International Journal of Farming and Allied Sciences Available online at www.ijfas.com 24 IJFAS Journal-24-3-2/77-86/ 28 February, 24 ISSN 2322-434 24 IJFAS Investigation of Crop Production Potentiality of Saline Lands(A Case Study: Coastal Land of Persian Gulf, Hendejan Delta) Morteza Dehghani, Hamid Kardan Moghaddam 2, Zahra Rahimzadeh kivi 3, Hossein Kardan Moghaddam 4, Gholamreza Hadarbadi 5. The Clerk of watershed management office, Agricultural jihad organization, southern Khorasan province 2. Faculty member of Water Engineering Department, Birjand University 3. Master of Water Resources studying in University of Birjand 4. Faculty Member of Birjand University of Technology, Birjand, Iran 5. National Project Manager of Carbon sequestration project in southern Khorasan province Corresponding author: Morteza Dehghani ABSTRACT: Annually about 225 million cubic meter of water are drainage in Zohre river and thousands hectares of deltaic lands of this river are left useless. In this paper Investigation of Crop Production Potentiality of Saline Lands. For this purpose soil and water parameter were analyzed in relation with native plants (Wheat, Barley and Palm) based on some experimental measurements. As the result, temperature and vaportranspiration, precipitation, water quality and quantity, native plants, the crops water requirement, leaching fraction and salt increment in the soil due to irrigation, water level and gypsum need for leaching were analyzed. The study shows that salty lands of Zohre River Delta could reclamation by water of river. Keywords: Soil Salinity, water quality, Reclamation, Water need, Coastal lands INTRODUCTION Salt-affect issues are mostly found in coastal land however, its problem old but magnitude and intensity have been increasing. The rapid growth of human population cause to find new resources such as poor- quality soil and water resource (75% of world s population are residing in developing countries which possess only 55% of the world s arable land). Soil salinity is considered as an environmental hazard and one of the factors in desertification in arid, semiarid and dry sub-humid areas both dry and irrigated regions. It causes decreasing or losing agricultural productivity. Nearly % of the total land surface is covered with different types of salt-affected soils. At present, there are nearly 954 million hectares of saline soils on the earth's surface. All these salt affected soils are distributed throughout the world. More than 8 million hectares of such soils are in Africa, 5 million hectares in Europe, 357 million hectares in Australasia, nearly 47 million hectares in Central, North and South America. Similarly, a large bulk of about 32 million hectares and land in South and South East Asia is under the grip of salinity. Estimates indicate that the world as a whole is losing at least 3 ha of arable land every minute to soil salination / sodication. In Iran, salt-affected regions are included the vast ones of eastern, central and southern areas. It is estimated that 5% of the total land surface of Iran and about 3% of the plains of it are affected by salinity. Salinity of soil and water resources is a serious threat in many parts of the country.
Intl J Farm & Alli Sci. Vol., 3 (2): 77-86, 24 Approximately % of the total land area of the country is used for crop production. Of this area, annually, about 2.7 Mha is cultivated (irrigated plus rainfed) and nearly 5.8 Mha is left as fallow an estimated area of 32 Mha of unused land of Iran is potentially suitable for crop production. Amelioration of these soils needs a source of calcium that can replace the exchangeable sodium. These soils are generally classified to 3 categories, including saline, sodic and saline-sodic. There are several methods for soil reclamation, pervious studies has been focused on utilizing various Chemical (gypsum application followed by excessive irrigation), leaching and biological methods (growing salt tolerant crops). Recently researchers use of phytoremediation method Annually about 225 million cubic meter of water (fresh, marginal and brackish water) are drainage in Zohre River. On the other hand thousands hectares of deltaic lands of this river are left useless. Mean objective of this research were, evaluation and investigation of soils and water recourses in sustainable agriculture. The evaportranspiration, precipitation, water quality and quantity, native plants properties, the crops water requirement, leaching fraction and salt increment in the soil due to irrigation, water level and gypsum need for leaching were estimated. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study site is located in Hendijan Delta, where is close to Persian Gulf costal lands (Fig). Figure. Study area In order to evaluate and investigate of agriculture and plants growth in Hendijan delta soil and water parameters were analyzed in relation with native plants based on some experimental measurements. Random samples of soil were taken of -5, 5-3, and 3-6 cm depths. Soil properties were assessed in laboratory and chemical and physical parameters calculated. Meanwhile, the evaportranspiration, precipitation, water quality and quantity, native plants properties, the crops water requirement, leaching fraction and salt accumulation in the soil due to irrigation, water level and gypsum content which is necessary for leaching were calculated. All spatial data (soils sampling) were entered in to a geographic information system (GIS) and prepared ISO chemical maps for all parameters and 3 mentioned depths. The maps show the project area has saline-sodic lands and for improvement the quality of soils we need to ameliorated substances such as gypsum (It is common used and cost effective). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - Temperature and evapotranspiration: Using Dehmola station data and analyzing temperature and evapotranspiration in a long-term period(36years). Properties like absolute maximum, minimum, average temperature and evapotranspiration were calculated (fig 2 and 3). Temperature versus evapotranspiration relation has been shown of figure4. The results show that maximum and minimum evapotranspiration were 329.75 and 77.8 mm respectively. 78
Evapotranspretion evapotranspration Temperture(santigrad) Intl J Farm & Alli Sci. Vol., 3 (2): 77-86, 24 6 Average muximum Average Average minimum Absolate max Absloute min 5 4 3 2 - jan feb mar apr may june july aug sep oct nov dec Figure 2 temperature parameters in study area 35 3 25 2 5 4 35 3 25 2 5 ET =.283T - 57.695 R 2 =.9823 5 Figure3. ly average of evapotranspiration area 5 5 5 2 25 3 35 4 45 temperture Figure 4. Temperature and evapotranspiration relation in study Precipitation Using long term (36 years) and reliable rainfall data, monthly average of rainfall was computed (fig 5). The result indicates that annual average rainfall and coefficient variable were 228 mm and 37% respectively. 79
discharge Discharge 24 47 7 93 6 39 62 85 28 23 254 277 3 323 346 Discharge Discharge Rain(mm) Intl J Farm & Alli Sci. Vol., 3 (2): 77-86, 24 6 5 4 3 2 Figure 5. monthly average of rainfall in study area 2- Discharge ly average volume and flows discharge and different return periods including 2, 5,, 25, 5 and years and discharge-class curve were calculated (Figure 6, 7, 8, 9 and table ) 6 4 2 8 3 25 2 5 6 4 2 Figure 6. ly average discharge in study area 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 2 year 5 year year 2 year 25 year 5year year month Figure 8. low flow curve in different return period in study area 5 Day Figure 7. Discharge- class curve in study area 6 5 4 3 2 2year 5year year 2year 25year 5year year Figure 9. peak flow curve in different return period 8
SAR(mmole/L/2) EC(ds/m) Intl J Farm & Alli Sci. Vol., 3 (2): 77-86, 24 Jan 254.8 486.5 675.4 882.8 954. 9. 45.5 Feb 3.9 644. 972.4 373.5 59.8 233.5 2645.7 Table. ly average volume discharge and different return period Volume( 6 m 3 ) Mar Apr May June July Ague Sep Oct Nov 378.3 39.7 263.8 36.4 78.2 6.2 53.4 57. 97.3 729.8 674.8 392.7 26.5 22.8 98.2 8.9 83.9 6.7 978.9 863.6 46. 268.7 5.4 2.7 98.4 99.7 2.3 222.9 45.3 55.6 37.7 78. 39.7 2.4 3.2 266. 3.9 3.2 53.8 333. 86.3 45.2 6.4 7.2 284.7 542.5 282.3 578.2 379.5 2.4 6.9 27.9 28.8 346.2 783.9 462. 62. 424.9 235.8 74.5 38. 39.2 43.4 Dec 78.7 357. 526.6 732.4 87.3 69. 379.8 Return period 2 5 2 25 5 3- Water quality: Water quality was determined by using Dehmola data. Chemical properties (EC, SAR, TDS, PH, Mg ++, Ca ++, Na +, Cl -, Hco 3, and So4) were computed and it has been shown in table 2 and figure and. Relationship between discharge and chemical parameters including EC, SAR and TDS were estimated (table 3). Water quality has been Classified by using Wilcox diagram (fig 2) 2 Max Min Average 6 mean max min 8 6 5 4 2 4 3 8 6 2 4 2 jan f eb mar apr may june july aug sep oct nov dec s Figure. SAR value per month in study area month Figure. EC value per month in study area Table 2. Average Water quality properties Meq/l TDS(mg/l) EC(ds/m) ph HCo 3 - Cl - So 4 -- Ca ++ Mg ++ Na + SAR Parameters.9 3 7.9 2.3 2.3 7.8 7.3 3.2 9.7 8.7 Mean annually -.443 Table 3. Relation between quality and quantity of water Formula Correlation R 2 =.7325 SAR = 47.58Q EC = 8.486Q -.266 R 2 =.7397 TDS =.634EC - 5.27 R 2 =.8727 TDS = 4.9749Q -.242 R 2 =.6578 8
EC(ds/m) SAR Intl J Farm & Alli Sci. Vol., 3 (2): 77-86, 24 3 28 26 24 22 2 8 C4S4 6 4 2 C3S2 C4S3 8 6 C4S2 4 2 C3S C4S 3 45 6 75 9 3 325 34 355 37 385 25 4 55 7 85 5 25 22 235 25 265 28 295 4 45 43 445 EC Figure 2. Wilcox diagram Selected plants species Determination of native plants and high tolerance to the salinity was selected (Wheat, Barley and Palm). Electrical conductivity (EC) value of water regarding degree of salt threshold in plants was calculated (fig 3). 6 Wheat Barley palm 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2.5.5 month Figure 3. Ec and saline tolerance relationship l 4- Water requirement Calculated water requirement for native plants by using monthly effective rainfall, coefficient plant (K c ), growth stage and evapotranspiration parameters (figure 4 and 5) were assessed. 82
water level(mm) water level Intl J Farm & Alli Sci. Vol., 3 (2): 77-86, 24 2 8 6 4 2 8 6 4 2 jan Water requrment Effective rainfall pure water requrment feb mar apr may june july aug sep oct nov dec Figure 4. ly water requirement for wheat and barley- Figure 5. ly water requirement for palm 4 35 3 25 2 5 5 pur water requrment Effective rainfall Water requrment 5- Leaching fraction Added salt to soils by irrigation were calculated by using TDS and water requirement (table 4), on the other hand leaching fraction for native plants in different months were computed (table 5). Jan.4. Feb.6.8 Mar..4 Table 4. Salt accumulation in growth period (Ton/ha) Apr May June July Ague Sep Oct.7 2.9 5. 7.6 9. 7.7 5.8 2..3 Nov 3.3.2 Dec.4.2 plants Palm Wheat & barley Table 5. Leaching Fraction in growth period of native plants (percent) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Agu e Sep Oct Nov Dec Plants 25.6 6.6 22.4 4..3 23.2 4.6.6 8.2.6 8.5 22.4 4..3 26. 35.3 4.4 42.5 4.2 3.6 9.3 4 3.2 8.6 3.4 Palm Wheat Barley 6- Soils chemical and physical analyzed A number of physicochemical properties related to soil quality were determined from 7 soil random samples designated for analysis of soil chemical properties (Fig 6). Electrical conductivity(ec), ph, anion(so4, Co3 and Cl) and cation(mg ++, Ca ++, Na + and K + ), cation exchange capacity(cec), electrical sodium percent(esp), sodium absorption ratio(sar) and texture were analyzed for 3 depths(-5, 5-3 and 3-6 cm). Figure 7 show that soil texture is silt-loam. All spatial data were entered in to a geographic information system (GIS) using ArcGis9. and sufer7. Maps of the soil chemical properties were prepared by interpolating the measurement at the 7 sample sites, using Kriging interpolation. The studies showed that kriging method is the best method for chemical properties of soil. The ESP, SAR and EC maps most closely reflect the spatial distribution of root zone salinity. These maps show that the soils are saline-sodic and the concentration of salinity in the surface is more than deeper layer (fig 8 to 26). Regarding to CEC, bulk density, soil depth, initial ESP (35 and 6), final ESP (5) and water quality the quantity of required gypsum and water level has been defined(table 6). The results indicate there are no problems in terms of water properties and climatology for agriculture and soil reclamation. We recommend that -take out surface layer of soil, 2- using suitable drainage for soil leaching and crop plantation such as barely because this could reduce salt from soils after harvesting and its saline tolerance is more than other. 83
3336 3334 3332 333 3328 3326 3324 % clay 3336 3334 3332 333 3328 3326 3324 36 38 Intl J Farm & Alli Sci. Vol., 3 (2): 77-86, 24 Figure 6. soil sampling position in study area 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 silty clay silty clay loam silt silt loam clay clay loam loam sandy Figure 7. soil texture in study area clay 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 % sand sandy clay loam sandy loam loamy sand sand 8 32 28 2 9 24 22 26 26 2 34 3 3 34 2 26 8 22 7 5 24 28 32 36 3 22 2 5 26 4 6 7 EC h:5-3 cm 3Km EC h:-5 cm 3Km 366 37 362 364 374 368 372 376 Figure 8. ISO EC curve in 5-3 depth 362 364 366 368 37 372 374 376 Figure 9. ISO EC curve in -5 depth 84
3338 3336 3334 3332 333 3328 3326 3324 7 3336 3334 3332 333 3328 3326 3324 3336 3334 3332 333 3328 3326 3324 3322 3336 3334 3332 333 3328 3326 3324 7 4 5 3336 3334 3332 333 3328 3326 3324 3338 3336 3334 3332 333 3328 3326 3324 5 7 Intl J Farm & Alli Sci. Vol., 3 (2): 77-86, 24 5 7 8 6 9 9 2 2 4 6 23 7 7 2 8 3 EXP h:-5 cm 3Km EC h:3-6 cm 3Km 36 366 37 362 364 374 368 372 376 Figure 2. ISO ESP curve in -5 depth 378 366 37 362 364 374 368 372 376 Figure 2. ISO EC curve in 3-6 depth 35 6 45 55 65 6 6 7 EXP h:5-3 cm 3Km 7 EXP h:3-6 cm 3Km 36 366 37 362 364 374 368 372 376 Figure 22. ISO ESP curve in 5-3 depth 36 366 37 362 364 374 368 372 376 Figure 23. ISO ESP curve in 3-6 depth 6 5 7 5 4 3 9 2 6 2 4 2 SAR h:5-3 cm 3Km 24 SAR h:-5 cm 3Km 36 366 37 362 364 374 368 372 376 Figure 24. ISO SAR curve in -5 depth 36 366 37 362 364 374 368 372 376 358 378 Figure 25. ISO SAR curve in 5-3 depth 85
3336 3334 3332 333 3328 3326 3324 8 6 4 Intl J Farm & Alli Sci. Vol., 3 (2): 77-86, 24 2 4 3 9 2 SAR h:3-6 cm 3Km 36 366 37 362 364 374 368 372 376 Figure 26. ISO SAR curve in 3-6 depth Table 5. Amount water and gypsum for leaching and reclamation ESPi=6 ESPi=35 ESPf=5 ESPf=5 Condition 6 5 6 5 leaching depth(cm) 3.9 2.2.5 Water level(m) 33 8.2 8 4.4 Gypsum(ton per ha) REFERENCES Alam,S,M. R, Ansari and M.A. Khan. 2. Reclaiming saline/ sodic soil, http://www.pakistaneconomist.com/issue2/issue9&2/i&e3.htm Cooper, R.M and G. D, Istok. 998. Geostatistics Applied to Ground Water Contamination Methodology, J. Environmental, 4(2):27-286. Gallichand, J.G, D, Buck land, G.D, Marcotte and M.J, Hendry. 992. Spatial Interpolation of Soil Salinity and Sodicity for a saline Soil in Southern Alberta, Canadian. J. Soil Science, 72:53-56. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No.29. 976. Water Quality for Agriculture, FAO publication. Mughal,F.H. 22. Irrigation- Induced Salinity(Environmental Impacts), http://www.pakistaneconomist.com/issue2/issue9&2/i&e3.htm Rhoades, J.D. 999. Use of Saline Drainage Water for Irrigation, J. Agricultural Drainage, 38:65-657. 86