and Uhvits.28 1. ex R.104 0.. 1943 Ayers. grain. Kaddah and Ghowail.80 14. 1948b...097 6. rapa L.35 25.02 0. Syed and ElSwaify.32 10.183 0. 1996 Francois et al.58 5. Jerusalem Barley¶ (irrigated) Botanical name‡ Helianthus tuberosus L.35 2.85 1. 1972 Alfalfa# Barley (forage) ¶ Bermudagrass††† Medicago sativa L.34 References Newton et al. 1955 (p. Triticum aestivum L.50†† 2.86 2. 33–34). 1994a Francois. All copyrights reserved.54 16. 1959a Francois and Kleiman.53 12. Gauch and Magistad. Triticosecale Wittmack Triticum aestivum L.89 9.65 8.42 6..242 0.65 3. Hoffman et al.243 16.. Saini.25 6. 1971 Ayers. Hibiscus cannabinus L.213 0.094 0.19 10. JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2005 Table 6. flat bread# (dryland) Wheat.86 14. Saccharum officinarum L. Durum# (dryland) Alfalfa Beta vulgaris L.35 5. 1954 Bernstein et al.198 0. 1948a Asghar et al. Crambe abyssinica Hochst.61 7.32 .92 4.80 3. Brown and Hayward. 1965. napus L. 1967.00 15.60 17.076 0.) Taub. leavened bread# (dryland) Wheat.93 3..09 2. Triticum aestivum L..20 12.177 0. 1972 Francois et al. Bernstein and Ogata.54 11. T. Ayers et al. paddy§§ Rye Sorghum Soybean Secale cereale L.. Hassan et al.00 6.10 6. 1958 (p. 1970a Steppuhn. 1966.87 8. 1997 Francois et al.46†† 13. Bower et al.57 7. 1944 USSL. Hordeum vulgare L.41 2. Grain yield Sorghum bicolor (L.66 2. 1997 Fiber.108 0..85 0.259 0.29 17. 1944 Francois et al. 1972 Cheng. Shoot DW Shoot DW Shoot DW 6. pratense L..090 0.) Merrill Seed yield Sugar beet¶¶ Sugarcane Sunflower Triticale Wheat.86 9. Ravikovitch and Porath. 2002 Bernstein and Ayers. Zea mays L. Barley# (dryland) Canola or rapeseed Canola or rapeseed Canola# (dryland) Corn‡‡ Cotton Crambe Flax Guar Kenaf Peanut Rice. 1962 (p.29 15.79 14.51 14. Hordeum vulgare L.84 19.095 0. Trifolium repens L. 37–38). 41–42). var. pastry# Wheat (semidwarf)## (irrigated) Wheat. 1969 Ehrler. 1999 Dregne.92 3. Medicago sativa L.89 3. 45. Vicia faga L.68 Bromegrass.146 0. Triticum aestivum L.04 9. durum Desf.80 2.

nut.97 6.09 8.50 15.. 1949a (p.48 7.60 2.) V. 32–36) Bernstein and Ford. 44–46) Bernstein..b (p.168 0. 1959.289 0.065 0. Nonlinear tolerance parameter Tolerance§ based on Shoot DW Shoot DW C50 (ECe) Salinity dS/m p Shape s Steepness tolerance index 5. mung Beet.65 2.A.92 7.31 12. 1948a.. 1948b.094 0. 1958 (p.STEPPUHN ET AL. 1964 (p. Eragrostis sp. fragiferum L.98 14.88 6.83 2. 1951 Brown and Bernstein.28 3. 1950 Ravikovitch and Porath. Agropyron sibiricum (Willd.. 1965 Minhas et al.50 3. N. and Dewey Agropyron elongatum (Hort) Beauvois Elymus triticoides Buckl.64 8. Osawa.65 Vegetable.72 7.07 28. 1943.26 3. 1997 Bernstein and Ford.335 0.32 9. 39). cristatum (L.38 10.) Schrad.92 2.50 2.83 29. 1959b (p. perennial Sesbania Sphaerophysa Sudangrass Trefoil. 33–34) Francois and Bernstein.055 0. 1997 Brown and Bernstein.20 6..66 2. 1973. 1948a. 1965 Francois and West.79 21.49 7. 1965 Bernstein and Ayers.04 22. 1971.b (p.84 1. 1953 (p..94 2. tall Fescue. 1970.) Gaertner Thinopyrum intermedium (Host) Bark.L. 1953 (p.. Rubus macropetalus Doug.105 0. Asparagus officinalis L. Phaseolus vulgaris L..84 20. 1953 (p. corniculatus var tenuifolium L.39 10. 1970. Brown and Bernstein. 23–25) Ayers.94 14.175 0. L.. Petiole FW 9.66 2.. 1995 Francois.. and Dewey Elymus trachycaulus (Link) Bark.S. New Mexico Lovegrass‡‡‡ Orchardgrass Ryegrass. Seed yield Storage root Fruit yield Fruit yield Shoot FW Head FW Storage root 3. 1967 West and Francois. 32–36) Brown and Bernstein. (Capitata Group) Daucus carota L.96 8. ex Hook Rubus ursinus Cham. Apium graveolens L. Lagerwerff and Holland. 1951.20 3. Osawa.213 5.13 7. 1958 (p. 1949a (p.17 1. Bernstein and Ford.48 3. Beta vulgaris L. common Wheatgrass.38 2. 1943 Ehlig. Vicia angustifolia L.: INDICES FOR SALINITY TOLERANCES OF AGRICULTURAL CROPS 227 Table 6.63 11.64 4. Hoffman and Rawlins.091 0. tall# (dryland) Foxtail.91 9.289 0. intermediate# Wheatgrass. 1956 (p.. and fruit crops Shoot growth Shoot growth Bud yield Spear yield Seed yield 3.17 Celery Continued next page.33 3.83 13.107 0. 1953 Bernstein et al.34 2.107 0. Kochia scoparia (L. Crop Common name Clover. common Vigna unguiculata (L.49 2. oleracea L.03 3.168 0.08 8. 1959b (p. 1964 Ehlig.100 0. Lolium perenne L.35 8.42 21. 1953 Bernstein et al. 1974 Bernstein and Ayers. 52–53) Bower et al. 1953 (p. Kochia scoparia (L.29 2.315 0.58 4.82 8.148 0. Ayers. Cynara scolymus L.30 References Ayers.45 5. 1956. Continued.183 0.14 10.. 1943.92 5.055 0. 1974.20 15.99 7.39 .20 3. 1982 Reproduced from Crop Science.41 16.78 9. strawberry Corn (forage)‡‡ Botanical name‡ T. 39). Hoffman and Rawlins. crested Fairway Wheatgrass. 39–44).35 0. Bernstein et al.62 9.366 0. Wilcz.61 22. Sask. slender# Wheatgrass. 1967 Bernstein and Ford. Published by Crop Science Society of America.94 4. 32–36) Steppuhn.128 0.71 12.63 Bean.) Beauvois A.02 2. 44–46) Steppuhn.49 3.60 9.50 3.38 3. Big Trefoil. 1970b.07 13.095 0.65 2.) Walp. narrowleaf birdsfoot Vetch. 1958 (p. 1956 Francois.64 7.137 0. 1943 Hassan et al.81 4. crested. 44–46) Brown and Bernstein.083 0.48 0.37 4.335 0. Zea mays L.83 3. var dulce (Mill. Shoot DW Festuca elatior L. 1987 Bernstein and Ayers.140 0.061 0. 1953a.030 0. tall Wildrye.16 18. 1974. Bernstein et al. red¶¶ Blackberry Boysenberry Broccoli Cabbage Carrot Vigna radiata (L.20 11.52 3.63 7. 39–44) Brown and Bernstein.00 4.08 2. Prunus duclis (Mill. Magistad et al.58 10.116 0. Ravikovitch.32 7.54 3. Osawa.34 3. Bernstein et al. All copyrights reserved.146 0.52 3.13 11.60 5. Wadleigh et al.152 0. (Botrytis Group) B.. 1990 Bernstein et al.113 0. 23–25).05 9. 1970 Ayers.62 4. Gauch and Magistad..) D.116 0. Magistad et al. Brown et al.45 0. 1997 Steppuhn. 44–46). 1990 Steppuhn.081 0.96 11. 44–46) Steppuhn. Common Wheatgrass. Ravikovitch and Porath.91 2. 1982 Bower et al. Sesbania exaltata (Raf.289 6.065 0. meadow Hardinggrass Kochia#. 1960. Nieman and Bernstein.63 7.M.43 3.19 3. Shoot DW Shoot DW Shoot DW Shoot DW Shoot DW Shoot DW Shoot DW Shoot DW Shoot DW Shoot DW Shoot DW Shoot DW Shoot DW Shoot DW Shoot DW Shoot DW Shoot DW Shoot DW Shoot DW Shoot DW 10. 1974. 1990 Bernstein and Ford. 1953 (p.45 4.094 10. 1964 Bernstein and Ayers.15 10. Cory Sphaerophysa salsula (Pall.97 3. Stenoptera (Hack) A. Lotus pedunculatus Cav. Cowpea (forage) Fescue. Magistad et al.) Pers.83 8. Phalaris tuberosa L. Shoot DW Festuca arundinacea Schreber Alopecurus pratensis L.) R.60 2. var. Wolf Dactylis glomerata L.62 4.) Schrad.56 14. Webb Prunus armeniaca L.) DC Sorhum sudanense (Piper) Stapf. and Schlechtend Brassica oleracea L. beardless Almond Apricot Artichoke Asparagus Bean.

Osawa. Taha et al.. Graifenberg et al. Continued. Psidium guajava L.50 3.128 0.. prune Potato Purslane Radish Spinach Squash.244 6. Dasberg et al.75 4.160 0.06 6.46 5. ¶¶ Sensitive during germination and emergence. F.38 8. 1985.164 0.34 2. Harding et al.54 11.065 7.30 7..54 10. USSL§§§ Bierhuizen and Ploegman. cherry Turnip Turnip (greens) Fruit yield Storage root Top FW 6.31 5. Furr et al. 1971.. ‡ Botanical and common names follow the convention of Hortus Third (Liberty Hyde Bailey Hortorium Staff.80 7..183 0. (Rapifera Group) Brassica rapa L.84 14.27 7.195 0.60 12.. 1984 Francois. Fragaria ananassa Dutch.79 7. 1971. †† These values for p were obtained from Fn(p ) bCt of Fig. Solanum tuberosum L. Brown et al.99 7. 1965.105 0. Shalhevet and Yaron. §§ Because paddy rice is grown under flooded conditions. ¶ Less tolerant during seedling stage. DW dry weight.56 10.218 0..61 3.29 Cucrbita pepo L.503 0. † Table based on Table 3–1. 1943. Alef. 1991 Francois.83 6. 11–13).) Burm.71 6. 1953b. Hoffman and Rawlins.78 3. 1953. where seeds are planted directly in saline seedbeds. 1983). sweet Cowpea Cucumber Botanical name‡ Zea mays L. 1984 Maas et al. Osawa. Seed yield Fruit yield Seed FW Shoot growth.59 9.31 4. 1965 Greig and Smith.97 15. values refer to the electrical conductivity of the soil water while the plants are submerged.60 2. Wilman.198 0.33 2. Shannon and Francois. Bingham et al.78 4. Cucumis melo L. Fruit yield Ipomoea batatas (L. lycopersicum var. Allium sativum L.59 7.59 4. Fruit yield Fruit yield Bulb yield Shoot growth Fruit yield Shoot and root growth Shoot DW rubber yield Fruit yield Top FW Fruit yield Bulb yield Reproduced from Crop Science.09 4. 5. 1958.. . 1990 ´ Ayers et al. 1978 Patil et al. scallop Squash..29 2. Sand. USSL§§§ Hoffman et al. Fruit yield Phoenix dactylifera L. Date palm Eggplant Garlic Grape Grapefruit Guava Guayule Lemon Lettuce Muskmelon Onion (bulb) Onion seed Orange Pea Peach Pepper Plum. 1978 Bernstein and Ayers.09 9. 1986 Francois. and common and Greenfield are about 20% less tolerant than the average. Probred. 1949b (p. Citrus sinensis (L.23 2.70 2.02 4.86 6.137 0.60 9.168 0. Grieve and Suarez. Raphanus sativus L.99 5. and Weeping cultivars (Lehmann seems about 50% more tolerant).183 0.151 7.54 8. (p. 1997 Hoffman and Rawlins..35 2. 1988 Cerda et al.) Osbeck Pisum sativum L. 1984 Vigna unguiculata (L. Spinacia oleracea L.91 3.198 0.32 4.. Gray Citrus limon (L. Prunus persica (L.02 17.55 2.08 2..206 0. 1967. §§§ Unpublished U.. 1956. Vitus vinifera L. 1973 Caro et al.32 2.62 4.42 7.198 0.) Walp. 1985 Francois.161 0.21 2. 1946 Bernstein. Lycopersicon lycopersicum (L.73 8. Prunus domestica L.66 0. zucchini Strawberry Sweet potato Tomato Allium cepa L.S. 1965 Mangal et al.07 2. # These data are based on tests following dryland agricultural practices.. Published by Crop Science Society of America. Salinity Laboratory data.36 6.. Lyon.29 2.. Suwannee and Coastal are about 20% more tolerant. 1974.42 3.45 FW fresh weight..) Batsch Capsicum annuum L. plants will tolerate about 5–10% greater salinity than indicated.46 10. These data are applicable when rootstocks of woody crops are used that do not accumulate Na or Cl rapidly or when these ions do not predominate in the soil.61 2.) Lam. Seed yield Cucumis sativus L.01 6.38 4.. 1951. Osawa. Brassica rapa L. 1962.76 6.139 0. 1974. Lactuca sativa L.23 5.] L. [syn.12 4. Bernstein et al. 1970 Furr and Armstrong.122 0.77 3. 1965 Langdale et al.055 0.18 7.68 8. 1966 Heuer et al.. VOL.200 0. 1974.32 2.. Nauriyal and Gupta. JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2005 Nonlinear tolerance parameter Tolerance§ based on Ear FW C50 (ECe) Salinity dS/m p Shape s Steepness tolerance index 5. 1999.77 5.56 12.. 1982 Osawa. C.75 5.116 0. Furr and Ream.58 0. and controlled tests of crop-yield response to increasing root-zone salinity gradually applied to the plants as early seedlings. Cerasiforme (Dunal) Alef.22 5. § In gypsiferous soils.74 5. Portulaca oleracea L.) Karst.75 5. Citrus paradisi Macfad. 1968. Ploegman and Bierhuizen. 1962. 41–42) West and Francois.244 0.03 5.213 0. Bernstein et al.177 0. Maas and Grattan. 1941. Crop Common name Corn.50 2. 1965 Mangal et al.81 6.65 2.146 0..96 0. All copyrights reserved. Fleshy root Fruit yield Tomato.91 4. ††† Average of several varieties.76 6.472 0.76 9. 1989 Bielorai et al.13 13.08 5. var melopepo (L. ## Data from one cultivar.60 2. 1988. Solanum melongena L. fruit yield Fruit yield Fruit yield Tuber yield Shoot FW Storage root Top FW 6. 1976) where possible. (Reticulatus Group) Allium cepa L.320 0.83 14. 1996 Ehlig and Bernstein.. 1994b Groot Obbink and Alexander. 1972 Bielorai et al. peop L. 1992. Less tolerant during seedling stage. ECe at this stage should not exceed 4 or 5 dS/m.00 References Bernstein and Ayers. 1982 ´ Bernstein et al.. ‡‡‡ Average for Boer. 1954 (p. 1951 Kumamoto et al. 1958 Cerda et al.76 3. Osawa. Parthenium argentatum A.. 1965.9 dS/m (Hoffman et al.146 0.72 7. 1991. ECe should not exceed 3 dS/m.91 5. Osawa.59 2. Osawa. CROP SCIENCE. Hayward et al..228 Table 6.21 18. 1973.43 12. 45.149 0. ex Farw.54 2.183 0. 1988. ‡‡ Grain and forage yields of DeKalb XL-75 grown on an organic muck soil decreased about 26% per decisiemen/meter above a threshold of 1. 36–37). 1989 Bernstein et al.83 8. Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. 1971.57 4. 1967.67 9.. var Fruit yield melopepo L. 1965 Francois.) Fruit yield Alef. Hayward and Long.02 2. var esculentum Nees.

Riverside. A. 2002).D. s fitted (b). Riverside. Rome.W.. and A. Salinity Lab.G. 1949a. the authors acknowledge the valuable contributions of Mr. Am. sC50.S. [2]). Sci.W. These indices also show the pronounced effects of seeding into saline seedbeds. Bernstein. 1999). CA.D.H. fills this need. 1964. we propose adding the term. 1956. Sci. One of the most recent published lists of agricultural crop tolerances to root-zone salinity is arrayed according to four crop groups: “fiber-grain-special. MacKenzie. 1958. Bernstein. A. Ayers. response values under these conditions can be incorporated into Table 6. Salt tolerance of field crops. U. Indian J. Water quality for agriculture. Crop Sci..D. 61:360–366. All copyrights reserved. Ayers. Ayers. (Francois... Salt tolerance of berseem clover (Trifolium alexandrinum) and edible broadbean (Vicia faba). CA.00 and 8.. Riverside. 1962. Salinity Lab. seven.STEPPUHN ET AL. Riverside. Soc. Hort.D. respectively. to the earlier index. and V. Jr. L. 1953a. p. Soc.. Extension personnel and plant growth modelers need to work with a more precise nonlinear response analog. U.D.R. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS With thanks. Salt tolerance of soybean varieties (Glycine max L. Riverside. A study of salt tolerance of four varieties of wheat. 57:237–242. as required in dryland agriculture. the three methods [selected-linesegments. CA. Fn(p) fitted (bCt). 14:162–169. Maas (1990) and Maas and Grattan (1999) stated that Abel. Bernstein. 2005). U. 1960. Ayers.. L.W. and the relationships of p exp(sC50) and ST-Index C50 sC50. CA. a single-value index of crop tolerance to root-zone salinity would seem appropriate and useful for comparing agricultural crops. G. Salt tolerance of crops.H.J. Maas and Grattan. and the ST-Index using the regression fits of C50 (Cmid) and s (b). Eberhard. Field plot studies on the salt tolerance of vegetable crops-peppers. L. Report to Collaborators. Plant Physiol. Asghar. 1954. L. including Eq. and L. Salinity Lab. [4]). 1951.L.. Westcot. R. Now. 1956. Report to Collaborators. For example. Although simple. tenuifolius and Lotus corniculatus var. Table 6 offers an alternative list based on the nonlinear discount function. Brown and Hayward. several nonlinear models. Salinity Laboratory and the Semiarid Prairie Agricultural Research Centre to this research. In view of the myriad of influences which affect the relationship of product yield with salinity. A.S. However. Ayers. Within an error limit of 5% of the actual.. 174 p.. Wall. Asghar. Asana.D. Also.. The threshold and slope values listed for each crop in these tables were converted to C50. Salt tolerance of birdsfoot trefoil. U. Wadleigh.S. 57:243–248. Salinity Lab. Bernstein. Report to Collaborators. Wadleigh. Steppuhn et al. The practice then was to simply use C50 as the index. 1994a.. Dr.” “woody” (Tables 3-1 and 3-2. Jame.87. The concept of an index for rating the salinity tolerance of agricultural crops was followed earlier (Ayers et al. Proc. the ST-Indices for Brassica napus L. Am. 1949b.S. Dr.27 and 18. and A. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 29 (Revision 1). arvensis.. A. Bernstein.29. and A. Ayers. Riverside. 10% error limit of the actual was again used. respectively (Table 6). Salt tolerance of five varieties of carrots.L. In cases where only estimates of C50 are available. Response of edible broadbean to several levels of salinity. . and six test experiments out of the eight. with the benefit of the modified discount response function (Eq. J. Ayers. Salinity Lab. and A. The ST-Index. Salt tolerance of birdsfoot trefoil Lotus corniculatus var. L. Under dryland agricultural practices. Ayers. Ayers.S. and M.D. 1956). 1985. Or. Ahmad. Agron. Salt tolerance of six varieties of lettuce. and staff members of the George E. L. recorded four. Report to Collaborators.S. and A. Sci. and C. 1965. A.. 1951. the ST-Index shows sensitivity. Riverside. Soc. canola and barley grain crops equal 8. Salt tolerance of cabbage and broccoli. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Report to Collaborators. Salinity Lab. Hort. R. 1948a.. 44:307–310. 1951. the respective ST-Index-values equal 17. A. with s lnp/(C50)]. Soc. Salt tolerance of sweet corn. Eberhard. 1950. Riverside. Ayers. Published by Crop Science Society of America. Hordeum vulgare L. Pakistan J. Salt tolerance of several legumes. U. S. Report to Collaborators. 1999. U. 52:110–111.099/C50). U.D. N. respectively (Table 6). The fitted Fn(p) exp(bCt) with s lnp/(C50) and the fitted s (b) methods respectively registered seven and eight out of eight test experiments within an error of 10% or less... 40:331–334. CA. Hortic. Yang-Steppuhn. all but one of the crop lists available to them are based on a linear response. Brown. as information becomes available on the response of crops to irrigation with saline water containing various specific ions. Y. REFERENCES DISCUSSION Many factors influence the yield of agricultural crops besides the response to increasing root-zone salinity (Maas and Grattan. Steppuhn et al. and D. Report to Collaborators. 1955. Brown. Salt tolerance of six varieties of green beans. A.S. CA. Res. Proc. Ayers.S. CA. and D.D. and D. The parameter values in Table 6 also include those obtained in crop-yield response tests conducted under dryland agricultural conditions. where seeds were placed directly into salinized seedbeds. Kale. Salinity Lab.” “grasses-forage. The selected-line-segments method recorded b-to-s conversions within this limit for five out or the eight test experiments (Table 5). STIndex C50 sC50. U.. Ayers..S. compared to seeding where fresh water is applied to establish the crop under irrigated cultivation. one could let ST-Index ≈ C50. based on the nonlinear parameters of C50 and s (Eq. van Genuchten and Gupta (1993) suggest an assumption that p ≈ 3. Salt tolerance of field crops-cotton. [5])..” “vegetable-fruit.D. 4:157–161. J. [3]. Bernstein. U. J. that is. testing with canola demonstrates a salinity tolerance approaching that of barley.S. more accurately describe the actual response of plant crops to salinity than the threshold-slope linear model (Eq. Agron..D. Merrill) during germination and later growth. Salinity Laboratory Staff. L.G. A.: INDICES FOR SALINITY TOLERANCES OF AGRICULTURAL CROPS 229 Reproduced from Crop Science.D. Bernstein. Salt tolerance of barley and wheat in soil plots receiving several salinization regimes. K. Salinity Lab. 1954.00 (s ≈ 1. Under irrigation-agricultural practices. Proc. s.H. Bernstein. 1952. This index identifies a salinity value equal to the 50% reduction in crop yield from that of the nonsaline yield plus a measure of the tendency to maintain some product yield as the crop is subjected to increasing salinity levels approaching C50. Agron. J. 1955.. CA. resulting in an index with a lower value. Am.. Report to Collaborators. Am. C. Sci. 8(1):5–22. 1948b.

A.D. Y. Guillen. Effects of salinity on nodulation. Hortic.R.E. Soc. Francois. J. J. Smith.J. 11:245–249. 1953b. USDA-ARS-24.. Francois. L. Salinity Lab. seed yield. A. CA. Agron. and L.E. Print. Cruz. Bernstein. 1991. Hayward. Citrus Congr.-F. J. Washington. and E. Bernstein. 1996. growth. Reviews and manuals. (ed. and B. growth. Salinity Lab. Gov. and E. Graifenberg. growth and elemental content of zucchini squash grown under saline-sodic conditions. Greig.E. Agron.. and H. Am. U. J. and M.. Reduction in yield and market quality of celery caused by soil salinity. 21:231–237. 1959b. Report to Collaborators. J. and M.E. Report to Collaborators. C. 1964. Bernstein. Donovan. Agron. L. and M.. Mededelingen van de Directie Tuinbouw. Salinity effects on emergence. Salinity tolerance of normal-fruited and cherry tomato cultivars. The salt tolerance of white rose potatoes.R. Bot. Francois. Soc. F. Proc. Proc. Gschwend.L. Agron.H. 1960.. U. and V.J. Soc. Bernstein. ´ Cerda. Effect of salinity on grain yield and quality. Rubenthaler. Brown. Ford.S. L. Ogata. 72:198–206. Indian Sugar (Calcutta).. Bernstein.): A halophytic crop for drainage reuse systems. and D.. J. 61:783–785. 1991. Riverside. H. Brown. 1995. A. and L. Agron. Hortic. I. 61:49–55. W. Erner. Agron.J.E. Maas. Agron. Ehrler. Sci. T. J. Exp. Sci. L.L. and F.E. 92:268–273.. Proc. Irrig. Zouttolerantie van tomaten.S. Riverside. Sci.E. All copyrights reserved.. Shalhevet. Salt tolerance of strawberries. Plant responses to salinity: A supplement to an indexed bibliography. U. Salinity Lab. USDA-SEA (Science and Education Admin. Francois. Dev. Donovan. 1956. Rootzone salt profiles and alfalfa growth as influenced by irrigation water salinity and leaching fraction. and E. Ayers..). and F. Francois. 1959a. Salt tolerance of field crops.L. Correlation of sugar beet yields with chemical properties of a salinealkali soil. T. Haimowitz. CA. Soil Sci. Salinity Report to Collaborators.. and R. Ogata. and seed yield of guar..V. Reproduced from Crop Science.E. Sci. J. 1994a. 74:796–798. and J. and emergence.S. Hortic. and W. Agron.. L.V.. Proc.M. 1972.L. L. L. Francois.). 54:309–313. Bower.. 48:18–20.A. Yield. Donovan. Tucker.L.F. Nieves. The effect of saline irrigation water on “Shamouti” orange trees. Armstrong. L. Sci. Grieve. Plant Soil 192: 277–283. Growth of sudan and tall fescue grasses as influenced by irrigation water salinity and leaching fraction.F. H. J. and L. Agron. and J. Donovan.R. Salinity effects on seed yield. Some effects of salinity on rice. L. L. Am. 1962. L.L. A. 1967.). Interactive effects of salinity and fertility on yields of grains and vegetables.M. L.C. Salt tolerance of two pea cultivars. Tucker. Yield and quality response of salt-stressed garlic. vegetative growth. 1984. J. and E. Soc. 1994b. Date Growers Inst. 1983. vegetative growth.W.. L. 22:723–726. and C. Salinity Lab. Growth.W. 86:233–237. Report 43. Agron. The salt tolerance of bermudagrass–NK37. vegetative growth. and L. 112:432–436. 1969. Ehlig. Report 39. L. J. Maas. 85:318–324.A. L. 1966. DC. C. Riverside. Bielorai. A. and fatty acid composition of crambe. and F. Wadleigh. Salinity effects on vegetative growth. H. 1958.E. J. CA. and R.V. Caro. Francois. 1968. 1988. Maas. Maas (ed. Francois. Bernstein. Hortic. Longterm effects of irrigation-salinity management on a Valencia orange orchard. Estan. J.. J. ´ ´ Cerda.) Agric.S. Sci.S. 1992. 45. Ehlig.A. Fernandez. and blackberry. 1958. Report to Collaborators. Office. Levy. seed yield. and R. P.V. Salt tolerance of raspberry. Washington. Soil Sci. 58:201–203. 80:642–647. J. Bower. 1978... VOL. 1984. Agron.. and germination of triticale. Sci. Salinity effects on growth and salt uptake of seedlings of the date.S. U.G. Francois. U. Growth of young date palms in relation to soil salinity and chloride content of the Pinnae. 1962. 1997. A test of mature Halawy and Medjool date palms for salt tolerance.G. E. M. 66:412–421. Krantz. T. Date Growers Inst. U. Francois. and germination of grain sorghum. Ream. L.J. 57:231–236.B. ARM-W-6. Soc. Ayers. M. HortScience 20:1102–1104. 35:871–880. Francois. Bielorai. Effects of variation in concentrations of sodium. Cheng. Sprouting.T. Gauch. A. New Mexico Agric. CA. Francois. MacKenzie. 107:952–954. L. J.E. T. U. and G.D. and Y. Sci. 1990. 1966. L. L. and R.. Bolarin. L. S. 1982. Am. J. J. Am. and fiber length of kenaf grown on saline soil. 1943.E. Leaching requirement studies: Sensitivity of alfalfa to salinity of irrigation and drainage waters. M. quality. Francois.. H. 62:367–370. CA.J. J. Am. CA. growth. 62:793–794.S. Salinity Lab. 88:215–219. K.. Agron. 1970.H.V. and M.W. Office.. and C. T. Jr. sulfate.W. Am.J. 1955. Riverside. 6:707–715.E.. Dasberg. and E.. R.. Ballard. 82:587–592. varieties of sugar cane. 117:369–377. J. 1974.C. Erner. and Y.. and yield of two squash cultivars. Report 64:357–399. Francois. Chinese Agric.E. 1982. 1966. Salt tolerance of five varieties of onions. J.E. Gov. Salt tolerance of N. Soil Sci.V. 1988. Stn. Hortic.T. Botrini.. Salt tolerance of forage crops. Agron. C. growth and yield. Dregne. Francois. and A. L. Agron. Salinity effects on bud yield and vegetative growth of artichoke (Cynara scolymus L. CA. J.. 1953.. 1985.230 CROP SCIENCE.. Hortic. Effect of salinity on grain yield and quality. Print. Francois. Stolzyl. 82:1110–1114. 1951.J. Maas. Salinity Lab.W. U. Salt tolerance of Sphaerophysa salsula.V. Am. J. and oil content of canola grown under saline conditions. L. Francois. Am. J.E. Growth of strawberry clover varieties and of alfalfa and ladino clover as affected by salt. Soc. C..E. Moodie. Grapefruit response to variable salinity in irrigation water and soil. nitrogen fixation. Riverside. and growth of soybeans and alfalfa.J. Bingham. Brum. Am. and C. Am. 1962.W. Sci. Foliar analysis of stone fruit and almond trees on saline substrates. 1973.. L. Bernstein.E. Salt tolerance of field crops–soybeans. Effects of various salts on barley growth. Riverside.E. S.S. The effect of saline irrigation water on Shamouti orange production.. Salinity effects on four sunflower hybrids. West. Agron. Proc. Donovan. 1986. L. Riverside. and C.. 1987. and E. Parra. G. 1996.E. Lorenz. Salinity effects on germination. Irrig. and M. 78:1053– 1058. Kleiman. Sci.. Hortic. 1953. Francois. 71:305–311. Bernstein. Soc. Plant Soil 136:249–255.K.. 1954.. Hayward. Salt tolerance of forage crops. Ploegman. Dasberg. Phoenix dactylifera L. Proc. Bielorai. L.A. Soc. J. Lipucci di Paola. boysenberry. Sci. Bajwa. U.. Salt tolerance of grasses. Purslane (Portulaca oleracea L. Am. and L. and O.. and yield of turnips. calcium.D. Francois. Francois. Effect of salinity on sunflower production and mineral concentration. JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2005 Bernstein. 1:61–70. Maas. L. Bernstein.W. Cuartero.. L. Int.M. Furr. G. Francois. 77(6):443–451. and A. L. HortScience 19:82–84. Agron. Mahler. and R.S. and germination of semi-dwarf and durum wheat. 68:86–95.. Ford. C. Gaz. Giustiniani. The influence of rootstock on growth and salt accumulation in stone-fruit trees and almonds.E. L. 12:205–211. 1974. and H. Furr. L. Maas.... 81:707–712. Brown. J. C. J. C. M. HortScience 29:1314–1317. J. Ogata. 1990. vegetative growth. Yield. Soc. J. L. (Chicago) 122:102–104. Hortic.. V.E. Orth. J. Report Collaborators.. Sci. Res.. Salinity effects on germination. Hortic. and L.S. H. L. S.V. Hayward.. Salinity Lab. Bernstein. 84:592–598. Caro. Chem. Agron.H.E. Salinity effects on rye grain yield.G. 48:489–493. 1989. . Irrig. J. T. 37 931–943. Bernstein. Proc. Magistad. HortScience 30:69–71. vegetative growth. Donovan.A. and H.A. Brown.E. and R. 1990. Salt tolerance of lemon trees as affected by rootstock.. Sci. Co. Soc. Salinity effects on sweetpotato growth. Proc. L. Ford. Bower.E. Published by Crop Science Society of America. 1956. Ream. 30:302–310. Plant responses to salinity: An indexed bibliography. Salinity effects on asparagus yield and vegetative growth. Report to Collaborators.. Soc. and D. 1962. 1985. 76:741–744. Salt tolerance of alfalfa varieties. Studies on salt tolerance of sugarcane. J. 1964. J. L. Clark. Soc. Suarez. Agron.E. and chloride. G. and G. Bierhuizen. 1978. J. DC. Furr. Bernstein.E. Bernstein. E. Francois. Youngs.. Maas. Bernstein. C. Clark.F. Hortic. Wadleigh. Report to Collaborators.

1975. L. Sharma. Kumamoto. 1964. J.L. Plant Soil 95:9–13. and protein synthesis by coastal bermudagrass. Plant Physiol. Wall. Sci.: INDICES FOR SALINITY TOLERANCES OF AGRICULTURAL CROPS 231 Groot Obbink.K.V. Int.. McE. 2002. 1990. Agric. In Proc. Hoffman. Salt tolerance of five muskmelon cultivars.. Shimshi. Agric. Bernstein. Thomas. van Genuchten. Rawlins. Francois. R-1550–7-E-90. 110:641–643. Gaz.. 1944. Factors influencing salinity of submerged soils and growth of Caloro rice. nitrogen. V.L. J.. Ayers. SAS Institute. Agron. CA. Hooda.. J. Influence of soil salinity and nitrogen fertilizer on spinach growth. van Hoorn. Canadian Agric.R. Published by Crop Science Society of America. 1969. 103:127–130. 71. Final Report to the Research Component of the National Soil Conservation Program. Shalhevet. ASA. G. Rawlins. Reduction in growth and yield of Jerusalem artichoke caused by soil salinity. Soc. 4:31–44.G. D. Ghowail. Drew. Optimizing forage seed mixtures for saline soils. Plant development. 64:475–477. VA. Final Report.. Magistad. Indian J. Seed germination and salt tolerance of crops in coastal alluvial soils of New Brunswick..I. 1958.E. and R. van Schilfgaarde (ed. I. H.G. MacMillian Publ. 3. Gupta. Pratt.S. Responses of two species of tomatoes and the F1 generation to sodium sulphate in the nutrient medium. Soil Sci.E. R.A. Wheatland Conservation Area. Maas. and J. J. and R. Qual. Chap. Francois.. Selecting a product-yield index and response function for crop tolerance.. Agron. and S. T. P. 1978. J. The effect of nutrients on the salt tolerance of crops. The influence of phosphorus and nitrogen on millet and clover growing in soils affected by salinity. S.. H. Am.. 61:384–387.L.L.K. Soc.B. C. 1959. Patil. Grattan. and sodium sulfate. 53:303–307. Hamdy. Western Canada Kochia Assoc. and G.V. E. and R. Holland. M. J.M. J. Lagerwerff. R. and C. Subramanyam. 62:43–45. Myers. Can. and T. Donovan. Drain.. Exp. 1990. Agric. Shannon.W.J. G.J. J. E.W. Salinity-ozone interactive effects on alfalfa yield and water relations.V. Kaddah. Crop salt tolerance–current assessment. Knudsen. 1976.. P. El-Sayed.P. 9:181–188. Hortic. P. J. Agric. P. and D.M.J. Shalhevet. Nieman.F. Monogr.C. Salt tolerance evalua- Reproduced from Crop Science. Narale. Effect of soil and water salinity on tomato growth. Langdale. 87:198–206.S. 1970.B. H. Gov.M. Steppuhn.. 36:287–300.R..G. Am.. 25:61–66.H. 1986.A. 1970a.. In E. Ser. Reiniger. 229–233. 4:197–205.W. Sci.V. 103(IR2):115–134. and K. Plant Soil 35:555–567. Irrig. and M. Lawrence. Katerji. Agron. Osaka Prefect. Plant Soil 39:285–292. J. Report to Collaborators. Sci. and R. G.F. Lal. and soil reaction in a differentially fertilized irrigated soil. G.) Drought proofing cattle feed supplies with Kochia.P. J. 1967.B. 1990. Soc. and A. Inc. Agron. 9:199–211. Thomas. Nybo. W. JMP (Version 3. Steppuhn. Bot. and R. 137–147. and S. vegetative growth and grain yield of rice (Oryza sativa var. 1971. 1992. and D.. Patil. Civil Engineers. U. Environ. and W. The tolerance of flax to saline conditions: Effect of sodium chloride. Am. 1946. ON.E. Steppuhn. B 16:13–57.) Agron. (Chicago) 103:107–122. B.K. kind of salt.2. B. (ed.D. Statistical discovery software. 1972. Crop yields as affected by salinity. Design and performance of sunlit climate chambers.L. New Industrial Crops and Products.. 1:32–39.V. 262–304. Water Manage.. Enol. Sci. Johnson. phosphorus. 1990. J.. Grieve. 1977.W. I.. Final Report. Zouttolerantie van Komkommer. Salinity tolerance of Altai wild ryegrass and other forage grasses. Civil Engineers Manual on Engineering Practice No. . Sask. Steppuhn. Corn (Zea mays). Skaggs and J. A.E. Long. Grain yields from spring-sown Canadian wheats grown in saline rooting media. Hoffman. Yoles.M. 62:46–48. Purslane: A potential new vegetable crop rich in omega-3 fatty acid with a controllable sodium chloride content. Jones. Wall. Agron. S.. and J. 1997.. D. R.K. Drew. 1941. Plant Sci. D. Effect of soil salinity on growth and nutritional status of guava (Psidium guajava L.P. Agron. 1997. and S. Irrig.G. CA.1). R. J. J. Res. T. Sci. M. In Agricultural Drainage. Conf. 1960. Olson. Salt tolerance of corn in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta of California.. G. Layfield. G.V.. Gauch. 46:667–670. Minhas. Plant Sci. Saskatchewan Agric. E. J.P. D. Hassan... Rootzone salinity: I. Can. G. Salt tolerance of kochia. N. Matsumura.. Salt tolerance of irrigated guayule. E. Plant Soil 26:49–71. and O. Heuer.S. Trans. S. Maas. Goldhamer. 1971.Th. Irrig. S. Maas.M.C. 1999. Osawa. and climate on plant growth in sand cultures.. Tanji (ed.K. 922.. T. Soc. Wadleigh. 1971. Hassan. J. and H. Steppuhn. Effect of brackish irrigation water and fertilizers on millet and corn. H. Uhvits.. Agron. 13.. 1999. Inc. Influence of soil salinity on production of dry matter and uptake and distribution of nutrients in barley and corn: II. M.R. Irrig. J.. J. Mastrorilli. Harding.W. Dep. Effect of salt concentration. Salt tolerance of three muskmelon cultivars. Spurr. Newton. Salinity effects on the growth of corn at different stages of development. McElgunn. Salinity Lab. 85:177–184.V. Some effects of sodium salts on the growth of the tomato. Print. calcium chloride.).J. Steppuhn.S. Dular). and W. Barley (Hordeum vulgare). Saini. Crop tolerances and solution parameters for modelling soil salinization. Langdale. 1943. and J. and S. 1967. Sci. Hayward. N. Ravikovitch. Influence of soil salinity on production of dry matter and uptake and distribution of nutrients in barley and corn: I. Soc.R. Reston. M. Alexander.J. 18:151–166. and D.S. Hayward. Hoffman. G.J. Fund. WI. K. Ecology 53:524– 525. West.. J. In R. All copyrights reserved. Ravikovitch.T. J.K. Plant Physiol. and S. K. Trop. Crop Sci. New York. Wall. Catlin. 2005. Appendix II. Khosla. Am. 11:57–62. Effect of chloride and sulfate salts on the growth and development of the Elberta peach on Shalil and Lovell rootstocks.A.H. Improving alfalfa salinity tolerance. 1992.. Studies on the salt tolerance of vegetable crops with special reference to mineral nutrition. Riverside. Hayward. Res. 38.A. and L. 21(1 2):107–117. J. H. J. Sci. 1989. 56:214–217.T.W. Bierhuizen. Maas.E. and B. 1989. Washington. Bedrifsontwikkeling: Editie Tuinbouvw 1. Effect of total salt concentration. H. 1973. Bot. G. 4:326–331. Interactive effects of gibberellic acid and salinity on the growth of beans. and E.D. Salt tolerance of eggplant. Meyer.R. Coxworth et al.V.. Rawlins. Canada. Studies on salt tolerance of grape. T. E. N. Lyon. Hoffman. and S. Soil Sci.. 1988. P. Am.. NC 27513. p. J. J.. Council Publ. Liberty Hyde Bailey Hortorium Staff. 1973. G. Innovative Partnerships Program. Maas. Payne. p. and B. P. Hooda. Hortus third. Francois. Canadian Green Plan. Agron. 63:708–711.A. H. Ploegman. Pearson. Effects of salinity on water stress. J.S. 52:603–608.. J.STEPPUHN ET AL. Maas. and L. Scora. Agron. U. Olson. and J.W. Porath. SAS. Viticult. ASAE 13:656–660.) Agricultural salinity assessment and management. Prichard. 1983. and L. Clerx. Nauriyal. 1995.A. Mukherjee. Dev.K. 1959. and D. Bouzid. Ravikovitch. 1973. J. 1973.E. H.V. E. H. 1971. Response of six grapevine cultivars to a range of chloride concentrations. Madison. J. The salt tolerance of wheat.B. A. 2:337–344. A concise dictionary of plants cultivated in the United States and Canada. Sci. 12:213–221.. Mangal. and J. H. Agric.L.. Growth and water potential of root crops as influenced by salinity and relative humidity. Tech. U. Salt tolerance of the onion seed crop. Uhvits. 1993. and T.. J. and C. C. growth and yield of broad beans. Mead. and C.. E. Crop Salt Tolerance. Grieve.J. O. Knudsen. Hortic. Littleton. Irrig. Co. R. H.A. A. Bull. Yield and foliar injury responses of mature plum trees to salinity. 1988.P. In K. 24:65–68. Hoffman. Meiri. Bull. 77(1):63–68.C. Canada. J. 1970b. Ottawa. 1970. and D. 45:209–220. Irrig. Cary. Assoc. J. Rio Grande Valley Hortic.. R. Mangal. Influence of salinity on germination. Changes in salinity.S. 1st Int. P. 55–108. J. 1965. Mungbean response to irrigation with waters of different salinities.. Ghonsikar.. DC. Am.. & Agri-Food Matching Investment Initiative Program. 18:556–559. 8–12 Oct. Steppuhn. Riverside. and B. 1943. P. Yaron. 61:341–344.G. N. 1944. 63:877–880. Soil salinity effects on absorption of nitrogen.E.K. Shalhevet. J. Lal. 1984. and J. and S. Office. 1991. Univ. 10:215–229. Peanut response to uniform and non-uniform soil salinity. Hayward. Growth and mineral content of carrots and beans as related to varying osmotic and ionic-composition effects in saline-sodic sand cultures. 1969. Chap. Hoffman. Long.

and G. and Y. Kolisch.S. K. Irrig. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. Analyzing crop salt tolerance data: Model description and user’s manual. 45. 1982. Shalhevet (ed. 1954. Salt tolerance in rice varieties. Soil Sci. and G. C.W. Effect of saline water irrigation on N. Canadian Agric. Research Report No. 258–271. Salt tolerance of grape. H.C. Alexandria J.) Soil salinity under irrigation–Process and management. Trop. Soil Sci. U. Southern Applied Res. 1998. M.. Jame.. 1983. Agric. Gupta. 1972. El-Sewey.Th.. Ramesam.S. U.S. A reassessment of the crop tolerance response function. van Genuchten..A. and olive plants. guava. Soil Sci. Final Report. Eng. M. West.W. Gov. Can. . J. Francois.M. Agric. U. Taha..Th.L. A. J. Ulery. Response functions for grain yield from spring-sown wheats grown in saline rooting media. Agric. Wadleigh. van Genuchten.Th. 1996. U. Washington. Co. I.A.. VOL. JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2005 Reproduced from Crop Science. 1993. New York. V. H. 1951. Shannon. Assoc. Growth parameters. Genuchten. Dep. 20:123– 134. Analysis of crop salt tolerance data. Agric. 1972. Salinity Laboratory Staff. Effects of salinity on germination. D. Soc. Springer-Verlag. SALTDATA: A data base of plant yield response to salinity. Indian Soc.. J. Res. 1984. 3:169–175.E.K.H. Service.. 41(4): 730–737. All copyrights reserved. Ecological Studies 51. Shainberg and J. Dep. Published by Crop Science Society of America. M. Steppuhn. Agric. M. Mineral composition of orchard grass grown on Pachappa loam salinized with various salts. Sci.232 CROP SCIENCE. M.W. DC. and M. & Agri-Food Matching Investment Initiative Program. J. Gauch. 90:556–562. tion of canola crops. M. U.Th. M.S.. Agricultural Handbook 60.G. 20:169–173. Syed. In I. Venkateswarlu. Washington. 49:337–346. 38(4):249–256.. growth and yield of cowpea. Teed.S. Rasiah. p. 120. 310 and H50–7209 cultivars of sugar-cane. Office. Office. Agric.. U. 72:275–282.G. van Genuchten. and S. Ind. Salinity Lab. A. El-Swaify. Res.S. DC. and Z. and S. and M. Murali Mohan Rao. and L. Print.V. 1972. Wall. Gov. J. Fadliah. Print. Agron. Hoffman.J.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful